Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2022 Budget and Appropriations

Changes from February 28, 2022 to April 1, 2022

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with ~~red strikethrough~~ and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and
~~February 28~~April 1, 2022 , 2022
Related Programs: FY2022 Budget and
Cory R. Gill
Appropriations
Analyst in Foreign Affairs Analyst in Foreign Affairs

Each year, Congress considers 12 distinct appropriations measures to fund federal Each year, Congress considers 12 distinct appropriations measures to fund federal ~~programs and~~
Marian L. Lawson
programs and activities. One of these is the Department of State, Foreign Operations, activities. One of these is the Department of State, Foreign Operations, ~~and Related Programs~~
Section Research Manager Section Research Manager
and Related Programs (SFOPS) bill, which includes funding for U.S. diplomatic (SFOPS) bill, which includes funding for U.S. diplomatic activities, cultural exchanges, activities, cultural exchanges,

development and security assistance, and participation in development and security assistance, and participation in Emily M. Morgenstern multilateral organizations, among other multilateral organizations, among other
international activities.international activities. Analyst in Foreign Assistance and Foreign On May 28, 2021, the Biden Administration released its proposed On May 28, 2021, the Biden Administration released its proposed
~~Emily M. Morgenstern~~
~~FY2022 budget request, which called for $62.656 billion in new budget authority for SFOPS~~
~~Analyst in Foreign~~
~~accounts ($62.121 billion net of rescissions of prior year funding).~~
~~Assistance and Foreign~~
~~Policy~~

~~The~~FY2022 budget Policy request, which called for $62.121 billion, after rescissions of prior year funds, for SFOPS accounts. The original FY2022 request was about 13% less than the total FY2022 request was about 13% less than the total ~~FY2021~~ FY2021-enacted level, which included enacted level, which included
nearly $16 billion in emergency funds, but 11.nearly $16 billion in emergency funds, but 11.4% 5% more than enacted FY2021 levels when more than enacted FY2021 levels when

emergency funding emergency funding ~~is excluded. Recent annual budget proposals and appropriations measures~~
~~have divided these funds into two main components:~~
~~ Department of State and Related Agency accounts. These funds, provided in Title I of the SFOPS~~
~~appropriation, primarily support Department of State diplomatic and security activities and would increase~~
~~by nearly 5% under the FY2022 request compared with FY2021 total enacted levels. The Administration~~
~~proposed noteworthy increases for contributions to international organizations, international peacekeeping~~
~~activities, and diversity and inclusion programming, among other priorities.~~
~~ The Foreign Operations accounts. These funds, provided in Titles II-VI of the SFOPS bill, fund most~~
~~foreign assistance activities. These accounts would see an almost 19% reduction under the FY2022 request~~
~~compared with total enacted FY2021 funding, but an increase of 12% if FY2021 emergency funds are~~
~~excluded. The Administration proposed increases for multilateral assistance, including contributions to~~
~~multilateral efforts to combat climate change. Other notable proposals include increases to the Global~~
~~Health Programs, Development Assistance, and Economic Support Fund accounts—in part to address the~~
~~first- and second-order effects of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic—as well as an~~
~~increase to USAID’s operating account to hire new personnel and invest in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion~~
~~efforts.~~
~~The House Appropriations Committee passed a FY2021 SFOPS bill, H.R. 4373, on July 1, 2021, which was approved by the~~
~~full House on July 28, 2021. The bill would provide a total of $62.401 billion in net budget authority for SFOPS accounts~~
~~($62.976 billion pre-rescissions). FY2022 SFOPS legislation, S. 3075, was introduced in the Senate on October 26; no further~~
~~action has been taken. Three continuing resolutions have been enacted to continue funding federal agencies in FY2022,~~
~~largely at FY2021 levels, while final action on appropriations is pending. The current continuing resolution, P.L. 117-86,~~
~~extends appropriations through March 11, 2022.~~
~~An account-by-account comparison of the FY2022 SFOPS request, House-passed FY2022 SFOPS legislation, and FY2021~~
~~SFOPS enacted funding is presented in~~ ~~Appendix A~~was excluded. The Administration submitted a supplemental emergency budget request that included $9.35 billion in SFOPS accounts on March 2, 2022, to address Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the ongoing global COVID-19 response. This brought the total FY2022 SFOPS request to $71.371 billion, net of rescissions. The House of Representatives passed a FY2022 SFOPS bill, H.R. 4373, on July 28, 2021. The bill would have provided a total of $62.401 billion in net budget authority for SFOPS accounts. FY2022 SFOPS legislation, S. 3075, was introduced in the Senate on October 26, 2021; no further action was taken. Congress enacted four continuing resolutions to fund federal agencies in FY2022, largely at FY2021 levels but including $3.448 billion in additional emergency SFOPS funding, before enacting an omnibus appropriations bill, P.L. 117-103, which the President signed into law on March 15, 2022. The legislation provided $63.059 billion in net SFOPS funding, of which $6.80 billion was emergency funding for Ukraine. Total enacted SFOPS funding for FY2022, including P.L. 117-103 and emergency funding in continuing resolutions, is $66.507 billion after rescissions, or about 7% below both the FY2021 total enacted level and the Administration’s amended FY2022 request. Within Department of State and Related Agencies accounts, total enacted funding levels for the core operations and security accounts were similar in FY2021 and FY2022, to date. Significant changes were seen within some smaller State Department accounts, including the Capital Investment Fund (+20%), Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service (+3968%), and Repatriation Loans (-48%), and in related accounts, including Contributions to International Organizations (+10%), International Broadcasting Operations (+10%), and the U.S. Institute for Peace (+20%). Within Foreign Operations accounts, there were several notable changes between FY2021- and FY2022-enacted funding levels, largely reflecting a shift in the focus of emergency funding from addressing COVID-19 to addressing the crises in Afghanistan and Ukraine. Funding increased significantly for the Assistance to Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia (+110%), Migration and Refugee Assistance (+17%), Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (+355%), and the International Development Finance Corporation (+65%) accounts, among others, while decreasing substantially for Global Health Programs (-26%), Economic Support Fund (-62%), and International Organizations and Programs (-56%), among others. Appendix A presents an account-by-account comparison of the FY2022 SFOPS request; proposed, committee-approved, and enacted FY2022 SFOPS legislation; and FY2021 SFOPS enacted funding. Appendix B provides a similar comparisonprovides a similar comparison, focused specifically on the focused specifically on the
International Affairs budgetInternational Affairs budget.. Appendix C depicts the organization of the SFOPS appropriation. depicts the organization of the SFOPS appropriation.
Congressional Research Service Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs This report tracks SFOPS appropriations, comparing funding levels for accounts and purposes across This report tracks SFOPS appropriations, comparing funding levels for accounts and purposes across ~~FY2022~~ proposals proposals and legislation~~and~~
~~prior year enacted appropriations~~. It does not provide extensive analysis of international affairs policy issues. For in-depth . It does not provide extensive analysis of international affairs policy issues. For in-depth
analysis and contextual information on international affairs issues, consult the wide range of CRS reports on specific analysis and contextual information on international affairs issues, consult the wide range of CRS reports on specific
subjects, such as global health, diplomatic security, and U.S. participation in the United Nations. For more information on subjects, such as global health, diplomatic security, and U.S. participation in the United Nations. For more information on
SFOPS accounts, see CRS Report R40482, SFOPS accounts, see CRS Report R40482, Department of State, Foreign Operations Appropriations: A Guide to Component
Accounts, by Nick M. Brown and Cory R. Gill. , by Nick M. Brown and Cory R. Gill.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

link to page link to page ~~5 link to page 6 link to page~~ 6 6

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Overview
~~On May 28, 2021, the Biden Administration released its proposed FY2022 budget request, which~~
~~calls for $62.656 billion in new budget authority for SFOPS accounts ($62.121 billion if proposed~~
~~rescissions of prior year funding are subtracted).1~~
~~SFOPS funds~~Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs (SFOPS) appropriations support a wide range of U.S. activities around the world, including the operation of support a wide range of U.S. activities around the world, including the operation of
U.S. embassies; diplomatic activities; educational and cultural exchanges; international U.S. embassies; diplomatic activities; educational and cultural exchanges; international
development, security, and humanitarian assistance; and U.S. participation in multilateral development, security, and humanitarian assistance; and U.S. participation in multilateral
organizations. The SFOPS appropriation closely aligns with the International Affairs budget organizations. The SFOPS appropriation closely aligns with the International Affairs budget
function,function,2 which typically represents about 1% of the annual federal budget which typically represents about 1% of the annual federal budget ~~and would do so~~
~~again under the FY2022 budget proposal (see~~(see Figure 1).1
Figure 1. International Affairs as a Portion of the Federal Budget, FY2022 Est.

Sources: FY2022 Budget Historic Table 5.1; CRS calculations. FY2022 Budget Historic Table 5.1; CRS calculations.
Note: Reflects estimated budget authority, FY2022. Reflects estimated budget authority, FY2022.
~~The Administration’s FY2022 request may be compared to FY2021 funding in various ways. For~~
~~example, the requested amount is~~
~~ 13% less than the total FY2021~~ On May 28, 2021, the Biden Administration released its proposed FY2022 budget request, which called for $62.656 billion in new budget authority for SFOPS accounts ($62.121 billion if proposed rescissions of prior year funding are subtracted).2 The Administration submitted a supplemental budget request on March 2, 2022, including $9.35 billion in SFOPS accounts to address needs related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the global Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) response. The supplemental request brought the total FY2022 SFOPS request to $71.906 billion before rescissions, $71.371 billion after rescissions.3 The Administration’s original FY2022 request was 13% less than the total FY2021-enacted level, which enacted level, which ~~includes~~included almost $16 billion almost $16 billion
in emergency fundsin emergency funds;, and and
 11% more than the enacted FY2021 level when emergency funding, used 11% more than the enacted FY2021 level when emergency funding, used
primarily for primarily for ~~Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)~~COVID-19 response, response, iswas excluded.4 This first 1 The SFOPS budget aligns closely but not exactly with Function 150 (International Affairs) of the federal budget. The primary exception is international food aid programs, which are part of Function 150 but funded through the agriculture appropriation. SFOPS also includes funding for international commissions in the Function 300 budget. 2 Rescissions of prior year funding do not affect new funding levels, but are considered when calculating the total budget impact of a proposal for purposes such as compliance with the subcommittee’s 302(b) allocation or spending caps imposed by law. 3 See letter from OMB Acting Director Shalanda Young to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/COVID-and-Ukraine-Supplemental-Funding-Request-Pelosi.pdf. 4 ~~excluded.3~~
~~The FY2022 SFOPS request, the first of the Biden Administration, is significantly higher than all~~
~~Trump Administration SFOPS budget requests (Table 1). It is also higher, though to a lesser~~
~~degree, than most SFOPS total funding levels enacted in the past decade, in current dollars~~
~~(Figure 2).~~

~~1 Rescissions of prior year funding do not affect new funding levels, but are considered when calculating the total~~
~~budget impact of a proposal for purposes such as compliance with the subcommittee’s 302(b) allocation or spending~~
~~caps imposed by law.~~
~~2 The SFOPS budget aligns closely but not exactly with Function 150 (International Affairs) of the federal budget. The~~
~~primary exception is international food aid programs, which are part of Function 150 but funded through the agriculture~~
~~appropriation. SFOPS also includes funding for international commissions in the Function 300 budget.~~
3 For information on international affairs funding for COVID-19 response, see CRS In Focus IF11496, For information on international affairs funding for COVID-19 response, see CRS In Focus IF11496, COVID-19 and
Foreign Assistance: Issues for Congress, by Nick M. Brown, Marian L. Lawson, and Emily M. Morgenstern, and CRS , by Nick M. Brown, Marian L. Lawson, and Emily M. Morgenstern, and CRS
Report R46319, Report R46319, Novel Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19): Q&A on Global Implications and Responses, coordinated by , coordinated by
Tiaji Salaam-Blyther. Tiaji Salaam-Blyther.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

1 1

link to page 7 link to page 8 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs SFOPS budget request of the Biden Administration was significantly higher, even before the supplemental request, than all Trump Administration SFOPS budget requests. It was also higher than SFOPS annual funding levels enacted in the past decade, in current dollars, with the exception of FY2021 (Table 1). With the $9.25 billion supplemental request included, the Administration’s total FY2022 request was about 2.9% less than FY2021 total enacted funding. Congress has enacted five FY2022 appropriations bills funding SFOPS accounts to date (see “Congressional Action,” below), totaling $66.507 billion, after rescissions, or about 6.8% less than the Administration’s request. ~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

Table 1. SFOPS Requests and Actual/Enacted Funding, FY2013-FY2022
(In billions of current U.S. dollars) (In billions of current U.S. dollars)

FY2013
~~FY2014~~
FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
Request Request
56.41 56.41
51.96 51.96
55.01 55.01
54.83 54.83
60.21 60.21
40.21 40.21
41.66 41.66
43.10 43.10
44.12 44.12
~~62.66~~71.37
Actual Actual/Enac.
51.91 51.91
50.89 50.89
54.39 54.39
54.52 54.52
59.78 59.78
54.18 54.18
54.38 54.38
57.37 57.37
71.58 71.58

66.51 Difference Difference
-8.0% -8.0%
-2.1% -2.1%
-1.1% -1.1%
-0.6% -0.6%
-0.7% -0.7%
+34.7% +34.7%
+30.5% +30.5%
+33.1% +33.1%
+62.2% +62.2%

-6.81% Sources: Annual SFOPS Congressional Budget Justifications (CBJs) prepared by the Department of State and Annual SFOPS Congressional Budget Justifications (CBJs) prepared by the Department of State and
U.S. Agency of International Development; P.L. 116-6; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; P.L. 116-260; P.L. U.S. Agency of International Development; P.L. 116-6; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; P.L. 116-260; P.L.
117-2; P.L. 117-31117-2; P.L. 117-31.
Note: Actuals include supplemental and emergency funds.
~~Figure 2. SFOPS Funding, FY2010-FY2022~~
~~(In billions of current U.S. dollars)~~

Sources: Annual SFOPS CBJs; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-2; P.L. 117-31; CRS
~~calculations~~; P.L. 117-43; P.L. 117-70; P.L. 117-103. The FY2022 supplemental funding request is accessible at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/COVID-and-Ukraine-Supplemental-Funding-Request-Pelosi.pdf. Note: Includes supplemental and emergency funds and rescissions. FY2021 and FY2022 actual/enacted figures are enacted, while FY2013-FY2020 figures are actual. .
Overseas Contingency Operations and Emergency Funds
From FY2012 to FY2021, the appropriations process From FY2012 to FY2021, the appropriations process ~~has been~~was shaped by discretionary spending shaped by discretionary spending
caps put in place by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25). Congress managed the caps put in place by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25). Congress managed the
constraints imposed by the BCA in part by repeatedly amending the BCA to raise the caps, and constraints imposed by the BCA in part by repeatedly amending the BCA to raise the caps, and
also by designating a portion of annual SFOPS appropriations as “Overseas Contingency also by designating a portion of annual SFOPS appropriations as “Overseas Contingency
Operations” (OCO) or “emergency” funding, both of which were excluded from BCA Operations” (OCO) or “emergency” funding, both of which were excluded from BCA
discretionary budget limits.discretionary budget limits.4 Congress began using the OCO designation in SFOPS appropriations Congress began using the OCO designation in SFOPS appropriations
in FY2012. OCO’s use expanded considerably in funding level and scope until FY2017, when in FY2012. OCO’s use expanded considerably in funding level and scope until FY2017, when

~~4 While OCO and emergency funding limited the impact of the BCA on international affairs funding, such funding was~~
~~reduced in FY2013 through the sequestration provisions in the BCA. For more information, see CRS Report R42994,~~
The Budget Control Act, Sequestration, and the Foreign Affairs Budget: Background and Possible Impacts, by Susan
~~B. Epstein.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

2

~~link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7~~ ~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

OCO-designated SFOPS funding peaked at $20.80 billion (nearly 35% of SFOPS funds that OCO-designated SFOPS funding peaked at $20.80 billion (nearly 35% of SFOPS funds that
year), before leveling off at $8 billion annually between FY2019 and FY2021.5 year), before leveling off at $8 billion annually between FY2019 and FY2021.5
In addition to OCO funds, Congress has periodically used funding designated as “emergency” to In addition to OCO funds, Congress has periodically used funding designated as “emergency” to
address a range of unanticipated needs. address a range of unanticipated needs. ~~This designation was used~~Congress used this designation in FY2020 and FY2021 in FY2020 and FY2021 primarily to to
address needs related to the COVID-19 pandemic abroad and humanitarian assistance for address needs related to the COVID-19 pandemic abroad and humanitarian assistance for
Afghanistan and Afghan refugees. Like OCO-designated funding, emergency-designated funding Afghanistan and Afghan refugees. Like OCO-designated funding, emergency-designated funding
did not count toward the BCA discretionary spending caps and could therefore did not count toward the BCA discretionary spending caps and could therefore ~~be used~~serve as an as an
alternative to the OCO designation. Before the use of OCO in SFOPS, supplemental emergency alternative to the OCO designation. Before the use of OCO in SFOPS, supplemental emergency
appropriations were the primary mechanism for funding contingency activities. appropriations were the primary mechanism for funding contingency activities.
The FY2022 appropriations cycle The FY2022 appropriations cycle iswas the first in a decade for which the BCA the first in a decade for which the BCA iswas not a factor, and not a factor, and
may mark the end of the OCO designation within SFOPS legislation. While Administrations may mark the end of the OCO designation within SFOPS legislation. While Administrations 5 For more information on the use of OCO in the international affairs budget, see CRS In Focus IF10143, Foreign Affairs Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Funding: Background and Current Status, by Emily M. Morgenstern. Congressional Research Service 2 link to page 8 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs have ~~have~~
not requested OCO funding in the international affairs budget since FY2018, the FY2022not requested OCO funding in the international affairs budget since FY2018, the FY2022 ~~House-~~
~~passed bill is the first SFOPS legislation~~ -enacted SFOPS appropriations are the first since FY2012 to not include OCO-designated fundssince FY2012 to not include OCO-designated funds (Figure 2). .
Although BCA spending caps no longer apply, SFOPS spending is limited by the subcommittee Although BCA spending caps no longer apply, SFOPS spending is limited by the subcommittee
allocation approved in the annual budget resolution or by the Appropriations allocation approved in the annual budget resolution or by the Appropriations ~~Committee~~ (~~Table~~
2)Committee. Emergency-designated funding does not count toward this allocation, so . Emergency-designated funding does not count toward this allocation, so ~~Congress may~~
~~continue to use the emergency designation for supplemental funding to address unanticipated~~
~~needs in FY2022.~~
~~OCO-designated funding has become largely indistinguishable~~ the designation continues to be an important budgetary tool. Congress designated $10.25 billion, or about 15% of enacted FY2022 SFOPS funds, as emergency funding. Figure 2. SFOPS Funding, FY2012-FY2022 (In billions of current U.S. dollars) Note: FY2021 and FY2022 numbers are enacted funding levels; earlier year data are actual funding as reported in annual SFOPS CBJs. Sources: Annual SFOPS CBJs; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-2; P.L. 117-31; P.L. 117-43; P.L. 117-70; P.L. 117-103; CRS calculations. OCO-designated funding became largely indistinguishable in recent years from base funding in terms of the from base funding in terms of the
activities it activities it ~~supports~~supported, whereas emergency-designated funding continues to be used primarily for , whereas emergency-designated funding continues to be used primarily for
short-term needs arising from unanticipated events. For this reason, this report generally groups short-term needs arising from unanticipated events. For this reason, this report generally groups
base and OCO funding base and OCO funding from prior years together, comparing FY2022 together, comparing FY2022 ~~proposed~~ requested funding levels with total FY2021 funding levels with total FY2021
enacted funding (base + OCO + emergency) as well as to nonemergency funding (base + OCO) to enacted funding (base + OCO + emergency) as well as to nonemergency funding (base + OCO) to
serve various analytic purposes. serve various analytic purposes.
Congressional Action
Congressional action on FY2022 appropriations began with subcommittee hearings before the Congressional action on FY2022 appropriations began with subcommittee hearings before the
AdministrationAdministration~~’s full request was transmitted~~ transmitted its full request to Congress in late May to Congress in late May, 2021—months later than is —months later than is
typical, although late submissions are not unusual at the start of a new Administrationtypical, although late submissions are not unusual at the start of a new Administration. Table 2
~~shows the status of congressional action on FY2022 SFOPS legislation, and will be updated as~~
~~necessary.~~
~~Table 2. Status of FY2022 SFOPS Appropriations~~
~~(funding levels in billions of U.S. dollars)~~
~~302(b)~~
~~Committee~~

