Department of State, Foreign Operations, and
October 1, 2021
Related Programs: FY2022 Budget and
Cory R. Gill
Appropriations
Analyst in Foreign Affairs

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

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

The FY2022 request was about 13% less than the total FY2021 enacted level, which

included nearly $16 bil ion in emergency funds, but 11.4% more than enacted FY2021
levels when 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 bil , 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 wel as an increase to USAID’s operating account to
hire new personnel and invest in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts.
The House Appropriation Committee passed a FY2021 SFOPS bil , H.R. 4374, on July 1, 2021, which was
approved by the full House on July 28, 2021. The bil would provide a total of $62.401 bil ion in net budget
authority for SFOPS accounts ($62.976 bil ion pre-rescissions). FY2022 SFOPS legislation has not been
introduced in the Senate. A continuing resolution, P.L. 117-43, was enacted on September 30, 2021 to continue
funding federal agencies in FY2022, largely at FY2021 levels, until December 3, 2021.
An account-by-account comparison of the FY2022 SFOPS request, FY2022 SFOPS legislation, and FY2021
SFOPS enacted funding is presented in Appendix A. Appendix B provides a similar comparison, focused
specifical y on the International Affairs budget. Appendix C depicts the organization of the SFOPS appropriation.
This report tracks SFOPS appropriations, comparing funding levels for accounts and purposes across FY2022
proposals and prior year enacted appropriations. 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 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, Department of State,
Foreign Operations Appropriations: A Guide to Component Accounts, by Nick M. Brown and Cory R. Gil .
Congressional Research Service

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

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Overview
On May 28, 2021, the Biden Administration released its proposed FY2022 budget request, which
cal s for $62.656 bil ion in new budget authority for SFOPS accounts ($62.121 bil ion if proposed
rescissions of prior year funding are subtracted).1
SFOPS funds 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
development, security, and humanitarian assistance; and U.S. participation in multilateral
organizations. The SFOPS appropriation closely aligns with the International Affairs budget
function,2 which typical y represents about 1% of the annual federal budget and would do so
again under the FY2022 budget proposal (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. International Affairs as a Portion of the Federal Budget, FY2022 Est.

Sources: FY2022 Budget Historic Table 5.1; CRS calculations.
Note: 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 enacted level, which includes almost $16 bil ion
in emergency funds; and
 11% more than the enacted FY2021 level when emergency funding, used
primarily for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) response, is excluded.3
The FY2022 SFOPS request, the first of the Biden Administration, is significantly higher than al
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 T he SFOPS budget aligns closely but not exactly with Function 150 (International Affairs) of the federal budget. T he
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, COVID-19 and
Foreign Assistance: Issues for Congress, by Nick M. Brown, Marian L. Lawson, and Emily M. Morgenstern , and CRS
Report R46319, Novel Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19): Q&A on Global Im plications and Responses, coordinated by
T iaji Salaam-Blyther.
Congressional Research Service

1

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Table 1. SFOPS Requests and Actual Funding, FY2013-FY2022
(In bil ions of current U.S. dol ars)

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

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

Sources: 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.
117-2; P.L. 117-31.
Note: Actuals include supplemental and emergency funds.
Figure 2. SFOPS Funding, FY2010-FY2022
(In bil ions of current U.S. dol ars)

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.
Overseas Contingency Operations and Emergency Funds
From FY2012 to FY2021, the appropriations process has been shaped by discretionary spending
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
also by designating a portion of annual SFOPS appropriations as “Overseas Contingency
Operations” (OCO) or “emergency” funding, both of which were excluded from BCA
discretionary budget limits.4 Congress began using the OCO designation in SFOPS appropriations
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 Im pacts , 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 bil ion (nearly 35% of SFOPS funds that
year), before leveling off at $8 bil ion annual y between FY2019 and FY2021.5
In addition to OCO funds, Congress has periodical y used funding designated as “emergency” to
address a range of unanticipated needs. This designation was used in FY2020 and FY2021 to
address needs related to the COVID-19 pandemic abroad and humanitarian assistance for
Afghanistan and Afghan refugees. Like OCO-designated funding, emergency-designated funding
did not count toward the BCA discretionary spending caps and could therefore be used as an
alternative to the OCO designation. Before the use of OCO in SFOPS, supplemental emergency
appropriations were the primary mechanism for funding contingency activities.
The FY2022 appropriations cycle is the first in a decade for which the BCA is not a factor, and
may mark the end of the OCO designation within SFOPS legislation. While Administrations have
not requested OCO funding in the international affairs budget since FY2018, the FY2022 House-
passed bil is the first SFOPS legislation since FY2012 to not include OCO-designated funds.
Although BCA spending caps no longer apply, SFOPS spending is limited by the subcommittee
al ocation approved in the annual budget resolution or by the Appropriations Committee (Table
2). Emergency-designated funding does not count toward this al ocation, 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 from base funding in terms of the
activities it supports, whereas emergency-designated funding continues to be used primarily for
short-term needs arising from unanticipated events. For this reason, this report general y groups
base and OCO funding together, comparing FY2022 proposed funding levels with total FY2021
enacted funding (base + OCO + emergency) as wel as to nonemergency funding (base + OCO) to
serve various analytic purposes.
Congressional Action
Congressional action on FY2022 appropriations began with subcommittee hearings before the
Administration’s full request was transmitted to Congress in late May—months later than is
typical, 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 wil be updated as
necessary.
Table 2. Status of FY2022 SFOPS Appropriations
(funding levels in bil ions of U.S. dol ars)
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. 4374; H.Rept. 117-91.
Notes: The 302(b) al ocation 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.

