The Consolidated Appropriations Act , FY2016. On December 18, 2015, Congress passed an omnibus appropriations law for FY2016 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016; P.L. 114-113 / H.R. 2029 ), and the President signed it the same day. Division K of the law provides $52.83 billion for the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) for FY2016. This amount is 1.7% greater than the FY2015 estimate and 0.2% below the President's FY2016 request. Of the total, $14.90 billion is designated as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds, as directed by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (see below). A joint explanatory statement accompanying the legislation provides further congressional directives. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA). On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 ( H.R. 1314 ; P.L. 114-74 ), which was passed by Congress at the end of October. The law raised the overall revised discretionary spending limit that the Budget Control Act ( P.L. 112-25 ) set by $50 billion (from $1.016 trillion to $1.066 trillion) for FY2016 and by another $30 billion (from $1.039 trillion to $1.069 trillion) for FY2017. It increased both security (from $523.1 billion to $548.1 billion) and nonsecurity funding levels (from $493.5 billion to $518.5 billion) and raised OCO funding by $32 billion, divided equally over the two years and between defense and nondefense. It also established minimum OCO funds for both defense and nondefense. For nondefense (SFOPS) OCO, the minimum is $14.9 billion in FY2016 and FY2017. Refugee Supplemental. On October 6, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate SFOPS subcommittee introduced a supplemental appropriations bill ( S. 2145 ) to provide an additional $1 billion in FY2016 emergency funding, through the Migration and Refugee Assistance account, to address the refugee crisis caused by conflict in the Middle East. No action was taken on this legislation. Minibus Legislation. On October 5, 2015, four "minibus" appropriations bills were introduced in the Senate, including S. 2130 , which bundled the Senate FY2016 SFOPS bill ( S. 1725 ) with the Senate FY2016 bills making appropriations for the Department of Defense, Energy and Water Development, Department of Homeland Security, Military Construction, and Department of Veterans Affairs. No action was taken on this legislation. Continuing Resolutions (CR) . On September 30, 2015, the House and Senate approved, and President Obama signed into law, a resolution to provide temporary FY2016 continuing appropriations through December 11, 2015 ( P.L. 114-53 ). The CR covered all of the regular appropriations, including SFOPS, and continued the same authorities and conditions as the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 ( P.L. 113-235 ), except Title IX (Ebola Response and Preparedness). Under the CR, most programs and activities were funded at the FY2015 level, minus an across-the-board reduction of 0.2108%. The reduction did not apply to funds designated as OCO. According to CBO's calculations, SFOPS FY2016 discretionary budget authority was estimated to be $40.6 billion, plus an additional $9.3 billion of OCO funds. Anomalies within the CR that affected SFOPS accounts or activities included allowed funding allocated in certain accounts for Ukraine to be obligated at an accelerated rate, if necessary, to sustain assistance to that country (§148); prohibited high rates of funding distribution early in the fiscal year (§109), which undermined the 30-day distribution requirement for Foreign Military Financing aid to Israel; extended the authority of the U.S. Commission on International Freedom from September 30, 2015, to December 11, 2015 (§147); and extended authority for the U.S. Commission on Public Diplomacy beyond October 1, 2015, to December 11, 2015 (§149). Congress passed two more CRs in order to buy time to vote on the final omnibus appropriation. P.L. 114-96 was signed on December 11, 2015, and continued appropriations through December 16, 2015. P.L. 114-100 was signed on December 16, 2015, and continued appropriations through December 22, 2015. Committee Action. On July 9, 2015, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its FY2016 SFOPS bill ( S. 1725 ) and reported it to the full Senate. Totaling $49.77 billion before rescissions, the Senate committee recommendation was $2.20 billion (4.2%) below the FY2015 appropriated level, which included Ebola supplemental funding, and $4.31 billion (8%) below the President's FY2016 request. Net of rescissions, the Senate bill funding totaled $48.01 billion. On June 11, 2015, the House Appropriations Committee approved an FY2016 SFOPS bill ( H.R. 2772 ) on a voice vote. Totaling $48.19 billion, before rescissions, H.R. 2772 was $3.78 billion (7.3%) below the FY2015 enacted level (including Ebola emergency appropriations) and $5.89 billion (10.9%) below the FY2016 request. Net of rescissions, the House bill funding totaled $47.99 billion. Budget Resolution (302(a) and 302(b) Allocations). On March 25 and 27, respectively, the House and Senate passed budget resolutions for FY2016. In H.Con.Res. 27 , the House recommended an FY2016 budget authority of $38.34 billion for International Affairs, while in S.Con.Res. 11 the Senate recommended $47.79 billion. On April 30, 2015, the House agreed to a conference report that set the FY2016 budget authority for International Affairs enduring funds at $40.20 billion; the Senate agreed to the same on May 5, 2015. While the conference report included $96.287 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) topline levels, suballocation levels of OCO were not provided. Hearings. In February and March, Secretary of State John Kerry and Acting USAID Administrator Alfonso Lenhardt testified before the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, as well as the House Foreign Affairs and the Senate Foreign Relations Committees on the FY2016 SFOPS request. Other Administration officials testified regarding various aspects of the international affairs budget request as well. Budget Submitted to Congress. On February 2, 2015, the President submitted his FY2016 budget to Congress. On February 2, 2015, the Obama Administration submitted to Congress its FY2016 budget request, which included $54.08 billion for the State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Appropriations (SFOPS). Of the total SFOPS request, $17.54 billion was for programs funded through the State operations and related agencies accounts (a 10.9% increase over FY2015 estimates that include emergency Ebola funds), and $36.53 billion was for Foreign Operations accounts (a 1.2% increase from FY2015 estimates that include emergency Ebola funds). About 13% of the request was designated for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), compared with 14.6% of the FY2015 SFOPS funding request and 17.8% of enacted FY2015 funding. Figure 1 , above, shows funding for State Operations and Foreign Operations accounts for each of the past 10 years. Figure 2 , below, provides a breakout of the total FY2016 SFOPS budget request by key components. This report provides an overview and highlights of the request, as well as congressional actions. Appendix A offers an account-by-account comparison of the FY2016 request and legislation to the FY2015-estimated funding. Appendix B provides the International Affairs 150 budget function funding levels. This report will continue to be updated to reflect additional congressional action on FY2016 SFOPS appropriations. The Obama Administration announced in early February 2015 that its FY2016 budget request exceeded the discretionary budget caps established by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25 ) that established defense and nondefense discretionary spending limits for FY2012-FY2021. This raised concern about the possibility of sequestration. Should Congress appropriate discretionary funds that exceed the BCA caps, without repealing the BCA or otherwise legislating a change in the caps, an automatic spending reduction process established by the BCA would be triggered, consisting of a combination of sequestration and lower discretionary spending caps. The sequestration process was triggered