~~Allocations~~
~~Action~~
~~Floor Action~~
~~Conference Agreement~~
~~Chamber~~
~~House~~
~~Senate~~
~~House~~
~~Senate~~
~~House~~
~~Senate~~
~~House~~
~~Senate~~
~~Final~~
~~Date~~
~~7/16/21~~

~~7/1/21~~

~~7/28/21~~

~~Total $~~
~~62.401~~

~~62.401~~

~~62.401~~

Source: H.R. 4373; H.Rept. 117-91.
Notes: The 302(b) allocation of budget authority does not include emergency or OCO funds, or the mandatory
~~funds in the Foreign Service Retirement account. Funding totals account for rescissions. Legislation has been~~
~~introduced in the Senate (S. 3075); no committee action has taken place.~~

~~5 For more information on the use of OCO in the international affairs budget, see CRS In Focus IF10143,~~ ~~Foreign~~
~~Affairs Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Funding: Background and Current Status, by Emily M. Morgenstern~~. Subsequent congressional action is detailed below. House Legislation. The House SFOPS subcommittee approved a FY2022 bill, H.R. 4373, by voice vote on June 18, 2021. The legislation, which included $62.976 billion in new SFOPS budget authority ($62.401 billion after rescissions), was approved by the full Appropriations Committee on July 1, 2021, and by the House of Representatives on July 28, 2021. .
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

3 3

link to page link to page 833 link to page link to page 833 link to page link to page 149 link to page 9 link to page 18 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

House Legislation. The House SFOPS subcommittee approved a FY2022 bill, H.R. 4373, by
~~voice vote on June 18, 2021. The legislation, which includes $63.976 billion in new SFOPS~~
~~budget authority ($62.401 after rescissions), was approved by the full Appropriations Committee~~
~~on July 1, 2021, and by the House of Representatives on July 28, 2021.~~
Senate Legislation. FY2022 SFOPS legislation, S. 3075, was introduced in the Senate on FY2022 SFOPS legislation, S. 3075, was introduced in the Senate on
October 26. October 26. ~~It has yet to be considered by the Senate SFOPS subcommittee. It~~The proposal was not considered or approved by Congress at any level, and is not included in is not included in
the tables and figures in this report, the tables and figures in this report, ~~though the report may be updated in the event that committee~~
~~action occurs.~~
with the exception of Table A-1 in Appendix A. Continuing Resolutions. No appropriations legislation for FY2022, including for SFOPS, was No appropriations legislation for FY2022, including for SFOPS, was
enacted before FY2022 began on October 1, 2021. To prevent a lapse in appropriations, a enacted before FY2022 began on October 1, 2021. To prevent a lapse in appropriations, a
continuing resolution, the Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency Assistance continuing resolution, the Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency Assistance
Act (P.L. 117-43), was enacted on September 30, 2021, to continue funding federal agencies until Act (P.L. 117-43), was enacted on September 30, 2021, to continue funding federal agencies until
December 3, 2021. Funding was largely continued at FY2021 levels, but the legislation provided December 3, 2021. Funding was largely continued at FY2021 levels, but the legislation provided
an additional $2.17 billion in SFOPS accounts for activities related to assisting individuals at risk an additional $2.17 billion in SFOPS accounts for activities related to assisting individuals at risk
in Afghanistan.6 A second continuing resolution, the Further Extending Government Funding Act in Afghanistan.6 A second continuing resolution, the Further Extending Government Funding Act
(P.L. 117-70), was enacted and signed into law on December 3, extending appropriations through (P.L. 117-70), was enacted and signed into law on December 3, extending appropriations through
February 18, 2022. This legislation also largely continued SFOPS funding at the FY2021 level, February 18, 2022. This legislation also largely continued SFOPS funding at the FY2021 level,
while including an additional $1.28 billion within SFOPS accounts to support evacuation and while including an additional $1.28 billion within SFOPS accounts to support evacuation and
resettlement activities related to the resettlement activities related to the ~~situation~~crisis in Afghanistan.7 in Afghanistan.7 ~~A third~~Third and fourth continuing continuing ~~resolution~~resolutions, P.L. , P.L.
~~117-86~~117-86 and P.L. 117-95, extended funding for SFOPS accounts , extended funding for SFOPS accounts ~~(and almost all appropriations accounts)~~through March 11 and March 15, respectively, at the P.L. at the P.L.
117-70 level 117-70 level ~~through March 11, 2022.~~
without additional funds. Omnibus Legislation. The House and Senate, on March 9 and 10, respectively, passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, which was signed by President Biden on March 15 and became P.L. 117-103. The act included $58.163 billion in SFOPS base funding in Division K ($56.259 billion after rescissions) and $6.800 billion in supplemental emergency funding related to Ukraine in Division N, for a total of $64.963 billion before rescissions. The omnibus funding, together with the supplemental funding included in continuing resolutions (discussed above), brought the enacted FY2022 SFOPS funding total to $68.411 billion ($66.507 billion after rescissions). State Department Operations and Related Agency
Funding Highlights
The Biden Administration’s FY2022 request The Biden Administration’s FY2022 request ~~seeks~~sought $18. $18.435 billion in funding for the Department of billion in funding for the Department of
State and Related Agency appropriations accounts, or approximately 5% more than the FY2021 State and Related Agency appropriations accounts, or approximately 5% more than the FY2021
enacted level of $17.enacted level of $17.~~5 billion~~49 billion (including emergency funds). Priorities the Administration . Priorities the Administration ~~intends~~intended to fund through these accounts to fund through these accounts
in FY2022 in FY2022 ~~include~~included
 revitalizing the foreign policy workforce and broadening diversity, equity, and  revitalizing the foreign policy workforce and broadening diversity, equity, and
inclusion; inclusion;
 modernizing the State Department’s information technology and enhancing  modernizing the State Department’s information technology and enhancing
cybersecurity; cybersecurity;
~~ supporting international organizations and peacekeeping; and~~
~~ sustaining security operations and consular services.8~~
Continuing Resolution. P.L. 117-43, the continuing resolution that funded federal agencies in
~~FY2022 through December 3, 2021, included an additional $276.9 million for the Emergencies in~~
~~the Diplomatic and Consular Service (EDCS) account. The law specifies that such funding is for~~
~~“support for Operation Allies Welcome and related efforts by the Department of State, including~~

~~6 P.L. 117-43 also included FY2022 SFOPS account funding in Division C, Title IV: $276.9 million for Emergency~~
~~Diplomatic and Consular Services, $400 million for International Disaster Assistance, and $1,076.1 million for~~
6 P.L. 117-43 included FY2022 SFOPS account emergency funding in Division C, Title IV: $276.9 million for Emergency Diplomatic and Consular Services, $400 million for International Disaster Assistance, and $1,076.1 million for Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance. 7 P.L. 117-70 included the following SFOPS emergency funding, all in Division B, which provided supplemental appropriations to address the situation in Afghanistan: $44.3 million for Diplomatic Programs, $36 million for Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service, and $1.200 billion for Emergency Refugee and Migration Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance. ~~Assistance. It is unclear how this funding will affect final FY2022 appropriations.~~
7 Account details for the supplemental funding in the continuing resolutions is provided in the Account details for the supplemental funding in the continuing resolutions is provided in the “State Department
Operations and Related Agency Funding Highlights” and and “Foreign Operations Highlights” sections of this sections of this report. Congressional Research Service 4 link to page 10 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs  supporting international organizations and peacekeeping; and  sustaining security operations and consular services.8 House Legislation. H.R. 4373, the House-passed measure, would have provided $18.20 billion for the State Department and Related Agency appropriations accounts. This would have been an increase of over 8% relative to FY2021-enacted nonemergency funds, a 4% increase over total FY2021-enacted funding, and a nearly 1% decrease from the Biden Administration’s request. Continuing Resolutions. P.L. 117-43, the continuing resolution that funded federal agencies in FY2022 through December 3, 2021, included an additional $276.9 million for the Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service (EDCS) account. The law specified that such funding was for “support for Operation Allies Welcome and related efforts by the Department of State, including ~~report.~~
~~8 U.S. Department of State, FY2022 Budget Request, slide presentation, May 28, 2021, p. 10.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

4

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

additional relocations of individuals at risk as a result of the situation in Afghanistan and related additional relocations of individuals at risk as a result of the situation in Afghanistan and related
expenses” and to reimburse the account for previous obligations. The expenses” and to reimburse the account for previous obligations. The ~~current~~ subsequent continuing continuing
resolution, P.L. 117-70, resolution, P.L. 117-70, ~~expires~~expired on February 18, 2022. It on February 18, 2022. It ~~provides~~provided an additional $44.3 million for an additional $44.3 million for
the Diplomatic Programs account and $36 million for EDCS for the same purposes as those the Diplomatic Programs account and $36 million for EDCS for the same purposes as those
~~specified in P.L. 117-43.~~
~~Table 3~~specified in P.L. 117-43. The two subsequent continuing resolutions (P.L. 117-86 and P.L. 117-95), the latter of which expired on March 15, 2022, provided budget authority for the Department of State and Related Agency appropriations accounts at the FY2021 level and did not include supplemental funds. Table 2. State Department and Related Agency: Selected Accounts, FY2020-FY2022
(In billions of current U.S. dollars; includes OCO funds) (In billions of current U.S. dollars; includes OCO funds)
%
~~change~~Change, % Change,
FY21
~~enacted~~FY21 Enacted Enacted to
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
to FY22
FY2022
FY2022 FY22 Account
Actual
Enacted Request
~~request~~Request
House
Enacteda Enacted Diplomatic Programs
9.51 9.51
9.37 9.37
9.49 9.49
1.2% 1.2%
9.48 9.48
9.35 -0.3% Worldwide Security Protection
4.10
4.12
4.08
-1.1% -1.1%
4.08 3.79 -8.1%
Embassy Security, Construction &
1.98 1.98
1.95 1.95
1.98 1.98
1.7% 1.7%
2.00 2.00
1.98 1.7% Maintenance
Educational & Cultural Exchange ~~Programs~~
0.74 0.74
0.74 0.74
0.74 0.74
0.1% 0.1%
0.75 0.75
0.75 1.7% Programs International Organizations
3.00 3.00
2.96 2.96
3.59 3.59
21.2% 21.2%
3.59 3.59 3.16 6.7%
U.S. Agency for Global Media
0.81 0.81
0.80 0.80
0.81 0.81
0.9% 0.9%
0.82 0.82
0.89 10% State and Related Agency Total
17.64
17.49
18.35
4.9%
18.20
17.72 1.3% (includes Function 300 funding and other
commissions)
Sources: FY2022 SFOPS CBJ; H.R. 4373; P.L. 116-260FY2022 SFOPS CBJ; H.R. 4373; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-43; P.L. 117-70; P.L. 117-103; CRS calculations. State and Related Agency totals include ; CRS calculations. State and Related Agency totals include
~~additional funding for accounts not listed above.~~
~~Diplomatic Programs~~
~~The Diplomatic Programs account is the State Department’s principal operating appropriation and~~
~~funds several programs and functions, including~~
~~ most domestic and overseas Foreign Service and Civil Service personnel salaries;~~
~~ the State Department’s recruitment, diversity, and inclusion programs;~~
~~ public diplomacy programs; and~~
~~ the operations and programs of the State Department’s strategic and managerial~~
~~units, including the Bureaus of Administration, Budget and Planning, Information~~
~~Resource Management (the State Department’s information technology bureau),~~
~~and Legislative Affairs as well as the Office of the Chief of Protocol.9~~

~~9 U.S. Department of State,~~ ~~Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related~~
~~Programs, Fiscal Year 2022, pp. 16-20.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

5

~~link to page 9~~ ~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

~~The Biden Administration’s FY2022~~
~~request for the Diplomatic Programs~~
~~Consular and Border Security Programs~~
~~account totals $9.5 billion, approximately~~
~~The Consular and Border Security Programs (CBSP)~~
~~1% more than the $9.4 billion Congress~~
~~account funds many of the State Department’s core~~
~~provided in FY2021. As part of the Biden~~
additional funding for accounts not listed above. a. Includes supplemental funding provided in P.L. 117-43 and P.L. 117-70. Omnibus Appropriation. P.L. 117-103 included $17.21 billion in base State Department and Related Agency funding and $154 million in supplemental funds to address the crisis in Ukraine, bringing the total enacted funding for these accounts in FY2022 to nearly $17.73 billion (including supplemental funding provided in the aforementioned continuing resolutions). This 8 U.S. Department of State, FY2022 Budget Request, slide presentation, May 28, 2021, p. 10. Congressional Research Service 5 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs funding level is about a 1% increase from the aggregate funding provided for these accounts in FY2021. When comparing nonemergency funding only, FY2022 appropriations comprise a 2% increase from FY2021 funds. When all funding is considered, among the most significant funding increases within these accounts is for the Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service account, for which appropriations increased nearly 4,000%, from $7.89 million in FY2021 to about $313 million in FY2022. Congress provided the entirety of this increase in P.L. 117-43 and P.L. 117-70, largely to fund relocations of individuals at risk in Afghanistan and related expenses. Among the accounts for which annual appropriations declined was Repatriations Loans, which is used to provide direct emergency loans to assist U.S. citizens abroad who have no other source of funds to return to the United States. Congress provided $1.3 million for this account in FY2022, a 48% decline from the $2.5 million included for this account in FY2021. This reflects a reduction in demand for these loans following a surge during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.9 Consular and Border Security Programs The Consular and Border Security Programs (CBSP) account funds many of the State Department’s core consular functions, including the adjudication of visa and consular functions, including the adjudication of visa and
passport applications. While CBSP passport applications. While CBSP typically is funded ~~is typically funded~~
~~Administration’s stated commitment to~~
through consular fees and surcharges, fee col ections have through consular fees and surcharges, fee col ections have
~~revitalizing the foreign policy workforce, it~~
~~declined considerably amid global travel restrictions~~
~~is requesting funding for an additional 485~~
~~imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.10 The Biden~~
~~Foreign Service and Civil Service~~
~~Administration is forecasting that fee col ections wil remain~~
~~positions, 337 of which would be funded~~
~~below pre-COVID-19 levels during FY2022. It is therefore~~
~~requesting that Congress provide a $320 mil ion~~
~~through Diplomatic Programs.12 Within~~
~~appropriation for the CBSP account, extend broadened fee~~
~~this request are 130 new Foreign Service~~
~~expenditure and transfer authorities that were enacted~~
~~Officer positions the Administration has~~
~~during the COVID-19 pandemic, and authorize new or~~
~~indicated will be focused on advancing~~
~~increased consular fees or surcharges.11 If enacted, the~~
~~House bil would appropriate $320 mil ion for CBSP and~~
~~U.S. prosperity and countering Chinese~~
~~include some, but not all, of the fee-related legislative~~
~~economic influence, defending U.S.~~
~~provisions the Biden Administration requested.~~
~~interests~~ declined considerably amid global travel restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.10 The Biden Administration forecasted that fee col ections would remain below pre-COVID-19 levels during FY2022. It therefore requested that Congress provide a $320 mil ion appropriation for the CBSP account, extend broadened fee expenditure and transfer authorities enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic, and authorize new or increased consular fees or surcharges.11 Had it been enacted, the House bil would have appropriated $320 mil ion for CBSP and included some, but not all, of the fee-related legislative provisions the Biden Administration requested. Congress did not include an annual appropriation for CBSP in P.L. 117-103. However, this law provided the State Department the authority, which the Biden Administration did not request, to deposit passport fees currently transferred to the General Fund of the Treasury to the CBSP account. Congress estimates that this wil provide at least $340 mil ion in additional resources for consular operations in FY2022.12 P.L. 117-103 further contained some of the fee-related legislative provisions the Biden Administration requested, including an extension of broadened authority for the State Department to expend passport and immigrant visa surcharge col ections to provide consular services. Congress originally included this authority in the CARES Act.13 Diplomatic Programs The Diplomatic Programs account is the State Department’s principal operating appropriation and funds several programs and functions, including  most domestic and overseas Foreign Service and Civil Service personnel salaries;  the State Department’s recruitment, diversity, and inclusion programs;  public diplomacy programs; and  the operations and programs of the State Department’s strategic and managerial units, including the Bureaus of Administration, Budget and Planning, Information 9 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, Fiscal Year 2022, p. 353. 10 To review the statutory authorization for the CBSP account, see Division J, Title VII, Section 7081 of P.L. 115-31. 11 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1, pp. 68-79. 12 See Section 7069(e) of Division K of P.L. 117-103 and Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 117-103, p. 101. 13 See Section 7069(b) of Division K of P.L. 117-103. Congressional Research Service 6 link to page 10 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Resource Management (the State Department’s information technology bureau), and Legislative Affairs, as well as the Office of the Chief of Protocol.14 The Biden Administration’s FY2022 request for the Diplomatic Programs account totaled $9.49 billion, approximately 1% more than the $9.37 billion Congress provided in FY2021. As part of the Biden Administration’s stated commitment to revitalizing the foreign policy workforce, it requested funding for an additional 485 Foreign Service and Civil Service positions, 337 of which would have been funded through Diplomatic Programs.15 Within this request were 130 new Foreign Service Officer positions the Administration indicated would have been focused on advancing U.S. prosperity and countering Chinese economic influence, defending U.S. interests against malign influence from against malign influence from
Russia and other foreign actors, and engaging with the United Nations and other organizations.Russia and other foreign actors, and engaging with the United Nations and other organizations.13
16 The request The request ~~includes~~included funding for 20 new Civil Service positions to support the Bureau of funding for 20 new Civil Service positions to support the Bureau of
Information Resource Management’s cybersecurity and risk management programs.Information Resource Management’s cybersecurity and risk management programs.1417
The Biden Administration’s Diplomatic Programs request also The Biden Administration’s Diplomatic Programs request also ~~includes~~sought $46.5 million for $46.5 million for
diversity and inclusion resources, which would diversity and inclusion resources, which would behave been $25.1 million more than the funding provided $25.1 million more than the funding provided
for these purposes in FY2021.for these purposes in FY2021.1518 Among other priorities, the request Among other priorities, the request ~~proposes~~proposed language for language for
inclusion in the FY2022 SFOPS appropriations measure that the State Department inclusion in the FY2022 SFOPS appropriations measure that the State Department ~~maintains~~maintained
would would ~~expand~~have expanded its ability to offer paid internships and $10 million to fund such internships. The its ability to offer paid internships and $10 million to fund such internships. The
State Department State Department ~~notes~~noted that providing compensation for interns that providing compensation for interns ~~will~~would “ensure that all eligible “ensure that all eligible
candidates can take advantage of [internship programs], regardless of background.”candidates can take advantage of [internship programs], regardless of background.”1619 The request The request
~~also prioritizes~~also prioritized disability hiring programs; additional diversity and inclusion content within disability hiring programs; additional diversity and inclusion content within
orientation, leadership, and tradecraft classes for State Department personnel; and coaching orientation, leadership, and tradecraft classes for State Department personnel; and coaching
services for employees from under-represented groups.services for employees from under-represented groups.1720
House Legislation. ~~If enacted,~~ H.R. 4373 would H.R. 4373 would ~~appropriate~~have appropriated approximately $9. approximately $9.548 billion for billion for
Diplomatic Programs. This overall funding level Diplomatic Programs. This overall funding level iswas less than the Biden Administration’s request less than the Biden Administration’s request
(se(see Table 32). The House bill . The House bill ~~seeks~~sought to provide $3. to provide $3.222 billion for the Diplomatic Programs account’s billion for the Diplomatic Programs account’s
Human Resources funding category (through which funds are directed toward salaries for Human Resources funding category (through which funds are directed toward salaries for
domestic and overseas U.S. direct hire employees), identical to the Biden Administration’s domestic and overseas U.S. direct hire employees), identical to the Biden Administration’s
request for Human Resources.request for Human Resources.1821 Additionally, the House Appropriations Committee report Additionally, the House Appropriations Committee report

~~10 To review the statutory authorization for the CBSP account, see Division J, Title VII, Section 7081 of P.L. 115-31.~~
11accompanying this bill stated that it provided sufficient resources for the Administration to “restore and expand” the State Department’s workforce.22 With respect to diversity and inclusion, the committee report noted that the bill included funding for the State Department “to prioritize initiatives aimed at making real and sustainable progress in diversifying our foreign policy 14 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification~~, Appendix 1~~: Department of State ~~Diplomatic~~
~~Engagement, Fiscal Year 2022, pp. 68-79~~
~~12 Ibid., p. 6.~~
~~13 Ibid., p. 48~~
~~14 Ibid., p. 50.~~
~~15 Ibid., p. 46.~~
~~16 Ibid., pp. 41, 95.~~
~~17 Ibid., pp. 90, 95-96.~~
18, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, Fiscal Year 2022, pp. 16-20. 15 Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, Fiscal Year 2022, p. 6. 16 Ibid., p. 48 17 Ibid., p. 50. 18 Ibid., p. 46. 19 Ibid., pp. 41, 95. 20 Ibid., pp. 90, 95-96. 21 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Bill, 2022, report to accompany H.R. 4373, 117th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 117-84, (Washington, DC: , report to accompany H.R. 4373, 117th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 117-84, (Washington, DC:
GPO, 2020), p. 10; U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1, pp. 48, 53. 22 House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2022, p. 4. Congressional Research Service 7 ~~Congressional Research Service~~