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

3

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

House Legislation. The House SFOPS subcommittee approved a FY2022 bil , H.R. 4374, by
voice vote on June 18, 2021. The legislation, which includes $63.976 bil ion 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 has not been introduced in the Senate to date.
Continuing Resolution. No appropriations legislation for FY2022, including for SFOPS, was
enacted before FY2022 began on October 1, 2021. To prevent a lapse in appropriations, a
continuing resolution, P.L. 117-43, was enacted on September 30, 2021, to continue funding
federal agencies in FY2022, largely at FY2021 levels, until December 3, 2021.6
State Department Operations and Related Agency
Funding Highlights
The Biden Administration’s FY2022 request seeks $18.4 bil ion in funding for the Department of
State and Related Agency appropriations accounts, or approximately 5% more than the FY2021
enacted level of $17.5 bil ion. Priorities the Administration intends to fund through these accounts
in FY2022 include
 revitalizing the foreign policy workforce and broadening diversity, equity, and
inclusion;
 modernizing the State Department’s information technology and enhancing
cybersecurity;
 supporting international organizations and peacekeeping; and
 sustaining security operations and consular services.7
Table 3. State Department and Related Agency: Selected Accounts
(In bil ions of current U.S. dol ars; includes OCO funds)
%
change,
FY21
enacted
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
to FY22
FY2022
Account
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Diplomatic Programs
9.51
9.37
9.49
1.2%
9.48
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
Maintenance
Educational & Cultural Exchange Programs
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.1%
0.75
International Organizations
3.00
2.96
3.59
21.2%
3.59
U.S. Agency for Global Media
0.81
0.80
0.81
0.9%
0.82

6 P.L. 117-43 also included FY2022 SFOPS account funding in Division C, T itle 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. It is unclear how this funding will affect final FY2022 appropriations.
7 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

%
change,
FY21
enacted
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
to FY22
FY2022
Account
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
State and Related Agency Total
17.64
17.49
18.35
4.9%
18.20
(includes Function 300 funding and other
commissions)
Sources: FY2022 SFOPS CBJ; H.R. 4373; P.L. 116-260; 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 wel as the Office of the Chief of Protocol.8
The Biden Administration’s FY2022
Consular and Border Security Programs
request for the Diplomatic Programs
The Consular and Border Security Programs (CBSP)
account totals $9.5 bil ion, approximately
account funds many of the State Department’s core
1% more than the $9.4 bil ion Congress
consular functions, including the adjudication of visa and
provided in FY2021. As part of the Biden
passport applications. While CBSP is typical y funded
Administration’s stated commitment to
through consular fees and surcharges, fee col ections have
revitalizing the foreign policy workforce, it declined considerably amid global travel restrictions
imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.9 The Biden
is requesting funding for an additional 485
Administration is forecasting that fee col ections wil remain
Foreign Service and Civil Service
below pre-COVID-19 levels during FY2022. It is therefore
positions, 337 of which would be funded
requesting that Congress provide a $320 mil ion
through Diplomatic Programs.11 Within
appropriation for the CBSP account, extend broadened fee
expenditure and transfer authorities that were enacted
this request are 130 new Foreign Service
during the COVID-19 pandemic, and authorize new or
Officer positions the Administration has
increased consular fees or surcharges.10 If enacted, the
indicated wil be focused on advancing
House bil would appropriate $320 mil ion for CBSP and
U.S. prosperity and countering Chinese
include some, but not al , of the fee-related legislative
economic influence, defending U.S.
provisions the Biden Administration requested.
interests against malign influence from

8 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Program s, Fiscal Year 2022, pp. 16-20.
9 T o review the statutory authorization for the CBSP account, see Division J, T itle VII, Section 7081 of P.L. 115-31.
10 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic
Engagem ent, Fiscal Year 2022, pp. 68-79
11 Ibid., p. 6.
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 8 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Russia and other foreign actors, and engaging with the United Nations and other organizations.12
The request includes funding for 20 new Civil Service positions to support the Bureau of
Information Resource Management’s cybersecurity and risk management programs.13
The Biden Administration’s Diplomatic Programs request also includes $46.5 mil ion for
diversity and inclusion resources, which would be $25.1 mil ion more than the funding provided
for these purposes in FY2021.14 Among other priorities, the request proposes language for
inclusion in the FY2022 SFOPS appropriations measure that the State Department maintains
would expand its ability to offer paid internships and $10 mil ion to fund such internships. The
State Department notes that providing compensation for interns wil “ensure that al eligible
candidates can take advantage of [internship programs], regardless of background.”15 The request
also prioritizes disability hiring programs; additional diversity and inclusion content within
orientation, leadership, and tradecraft classes for State Department personnel; and coaching
services for employees from under-represented groups.16
House Legislation. If enacted, H.R. 4373 would appropriate approximately $9.5 bil ion for
Diplomatic Programs. This overal funding level is less than the Biden Administration’s request
(see Table 3). The House bil seeks to provide $3.2 bil ion for the Diplomatic Programs account’s
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
request for Human Resources.17 Additional y, the House Appropriations Committee report
accompanying this bil states that it provides sufficient resources for the Administration to
“restore and expand” the State Department’s workforce.18 With respect to diversity and inclusion,
the committee report notes that the bil includes funding for the State Department “to prioritize
initiatives aimed at making real and sustainable progress in diversifying our foreign policy
workforce.”19 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 mil ion for this purpose, in line with the
Administration’s request.20
Diplomatic Security
The Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) al ocation within the Diplomatic Programs account
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
Security (DS), which is responsible for implementing the State Department’s security programs

12 Ibid., p. 48
13 Ibid., p. 50.
14 Ibid., p. 46.
15 Ibid., pp. 41, 95.
16 Ibid., pp. 90, 95-96.
17 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:
GPO, 2020), p. 10; U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1 , pp. 48, 53.
18 House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2022 , p.
4.
19 House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2022 , p.
6.
20 Ibid., p. 12. See also Section 7063(d)(4) of H.R. 4373.
Congressional Research Service