in FY2013, but avoided in FY2014 and FY2015 when Congress adhered to less stringent spending caps for those years established by the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA, H.J.Res. 59 , P.L. 113-67 ). For FY2016, the BCA caps were again in effect, creating a potential standoff between the President, who requested raising the budget caps for both defense and nondefense in FY2016, and some in Congress who want to raise the caps only for defense. Enactment in November 2015 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 ( P.L. 114-74 ), which amended the BCA and raised both the defense and nondefense discretionary spending caps for FY216 and FY2017, averted this conflict and paved the way for the omnibus appropriations agreement. In the FY2016 request, as every year since FY2012, the Administration distinguished between enduring or "core" funding and funding to support "overseas contingency operations" (OCO), described in earlier budget documents as "extraordinary, but temporary, costs of the Department of State and USAID in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan." The OCO designation is particularly significant because the BCA specified that emergency or OCO funds do not count toward the budget caps established by the act. For FY2016, $7.05 billion, or about 13% of the SFOPS request, was designated as OCO. The FY2016 OCO request represented a decline of 23.9% compared with the FY2015-estimated level of $9.26 billion (excluding Ebola Emergency funds) that included funds for the three frontline states, "other areas of unrest," anti-terrorism activities, and operations to counter the Islamic State (IS). (See Table 2 and Figure 3 .) For FY2016, the Administration sought to grow funding for the State Department and Related Accounts category by 10.6% over FY2015-estimated levels, to $17.55 billion. Both "base" (or "enduring") funding and overseas contingency operations (OCO) funding would have grown under the proposal, by 11.6% and 4.6%, respectively. The composition of this portion of the budget request is illustrated in Figure 4 . (A 10-year historical trend line appears in Figure 1 .) Among the top-line accounts, Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP), the department's main operating account, would have grown by 9.6%, to $8.6 billion. Public diplomacy (PD) spending, including exchange programs and international broadcasting, would have seen a 3.2% boost to a total of $1.37 billion under the FY2016 request. The State Department's second-largest administrative account is Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance (ESCM); the FY2016 proposal called for $2.22 billion, a 4.5% decrease from the FY2015-estimated level (see Table 3 ). Other noteworthy reductions in the proposed budget included significant proposed cuts in the "Related Programs" account, which funds a number of non-governmental institutions. The FY2016 request proposed a 20% lower level for these accounts overall, which would have meant budget reductions to, among other institutions, the East-West Center, the Asia Foundation, and the National Endowment for Democracy (cuts of 35%, 29%, and 23%, respectively). The following sections provide additional information about a number of particularly noteworthy elements within the State Operations accounts. H.R. 2772 would have provided $8.04 billion for Diplomatic and Consular Programs, both enduring and OCO, including $3.4 billion for Worldwide Security Protection. Nevertheless, Section 7077 of the legislation, "Preservation and Transparency of Department of State Records," would have withheld 15% of all non-Worldwide Security Protection funds (an estimated $700 million) from the Diplomatic and Consular Programs account until the Secretary of State certified and reported that the department has updated its procedures, guidance, and training to comply with federal regulations that all employees are properly preserving official records and ensuring their prompt accessibility. In addition, the measure would have required the department to develop and implement a plan to reduce backlog for information requests and improve response time. While the Senate committee measure would not have withheld funds for these purposes, Section 7077 of S. 1725 prohibited funding "to support the use or establishment of email accounts or email servers created outside the .gov domain or not fitted for automated records management as part of a Federal Government records management program." The Senate bill also requested a recurring report on pending congressional committee information requests, as well as a report on reducing the State Department's backlog of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. While not withholding the amount specified in the House committee bill, Section 7077 of P.L. 114-113 / H.R. 2029 requires a report from the Secretary of State and USAID Administrator to the Committees on Appropriations and to the National Archives and Records Administration that describes policies in place and improvements planned regarding email and record-keeping practices. Until the report is provided, $10 million is withheld from the Capital Investment Fund. The report is to be assessed by the GAO. The measure also prohibits the use of funding to support the use or establishment of email accounts or email servers created outside the .gov domain or not fitted for automated records management. Operations in the challenging environments of the three countries termed "frontline states"—Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq—continue to be a focus of attention by the department. Together, these three countries made up almost 18% of the department's overall request for operational funding. In contrast to its FY2015 request for operations in Afghanistan , which sought funding for facilities in multiple locations (including consulates in Herat and Mazar-e-Sharif, and presence in Kandahar and Jalalabad), the department's FY2016 request of $963 million would have funded a Kabul-only presence and returned 21 direct-hire positions to other priorities at the department, reflecting a more conservative approach in the wake of the ongoing U.S. military drawdown. An increase of 23% in enduring funding over FY2015-estimated levels was requested to enable the Embassy to be self-sustaining. The request for State operations in Pakistan was also impacted by the U.S. military drawdown in Afghanistan. The department sought to continue "normalizing" operations in that country, through an additional 21% increase in requested funding over FY2015 levels to $114 million, to compensate for reduced carryover funding from previous years. FY2016 funding requested for State operations in Iraq— a total of $1.1 billion — would have continued a trend of shifting OCO funding requests to enduring funding, with the latter category growing by 113%, and OCO decreasing by 5% from FY2015 levels. H.R. 2772 would not have provided a specific funding recommendation for operations in the frontline states, and explained in the accompanying report language regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan that this was a natural result of the continuing fluidity of staffing and programmatic requirements in those countries. In S. 1725 , Senate appropriators recommended the full amount of the President's budget request for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq under the Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP) and Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) headings. For Afghanistan, the measure included a regular reporting requirement on the number of U.S. personnel in-country under Chief of Mission authority, including locally employed staff and contractors. For Iraq operations, the Senate measure included a limitation prohibiting funding for construction, rehabilitation, or other improvements to U.S diplomatic facilities in Iraq on property for which no land-use agreement exists. P.L. 114-113 / H.R. 2029 does not specify funding levels for the frontline states, although it does designate $2.56 billion in OCO funds within the D&CP account "for the extraordinary costs of operations and security in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, areas of unrest, and high threat and high risk posts." Of this