6

~~link to page 11~~ ~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

~~accompanying this bill states that it provides sufficient resources for the Administration to~~
~~“restore and expand” the State Department’s workforce.19 With respect to diversity and inclusion,~~
~~the committee report notes that the bill includes funding for the State Department “to prioritize~~
~~initiatives aimed at making real and sustainable progress in diversifying our foreign policy~~
~~workforce.”20 Furthermore, H.R. 4373 includes language similar to what the State Department~~
~~requested that, if enacted, would enable the State Department to offer additional paid internships.~~
~~The committee report recommends not less than $10 million for this purpose, in line with the~~
~~Administration’s request.21~~
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs workforce.”23 Furthermore, H.R. 4373 included language similar to what the State Department requested that would have enabled the State Department to offer additional paid internships. The committee report recommended not less than $10 million for this purpose, in line with the Administration’s request.24 Omnibus and Supplemental Appropriations. The FY2022-enacted appropriations for the Diplomatic Programs account (including supplemental funding) total $9.35 billion, or around 1.5% less than the Biden Administration request.25 Excluding all supplemental funding, which comprises approximately $9.18 billion, the FY2022 appropriation is about 3% less than the Biden Administration’s FY2022 request. Division K of P.L. 117-103, which included the annual appropriation for Diplomatic Programs, provided the entirety of the $3.22 billion the Biden Administration requested for the account’s Human Resources component. The joint explanatory statement (JES) accompanying this law stated that it includes funding for additional State Department Foreign Service and Civil Service positions. The JES further instructed the Secretary of State to consult with Congress regarding staffing levels prior to submitting an operating plan to Congress detailing the specific uses of these funds.26 The JES also stated that the FY2022 appropriation “includes funding above the fiscal year 2021 level for workforce diversity initiatives.”27 However, it did not fund all of the Biden Administration’s diversity and inclusion priorities at requested levels. For example, the law authorized the State Department to provide up to $8 million for paid internships, which is less than the requested figure of $10 million.28 In other diversity and inclusion-related areas, the law included funding above what the Biden Administration requested. In one case, the JES expressed support for the State Department’s establishment of its Office of Diversity and Inclusion and provided the Office $4 million in funding, which exceeded the Biden Administration’s request of $3 million.29 Diplomatic Security
The Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) allocation within the Diplomatic Programs account The Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) allocation within the Diplomatic Programs account
and the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) account are often referred to and the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) account are often referred to
as the “diplomatic security accounts” within SFOPS. WSP funds the Bureau of Diplomatic as the “diplomatic security accounts” within SFOPS. WSP funds the Bureau of Diplomatic
Security (DS), which is responsible for implementing the State Department’s security programs Security (DS), which is responsible for implementing the State Department’s security programs
to protect U.S. embassies and other overseas posts, diplomatic residences, and domestic State to protect U.S. embassies and other overseas posts, diplomatic residences, and domestic State
Department offices.Department offices.2230 The ESCM account funds the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations, The ESCM account funds the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations,
which is tasked with providing U.S. diplomatic and consular missions overseas with secure, which is tasked with providing U.S. diplomatic and consular missions overseas with secure,
functional, and resilient facilities and serving as the single manager for nonmilitary U.S. functional, and resilient facilities and serving as the single manager for nonmilitary U.S.
Government real property abroad.Government real property abroad.23
~~For FY2022, the Administration requested approximately $6.1 billion for the diplomatic security~~
~~accounts: $4.1 billion for WSP and $2.0 billion for ESCM. The Administration’s request is less~~
~~than the funding Congress provided for these accounts in FY2021 (see Table 4).~~
~~Table 4. Diplomatic Security Annual Appropriations, FY2020 Actual-FY2022 Request~~
~~(In billions of current U.S. dollars, includes OCO funds)~~
~~% change, FY21~~
~~FY2020~~
~~FY2021~~
~~FY2022~~
~~enacted to FY22~~
~~FY2022~~
~~Account~~
~~Actual~~
~~Enacted~~
~~Request~~
~~request~~
~~House~~
~~Worldwide Security Protection~~
~~4.10~~
~~4.12~~
~~4.08~~
~~-1.1%~~
~~4.08~~
~~Embassy Security, Construction,~~
~~1.98~~
~~1.95~~
~~1.98~~
~~1.7%~~
~~2.00~~
~~and Maintenance~~
~~Diplomatic Security (total)~~
~~6.08~~
~~6.07~~
~~6.06~~
~~-0.2%~~
~~6.08~~
~~Sources:~~ ~~FY2022 SFOPS CBJ; H.R. 4373; P.L. 116-260~~31 23 Ibid., p. 6. 24 Ibid., p. 12. See also Section 7063(d)(4) of H.R. 4373. 25 In this context, “supplemental funding” means funding Congress provided for the Department of State and Related Agency appropriations accounts in P.L. 117-43, P.L. 117-70, and Division M of P.L. 117-103. 26 Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 117-103, p. 7. 27 Ibid., p. 10. 28 Ibid., p. 10 and Section 7064(c) of Division K of P.L. 117-103. 29 Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 117-103, pp. 7, 9; U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1, p. 47 30 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 20. 31 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1, pp. 2, 321. Congressional Research Service 8 link to page 14 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs For FY2022, the Administration requested approximately $6.06 billion for the diplomatic security accounts: $4.08 billion for WSP and $1.98 billion for ESCM. The Administration’s request was less than the funding Congress provided for these accounts in FY2021 (see Table 3). Table 3. Diplomatic Security Annual Appropriations, FY2020-FY2022 (In billions of current U.S. dollars, includes OCO funds) % Change, FY21 % Change, FY21 Enacted FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 Enacted to FY2022 FY2022 to FY22 Account Actual Enacted Request FY22 Request House Enacted Enacted Worldwide Security 4.10 4.12 4.08 -1.1% 4.08 3.79 -8.1% Protection Embassy Security, 1.98 1.95 1.98 1.7% 2.00 1.98 1.7% Construction, and Maintenance Diplomatic 6.08 6.07 6.06 -0.2% 6.08 5.77 -4.9% Security (total) Sources: FY2022 SFOPS CBJ; H.R. 4373; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-103; CRS calculations. Notes: Percentage changes may not reflect numbers included in this table due to rounding. Annual appropriations data do not reflect available carryover funds.32 The Administration’s FY2022 WSP-funded priorities included 70 new DS overseas special agent positions, which it maintained were~~; CRS calculations.~~
Notes: Percentage changes may not reflect numbers included in this table due to rounding. Annual
~~appropriations data do not reflect available carryover funds.24~~

~~GPO, 2020), p. 10; U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1, pp. 48, 53.~~
~~19 House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2022, p.~~
4.
~~20 House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2022, p.~~
6.
~~21 Ibid., p. 12. See also Section 7063(d)(4) of H.R. 4373.~~
~~22 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 20.~~
~~23 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1, pp. 2, 321.~~
~~24 Over the past several years, Congress 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.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

7

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

~~The Administration’s FY2022 WSP-funded priorities include 70 new DS overseas special agent~~
~~positions, which it maintains are~~ “instrumental to reducing overseas staffing gaps and mitigating “instrumental to reducing overseas staffing gaps and mitigating
future year retirement trends.”future year retirement trends.”2533 The request also The request also ~~seeks~~sought funding for expanding the Assistant funding for expanding the Assistant
Regional Security Officer Investigator (ARSO-I) program to combat visa and passport fraud and Regional Security Officer Investigator (ARSO-I) program to combat visa and passport fraud and
related human trafficking concerns, among other priorities.related human trafficking concerns, among other priorities.2634 With regard to ESCM, the request With regard to ESCM, the request
~~calls~~called for around $1 billion for the State Department’s share of the Capital Security Cost Sharing for around $1 billion for the State Department’s share of the Capital Security Cost Sharing
and Maintenance Cost Sharing Programs (CSCS/MCS), which fund the planning, design, and Maintenance Cost Sharing Programs (CSCS/MCS), which fund the planning, design,
construction, and maintenance of the United States’ overseas diplomatic posts. The construction, and maintenance of the United States’ overseas diplomatic posts. The
Administration Administration ~~maintains~~maintained that this request, when combined with contributions from other that this request, when combined with contributions from other
agencies with overseas personnel, agencies with overseas personnel, ~~will fund~~would have funded these programs at the $2.2 billion level recommended these programs at the $2.2 billion level recommended
by the Benghazi Accountability Review Board.by the Benghazi Accountability Review Board.2735
House Legislation. H.R. 4373H.R. 4373~~, if enacted, would appropriate~~ would have appropriated funding for WSP at a level identical funding for WSP at a level identical
to the Biden Administration’s request and to the Biden Administration’s request and ~~include~~included slightly slightly more ($12.3 million) ($12.3 million) ~~more~~ funding for funding for
ESCM.ESCM.2836 H.R. 4373 H.R. 4373 ~~does~~did not directly address the Administration’s request for additional overseas 32 Over the past several years, Congress 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 balances of unexpired, unobligated WSP and ESCM funds each year that it is authorized to obligate for purposes including multiyear construction projects and unexpected security contingencies. 33 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1, p. 51. 34 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1, pp. 304-305. For background on ARSO-I, see U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, “The Investigative Global Force Multiplier: Diplomatic Security Service’s Assistant Regional Security Officer-Investigators,” May 27, 2020, at https://www.state.gov/the-investigative-global-force-multiplier-diplomatic-security-services-assistant-regional-security-officer-investigators/. 35 Ibid., p. 322-323. 36 The Biden Administration’s precise requests for WSP and ESCM, as provided in the State Department’s FY2022 Congressional Budget Justification, total $4,075,899,000 and $1,983,149,000, respectively. The funding totals in the Congressional Research Service 9 link to page 11 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs ~~not directly address the Administration’s request for additional overseas~~
DS special agents. The report accompanying this bill DS special agents. The report accompanying this bill ~~states~~stated that it that it ~~includes~~included the funding the the funding the
Administration Administration ~~requires~~required to hire additional State Department personnel more generally. to hire additional State Department personnel more generally.2937 Neither Neither
the bill nor the committee report specifically the bill nor the committee report specifically ~~address~~addressed the proposed ARSO-I expansion. However, the proposed ARSO-I expansion. However,
the bill the bill ~~appears~~appeared to include sufficient funding to expand the program, as the overall funding it to include sufficient funding to expand the program, as the overall funding it
~~appropriates for WSP is~~would have appropriated for WSP was equal to the Administration’s request. Regarding the ESCM account, the equal to the Administration’s request. Regarding the ESCM account, the
House bill would House bill would ~~provide~~have provided around $2. around $2.112 billion for the CSCS/MCS programs (when factoring in all billion for the CSCS/MCS programs (when factoring in all
funding sources), or nearly 4% less than the Biden Administration’s request.funding sources), or nearly 4% less than the Biden Administration’s request.3038 The House bill The House bill
~~appropriates~~would have also appropriated $12.3 million more than the Biden Administration requested in overall funding for $12.3 million more than the Biden Administration requested in overall funding for
ESCM. ESCM. IfHad it been enacted, the bill enacted, the bill ~~would thus include~~would have thus included more funding than requested for other ESCM- more funding than requested for other ESCM-
funded priorities.funded priorities.31

~~As a result, the department has carried over balances of unexpired, unobligated WSP and ESCM funds each year that it~~
~~is authorized to obligate for purposes including multiyear construction projects and unexpected security contingencies.~~
~~25 Ibid., p. 21.~~
~~26 SFOPS CBJ for FY2022 Appendix, pp. 304-305, at https://www.usaid.gov/results-and-data/budget-spending/~~
~~congressional-budget-justification/fy2022. For background on ARSO-I, see U.S. Department of State, Bureau of~~
~~Diplomatic Security, “The Investigative Global Force Multiplier: Diplomatic Security Service’s Assistant Regional~~
~~Security Officer-Investigators,” May 27, 2020, at https://www.state.gov/the-investigative-global-force-multiplier-~~
~~diplomatic-security-services-assistant-regional-security-officer-investigators/.~~
~~27 Ibid., p. 322.~~
~~28 The Biden Administration’s precise requests for WSP and ESCM, as provided in the State Department’s FY2022~~
~~Congressional Budget Justification, total $4,075,899,000 and $1,983,149,000, respectively. The funding totals in the~~
~~House bill for WSP and ESCM total $4,075,899,000 and $1,995,449,000, respectively.~~
~~29 House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2022, p.~~
4.
3039 Omnibus Appropriation. The FY2022 omnibus appropriations law, P.L. 117-103, included $3.79 billion for WSP and $1.98 billion for ESCM, for a total of approximately $5.77 billion in diplomatic security funding. This aggregate funding level is nearly 5% less than the Biden Administration’s request. The funding Congress provided for WSP (around $290 million, or 7%, less than the Administration’s request) may partially reflect reduced Afghanistan-related WSP costs, for which the Administration requested nearly $580 million prior to the U.S. withdrawal from that country.40 P.L. 117-103 also included funding for the WSP Human Resources component equal to the Biden Administration’s request. The law therefore likely provided sufficient resources for the State Department to bring on the 70 additional DS special agents it requested pending consultation with Congress (see the “Omnibus and Supplemental Appropriations” analysis under the “Diplomatic Programs” subsection of this report for more detail regarding these consultation requirements). P.L. 117-103 did not specifically address ARSO-I expansion but appears to have included sufficient resources for the State Department to expand the program. P.L. 117-103 also appropriated $1.98 billion in funding for ESCM, which is the same figure as the Biden Administration’s overall request. The law provided resources for the CSCS/MCS program and other programs funded through ESCM, including repair and construction projects that the State Department maintains will address “critical maintenance requirements at existing legacy facilities,” at levels identical to the Biden Administration’s request.41 Assessed Contributions to International Organizations and Peacekeeping Missions The Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) account is the funding vehicle for the United States’ payments of its assessed contributions (membership dues) to 43 international House bill for WSP and ESCM total $4,075,899,000 and $1,995,449,000, respectively. 37 House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2022, p. 4. 38 The Biden Administration’s request totaled $2,204,997,000. If enacted, the House bill would provide The Biden Administration’s request totaled $2,204,997,000. If enacted, the House bill would provide
$2,124,000,000. See $2,124,000,000. See Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1, p. 323, and House Committee on Appropriations, , p. 323, and House Committee on Appropriations,
State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2022, p. 24. , p. 24.
3139 Such priorities may include the Compound Security Upgrade Program, which funds comprehensive security upgrade Such priorities may include the Compound Security Upgrade Program, which funds comprehensive security upgrade
projects at U.S. overseas posts and anti-ram vehicle barrier installations, among other projects. See U.S. Department of projects at U.S. overseas posts and anti-ram vehicle barrier installations, among other projects. See U.S. Department of
State, State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1, p. 323. , p. 323.
~~Congressional Research Service~~

8

~~link to page 14 link to page 13~~ ~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

~~Assessed Contributions to International Organizations and~~
~~Peacekeeping Missions~~
~~The Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) account is the funding vehicle for the~~
~~United States’ payments of its assessed contributions (membership dues) to 43 international~~
40 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1, p. 307. 41 Ibid., p. 324 and Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 117-103, p. 16. While the State Department’s budget request includes a transfer of around $42.5 million from the Consular and Border Security Programs account to CSCS/MCS, Congress does not address this proposed transfer in the omnibus appropriations law. Congressional Research Service 10 link to page 18 link to page 16 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs organizations. These include the United Nations (U.N.) and organizations in the U.N. system organizations. These include the United Nations (U.N.) and organizations in the U.N. system
(among them the World Health Organization, or WHO), inter-American organizations such as the (among them the World Health Organization, or WHO), inter-American organizations such as the
Organization of American States, and regional organizations including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization of American States, and regional organizations including the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO).Organization (NATO).3242 Separately, the United States pays its assessed contributions to U.N. Separately, the United States pays its assessed contributions to U.N.
peacekeeping missions through the Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities peacekeeping missions through the Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities
(CIPA) account.(CIPA) account.3343 U.S. funding to international organizations is also provided through various U.S. funding to international organizations is also provided through various
SFOPS multilateral assistance accounts (see SFOPS multilateral assistance accounts (see “Foreign Operations Highlights,” below). below).
The Biden Administration requested a combined $3. The Biden Administration requested a combined $3.6592 billion for these accounts for FY2022. billion for these accounts for FY2022. If
~~enacted, this~~This funding level would funding level would ~~total~~have totaled a 21% increase from the funds Congress appropriated for a 21% increase from the funds Congress appropriated for
FYFY2021. Table 54 shows recent funding levels for each account. shows recent funding levels for each account.
Table 54. U.S. Payments of Assessments to International Organizations and
Peacekeeping Missions, ~~FY2019-FY2021 Request~~FY2020-FY2022
(In billions of current U.S. dollars; includes OCO funds) (In billions of current U.S. dollars; includes OCO funds)
% ~~change~~Change, % Change,
FY21
~~enacted~~FY21 Enacted Enacted to
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
to FY22
FY2022
FY2022 FY22 Account
Actual
Enacted
Request
~~request~~Request
House
Enacted Enacted Contributions to International Contributions to International ~~Organizations~~
1.47 1.47
1.51 1.51
1.66 1.66
10.4% 10.4%
1.66 1.66
1.66 10.4% Organizations Contributions for International Contributions for International
1.53 1.53
1.46 1.46
1.93 1.93
32.4% 32.4%
1.93 1.93
1.50 2.9% Peacekeeping Activities Peacekeeping Activities
Total
3.00
2.97
3.59
21.2%
3.59 3.16 6.7%
Sources: FY2022 SFOPS CBJ; H.R. 4373; P.L. 116-260FY2022 SFOPS CBJ; H.R. 4373; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-103; CRS calculations. ; CRS calculations.
Notes: Percentage changes may not reflect numbers included in this table due to rounding. Percentage changes may not reflect numbers included in this table due to rounding.
The Biden Administration The Biden Administration ~~maintains~~maintained that its CIO request that its CIO request ~~provides~~sought funding for “international funding for “international
programs and organizations whose missions substantially advance U.S. foreign policy interests.” programs and organizations whose missions substantially advance U.S. foreign policy interests.”
The Administration further The Administration further ~~notes~~noted that the request that the request ~~reflects~~reflected its expectation that international its expectation that international
organizations should “rein in costs,” improve their efficiency and effectiveness, enhance their organizations should “rein in costs,” improve their efficiency and effectiveness, enhance their
accountability and transparency, and share funding burdens more equitably among member accountability and transparency, and share funding burdens more equitably among member
states.states.3444 Among other priorities, the request Among other priorities, the request ~~seeks~~asked for $75 million for payments to the U.N. $75 million for payments to the U.N.
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).3545 The Administration The Administration ~~is also~~also requested authority for the United States to rejoin UNESCO.46 The Trump Administration withdrew the United States from UNESCO in 2018.47 For CIPA, the Biden Administration asserted that its FY2022 request advanced its intent to fully fund the United States’ U.N. peacekeeping commitments and pay down over $900 million in

3242 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, pp. 48-49. , pp. 48-49.
3343 Ibid., pp. 51-53. Ibid., pp. 51-53.
3444 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, pp. 48-49. , pp. 48-49.
3545 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1, p. 363 , p. 363
~~Congressional Research Service~~

