prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.



Report 2: Congressional rules establish a general division of responsibility under which questions of policy are kept separate from questions of funding  Broadly, the term authorization is used to describe legislation that establishes, continues, or modifies the organization or activities of a federal entity or program  By itself, such legislation does not provide funding for such purposes  Instead, the authority to obligate payments from the Treasury is left to separate appropriations measures  This distinction between appropriations and general legislation as two separate classes of measures, and their consideration in separate legislative vehicles, is a construct of congressional rules and practices  It has been developed and formalized by the House and Senate pursuant to the constitutional authority for each chamber to "determine the Rules of its Proceedings " This power permits each chamber of Congress to enforce, modify, waive, repeal, or ignore its rules as it sees fit  Because the two chambers exercise this rulemaking authority independently, they have developed differing (albeit generally similar) rules and practices  This report addresses solely developments in the House  According to Hinds' Precedents , the origin of a formal rule mandating the separation of general legislation from appropriations can be traced to 1835, when the House debated the increasing problem of delay in enacting appropriations due to the inclusion of "debatable matters of another character, new laws which created long debates in both Houses" and suggested that the Committee on Ways and Means should "strip the appropriation bills of every thing but were legitimate matters of appropriation " In the following Congress (25 th Congress, 1837-1839), language was added to House rules that stated: No appropriation shall be reported in such general appropriation bills, or be in order as an amendment thereto, for any expenditure not previously authorized by law  This rule was applied broadly on occasion to exclude legislative provisions authorizing new expenditures as well, such as a case in 1838 when it was used to exclude an amendment that included a provision for refurnishing the White House  Gradually, the rule "became construed through a long line of decisions to admit amendments increasing salaries but as excluding amendments providing for decreases " As a consequence of this, in 1876, the language was expanded (at the suggestion of Representative William Holman of Indiana) to further state: Nor shall any provision in any such bill or amendment thereto, changing existing law, be in order except such as, being germane to the subject matter of the bill, shall retrench expenditures  As described by one scholar, this provision effectively granted the Appropriations Committee authority to include virtually any legislative provision in an appropriations measure so long as it reduced the number and salary of federal officials, the compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury, or the amounts of money covered in an appropriation bill  According to one contemporary account, a broad initial construction of the rule by the House resulted in "putting a great mass of general legislation upon the appropriation bills " The rule was retained in this form until 1880 (46 th Congress), when it was modified to define retrenchments as the reduction of "the number and salary of officers of the United States, the reduction of compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the United States, or the reduction of the amounts of money covered by the bill " That form of the rule remained a part of House rules until the 49 th Congress eliminated it in 1885  It was reinserted in the rules for the 52 nd and 53 rd Congresses (1891-1895) but was again dropped for the 54 th through 61 st Congresses (1895-1911) before being readopted in the 62 nd Congress  Although the Holman rule has remained a part of House rules since that time, its language was amended at the start of the 98 th Congress (1983-1984)  At that time, it was restructured to narrow the exception to the general prohibition against legislation to allow only retrenchments reducing amounts of money covered by the bill  In addition, the House rules for the 98 th Congress changed when retrenchment amendments could be offered  Amendments that only alter the items or amounts in an appropriation bill are generally in order when the measure is read for amendment and must be offered as the relevant paragraph or section of the bill is read  The new version of the rule provided, however, that germane amendments to retrench expenditures (as well as limitation amendments) would be in order only after the reading of a general appropriation bill and if a preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report (essentially ending consideration of the bill) were rejected  Further stylistic changes were made when the House recodified its rules in the 106 th Congress (1999-2000) to make explicit that retrenchment amendments are in order if the motion to rise and report is not offered—as well as if the motion is rejected  It also clarified that the effect of a point of order against legislation in an appropriations bill (and, by extension, the application of the Holman rule exception) is surgical so that it lies against an offending provision in the text and not against consideration of the entire bill  The Holman rule currently states the following: A provision changing existing law may not be reported in a general appropriation bill, including a provision making the availability of funds contingent on the receipt or possession of information not required by existing law for the period of the appropriation, except germane provisions that retrench expenditures by the reduction of amounts of money covered by the bill [emphasis added]  The Holman rule, thus, does not circumscribe Congress's lawmaking authority but rather provides a limited exception to the general prohibition in House rules against legislation in appropriation measures  For the 115 th Congress, the House included a separate order as Section 3(a) of H Res  5 , adopting the rules of the House, that provides the following: During the first session of the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, any reference in clause 2 of rule XXI to a provision or amendment that retrenches expenditures by a reduction of amounts of money covered by the bill shall be construed as applying to any provision or amendment (offered after the bill has been read for amendment) that retrenches expenditures by— (1) the reduction of amounts of money in the bill; (2) the reduction of the number and salary of the officers of the United States; or (3) the reduction of the compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the United States  As stated in a section-by section summary included in the Congressional Record by Representative Pete Sessions, the chairman of the House Rules Committee, the purpose of this provision is "to see if the reinstatement of the Holman rule will provide Members with additional tools to reduce spending during consideration of the regular general appropriation bill " The applicability of this separate order was extended under Section 5 of H Res
Report 2:  Our analysis of information provided by DOD about the ANDSF’s ability to operate and maintain tactical and nontactical radios illustrates the limited amount of information DOD has on ANDSF conventional forces’ tactical abilities  Specifically, DOD officials could not say how well ANDSF personnel on the front lines operate radios in the field and had only limited information on the ANDSF’s ability to maintain radios  For example, the officials noted that the ANA conventional forces can perform some unit-level radio repairs but that complex ANA radio maintenance and all ANP radio maintenance is conducted by contractors  DOD officials at Resolute Support headquarters told us that they provide ministerial- level advising on how to manage ANDSF radio systems and do not provide tactical advising or inventory control for radios  See appendix III for more information on the ANDSF’s ability to operate and maintain radios  Our analysis of information provided by DOD about the ANDSF’s ability to operate and maintain Mobile Strike Force Vehicles (MSFV) highlights the limited amount of information DOD has on ANDSF conventional forces’ tactical abilities compared with specialized forces  DOD officials were able to provide operation and maintenance information for MSFVs that had transferred to the specialized forces as of January 2018 but were unable to provide operation and maintenance information for any other MSFVs  The ANDSF began transferring one of the ANDSF’s two MSFV brigades from the conventional to specialized forces in August 2017, according to DOD officials  As part of this transfer, NSOCC-A advisors—who provide tactical-level advising for the Afghan Special Security Forces—assumed oversight for the first brigade from Resolute Support headquarters advisors  DOD officials stated that the ANDSF’s ability to operate and maintain MSFVs in this brigade prior to the transfer was unknown, as neither Resolute Support headquarters nor the ANA had assessed this  The operation and maintenance abilities of the second brigade, which is still in the conventional forces, remains unknown  DOD officials at NSOCC-A were able to provide information such as inventory and mission capability rates for the MSFVs that had transferred, but only for the short period of time the vehicles had been under the control of the specialized forces  DOD officials told us that NSOCC-A plans to collect more information on the specialized forces’ ability to operate and maintain MSFVs as they are transferred  See appendix IV for more information on the ANDSF’s ability to operate and maintain MSFVs  In the absence of embedded advisors at the tactical level, DOD has not implemented alternative approaches to collect reliable information about the conventional forces’ ability to operate and maintain equipment  Federal internal control standards state that U S  agencies should obtain and process reliable information to evaluate performance in achieving key objectives and assessing risks  DOD officials acknowledged that some of the plans described above that DOD and the ANDSF have begun implementing to address capability gaps may provide opportunities for DOD to collect more reliable information on the conventional forces’ ability to operate and maintain U S -purchased equipment  For example, the National Maintenance Strategy Ground Vehicle Support contract requires