6

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

to protect U.S. embassies and other overseas posts, diplomatic residences, and domestic State
Department offices.21 The ESCM account funds the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations,
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.
Government real property abroad.22
For FY2022, the Administration requested approximately $6.1 bil ion for the diplomatic security
accounts: $4.1 bil ion for WSP and $2.0 bil ion 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 bil ions of current U.S. dol ars, 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; 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.23
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
future year retirement trends.”24 The request also seeks funding for expanding the Assistant
Regional Security Officer Investigator (ARSO-I) program to combat visa and passport fraud and
related human trafficking concerns, among other priorities.25 With regard to ESCM, the request
cal s for around $1 bil ion for the State Department’s share of the Capital Security Cost Sharing
and Maintenance Cost Sharing Programs (CSCS/MCS), which fund the planning, design,
construction, and maintenance of the United States’ overseas diplomatic posts. The
Administration maintains that this request, when combined with contributions from other
agencies with overseas personnel, wil fund these programs at the $2.2 bil ion level recommended
by the Benghazi Accountability Review Board.26

21 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 20.
22 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1, pp. 2, 321.
23 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.
24 Ibid., p. 21.
25 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, “ T he 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/.
26 Ibid., p. 322.
Congressional Research Service

7

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

House Legislation. H.R. 4373, if enacted, would appropriate funding for WSP at a level identical
to the Biden Administration’s request and include slightly ($12.3 mil ion) more funding for
ESCM.27 H.R. 4373 does not directly address the Administration’s request for additional overseas
DS special agents. The report accompanying this bil states that it includes the funding the
Administration requires to hire additional State Department personnel more general y.28 Neither
the bil nor the committee report specifical y address the proposed ARSO-I expansion. However,
the bil appears to include sufficient funding to expand the program, as the overal funding it
appropriates for WSP is equal to the Administration’s request. Regarding the ESCM account, the
House bil would provide around $2.1 bil ion for the CSCS/MCS programs (when factoring in al
funding sources), or nearly 4% less than the Biden Administration’s request.29 The House bil
appropriates $12.3 mil ion more than the Biden Administration requested in overal funding for
ESCM. If enacted, the bil would thus include more funding than requested for other ESCM-
funded priorities.30
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
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
Organization of American States, and regional organizations including the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO).31 Separately, the United States pays its assessed contributions to U.N.
peacekeeping missions through the Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities
(CIPA) account.32 U.S. funding to international organizations is also provided through various
SFOPS multilateral assistance accounts (see “Foreign Operations Highlights,” below).
The Biden Administration requested a combined $3.6 bil ion for these accounts for FY2022. If
enacted, this funding level would total a 21% increase from the funds Congress appropriated for
FY2021. Table 5 shows recent funding levels for each account.

27 T he 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. T he funding totals in the
House bill for WSP and ESCM total $4,075,899,000 and $1,995,449,000, respectively.
28 House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2022 , p.
4.
29 T he Biden Administration’s request totaled $2,204,997,000. If enacted, the House bill would provide
$2,124,000,000. See Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1, p. 323, and House Committee on Appropriations,
State Foreign Operations, and Related Program s Appropriations Bill, 2022, p. 24.
30 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
State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1, p. 323.
31 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, pp. 48-49.
32 Ibid., pp. 51-53.
Congressional Research Service

8

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Table 5. U.S. Payments of Assessments to International Organizations and
Peacekeeping Missions, FY2019-FY2021 Request
(In bil ions of current U.S. dol ars; includes OCO funds)
% change,
FY21
enacted to
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
FY22
FY2022
Account
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Contributions to International Organizations
1.47
1.51
1.66
10.4%
1.66
Contributions for International
1.53
1.46
1.93
32.4%
1.93
Peacekeeping Activities
Total
3.00
2.97
3.59
21.2%
3.59
Sources: FY2022 SFOPS CBJ; H.R. 4373; P.L. 116-260; CRS calculations.
Notes: Percentage changes may not reflect numbers included in this table due to rounding.
The Biden Administration maintains that its CIO request provides funding for “international
programs and organizations whose missions substantial y advance U.S. foreign policy interests.”
The Administration further notes that the request reflects its expectation that international
organizations should “rein in costs,” improve their efficiency and effectiveness, enhance their
accountability and transparency, and share funding burdens more equitably among member
states.33 Among other priorities, the request seeks $75 mil ion for payments to the U.N.
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).34 The Administration is also
requesting authority for the United States to rejoin UNESCO.35 The Trump Administration
withdrew the United States from UNESCO in 2018.36
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 mil ion in
arrears that have accumulated over the past four years (this figure excludes previously
accumulated arrears).37 The accumulation of such arrears owes in part to the United Nations’
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
since 1994 due to concerns that U.S. assessments are too high.38 The Biden Administration’s

33 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, pp. 48-49.
34 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1, p. 363
35 For additional background, see CRS In Focus IF10354, United Nations Issues: U.S. Funding to the U.N. System , by
Luisa Blanchfield.
36 For more information, see CRS Insight IN10802, U.S. Withdrawal from the United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), by Luisa Blanchfield.
37 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.
38 Over the years, the gap between the actual U.S. assessment and the cap led to funding shortfalls. T he State
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 prev ious missions) to fund outstanding U.S.
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 T rump Administration allowed
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, United
Nations Issues: U.S. Funding of U.N. Peacekeeping , by Luisa Blanchfield. See also U.S. Department of State,
Congressional Budget Justification, p. 51.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 14 link to page 15 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