9

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

~~requesting authority for the United States to rejoin UNESCO.36 The Trump Administration~~
~~withdrew the United States from UNESCO in 2018.37~~
~~For CIPA, the Biden Administration asserts that its FY2022 request advances its intent to fully~~
~~fund the United States’ U.N. peacekeeping commitments and pay down over $900 million in~~
~~arrears that have accumulated over the past four years (this figure excludes previously~~
~~accumulated arrears).38 The accumulation of such arrears owes~~46 For additional background, see CRS In Focus IF10354, United Nations Issues: U.S. Funding to the U.N. System, by Luisa Blanchfield. 47 For more information, see CRS Insight IN10802, U.S. Withdrawal from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), by Luisa Blanchfield. Congressional Research Service 11 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs arrears that had accumulated over the past four years (this figure excluded previously accumulated arrears).48 The accumulation of such arrears owed in part to the United Nations’ in part to the United Nations’
current assessment of the U.S. share of U.N. peacekeeping budgets, which totals 27.89%. This current assessment of the U.S. share of U.N. peacekeeping budgets, which totals 27.89%. This
exceeds the 25% congressional cap on payments for this purpose that Congress has kept in place exceeds the 25% congressional cap on payments for this purpose that Congress has kept in place
since 1994 due to concerns that U.S. assessments are too high.since 1994 due to concerns that U.S. assessments are too high.3949 The Biden Administration’s The Biden Administration’s
request request ~~asks~~asked for $300 million to begin paying down such arrears; the Administration for $300 million to begin paying down such arrears; the Administration ~~intends~~added its intention to to
pay down the remainder in FY2023.pay down the remainder in FY2023.4050 The request also The request also ~~proposes~~proposed language that, if enacted, would language that, if enacted, would
~~authorize~~have authorized the State Department to make funds the State Department to make funds appropriated in FY2022 available for U.N. peacekeeping missions above available for U.N. peacekeeping missions above
the aforementioned 25% statutory cap.the aforementioned 25% statutory cap.4151
House Legislation. ~~If enacted, the~~The House bill would House bill would ~~fund~~have funded CIO and CIPA at the levels the Biden CIO and CIPA at the levels the Biden
Administration requested. While the bill Administration requested. While the bill ~~seeks~~sought to provide an appropriation for CIO that to provide an appropriation for CIO that is was equal to equal to
the Biden Administration’s request, which the Biden Administration’s request, which ~~incorporates~~incorporated requested funding for UNESCO, the bill requested funding for UNESCO, the bill
~~does~~did not include the waiver authority the Biden Administration not include the waiver authority the Biden Administration ~~requested~~called for that would that would ~~allow~~have allowed the the
United States to rejoin the organization. The House bill United States to rejoin the organization. The House bill ~~includes~~included both the $300 million the Biden both the $300 million the Biden
Administration requested for the payment of peacekeeping arrears and requested legislative Administration requested for the payment of peacekeeping arrears and requested legislative
language to allow the State Department to make funds available for U.N. peacekeeping missions language to allow the State Department to make funds available for U.N. peacekeeping missions
in excess of the 25% statutory cap.in excess of the 25% statutory cap.42
~~Foreign Operations Highlights~~
~~The SFOPS appropriation’s foreign operations accounts comprise the majority of U.S. foreign~~
~~assistance included in the international affairs budget; the remainder is enacted in the agriculture~~
~~appropriation, which provides funding for the Food for Peace Act, Title II and McGovern-Dole~~
~~International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programs.43 The Biden Administration’s~~
~~FY2022 request for Foreign Operations accounts totals $44.3 billion. The total foreign assistance~~

~~36 For additional background, see CRS In Focus IF10354, United Nations Issues: U.S. Funding to the U.N. System, by~~
~~Luisa Blanchfield.~~
~~37 For more information, see CRS Insight IN10802,~~ ~~U.S. Withdrawal from the United Nations Educational, Scientific~~
~~and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), by Luisa Blanchfield.~~
3852 Omnibus Appropriation. Like the House bill, P.L. 117-103 funded CIO at a level equal to the Biden Administration’s $1.66 billion request. While this included the funding the Biden Administration sought for UNESCO, the bill did not include the aforementioned waiver authority the Biden Administration said was necessary for the United States to rejoin UNESCO. The law also appropriated $1.50 billion for CIPA, or about 22% less than both the Biden Administration’s request and the amount the House bill included. While P.L. 117-103 provided nearly 3% more for CIPA than Congress appropriated in FY2021, this increase may not be sufficient for the Biden Administration to use $300 million of such funding to begin paying peacekeeping arrears, as envisioned in the Administration’s request. The law also did not include the authorizing language the Administration requested that would have allowed the State Department to fund U.N. peacekeeping missions at levels exceeding the 25% statutory cap on the U.S. share of U.N. peacekeeping mission budgets. 48 For an overview of U.N. peacekeeping arrears accumulated prior to 2017, see CRS In Focus IF10597, For an overview of U.N. peacekeeping arrears accumulated prior to 2017, see CRS In Focus IF10597, United
Nations Issues: U.S. Funding of U.N. Peacekeeping, by Luisa Blanchfield. , by Luisa Blanchfield.
3949 Over the years, the gap between the actual U.S. assessment and the cap led to funding shortfalls. The State Over the years, the gap between the actual U.S. assessment and the cap led to funding shortfalls. The State
Department and Congress often covered these shortfalls by raising the cap for limited periods and allowing for the Department and Congress often covered these shortfalls by raising the cap for limited periods and allowing for the
application of U.N. peacekeeping credits (excess U.N. funds from previous missions) to fund outstanding U.S. application of U.N. peacekeeping credits (excess U.N. funds from previous missions) to fund outstanding U.S.
balances. For several years, these actions allowed the United States to pay its peacekeeping assessments in full. balances. For several years, these actions allowed the United States to pay its peacekeeping assessments in full.
However, since FY2017 Congress has declined to raise the cap, and in mid-2017, the Trump Administration allowed However, since FY2017 Congress has declined to raise the cap, and in mid-2017, the Trump Administration allowed
for the application of peacekeeping credits up to, but not beyond, the 25% cap—which has led to the accumulation of for the application of peacekeeping credits up to, but not beyond, the 25% cap—which has led to the accumulation of
about $920 million in U.S. arrears from FY2017 to FY2020. For more information, see CRS In Focus IF10597, about $920 million in U.S. arrears from FY2017 to FY2020. For more information, see CRS In Focus IF10597, United
Nations Issues: U.S. Funding of U.N. Peacekeeping, by Luisa Blanchfield. See also U.S. Department of State, , by Luisa Blanchfield. See also U.S. Department of State,
Congressional Budget Justification, p. 51. , p. 51.
4050 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, FY2022 Budget Request, slide presentation, p. 42. , slide presentation, p. 42.
4151 SFOPS CBJ for FY2022 Appendix 1, p. 397. See also 22 U.S.C. §287e note. SFOPS CBJ for FY2022 Appendix 1, p. 397. See also 22 U.S.C. §287e note.
4252 House Committee on Appropriations, House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2022, p. , p.
6. 6.
~~43 For more on international food assistance programs, see CRS Report R45422,~~ ~~U.S. International Food Assistance:~~
~~An Overview, by Alyssa R. Casey and Emily M. Morgenstern.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

10

~~link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 15~~ ~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

Congressional Research Service 12 link to page 18 link to page 19 link to page 19 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Foreign Operations Highlights The SFOPS appropriation’s foreign operations accounts comprise the majority of U.S. foreign assistance included in the international affairs budget; the remainder is enacted in the agriculture appropriation, which provides funding for the Food for Peace Act, Title II and McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programs.53 The Biden Administration’s initial FY2022 request for Foreign Operations accounts totaled $44.307 billion. The total foreign assistance request, including the food assistance provided in the agriculture appropriation, request, including the food assistance provided in the agriculture appropriation, ~~totals $46.1~~
~~billion, representing~~totaled $46.107 billion, which represented an 11% increase from FY2021-enacted nonemergency funds (i.e., base and an 11% increase from FY2021-enacted nonemergency funds (i.e., base and
OCO) and a nearly 20% decrease from total enacted FY2021 appropriations (i.e., base, OCO, and OCO) and a nearly 20% decrease from total enacted FY2021 appropriations (i.e., base, OCO, and
emergency funds to address COVID-19 abroad, certain assistance for Sudan, and humanitarian emergency funds to address COVID-19 abroad, certain assistance for Sudan, and humanitarian
~~assistance for Afghanistan and Afghan refugees). See Table 6 for a more detailed breakdown.~~
~~Table 6~~assistance for Afghanistan and Afghan refugees). On March 2, 2022, the Administration requested supplemental foreign operations funding to support needs related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as well as the continued COVID-19 response abroad.54 For Ukraine, the request included a total of $5.0 billion, of which $2.75 billion would have been for humanitarian assistance, $1.75 billion for economic assistance, and $500 million for security assistance.55 For COVID-19, the Administration requested a total of $4.25 billion in additional foreign operations funding, of which $3.50 billion would have been for certain global health initiatives and $750 million for humanitarian assistance. With the supplemental request, the Administration’s FY2022 foreign operations request totaled $53.56 billion, and the total foreign assistance request was $55.36 billion, or 3.5% less than the FY2021-enacted funding level. See Table 5 for a more detailed breakdown. Table 5. Foreign Assistance, by Type, FY2020-FY2022 (In millions of current U.S. dollars) % Change, % ~~. Foreign Assistance, by Type, FY2020-FY2022~~
~~(In millions of current U.S. dollars)~~
%
%
~~Change,~~
Change,
FY2021
FY2021
~~Non-~~
Total
~~FY2021~~
~~Emerg.~~
~~Enact.~~Total Enacted
Enacted
FY2021
vs.
Total vs.
FY2020
~~Base +~~
~~Enacted~~Enacted FY2022
FY2022
FY2022
FY2022
FY2022
Type
Actual
~~OCO~~
~~Totala~~Tot ala Request
Request
~~Req.~~
~~Req.~~
~~House~~House Enacted Enacted
USAID Administration
1,766.05 1,766.05
1, 1,~~711.45~~
1,752.45 752.45
1,862.65 1,862.65
~~8.8%~~
6.3% 6.3%
1,790.62 1,790.62
2,003.15 14.3% Global Health Programs
9,559.95 9,559.95
913,195.95 ,195.95
13, 13,~~195.95~~
~~10,050.95~~
~~9.3%~~
~~-23.8%~~
~~10,641.45~~
~~Non-Health Development~~
~~8,119.08~~
~~8,302.04~~
~~17,797.04~~
~~9,902.11~~
~~19.3%~~
~~-44.4~~550.95 2.7% 10,641.45 9,830.00 -25.5% Non-health Development Assistance 8,119.08 17,797.04 11,652.11 -34.5% 9,272.00 11,449.19 -35.7 %
~~9,272.00~~
~~Assistance~~
(includes Treasury Technical (includes Treasury Technical
Assistance) Assistance)
Humanitarian Assistanceb
10,460.46 10,460.46
~~9,567.46~~
~~11,467.46~~
~~10,097.46~~
~~5.5%~~
~~-11.9%~~
~~10,267.46~~11,467.46 13,597.46 18.6% 10,267.46 15,798.85 37.8%
Independent Agencies
1,474.00 1,474.00
1,393.50 1,393.50
1,393.50 1,393.50
~~1,393.50~~
~~0.0%~~
~~0.0%~~
~~1,430.00~~0.0% 1,430.00 1,404.50 0.8%
Security Assistance
9,013.95 9,013.95
9,004.03 9,004.03
9, 9,~~004.03~~
~~9,183.89~~
~~2.0%~~
~~2.0%~~
~~9,034.03~~
~~Multilateral Assistance~~
~~2,049.78~~
~~2,040.82~~
~~2,620.82~~
~~3,630.13~~
~~77.9%~~
~~38.5%~~
~~4,098.56~~
~~Export Promotionc~~
~~59.16~~
~~159.00~~
~~159.00~~
~~-13.61~~
~~-108.6%~~
~~-108.6%~~
~~223.80~~
~~Foreign Assistance Total~~
~~42,502.42~~
~~41,374.25~~
~~57,390.25~~
~~46,107.05~~
~~11.4%~~
~~-19.7%~~
~~46,757.92~~
~~Sources:~~ ~~SFOPS CBJ for FY2022; H.R. 4373; H.R. 4356;~~ 683.89 7.5% 9,034.03 9,579.35 6.4% 53 For more on international food assistance programs, see CRS Report R45422, U.S. International Food Assistance: An Overview, by Alyssa R. Casey and Emily M. Morgenstern. 54 See letter from OMB Acting Director Shalanda Young to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/COVID-and-Ukraine-Supplemental-Funding-Request-Pelosi.pdf. 55 For more on the Ukraine portion of the Administration’s supplemental request, see CRS Insight IN11877, Supplemental Funding for Ukraine: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS), by Emily M. Morgenstern. Congressional Research Service 13 link to page 19 link to page 19 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs % Change, % Change, FY2021 FY2021 Total Total Enacted Enacted FY2021 vs. Total vs. FY2020 Enacted FY2022 FY2022 FY2022 FY2022 FY2022 Type Actual Totala Request Request House Enacted Enacted Multilateral Assistance 2,049.78 2,620.82 3,630.13 38.5% 4,098.56 2,374.46 -9.4% Export Promotionc 59.16 159.00 -13.61 -108.6% 223.80 323.80 103.6% Foreign Assistance Total 42,502.42 57,390.25 55,357.05 -3.5% 46,757.92 52,763.30 -8.1% Sources: SFOPS CBJ for FY2022; H.R. 4373; H.R. 4356; P.L. 117-103; supplemental request submitted to Congress on March 2, 2022; CRS calculations. CRS calculations.
a. FY2021 enacted total includes emergency funding to address COVID-19 abroad, select assistance for Sudan, a. FY2021 enacted total includes emergency funding to address COVID-19 abroad, select assistance for Sudan,
and humanitarian assistance for Afghanistan and Afghan refugees. and humanitarian assistance for Afghanistan and Afghan refugees.
b. Includes Food for Peace Act, Title II funds appropriated in annual Agriculture appropriations. b. Includes Food for Peace Act, Title II funds appropriated in annual Agriculture appropriations.
c. Export Promotion numbers are negative when anticipated receipts and other offsetting col ections are c. Export Promotion numbers are negative when anticipated receipts and other offsetting col ections are
expected to exceed appropriations, resulting in a net gain to the Treasury. expected to exceed appropriations, resulting in a net gain to the Treasury.
House Legislation. The House FY2022 legislation The House FY2022 legislation ~~provides~~provided a total of $46. a total of $46.876 billion for foreign assistance (includes billion for foreign assistance (includes
food aid in the Agriculture appropriation, H.R. 4356). This food aid in the Agriculture appropriation, H.R. 4356). This ~~represents a~~ represented a nearly 19% increase from nearly 19% increase from
FY2021-enacted nonemergency funds, a 14% decrease from total FY2021-enacted funding, and a FY2021-enacted nonemergency funds, a 14% decrease from total FY2021-enacted funding, and a
5% increase over the Biden Administration’s 5% increase over the Biden Administration’s initial request. request.
Continuing ~~Resolution~~Resolutions. The first continuing resolution for FY2022 (P.L. 117-43), which expired The first continuing resolution for FY2022 (P.L. 117-43), which expired
on December 3, 2021, included a total of on December 3, 2021, included a total of ~~nearly $1.9~~$1.89 billion in emergency funding to address billion in emergency funding to address
humanitarian needs in Afghanistan and to assist Afghan refugees, among other objectives. The humanitarian needs in Afghanistan and to assist Afghan refugees, among other objectives. The
funds were provided through three accounts: funds were provided through three accounts: ~~IDA (~~International Disaster Assistance (IDA, $400 $400 million), Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA, $415 million), and Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA, ~~million), MRA ($415 million), and~~
~~ERMA (~~$1.08 billion). The second continuing resolution for FY2022 (P.L. 117-70), $1.08 billion). The second continuing resolution for FY2022 (P.L. 117-70), ~~expiring~~
which expired on February 18, 2022, February 18, 2022, ~~includes $1.2~~included $1.20 billion in supplemental ERMA funds “for support for Operation billion in supplemental ERMA funds “for support for Operation
Allies Welcome and related efforts by the Department of State, including additional relocations of Allies Welcome and related efforts by the Department of State, including additional relocations of
individuals at risk as a result of the situation in Afghanistan and related expenses.” The CR also individuals at risk as a result of the situation in Afghanistan and related expenses.” The CR also
~~includes~~included a provision that a provision that ~~requires~~required the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to
~~Congressional Research Service~~

11

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

provide a report to Congress no later than January 15, 2022, on Operation Allies Welcome that provide a report to Congress no later than January 15, 2022, on Operation Allies Welcome that
includes “a strategy and transition plan leading to the conclusion” of the operation, among other includes “a strategy and transition plan leading to the conclusion” of the operation, among other
~~details.~~
~~Cross-Cutting Issues~~
~~The Biden Administration’s budget request articulates certain global priorities for FY2022. These~~
~~include~~details. Omnibus Appropriation. P.L. 117-103 provided $40.95 billion in base foreign operations funding and $9.74 billion in supplemental funds to address the crisis in Ukraine, bringing the total foreign operations funding for FY2022 to nearly $50.69 billion, and foreign assistance funding to $52.76 billion. This foreign assistance funding level represents an 8% decrease from total FY2021 foreign assistance funding. However, when comparing nonemergency funding, FY2022-enacted funding represents a 4% increase from the FY2021 funding level. The largest increase among the foreign assistance funding categories was for export assistance, for which FY2022-enacted appropriations are more than double the FY2021 funding. The largest funding reduction when comparing FY2021- and FY2022-enacted appropriations was for non-health development assistance accounts, which decreased by nearly 36% in total. Congressional Research Service 14 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Cross-Cutting Issues The Biden Administration’s budget request articulated certain global priorities for FY2022. These included responding to climate change through bilateral and multilateral efforts, addressing the responding to climate change through bilateral and multilateral efforts, addressing the
first- and second-order effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and combating rising first- and second-order effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and combating rising
authoritarianism. authoritarianism.
Climate Change
The Biden Administration The Biden Administration ~~has~~ identified climate change response as a top priority. Multilaterally, identified climate change response as a top priority. Multilaterally,
the Biden Administration the Biden Administration ~~proposes~~proposed a $625 million contribution to the Green Climate Fund, which a $625 million contribution to the Green Climate Fund, which
would be the first U.S. contribution since FY2017. The request also would be the first U.S. contribution since FY2017. The request also ~~includes~~included $300 million for the $300 million for the
Clean Technology Fund and $100 million for Multilateral Climate Change Adaptation Funds. Clean Technology Fund and $100 million for Multilateral Climate Change Adaptation Funds.
Bilaterally, the Administration Bilaterally, the Administration ~~asserts~~asserted that the request “increas[es] investments in systemic that the request “increas[es] investments in systemic
change that promotes adaptation resilience, renewable energy, and sustainable landscapes.”change that promotes adaptation resilience, renewable energy, and sustainable landscapes.”4456 The The
Administration Administration ~~includes~~included climate considerations in all regional-specific requests as well as certain climate considerations in all regional-specific requests as well as certain
sector-specific requests such as those for food security and gender.sector-specific requests such as those for food security and gender.4557 The budget request also The budget request also
~~incorporates~~incorporated climate-related priorities into independent agency requests, such as those for the climate-related priorities into independent agency requests, such as those for the
Peace Corps, Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the U.S. African Development Foundation. Peace Corps, Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the U.S. African Development Foundation.
House Legislation. The House bill, H.R. 4373, The House bill, H.R. 4373, ~~provides~~provided funds for both multilateral and bilateral funds for both multilateral and bilateral
efforts to combat climate change. The bill efforts to combat climate change. The bill ~~includes $1.6~~included $1.60 billion for the Green Climate Fund and billion for the Green Climate Fund and
$200 million for the Clean Technology Fund. The report $200 million for the Clean Technology Fund. The report ~~designates~~designated additional funds for climate additional funds for climate
efforts and efforts and ~~directs~~directed agencies to incorporate climate into foreign assistance activities. For agencies to incorporate climate into foreign assistance activities. For example, it listed climate change~~example,~~
~~climate change is listed~~ as a key issue in a number of regions, including the Indo-Pacific, Central as a key issue in a number of regions, including the Indo-Pacific, Central
America, and sub-Saharan Africa. The committee further America, and sub-Saharan Africa. The committee further ~~directs~~directed that funds be made available for that funds be made available for
“climate change integration at the activity level at USAID, especially to increase the technical “climate change integration at the activity level at USAID, especially to increase the technical
expertise of USAID staff related to climate change mitigation and expertise of USAID staff related to climate change mitigation and adaptation.” Omnibus Appropriation. P.L. 117-103 included selected funding for climate change efforts but not at the levels requested by the Administration or proposed in the House legislation. The bill included $125 million for a Clean Technology Fund and $149 million for the Global Environment Facility. The bill also directed that $185 million be made available for sustainable landscapes programs, $270 million for adaptation programs, and $260 million for clean energy programs, among other environmental initiatives. As in prior year appropriations, the legislation did not include a contribution to the Green Climate Fund.58~~adaptation.”~~
COVID-19
The FY2022 request The FY2022 request ~~proposes~~proposed funds to address the first-order effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, funds to address the first-order effects of the COVID-19 pandemic,
including global health and humanitarian needs; second- and third-order effects, such as food including global health and humanitarian needs; second- and third-order effects, such as food
security, education, and economic challenges; and long-term pandemic preparedness efforts. The security, education, and economic challenges; and long-term pandemic preparedness efforts. The
proposed investments for COVID-19 response proposed investments for COVID-19 response ~~include~~included, among others, 56 SFOPS CBJ for FY2022, p. 80. 57 Ibid. 58 For more detailed information on U.S. funding for international climate programs, see CRS In Focus IF12036, U.S. International Climate Finance: FY2022, by Richard K. Lattanzio. Congressional Research Service 15 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs ~~, among others,~~
 $995 million for Global Health Security to “enhance the global COVID response  $995 million for Global Health Security to “enhance the global COVID response
and strengthen global health security”; and strengthen global health security”;4659
 humanitarian assistance funds through the International Disaster Assistance  humanitarian assistance funds through the International Disaster Assistance
(IDA) and Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) accounts to aid the most (IDA) and Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) accounts to aid the most

