You are given two reports by the government agency.  

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:
State is the lead agency involved in implementing American foreign policy and representing the United States abroad. According to State and USAID’s joint strategic plan for fiscal years 2018 through 2022, State’s goals are to (1) protect America’s security at home and abroad, (2) renew America’s competitive advantage for sustained economic growth and job creation, (3) promote American leadership through balanced engagement, and (4) ensure effectiveness and accountability to the American taxpayer. State’s Foreign Service employees serve in a variety of functions at overseas posts as either generalists or specialists. Foreign Service generalists help formulate and implement U.S. foreign policy and are assigned to work in one of five career tracks: consular, economic, management, political, or public diplomacy. Generalists at overseas posts collect information and engage with foreign governments and citizens of foreign countries and report the results of these interactions back to State headquarters in Washington, D.C., among other functions. Foreign Service specialists abroad support and maintain the functioning of overseas posts and serve in one of 25 different skill groups, in positions such as security officer or information management. Specialists at overseas posts play a critical role in ensuring the security and maintenance of the posts’ facilities, computer networks, and supplies as well as the protection of post staff, their family members, and local staff, among other functions. State may require Foreign Service employees to be available for service anywhere in the world, as needed, and State has the authority to direct Foreign Service employees to any of its posts overseas or to its headquarters in Washington, D.C. However, as noted in our 2012 report, State generally does not use this authority, preferring other means of filling high-priority positions, according to State officials. The process of assigning Foreign Service employees to their positions typically begins when they receive a list of upcoming vacancies for which they may compete. Foreign Service employees then submit a list of positions for which they would like to be considered, known as bids, to the Office of Career Development and Assignments and consult with their career development officer. The process varies depending on an officer’s grade and functional specialty, and State uses a variety of incentives to encourage Foreign Service employees to bid on difficult-to-fill posts. State groups countries of the world—and corresponding U.S. overseas posts in these countries—into areas of responsibility under six geographic regional bureaus: Bureau of African Affairs Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs Overseas posts report to State headquarters through their respective regional bureaus. For example, because the Bureau of African Affairs has responsibility for developing and managing U.S. policy concerning parts of the African continent, U.S. overseas posts in Nigeria report through the bureau to State headquarters. According to State officials, State maintains personnel data on State employees in its GEMS database. GEMS includes information on Foreign Service and Civil Service positions; in particular, it shows the total number of authorized Foreign Service positions at State and whether each position is currently filled or vacant. As displayed in figure 1, the GEMS data show that the majority of Foreign Service employees (73 percent) work in positions at overseas posts. However, some Foreign Service staff (27 percent) are assigned to positions in the United States, where they may complete required language or other training, serve as desk officers for the regional bureaus, or work in other functions at State headquarters. According to State data, the number of both staffed and vacant overseas Foreign Service positions increased between 2008 and 2018. As shown in figure 2, the number of positions staffed grew from 6,979 in 2008 to 8,574 in 2018—a more than 20 percent increase. Despite the increase in the number of positions staffed, our analysis found that as of March 31, 2018, overall, 13 percent of State’s overseas Foreign Service positions were vacant. This vacancy percentage is similar to the percentages of vacancies in overseas Foreign Service positions that we reported in 2012 and 2008. In 2012, we reported that 14 percent of State’s overseas Foreign Service positions were vacant as of October 31, 2011, and we reported that the same percentage of overseas Foreign Service positions—14 percent—were vacant as of September 30, 2008. According to State officials, State’s ability to hire Foreign Service employees to fill persistent vacancies has been affected by factors such as reduced appropriations. For instance, according to State officials and State’s Five Year Workforce Plan, because of funding cuts enacted in fiscal year 2013, State could only hire one employee for every two leaving the Foreign Service. From fiscal years 2014 to 2016, funding for State’s annual appropriations supported hiring to replace Foreign Service employees projected to leave the agency, according to State officials. These officials indicated, however, that Foreign Service hiring was again impacted from January 2017 through May 2018 by a hiring freeze. As a result, State hired below levels required to replace full projected attrition of Foreign Service employees. While State’s data show persistent vacancies