that contractors regularly report the total work orders received, work in progress, and completed maintenance work performed by ANDSF personnel as well as vehicle availability rates, which may be more reliable than the ANDSF’s monthly report on vehicle availability  In addition, the Security Force Assistance Brigade may be able to collect and report on the tactical abilities of units they advise and accompany on missions since they are being deployed at or below the corps and zone levels  However, as of June 2018, DOD officials had not decided which, if any, of these options to pursue  Without reliable information on the equipment operation and maintenance abilities of ANDSF conventional forces, which represent nearly 75 percent of the ANDSF, DOD may be unable to fully evaluate the success of its train, advise, assist, and equip efforts in Afghanistan  The United States invested nearly $84 billion in Afghan security in the 17- year period spanning fiscal years 2002 through 2018, but DOD continues to face challenges to developing a self-sustaining ANDSF  While DOD has reported the ANDSF have improved in several capability areas, they continue to face critical capability gaps, impeding their ability to maintain security and stability in Afghanistan independent of U S  and coalition forces  Moreover, DOD lacks reliable information about the degree to which conventional forces—which make up about three-quarters of the ANDSF—are able to operate and maintain U S -purchased equipment  This limits DOD’s ability to fully evaluate the success of its train, advise, assist, and equip efforts in Afghanistan  The Secretary of Defense should develop and, as appropriate, implement options for collecting reliable information on the ANDSF conventional forces’ ability to operate and maintain U S -purchased equipment  (Recommendation 1) We provided a draft of this report to DOD and State for comment  DOD declined to provide written comments specifically on this public version of the report, but DOD’s comments on the sensitive version of this report are reprinted in appendix V  The sensitive version of this report included two recommendations, which DOD cited in its comments on the draft of the sensitive report  One of those recommendations related to information that DOD deemed to be sensitive and that must be protected from public disclosure  Therefore, we have omitted that recommendation from DOD’s comment letter in appendix V  This omission did not have a material effect on the substance of DOD’s comments  In its comments, DOD concurred with the recommendation we made in this version of the report and stated it will take steps to implement it  DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  The Department of State had no comments  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of State  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff has any questions about this report please contact me at (202) 512-7114 or farbj@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI  House Report 114-537 associated with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 included a provision for us to review the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces’ (ANDSF) capability and capacity to operate and sustain U S -purchased weapon systems and equipment  This report is a public version of a sensitive report that we issued on September 20, 2018  Our September report included three objectives, including one on the extent to which DOD considers ANDSF input and meets their needs when identifying equipment requirements  DOD deemed the information related to that objective to be sensitive, which must be protected from public disclosure  Consequently, we removed that objective and a related recommendation from this public report  This version includes information on the other two objectives: (1) what has been reported about ANDSF capabilities and capability gaps and (2) the extent to which DOD has information about the ANDSF’s ability to operate and maintain U S -purchased equipment  Although the information provided in this report is more limited, the report uses the same methodology for the two objectives as the sensitive report  To identify what has been reported about ANDSF capabilities and capability gaps, we reviewed North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and DOD documents and reports, such as DOD’s semiannual Section 1225 reports to Congress, produced after the start of the NATO-led Resolute Support mission on January 1, 2015  To determine what steps DOD and NATO have taken to try to address gaps, we reviewed reports the Center for Naval Analyses produced for DOD, as well as DOD and NATO documents and reports produced after January 1, 2015, and reports from GAO, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), and the DOD Inspector General  We also interviewed Center for Naval Analyses representatives and DOD officials in the United States and Afghanistan, including DOD officials at the Combined Security Transition Command–Afghanistan (CSTC-A) and in the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy (OSD-P) who helped create the DOD reporting we reviewed  To determine the extent to which DOD has information about the ANDSF’s ability to operate and maintain U S -purchased equipment, we reviewed DOD documents and reports and interviewed DOD officials in the United States and Afghanistan, including DOD officials who advise the ANDSF  We also reviewed federal internal control standards to determine what responsibilities agencies have specifically related to information collection  To provide illustrative examples of information DOD has about the ANDSF’s ability to operate and maintain U S - purchased equipment and what that information indicates about the ANDSF’s abilities and challenges, we interviewed and analyzed written responses from DOD officials, including DOD officials who provide procurement and lifecycle management for some ANDSF aircraft and vehicles, about three equipment types—MD-530 helicopters, Mobile Strike Force Vehicles (MSFV), and radios  We selected these three equipment types from a list that we developed, for an August 2017 report, of key ANDSF equipment the United States purchased from fiscal years 2003 through 2016  We made our selections after reviewing DOD documentation and interviewing DOD officials regarding a number of considerations, such as (1) how critical the equipment is to the ANDSF’s ability to achieve its mission; (2) which ANDSF component uses the equipment (i e , Afghan National Police, Afghan National Army, or both); (3) whether DOD intends to continue procuring the equipment for the ANDSF; and (4) whether the equipment had been in use at least 5 years  We collected detailed information about the ANDSF’s ability to operate and maintain MD-530 helicopters, MSFVs, and radios, as well as other key statistics DOD provided about the equipment, such as inventory, average lifespan, average cost, role, and training  This information was based mainly on DOD responses collected from January 2018 to February 2018 as well as DOD documents and reports produced after January 1, 2015  The total amount of MD-530s and radios authorized for procurement was based on DOD data that we collected for our August 2017 report on key ANDSF equipment the United States purchased in fiscal years 2003 through 2016, which we supplemented with additional data DOD provided on U S -purchased equipment from October 1, 2016, through December, 31, 2017  The performance audit upon which this report is based was conducted from August 2016 to September 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate, evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We subsequently worked with DOD from September 2018 to October 2018 to prepare this public version of the original sensitive report for public release  This public version was also prepared in accordance with those standards  Manufacturer: MD Helicopters, Inc  U S  Program Management Office: U S  Army, Non-Standard Rotary Wing Aircraft Project Management Office Program Advising: Train Advise Assist Command–Air (TAAC-Air) The United States originally procured 6 unarmed MD-530s for the AAF for rotary wing training in 2011  In 2014, the United States purchased 12 armed MD-530s and began retrofitting the 5 remaining trainer helicopters with armament for operational missions to address a close air attack gap  MD- 530s were chosen to fill the gap over other aircraft, in part because they could be delivered relatively quickly as the AAF awaited A-29 light attack aircraft that were experiencing procurement delays, according to Department of Defense (DOD) officials  The United States procured additional MD-530s in 2015, 2016, and 2017 because of the aircraft’s positive impact on the battlefield, according to DOD officials (see fig  3)  Key Statistics Variants: All can be armed with  50-cal machine gun pods and/or 2 75 inch rocket pods  Total Authorized for Procurement: 60 as of December 31, 2017 Inventory: 25 as of January 2018 (30 are scheduled for delivery; attrition of 5 due to crashes and enemy fire) Average Lifespan: Absent mishaps, and with good maintenance, there is no defined lifespan limit for MD-530s, according to DOD officials  National Army and Afghan National Police, depending on the mission, in all but one region of Afghanistan, which is supported by other aircraft  MD-530s are typically tasked two at a time for missions, according to DOD officials  An MD-530 crew consists of a pilot and co-pilot, according to DOD  Average cost: $6 3 million per aircraft, including all electronic devices, weapons management systems, and weapons (excluding ordnance), according to DOD officials  o Division of labor is based on the individual crew members' capabilities, with one pilot handling navigation and communication while the other identifies targets and operates the weapon systems  Army pilot advisors at Kandahar Air Field, according to DOD officials  o MD-530 pilot training takes about 3 years (see fig  4)  1  The GAO report number cited in DOD’s letter refers to a draft of the sensitive version of this report, which we issued on September 20, 2018  Prior to issuing that version, we changed its report number to GAO-18- 662SU to reflect its sensitive nature  That version of this report included two recommendations  The second recommendation has been omitted from DOD’s letter in this public version because it was related to information that DOD deemed to be sensitive  In addition to the contact named above, Joyee Dasgupta (Assistant Director), Kara Marshall, Katherine Forsyth, and Bridgette Savino made key contributions to this report  The team also benefitted from the expert advice and assistance of David Dayton, Neil Doherty, Justin Fisher, Ashley Alley, Cary Russell, Marie Mak, James Reynolds, Sally Williamson, Ji Byun, and J  Kristopher Keener 