~~44 SFOPS CBJ for FY2022, p. 80.~~
~~45 Ibid.~~
~~46 Ibid., p. 77.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

12

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

vulnerable populations and maintain “global response capacity” in the wake of vulnerable populations and maintain “global response capacity” in the wake of
COVID-19;COVID-19;4760
 Development Assistance (DA) education funds to “address the global learning  Development Assistance (DA) education funds to “address the global learning
crisis and respond to the impact of COVID-19 on education”; crisis and respond to the impact of COVID-19 on education”;4861 and and
 Economic Support Fund (ESF) monies to help regions recover from the  Economic Support Fund (ESF) monies to help regions recover from the
economic effects of COVID-19. economic effects of COVID-19.4962 The Administration’s supplemental request for COVID-19, submitted on March 2, 2022, included an additional $4.25 billion for foreign operations accounts. According to the request, $3.5 billion would have been for global health programs—including $1.8 billion for the U.S. Global VAX initiative and $1.7 billion for other COVID-19 global health interventions (e.g., therapeutics and supplies)—and $750 million would have been for humanitarian assistance, including the provision of emergency food assistance.
House Legislation. The report accompanying the House measure (H.Rept. 117-84) The report accompanying the House measure (H.Rept. 117-84) ~~notes~~noted that the that the
bill bill
makes a strong commitment to a global health architecture where every country has the makes a strong commitment to a global health architecture where every country has the
systems and policies to proactively respond to, and mitigate, emerging health threats ... systems and policies to proactively respond to, and mitigate, emerging health threats ...
[and] provides a renewed commitment to development and the economic security of [and] provides a renewed commitment to development and the economic security of
countries seeking to recover from the ravages of the pandemic including closed schools, countries seeking to recover from the ravages of the pandemic including closed schools,
lost livelihoods, and rising levels of gender-based violence and discrimination. lost livelihoods, and rising levels of gender-based violence and discrimination.
The measure and accompanying report The measure and accompanying report ~~provide~~provided $1 billion for Global Health Security; $1 billion for Global Health Security; ~~direct~~ directed the the
USAID Administrator to address learning loss due to COVID-19, including through expanding USAID Administrator to address learning loss due to COVID-19, including through expanding
access to distance learning materials and technology; and access to distance learning materials and technology; and ~~recommend~~recommended that USAID design that USAID design
COVID-19-sensitive water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) programs, among other COVID-19-sensitive water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) programs, among other provisions. Omnibus Appropriation. The draft omnibus appropriation included a division with supplemental funding for COVID-19, including for select SFOPS accounts. However, the division was removed from the bill prior to its enactment.63 The enacted bill, P.L. 117-103, included directives related to pandemics and other infectious disease outbreaks but did not designate specific funding levels for such purposes, with the exception of the Emergency Reserve Fund, which may receive up to $100 million. ~~provisions.~~
Rising Authoritarianism
The Biden Administration’s budget The Biden Administration’s budget ~~proposes~~proposed funds to address rising authoritarianism and funds to address rising authoritarianism and
democratic backsliding, including in the context of COVID-19. A proposed $100 million for democratic backsliding, including in the context of COVID-19. A proposed $100 million for
59 Ibid., p. 77. 60 Ibid., pp. 84 and 95. 61 Ibid., p. 81. 62 Ibid., pp. 87-88. 63 Laura Weiss, David Lerman, Lindsey McPherson, et al., “Pandemic aid bill pulled as House aims to wrap up omnibus,” Roll Call, March 9, 2022. Congressional Research Service 16 link to page 23 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs USAID’s Bureau for Democracy, Development, and Innovation (DDI)—which USAID’s Bureau for Democracy, Development, and Innovation (DDI)—which iswas level when level when
compared to the FY2021 appropriation—compared to the FY2021 appropriation—~~“elevates~~ was to elevate “anti-corruption, human rights, and countering anti-corruption, human rights, and countering
authoritarianism as strategic and programmatic priorities.”authoritarianism as strategic and programmatic priorities.”5064 The Administration also The Administration also ~~includes~~
included these priorities in some of its regional requests. The Assistance to Europe, Eurasia, and Central these priorities in some of its regional requests. The Assistance to Europe, Eurasia, and Central
Asia proposal for Europe and Eurasia, for example, Asia proposal for Europe and Eurasia, for example, iswas “focused on defending democracy, rule of “focused on defending democracy, rule of
law, advancing human rights and gender equality, fighting corruption, and countering law, advancing human rights and gender equality, fighting corruption, and countering
authoritarianism.”authoritarianism.”5165
House Legislation. The House report accompanying H.R. 4373 The House report accompanying H.R. 4373 ~~asserts~~asserted its support for the its support for the
Administration’s “commitment to strengthening and preserving democracies worldwide.” It Administration’s “commitment to strengthening and preserving democracies worldwide.” It
~~provides~~provided funds for the Democracy Fund at the level the Administration requested—which would funds for the Democracy Fund at the level the Administration requested—which would
behave been even with the FY2021-enacted level—and even with the FY2021-enacted level—and ~~provides~~provided additional funds for multilateral efforts, additional funds for multilateral efforts,
such as $4.5 million for the Organization of American States (OAS) Fund for Strengthening such as $4.5 million for the Organization of American States (OAS) Fund for Strengthening
Democracy and $3.5 million for the U.N. Democracy Fund. Democracy and $3.5 million for the U.N. Democracy Fund.

~~47 Ibid., pp. 84 and 95.~~
~~48 Ibid., p. 81.~~
~~49 Ibid., pp. 87-88.~~
~~50 Ibid., p. 91.~~
~~51 Ibid., p. 92.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

13

~~link to page 18~~ ~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

~~Foreign Operations Sectors~~
~~Global Health Programs (GHP)52~~ Omnibus Appropriation. The FY2022 omnibus legislation included a total of $340 million for the Democracy Fund, a 17% increase over the FY2021-enacted level and the Administration’s request for FY2022. The bill also directed that not less than $2.60 billion be made available for democracy programs in FY2022, an increase of $183 million from the amount designated in FY2021. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the legislation also designated $4.5 million in the OAS Fund for Strengthening Democracy and $3.5 million for the U.N. Democracy Fund, consistent with the House-passed legislation. Foreign Operations Sectors Global Health Programs (GHP)66
Most of the global health funding in the USAID and the Department of State budgets is used for Most of the global health funding in the USAID and the Department of State budgets is used for
the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and infectious disease control the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and infectious disease control
(se(see Table 7)~~.53~~6).67 The Biden Administration The Biden Administration initially requested $10.05 billion in total for global health requested $10.05 billion in total for global health
programs in FY2022, a nearly 24% decrease from total FY2021 Global Health Programs account programs in FY2022, a nearly 24% decrease from total FY2021 Global Health Programs account
funding but a 9% increase when FY2021 emergency funds are excluded. Funding for global funding but a 9% increase when FY2021 emergency funds are excluded. Funding for global
health security programs would health security programs would ~~increase~~have increased by $825 million, or more than 429%, from FY2021 by $825 million, or more than 429%, from FY2021
enacted nonemergency fundingenacted nonemergency funding~~, which appears~~. The increase appeared to reflect the Administration’s interest in to reflect the Administration’s interest in
pandemic preparedness efforts in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.pandemic preparedness efforts in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.5468 The Biden Administration The Biden Administration
announced in January 2021 that it would reengage with WHO, and included “the repayment of announced in January 2021 that it would reengage with WHO, and included “the repayment of
arrears” to WHO in the President’s FY2022 discretionary funding request summary.arrears” to WHO in the President’s FY2022 discretionary funding request summary.5569 These These
actions actions ~~would reverse~~reversed the Trump Administration’s decision to halt U.S. funding to the WHO and the Trump Administration’s decision to halt U.S. funding to the WHO and
“terminate” the U.S. relationship with the organization.“terminate” the U.S. relationship with the organization.56
70 64 Ibid., p. 91. 65 Ibid., p. 92. 66 Prepared by Sara Tharakan, Analyst in Global Health and International Development, and Tiaji Salaam-Blyther, Specialist in Global Health. 67 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11758, U.S. Global Health Funding: FY2017-FY2022 Request, by Tiaji Salaam-Blyther. Congress also appropriates global health funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, all of which is focused on infectious disease prevention and control. 68 SFOPS CBJ for FY2022. 69 White House, The President’s FY2022 Discretionary Budget Request, April 9, 2021, p. 26. 70 For more on the Trump Administration’s decisions regarding WHO, as well as the withdrawal process, see CRS Congressional Research Service 17 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs The Biden Administration also The Biden Administration also
 reversed the Mexico City Policy which, when invoked by previous presidents,  reversed the Mexico City Policy which, when invoked by previous presidents,
required nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) receiving U.S. foreign required nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) receiving U.S. foreign
assistance for family planning programs to certify that they would not promote or assistance for family planning programs to certify that they would not promote or
perform abortion as a method of family planning, even with non-U.S. funds; and perform abortion as a method of family planning, even with non-U.S. funds; and
 revoked the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy, which expanded  revoked the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy, which expanded
the Mexico City Policy on family planning and reproductive health (FP/RH) the Mexico City Policy on family planning and reproductive health (FP/RH)
funding to include all U.S. global health assistance.funding to include all U.S. global health assistance.5771
Additionally, the FY2022 budget request Additionally, the FY2022 budget request ~~seeks~~sought funding increases for FP/RH programs (+$26 funding increases for FP/RH programs (+$26
million), as well as for maternal and child health (+$24.5 million).million), as well as for maternal and child health (+$24.5 million).58
~~Table 7~~72 As noted above, the Administration submitted to Congress a supplemental funding request in March 2022 to address COVID-19 abroad, including $3.5 billion for global health programs. This brought the total FY2022 request for the Global Health Programs account to $13.55 billion, or about 2.7% more than the FY2021 total enacted funding. Table 6. Global Health Appropriations, FY2018-FY2022
(In millions of current U.S. dollars) (In millions of current U.S. dollars)
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
FY2022
FY2022
Enacted
Enacted
Enacted
Enacted
Request
House
Enacted HIV/AIDS HIV/AIDS
4,320.0 4,320.0
4,370.0 4,370.0
4,370.0 4,370.0
4,370.0 4,370.0
4,370.0 4,370.0
4,520.0 4,520.0 4,390.0 Global Fund 1,350.0 1,350.0 1,560.0 1,560.0 1,560.0 1,560.0 1,560.0 Total, State-GHP 5,670.0 5,720.0 5,930.0 5,930.0 5,930.0 6,080.0 5,950.0 HIV/AIDS 330.0 330.0 330.0 330.0 330.0 330.0 330.0 Tuberculosis 261.0 302.0 310.0 319.0 319.0 469.0 371.1 Malaria 755.0 755.0 770.0 770.0 770.0 820.0 775.0 MCH 829.5 835.0 851.0 855.0 879.5 880.0 890.0 Nutrition 125.0 145.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 160.0 155.0 Vulnerable 23.0 24.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 27.5 Children FP/RH 524.0 524.0 524.0 524.0 550.0 760.0 524.0 NTDs 100.0 102.5 102.5 102.5 102.5 112.5 107.5 GHS 72.5 100.0 100.0 190.0 995.0 1,000.0 700.0 Total, USAID- 3,020.0 3,117.5 3,162.5 3,265.5 4,121.0 4,561.5 3,880.0 GHP Emergency GHP 4,000.0 3,500.0 Total, GHP 8,690.0 8,837.5 9,092.5 13,195.5 13,551.0 10,641.5 9,830.0 Report R46575, U.S. Withdrawal from the World Health Organization: Process and Implications, coordinated by Tiaji Salaam-Blyther. 71 For more information on the MCP see CRS Report R41360, Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance Law and Policy, by Luisa Blanchfield. 72 SFOPS CBJ for FY2022. Congressional Research Service 18 link to page 31 link to page 25 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
~~Global Fund~~
~~1,350.0~~
~~1,350.0~~
~~1,560.0~~
~~1,560.0~~
~~1,560.0~~
~~1,560.0~~

~~52 Prepared by Sara Tharakan, Analyst in Global Health and International Development, and Tiaji Salaam-Blyther,~~
~~Specialist in Global Health.~~
~~53 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11758, U.S. Global Health Funding: FY2017-FY2022 Request, by Tiaji~~
~~Salaam-Blyther. Congress also appropriates global health funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,~~
~~all of which is focused on infectious disease prevention and control.~~
~~54 SFOPS CBJ for FY2022.~~
~~55 White House, The President’s FY2022 Discretionary Budget Request, April 9, 2021, p. 26.~~
~~56 For more on the Trump Administration’s decisions regarding WHO, as well as the withdrawal process, see CRS~~
~~Report R46575, U.S. Withdrawal from the World Health Organization: Process and Implications, coordinated by Tiaji~~
~~Salaam-Blyther.~~
~~57 For more information on the MCP see CRS Report R41360,~~ ~~Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in~~
~~U.S. Foreign Assistance Law and Policy, by Luisa Blanchfield.~~
~~58 SFOPS CBJ for FY2022.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

14

~~link to page 21~~ ~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

~~FY2018~~
~~FY2019~~
~~FY2020~~
~~FY2021~~
~~FY2022~~
~~FY2022~~

~~Enacted~~
~~Enacted~~
~~Enacted~~
~~Enacted~~
~~Request~~
~~House~~
~~Total, State-GHP~~
~~5,670.0~~
~~5,720.0~~
~~5,930.0~~
~~5,930.0~~
~~5,930.0~~
~~6,080.0~~
~~HIV/AIDS~~
~~330.0~~
~~330.0~~
~~330.0~~
~~330.0~~
~~330.0~~
~~330.0~~
~~Tuberculosis~~
~~261.0~~
~~302.0~~
~~310.0~~
~~319.0~~
~~319.0~~
~~469.0~~
~~Malaria~~
~~755.0~~
~~755.0~~
~~770.0~~
~~770.0~~
~~770.0~~
~~820.0~~
~~MCH~~
~~829.5~~
~~835.0~~
~~851.0~~
~~855.0~~
~~879.5~~
~~880.0~~
~~Nutrition~~
~~125.0~~
~~145.0~~
~~150.0~~
~~150.0~~
~~150.0~~
~~160.0~~
~~Vulnerable Children~~
~~23.0~~
~~24.0~~
~~25.0~~
~~25.0~~
~~25.0~~
~~30.0~~
~~FP/RH~~
~~524.0~~
~~524.0~~
~~524.0~~
~~524.0~~
~~550.0~~
~~760.0~~
~~NTDs~~
~~100.0~~
~~102.5~~
~~102.5~~
~~102.5~~
~~102.5~~
~~112.5~~
~~GHS~~
~~72.5~~
~~100.0~~
~~100.0~~
~~190.0~~
~~995.0~~
~~1,000.0~~
~~Total, USAID-GHP~~
~~3,020.0~~
~~3,117.5~~
~~3,162.5~~
~~3,265.5~~
~~4,121.0~~
~~4,561.5~~
~~Emergency GHP~~

~~4,000.0~~

~~Total, GHP~~
~~8,690.0~~
~~8,837.5~~
~~9,092.5~~
~~13,195.5~~
~~10,051.0~~
~~10,641.5~~
Sources: Created by Tiaji Salaam-Blyther, Specialist in Global Health, from appropriations legislation and Created by Tiaji Salaam-Blyther, Specialist in Global Health, from appropriations legislation and
engagement with USAID legislative affairs staff. engagement with USAID legislative affairs staff.
Notes: FY2021 emergency supplemental funding to combat COVID-19 abroad was enacted in Title IX of P.L. FY2021 emergency supplemental funding to combat COVID-19 abroad was enacted in Title IX of P.L.
116-260, but subaccount allocations were not specified. Table does not include funding for global health from 116-260, but subaccount allocations were not specified. Table does not include funding for global health from
other appropriations vehicles (e.g., CDC funding for global health activities appropriated through Labor-HHS). other appropriations vehicles (e.g., CDC funding for global health activities appropriated through Labor-HHS).
MCH = Maternal and Child Health; FP/RH = Family Planning and Reproductive Health; NTDs = Neglected MCH = Maternal and Child Health; FP/RH = Family Planning and Reproductive Health; NTDs = Neglected
Tropical Diseases; GHS = Global Health Security. Tropical Diseases; GHS = Global Health Security.
House Legislation. The House measure, H.R. 4373, The House measure, H.R. 4373, ~~provides $10.6~~provided $10.64 billion in global health funding for FY2022. The billion in global health funding for FY2022. The
~~bill provides~~bill provided level or increased funding for each global health subaccount when compared with level or increased funding for each global health subaccount when compared with
the Biden Administration’s the Biden Administration’s initial request. Compared with the Administration’s request. Compared with the Administration’s initial request, the bill request, the bill ~~provides~~
provided the largest increase (in dollar amount) to Family Planning/Reproductive Health the largest increase (in dollar amount) to Family Planning/Reproductive Health ~~and places a~~
~~particular emphasis on global health security and health systems strengthening.~~
~~Humanitarian Assistance59~~programs and emphasized global health security and health systems strengthening. Omnibus Appropriation. The omnibus appropriation, P.L. 117-103, provided $9.83 billion in global health funding for FY2022 but did not include the emergency COVID-19 funding requested by the Administration, which Congress continues to debate (see “Outlook” section, below). The enacted funding represents an increase of $634.5 million (7%) compared with FY2021-enacted nonemergency funding (i.e., excluding the $4 billion in FY2021 supplemental funding to combat COVID-19). The legislation provided level or increased funding for each global health subaccount compared with FY2021-enacted levels. However, compared with the President’s amended request, the legislation decreased funding to FP/RH (-5%) and Global Health Security (-30%), and total GHP funding by more than 27%. Humanitarian Assistance73
The U.S. government supports global efforts to assist people affected by conflict and natural The U.S. government supports global efforts to assist people affected by conflict and natural
disasters, consistently providing about one-third of total global humanitarian assistance. Such disasters, consistently providing about one-third of total global humanitarian assistance. Such
assistance is generally appropriated through global humanitarian accounts administered through assistance is generally appropriated through global humanitarian accounts administered through
the State Department and USAID, including the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA), the State Department and USAID, including the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA),
Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA), and International Disaster Assistance Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA), and International Disaster Assistance
(IDA) accounts in the SFOPS appropriation, and the Food for Peace, Title II account (FFP) in the (IDA) accounts in the SFOPS appropriation, and the Food for Peace, Title II account (FFP) in the
Agriculture appropriation. Continuing a long-standing trend across Administrations, Congress has Agriculture appropriation. Continuing a long-standing trend across Administrations, Congress has
supported global humanitarian efforts at appropriation levels well above the budget request (see supported global humanitarian efforts at appropriation levels well above the budget request (see
Figure 3). .
~~Experts agree~~Data show that the scope of global humanitarian and displacement crises has significantly that the scope of global humanitarian and displacement crises has significantly
worsened in worsened in ~~recent years,60 and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic continues to exacerbate drivers~~

59the past 25 years. 74 According to the United Nations, the projected numbers of those displaced or requiring humanitarian assistance in 2022 are the highest on record, in part due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which continues to exacerbate drivers of humanitarian need.75 The U.N. 2022 global humanitarian appeal for $41.00 billion was the highest ever. Enacted FY2021 73 Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy. Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy.
~~60 The United Nations reported that, worldwide, more than 235 million people required~~ 74 The New Humanitarian, “Change in the Humanitarian Sector, in Numbers,” September 9, 2020. 75 The United Nations estimates that in 2022, more than 274 million people will require humanitarian assistance and protection and humanitarian assistance and protection and
~~nearly 82~~over 8.4 million persons .4 million persons ~~were~~will be forcibly displaced, the highest number on record. In addition, natural forcibly displaced, the highest number on record. In addition, natural disasters and deepening environmental vulnerability due to climate change affect millions of people every year. U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Global Humanitarian Overview 2022, December 2, 2021. U.N. humanitarian funding appeals are administered through UNOCHA and bring many aid organizations together to coordinate a response to major humanitarian crises and disasters worldwide, usually in the form of an appeal for funds through a collaborative plan. U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, Mid-Year Trends Report, November 2021 (latest available). Congressional Research Service 19 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs U.S. humanitarian funding totaled $11.467 billion, which was~~disasters and deepening~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