request asks for $300 mil ion to begin paying down such arrears; the Administration intends to
pay down the remainder in FY2023.39 The request also proposes language that, if enacted, would
authorize the State Department to make funds available for U.N. peacekeeping missions above
the aforementioned 25% statutory cap.40
House Legislation. If enacted, the House bil would fund CIO and CIPA at the levels the Biden
Administration requested. While the bil seeks to provide an appropriation for CIO that is equal to
the Biden Administration’s request, which incorporates requested funding for UNESCO, the bil
does not include the waiver authority the Biden Administration requested that would al ow the
United States to rejoin the organization. The House bil includes both the $300 mil ion the Biden
Administration requested for the payment of peacekeeping arrears and requested legislative
language to al ow the State Department to make funds available for U.N. peacekeeping missions
in excess of the 25% statutory cap.41
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.42 The Biden Administration’s
FY2022 request for Foreign Operations accounts totals $44.3 bil ion. The total foreign assistance
request, including the food assistance provided in the agriculture appropriation, totals $46.1
bil ion, representing 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
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. Foreign Assistance, by Type, FY2020-FY2022
(In mil ions of current U.S. dol ars)
%
%
Change,
Change,
FY2021
FY2021
Non-
Total
FY2021
Emerg.
Enact.
Enacted
FY2021
vs.
vs.
FY2020
Base +
Enacted
FY2022
FY2022
FY2022
FY2022
Type
Actual
OCO
Totala
Request
Req.
Req.
House
USAID Administration
1,766.05
1,711.45
1,752.45
1,862.65
8.8%
6.3%
1,790.62
Global Health Programs
9,559.95
9,195.95
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%
9,272.00
Assistance
(includes Treasury Technical
Assistance)

39 U.S. Department of State, FY2022 Budget Request, slide presentation, p. 42.
40 SFOPS CBJ for FY2022 Appendix 1, p. 397. See also 22 U.S.C. §287e note.
41 House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2022 , p.
6.
42 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 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

%
%
Change,
Change,
FY2021
FY2021
Non-
Total
FY2021
Emerg.
Enact.
Enacted
FY2021
vs.
vs.
FY2020
Base +
Enacted
FY2022
FY2022
FY2022
FY2022
Type
Actual
OCO
Totala
Request
Req.
Req.
House
Humanitarian Assistanceb
10,460.46
9,567.46
11,467.46
10,097.46
5.5%
-11.9%
10,267.46
Independent Agencies
1,474.00
1,393.50
1,393.50
1,393.50
0.0%
0.0%
1,430.00
Security Assistance
9,013.95
9,004.03
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 Promotion
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; CRS calculations.
a. FY2021 enacted total includes emergency funding to address COVID-19 abroad, select assistance for Sudan,
and humanitarian assistance for Afghanistan and Afghan refugees.
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
expected to exceed appropriations, resulting in a net gain to the Treasury.
The House FY2022 legislation provides a total of $46.8 bil ion for foreign assistance (includes
food aid in the Agriculture appropriation, H.R. 4356). This represents a nearly 19% increase from
FY2021-enacted nonemergency funds, a 14% decrease from total FY2021-enacted funding, and a
5% increase over the Biden Administration’s request.
Cross-Cutting Issues
The Biden Administration’s budget request articulates certain global priorities for FY2022. These
include responding to climate change through bilateral and multilateral efforts, addressing the
first- and second-order effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and combating rising
authoritarianism.
Climate Change
The Biden Administration has identified climate change response as a top priority. Multilateral y,
the Biden Administration proposes a $625 mil ion contribution to the Green Climate Fund, which
would be the first U.S. contribution since FY2017. The request also includes $300 mil ion for the
Clean Technology Fund and $100 mil ion for Multilateral Climate Change Adaptation Funds.
Bilateral y, the Administration asserts that the request “increas[es] investments in systemic
change that promotes adaptation resilience, renewable energy, and sustainable landscapes.”43 The
Administration includes climate considerations in al regional-specific requests as wel as certain
sector-specific requests such as those for food security and gender.44 The budget request also
incorporates climate-related priorities into independent agency requests, such as those for the
Peace Corps, Mil ennium Chal enge Corporation, and the U.S. African Development Foundation.

43 SFOPS CBJ for FY2022, p. 80.
44 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

11

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

House Legislation. The House bil , H.R. 4373, provides funds for both multilateral and bilateral
efforts to combat climate change. The bil includes $1.6 bil ion for the Green Climate Fund and
$200 mil ion for the Clean Technology Fund. The report designates additional funds for climate
efforts and directs agencies to incorporate climate into foreign assistance activities. For example,
climate change is listed as a key issue in a number of regions, including the Indo-Pacific, Central
America, and sub-Saharan Africa. The committee further directs that funds be made available for
“climate change integration at the activity level at USAID, especial y to increase the technical
expertise of USAID staff related to climate change mitigation and adaptation.”
COVID-19
The FY2022 request proposes 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
security, education, and economic chal enges; and long-term pandemic preparedness efforts. The
proposed investments for COVID-19 response include, among others,
 $995 mil ion for Global Health Security to “enhance the global COVID response
and strengthen global health security”;45
 humanitarian assistance funds through the International Disaster Assistance
(IDA) and Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) accounts to aid the most
vulnerable populations and maintain “global response capacity” in the wake of
COVID-19;46
 Development Assistance (DA) education funds to “address the global learning
crisis and respond to the impact of COVID-19 on education”;47 and
 Economic Support Fund (ESF) monies to help regions recover from the
economic effects of COVID-19.48
House Legislation. The report accompanying the House measure (H.Rept. 117-84) notes that the
bil
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 ..
[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,
lost livelihoods, and rising levels of gender-based violence and discrimination.
The measure and accompanying report provide $1 bil ion for Global Health Security; direct the
USAID Administrator to address learning loss due to COVID-19, including through expanding
access to distance learning materials and technology; and recommend that USAID design
COVID-19-sensitive water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) programs, among other provisions.
Rising Authoritarianism
The Biden Administration’s budget proposes funds to address rising authoritarianism and
democratic backsliding, including in the context of COVID-19. A proposed $100 mil ion for
USAID’s Bureau for Democracy, Development, and Innovation (DDI)—which is level when