ground_truth: The Trump Administration submitted to Congress its FY2019 budget request on February 12, 2018. The proposal included $41.86 billion for the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS). Of that amount, $13.26 billion was for State Department operations, international broadcasting, and related agencies, and $28.60 billion for foreign operations. With the enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA; P.L. 115-123, February 9, 2018), which raised discretionary spending limits set by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25), the Administration's FY2019 foreign affairs funding request was entirely within enduring (base) funds; no Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding was included the SFOPS request for the first time since FY2012. The FY2019 request would have represented a 23.3% decrease in SFOPS funding compared with FY2018 actual funding levels. The proposed State and related agency funding would have been 18.7% below FY2018 funding and the foreign operations funding would have been reduced by 25.2%. In the State and related programs budget, cuts were proposed for several accounts, including the diplomatic security accounts, contributions to international organizations, and contributions for international peacekeeping activities. In the foreign operations budget, cuts would have been applied across all accounts, with disproportionately large cuts proposed for humanitarian assistance, multilateral assistance, and funding for bilateral development programs focused on agriculture, education, and democracy promotion. Both the House and Senate appropriations committees approved FY2019 SFOPS bills that included funding at higher levels than the Administration requested and closer to FY2018 funding. H.R. 6385, approved by the House appropriations committee on June 20, 2018, would have funded SFOPS accounts at $54.177 billion. S. 3108, approved by the Senate appropriations committee on June 21, 2018, would have provided $54.602 billion for SFOPS accounts. FY2019 began with seven appropriations bills, including SFOPS, unfinished. Congress and the President approved continuing resolutions to fund the affected federal agencies through December 21, 2018 at the FY2018 level (P.L. 115-245, Division C and P.L. 115-298). After December 21, a partial shutdown of the government, including SFOPS funded agencies, occurred. On January 25, 2019, an agreement was reached to continue funding for SFOPS and other appropriations that had lapsed through February 15, at the FY2018 level (P.L. 116-5). On February 14, Congress passed, and the President later signed into law, a full year omnibus appropriation that included SFOPS funding (P.L. 116-6, Division F). P.L. 116-6 included a total of $54.377 billion for SFOPS accounts in FY2019, a 0.3% decrease from the FY2018 funding level and about 30% more than the Administration's request. Of that enacted total, $8.0 billion, or 14.7%, was designated as OCO. This report provides an account-by-account comparison of the FY2019 SFOPS request, House and Senate SFOPS legislation and the final FY2019 SFOPS appropriation to FY2018 funding in Appendix A. The International Affairs (function 150) budget in Appendix B provides a similar comparison. This report will not be further updated unless there is further congressional activity on FY2019 appropriations.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.

Report 1: On February 12, 2018, the Trump Administration submitted to Congress its FY2019 budget request, which included $41 86 billion of base (or enduring) funds for the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS)  Of that amount, $13 26 billion would have been for State operations, international broadcasting, and related agencies and $28 60 billion for foreign operations  Comparing the request with the FY2018 actual SFOPS funding levels, the FY2019 request represented a 23 3% decrease in SFOPS funding  The proposed State and related agency funding would have been 18 7% below FY2018 funding levels, and the foreign operations funding would have been reduced by 25 2%  The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P L  116-6 ), signed into law on February 15, included a total of $54 377 billion for SFOPS accounts, a 0 3% decrease over the FY2018 funding level and about 30% more than the Administration's request  An account-by-account comparison of the SFOPS request with the FY2018 actual funding and FY2019 enacted appropriation is provided in Appendix A   International Affairs 150 function funding levels are detailed in Appendix B   A chart depicting the components of the SFOPS appropriations bill is in Appendix C   A glossary is provided in Appendix D   The appropriations process for FY2019 was shaped by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA, H R  1892 , P L  115-123 ), which Congress passed on February 9, 2018  The act raised the overall revised discretionary spending limits set by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P L  112-25 ) from $1 069 trillion for FY2017 to $1 208 trillion for FY2018 and to $1 244 trillion for FY2019  The BBA increased FY2019 defense funding levels by $85 billion, from $562 billion to $647 billion, and nondefense funding (including SFOPS) by $68 billion, from $529 billion to $597 billion  It also extended direct spending reductions from FY2021 in the original BCA through FY2027, as amended  Every year since FY2012, the Administration has distinguished SFOPS spending as either enduring (base) funds or those to support overseas contingency operations (OCO)  The OCO designation gained increased significance with enactment of the BCA, which specified that emergency or OCO funds do not count toward the spending limits established by the act  In early years of requesting OCO funds, the Obama Administration described OCO requests for "extraordinary, but temporary, costs of the Department of State and USAID in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan " Syria and other countries were added in later years, and the Trump Administration expanded OCO use in its first budget request in FY2018 to be available for longer-term, core activities and more countries  For FY2019, because the BBA raised spending limits, the Administration did not seek foreign affairs OCO funds, but requested the entire SFOPS budget within base funds  The final legislation, P L  116-6 , included $8 0 billion designated as OCO, or about 15% of enacted SFOPS funding  For funding trends, see Table 1   House and Senate SFOPS Legislation   FY2019 SFOPS legislation was introduced and approved by the full appropriations committee in each chamber  The House legislation, H R  6385 , included total SFOPS funding of $54 18 billion, 0 6% lower than FY2018 funding and 29% more than requested  The Senate proposal, S  3108 , would have provided $54 602 billion for SFOPS accounts, which is about 0 1% more than FY2018 funding and 30% more than requested  Neither bill received floor consideration in its respective chamber  Continuing Resolutions   On September 28, 2018, the President signed into law P L  115-245 , legislation which included the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 (CR) to continue funding for SFOPS accounts (among seven other appropriations that were not completed by the start of FY2019) at a prorated 2018 funding level through December 7, 2018  Funds designated as OCO in 2018 appropriations continued to be so designated for SFOPS in the CR  On December 3, 2018, Congress and the Administration extended funding through December 21, 2018 by enacting P L  115-298   After December 21, funding lapsed and a partial shutdown of the government occurred  On January 25, an agreement was reached to continue funding for SFOPS and other appropriations that had lapsed through February 15, at the FY2018 level ( P L  116-5 )  Enacted Legislation   On February 14 Congress passed, and the President later signed into law, a full year appropriation ( P L  116-6 , Division F) that included $54 38 billion in total SFOPS funding, a 0 3% decrease from the FY2018 funding level and about 30% more than the Administration's request  Of that total, $16 46 billion was for State Department operations and related agencies; $37 92 billion for foreign operations accounts  About 14 7%, or $8 0 billion, was designated as OCO  The State Department sought to cut funding for the Department of State and Related Agency category by 19% in FY2019 from FY2018 funding levels, to $13 26 billion  Conversely, both the House and Senate committee bills sought to maintain funding near previous fiscal year levels  The House committee bill would have increased funding in this category to $16 38 billion, or 0 4% above the FY2018 funding level  The Senate committee bill would have raised funding to $16 34 billion, around $40 million less than the House committee bill and approximately 0 1% more than the FY2018 funding level  Similar to the House and Senate committee bills, the FY2019 enacted appropriation ( P L  116-6 ) maintained funding for the State Department and Related Agency category slightly above FY2018 funding level  It provided $16 46 billion for this category, or 0 9% more than the F2018 level  The State Department's request sought to fund the entirety of this category through base (or enduring) funding  Following passage of the BBA and the resulting increase in discretionary spending cap levels for FY2018 and FY2019, the State Department moved the $3 69 billion request for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) in this category into the base budget request  Both the House and Senate committee bills sought to retain OCO funding within the Department of State and Related Agency category  The House committee bill would have provided $3 03 billion for OCO, or around 28% less than the FY2018 figure of $4 18 billion  The Senate committee bill would have provided $4 11 billion, which constituted about 2% less than FY2018 level  While the House committee bill would have afforded approximately $1 08 billion less for OCO than the Senate committee bill, the House committee bill provided around $1 12 billion more in enduring funding ($13 35 billion) than the Senate committee bill ($12 23 billion)  As with the House and Senate committee bills, P L  116-6 retained OCO funding for the Department of State and Related Agency category  The law provided a total of $4 37 billion for OCO, or 4 5% more than the FY2018 funding level  