15

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

~~of humanitarian need. The U.N. 2021 global humanitarian appeal for $36.1 billion is the highest~~
~~ever. Enacted FY2021 U.S. humanitarian funding to date totals $11.467 billion, which is~~ also a also a
record high. This total record high. This total ~~includes~~included emergency supplemental funds from P.L. 117-31 (comprising emergency supplemental funds from P.L. 117-31 (comprising
$500 million for ERMA and $100 million for MRA to address humanitarian needs in Afghanistan $500 million for ERMA and $100 million for MRA to address humanitarian needs in Afghanistan
and to assist Afghan refugees) and at least $800 million in FFP funds and $500 million in MRA and to assist Afghan refugees) and at least $800 million in FFP funds and $500 million in MRA
funds provided for a broad range of needs through the American Rescue Plan Actfunds provided for a broad range of needs through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA, P.L. (ARPA, P.L.
~~117-2).61~~

~~environmental vulnerability due to climate change affect millions of people every year. U.N. Office for the Coordination of~~
~~Humanitarian Affairs, Global Humanitarian Overview 2021, December 2020 and May 31, 2021 update. U.N. High Commissioner for~~
~~Refugees, Global Trends Report, June 18, 2021 (latest available).~~
61117-2).76 The Biden Administration’s initial budget request for FY2022 called for $10.10 billion in humanitarian assistance to support displaced and vulnerable persons worldwide, or about 12% below the FY2021-enacted total. The request included $3.85 billion for MRA, $100 million for ERMA, $4.68 billion for IDA, and $1.57 billion for FFP. It would have shifted $170.0 million from FFP to IDA’s Emergency Food Security Program in a stated effort to increase flexibility in addressing urgent and growing food insecurity. The Administration’s supplemental request for aid to Ukraine and assistance to address COVID-19 abroad sought $3.50 billion in additional FY2022 humanitarian assistance ($2.75 billion for Ukraine, $750 million for COVID-19), including the provision of emergency food assistance. This supplemental request brought the Administration’s total FY2022 humanitarian assistance request to $13.60 billion. Figure 3. U.S. Humanitarian Assistance, by Account (FY2014-FY2022) Sources: Annual SFOPS CBJs and Omnibus Funding Legislation. Notes: MRA = Migration and Refugee Assistance, ERMA = Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance, IDA = International Disaster Assistance, IHA = International Humanitarian Assistance, FFP = Food for Peace. FY2020 enacted funding includes supplemental COVID-19 relief appropriations. FY2021-enacted funding includes emergency supplemental funds from P.L. 117-31 and ARPA. Figure produced with Edward Col ins-Chase, Analyst in Foreign Policy. *An IHA consolidated account was proposed under the Trump Administration. Congress did not enact the proposed funding reductions or changes to the humanitarian account structure. 76 Section 10003 of ARPA also included $3.09 billion under the Economic Support Fund authority “to be made Section 10003 of ARPA also included $3.09 billion under the Economic Support Fund authority “to be made
available to the United States Agency for International Development to prevent, prepare for, and respond to available to the United States Agency for International Development to prevent, prepare for, and respond to
coronavirus, which shall include support for international disaster relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction, for coronavirus, which shall include support for international disaster relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction, for
health activities, and to meet emergency food security needs.” It is unclear if any of these funds health activities, and to meet emergency food security needs.” It is unclear if any of these funds ~~will be channeled~~are to be administered
through the through the global humanitarian accounts. humanitarian accounts.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

1620 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 18 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs House Legislation. The House measure, H.R. 4373, would have provided $8.53 billion in humanitarian funding through the MRA, ERMA, and IDA accounts. The House Agriculture appropriations bill, H.R. 4356, would have provided $1.74 billion in FFP funding, bringing the total for humanitarian assistance to nearly $10.27 billion for FY2022, which represented an increase of close to 2% over the Administration’s initial request. Continuing Resolutions. The first FY2022 CR, the Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency Assistance Act (P.L. 117-43), provided an additional $1.89 billion in humanitarian assistance to address needs in, and assist refugees from, Afghanistan.77 A second continuing resolution, the Further Extending Government Funding Act (P.L. 117-70), included an additional $1.20 billion in humanitarian assistance through the ERMA account primarily to support relocation and resettlement activities related to the evacuation of Afghans from Afghanistan.78 Omnibus Appropriation. The FY2022 full year appropriation, P.L. 117-103, included $6.82 billion in regular SFOPS humanitarian assistance accounts ($3.90 billion for MRA, $0.01 million for ERMA, $2.91 billion for IDA) and $1.74 billion in FFP, for a total of $8.56 billion in enduring humanitarian assistance appropriations. In addition, Congress appropriated $4.15 billion in humanitarian assistance for the Ukraine response79 (close to a 34% increase over the Administration’s Ukraine supplemental request for humanitarian assistance). This amount included $4.05 billion for SFOPS accounts, ($1.4 billion for MRA and $2.65 billion for IDA), and $100 million for FFP. In sum, Congress has appropriated $15.80 billion for the humanitarian assistance accounts for FY2022. This represents a near 38% increase in total humanitarian appropriations compared with total enacted humanitarian assistance funding for FY2021, largely due to the additional funding provided for the humanitarian responses in Afghanistan and Ukraine. Excluding supplemental humanitarian funding, Congress has appropriated a total of $8.56 billion for humanitarian assistance in FY2022, an 11% decrease from enacted FY2021 funding levels and approximately 15% below the Administration’s initial FY2022 budget request. 77 P.L. 117-43, Division C, Title IV included $400 million for IDA, $415 million for MRA, and $1,076.1 million for ERMA. 78 Account details for the supplemental funding in the continuing resolutions is provided in the “State Department Operations and Related Agency Funding Highlights” and “Foreign Operations Highlights” sections of this report. 79 See Division N of P.L. 117-103—the Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2022. Congressional Research Service 21 link to page 27 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Security Assistance The Biden Administration’s initial request included $9.18 billion in security assistance, a Figure 4. Security Assistance by Account, 2% increase when compared with FY2021 FY2020-FY2022 enacted levels (see Figure 4). As in past (In billions of current U.S. dollars) years, Foreign Military Financing (FMF) accounted for the largest share of security assistance funding. The largest proposed increase was to the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) account. The Administration asserted

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

~~The Biden Administration’s budget request~~
~~for FY2022 calls for $10.1 billion in~~
~~Figure 3. U.S. Humanitarian Assistance, by~~
~~humanitarian assistance to support displaced~~
~~Account (FY2014-FY2022 Req.)~~
~~and vulnerable persons worldwide, or about~~
~~12% below the FY2021-enacted total. The~~
~~request includes $3.8 billion for MRA, $100~~
~~million for ERMA, $4.7 billion for IDA, and~~
~~$1.6 billion for FFP. It would shift $170.0~~
~~million from FFP to IDA’s Emergency Food~~
~~Security Program in a stated effort to increase~~
~~flexibility in addressing urgent and growing~~
~~food insecurity.~~
House Legislation. The House measure, H.R.
~~4373, would provide $8.5 billion in~~
~~humanitarian funding through the MRA,~~
~~ERMA, and IDA accounts. The House~~
~~Agriculture appropriations bill, H.R. 4356,~~
~~would provide $1.7 billion in FFP funding,~~
~~bringing the total for humanitarian assistance~~
~~to nearly $10.3 billion for FY2022, which~~
~~represents an increase of close to 2% over the~~
~~Administration’s request.~~

Sources: Annual SFOPS CBJs and Omnibus Funding
~~Legislation.~~
Notes: MRA = Migration and Refugee Assistance,
~~ERMA = Emergency Refugee and Migration~~
~~Assistance, IDA = International Disaster Assistance,~~
~~IHA = International Humanitarian Assistance, FFP =~~
~~Food for Peace. FY2020 enacted funding includes~~
~~supplemental COVID-19 relief appropriations.~~
~~FY2021-enacted funding includes emergency~~
~~supplemental funds from P.L. 117-31 and ARPA.~~
~~Figure produced with Edward Col ins-Chase, Analyst~~
~~in Foreign Policy.~~
*IHA account proposed under the Trump
~~Administration. Congress did not enact the proposed~~
~~funding reductions or changes to humanitarian~~
~~accounts.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

17

~~link to page 22~~

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

~~Security Assistance~~
~~The Biden Administration request includes~~
~~nearly $9.2 billion in security assistance, a~~
~~Figure 4. Security Assistance by Account,~~
~~2% increase when compared with FY2021~~
~~FY2021 Enact.-FY2022 Req.~~
~~enacted levels (see Figure 4). As in past~~
~~(In billions of current U.S. dollars)~~
~~years, Foreign Military Financing (FMF)~~
~~accounts for the largest share of security~~
~~assistance funding. The largest proposed~~
~~increase is to the International Narcotics~~
~~Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE)~~
~~account. The Administration asserts~~ that the that the
10% proposed increase in INCLE would 10% proposed increase in INCLE would
largely help address the crime and violence largely help address the crime and violence
that contribute to irregular migration to the that contribute to irregular migration to the
United States, particularly from Central United States, particularly from Central
America. According to the request, $570 America. According to the request, $570
million, or 37% of proposed INCLE funding, million, or 37% of proposed INCLE funding,
would be allocated to these efforts in Central would be allocated to these efforts in Central
America. Other security assistance priorities America. Other security assistance priorities
identified in the request identified in the request ~~include~~are countering countering
terrorist threats, including those posed by the terrorist threats, including those posed by the
Islamic State (IS) and Al Qaeda; supporting Islamic State (IS) and Al Qaeda; supporting
implementation of the Global Fragility Act of implementation of the Global Fragility Act of

2019 (Div. J, Title V of P.L. 116-94); 2019 (Div. J, Title V of P.L. 116-94);
and Sources: FY2022 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-260FY2022 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-103. .
countering malign influences of China, countering malign influences of China,
Notes: FMF = Foreign Military Financing; IMET = FMF = Foreign Military Financing; IMET =
Russia, and Iran Russia, and Iran~~; and bolstering regional~~. The Administration also
International Military Education and Training; INCLE International Military Education and Training; INCLE
~~stability in the Middle East, including through~~sought to bolster regional stability in the
= International Narcotics Control and Law = International Narcotics Control and Law
~~Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) support for~~Middle East through Peacekeeping
Enforcement; NADR = Nonproliferation, Anti- Enforcement; NADR = Nonproliferation, Anti-
Operations (PKO) support for the terrorism, Demining and Related Programs; PKO = terrorism, Demining and Related Programs; PKO =
~~the~~ Multinational Force and Observers Multinational Force and Observers
mission in Peacekeeping Operations. Peacekeeping Operations.
~~mission in the Sinai~~the Sinai. The Administration’s supplemental budget request, made in March 2022, included an additional $500 million in FMF funds to support Ukraine, bringing the total FY2022 security assistance request to $9.68 billion. .
House Legislation. H.R. 4373 would H.R. 4373 would ~~provide~~have provided $9.0 billion in security assistance, representing a $9.0 billion in security assistance, representing a
less than 1% increase from FY2021-enacted levels and a nearly 2% decrease from the less than 1% increase from FY2021-enacted levels and a nearly 2% decrease from the
Administration’s Administration’s original request. Omnibus Appropriation. For FY2022, Congress has appropriated a total of $9.58 billion in security assistance through P.L. 117-103: $8.90 billion in enduring funds and $680 million in supplemental funding for Ukraine ($650 million in FMF and $30 million in INCLE). The base security assistance funding represents a 1% decrease in funding compared with FY2021 levels and a 3% decrease from the President’s request. With emergency funding, the total amount appropriated for security assistance represents a 6% increase over FY2021 funding and 1% less than the President’s total request. Congressional Research Service 22 link to page 28 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs ~~request.~~
Development Assistance, Export Promotion, and Related Assistance
The remaining third of the FY2022 foreign operations request proposed to allocate funds to The remaining third of the FY2022 foreign operations request proposed to allocate funds to
~~nonhealth~~non-health development sectors, independent agencies, multilateral assistance, and export development sectors, independent agencies, multilateral assistance, and export
promotion agencies. promotion agencies.
Development Sectors
The Biden Administration’s request for FY2022 The Biden Administration’s request for FY2022 ~~does not provide~~did not specify dollar amounts for many dollar amounts for many
~~nonhealth~~non-health development sectors but development sectors but ~~offers~~offered detail on program priorities within some sectors. For detail on program priorities within some sectors. For
example, the Administration example, the Administration ~~highlights~~highlighted investments in gender equality and equity, including $200 investments in gender equality and equity, including $200
million in proposed funds for the Gender Equity and Equality Action Fund, which the Biden million in proposed funds for the Gender Equity and Equality Action Fund, which the Biden
Administration named as the successor to the Trump Administration’s Women’s Global Administration named as the successor to the Trump Administration’s Women’s Global
Development and Prosperity (W-GDP) Fund. Other key program areas Development and Prosperity (W-GDP) Fund. Other key program areas ~~include~~included climate change and the environment, democracy promotion and countering the rise of ~~climate change~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

18

~~link to page 23 link to page 16 link to page 16~~ ~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

~~and the environment, democracy and governance to aid in the Administration’s goal of countering~~
~~rising~~ global authoritarianism, and food security—in particular the Feed the Future Initiative. global authoritarianism, and food security—in particular the Feed the Future Initiative.
House Legislation. When compared with FY2021-enacted levels, the House measure (H.R. When compared with FY2021-enacted levels, the House measure (H.R.
4373) 4373) ~~provides~~would have provided level or increased funding for most level or increased funding for most ~~nonhealth~~non-health development sectors in FY2022 development sectors in FY2022
(se(see Table 87). The education sector would . The education sector would ~~see~~have seen a decrease of $35 million (3%) a decrease of $35 million (3%) ~~when compared~~
~~with the FY2021-enacted level.~~ . The largest increase The largest increase ~~is to~~was proposed for environmental programs, which would environmental programs, which would
~~see~~have seen an increase of $303.5 million (31%) over prior year appropriations. an increase of $303.5 million (31%) over prior year appropriations.
Table 87. Select Development Sectors, FY2020-FY2022
(In millions of current U.S. dollars) (In millions of current U.S. dollars)
~~Sector~~
~~FY2020 Enacted~~
~~FY2021 Enacted~~
~~FY2022 House~~FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2022 Sector Enacted Enacted House Enacted
Democracy Programs (excluding NED) Democracy Programs (excluding NED)
2,400.0 2,400.0
2,417.0 2,417.0
2,517.0 2,517.0 2,600.0
Education (basic and higher) Education (basic and higher)
1,110.0 1,110.0
1,235.0 1,235.0
1,200.0 1,200.0 1,200.0
Food Security Food Security
1,005.6 1,005.6
1,010.6 1,010.6
1,100.0 1,100.0
1,010.6 Environment Environment
906.7 906.7
986.7 986.7
1,290.2 1,290.2
1,295.0 Water and Sanitation Water and Sanitation
450.0 450.0
450.0 450.0
475.0 475.0 475.0
Gender Gender
330.0 330.0
560.0 560.0
617.0 617.0
560.0 Trafficking in Persons Trafficking in Persons
67.0 67.0
99.0 99.0
106.4 106.4
106.4 Reconciliation Programs Reconciliation Programs
30.0 30.0
25.0 25.0
25.0 25.0 25.0
Micro and Small Enterprise Micro and Small Enterprise
265.0 265.0
265.0 265.0
265.0 265.0 265.0
Sources: P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-260; H.R. 4373P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-260; H.R. 4373; P.L. 117-103. Notes: NED = National Endowment for Democracy. Omnibus Appropriation. In the FY2022 omnibus appropriation, Congress largely provided level or increased funding for the non-health development sectors. The one exception was for education, which decreased by 3% compared with FY2021. Sectors receiving funding increases compared to prior-year funding include environmental programs (31%), Democracy Programs (7.6%), Water and Sanitation (5.5%), and Trafficking in Persons (8%). Congressional Research Service 23 link to page 20 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs .
~~Notes:~~ ~~NED = National Endowment for Democracy.~~
Independent Agencies
The Administration’s request for FY2022 would The Administration’s request for FY2022 would ~~maintain~~have maintained level funding for the Peace Corps, level funding for the Peace Corps,
Inter-American Foundation (IAF), U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF), and the Inter-American Foundation (IAF), U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF), and the
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) when compared with FY2021-enacted levels. The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) when compared with FY2021-enacted levels. The
House measure, H.R. 4373, House measure, H.R. 4373, ~~provides~~provided increases to the Peace Corps (5%), IAF (17%), and USADF increases to the Peace Corps (5%), IAF (17%), and USADF
(30%), and (30%), and ~~maintains~~maintained level funding for MCC for FY2022 when compared with FY2021-enacted level funding for MCC for FY2022 when compared with FY2021-enacted
levels. levels.
The FY2022 Omnibus, P.L. 117-103, keeps level funding for both the Peace Corps and MCC compared with FY2021 but increases funding for the IAF (11%) and USADF (21%). Multilateral Assistance
As part of its stated efforts to strengthen U.S. multilateral engagement, the Administration’s As part of its stated efforts to strengthen U.S. multilateral engagement, the Administration’s
budget request budget request ~~includes~~included increases to multilateral assistance for FY2022 when compared with total increases to multilateral assistance for FY2022 when compared with total
enacted funding for FY2021. The largest proposed increase enacted funding for FY2021. The largest proposed increase iswas to the International Development to the International Development
Association, a World Bank agency that provides grants and loans to the world’s least developed Association, a World Bank agency that provides grants and loans to the world’s least developed
countries; it would countries; it would ~~see~~have been a nearly 43% increase over the FY2021-enacted level. As stated above, the a nearly 43% increase over the FY2021-enacted level. As stated above, the
request also request also ~~proposes~~proposed funds for climate efforts including the Green Climate Fund (see funds for climate efforts including the Green Climate Fund (see “Climate
Change”). .
House Legislation. H.R. 4373 H.R. 4373 ~~provides~~would have provided a total of $4.1 billion for multilateral assistance accounts a total of $4.1 billion for multilateral assistance accounts
~~in FY2022. This represents~~for FY2022, representing a 13% increase from the Biden Administration’s request. The House a 13% increase from the Biden Administration’s request. The House
measure measure ~~emphasizes~~emphasized the Green Climate Fund, providing $1. the Green Climate Fund, providing $1.660 billion for FY2022, a 156% billion for FY2022, a 156%
increase from the Administration’s proposed $625 million. The House bill increase from the Administration’s proposed $625 million. The House bill ~~does~~ did not increase funding for the International Development Association, instead appropriating level funding when compared to FY2021. Omnibus Appropriation. P.L. 117-103 provided a total of $2.37 billion for multilateral assistance accounts for FY2022, which represented an increase of 16% compared with enduring (nonemergency) funds for such accounts for FY2021 and a decrease of 35% compared with the Administration’s request. Compared with FY2021 enduring funds, all multilateral accounts received level or increased funding with the International Fund for Agriculture and Development (IFAD) receiving the largest increase (32%)~~not increase~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