in both generalist and specialist positions at overseas posts, specialist positions remain vacant at a higher rate. State’s data show that 12 percent (680 of 5,660) of overseas Foreign Service generalist positions were vacant as of March 31, 2018, a slight decrease from the 14 percent of overseas Foreign Service generalist positions that we reported vacant in 2012. State’s data also show that 14.2 percent (594 of 4,188) of all overseas Foreign Service specialist positions were vacant, close to the 14.8 percent vacancy rate that we reported in 2012. State’s data show persistent vacancies in Foreign Service generalist positions responsible for analysis, engagement, and reporting at overseas posts. As shown in table 1, among Foreign Service generalist career tracks, the political, economic, and “other” tracks had the largest percentage of vacant positions, with, respectively, 20 percent, 16 percent, and 14 percent of positions vacant as of March 31, 2018. Our 2012 report noted vacancies in the same three career tracks. Political officers at overseas posts are responsible for collecting and analyzing information on political events, engaging with foreign governments, and reporting back to State headquarters. Economic officers at overseas posts work with foreign governments and other U.S. agencies on technology, science, economic, trade, and environmental issues. The “other” generalist career track includes positions designated as “Executive” or “International Relations,” which, according to State officials, may be filled by generalists from any of State’s five career tracks. State’s data show persistent vacancies in Foreign Service specialist positions that support and maintain the functioning of overseas posts. Among the 10 largest Foreign Service specialist skill groups, security officer, office management specialist, and information management had the largest percentages of vacant positions. As shown in figure 3, in these three groups, respectively, 16 percent, 16 percent, and 14 percent of positions were vacant. The vacancies in these three specialist skill groups are persistent; in 2012, we reported that the same three groups had the largest numbers of vacant positions. Security officers are typically responsible for responding to various threats to the physical security of overseas posts and for ensuring the protection of post staff, their family members, and local staff. Office management specialists provide professional management and administrative support. Information management staff are typically responsible for maintaining and ensuring the security of State’s computer networks and communications systems at overseas posts. State officials said that State has had difficulty in recruiting and hiring Foreign Service employees to fill specialist positions in some skill groups at overseas posts. According to State officials and staff at overseas posts, some vacant specialist positions are more difficult to fill than others because candidates for these positions must often possess skills in fields such as medicine or information technology that tend to be highly sought after in the private sector. According to staff at overseas posts, it is not uncommon for specialist candidates in these fields to choose higher- paying jobs in the private sector rather than specialist positions in the Foreign Service. Additionally, in some circumstances, State must compete with other federal agencies to recruit specialists from the same limited pool of talent. Consequently, according to State officials, State has been unable to attract and retain personnel with the skills necessary to fill some Foreign Service specialist positions, which has led to persistent vacancies in specialist positions. Vacancies in Foreign Service specialist positions at overseas posts present additional challenges because specialized skills and competencies are often required to perform the work of these positions. According to State officials, because Foreign Service generalists may be assigned to work outside of their career tracks, in some circumstances, State has more flexibility in filling a generalist vacancy than a specialist vacancy. For example, generalists outside the consular career track can serve as a consular officer for one or more tours of duty. However, specialist positions often require specialized skills or experience that generalists may not possess. In addition, according to staff at overseas posts, it is generally not possible for a Foreign Service specialist from one skill group to perform the work of a Foreign Service specialist from a different skill group. For instance, a Foreign Service specialist assigned to the medical section at a post will not be able to help address the workload of a vacant position in the information management section. Thus, according to staff at overseas posts, vacancies in specialist positions at the posts may create greater challenges than vacancies in generalist positions. According to State’s data, as of March 31, 2018, overseas posts with State’s highest foreign policy priorities had the highest percentages of vacant Foreign Service positions. Using its Overseas Staffing Model process, State assigns each embassy to one of seven categories based primarily on the level and type of work required to pursue the U.S. government’s diplomatic relations with the host country at post. As we previously reported, the rankings are closely associated with the department’s foreign policy priorities; the higher the category, the greater the resources needed to conduct the work of