45 Ibid., p. 77.
46 Ibid., pp. 84 and 95.
47 Ibid., p. 81.
48 Ibid., pp. 87-88.
Congressional Research Service

12

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

compared to the FY2021 appropriation—“elevates anti-corruption, human rights, and countering
authoritarianism as strategic and programmatic priorities.”49 The Administration also includes
these priorities in some of its regional requests. The Assistance to Europe, Eurasia, and Central
Asia proposal for Europe and Eurasia, for example, is “focused on defending democracy, rule of
law, advancing human rights and gender equality, fighting corruption, and countering
authoritarianism.”50
House Legislation. The House report accompanying H.R. 4373 asserts its support for the
Administration’s “commitment to strengthening and preserving democracies worldwide.” It
provides funds for the Democracy Fund at the level the Administration requested—which would
be even with the FY2021-enacted level—and provides additional funds for multilateral efforts,
such as $4.5 mil ion for the Organization of American States (OAS) Fund for Strengthening
Democracy and $3.5 mil ion for the U.N. Democracy Fund.
Foreign Operations Sectors
Global Health Programs (GHP)51
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
(see Table 7).52 The Biden Administration requested $10.05 bil ion in total for global health
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
health security programs would increase by $825 mil ion, or more than 429%, from FY2021
enacted nonemergency funding, which appears to reflect the Administration’s interest in
pandemic preparedness efforts in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.53 The Biden Administration
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.54 These
actions would reverse the Trump Administration’s decision to halt U.S. funding to the WHO and
“terminate” the U.S. relationship with the organization.55
The Biden Administration also
 reversed the Mexico City Policy which, when invoked by previous presidents,
required nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) receiving U.S. foreign
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

49 Ibid., p. 91.
50 Ibid., p. 92.
51 Prepared by Sara T harakan, Analyst in Global Health and International Development, and T iaji Salaam -Blyther,
Specialist in Global Health.
52 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11758, U.S. Global Health Funding: FY2017-FY2022 Request, by T iaji
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.
53 SFOPS CBJ for FY2022.
54 White House, The President’s FY2022 Discretionary Budget Request, April 9, 2021, p. 26.
55 For more on the T rump 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 Im plications, coordinated by T iaji
Salaam-Blyther.
Congressional Research Service

13

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

 revoked the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy, which expanded
the Mexico City Policy on family planning and reproductive health (FP/RH)
funding to include al U.S. global health assistance.56
Additional y, the FY2022 budget request seeks funding increases for FP/RH programs (+$26
mil ion), as wel as for maternal and child health (+$24.5 mil ion).57
Table 7. Global Health Appropriations, FY2017-FY2022
(In mil ions of current U.S. dol ars)
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
FY2022

Enacted
Enacted
Enacted
Enacted
Request
House
HIV/AIDS
4,320.0
4,370.0
4,370.0
4,370.0
4,370.0
4,520.0
Global Fund
1,350.0
1,350.0
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
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
engagement with USAID legislative affairs staff.
Notes: FY2021 emergency supplemental funding to combat COVID-19 abroad was enacted in Title IX of P.L.
116-260, but subaccount al ocations 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).
MCH = Maternal and Child Health; FP/RH = Family Planning and Reproductive Health; NTDs = Neglected
Tropical Diseases; GHS = Global Health Security.
The House measure, H.R. 4373, provides $10.6 bil ion in global health funding for FY2022. The
bil provides level or increased funding for each global health subaccount when compared with
the Biden Administration’s request. Compared with the Administration’s request, the bil provides
the largest increase (in dollar amount) to Family Planning/Reproductive Health and places a
particular emphasis on global health security and health systems strengthening.

56 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.
57 SFOPS CBJ for FY2022.
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 20 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Humanitarian Assistance58
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
assistance is general y appropriated through global humanitarian accounts administered through
the State Department and USAID, including the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA),
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
Agriculture appropriation. Continuing a longstanding trend across Administrations, Congress has
supported global humanitarian efforts at appropriation levels wel above the budget request (see
Figure 3).
Experts agree that the scope of global humanitarian and displacement crises has significantly
worsened in recent years,59 and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic continues to exacerbate drivers
of humanitarian need. The U.N. 2021 global humanitarian appeal for $36.1 bil ion is the highest
ever. Enacted FY2021 U.S. humanitarian funding to date totals $11.467 bil ion, which is also a
record high. This total includes emergency supplemental funds from P.L. 117-31 (comprising
$500 mil ion for ERMA and $100 mil ion for MRA to address humanitarian needs in Afghanistan
and to assist Afghan refugees) and at least $800 mil ion in FFP funds and $500 mil ion in MRA
funds provided for a broad range of needs through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA, P.L.
117-2).60

58 Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy.
59 The United Nations reported that, worldwide, more than 235 million people required humanitarian assistance and protection and
nearly 82.4 million persons were 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 2021, December 2020 and May 31, 2021 update. U.N. High Commissioner for
Refugees, Global Trends Report, June 18, 2021 (latest available).
60 Section 10003 of ARPA also included $3.09 billion under the Economic Support Fund authority “to be made
available to t he 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
health activities, and to meet emergency food security needs.” It is unclear if any of these funds will be channeled
through the humanitarian accounts.
Congressional Research Service

15

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

The Biden Administration’s budget request
for FY2022 cal s for $10.1 bil ion 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 bil ion for MRA, $100
mil ion for ERMA, $4.7 bil ion for IDA, and
$1.6 bil ion for FFP. It would shift $170.0
mil ion 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 bil ion in
humanitarian funding through the MRA,
ERMA, and IDA accounts. The House
Agriculture appropriations bil , H.R. 4356,
would provide $1.7 bil ion in FFP funding,
bringing the total for humanitarian assistance
to nearly $10.3 bil ion 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

16

link to page 21

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Security Assistance
The Biden Administration request includes
nearly $9.2 bil ion 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 bil ions of current U.S. dol ars)
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
10% proposed increase in INCLE would
largely help address the crime and violence
that contribute to irregular migration to the
United States, particularly from Central
America. According to the request, $570
mil ion, or 37% of proposed INCLE funding,
would be al ocated to these efforts in Central
America. Other security assistance priorities
identified in the request include countering
terrorist threats, including those posed by the
Islamic State (IS) and Al Qaeda; supporting
implementation of the Global Fragility Act of