While the law provided more for OCO than either the Senate or House committee bills, it provided less in enduring funding ($12 09 billion)  Areas where the State Department's proposed cuts were focused included the diplomatic security accounts (the Worldwide Security Protection programmatic allocation within the Diplomatic Programs account and, separately, the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance account), Contributions to International Organizations, and Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities  In most cases, P L  116-6 , in a manner similar to the House and Senate committee bills, maintained annual budget authority for these accounts closer to the FY2018 funding levels than the Administration requested (see following sections for more detailed analysis)  The State Department also requested $246 2 million to implement the Leadership and Modernization Impact Initiative, which serves as the implementation phase of the department's "Redesign" efforts  While neither the House nor the Senate committee bill directly addressed the Impact Initiative, both included provisions enabling Congress to conduct oversight of any broader reorganization efforts at the department  The enacted legislation, P L  116-6 , took the same approach  Table 3 provides an overview of proposed changes to selected accounts within the State Department and Related Agency category  Under the State Department's budget request, the Diplomatic Programs account, which is the State Department's principal operating appropriation, would have declined by 11% from the FY2018 funding level of $8 82 billion, to $7 81 billion  According to the State Department, this account provides funding for "core people, infrastructure, security, and programs that facilitate productive and peaceful U S  relations" with foreign governments and international organizations  The House and Senate committee bills would have provided $8 80 billion and $8 92 billion, respectively, for Diplomatic Programs  For FY2019 enacted, P L  116-6 provided $9 17 billion, or 4% more than the FY2018 funding level and 17% more than the State Department's request  In Section 7081 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P L  115-31 ), Congress authorized the establishment of a new "Consular and Border Security Programs" (CBSP) account into which consular fees shall be deposited for the purposes of administering consular and border security programs  As a result, consular fees retained by the State Department to fund consular services will be credited to this new account  The State Department thus requested that Congress rename the former Diplomatic and Consular Programs account "Diplomatic Programs " However, because many consular fees are generated and retained by the State Department to administer consular programs, they do not comprise part of the department's annual appropriations and therefore do not count against overall funds appropriated annually for this account  The FY2019 enacted legislation, P L  116-6 , authorized the renaming of Diplomatic and Consular Programs to Diplomatic Programs, as did the House and Senate committee bills  The Diplomatic Programs account provides funds for a large share of U S  direct hire positions, including but not limited to State Department Foreign Service and Civil Service officers  Although the Trump Administration lifted the federal hiring freeze upon issuance of OMB M-17-22 on April 12, 2017, the State Department elected to keep its own hiring freeze in place  The Department of State released guidance in May 2018 lifting the hiring freeze and allowing the department to increase staffing to December 31, 2017 levels  Some Members of Congress expressed concern with the hiring freeze and the continued impacts of perceived personnel shortages at the Department of State  Both the House and Senate committee bills, and the committee reports accompanying those bills, included oversight provisions pertaining to State Department personnel levels  In this vein, Section 7073 of P L  116-6 required that no appropriated funds may be used to expand or reduce the size of the State Department and USAID's Civil Service, Foreign Service, eligible family member, and locally employed staff workforce from the on-board levels as of December 31, 2017 without consultation with the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives  Section 7073 also required the Secretary of State to submit reports to Congress, beginning 60 days after enactment of the law, and every 60 days thereafter until September 30, 2020, regarding the State Department's on-board personnel levels, hiring, and attrition of the Civil Service, Foreign Service, eligible family member, and locally employed staff workforce  These reports were also required to include a hiring plan for maintaining Foreign Service and Civil Service personnel numbers at not less than December 31, 2017, levels through FY2019  Among other personnel-related provisions, the joint explanatory statement accompanying this law noted that keeping personnel at these levels reflected "minimum necessary hiring" and encouraged the Secretary of State to work with Congress to increase hiring above such levels as appropriate  The Human Resources funding category within Diplomatic Programs provides funding for the Charles B  Rangel International Affairs and Thomas R  Pickering Foreign Affairs fellowship programs to promote greater diversity in the Foreign Service, as authorized by Section 47 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act (P L  84-885)  While Congress required the State Department to expand the number of fellows participating in the Rangel and Pickering programs by 10 apiece pursuant to Section 706 of the Department of State Authorities Act, 2017 ( P L  114-323 ), it has provided the department the discretion to fund these programs at levels it deems appropriate from monies appropriated for Human Resources  P L  116-6 , like the House and Senate committee bills, continued to provide such discretion to the State Department  In addition, the House committee report indicated support for department efforts to increase diversity in hiring, including through the Rangel and Pickering programs  It also encouraged the Secretary of State to explore more opportunities to further the goal of increasing workforce diversity  The Senate committee report recommended the continued expansion of the department's workforce diversity programs and directed that qualified graduates of the Rangel and Pickering programs shall be inducted into the Foreign Service  While neither P L  116-6 nor the accompanying joint explanatory statement addressed the Rangel and Pickering programs specifically or Foreign Service diversity more generally, the joint explanatory statement did not negate any of the language in the House and Senate committee reports  The Diplomatic Programs account also provides funding for a number of overseas programs  These include programs carried out by the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations and the department's regional bureaus  Activities of the department's Bureau of Medical Services, which is responsible for providing health care services to U S  government employees and their families assigned to overseas posts, are also funded through this account  Public diplomacy programs are among the overseas programs funded through Diplomatic Programs, which include the Global Engagement Center's (GEC's) countering state disinformation (CSD) program  According to the State Department, planned CSD activities, for which $20 million was requested, included "coordinating U S  government efforts in specific sub-regions; enhancing the capacity of local actors to build resilience against disinformation, including thwarting attacks on their IT systems; providing attribution of adversarial disinformation; and convening anti-disinformation practitioners, journalists, and other influencers to exchange best practices, build networks, and generate support for U S  efforts against disinformation " The House committee report registered concern regarding "foreign propaganda and disinformation that threatens United States national security, especially as carried out by China, Russia, and extremists groups" and asserted that the GEC "is expected to use a wide range of technologies and techniques to counter these campaigns," consistent with its statutory mandate  The Senate committee report recommended up to $75 4 million for the GEC, including up to $40 million for countering foreign state propaganda and disinformation  The joint explanatory statement accompanying for the FY2019-enacted legislation ( P L  116-6 ) included up to $55 4 million for the GEC and up to $20 million for CSD, a funding level for CSD identical to the department's request  Section 1284 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 ( P L  115-232 ) authorized the Department of Defense (DOD) to transfer not more than $60 million to the GEC for each of FY2019 and FY2020; DOD has previously transferred funds to the GEC under similar authorities  The State Department's FY2019 budget request sought to provide approximately $5 36 billion for the department's key embassy security accounts: $3 70 billion for the Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) programmatic allocation within the Diplomatic Programs account and $1 66 billion for the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) account  The House committee bill would have provided $3 76 billion for WSP and $2 31 billion for ESCM, for a total funding level of $6 07 billion for these accounts  While the House bill would have funded the ESCM account exclusively through the base budget, it would have provided approximately $2 38 billion of overall funding for WSP through OCO  The Senate committee bill would have provided $3 82 billion for WSP and $1 92 billion for ESCM, for a total funding level of $5 74 billion  As with the House committee measure, the Senate committee bill would have funded the ESCM account with base budget funds only  For WSP, the Senate committee measure, like the House committee bill, would provide $2 38 billion of total account funds through OCO  The FY2019 enacted appropriations provided a total of $4 10 billion for WSP and $1 98 billion for ESCM, for a total funding level of $6 08 billion in budget authority for these accounts  Like the House and Senate committee bills, P L  116-6 funded ESCM exclusively through the base budget  Of the $4 10 billion provided for WSP in the law, $2 63 billion was done so through OCO  Had the Administration's request been enacted, it would have marked a decline of 2% for WSP and 28% for