the overseas post and the higher the post’s foreign policy priority. For example, the highest-level category, level 5+, includes the largest, most comprehensive full-service posts, where the host country’s regional and global role requires extensive U.S. personnel resources. The lowest-level category includes small embassies with limited requirements for advocacy, liaison, and coordination in the host country’s government. As shown in table 2, according to State’s data, as of March 31, 2018, overseas posts in the “Embassy 5+” category had the highest percentage of vacant positions. The results of this analysis were similar to those we reported in 2012. While State has Foreign Service vacancies worldwide, as of March 31, 2018, the highest percentages of vacancies were in the South and Central Asian Affairs Bureau (SCA) and Near Eastern Affairs Bureau (NEA)—bureaus representing regions with heightened security risks that could threaten U.S. foreign policy interests, according to State. SCA, which includes countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, faces a host of security and stability challenges that could threaten U.S. interests, according to a February 2018 report from State’s Office of Inspector General. NEA includes countries, such as Egypt, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, which have faced numerous security threats in recent years that could also threaten U.S. interests overseas. As shown in figure 4, among State’s regional bureaus, as of March 31, 2018, SCA and NEA had the highest percentages of overseas Foreign Service vacancies at 21 percent (238 of 1,115 positions) and 18 percent (234 of 1,279 positions), respectively. In 2012, we reported that these two bureaus also had the highest percentages of overseas Foreign Service vacancies among regional bureaus. Vacancies in Foreign Service positions at overseas posts increase workloads and adversely affect the morale of Foreign Service employees. According to State officials in headquarters and staff at overseas posts, when a Foreign Service position at an overseas post is vacant, Foreign Service employees at that post are generally responsible for covering the workload of the vacant position. Further, Foreign Service employees at some posts—particularly posts with fewer Foreign Service staff—may be responsible for covering the workload of multiple vacant positions. For example, at two African posts we heard examples of Foreign Service employees covering the workload of multiple vacant Foreign Service positions. As a result of increased workloads, Foreign Service employees are also more likely to have less time available to perform some important functions, according to staff at overseas posts. According to staff at overseas posts, such functions include training and supervising entry- level Foreign Service employees, local staff, and eligible family members (EFM); reducing the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse; improving and innovating processes at post that could reduce inefficiencies; initiating and implementing projects that could enhance various diplomatic efforts; and conducting maintenance of systems. In addition, according to staff at overseas posts, vacancies adversely affect staff morale. Staff at multiple posts said that vacancies and the resulting increased workloads had created substantial stress and increased “burnout” of Foreign Service employees at the posts. They noted that these levels of stress and burnout had contributed to Foreign Service employees’ ending their overseas assignments early for medical or personal reasons. These curtailments, in turn, had increased the overall vacancies and their effects at overseas posts. According to staff at overseas posts, vacancies in Foreign Service generalist positions at overseas posts adversely affect State’s diplomatic readiness. Among Foreign Service generalist career tracks, the political and economic career tracks had the two largest percentages of vacant positions—20 percent and 16 percent, respectively—as of March 31, 2018. According to staff at overseas posts, vacancies in political and economic positions at overseas posts—particularly posts with fewer Foreign Service employees—limit the amount of reporting on political and economic developments that posts are able to submit back to State headquarters. For example, Foreign Service employees from three posts in Africa told us that persistent, long-term vacancies in those posts’ political and economic positions had constrained their abilities to provide full reporting on political and economic developments in their host countries. According to staff at overseas posts, reporting on political and economic developments in other countries—submitted by overseas posts back to State headquarters—is essential for State to make informed foreign policy decisions. Foreign Service employees from two posts in large countries in East and South Asia also told us that vacancies in these sections had limited their capacity to engage with host government officials on important, strategic issues for the United States, such as reducing nuclear proliferation or enhancing trade and investment relationships with the United States. Vacancies in the political and economic career tracks at overseas posts could adversely affect State’s ability to achieve two of the goals in State and USAID’s joint strategic plan for fiscal years 2018 through 2022—(1) renew America’s competitive advantage for sustained economic growth and job creation and (2) promote American leadership through