2019 (Div. J, Title V of P.L. 116-94);
Sources: FY2022 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-260.
countering malign influences of China,
Notes: FMF = Foreign Military Financing; IMET =
Russia, and Iran; and bolstering regional
International Military Education and Training; INCLE
stability in the Middle East, including through
= International Narcotics Control and Law
Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) support for
Enforcement; NADR = Nonproliferation, Anti-
terrorism, Demining and Related Programs; PKO =
the Multinational Force and Observers
Peacekeeping Operations.
mission in the Sinai.
House Legislation. H.R. 4373 would provide $9.0 bil ion in security assistance, representing a
less than 1% increase from FY2021-enacted levels and a nearly 2% decrease from the
Administration’s request.
Development Assistance, Export Promotion, and Related Assistance
The remaining third of the FY2022 foreign operations request proposed to al ocate funds to
nonhealth development sectors, independent agencies, multilateral assistance, and export
promotion agencies.
Development Sectors
The Biden Administration’s request for FY2022 does not provide dollar amounts for many
nonhealth development sectors but offers detail on program priorities within some sectors. For
example, the Administration highlights investments in gender equality and equity, including $200
mil ion 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
Development and Prosperity (W-GDP) Fund. Other key program areas include climate change
Congressional Research Service

17

link to page 22 link to page 15 link to page 15 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.
House Legislation. When compared with FY2021-enacted levels, the House measure (H.R.
4373) provides level or increased funding for most nonhealth development sectors in FY2022
(see Table 8). The education sector would see a decrease of $35 mil ion (3%) when compared
with the FY2021-enacted level. The largest increase is to environmental programs, which would
see an increase of $303.5 mil ion (31%) over prior year appropriations.
Table 8. Select Development Sectors, FY2020-FY2022
(In mil ions of current U.S. dol ars)
Sector
FY2020 Enacted
FY2021 Enacted
FY2022 House
Democracy Programs (excluding NED)
2,400.0
2,417.0
2,517.0
Education (basic and higher)
1,110.0
1,235.0
1,200.0
Food Security
1,005.6
1,010.6
1,100.0
Environment
906.7
986.7
1,290.2
Water and Sanitation
450.0
450.0
475.0
Gender
330.0
560.0
617.0
Trafficking in Persons
67.0
99.0
106.4
Reconciliation Programs
30.0
25.0
25.0
Micro and Smal Enterprise
265.0
265.0
265.0
Sources: P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-260; H.R. 4373.
Notes: NED = National Endowment for Democracy.
Independent Agencies
The Administration’s request for FY2022 would maintain level funding for the Peace Corps,
Inter-American Foundation (IAF), U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF), and the
Mil ennium Chal enge Corporation (MCC) when compared with FY2021-enacted levels. The
House measure, H.R. 4373, provides increases to the Peace Corps (5%), IAF (17%), and USADF
(30%), and maintains level funding for MCC for FY2022 when compared with FY2021-enacted
levels.
Multilateral Assistance
As part of its stated efforts to strengthen U.S. multilateral engagement, the Administration’s
budget request includes increases to multilateral assistance for FY2022 when compared with total
enacted funding for FY2021. The largest proposed increase is to the International Development
Association, a World Bank agency that provides grants and loans to the world’s least developed
countries; it would see a nearly 43% increase over the FY2021-enacted level. As stated above, the
request also proposes funds for climate efforts including the Green Climate Fund (see “Climate
Change”).
House Legislation. H.R. 4373 provides a total of $4.1 bil ion for multilateral assistance accounts
in FY2022. This represents a 13% increase from the Biden Administration’s request. The House
measure emphasizes the Green Climate Fund, providing $1.6 bil ion for FY2022, a 156%
increase from the Administration’s proposed $625 mil ion. The House bil does not increase
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 24 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 proposes increases to the Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank and the
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
instances, the Administration asserts that offsetting collections would reduce the agencies’ budget
burden. 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 year. Similarly, while the
Administration stated that it does not expect the DFC to be entirely budget neutral, it asserts that
collections would reduce the agency’s budget burden to $128.4 mil ion with an estimated $472.4
mil ion in offsetting collections.
House Legislation. H.R. 4373 largely meets the Administration’s proposal for funding for the
Ex-Im Bank and DFC. An exception is the Ex-Im Bank’s program budget, which would see a
decrease of $5 mil ion (50%) from the Administration’s proposal. The House legislation provides
increased funding for Ex-Im Bank and DFC when compared with the FY2021-enacted levels.
Regional Assistance
Similar to previous Administrations, the Biden Administration does not propose regional funding
that captures al appropriations accounts. For example, humanitarian funding is proposed and
provided for in what are often referred to as “global” accounts, wherein funding is al ocated on a
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 only fully assessed after the close of a
fiscal year.
However, the Administration does propose regional funding for certain accounts. These include
Global Health Programs (GHP); DA; ESF; Assistance to Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia
(AEECA); and al five security assistance accounts. For FY2022, the Administration proposes
increases in al regions with the exception of Europe and Eurasia, which would see a nearly 4%
decrease in funding when compared with FY2020 actual levels (see Figure 5).61 The greatest
proposed increase is for funding to the Western Hemisphere, largely to help the region address the
root causes of migration to the United States.