funding, the measure allocates $595 million for operations. The International Organizations accounts, including both Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) and Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA), would have seen a significant jump in funding under the FY2016 request, to $4.62 billion. Growth of nearly 29% for the two accounts over FY2015-estimated levels would have funded a number of Administration priorities. The CIO account funds the U.S. share of the assessed budgets of 45 international organizations. The FY2016 request sought $1.54 billion under this category, a 5% increase from FY2015-estimated levels that would have boosted funding to the U.N. and Affiliated Agencies, NATO, and other organizations. The CIO request did not include funds for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), although Administration officials suggest they will continue to seek a waiver from Congress to fund the organization. The CIPA request jumped 38% from FY2015 levels to $2.93 billion; this account funds a number of U.N. peacekeeping missions and international war crimes tribunals. Reasons for this proposed increase included (1) $380 million to cover projected outstanding assessments remaining from FY2015; (2) differences between the U.N.-assessed U.S. share of peacekeeping costs (28.36%) and the amount recognized by U.S. law (27.14%); and (3) growth in the scope and cost of U.N. peacekeeping missions in the Central African Republic, Somalia, and South Sudan. In addition, the Administration's FY2016 request included a $150 million Peace Operations Response Mechanism, a repeat proposal from the FY2015 request intended to support urgent—but as yet undefined—peacekeeping needs. The OCO funds requested for the Peace Operations Response Mechanism would have allowed State to support contingency operations without taking funds from other peacekeeping efforts in progress or returning to Congress for off-cycle budgetary requests, officials suggest. The proposal was not funded by appropriators in FY2015. House appropriators would not have provided the requested increase for these two accounts in H.R. 2772 , instead funding the CIPA and CIO accounts at the same level as enacted for FY2015 (and not providing any OCO funding). As in FY2015, the committee recommendation did not include an appropriation for a Peace Operations Response Mechanism. Senate appropriators would have provided $1.51 billion for the CIO account (in between the Administration's $1.54 billion request and the House's $1.47 billion), $52 million of which would be OCO funds. S. 1725 would have provided a significant increase from FY2015 for the CIPA account, to $2.75 billion (of which $505 million would be OCO funds), $177 million less than the President's request. As in FY2015, the committee recommendation did not include an appropriation for a Peace Operations Response Mechanism. P.L. 114-113 / H.R. 2029 includes $1.45 billion for the CIO account (of which $102 million are OCO funds) or $94 million less than requested. For the CIPA account, it provides $2.46 billion ($1.8 billion of which is OCO), or $470 million less than requested. Under the measure, 73% of CIPA funding is shifted to OCO from the base budget. As in FY2015, no funds are appropriated for a Peace Operations Response Mechanism. In the wake of the September 11, 2012, attack on U.S. personnel in Benghazi, Libya, congressional and executive branch efforts to better prepare U.S. diplomats and facilities abroad for security threats have continued. In its FY2016 budget, the Administration sought funding to continue to implement the initiatives launched under the FY2013 Increased Security Proposal and meet the post-Benghazi Accountability Review Board's (ARB's) recommendations. The request included approximately $3.4 billion in Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) funds to provide security personnel with technical tools and training, and approximately $1.4 billion in Worldwide Security Upgrades (WSU) funds to upgrade and maintain safe, secure diplomatic facilities. The FY2016 request for Worldwide Security Protection (WSP), which supports the Diplomatic Security Bureau's functions around the world, would have increased account funding by 9% over FY2015-estimated levels to $3.4 billion. Much of the increase in requested funding was for security measures in Iraq, which were funded by carryover funding in previous years. The WSP request also included a new request for $99 million that would have enabled the department to undertake the first phase of construction of the planned Foreign Affairs Security Training Center (FASTC), a new facility intended to consolidate diplomatic security training at Fort Pickett, Virginia. The request also included $50 million for security enhancements at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Libya, which has been under suspended operations since July 26, 2014. Physical security upgrades at diplomatic facilities, which are mostly funded through Worldwide Security Upgrades (WSU) under the Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance (ESCM) account, are managed by the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations. The WSU request for FY2016 was for $1.4 billion, a 4.5% decrease from FY2015-estimated levels. Within the ESCM request was $1 billion to provide for the Department of State's share of the Capital Security Cost Sharing (CSCS) program, which is an interagency shared funding mechanism designed to ensure each U.S. government agency represented abroad is paying its fair share of construction costs for new and more secure facilities. The amount requested was down from the $1.4 billion appropriated for this purpose for FY2014, a result of higher assessed contributions from other agencies into the common account. Department officials underlined that the CSCS request met the full $2.2 billion level called for by the post-Benghazi Accountability Review Board. Table 4 summarizes recent funding for the three accounts containing the bulk of funding for diplomatic security measures: Worldwide Security Protection (for security programs including a worldwide guard force), Worldwide Security Upgrades funding (for bricks and mortar security needs, including construction of secure new embassy compounds), and Diplomatic Security Bureau D&CP funding. Under H.R. 2772 , House appropriators would have provided the full enduring and OCO amounts requested for the Worldwide Security Protection account (WSP) and the Worldwide Security Upgrades (WSU) account. The bill prohibited the use of funds for the development of FASTC until the training center is specifically authorized by a subsequent act of Congress. Should the authorization not be provided before September 30, 2016, the appropriators allowed requested funds to be used to expand training at existing sites. Senate appropriators would also have provided the full amount requested under Worldwide Security Protection. The bill would have provided $1.3 billion for Worldwide Security Upgrades, meeting the President's request for enduring funding, but not an additional $124 million in requested OCO funding (which the House would provide). In addition, Section 7006 of the act would have provided authority for the Department of State to award local guard contracts globally on the basis of best value as determined by a cost-technical tradeoff analysis (an authority previously extended only to high-risk, high-threat posts), which the committee report stated is "essential to improving security at missions abroad." P.L. 114-113 / H.R. 2029 provides the full $3.40 billion requested for Worldwide Security Protection, although it shifts a greater proportion to OCO funds. It also provides $1.48 billion, or roughly $60 million more than requested, for Worldwide Security Upgrades. The measure funds the requested FASTC, but only after submission of an outside firm's cost-benefit analysis of three different locations under consideration for locating the training facility. The measure, in Section 7006, also expands the previously geographically limited authority for the State Department to award local guard contracts on the basis of best value as determined by a cost-technical tradeoff analysis, while requiring notification for each such