ESCM relative to the FY2018 figures of approximately $3 76 billion and $2 31 billion, respectively  The enacted legislation provided 9% more funding for WSP and 15% less for ESCM relative to FY2018 levels  Over the past several years, Congress has provided no-year appropriations for both WSP and ESCM, thereby authorizing the State Department to indefinitely retain appropriated funds beyond the fiscal year for which they were appropriated  As a result, the department has carried over large balances of unexpired, unobligated funds each year that it is authorized to obligate for programs within both accounts when it deems appropriate to do so  For example, for FY2018, the State Department carried over more than $7 6 billion in previously appropriated funds for ESCM  Both the House and Senate committee bills would have continued this practice with respect to WSP, and the Senate committee bill would have continued with respect to ESCM, as well  The House committee bill, if enacted, would have provided that all funds appropriated for ESCM remained available until September 30, 2023, rather than indefinitely  P L  116-6 provided no-year appropriations for WSP  For ESCM, the law stipulated that while funds for worldwide security upgrades and for purposes of acquisition and construction would remain available until expended, all other monies within this account (such as funds for preserving, maintaining, repairing, and planning for real property that State Department owns) would remain available only until September 30, 2023  The Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) allocation within the Diplomatic Programs account supports the Bureau of Diplomatic Security's (DS's) implementation of security programs located at over 275 overseas posts and 125 domestic offices of the State Department, including a worldwide guard force protecting overseas diplomatic posts, residences, and domestic offices  The State Department revisited previous assumptions for funding for the U S  security presence, which prompted it to ask for a rescission of $301 20 million for WSP OCO funds provided through the Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017 (SAAA) ( P L  114-254 )  State Department officials noted that this funding was "intended to support diplomatic reengagements in Syria, Libya, and Yemen that were predicated on different security and political conditions " The department maintained that this proposed cancellation was based on evolving security and political conditions, and would not affect DS operations  While neither the House nor the Senate committee bill included a rescission, P L  116-6 provided for a rescission of $301 2 million of SAAA funds appropriated for Diplomatic Programs and designated them more generally for OCO  The Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) account funds the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations (OBO), which is responsible for providing U S  diplomatic and consular missions overseas with secure, safe, and functional facilities  The State Department's request included $869 54 million to provide its share of what it maintains is the $2 20 billion in annual funding that the Benghazi Accountability Review Board (ARB) recommended for the Capital Security Cost Sharing (CSCS) and Maintenance Cost Sharing (MCS) programs (the remainder of the funding is provided through consular fee revenues and contributions from other agencies)  These programs are used to fund the planning, design, and construction of new overseas posts and the maintenance of existing diplomatic facilities  The House committee report maintained that funds the House bill made available for ESCM would allow for the State Department's CSCS and MCS contributions, when combined with those from other agencies and consular fees, to exceed the ARB's annual recommended funding and support " the accelerated multi-year program to construct new secure replacement facilities for the most vulnerable embassies and consulates " The Senate committee bill stipulated that of funds made available for ESCM by it and prior acts making appropriations for SFOPS, not less than $1 02 billion shall be made available for the department's FY2019 CSCS and MCS contributions; the joint explanatory statement accompanying P L  116-6 indicated that Congress provided the same amount for this purpose for FY2019  In FY2019, OBO intended to fund four CSCS projects and one MCS project (see Table 4 )  The House committee report noted concern with the cost of new embassy and consulate compound projects, including ongoing projects in Beirut, Lebanon; Mexico City, Mexico; New Delhi, India; Erbil, Iraq; and Jakarta, Indonesia  Like Section 7004(h) of the House bill, as noted in the joint explanatory statement accompanying P L  116-6 , Congress mandated that the State Department provide more detailed reports regarding the costs of these projects than previously required  The State Department maintained that the "construction of a new U S  Embassy facility in Jerusalem is a high priority for the Administration     planning and interagency coordination for the Jerusalem Embassy move is ongoing and the department intends to realign CSCS project funding, as necessary, to execute this project " It later attached a timeframe to its intent, and the United States opened a new U S  embassy in Jerusalem in May 2018  This new embassy is located in a building that housed consular operations of the former U S  Consulate General in Jerusalem  The State Department has said that one of its next steps would be to construct an embassy annex to the current building, while also considering options for a permanent embassy over the long term  The department could choose to draw upon the unexpired, unobligated funds previously appropriated by Congress to the ESCM account for any construction expenses related to interim and permanent embassy facilities in Jerusalem  The Senate committee report requires the Secretary of State to "regularly inform the Committee" on the status of plans for a permanent New Embassy Compound in Jerusalem  Neither P L  116-6 nor its joint explanatory statement addresses this issue or negates the Senate committee report language  The State Department's FY2019 budget request included a combined request of $2 29 billion for the Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) and Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) accounts, a 20% reduction from the FY2018 funding levels for these accounts  The CIO account is the source for funding for annual U S  assessed contributions to 45 international organizations, including the United Nations and its affiliated organizations and other international organizations, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)  The State Department's FY2019 request for CIO totaled approximately $1 10 billion  Following passage of the BBA, the department increased its request for CIO by approximately $100 million to fund a higher U S  contribution to the U N  regular budget at a rate of 20% of the overall U N  budget (the U S  assessment is 22%)  According to the department, U N  assessments of U S  contributions to the United Nations and its affiliated agencies exceeded the request for funds to pay these contributions  Therefore, if the department's request was enacted, the United States may have accumulated arrears to some organizations  The Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account provides U S  funding for U N  peacekeeping missions around the world that the State Department says "seek to maintain or restore international peace and security " The State Department's FY2019 request for CIPA totaled $1 20 billion  According to the department, this request "reflects the Administration's commitment to seek reduced costs by reevaluating the mandates, design, and implementation of peacekeeping missions and sharing the funding burden more fairly among U N  members " Under this request, no U S  contribution would have exceeded 25% of all assessed contributions for a single operation, which is the cap established in Section 404(b) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 ( P L  103-236 )  The State Department maintained that it expected that the "unfunded portion of U S  assessed expenses will be met through a combination of a reduction in the U S  assessed rate of contributions, reductions in the number of U N  peacekeeping missions, and significant reductions in the budgets of peacekeeping missions across the board " The department also requested that Congress provide two-year funds for CIPA (in other words, that Congress make funds available for both the fiscal year for which the funds were appropriated and the subsequent fiscal year) "due to the demonstrated unpredictability of the requirements in this account from year to year and the nature of multi-year operations that have mandates overlapping U S  fiscal years " The House committee bill would have provided $1 36 billion for CIO and $1 59 billion for CIPA, for a combined total of $2 95 billion for these accounts, which was 29% higher than the department's request and 4% higher than the FY2018 funding levels  The Senate committee bill would have provided $1 44 billion for CIO and $1 68 billion for CIPA, for a combined total of $3 12 billion  This figure was 36% higher than the department's request and 9% higher than the FY2018 level  The Senate committee bill included a provision not present in recent appropriations laws mandating that funds appropriated for CIO "are made available to pay not less than the full fiscal year 2019 United States assessment for each respective international organization " With regard to CIPA, both the House and Senate committee reports noted that appropriated monies were intended to support an assessed peacekeeping cost at the statutory level of 25% rather than the U N  assessed rate for the United States of 28 4%  Both committee reports called on the department to review peacekeeping missions for cost savings and work to renegotiate rates of assessment  For FY2019, P L  116-6 provided $1 36 billion for CIO and $1 55 billion for CIPA, for a total of $2 91 billion—slightly less than both the House and Senate committee bills  This figure was still 2% higher than the FY2018 figure and 27% higher than the department's request  While the law did not include the aforementioned Senate committee bill provision regarding payment of full U S  assessments for organizations funded through the CIO account, the law's joint explanatory statement noted that it assumed the payment of the full United States assessment for each relevant organization (with some exceptions, including organizations from