61 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

19

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Figure 5. Regional Assistance, FY2020 vs. FY2022 Request

Sources: 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,
NADR, PKO, IMET, and FMF. FY2020 Actual includes COVID-19 emergency funds.
House Legislation. The House legislation and accompanying report do not provide
comprehensive regional al ocations, but do specify assistance levels for several countries and
regions. For example, the measure directs that up to $860.6 mil ion may be made available for
assistance to Central American countries.62 The legislation also directs that not less than $3.3
bil ion be made available for Israel, not less than $1.4 bil ion be made available for Egypt, not
less than $481.5 mil ion be made available for assistance for Ukraine, and not less than $132.0
mil ion be made available for assistance for Georgia, among other designations.
Outlook
With FY2022 underway, and foreign affairs agencies operating under a continuing resolution,
comprehensive SFOPS appropriations for FY2022 wil likely be enacted through an omnibus
appropriations bil 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:
U.S. Diplomatic Presence in Afghanistan. The withdrawal of U.S. military and diplomatic
personnel from Afghanistan in August 2021 occurred after the State Department submitted its
FY2022 budget request to Congress and the House of Representatives passed its SFOPS bil . For
FY2022, the Biden Administration requested approximately $579.6 mil ion for diplomatic
security-related priorities in Afghanistan, including the deployment of weaponry on new Embassy
Air helicopters and armored vehicle replacements.63 The Administration also requested an
additional $70.8 mil ion for diplomatic programs in Afghanistan, including mission staffing and
operations, along with information technology costs.64 However, the United States no longer

62 Including Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama. Funds may also be
programmed through the Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI).
63 SFOPS CBJ for FY2022 Appendix 1, p. 307.
64 Ibid., p. 154.
Congressional Research Service

20

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

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
if, the United States wil reestablish an official diplomatic presence there 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 wil 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 al , 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 al ocation of global health assistance, and foreign
assistance broadly. The FY2022 request and House bil 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
global y, and the secondary impacts of the pandemic in developing countries are better
understood, the al ocation of foreign assistance may change accordingly.

Congressional Research Service

21

link to page 32
Appendix A. SFOPS Funding, by Account
Table A-1. Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations: FY2020-FY2022
(In mil ions of U.S. dol ars; numbers in parentheses are the portion of the account totals designated as OCO or emergency funds)

FY2021 Enacted

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

Actual
Emerg.
Emerg.a
Total
Req.
Req.
Req.
House
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-22

link to page 32

FY2021 Enacted

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

Actual
Emerg.
Emerg.a
Total
Req.
Req.
Req.
House
Protection of Foreign Missions & Officials
30.89
30.89

30.89
30.89
0.00%
0.00%
30.89
Embassy Security, Construction & Maintenance
1,975.45
1,950.45

1,950.45
1,983.15
1.68%
1.68%
1,995.45
(424.09)
(824.29)
(824.29)
of which Worldwide Security Upgrades
1,205.65
1,181.39

1,181.39
1,132.43
-4.14%
-4.14%
1,144.73
(424.09)
(824.29)
(824.29)
Emergency-Diplomatic & Consular Services
267.89
7.89

7.89
8.89
12.68%
12.68%
8.89
Repatriation Loans
1.30
2.50

2.50
1.30
-48.00%
-48.00%
1.30
Payment American Institute Taiwan
31.96
31.96

31.96
32.58
1.94%
1.94%
32.58
International Chancery Center
0.74
2.74

2.74
0.74
-72.91%
-72.91%
0.74
Sudan Claims

150.00
150.00

n.a.
-100.00%

(150.00)
(150.00)
Foreign Service Retirement (mandatory)
158.90
158.90

158.90
158.90
0.00%
0.00%
158.90
International Organizations, Subtotal
3,000.09
2,962.24

2,962.24
3,591.54
21.24%
21.24%
3,591.54
(1,084.90)
(802.23)
(802.23)
Contributions to International Organizations
1,473.81
1,505.93

1,505.93
1,662.93
10.43%
10.43%
1,662.93
(96.24)
(96.24)
(96.24)
Contributions to International Peacekeeping
1,526.28
1,456.31

1,456.31
1,928.61
32.43%
32.43%
1,928.61
(988.66)
(705.99)
(705.99)
International Commissions, Subtotal (Function 300)
162.80
176.62

176.62
176.62
0.00%
0.00%
186.62
International Boundary/U.S. Mexico
85.07
98.77

98.77
98.77
0.00%
0.00%
108.77
CRS-23

link to page 32

FY2021 Enacted

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

Actual
Emerg.
Emerg.a
Total
Req.
Req.
Req.
House
American Sections
15.01
15.01

15.01
15.01
0.00%
0.00%
15.01
International Fisheries
62.72
62.85

62.85
62.85
0.00%
0.00%
62.85
Agency for Global Media, Subtotal
810.40
802.96

802.96
810.40
0.93%
0.93%
818.85
Broadcasting Operations
798.70
793.26

793.26
800.70
0.94%
0.94%
809.15
Capital Improvements
11.70
9.70

9.70
9.70
0.00%
0.00%
9.70
Related Programs, Subtotal
381.34
385.28

385.28
385.17
-0.03%
-0.03%
387.17
Asia Foundation
19.00
20.00

20.00
20.00
0.00%
0.00%
20.00
U.S. Institute of Peace
45.00
45.00

45.00
45.00
0.00%
0.00%
45.00
Center for Middle East-West Dialogue
0.24
0.25

0.25
0.18
-28.00%
-28.00%
0.18
Eisenhower Exchange Programs
0.27
0.21

0.21
0.17
-18.66%
-18.66%
0.17
Israeli-Arab Scholarship Program
0.12
0.12

0.12
0.12
0.00%
0.00%
0.12
East-West Center
16.70
19.70

19.70
19.70
0.00%
0.00%
19.70
Leadership Institute for Transatlantic Engagement

n.a.
n.a.
2.00
National Endowment for Democracy
300.00
300.00

300.00
300.00
0.00%
0.00%
300.00
Other Commissions, Subtotal
13.51
14.30

14.30
14.30
0.00%
0.00%
14.30
Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad
0.68
0.64

0.64
0.64
-0.31%
-0.31%
0.64
International Religious Freedom
4.50
4.50

4.50
4.50
0.00%
0.00%
4.50
Security & Cooperation in Europe
2.58
2.91

2.91
2.91
0.07%
0.07%
2.91
Cong.-Exec. Commission on People’s Republic of China
2.25
2.25

2.25
2.25
0.00%
0.00%
2.25
CRS-24

link to page 32

FY2021 Enacted

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

Actual
Emerg.
Emerg.a
Total
Req.
Req.
Req.
House
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review
3.50
4.00