instance at a facility not deemed high threat and high risk. With the support of Congress, the Foreign Service grew by almost 20% between FY2008 and FY2012, and the department's Civil Service by 7% over that same time period. The growth was an attempt to address what many observers saw as chronic personnel shortfalls that were worsened by a sudden need to fill large numbers of overseas positions in the frontline states. The Foreign Service is now experiencing a youth bulge, with junior officers hired in these years beginning to move into the mid-levels of the service. The Administration's FY2016 request for Human Resources (under Diplomatic & Consular Programs) was 1% higher than FY2015-enacted levels, at a total of $2.4 billion. The request indicated that the department sought 39 new positions funded by appropriations (12 Foreign Service and 27 Civil Service), although 21 of these would have been realigned from previously existing positions based in Afghanistan. The department also sought funding throughout the request to address what it terms a gap in the pay of Locally Employed Staff at its overseas posts, relative to local salary conditions. State's more than 46,000 local employees make up upwards of 65% of the department's total workforce; the department seeks to ensure that working as part of U.S. diplomatic missions abroad remains an attractive proposition. Among other personnel-related issues, the department's request notably did not include additional funding for Overseas Comparability Pay (OCP) (as it did in recent years, although not in FY2015). OCP adjustment is intended to bring the base pay of Foreign Service personnel posted overseas to levels comparable to their Foreign Service colleagues serving in Washington, DC, who receive locality pay. OCP has long been a priority of the Foreign Service rank-and-file, who argue that the discrepancy affects morale, retention of FSOs, and acts as a financial disincentive to serve overseas, including by its cumulative impact on retirement pay. The department sought $81.4 million in FY2014 funding to provide the third portion of a three-phase adjustment, the first two tranches of which were supported by Congress in previous years. The third OCP phase has not been supported by congressional appropriators to date. H.R. 2772 would have provided a total of $2.32 billion for Department of State human resources, or 4% less than requested. S. 1725 would have provided $2.24 billion for human resources, and did not support funding for new positions other than those explicitly described in report language. P.L. 114-113 / H.R. 2029 allocates $2.18 billion for human resources, and does not provide funds requested for new non-security position other than those explicitly described in the joint explanatory statement . The legislation continues the prohibition on implementation of the third phase of overseas comparability pay. The Foreign Operations budget funds most traditional foreign aid programs, with the exception of food aid. It includes bilateral economic aid, multilateral aid, security assistance, and export promotion programs, as well as USAID administrative accounts. For FY2016, the Administration requested about $36.53 billion for Foreign Operations accounts, 1.2% more than the FY2015 estimate. Within this, about $5.2 billion was requested with the OCO designation. The FY2016 State-Foreign Operations legislation approved by the appropriations committees of both the House and Senate provided less than requested for foreign operations accounts. The legislation approved by the House appropriations committee ( H.R. 2772 ) included $32.22 billion for Foreign Operations accounts, including $5.55 billion designated as OCO. Overall, this was about 12% less than the Administration requested and 11% less than FY2015 estimated funding. The bill passed by Senate appropriators ( S. 1725 ) included a total of $32.92 billion for foreign operations accounts, about 10% less than requested. This included not only $6.82 billion designated as OCO, but an additional $759 million designated as humanitarian and emergency response (a designation, like OCO, which precludes these funds from being counted toward the BCA caps). The enacted legislation ( P.L. 114-113 ; H.R. 2029 ) appropriates $37.53 billion for foreign operations accounts, of which $9.61 billion is designated as OCO and $1.18 billion as emergency funding. This is about 3% more than requested for FY2016 and 4% above FY2015 foreign operations estimates. Figure 5 shows the FY2016 foreign operations request broken out proportionately by the categories typically used in appropriations legislation, while Table 5 shows the funding trend for each category for FY2014, FY2015, the FY2016 request and enacted legislation. (The overall foreign operations 10-year trend line is depicted in Figure 1 .) The House committee bill, H.R. 2772 , matched the Administration's requested security assistance increase, exceeded the humanitarian assistance request by 18%, and would have provided less than the requested amount for all other categories of aid. Multilateral assistance would have been reduced significantly, with a recommended funding level 58% below the request and 48% lower than the current year estimate. The Economic Support Fund (ESF) account would also have been reduced significantly, though it is not clear exactly which programs might have been affected. S. 1725 , the Senate committee bill, would have provided less than the Administration request for every aid category except humanitarian assistance, for which it recommended 8% more than requested, but came closer than the Senate to meeting the requests for bilateral economic assistance and multilateral assistance. Still, the Senate recommendation on multilateral aid was only about 55% of the amount requested, and about 31% less than FY2015 enacted funding, with sharply reduced contributions to international financial institutions reflecting "an austere budget environment," according to the accompanying report. Unlike the House bill, the Senate bill would have provided the requested $295 million for an International Monetary Fund (IMF) quota increase, which was counted in the multilateral totals. The enacted legislation, P.L. 114-113 / H.R. 2029 , provides more than requested, and more than recommended by both the House and Senate committees, for humanitarian assistance, though the enacted funding level is still below the unusually high FY2015 funding level. The legislation also funds security assistance at 4.5% above the FY2015 level, higher than the request and House and Senate proposals. Multilateral funding includes $1.18 billion in emergency funds for an IMF quota increase, bringing the multilateral total far beyond the House and Senate committee levels, but the IMF funds are offset in total budget terms by a rescission of prior year emergency funding. Under the FY2016 request, top foreign assistance recipients would not have differed significantly from FY2014 (complete FY2015 country data are not yet available). Israel would continue to be the top recipient, with a requested $3.1 billion (level with FY2014) in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) funds, followed by Afghanistan, for which $1.5 billion was requested (a 28% increase from FY2014). Egypt would have received $1.5 billion (-3% from FY2014), largely in FMF to support shared security interests, and Jordan would have received $1.0 billion (-1% from FY2014) to promote security and stability in the region as well as address economic and security strains related to the crisis in Syria. Pakistan would have received $804 million (a 10% cut from FY2014), to continue ongoing efforts to increase stability and prosperity in the region. Other top recipients under the request would have included Kenya ($630 million), Nigeria ($608 million), Tanzania ($591 million), and other African nations that are focus countries for HIV/AIDS programs. A new addition to the top recipient list under the request would have been Ukraine, for which $514 million was requested, as discussed further below. Figure 6 shows the proposed FY2016 foreign operations budget allocations by region and country. Funding allocation among regions would have changed slightly under the FY2016 request compared with FY2014 (FY2015 regional data are not yet available), with Europe/Eurasia and the Western Hemisphere increasing their share by 2% each as a result of proposed funding for Ukraine and Central America. Africa's share of aid funding would have declined by about 5% from FY2014 estimates. The House committee-passed bill did not include comprehensive country allocations, but the committee report did specify aid levels for Israel ($3.1 billion) and Jordan (no less than $1 billion) and emphasized the committee's particular support for assisting Ukraine, Afghanistan, Mexico, and Colombia. The report accompanying the Senate-passed legislation, S.Rept. 114-79 , provided unusually detailed account allocation tables. While it did not comprehensively list country allocations, it details funding by account to several countries of particular interest: Israel ($3.100 billion), Afghanistan ($3.168 billion), Jordan ($1.175 billion), Iraq ($335 million), Egypt ($1.456 billion), Lebanon ($201 million), Pakistan ($1.942 billion), Ukraine ($514 million), and West Bank/Gaza ($362 million), among others. The report also recommended up to $675 million to support the U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America. Notably, the Senate bill would also have reestablished the Assistance to Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia (AEECA) account, defunct for several years, recommending a total of $853.93 million for regions that have generally seen assistance levels decline over the past decade. The AEECA funding would have incorporated many programs for which the Administration requested funding under the ESF and INCLE accounts. P.L. 114-113 / H.R. 2029 does not include comprehensive regional or country allocations, but does fund a reestablished AEECA account at $930 million (including OCO funds), and states that up to $750 million appropriated in the economic and security assistance accounts may be used to implement the U.S. engagement strategy in Central America, indicating potential growth in foreign assistance to the Europe/Eurasia and the Western Hemisphere in FY2016. As requested, Israel received $3.10 billion in Foreign Military Financing aid. Egypt may receive up to $1.30 billion in FMF, and $150 million in ESF, though a portion of the assistance is conditioned on meeting democracy and human rights requirements. Jordan is to receive no less than $1.275 billion, and Ukraine no less than $658 million in economic and security assistance (not including possible OCO funding). The Obama Administration's four broad foreign assistance initiatives would have continued to play a major role under the FY2016 budget request, accounting for about 30% of the total foreign operations request. House and Senate appropriators expressed different views on these initiatives in their committee-approved FY2016 legislation, fully supporting some, seemingly ignoring others, and asserting their own priorities through suballocation recommendations. Both the House and Senate proposals were notably less supportive than the Administration of the multilateral components of these initiatives. The request for the Global Health Programs account was $8.18 billion, or 6.7% less than the FY2015-estimated funding, including emergency Ebola funding. Excluding the Ebola funds, the request was a 3% decrease from the FY2015 estimate. Requested resources would have been focused on HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention, maternal and child health, and stopping infectious diseases. Of the total requested, $5.43 billion was requested for the State Department, almost all for HIV/AIDS-related activities. The proposed reduction in funding would have come largely from a reduced U.S. contribution to the Global Fund, the multilateral component of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The Global Fund contribution would have declined by 18%, or $244 million, from FY2015. In contrast, the U.S. contribution to GAVI, the vaccine alliance, would have increased by 18%, or $35 million, reflecting a four-year, $1 billion commitment made by the Administration in 2014. The request would also have provided a slight increase over the FY2015 estimate for family planning and reproductive health programs (+2.7%). The House and Senate committee-approved bills both included more funding for global health programs than requested by the Administration, with the House bill including $8.454 billion (equal to the FY2015 estimate, excluding emergency Ebola funds) and the Senate $8.468 billion. Both committees recommended flat funding for HIV/AIDS programs, rejecting the Administration's proposed reduction in the U.S. contribution to the Global Fund. The House proposal would also have provided more than requested for maternal and child health, nutrition, and vulnerable children, while recommending less than the request for family planning and reproductive health programs. The Senate committee recommendation matched the request for family planning and reproductive health programs; recommended more than requested for nutrition, vulnerable children, and some infectious diseases; and would have provided less than requested for maternal and child health programs. H.R. 2029 / P.L. 114-113 appropriated $8,503.5 million for global health programs, about 3% below the FY2015 estimate. The explanatory statement accompanying the legislation detailed global health suballocations that are very similar to the FY2015 suballocations, but without Ebola emergency funds. Maternal and child health funding increases by $35 million (all of which can be attributed to an increase in the U.S. contribution to the GAVI alliance), nutrition by $10 million, malaria by $4.5 million, and infectious diseases by $3.5 million. Table 6 compares the major suballocations within global health programs for FY2015 with those requested by the Administration and recommended by the House and Senate appropriations committees for FY2016, as well as those enacted in P.L. 114-113 . The Administration's food security initiative, Feed the Future, would have received just over $1 billion in the FY2016 request, an 8% drop from the FY2014 funding level (a FY2015 funding estimate is not yet available), primarily through the Development Assistance (DA) account. The initiative promotes agricultural productivity, expanding markets, improved nutrition, and economic resilience in vulnerable rural communities. Funds requested for FY2016 would have supported programs to build agriculture sector resilience to climate change, promote nutrition-sensitive agriculture, and adapt to recurring shocks such as droughts and floods. The proposal would have shifted funding toward countries for which additional funds are deemed necessary to reach targeted goals, and reduced funding to countries for which prior year funding was expected to remain available. New funding would have been provided for Guinea and Sierra Leone, to accelerate food security programming and build resilience in the wake of the Ebola crisis. The request also included $43 million for the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), the multilateral component of the initiative, consistent with a pledge to provide $1 for every $2 provided by other donors. In addition, the request included $30 million for the first tranche of funding to replenish the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). H.R. 2772 included $1.00 billion for bilateral food security and agricultural development activities but would not have directly funded U.S. contributions to the related multilateral programs. The committee report noted, however, that bilateral funds may have been used to provide grants to GAFSP for activities in Feed the Future countries. S. 1725 also allocated $1.00 billion in bilateral assistance for food security and agricultural development. An additional $21.5 million, half the amount requested, was included for a U.S. contribution to the GAFSP. H.R. 2029 / P.L. 114-113 allocates $1.00 billion for bilateral food security and agricultural development activities and an additional $53.0 million for GAFSP and $31.9 million for IFAD. GCCI would have received a major funding boost under the request, increasing 55% from FY2014 funding (a FY2015 funding estimate is not yet available) to $1.29 billion in FY2016. The initiative