19

~~link to page 25~~ ~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

~~funding for the International Development Association, instead appropriating level funding when~~
~~compared to FY2021~~. .
Export Promotion
For FY2022, the Administration For FY2022, the Administration ~~proposes~~proposed increases to the Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank and the increases to the Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank and the
U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) operating accounts to support agency U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) operating accounts to support agency
priorities such as climate change response, clean energy, and sustainable infrastructure. In both priorities such as climate change response, clean energy, and sustainable infrastructure. In both
instances, the Administration instances, the Administration ~~asserts~~asserted that offsetting collections would reduce the agencies’ budget that offsetting collections would reduce the agencies’ budget
burden. The Administration stated its expectation that the Ex-Im Bankburden. The Administration stated its expectation that the Ex-Im Bank~~, as in previous fiscal years,~~
would return funds to the Treasury at the end of the fiscal yearwould return funds to the Treasury at the end of the fiscal year, as it had in previous fiscal years. Similarly, while the . Similarly, while the
Administration stated that it does not expect the DFC to be entirely budget neutral, it Administration stated that it does not expect the DFC to be entirely budget neutral, it ~~asserts~~asserted that that
collections would reduce the agency’s budget burden to $128.4 million with an estimated $472.4 collections would reduce the agency’s budget burden to $128.4 million with an estimated $472.4
million in offsetting collections. million in offsetting collections.
House Legislation. H.R. 4373 largely H.R. 4373 largely ~~meets~~met the Administration’s the Administration’s ~~proposal for~~proposed funding for the funding for the
Ex-Im Bank and DFC. An exception Ex-Im Bank and DFC. An exception iswas the Ex-Im Bank’s program budget, which would the Ex-Im Bank’s program budget, which would ~~see~~have seen a a
decrease of $5 million (50%) from the Administration’s proposal. The House legislation decrease of $5 million (50%) from the Administration’s proposal. The House legislation ~~provides~~provided
increased funding for Ex-Im Bank and DFC when compared with the FY2021-enacted levels. increased funding for Ex-Im Bank and DFC when compared with the FY2021-enacted levels.
Omnibus Appropriation. In P.L. 117-103, Congress maintained level funding for the Ex-Im Bank and U.S. Trade and Development Agency in FY2022 but increased funding for the DFC by Congressional Research Service 24 link to page 30 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs 65% compared with FY2021 appropriations and by 148% compared with the Administration’s request. As in prior years, the Ex-Im Bank is expected to return funds to the Treasury at the end of the fiscal year. Regional Assistance
Similar to previous Administrations, the Biden Administration Similar to previous Administrations, the Biden Administration ~~does~~did not propose regional funding not propose regional funding
that that ~~captures~~captured all appropriations accounts. For example, humanitarian funding all appropriations accounts. For example, humanitarian funding iswas proposed and proposed and
provided for in what are often referred to as “global” accounts, wherein funding is allocated on a provided for in what are often referred to as “global” accounts, wherein funding is allocated on a
needs basis throughout the fiscal year for which it is appropriated. As such, the entirety of foreign needs basis throughout the fiscal year for which it is appropriated. As such, the entirety of foreign
assistance funding for a particular country or region is assistance funding for a particular country or region is ~~only fully assessed~~assessed fully only after the close of a after the close of a
fiscal year. fiscal year.
However, the Administration However, the Administration ~~does~~did propose regional funding for certain accounts. These propose regional funding for certain accounts. These ~~include~~included
Global Health Programs (GHP); DA; ESF; Assistance to Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia Global Health Programs (GHP); DA; ESF; Assistance to Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia
(AEECA); and all five security assistance accounts. For FY2022, the Administration (AEECA); and all five security assistance accounts. For FY2022, the Administration ~~proposes~~
initially proposed increases in all regions with the exception of Europe and Eurasia, which would increases in all regions with the exception of Europe and Eurasia, which would ~~see~~have seen a nearly 4% a nearly 4%
decrease in funding when compared with FY2020 actual levels (sedecrease in funding when compared with FY2020 actual levels (see Figure 5).62 80 The greatest The greatest
proposed increase proposed increase iswas for funding to the Western Hemisphere, largely to help the region address the for funding to the Western Hemisphere, largely to help the region address the
~~root causes of migration to the United States.~~

~~62 FY2020 actuals are used as a comparison because comprehensive country- and regional-specific levels are not~~
~~provided in annual appropriations measures. FY2021total funding levels for most countries have not been reported.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

20

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

root causes of migration to the United States. Figure 5. Regional Assistance, FY2020 vs. FY2022 Request

Sources: FY2022 SFOPS Congressional Budget Justification; CRS calculations for FY2020. FY2022 SFOPS Congressional Budget Justification; CRS calculations for FY2020.
Notes: FY2020 is the most recent “actual” data available. Accounts included = GHP, DA, ESF, AEECA, INCLE, FY2020 is the most recent “actual” data available. Accounts included = GHP, DA, ESF, AEECA, INCLE,
NADR, PKO, IMET, and FMF. FY2020 Actual includes COVID-19 emergency funds. NADR, PKO, IMET, and FMF. FY2020 Actual includes COVID-19 emergency funds.
House Legislation. The House legislation and accompanying report The House legislation and accompanying report dodid not provide not provide
comprehensive regional allocations, but comprehensive regional allocations, but dodid specify assistance levels for several countries and specify assistance levels for several countries and
regions. For example, the measure regions. For example, the measure ~~directs~~directed that up to $860.6 million that up to $860.6 million ~~may be~~could have been made available for made available for
assistance to Central American countries.assistance to Central American countries.6381 The legislation also The legislation also ~~directs~~directed that not less 80 FY2020 actuals are used as a comparison because comprehensive country- and regional-specific levels are not provided in annual appropriations measures. FY2021 total funding levels for most countries have not been reported. 81 Including Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama. Funds may also be programmed through the Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI). Congressional Research Service 25 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs ~~that not less~~ than $3.3 than $3.3
billion be made available for Israel, not less than $1.4 billion billion be made available for Israel, not less than $1.4 billion ~~be made available~~ for Egypt, not for Egypt, not
less than $481.5 million less than $481.5 million ~~be made available~~ for assistance for Ukraine, and not less than $132.0 for assistance for Ukraine, and not less than $132.0
~~million be made available~~ million for assistance for for assistance for Georgia, among other designations. Omnibus Appropriation. The ominbus appropriation, P.L. 117-103, also did not include comprehensive country- and region-specific allocations. As in prior year appropriations, though, the measure did include directives for some countries and regions. For example, the law specified that not less than $3.3 billion shall be made available for Israel, not less than $1.6 billion for the Indo-Pacific Strategy, and not less than $1.4 billion for Egypt, among other designations. As noted above, Division N of the bill also provides supplemental appropriations for Ukraine, including $6.65 billion in foreign operations accounts. These funds were not allocated by country or region but are likely to increase aid to Europe and Eurasia in FY2022 significantly relative to FY2021. Outlook Although Congress enacted a full year SFOPS appropriation for FY2022 in March 2022, and the FY2023 budget process is underway, appropriations for FY2022 may not be complete. Members continue to debate the possible need for additional funding in the remaining months of FY2022, primarily for the following purposes: Ukraine. The Russian invasion of Ukraine prompted the Administration to ask Congress for $5 billion in additional FY2022 SFOPS funding to address military, economic, and humanitarian needs in Ukraine and neighboring counties. Congress included $6.8 billion in emergency SFOPS funds in the FY2022 omnibus bill for this purpose. As the fighting in Ukraine continues, and the refugee crisis worsens, Congress may consider supplemental appropriations to provide additional aid to in the region. COVID-19. The Administration’s supplemental budget request also included $4.25 billion in additional FY2022 SFOPS funds to address COVID-19. A draft version of the omnibus bill included emergency COVID-19 funding within SFOPS accounts, but the funding was removed from the legislation during final negotiations. Members reportedly are still negotiating a potential COVID-19 emergency supplemental appropriations bill for FY2022.82 ~~Georgia, among other designations.~~
~~Outlook~~
~~With FY2022 underway, and foreign affairs agencies operating under a continuing resolution,~~
~~comprehensive SFOPS appropriations for FY2022 may be enacted without further SFOPS~~
~~committee action. As Congress continues work to finalize international affairs funding for~~
~~FY2022, several issues have emerged that may affect SFOPS appropriations in the current fiscal~~
~~year and beyond. These include the following:~~
Ukraine. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, as Congress was negotiating an
~~omnibus appropriations agreement for FY2022, may affect SFOPS funding levels in several~~
~~areas. The Administration has reportedly asked Congress for $2.9 billion through SFOPS~~
~~accounts to provide security assistance to Ukraine and neighboring allies, fend off Russian~~
~~cyberattacks, provide humanitarian assistance, counter disinformation, and assist with economic~~
~~stabilization.64 Congress may consider such funding as part of the omnibus appropriations bill or~~
~~in separate emergency funding legislation.~~

~~63 Including Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama. Funds may also be~~
~~programmed through the Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI).~~
~~64 “White House Asks Congress for Extra $6.4 billion to Help Ukraine,” Connor O’Brien, Jennifer Scholtes, and~~
~~Andrew Desiderio, Politico, February 25, 2022, at https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/25/white-house-congress-~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

21

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

U.S. Diplomatic Presence in Afghanistan. The withdrawal of U.S. military and diplomatic The withdrawal of U.S. military and diplomatic
personnel from Afghanistan in August 2021 occurred after the State Department submitted its personnel from Afghanistan in August 2021 occurred after the State Department submitted its
initial FY2022 budget request to Congress and the House of Representatives passed its SFOPS bill. For FY2022 budget request to Congress and the House of Representatives passed its SFOPS bill. For
FY2022, the Biden Administration requested approximately $579.6 million for diplomatic FY2022, the Biden Administration requested approximately $579.6 million for diplomatic
security-related priorities in Afghanistan, including the deployment of weaponry on new Embassy security-related priorities in Afghanistan, including the deployment of weaponry on new Embassy
Air helicopters and armored vehicle replacements.Air helicopters and armored vehicle replacements.6583 The Administration also requested an The Administration also requested an
additional $70.8 million for diplomatic programs in Afghanistan, including mission staffing and additional $70.8 million for diplomatic programs in Afghanistan, including mission staffing and
operations, along with information technology costs.operations, along with information technology costs.~~66 However,~~84 Although the United States and Qatar reached an agreement to establish a U.S. Interests Section located within the Qatari Embassy in Kabul, it does not appear that this agreement involves the assignment of U.S. personnel to the Interests Section.85 ~~the United States no longer~~
~~maintains a physical diplomatic presence in Afghanistan, as U.S. diplomacy with Afghanistan is~~
~~currently being carried out through the U.S. Embassy in Doha, Qatar.~~ It remains unclear when, or It remains unclear when, or
~~if, the United States will reestablish an official diplomatic presence in Afghanistan and what the~~
~~funding requirements to sustain such a presence may look like.~~
Foreign Assistance to Afghanistan. The Taliban takeover may also affect foreign operations
~~appropriations for FY2022. Congress designated foreign assistance funds for Afghanistan for~~
~~FY2021, and the Biden Administration had requested funding for the country “at a consistent~~
~~level, demonstrating [U.S.] support to the Afghan people and preserving 20 years of gains,~~
~~particularly for women, girls, and minority groups.” However, following the Taliban takeover, the~~
~~U.S. ceased providing any nonhumanitarian foreign assistance. The Biden Administration has not~~
~~signaled whether it will seek to provide foreign assistance to a Taliban-governed Afghanistan.~~
~~Some Members of Congress have stated that they would not support bilateral U.S. assistance to~~
~~Afghanistan under any conditions, while others may support some aid subject to certain criteria.~~
~~As the situation evolves, it remains to be seen how, if at all, foreign assistance could be delivered,~~
~~administered, and overseen, and how Congress might evaluate its funding for and conditions on~~
~~assistance to the country.~~
Impact of COVID-19. While SFOPS appropriations related to the COVID-19 pandemic were
~~more pronounced in FY2021 than they have been so far in the FY2022 proposals, the pandemic~~
~~may have an ongoing impact on the volume and allocation of global health assistance, and foreign~~
~~assistance broadly. The FY2022 request and House bill both significantly increase funding within~~
~~the GHP account focused on global health security activities, which comprised a relatively small~~
~~portion of GHP funding in prior appropriations legislation. As the pandemic continues to evolve~~
~~globally, and the secondary impacts of the pandemic in developing countries are better~~
~~understood, the allocation of foreign assistance may change accordingly.~~

~~ukraine-aid-00012071; “White House seek $6.4 Billion to Respond to Ukraine Crises,” Erik Wasson, Bloomberg,~~
~~February 25, 2022, at https://www.bgov.com/core/news/#!/articles/R7VVTBDWRGG0.~~
~~65 SFOPS CBJ for FY2022 Appendix 1, p. 307.~~
~~66 Ibid., p. 154.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

22

~~link to page 33~~if, the United States will 82 Lindsay McPherson, “Bipartisan talks on pandemic aid offsets underway in Senate,” Congressional Quarterly, March 22, 2022, available at https://plus.cq.com/doc/news-6491010?1&srcpage=home&srcsec=cqn. 83 SFOPS CBJ for FY2022 Appendix 1, p. 307. 84 Ibid., p. 154. 85 Humeyra Pamuk and Jonathan Landay, “Blinken says Qatar to act as U.S. diplomatic representative in Afghanistan,” Reuters, November 12, 2021. Congressional Research Service 26 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs reestablish a larger diplomatic presence in Afghanistan, and what the funding requirements to sustain such a presence may look like. Congressional Research Service 27 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39
Appendix A. SFOPS Funding, by Account
Table A-1. Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations: ~~FY2020~~FY2021-FY2022
(In millions of U.S. dollars; numbers in parentheses are the portion of the account totals designated as OCO or emergency funds) (In millions of U.S. dollars; numbers in parentheses are the portion of the account totals designated as OCO or emergency funds)
FY2022 Omnibus % Change % Change FY2022 FY2022 FY2022 CR 2 FY2022 FY2021 FY2021 House- Senate CR 1 P.L. P.L. 117- FY2022 Req. to Enacted Total FY2022 Passed Intro P.L. 117- 117-70, 103, Div. Total FY2022 to FY2022 Enacteda Req.b H.R. 4373 S. 3075c 43, Div. C Div. B K, Md Enactede Enacted Enacted Title I. State, Broadcasting & Related 17,494.19 18,349.10 18,202.98 17,573.12 276.90 80.30 17,367.48 17,724.67 -3% 1% Agencies, TOTAL (4,561.54) (154.00) (511.20) Administration of Foreign Affairs, Subtotal 13,152.79 13,371.07 13,204.50 12,599.84 276.90 80.30 12,715.11 13,072.31 -2% -1% (3,759.31) (129.00) (486.2) Diplomatic Programs 9,374.01 9,490.67 9,476.98 9,040.67 44.30 9,303.79 9,348.09 -2% 0% (2,430.12) (125.00) (169.30) of which Worldwide Security Protection 4,120.90 4,075.90 4,075.90 3,625.90 3,788.20 3,788.20 -7% -8% (2,226.12) Consular and Border Security Programs (300.00) 320.00 320.00 0.00 0.00 -100% -100% Capital Investment Fund 250.00 448.88 275.00 448.88 300.00 300.00 -33% 20% Office of Inspector General 145.73 91.46 91.46 95.46 95.46 +4% -35% (54.90) (4.00) (4.00) Special Inspector General for Afghanistan 54.90 54.90 40.00 40.00 -27% n.a. Educational & Cultural Exchanges 740.30 741.30 750.00 748.96 753.00 753.00 2% 2% Representation Expenses 7.42 7.42 7.42 7.42 7.42 7.42 0% 0% Protection of Foreign Missions & Officials 30.89 30.89 30.89 30.89 30.89 30.89 0% 0% Embassy Security, Construction & 1,950.45 1,983.15 1,995.45 1,983.15 1,983.15 1,983.15 0% 2% Maintenance (824.29) CRS-28 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 FY2022 Omnibus % Change % Change FY2022 FY2022 FY2022 CR 2 FY2022 FY2021 FY2021 House- Senate CR 1 P.L. P.L. 117- FY2022 Req. to Enacted Total FY2022 Passed Intro P.L. 117- 117-70, 103, Div. Total FY2022 to FY2022 Enacteda Req.b H.R. 4373 S. 3075c 43, Div. C Div. B K, Md Enactede Enacted Enacted of which Worldwide Security Upgrades 1,181.39 1,132.43 1,144.73 1,132.43 1,132.43 1,132.43 0% -4% (824.29) Emergency-Diplomatic & Consular 7.89 8.89 8.89 8.89 276.90 36.00 7.89 320.79 3510% 3968% Services Repatriation Loans 2.50 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 0% -48% Payment American Institute Taiwan 31.96 32.58 32.58 32.58 32.58 32.58 0% 2% International Chancery Center 2.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0% -73% Sudan Claims 150.00 n.a. n.a. (150.00) Foreign Service Retirement (mandatory) 158.90 158.90 158.90 158.90 158.9 158.9 0% 0% International Organizations, Subtotal 2,962.24 3,591.54 3,591.54 3,491.54 3,161.54 3,161.54 -12% 7% (802.23) Contributions to International 1,505.93 1,662.93 1,662.93 1,662.93 1,662.93 1,662.93 0% 10% Organizations (96.24) Contributions to International 1,456.31 1,928.61 1,928.61 1,828.61 1,498.61 1,498.61 -22% 3% Peacekeeping (705.99) International Commissions, Subtotal 176.62 176.62 186.62 181.37 180.85 180.85 2% 2% (Function 300) International Boundary/U.S. Mexico 98.77 98.77 108.77 103.52 103.00 103.00 4% 4% American Sections 15.01 15.01 15.01 15.01 15.01 15.01 0% 0% International Fisheries 62.85 62.85 62.85 62.85 62.85 62.85 0% 0% Agency for Global Media, Subtotal 802.96 810.40 818.85 885.40 885.00 885.00 9% 10% (25.00) (25.00) CRS-29 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 FY2022 Omnibus % Change % Change FY2022 FY2022 FY2022 CR 2 FY2022 FY2021 FY2021 House- Senate CR 1 P.L. P.L. 117- FY2022 Req. to Enacted Total FY2022 Passed Intro P.L. 117- 117-70, 103, Div. Total FY2022 to FY2022 Enacteda Req.b H.R. 4373 S. 3075c 43, Div. C Div. B K, Md Enactede Enacted Enacted Broadcasting Operations 793.26 800.70 809.15 870.70 875.30 875.30 9% 10% (25.00) (25.00) Capital Improvements 9.70 9.70 9.70 14.70 9.70 9.70 0% 0% Related Programs, Subtotal 385.28 385.17 387.17 400.67 410.67 410.67 7% 7% Asia Foundation 20.00 20.00 20.00 21.50 21.50 21.50 8% 8% U.S. Institute of Peace 45.00 45.00 45.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 20% 20% Center for Middle East-West Dialogue 0.25 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0% -28% Eisenhower Exchange Programs 0.21 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0% -19% Israeli-Arab Scholarship Program 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0% 0% East-West Center 19.70 19.70 19.70 19.70 19.70 19.70 0% 0% Leadership Institute for Transatlantic 2.00 n.a. n.a. Engagement National Endowment for Democracy 300.00 300.00 300.00 305.00 315.00 315.00 5% 5% Other Commissions, Subtotal 14.30 14.30 14.30 14.30 14.30 14.30 0% 0% Preservation of America’s Heritage 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0% 0% Abroad International Religious Freedom 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 0% 0% Security & Cooperation in Europe 2.91 2.91 2.91 2.91 2.91 2.91 0% 0% Cong.-Exec. Commission on People’s 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 0% 0% Republic of China U.S.-China Economic and Security Review 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0% 0% Foreign Operations, TOTAL 54,620.25 53,556.97 44,772.92 46,317.43 1,891.10 1,200.00 47,595.20 50,686.30 -5% -7% (19,733.58) (9,250.00) (6,646.00) (9,737.1) CRS-30 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 FY2022 Omnibus % Change % Change FY2022 FY2022 FY2022 CR 2 FY2022 FY2021 FY2021 House- Senate CR 1 P.L. P.L. 117- FY2022 Req. to Enacted Total FY2022 Passed Intro P.L. 117- 117-70, 103, Div. Total FY2022 to FY2022 Enacteda Req.b H.R. 4373 S. 3075c 43, Div. C Div. B K, Md Enactede Enacted Enacted Title II. Administration of Foreign 1,752.45 1,862.65 1,790.62 1,976.35 0.00 0.00 2,003.15 2,003.15 8% 14% Assistance (41.00) (29.00) (29.00) USAID Operating Expenses 1,418.75 1,527.95 1,455.92 1,635.95 1,660.95 1,660.95 9% 17% (41.00) (25.00) (25.00) USAID Capital Investment Fund 258.20 258.20 258.20 258.20 258.20 258.20 0% 0% USAID Inspector General 75.50 76.50 76.50 82.20 84.00 84.00 10% 11% (4.00) Title III. Bilateral Assistance 41,083.95 34,143.91 29,625.91 29,248.31 1,891.10 1,200.00 33,314.44 36,405.54 -5% -11% (18,210.46) (8,750.00) (5,937.00) (9,028.00) Global Health Programs 13,195.95 13,550.95 10,641.45 10,353.95 9,830.00 9,830.00 -27% -26% (4,000.00) (3,500.00) of which USAID 7,265.95 3,870.95 4,561.45 4,423.95 3,880.00 3,880.00 0% -47% (4,000.00) of which State 5,930.00 6,180.00 6,080.00 5,930.00 5,950.00 5,950.00 -4% 0% Development Assistance 3,500.00 4,075.10 4,075.10 4,075.10 4,140.49 4,140.49 2% 18% International Disaster Assistance 4,395.36 7,182.36 4,682.36 4,682.36 400.00 6,555.45 6,955.45 -3% 58% (1,914.04) (2,500.00) (2,650.00) (3,050.00) Transition Initiatives 92.04 92.04 92.04 107.04 200.00 200.00 117% 117% (120.00) (120.00) Complex Crises Fund 30.00 60.00 40.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 0% 100% Economic Support Fund 12,526.96 6,010.23 3,635.23 3,480.13 4,746.00 4,746.00 -21% -62% (9,375.00) (1,750.00)d (647.00) (647.00) Democracy Fund 290.70 290.70 290.70 340.70 340.70 340.70 17% 17% CRS-31 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 FY2022 Omnibus % Change % Change FY2022 FY2022 FY2022 CR 2 FY2022 FY2021 FY2021 House- Senate CR 1 P.L. P.L. 117- FY2022 Req. to Enacted Total FY2022 Passed Intro P.L. 117- 117-70, 103, Div. Total FY2022 to FY2022 Enacteda Req.b H.R. 4373 S. 3075c 43, Div. C Div. B K, Md Enactede Enacted Enacted Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central 770.33 788.93 788.93 788.93 1,620.00 1,620.00 105% 110% Asia (1,120.00) (1,120.00) Migration & Refugee Assistance 4,032.00 4,845.00 3,845.00 3,845.00 415.00 4,312.19 4,727.19 -2% 17% (2,301.42) (1,000.00) (1,400.00) (1,815.00) Emergency Refugee & Migration Assistance 500.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 1,076.10 1,200.00 0.10 2,276.20 2276100% 355% (500.00) (2,276.10) Independent Agencies, Subtotal 1,393.50 1,393.50 1,430.00 1,410.00 1,404.50 1,404.50 1% 1% Peace Corps 410.50 410.50 430.50 410.50 410.50 410.50 0% 0% Mil ennium Challenge Corporation 912.00 912.00 912.00 912.00 912.00 912.00 0% 0% Inter-American Foundation 38.00 38.00 44.50 44.50 42.00 42.00 11% 11% U.S. African Development Foundation 33.00 33.00 43.00 43.00 40.00 40.00 21% 21% Department of the Treasury, Subtotal 357.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 0% -71% (120.00) International Affairs Technical Assistance 33.00 38.00 38.00 38.00 38.00 38.00 0% 15% Debt Restructuring 324.00 67.00 67.00 67.00 67.00 67.00 0% -79% (120.00) Title IV. International Security Assistance 9,004.03 9,683.89 9,034.03 9,050.01 0.00 0.00 9,579.35 9,579.35 -1% 6% (902.12) (500.00) (680.00) (680.00) International Narcotics Control & Law 1,385.57 1,525.74 1,395.57 1,388.85 1,421.00 1,421.00 -7% 3% Enforcement (30.00) (30.00) Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, 889.25 900.25 889.25 907.25 900.00 900.00 0% 1% Demining CRS-32 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 FY2022 Omnibus % Change % Change FY2022 FY2022 FY2022 CR 2 FY2022 FY2021 FY2021 House- Senate CR 1 P.L. P.L. 117- FY2022 Req. to Enacted Total FY2022 Passed Intro P.L. 117- 117-70, 103, Div. Total FY2022 to FY2022 Enacteda Req.b H.R. 4373 S. 3075c 43, Div. C Div. B K, Md Enactede Enacted Enacted Peacekeeping Operations 440.76 469.46 460.76 465.46 455.00 455.00 -3% 3% (325.21) International Military Education & Training 112.93 112.93 112.93 112.93 112.93 112.93 0% 0% Foreign Military Financing 6,175.52 6,675.52 6,175.52 6,175.52 6,690.42 6,690.42 0% 8% (576.91) (500.00) (650.00) (650.00) Title V. Multilateral Assistance 2,620.82 3,630.13 4,098.56 4,203.96 0.00 0.00 2,374.46 2,374.46 -35% -9% (580.00) International Organizations & Programs 967.50 457.10 477.10 472.50 423.00 423.00 -7% -56% (580.00) International Bank for Reconstruction and 206.50 206.50 206.50 206.50 206.50 206.50 0% 0% Development Global Environment Facility 139.58 149.29 149.29 149.29 149.29 149.29 0% 7% International Development Association 1,001.40 1,427.97 1,001.40 1,001.40 1,001.40 1,001.40 -30% 0% Asian Development Fund 47.40 53.32 53.32 53.32 53.23 53.23 0% 13% African Development Bank 54.65 54.65 54.65 54.65 54.65 54.65 0% 0% African Development Fund 171.30 211.30 211.30 211.30 211.30 211.30 0% 23% Green Climate Fund 625.00 1,600.00 1,450.00 0.00 0.00 -100% n.a. Climate Investment Funds/Clean Tech 300.00 200.00 450.00 125.00 125.00 -58% n.a. Fund International Monetary Fund 102.00 102.00 102.00 102.00 102.00 0% n.a. Global Agriculture Food Security Program 43.00 5.00 5.00 n.a. n.a. International Fund for Agricultural 32.50 43.00 43.00 10.00 43.00 43.00 0% 32% Development CRS-33 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 FY2022 Omnibus % Change % Change FY2022 FY2022 FY2022 CR 2 FY2022 FY2021 FY2021 House- Senate CR 1 P.L. P.L. 117- FY2022 Req. to Enacted Total FY2022 Passed Intro P.L. 117- 117-70, 103, Div. Total FY2022 to FY2022 Enacteda Req.b H.R. 4373 S. 3075c 43, Div. C Div. B K, Md Enactede Enacted Enacted Title VI. Export Assistance 159.00 -13.61 223.80 323.80 0.00 0.00 323.80 323.80 -2479% 104% Export-Import Bank (net) -113.50 -221.50 -74.50 -74.50 -74.50 -74.50 -66% -34% U.S. Development Finance Corporation 193.00 128.39 218.80 318.80 318.80 318.80 148% 65% (net) U.S. Trade & Development Agency 79.50 79.50 79.50 79.50 79.50 79.50 0% 0% SFOPS Total, Prerescission 72,114.43 71,906.08 62,975.90 63,890.54 2,168.00 1,280.30 64,962.68 68,410.97 -5% -5% (24,295.12) (9,250.00) (6,800.00) (10,248.3) Rescissions, net -530.12 -535.00 -575.00 -1,653.64 0.00 0.00 1,903.78 1,903.78 256% 259% (-425.12) SFOPS Total, Net of Rescissions 71,584.31 71,371.08 62,400.90 62,236.90 2,168.00 1,280.30 63,058.90 66,507.19 -7% -7% (23,870.00) (9,250.00) (6,800.00) (10,248.3) Source: SFOPS Congressional Budget Justification for FY2022.