which the United States has withdrawn) and required the Secretary of State to consult with the Committees on Appropriations with respect to any decision not to provide the full assessment for any such organization  With respect to CIPA, the joint explanatory statement noted that sufficient funds are provided for contributions to peacekeeping missions at the statutory level of 25%  The enacted legislation, like the House and Senate committee bills, provided a share of CIPA funds as two-year funds, as requested by the department  The State Department requested $246 2 million for FY2019 to implement the Leadership and Modernization Impact Initiative (hereinafter, the Impact Initiative)  The Impact Initiative constitutes the implementation phase of the State Department's "Redesign" project  Former Secretary Tillerson initiated the redesign in 2017 to implement Executive Order 13781 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-17-22, which aim to "improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the executive branch " The Impact Initiative constitutes 16 keystone modernization projects in three focus areas: Modernizing Information Technology and Human Resources Operations; Modernizing Global Presence, and Creating and Implementing Policy; and Improving Operational Efficiencies (see Table 5 )  According to the State Department, these focus areas and modernization projects are derived from the results of the listening tour that former Secretary Tillerson launched in May 2017, which included interviews conducted with approximately 300 individuals that the department said comprised a representative cross-section of its broader workforce, and a survey completed by 35,000 department personnel that asked them to discuss the means they use to help complete the department's mission and obstacles they encounter in the process  Of the $246 2 million requested, $150 0 million was requested from the IT Central Fund (which is funded through funds appropriated by Congress to the Capital Investment Fund account and, separately, expedited passport fees) and $96 2 million from the D&CP account to implement modernization projects  Proceeds from the IT Central Fund were intended to implement projects focused on IT, including modernizing existing IT infrastructure, systems, and applications based on a roadmap to be created in FY2018 and centralizing management of all WiFi networks  Funds from the D&CP account were intended to implement modernization projects focusing on Human Resources issues, including leadership development, management services consolidation, data analytics, and workforce readiness initiatives  Like the House and the Senate committee bills and reports, neither P L  116-6 nor the joint explanatory statement accompanying the law specifically mentioned the Impact Initiative by name  However, both the law and the joint explanatory statement included provisions explicitly prohibiting the Department of State from using appropriated funds to implement a reorganization without prior consultation, notification, and reporting to Congress (for example, see Section 7073 of P L  116-6 )  Like the Senate committee bill, P L  116-6 stated that no funds appropriated for SFOPs may be used to "downsize, downgrade, consolidate, close, move, or relocate" the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration  Foreign operations accounts, together with food aid appropriated through the Agriculture appropriations bill, constitute the foreign aid component of the international affairs budget  These accounts fund bilateral economic aid, humanitarian assistance, security assistance, multilateral aid, and export promotion programs  For FY2019, the Administration requested $28 60 billion for foreign aid programs within the international affairs (function 150) budget, about 28% less than the FY2018 actual funding level  None of the requested funds were designated as OCO  The FY2019 enacted appropriation provided $37 92 billion for foreign operations account, including $3 63 billion designated as OCO  Together with food aid accounts in the Agriculture appropriation, total enacted foreign aid within the international affairs budget was $39 85 billion, or 0 7% below the FY2018 actual funding level and 39% above the FY2019 request  Table 6 shows foreign aid funding by type for FY2017 and FY2018 actual, and the FY2019 request, committee-approved legislation, and enacted legislation  Account Mergers and Eliminations   The Administration aimed to simplify the foreign operations budget in part by channeling funds through fewer accounts and eliminating certain programs  These account mergers and eliminations were also proposed in the FY2018 budget request Under bilateral economic assistance, the Development Assistance (DA), Economic Support Fund (ESF), Assistance to Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia (AEECA) and Democracy Fund (DF) accounts were zero funded in the FY2019 request  Programs currently funded through these accounts would have been funded through a new Economic Support and Development Fund (ESDF) account  The proposed funding level for ESDF, $5 063 billion, was more than 36% below the FY2018 funding for the accounts it would have replaced  Fifteen countries that received DA, ESF, or AEECA in FY2017 would no longer have received funding from these accounts or from ESDF under the FY2019 request  Within multilateral assistance, the International Organizations & Programs (IO&P) account, which funds U S  voluntary contributions to many U N  entities, including UNICEF, U N  Development Program, and UN Women, would also have been zeroed out  Budget documents suggested that some unspecified activities currently funded through IO&P could have received funding through the ESDF or other accounts  Related to humanitarian assistance, the P L  480 Title II food aid account in the Agriculture appropriation would have been zero-funded and all food assistance would have been funded through the International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account, which would have nevertheless declined by about 17% from FY2018 actual funding (see " Humanitarian Assistance " section below)  The Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) account would have been subsumed into the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account  Closeout of Inter-American Foundation and U S -Africa Development Foundation   The FY2019 request proposed to terminate the Inter-American Foundation (IAF) and the U S -Africa Development Foundation (ADF), independent entities that implement small U S  assistance grants, often in remote communities  The Administration proposed to consolidate all small grant programs aimed at reaching the poor under USAID, as a means of improving their integration with larger development programs and U S  foreign policy objectives, as well as improving efficiency  Funds were requested for IAF and ADF only for the purposes of an orderly closeout  Development Finance Institution   The Administration requested, for the first time in FY2019, the consolidation of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and USAID's Development Credit Authority (DCA) into a new standalone Development Finance Institution (DFI)  The request called for $96 million for administrative expenses and $38 million for credit subsidies for DFI, but assumed that these expenses would be more than offset by collections, resulting in a net income of $460 million (based on OPIC's projected offsetting collections)  In addition, $56 million in ESDF funds would have been used to support DFI activities  The Administration sought congressional authority for the new standalone entity, which it described as a means of incentivizing private sector investment in development and improving the efficiency of U S  development finance programs  Both the House and Senate committee bills, as well as the enacted FY2019 appropriation, rejected these account changes, with the exception of the elimination of the ERMA account, which the House bill eliminated and the Senate and final bill funded with $1 million  All the FY2019 SFOPS legislation, including P L  116-6 , used the same bilateral account structure used for FY2018, not a new ESDF, and funded IAF and ADF at the FY2018 levels  Prior to enactment of the final FY2019 SFOPS appropriation, Congress passed the BUILD Act ( P L  115-254 ), which authorized the establishment of a new International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC), consistent with the Administration's DFI proposal  The IDFC is expected to become operational near the end of FY2019, and P L  116-6 made FY2019 appropriations for OPIC and DCA using the same account structure as in prior years, but authorized $5 million in the OPIC noncredit account to be used for transition costs  Top Country Recipients   Under the FY2019 request, top foreign assistance recipients would not have changed significantly, continuing to include strategic allies in the Middle East (Israel, Egypt, Jordan) and major global health and development partners in Africa (see Table 7 )  Israel would have seen an increase of $200 million from FY2017, reflecting a new 10-year security assistance Memorandum of Understanding  Zambia and Uganda would both have seen an 11% increase  All other top recipients would have seen reduced aid in FY2019 compared with FY2017 (comprehensive FY2018 country allocations were not yet available), though unallocated global health and humanitarian funds (added to the request after passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018) may have changed these totals  Figure 1 and Table 7 show the requested FY2019 foreign operations budget allocations by region and country  Under the FY2019 request, foreign assistance for every region would have been reduced compared to FY2018 funding  The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and Sub-Saharan Africa would continue to be the top regional recipients, together comprising nearly 80% of aid allocated by region ( Figure 2 )  Proposed cuts ranged from 61% in Europe and Eurasia to 2% in the MENA  Aid to Sub-Saharan Africa would have declined by 31%, aid to East Asia and Pacific by approximately half (51%), aid to South and Central Asia by about 4%, and aid to Western Hemisphere by 35%  The House bill ( H R  6385 ) and accompanying report did not provide comprehensive country and regional allocations, but did specify aid levels for some countries and regional programs, including Israel ($3 300 billion), Egypt ($1 457 billion), Jordan ($1 525 billion), Ukraine ($441 million), the U S  Strategy for Engagement in Central America ($595 million), and the Countering Russian