continues to focus bilateral resources in three areas: adaptation, clean energy, and sustainable landscapes, for which funding would have declined 4% from FY2014 under the request. The increase in total funding was largely attributable to a proposed contribution ($500 million, split between State and Treasury accounts) to a multilateral Green Climate Fund, to which the Administration pledged $3 billion in November 2014. The fund is intended to succeed the multilateral Climate Investment Funds to which the United States will complete a four-year, $2 billion pledge with proposed FY2016 funding. The Administration asserted that the requested contribution was an important demonstration of U.S. leadership and would help leverage contributions from other donors as well as leverage binding emission reduction targets from all countries (e.g., China, India) during the ongoing U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations. H.R. 2772 , as passed by the full House Appropriations Committee, made no mention of the GCCI, eliminated funding for the multilateral climate investment funds, and provided no funding for the Green Climate Fund. S. 1725 , as passed by Senate appropriators, did not establish a specific allocation for climate change programs. The report recommended U.S. contributions to the multilateral climate funds at half the requested levels: $85.34 million for the Clean Technology Fund, $29.81 million for the Strategic Climate Fund, and $84.13 for the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The bill did not include a specific allocation for a Green Climate Fund, but the report noted that other funds in the act, or enacted in prior foreign operations appropriations, may have been used for this purpose with proper congressional notification. H.R. 2029 / P.L. 114-113 and the accompanying explanatory statement do not specify a funding level for the global climate change initiative or mention the Green Climate Fund, but allocate $59.62 for the Strategic Climate Fund ($49.9 million in the SCF account, plus $9.72 million to be transferred from ESF), $170.68 million for the Clean Technology Fund, and $168.26 million for the GEF. The Administration requested $77 million in FY2016 for Power Africa, a public-private collaboration launched in 2013 to increase access to power in sub-Saharan Africa. The Administration committed to $300 million in annual funding for the initiative at the 2014 U.S.-African Leaders' Summit where a goal was established to generate 30,000 megawatts of new, cleaner electricity, accessible by at least 60 million households and businesses. Budget documents explained that the $77 million requested through the Development Assistance account would have been supplemented by additional money made available from prior-year funding, as well as funding through agencies such as MCC and the U.S. Africa Development Foundation, to fully meet the U.S. commitment. $47 million was requested for Trade in Africa, though budget documents explain that additional money would be made available from prior-year funding. For the first time, the request also included $110 million for an African Peacekeeping Rapid Response Partnership, which was described as a partnership to increase the capacity of six African countries to rapidly deploy military peacekeepers to address conflict in the region. The request also included $24 million for a new Security Governance Initiative, a joint Department of Defense-State Department program to improve governance and capacity in the security sector of partner countries. H.R. 2772 did not specify funding levels for any of these initiatives. The accompanying report noted that the legislation did support the ongoing Global Peace Operations initiative, which "has a similar mandate" to the African Peacekeeping Raid Response Partnership. S. 1725 included $76.7 million for Power Africa, nearly matching the Administration request, and recommended, from within the Peacekeeping Operations account, $20 million for an African Peacekeeping Rapid Response Partnership and $16.85 million for a Security Governance Initiative. H.R. 2029 / P.L. 114-113 funds Power Africa at $76.7 billion (Development Assistance account) and allocates $55 million for an African Peacekeeping Rapid Response Partnership and $16.85 million for a Security Governance Initiative. Within the FY2016 foreign operations request, $5.2 billion, or about 14.5%, was requested as OCO funding for "extraordinary costs" of assistance in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Ukraine. This was down from 20.8% estimated for FY2015 and 15.1% in FY2014. A significant portion of requested foreign operations OCO funding continued to be for activities in the frontline states of Afghanistan ($1.21 billion), Iraq ($311 million), and Pakistan ($600 million), for which the designation was originally proposed. Unlike State operations, foreign operations country requests did not a show a clear shift of funds in recent years from OCO to base funding in these countries. Humanitarian accounts also made up a large portion of the OCO request, including $810 million within the International Disaster Assistance (IDA) request and $819 million within the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) request. These funds were not requested by country, but the Administration anticipated they would be needed primarily for Syria, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and Iraq. The request also included OCO funds for opposition support in Syria ($235 million), broad economic and military support activities in Jordan ($327 million), the State Department portion of a proposed new Counterterrorism Partnership Fund ($390 million), for which funding has also been requested through the Defense appropriation, and assistance to Ukraine ($317 million) to support a potential $1 billion loan guarantee and supply military equipment. As reported by committee, H.R. 2772 included $5.55 billion designated as OCO in Foreign Operations accounts, about 7% more than requested and nearly 26% less than the FY2015 estimate. Much of the increase in relation to the request was for the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA), International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE), Foreign Military Financing (FMF), and Peacekeeping Operations accounts. In the case of Peacekeeping Operations, the OCO increase would have been largely offset by a reduction in enduring funds. The legislation provided less OCO funding than requested for the Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and Related (NADR) account. The Senate committee bill, S. 1725 , designated $6.82 billion, or more than 21% of the foreign operations funds in the bill, as OCO. The increase over the Administration request (+31%) was spread across several accounts, though the bulk was in IDA and MRA, as well as Foreign Military Financing. The Senate bill also would have designated $759 million in additional IDA and MRA assistance as emergency response, a designation, like OCO, which precludes counting it against the BCA caps. With the OCO and emergency funding designations, about 23% of the foreign operations funding proposed in the Senate bill would have been outside the scope of the BCA caps. The enacted legislation, P.L. 114-113 , designates $9.612 billion as OCO within a dozen foreign operations accounts and with few geographic restrictions. This is 85% more than requested and 28% more than FY2015 OCO funding. The notable increase can be attributed to The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, passed subsequent to the House and Senate committee action, which provided that a minimum of $14.9 billion be appropriated for OCO within the international affairs budget for FY2016 and FY2017. An additional $1.18 billion, all for an International Monetary Fund quota increase, was designated as emergency funding. The increase in OCO, however, was largely offset in the foreign operations accounts by decreases in the base budget of various accounts, suggesting that the additional OCO and emergency funds were used to free up base budget authority rather than indicate that particular activities or expenditures are considered extraordinary or temporary. The FY2016 foreign operations request would have increased