balanced engagement. According to staff at overseas posts, vacancies in Foreign Service specialist positions at overseas posts may heighten the level of security risk at the posts and disrupt post operations. Among Foreign Service specialist skill groups with the highest number of vacant positions, security officer, office management specialist, and information management had the largest percentages of vacant positions—16 percent, 16 percent, and 14 percent, respectively—as of March 31, 2018. According to staff at overseas posts, vacancies in security officer positions at overseas posts reduce the amount of time that security staff can spend identifying, investigating, and responding to potential security threats to the post. Security officers are also responsible for identifying and analyzing host-country intelligence-gathering efforts at their respective overseas posts—and post staff told us that, because of vacancies in these positions, some security officers had been unable to complete this work for their posts, potentially increasing the risk of foreign government officials gaining access to sensitive information. Also, post staff told us that security officer vacancies limit the amount of time that security officers present at posts can devote to important security oversight activities, including regular training, drilling, and supervising of local guard forces and security contractors. Post staff noted, for example, that security officers at overseas posts should conduct regular training and drilling exercises to evaluate their local guard force’s effectiveness in searching a vehicle entering the post compound for explosive devices. According to post staff, when these important security oversight activities are not properly and regularly conducted, the level of security risk at these overseas posts may increase. According to State officials in headquarters and staff at overseas posts, as well as reporting by State’s OIG, vacancies in information management positions at overseas posts have increased the vulnerability of posts’ computer networks to potential cybersecurity attacks and other malicious threats. State officials told us that the Foreign Service had faced chronic shortages of information management staff available to fill these positions worldwide. According to State officials, because of ongoing information management vacancies, some required tasks—such as conducting planned network maintenance—were performed infrequently or not at all. In another example, staff at overseas posts said that because of vacancies, information management staff had been unable to regularly check their computer system logs to ensure that security breaches had not taken place. Post staff added that, if a breach did occur, vacancies could increase the amount of time needed to identify an attack and deploy countermeasures, further increasing the risks to posts’ computer networks. Inspections conducted by State’s OIG from fall 2014 to spring 2016 found that information management staff at 33 percent of overseas posts had not performed various required information management duties. According to State’s OIG, neglect of these duties may leave the department vulnerable to increased cybersecurity attacks. According to staff at overseas posts, the office management specialist position at overseas posts has evolved considerably over time; these specialists increasingly play a critical role in ensuring that the work of overseas posts is effectively completed. Post staff said that office management specialists provide administrative and other support services to other Foreign Service employees and are assigned to various sections of post. For example, staff at one post noted that office management specialists assigned to the Security Officer sections at overseas posts reduce the workload of security officers by completing more routine security tasks and allowing the security officers to focus on more challenging or involved tasks necessary to secure overseas posts. Post staff told us that vacancies in office management specialist positions reduce the amount of work that can be completed by other Foreign Service employees at overseas posts. For example, when office management specialist positions assigned to the Security Officer or Information Management sections of posts are vacant, these vacancies further exacerbate the higher number of vacancies that already exist in these sections. According to staff at overseas posts, higher numbers of office management specialist vacancies require other Foreign Service employees to spend a significant amount of time on administrative tasks, reducing the amount of time these staff can spend on mission-critical activities. Officials in headquarters and at overseas posts described various State efforts to help address overseas Foreign Service vacancies. According to State officials, Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts are a complex problem that multiple offices within State address on an individual basis. State’s various efforts to address overseas Foreign Service vacancies are not guided by an integrated action plan to reduce persistent vacancies. Our 2017 High-Risk Series report calls for agencies to, among other things, design and implement action plan strategies for closing skills gaps. The action plan should (1) define the root cause of all skills gaps within an agency and (2) provide suggested corrective measures, including steps necessary to implement solutions. This report also emphasizes the high risk that mission-critical skills gaps in