Influence Funds ($250 million)  The Senate bill ( S  3108 ) and report specified aid allocations for several countries and regional programs, including Israel ($3 300 billion), Egypt ($1 082 billion), Jordan ($1 525 billion), Iraq ($429 million), West Bank & Gaza ($286 million), Afghanistan ($698 million), Pakistan ($271 million), Colombia ($391 million), Ukraine $426 million), U S  Strategy for Engagement in Central America ($515 million) and the Countering Russian Influence Fund ($300 million)  The enacted legislation, P L  116-6 , and the accompanying explanatory statement, specified FY2019 aid levels for several countries, including Israel ($3 300 billion), Egypt ($1 419 billion), Jordan ($1 525 billion), Iraq ($407 million), Colombia ($418 million), Mexico ($163 million), and Ukraine ($446 million), as well as for the U S  Strategy for engagement in Central America ($528 million) and the Countering Russian Influence Fund ($275 million)  The budget submission did not identify any new foreign assistance initiatives  The FY2019 request called for decreases in foreign aid funding generally while continuing to prioritize the aid sectors that have long made up the bulk of U S  foreign assistance: global health, humanitarian, and security assistance  The Administration requested $6 70 billion for global health programs in FY2019  This was a 23% reduction from the FY2018 funding level, yet global health programs would have increased slightly as a proportion of the foreign aid budget, from 22% of total aid in FY2018 to 23% in the FY2019 request, due to deeper proposed cuts elsewhere  HIV/AIDS programs, for which funding would have been cut about 27% from FY2018 actual levels, would have continued to make up the bulk (69%) of global health funding, as they have since the creation of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in 2004  Family planning and reproductive health services (for which the Administration proposed no funding for FY2018) would have received $302 million, a 42% reduction from FY2018 funding  Assistance levels would have been reduced for every health sector compared to FY2018, including maternal and child health (-25%), tuberculosis (-31%), malaria (-11%), neglected tropical diseases (-25%), global health security (-0 1%, funded through a proposed repurposing of FY2015 Ebola emergency funds), and nutrition (-37%)  The House committee bill included $8 69 billion for global health programs, the same as FY2018 funding  While total funding would remain the same, the House proposal would have reduced funding for family planning and reproductive health by about 12% compared to FY2018, while slightly increasing funding for polio, nutrition, and maternal and child health, and more than doubling funding for global health security and emerging threats  The Senate committee bill would have funded global health programs $8 792 billion, 1 2% above the FY2018 level  No subsectors would have received reduced funding and allocations for tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, family planning, nutrition, neglected tropical diseases and vulnerable children would all have increased slightly  While both bills included long-standing language preventing the use of appropriated funds to pay for abortions, the House bill, but not the Senate bill, also included a provision prohibiting aid to any foreign nongovernmental organizations that "promotes or performs" voluntary abortion, with some exceptions, regardless of the source of funding for such activities  P L  116-6 provides $8 84 billion for global health programs for FY2019, a 1 7% increase over FY2018 funding  Every health subsector was funded at the same or slightly higher level than in FY2018  The Trump Administration's FY2019 budget request for humanitarian assistance totaled $6 358 billion, which was roughly 32% less than FY2018 actual funding ($9 37 billion) and about 22% of the total FY2019 foreign aid request  The request included $2,800 4 million for the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account (-17% from FY2018) and $3,557 4 million for the International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account (-17%) ( Figure 2 )  As in its FY2018 request, the Administration proposed to eliminate the Food for Peace (P L  480, Title II) and Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) accounts, asserting that the activities supported through these accounts can be more efficiently and effectively funded through the IDA and MRA accounts, respectively  (Congress did not adopt the proposed changes to Food for Peace for FY2018, appropriating $1 716 billion for the account through the Agriculture appropriation, but did appropriate only $1 million for ERMA, a 98% reduction from FY2017 funding ) The Administration also sought authority to transfer and merge IDA and MRA base funds (current authority only applies to OCO-designated funds)  The Administration described its IDA request as focused "on crises at the forefront of U S  security interests, such as Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Nigeria, Somalia, and South Sudan " The MRA request focused on "conflict displacement in Afghanistan, Burma, Iraq, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen," as well as strengthening bilateral relationships with "key refugee hosting countries such as Kenya, Turkey, Jordan, Ethiopia and Bangladesh " Consistent with last year, the request suggested that the proposed funding reduction assumes that other donors will shoulder an increased share of the overall humanitarian assistance burden worldwide  The House committee bills proposed $9 145 billion for humanitarian assistance accounts, about 2% less than FY2018 funding  The total included $1 5 billion for Food for Peace from the Agriculture appropriation but would not have funded the ERMA account  The Senate committee bills proposed $9 534 billion for humanitarian assistance, about 2% more than FY2018 funding  The total included $1 716 billion for Food for Peace and $1 million for the ERMA account  Neither bill included language authorizing broad transfers and mergers between the IDA and MRA base funding account, though both bills include provisions allowing for the transfer and merger of funds from several accounts, including IDA and MRA, as an extraordinary measure in response to a severe international infectious disease outbreak  As in FY2018, Congress did not adopt the significant humanitarian aid changes proposed by the Administration  P L  116-6 provided a total of $9 534 billion for humanitarian assistance in FY2019, almost level with FY2018 funding (-0 5%), of which about 21% was designated as OCO  This total included $3 434 billion in MRA funds, $1 million for ERMA, and $4 385 billion for IDA in the SFOPS division of the bill, as well as $1 716 billion for Food for Peace in the Agriculture division  The FY2019 security assistance request within foreign operations accounts totaled $7 304 billion, a 19% reduction from the FY2018 actual funding level and about 26% of the total foreign aid request  Consistent with recent years, 63% of the entire security assistance request was for FMF aid to Israel and Egypt  However, six countries were identified in the request as joint Department of Defense (DOD) and State Department security sector assistance priorities: Philippines, Vietnam, Ukraine, Lebanon, Tunisia, and Colombia  The International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) account would have been reduced by about 36% from FY2018 actual levels, Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and Related (NADR) by 21%, and International Military Education and Training (IMET) by about 14%  In each of these cases, the Administration described the proposed reductions as concentrating resources where they offer the most value and U S  national security impact  As in the FY2018 request, the Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account, which supports most non-U N  multilateral peacekeeping and regional stability operations, including U S  training and equipment for African militaries and funding for the U N  Support Office in Somalia (UNSOS), would have seen the biggest reduction (-46%) under the FY2019 request  This is because Administrations generally request UNSOS funds through the CIPA account, while Congress usually funds the office through the PKO account  The Foreign Military Financing (FMF) account would have been reduced by 13% compared to FY2018, with specific allocations for 11 countries and a proposed $75 million Global Fund to be allocated flexibly  This was a notable change from the FY2018 FMF request, in which funds were allocated to four countries and a larger global fund, and from FY2018-enacted funding, for which allocations were specified for more than 20 countries  The House committee bill would have provided $9 274 billion for security assistance, a 3% increase over FY2018 funding, with funding increases proposed for the INCLE (+7%) and FMF (+4%) accounts and a reduction proposed for the PKO account (-9%)  Consistent with the request, and in contrast to recent year appropriations, no security assistance funding in the House committee bill was designated as OCO  The Senate committee bill included $8 789 billion for security assistance programs, a 2 6% total decrease from FY2018 funding  The INCLE account would have increased by 2 6% while the FMF and PKO accounts would be reduced by 3% and 11%, respectively  About 16% of the security assistance funding in the Senate bill was designated as OCO  In the final FY2019 appropriation, P L  116-6 , security assistance funding totaled $9 153 billion, a 1 4% increase from FY2018  Of the total, $555 million within the PKO and FMF accounts (6% of total security funding) was designated as OCO  Funding provided for most accounts was similar to FY2018 levels, with the exception of INCLE, which increased by 9 4% in part to support increased efforts to address the flow of illegal opioids, and PKO, for which funding decreased by about 9 2%  Bilateral economic development assistance is the broad category that includes programs focused on education, agricultural development and food security, good governance and democracy promotion, microfinance, environmental management, and other sectors  While the majority of this aid is implemented by USAID, it also includes the programs carried out by the independent Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), Peace Corps, Inter-American Foundation and the U S -Africa Development Foundation  Excluding global health assistance, bilateral economic development assistance in the Administration's FY2019 request totaled $6 354 billion, a 