U.S. financial commitments toward responding to the crisis in Syria and fighting the Islamic State (IS). The Administration identified $1.82 billion in its FY2016 request for these purposes, including $255 million for non-humanitarian assistance to support opposition groups within Syria. Of this amount, $65 million was requested from the peacekeeping operations (PKO) account to provide non-lethal assistance to vetted members of the armed Syrian opposition, in parallel to the Department of Defense-led train and equip program, for which the Administration had requested $600 million in defense funding. Most of the requested foreign operations funding would have been used to address the impact of the crisis on Syria's neighbors. The Administration identified its entire $1 billion request for Jordan as helping to counter IS and mitigate Syria-related economic and security concerns. The Administration also requested $335 million to strengthen Iraq's counterterrorism capabilities and $211 million to assist Lebanon in meeting the needs of Syrian refugees and addressing the IS threat. The overall "Syria and Counter-ISIL" request was a 17% increase over FY2014 funding for this purpose (FY2015 funding data are not available). An additional $1.6 billion in U.S. humanitarian assistance was requested for the region to respond to the Syria-Iraq crises in FY2016. The House committee-passed bill, H.R. 2772 , did not specify a funding level for Syria-related activities but did identify $104 million above FY2015 funding to address the issue of foreign fighters, fully funded the International Disaster Assistance request, maintained funding for Migration and Refugee Assistance at the historically high FY2015 level ($3.06 billion, or 25% more than requested), and allocated $100 million in Economic Support Fund money for Syrian refugee host communities, especially in Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon. The Senate committee report, S.Rept. 114-79 , identified $195 million in the Senate committee bill for non-lethal assistance to Syria, primarily through the Economic Support Fund and Peacekeeping Operations accounts. The bill also included $1.175 billion for Jordan, along with a provision stating that additional funding shall be made available to implement the Jordan Response Plan 2015 for the Syria Crisis, including assistance for host communities in Jordan. The bill's allocation for Iraq, $355.4 million, also came with a provision saying that the funds may have been used to address needs in areas affected by the Syria crisis. In the humanitarian accounts, the Senate bill included $1.895 million for IDA, or 8.8% more than requested, and $2,644 million for MRA, a 7.8% increase over the request. Unlike the request or the House legislation, the Senate bill designated a portion ($298 million of IDA and $461 million of MRA) of the humanitarian funding in the bill as "emergency spending." The Senate committee bill also included a new general provision on countering violent extremism, Section 7073, which recommends not less than $141.152 million be used for this purpose. The provision required that funds be made available to counter the flow of foreign terrorist fighters and to strengthen governance and security in fragile states bordering countries where violent extremist groups operate. The explanatory statement accompanying H.R. 2029 / P.L. 114-113 identifies $100 million in ESF funds and $65 million in PKO funds, to be used for a variety of non-lethal programs aimed at strengthening civil society and representative governance, among other things, in Syria. The legislation also includes a Section 7073 describing ways in which funds in the act may be used to counter foreign fighters and violent extremist movements, but does not allocate a particular level of funding for this purpose. Assistance to Jordan, totaling $1.275 billion, is specifically made available to implement the Jordan Response Plan 2015 for the Syrian crisis. The bulk of assistance related to Syria and IS, as in past years, will likely be humanitarian in nature. The enacted funding level for MRA is $3,059.0 million, level with the FY2015 estimate and almost 25% more than requested. While this funding is not allocated in the legislation by country or crisis, a large portion of the funds will likely be used to address the Syrian refugee crisis. The FY2016 foreign operations request for Afghanistan was $1.514 billion (+28% from FY2014), which was consistent with the 2012 Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework. The funding was provided primarily though the Economic Support Fund (OCO) account, and intended to support the new Afghan government and continue a trend away from stabilization and infrastructure programs. The request included $804 million for Pakistan (-10% from FY2014) to support regional stability, counterterrorism, and long-term political and economic stability. Stability and prosperity in Pakistan are seen by the Administration as essential to maintaining gains in Afghanistan. The request described funding for both countries as consistent with a responsible glide path, demonstrating that the United States is not abandoning the region even as the U.S. military presence declines. H.R. 2772 did not specify assistance levels for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The committee report ( H.Rept. 114-154 ) stated that funding for these countries would remain under continuous review as circumstances in the region evolve, and the Administration was directed to develop its programming plans for these countries in consultation with the appropriations committees. S. 1725 included $939 million in new foreign operations funds for Afghanistan, largely through the ESF and INCLE accounts, and noted in the report that an additional $3.168 billion in previously appropriated funds were expected to remain available to carry over into FY2016. For Pakistan, the bill recommended $625.8 million in new assistance funds, primarily through ESF and FMF, with the report noting that an additional $1,317 million in previously appropriated but unobligated carryover funds were expected to be available. The committee report noted improved relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and encouraged "continued cooperation on issues of mutual interest." P.L. 114-113 and the accompanying report include several provisions to restrict or condition U.S. assistance to Afghanistan and Pakistan, but provide little direction with respect to funding levels. Money in the act is made available for Afghanistan for the purposes of promoting rule of law, protecting the rights of women and girls, expanding linkages between Afghanistan and neighboring countries, and assisting the government with revenue collection and expenditure. With the exception of rule of law programs, for which no less than $50 million is to be made available, no funding levels are specified for these objectives. While funding made available through the ESF and INCLE accounts is specified to be contingent on a number of corruption, human rights and sustainability conditions in Afghanistan, no allocations from these accounts are specified for Afghanistan except for $10 million (and $7.5 million for Pakistan) to assist civilian victims of war. Similarly, an unspecified level of INCLE funds are to be made available for Pakistan to build the capacity of the civilian justice system to conduct counterterrorism investigations and prosecution, while programs for the recruitment and retention of women in Pakistan's security and police forces are to be funded at the FY 2015 level. Nevertheless, the FY2016 enacted legislation has an unprecedented level of OCO-designated foreign operations funds, which may be used in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and for which little guidance is provided in the bill or explanatory statement. The budget request included $639.8 million (+283% from FY2014) in FY2016 to bolster Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia against "Russian aggression and pressure." Of this, $513.5 million was for Ukraine, primarily from Economic Support Funds, to promote economic reforms, advance democracy and anti-corruption efforts, and support an additional $1 billion loan guarantee if progress was made on