the federal workforce pose to the nation. While various State offices have implemented the efforts we identified, State lacks an action plan that is integrated—or consolidated—across its relevant offices to guide its efforts to address persistent overseas Foreign Service vacancies. Moreover, some staff at overseas posts acknowledged that the efforts State has taken to help address vacancies have not reduced persistent Foreign Service vacancies, notably in specialist positions. In response to our inquiry about an action plan, State officials said that the agency does not have a single document that addresses Foreign Service staffing gaps at overseas posts. Instead, State officials directed us to State’s Five Year Workforce Plan: Fiscal Years 2016-2020, stating that it was the most comprehensive document that outlines State’s efforts to address Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts. The workforce plan notes that it provides a framework to address State’s human capital requirements and highlights State’s challenges and achievements in recruiting, hiring, staffing, and training Foreign Service staff. However, in reviewing the portions of the workforce plan that State indicated were most relevant, we found that the workforce plan does not include an integrated action plan that defines the root causes of the persistent overseas Foreign Service vacancies we identified or suggest corrective measures to reduce vacancies in these positions, including steps necessary to implement solutions. State officials also noted that they frequently meet to discuss and address workforce issues. For example, they said they convene a multi-bureau planning group that meets biweekly to discuss strategic workforce issues such as hiring needs based on attrition and other issues. However, according to State officials, this group has not developed an action plan to reduce persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts. State lacks an integrated action plan to guide its efforts to address persistent Foreign Service vacancies that includes corrective measures to address the root causes of the vacancies. Without defining the root causes of persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts and identifying appropriate corrective measures, overseas vacancies may persist and continue to adversely affect State’s ability to achieve U.S. foreign policy goals. Foreign Service generalists and specialists at overseas posts are critical to advancing U.S. foreign policy and economic interests abroad. However, for at least a decade, the Foreign Service has had persistent vacancies in both generalist and specialist positions at overseas posts. In particular, large numbers of vacant positions have persisted over time in certain overseas Foreign Service positions, such as information management and security officer positions. These vacancies in critical positions at overseas posts have adversely affected State’s ability to carry out its mission effectively and threaten State’s ability to ensure the security and safety of its employees, their families, and post facilities. While State has made some efforts to address Foreign Service vacancies, addressing chronic vacancies in critical positions at overseas posts requires a thoughtful, coherent, and integrated action plan that defines the root causes of persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts along with suggested corrective measures to reduce such vacancies, following what was called for in our 2017 High-Risk Series report. Developing such an action plan would help State address its persistent staffing gaps, improve its ability to achieve U.S. foreign policy goals, and help ensure secure and efficient operations. The Secretary of State should develop an integrated action plan that defines the root causes of persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts and provides suggested corrective measures to reduce such vacancies, including steps necessary to implement solutions. (Recommendation 1) We provided a draft of this report to State for review and comment. In its comments, reproduced in appendix III, State concurred with our recommendation. State also noted that it has taken actions and identified some causes of vacancies, but acknowledged that it lacks an integrated action plan and will take steps to develop such a plan. State also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of State, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6881 or bairj@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 IV. This report examines (1) vacancies in the Department of State’s (State) Foreign Service staffing at overseas posts, (2) reported effects of Foreign Service vacancies on diplomatic readiness, and (3) State’s efforts to address Foreign Service vacancies. To address these three objectives, we interviewed State officials from the department’s Bureau of Human Resources and Bureau of Consular Affairs as well as State officials representing the Offices of the Executive Director for State’s six regional bureaus. We also interviewed staff at 10 overseas posts. We conducted in-person interviews with staff at 3 of these posts—the U.S. Embassy in Beijing and the U.S. Consulate in Shanghai, China, and the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi, India. We conducted telephone interviews with staff at the other 7 posts—the U.S. Embassies in Abuja, Nigeria; Bogota, Colombia; Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo; Kabul, Afghanistan; Mexico City, Mexico; and N’Djamena, Chad; and the