33% reduction from FY2018 funding levels  Proposed FY2019 allocations for key sectors, compared with FY2018 levels prescribed in legislation, included the following: food security, $518 million (-48% from FY2018); democracy promotion programs, $1,235 million (-47% from FY2018); and education, $512 million (-51% from FY2018)  The Administration requested $800 million for MCC and $396 million for Peace Corps, representing cuts of 12% and 3%, respectively  As discussed above, the budget request also proposed to merge I-AF and USADF into USAID, and requested only small amounts of funding to close out their independent activities  The House committee bill would have provided $9 383 billion for economic development assistance and specified allocations for several development sectors, including education ($1 035 billion), conservation programs ($360 million), food security and agricultural development ($1 001 million), microenterprise and microfinance ($265 million), water and sanitation ($400 million) and democracy programs ($2 4 billion)  The Senate committee bill would have provided $9 764 billion for economic development activities and specifies allocations for education ($750 million), environment and renewable energy ($943 million), food security and agricultural development ($1 001 billion), small and micro credit ($265 million), water and sanitation ($435 million), and democracy programs ($2 4 billion), among others  Both the House and Senate bills would have funded the I-AF, USADF, Peace Corp, and MCC at the FY2018 funding level, and both bills explicitly rejected the Administration's proposal to merge I-AF and USADF into USAID  The enacted appropriation for FY2019, P L  116-6 , provided about $9 239 billion for nonhealth economic development aid  Minimum allocations specified for key sectors included $1 035 billion for education (basic and higher), $285 million for biodiversity conservation, $125 million for sustainable landscapes, $1 001 billion for food security and agricultural development, $265 million to support micro and small enterprises, $67 million to combat trafficking in persons, and $435 million for water and sanitation programs  The independent agencies were all funded at the same level as in FY2018  Appendix A  State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations, by Account Appendix B  International Affairs Budget The International Affairs budget, or Function 150, includes funding that is not in the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriation: foreign food aid programs (P L  480 Title II Food for Peace and McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition programs) are in the Agriculture Appropriations, and the Foreign Claim Settlement Commission and the International Trade Commission are in the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations  In addition, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriation measure includes funding for certain international commissions that are not part of the International Affairs Function 150 account  Appendix C  SFOPS Organizational Chart Appendix D  Glossary


Report 2:  787 (115 th Congress) which provided that "Section 3(a) of House Resolution 5 is amended by striking 'the first session of '" This separate order was not adopted for the 116 th Congress, so the application of the rule reverts to being guided by prior precedents rather than this language  Since the period immediately after the initial adoption of the rule in the 19 th century, the House has interpreted it through precedents that have tended to incrementally narrow its application  For example, early precedents established that while it was not always necessary that a retrenchment specify the amount of a reduction of expenditures, it must appear as a necessary result of the legislation to be in order and that it is not sufficient that such reduction would probably (or would in the opinion of the chair) result therefrom  For example, legislation that would simply confer discretionary authority to terminate employment of federal employees is not in order under the Holman exception because any resulting savings would be speculative  The reduction also may not be contingent on an event  Furthermore, the rule is not applicable to funds other than those appropriated in the pending general appropriations bill  The Holman rule then is intended to apply only when an obvious reduction of funds in a general appropriations bill is achieved by the provision in question, such as the cessation of specific government activities, or through a specific reduction of total appropriations in the bill  In addition, the exception does not apply to limitations (on the grounds that such language is not legislative) or legislative language unaccompanied by a reduction of funds in the bill  Legislation that is too broad has also typically not been allowed under the Holman rule exception  The House has held, for example, that a provision that stated no part of an appropriation could be expended for a specific, designated purpose qualified as a retrenchment  However, a proposal that effectively repealed the law under which appropriations for that purpose were authorized was held not to come within the exception  In another case, the House held that even when a provision does reduce expenditures, it may not be accompanied by additional legislative provisions not directly contributing to the reduction  The separate order for the 115 th Congress effectively reinstated language that had been stricken from the rule in 1983  While the full scope of amendments might be in order as a consequence of this language, it is possible to analyze its potential impact based on past precedents and the limited experience of the 115 th Congress  The additional language opened the door to the consideration of retrenchments resulting from a reduction of the number and salary of the officers of the United States or the reduction of the compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the United States  There are precedents regarding provisions allowed under the older, pre-1983 form of the rule that may be illustrative for understanding what might be in order  For example, a proposal that pay for a class of employees be limited to a smaller number of employees than authorized by law was allowed, as were proposals that would reduce the number of officers  The Holman rule also allowed proposals that would consolidate or eliminate offices  On at least one occasion, the Holman rule was the basis for allowing a proposal to replace civilian employees with lower paid U S  Army enlisted personnel  In another case, the rule allowed for an amendment that capped the salaries of certain employees  In the 115 th Congress, one amendment was considered in order based on a plain reading of the text of the separate order to allow for "the reduction of the compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the United States " Although the amendment failed of passage, it would have provided that: The salary of Mark Gabriel, the Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration, shall be reduced to $1  As cited above, however, neither the rule nor the separate order allows for retrenchments that would be applicable to funds other than those appropriated in the pending general appropriations bill  In addition, the application of the broader exceptions in the separate order were still subject to the general requirement for germaneness  The Holman rule is not intended to open the door for legislative provisions that would expand the scope of the bill  As a consequence, even with the additional scope provided by the language of the separate order, it would likely not be in order to include broad legislative provisions in, or amendments to, a specific appropriation bill that would apply to the salary or number of federal employees funded through appropriations in other measures  Furthermore, House precedent establishes that simply providing for a reduction of the number and salaries of officers in a paragraph when it is complicated by other elements does not necessarily bring a proposition within the exception  The Holman rule was also cited as the basis for allowing the consideration of one additional amendment during the 115 th Congress  That amendment also failed to pass, but it would have abolished the Budget Analysis Division of the Congressional Budget Office, comprising 89 employees with annual salaries aggregating $15 million, transferring responsibility for any duties imposed by law and regulation to the Office of the Director of the Congressional Budget Office  When discussing the application of rules and precedents, it is important to note that the House Parliamentarian is the sole definitive authority on questions relating to the chamber's precedents and procedures and should be consulted if a formal opinion on any specific parliamentary question is desired 

ground_truth: Although congressional rules establish a general division of responsibility under which questions of policy are kept separate from questions of funding, House rules provide for exceptions in certain circumstances. One such circumstance allows for the inclusion of legislative language in general appropriations bills or amendments thereto for "germane provisions that retrench expenditures by the reduction of amounts of money covered by the bill." This exception appears in clause 2(b) of House Rule XXI and is known as the Holman rule, after Representative William Holman of Indiana, who first proposed the exception in 1876. Since the period immediately after its initial adoption, the House has interpreted the Holman rule through precedents that have tended to incrementally narrow its application. Under current precedents, for a legislative provision or amendment to be in order, the legislative language in question must be both germane to other provisions in the measure and must produce a clear reduction of appropriations in that bill. In addition, the House adopted a separate order during the 115th Congress that provided for retrenchments of expenditures by a reduction of amounts of money covered by the bill to be construed as applying to: any provision or amendment that retrenches expenditures by— (1) the reduction of amounts of money in the bill; (2) the reduction of the number and salary of the officers of the United States; or (3) the reduction of the compensation of any person paid out of the Treasury of the United States. This separate order was not readopted for the 116th Congress. This report provides a history of this provision in House rules and an analysis of precedents that are illustrative of its possible application.