IMF reforms. Funding for Moldova ($49.1 million) and Georgia ($77.2 million) would have supported greater security, democracy, and accountability, as well as closer integration with Europe. All three countries would have received Foreign Military Financing funds to address military equipment shortfalls and improve interoperability with NATO and other Western forces. H.R. 2772 , as reported by House appropriators, included $524 million for security and economic stability assistance to the Ukraine, as well as funds to support broadcasting to counter Russian propaganda. Accompanying report language stated that International Disaster Assistance funding in the bill may have been used to assist people displaced by the conflict in Ukraine. The bill also included Foreign Military Financing funds for Ukraine ($47 million), Georgia ($20 million), and Moldova ($12.75 million) as well as $50 million designated as OCO "for European and Eurasian countries facing Russian aggression." The Senate bill, S. 1725 , would have reestablished the Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia (AEECA) account, which has not been used in recent years, "to more effectively counter Russian influence and pressure." The committee recommended $853.9 million for the account (of which about $411 million would have been designated as OCO). Within that total, $433 million was for Ukraine, including $275 million to support a loan guarantee. Georgia would have received $54 million in AEECA funds, and Moldova about $35 million. Additional funding from the FMF, NADR, IMET, and Global Health Programs would have brought total Ukraine assistance to $513.5 million. Georgia ($20 million) and Moldova ($12.75 million) would have received FMF funds as well. H.R. 2029 / P.L. 114-113 provides no less than $658 million for assistance to Ukraine and funds the AEECA account at $930 million ($439 designated OCO) to support programs in the region previously funded through ESF. Funds are to be used to support the "Eastern Partnership" countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine) to implement trade agreements with the European Union, reduce their vulnerability to external economic and political pressure from the Russian Federation, and support democracy and the rule of law. The bill also authorizes the use of ESF and AEECA funds to support loan guarantees for Ukraine. A notable shift in regional funding proposed by the Administration for FY2016 was the $1 billion requested for Central America, a region for which funding has generally stagnated in recent years. The request was 225% more than the FY2014 funding level, and would have supported a whole-of-government U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America aimed at promoting economic prosperity, security, and good governance in the region as a means of stemming the flow of undocumented migration. The primary recipients of the requested funds would have been El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Of the total requested, $287 million was allocated for the Central American Regional Security Initiative (CARSI). H.R. 2772 and the committee report ( H.Rept. 114-154 ) noted the committee's particular emphasis on security concerns related to Central America. The bill allocated $296.5 million for CARSI, as well as additional assistance to Mexico for securing that country's southern border. Non-security assistance for El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras was not specified. In S.Rept. 114-79 , Senate appropriators detailed $675.3 million in foreign operations funds allocated to implement the Plan of the Alliance for Prosperity in the Northern Triangle of Central America. Specific allocations and conditions attached to the funds were laid out in Section 7045(a) of S. 1725 . Within the total, $231.5 million was allocated for CARSI, about $84 million for other security and military assistance, and approximately $360 million for development and health programs, primarily in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. H.R. 2029 / P.L. 114-113 provides up to $750 million in assistance from the DA, ESF, FMF, IMET, Global Health, INCLE and NADR accounts to implement the U.S. Strategy for Engagement with Central America, emphasizing that priority should be given to programs addressing the root causes of migration from the Northern Triangle by unaccompanied minors. Of the total, $222 million is allocated for CARSI. A full breakdown of the funding allocated to implement the strategy is in Section 7045 of the explanatory statement. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, by Account International Affairs (150) Function Funding

Summary: On February 2, 2015, the Obama Administration submitted to Congress its budget request for FY2016. The request for State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) totals $54.08 billion, or a 4% increase from FY2015-estimated levels. Within that amount $47.04 billion is requested for enduring or core funding and $7.05 billion is designated as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding, excluding add-ons and rescissions; $17.55 billion of the total request is for State Department Operations and related agencies (10.6% increase over FY2015 estimates); $36.53 billion is for Foreign Operations (1.2% above the FY2015 estimates); excluding the FY2015 Ebola supplemental funding, the State Department Operations FY2016 request is a 10.9% increase over FY2015 estimates, and the Foreign Operations FY2016 request is a 7% increase over FY2015 funding estimates. House and Senate committees held several hearings on various aspects of the international affairs budget in February and March. Both chambers passed FY2016 budget resolutions in late March. The House (on April 30, 2015) and the Senate (on May 5, 2015) reconciled budget resolution funding levels in conference (H.Rept. 114-96); however, OCO suballocations were not established. The House Appropriations Committee reported its FY2016 SFOPS bill out of committee on June 11, 2015. The House committee bill (H.R. 2772; H.Rept. 114-154) recommended $48.19 billion in total funding, excluding rescissions, but including $7.33 billion designated as OCO. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported its FY2016 bill out of committee on July 9, 2015. The Senate committee bill (S. 1725; S.Rept. 114-79) recommended $49.77 billion in total funding, excluding rescissions, but including $9.48 billion designated as OCO and $759 million in emergency funds. On September 30, 2015, the House and Senate approved, and President Obama signed into law, a resolution (P.L. 114-53) to provide temporary FY2016 continuing appropriations through December 11, 2015. On October 5, 2015, the Senate SFOPS bill was incorporated in a national security-related "minibus" bill (S. 2130), one of four minibus bills into which Senate FY2016 appropriations bills were bundled. On October 6, Senate SFOPS leaders introduced supplemental appropriations legislation (S. 2145) to increase FY2016 migration and refugee assistance funding by $1 billion to address the Middle East refugee crisis. On November 2, 2015, the President signed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (H.R. 1314; P.L. 114-74), which raises the discretionary spending limit by $50 billion for FY2016 and $30 billion for FY2017 (thus increasing spending caps for defense and nondefense for those years), and increases OCO funding by $16 billion for each year, equally divided between DOD and SFOPS. On December 18, 2015, Congress passed an omnibus appropriations law for FY2016 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016; P.L. 114-113/H.R. 2029), and the President signed it the same day. Division K of the law provides $52.83 billion for the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) for FY2016. This amount is 1.7% greater than the FY2015 estimate and 0.2% below the President's FY2016 request. This report provides an overview of the FY2016 SFOPS request, a discussion of key issues and historic context, and account-by-account funding comparisons with FY2014 actuals, available FY2015 estimates, FY2016 proposals and P.L. 114-113. This is the final update of this report, unless supplemental appropriations legislation is considered by Congress during FY2016.