~~FY2021 Enacted~~

%
~~Change,~~
%
~~FY2021~~
~~Change,~~
~~Non-~~
~~FY2021~~
~~Emerg.~~
~~Total~~
~~Enact. vs.~~
~~Enact. vs.~~
~~FY2022~~
~~FY2020~~
~~Non-~~
~~FY2022~~
~~FY2022~~
~~FY2022~~
~~House-~~

~~Actual~~
~~Emerg.~~
~~Emerg.a~~
~~Total~~
~~Req.~~
~~Req.~~
~~Req.~~
~~passed~~
~~Title I. State, Broadcasting & Related Agencies,~~
~~17,642.98~~
~~16,840.19~~
~~654.00~~
~~17,494.19~~
~~18,349.10~~
~~8.96%~~
~~4.89%~~
~~18,202.98~~
~~TOTAL~~
~~(5,028.01)~~
~~(3,907.54)~~
~~(654.00)~~
~~(4,561.54)~~
~~Administration of Foreign Affairs, Subtotal~~
~~13,274.86~~
~~12,498.79~~
~~654.00~~
~~13,152.79~~
~~13,371.07~~
~~6.98%~~
~~1.66%~~
~~13,204.50~~
~~(3,943.11)~~
~~(3,105.31)~~
~~(654.00)~~
~~(3,759.31)~~
~~Diplomatic Programs~~
~~9,506.87~~
~~9,170.01~~
~~204.00~~
~~9,374.01~~
~~9,490.67~~
~~3.50%~~
~~1.24%~~
~~9,476.98~~
~~(2,936.04)~~
~~(2,226.12)~~
~~(204.00)~~
~~(2,430.12)~~
~~of which Worldwide Security Protection~~
~~4,095.90~~
~~4,120.90~~

~~4,120.90~~
~~4,075.90~~
~~-1.09%~~
~~-1.09%~~
~~4,075.90~~
~~(2,626.12)~~
~~(2,226.12)~~
~~(2,226.12)~~
~~Consular and Border Security Programs~~
~~273.08~~

~~300.00~~
~~(300.00)~~
~~320.00~~
~~n.a.~~
~~6.67%~~
~~320.00~~
~~(273.08)~~
~~(300.00)~~
~~Capital Investment Fund~~
~~139.50~~
~~250.00~~

~~250.00~~
~~448.88~~
~~79.55%~~
~~79.55%~~
~~275.00~~
~~Office of Inspector General~~
~~145.73~~
~~145.73~~

~~145.73~~
~~146.36~~
~~0.43%~~
~~0.43%~~
~~146.36~~
~~(54.90)~~
~~(54.90)~~
~~(54.90)~~
~~Educational & Cultural Exchanges~~
~~735.70~~
~~740.30~~

~~740.30~~
~~741.30~~
~~0.14%~~
~~0.14%~~
~~750.00~~
~~(5.00)~~
~~Representation Expenses~~
~~6.85~~
~~7.42~~

~~7.42~~
~~7.42~~
~~0.00%~~
~~0.00%~~
~~7.42~~
~~CRS-23~~

~~link to page 33~~

~~FY2021 Enacted~~

%
~~Change,~~
%
~~FY2021~~
~~Change,~~
~~Non-~~
~~FY2021~~
~~Emerg.~~
~~Total~~
~~Enact. vs.~~
~~Enact. vs.~~
~~FY2022~~
~~FY2020~~
~~Non-~~
~~FY2022~~
~~FY2022~~
~~FY2022~~
~~House-~~

~~Actual~~
~~Emerg.~~
~~Emerg.a~~
~~Total~~
~~Req.~~
~~Req.~~
~~Req.~~
~~passed~~
~~African Development Fund~~
~~171.30~~
~~171.30~~

~~171.30~~
~~211.30~~
~~23.35%~~
~~23.35%~~
~~211.30~~
~~Green Climate Fund~~

~~625.00~~
~~n.a.~~
~~n.a.~~
~~1,600.00~~
~~Climate Investment Funds~~

~~300.00~~
~~n.a.~~
~~n.a.~~
~~200.00~~
~~International Monetary Fund~~

~~102.00~~
~~n.a.~~
~~n.a.~~
~~102.00~~
~~International Fund for Agricultural Development~~
~~30.00~~
~~32.50~~

~~32.50~~
~~43.00~~
~~32.31%~~
~~32.31%~~
~~43.00~~
~~Title VI. Export Assistance~~
~~59.16~~

~~-13.61~~
~~-108.56%~~
~~-108.56%~~
~~223.80~~
~~Export-Import Bank (net)~~
~~98.80~~
~~159.00~~

~~159.00~~
~~-221.50~~
~~95.15%~~
~~95.15%~~
~~-74.50~~
~~U.S. Development Finance Corporation (net)~~
~~-119.14~~
~~-113.50~~

~~-113.50~~
~~128.39~~
~~-33.48%~~
~~-33.48%~~
~~218.80~~
~~U.S. Trade & Development Agency~~
~~79.50~~
~~193.00~~

~~193.00~~
~~79.50~~
~~0.00%~~
~~0.00%~~
~~79.50~~
~~SFOPS Total~~
~~58,200.40~~
~~56,244.43~~
~~15,870.00~~
~~72,114.43~~
~~62,656.08~~
~~11.40%~~
~~-13.12%~~
~~62,975.90~~
~~(10,897.46)~~
~~(8,435.12) (15,870.00) (24,295.12)~~
~~Rescissions, net~~
~~-828.74~~
~~-530.12~~

~~-530.12~~
~~-535.00~~
~~0.92%~~
~~0.92%~~
~~-575.00~~
~~(-532.46)~~
~~(-425.12)~~
~~(-425.12)~~
~~SFOPS Total, Net of Rescissions~~
~~57,371.66~~
~~55,714.31~~
~~15,870.00~~
~~71,584.31~~
~~62,121.08~~
~~11.50%~~
~~-13.22%~~
~~62,400.90~~
~~(10,365.00)~~
~~(8,000.00) (15,870.00) (23,870.00)~~
Source: SFOPS Congressional Budget Justification for FY2022;
Notes: Figures in parentheses are amount designated as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) or supplemental emergency funding and are subsumed in the larger Figures in parentheses are amount designated as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) or supplemental emergency funding and are subsumed in the larger
account number above them. “Non-emergency” funding includes both “base” funding (also referred to as “enduring” or “ongoing” funding in budget documents) and account number above them. “Non-emergency” funding includes both “base” funding (also referred to as “enduring” or “ongoing” funding in budget documents) and
OCO funds. Numbers may not add due to rounding. “n.a.” = not applicable. OCO funds. Numbers may not add due to rounding. “n.a.” = not applicable.
a. Includes emergency funds provided in Title IX of the final FY2021 SFOPS appropriation (P.L. 116-260), the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (P.L. 117-2), and the a. Includes emergency funds provided in Title IX of the final FY2021 SFOPS appropriation (P.L. 116-260), the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (P.L. 117-2), and the
Emergency Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 117-31). Emergency Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 117-31).
b. Includes supplemental funds requested by the Administration in March 2022 to address the situation in Ukraine and additional COVID-19-related needs. c. S. 3075 was introduced but was never considered by the Senate SFOPS subcommittee. It is included here only as a reference of potential interest and does not indicate a Senate agreement on FY2022 funding levels. d. The supplemental request also asked that this funding be provided with authority to be transferred to the Transition Initiatives, INCLE, NADRA and USAID and State Department operational accounts. e. Figures in parenthesis include emergency funding from P.L. 117-43, Div. C; P.L. 117-70, Division B; and P.L. 117-103, Division M. CRS-34~~CRS-29~~

Appendix B. International Affairs Budget
The International Affairs budget, or Function 150, includes funding that is not in the Department The International Affairs budget, or Function 150, includes funding that is not in the Department
of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) appropriation; in particular, of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) appropriation; in particular,
international food assistance programs (Food for Peace Act international food assistance programs (Food for Peace Act ~~(FFPA)~~[FFPA], Title II and McGovern-Dole , Title II and McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition programs) are in the Agriculture International Food for Education and Child Nutrition programs) are in the Agriculture
Appropriations, and the Foreign Claim Settlement Commission and the International Trade Appropriations, and the Foreign Claim Settlement Commission and the International Trade
Commission are in the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations. In addition, the SFOPS Commission are in the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations. In addition, the SFOPS
appropriation measure includes funding for certain international commissions that are not part of appropriation measure includes funding for certain international commissions that are not part of
the International Affairs Function 150 account. the International Affairs Function 150 account.
CRS- CRS-3035

link to page link to page 3541
Table B-1. International Affairs Budget, ~~FY2020~~FY2021-FY2022
(In millions of U.S. dollars; numbers in parentheses are the portion of the account totals designated as OCO or emergency funds) (In millions of U.S. dollars; numbers in parentheses are the portion of the account totals designated as OCO or emergency funds)
FY2022 FY2022 CR 2 Omnibus % Change, FY2022 CR 1 (P.L. 117- (P.L. 117- FY2022 FY2021- FY2021 House (P.L. 117- 70, Div. 103, Div. K, Enacted FY2022 Total FY2022 Req. (H.R. 4373) 43, Div. C) B) M) Total Enacted State-Foreign Operations, 71,407.69 71,194.46 62,214.68 2,168.00 1,280.30 62,878.05 66,326.35 -7% excluding Commissionsa (23,870) (9,250.00) (6,800.00) (6,800.00) Commerce-Justice-Science 105.37 105.43 120.93 0.00 0.00 112.43 112.43 7% Foreign Claims Settlement 2.37 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 3% Commission Int’l Trade Commission 103.00 103.00 118.5 110.00 110.00 7% Agriculture 2,770.00 1,800.11 1,985.0 0.00 0.00 2,077.00 2,077.00 -25% (800.00) (100.00) (100.00) FFPA Title II 2,540.00 1,570.00 1,740.0 1,840.00 1,840.00 -28% (800.00) (100.00) (100.00) McGovern-Dole 230.00 230.11 245.0 237.00 237.00 +3% Total International Affairs (150) 74,283.06 73,100.00 64,320.21 2,168.00 1,280.30 65,067.48 68,515.78 -8% (24,520.00) (9,250.00) (6,900.00) (10,348.30

~~FY2021 Enacted~~

~~% Change,~~
~~% Change,~~
~~FY2021 Non-~~
~~FY2021 Total~~
~~FY2020~~
~~Emergency vs.~~
~~Enact. vs.~~
~~FY2022~~

~~Actual~~
~~Base +OCO~~
~~Emerg.~~
~~Total~~
~~FY2022 Req.~~
~~FY2022 Req.~~
~~FY2022 Req.~~
~~House~~
~~State-Foreign Operations,~~
~~57,195.35~~
~~55,537.69~~
~~15,870.00~~
~~71,407.69~~
~~61,944.45~~
~~11.54%~~
~~-13.25%~~
~~62,214.68~~
excluding Commissionsa
~~(10,265.00)~~
~~(8,000.00)~~
~~(15,870.00)~~
~~(23,870)~~
~~Commerce-Justice-Science~~
~~101.74~~
~~105.37~~

~~105.37~~
~~105.43~~
~~0.06%~~
~~0.06%~~
~~120.93~~
~~Foreign Claims Settlement~~
~~2.34~~
~~2.37~~

~~2.37~~
~~2.43~~
~~2.70%~~
~~2.70%~~
~~2.43~~
~~Commission~~
~~Int’l Trade Commission~~
~~99.40~~
~~103.00~~

~~103.00~~
~~103.00~~
~~0.00%~~
~~0.00%~~
~~118.5~~
~~Agriculture~~
~~1,945.00~~
~~1,970.00~~
~~800.00~~
~~2,770.00~~
~~1,800.11~~
~~-8.62%~~
~~-35.01%~~
~~1,985.0~~
~~(800.00)~~
~~(800.00)~~
~~FFPA Title II~~
~~1,725.00~~
~~1,740.00~~
~~800.00~~
~~2,540.00~~
~~1,570.00~~
~~-9.77%~~
~~-38.19%~~
~~1,740.0~~
~~(800.00)~~
~~(800.00)~~
~~McGovern-Dole~~
~~220.00~~
~~230.00~~

~~230.11~~
~~0.05%~~
~~0.05%~~
~~245.0~~
~~Total International Affairs~~
~~59,242.09~~
~~57,613.06~~
~~16,670.00~~
~~74,283.06~~
~~63,850.00~~
~~10.83%~~
~~-14.05%~~
~~64,320.21~~
~~(150)~~
~~(10,365.00)~~
~~(8,000.00)~~
~~(16,670.00) (24,520.00~~) )
Source: SFOPS Congressional Budget Justification for FY2022; H.R. 4373. SFOPS Congressional Budget Justification for FY2022; H.R. 4373.
Notes: Figures in parentheses are amount designated as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) or supplemental emergency funding and are subsumed in the larger Figures in parentheses are amount designated as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) or supplemental emergency funding and are subsumed in the larger
account number above them. Non-Emergency funding includes both base funding (also referred to as “enduring” or “ongoing” funding in budget documents) and OCO-account number above them. Non-Emergency funding includes both base funding (also referred to as “enduring” or “ongoing” funding in budget documents) and OCO-
designated funds. Numbers may not add due to rounding. “n.a.” = not applicable. designated funds. Numbers may not add due to rounding. “n.a.” = not applicable.
a. Includes mandatory spending from the Foreign Service retirement account and does not align with budget justification figures that count only discretionary spending. a. Includes mandatory spending from the Foreign Service retirement account and does not align with budget justification figures that count only discretionary spending.
Excludes funding for international commissions that is appropriated in the SFOPS bil but part of function 300 of the budget (Natural Resources and Environment), Excludes funding for international commissions that is appropriated in the SFOPS bil but part of function 300 of the budget (Natural Resources and Environment),
not function 150 (International Affairs). not function 150 (International Affairs).

CRS- CRS-3136

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Appendix C. International Affairs Components Chart
Figure C-1.
International Affairs Budget Components
Source: Created by CRS. Created by CRS.

Author Information

Cory R. Gill Cory R. Gill
Emily M. Morgenstern Emily M. Morgenstern
Analyst in Foreign Affairs Analyst in Foreign Affairs
Analyst in Foreign Assistance and Foreign Policy Analyst in Foreign Assistance and Foreign Policy

Marian L. Lawson Marian L. Lawson

Section Research Manager Section Research Manager

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

3237

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
R46935 R46935 · VERSION 68 · UPDATED
3338