U.S. Consulate in Frankfurt, Germany. We used the following criteria to select overseas posts for interviews: (1) posts with larger numbers of Foreign Service vacancies; (2) posts with diversity in the types of Foreign Service positions that were vacant; (3) posts with higher relative importance to U.S. economic, national security, and other foreign policy interests; and (4) posts in a range of geographic locations by State region. To examine vacancies in State’s Foreign Service staffing at overseas posts, we analyzed State’s personnel data on Foreign Service staffing at overseas posts from the department’s Global Employment Management System (GEMS), as of March 2018. Our analysis of the GEMS data includes Foreign Service positions filled by permanent Foreign Service employees as well as positions filled by nonpermanent Foreign Service employees, such as Consular Fellows. This analysis does not include the number of staffed and vacant positions at overseas posts in Libya, Syria, and Yemen, which, at the time of our review, were in suspended operations status, as well as U.S. Mission Somalia, which was operating under special circumstances at a different location. To calculate vacancy rates, we divided the total number of positions by the number of positions listed as vacant in GEMS. For example, a post with 10 positions and 2 vacancies would have a vacancy rate of 20 percent. We calculated vacancy rates for each of the following categories: type (i.e., generalist or specialist), function (e.g., consular or information management), regional bureau (i.e., Bureau of African Affairs or Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs), and embassy and nonembassy rankings from State’s Overseas Staffing Model (i.e., Embassy 3+ or 5). According to State officials, the data in GEMS have a number of limitations: The number of vacant positions at overseas posts listed in GEMS may be overstated, because State has not yet decided to remove some of these positions from its database. Some of the vacancies in GEMS are short-term or temporary. Foreign Service employees periodically rotate out of their positions at their overseas posts, sometimes creating temporary vacancies until the positions are filled by incoming Foreign Service employees. The GEMS data show larger numbers of vacant Foreign Service positions at posts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan than actually were unstaffed at these posts. According to State officials, this discrepancy results from State’s relying heavily on shorter-term assignments to fill Foreign Service positions at these locations. These shorter-term assignments are not reflected in GEMS, and the positions therefore appear vacant. The GEMS data may not reflect Foreign Service employees who have been temporarily reassigned from one overseas post to another. The GEMS data may show positions as filled although the Foreign Service employee filling the position has not yet arrived at post. To assess the reliability of the GEMS database, we asked State officials whether State had made any major changes to the database since our 2012 report, when we assessed the GEMS data to be sufficiently reliable. State officials indicated that no major changes had been made. We also tested the data for completeness, confirmed the general accuracy of the data with officials at selected overseas posts, and interviewed knowledgeable officials from State’s Office of Resource Management and Organizational Analysis concerning the data’s reliability. We found the GEMS data to be reliable for the purpose of determining the numbers and percentages of vacant Foreign Service positions at overseas posts. We did not validate whether the total number of authorized overseas Foreign Service positions was appropriate or met State’s needs. We also reviewed State workforce planning documents and budget documents, such as State’s Five Year Workforce and Leadership Succession Plan: Fiscal Years 2016-2020 and Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. In addition, we reviewed State Office of Inspector General reports as well as our previous reports on human capital challenges at State and effective strategic human capital management across the federal government. In particular, our report High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial Efforts Needed on Others notes that strategic human capital management is a high-risk issue across the federal government and lists five key elements as a road map for agency efforts to improve and ultimately address such issues. For our third objective, we assessed whether State’s efforts to address vacancies were guided by a corrective action plan that identifies the root causes of persistent Foreign Service vacancies at overseas posts and suggests corrective measures to reduce such vacancies, including steps necessary to implement solutions. We conducted this performance audit from August 2017 to March 2019 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. The “Economic” generalist career track includes positions from the “Science Officer” staffing skill group in the GEMS data. 170 Foreign Service employees were not staffed to one of the six regional bureaus. In addition to the contact named above, Godwin Agbara (Assistant Director), Ian Ferguson (Analyst-in-Charge), Anthony Costulas, Natalia Pena, Debbie Chung, Chris Keblitis, Reid Lowe, Justin Fisher, and Alexander Welsh made key contributions to this report.

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

Answer: 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.