4.00
4.00
0.00%
0.00%
4.00
Foreign Operations, TOTAL
40,557.42
39,404.25
14,616.00
54,620.25
44,306.97
12.44%
-18.88%
44,772.92
(5,869.46)
(4,517.58) (14,616.00) (19,733.58)
Title II. Administration of Foreign Assistance
1,766.05
1,711.45
41.00
1,752.45
1,862.65
8.83%
6.29%
1,790.62
(103.00)
(41.00)
(41.00)
USAID Operating Expenses
1,479.25
1,377.75
41.00
1,418.75
1,527.95
10.90%
7.70%
1,455.92
(102.00)
(41.00)
(41.00)
USAID Capital Investment Fund
210.30
258.20

258.20
258.20
0.00%
0.00%
258.20
USAID Inspector General
76.50
75.50

75.50
76.50
1.32%
1.32%
76.50
(1.00)
Title III. Bilateral Assistance
27,668.49
26,488.95
13,995.00
41,083.95
29,643.91
11.91%
-27.85%
29,625.91
(4,929.34)
(3,615.46) (13,995.00) (18,210.46)
Global Health Programs
9,559.95
9,195.95
4,000.00
13,195.95
10,050.95
9.30%
-23.83%
10,641.45
(435.00)
(4,000.00)
(4,000.00)
of which USAID
3,629.95
3,265.95
4,000.00
7,265.95
3,870.95
18.52%
-46.72%
4,561.45
(435.00)
(4,000.00)
(4,000.00)
of which State
5,930.00
5,930.00

5,930.00
6,180.00
4.22%
4.22%
6,080.00
Development Assistance
3,400.00
3,500.00

3,500.00
4,075.10
16.43%
16.43%
4,075.10
International Disaster Assistance
4,953.36
4,395.36

4,395.36
4,682.36
6.53%
6.53%
4,682.36
(2,291.98)
(1,914.04)
(1,914.04)
CRS-25

link to page 32

FY2021 Enacted

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

Actual
Emerg.
Emerg.a
Total
Req.
Req.
Req.
House
Transition Initiatives
92.04
92.04

92.04
92.04
0.00%
0.00%
92.04
Complex Crises Fund
30.00
30.00

30.00
60.00
100.00%
100.00%
40.00
Economic Support Fund
3,288.00
3,151.96
9,375.00
12,526.96
4,260.23
35.16%
-65.99%
3,635.23
(243.00)
(9,375.00)
(9,375.00)
Democracy Fund
273.70
290.70

290.70
290.70
0.00%
0.00%
290.70
Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia
770.33
770.33

770.33
788.93
2.41%
2.41%
788.93
Migration & Refugee Assistance
3,782.00
3,432.00
600.00
4,032.00
3,845.00
12.03%
-4.64%
3,845.00
(1,871.36)
(1,701.42)
(600.00)
(2,301.42)
Emergency Refugee & Migration Assistance
0.10

500.00
500.10
0.10
0.00%
0.00%
0.10
(500.00)
(500.00)
Independent Agencies, Subtotal
1,474.00
1,393.50

1,393.50
1,393.50
0.00%
0.00%
1,430.00
(88.00)
Peace Corps
498.50
410.50

410.50
410.50
0.00%
0.00%
430.50
(88.00)
Mil ennium Chal enge Corporation
905.00
912.00

912.00
912.00
0.00%
0.00%
912.00
Inter-American Foundation
37.50
38.00

38.00
38.00
0.00%
0.00%
44.50
U.S. African Development Foundation
33.00
33.00

33.00
33.00
0.00%
0.00%
43.00
Department of the Treasury, Subtotal
45.00
357.00
120.00
357.00
105.00
-55.70%
-70.59%
105.00
(120.00)
(120.00)
International Affairs Technical Assistance
30.00
33.00

33.00
38.00
15.15%
15.15%
38.00
CRS-26

link to page 32

FY2021 Enacted

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

Actual
Emerg.
Emerg.a
Total
Req.
Req.
Req.
House
Debt Restructuring
15.00
204.00
120.00
324.00
67.00
-67.16%
-79.32%
67.00
(120.00)
(120.00)
Title IV. International Security Assistance
9,013.95
9,004.03

9,004.03
9,183.89
2.00%
2.00%
9,034.03
(837.12)
(902.12)
(902.12)
International Narcotics Control & Law Enforcement
1,391.00
1,385.57

1,385.57
1,525.74
10.12%
10.12%
1,395.57
Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining
895.75
889.25

889.25
900.25
1.24%
1.24%
889.25
Peacekeeping Operations
457.35
440.76

440.76
469.46
6.51%
6.51%
460.76
(325.21)
(325.21)
(325.21)
International Military Education & Training
112.93
112.93

112.93
112.93
0.00%
0.00%
112.93
Foreign Military Financing
6,156.92
6,175.52

6,175.52
6,175.52
0.00%
0.00%
6,175.52
(511.91)
(576.91)
(576.91)
Title V. Multilateral Assistance
2,049.78
2,040.82
580.00
2,620.82
3,630.13
77.88%
38.51%
4,098.56
(580.00)
(580.00)
International Organizations & Programs
358.00
387.00
580.00
967.50
457.10
17.96%
-52.75%
477.10
(580.00)
(580.00)
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
206.50
206.50

206.50
206.50
0.00%
0.00%
206.50
Global Environment Facility
139.58
139.58

139.58
149.29
6.96%
6.96%
149.29
International Development Association
1,097.01
1,001.40

1,001.40
1,427.97
42.60%
42.60%
1,001.40
Asian Development Fund
47.40
47.40

47.40
53.32
12.50%
12.50%
53.32
African Development Bank
0.00
54.65

54.65
54.65
0.00%
0.00%
54.65
CRS-27

link to page 32

FY2021 Enacted

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

Actual
Emerg.
Emerg.a
Total
Req.
Req.
Req.
House
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 a re 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 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
Emergency Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 117-31).
CRS-28

Appendix B. International Affairs Budget
The International Affairs budget, or Function 150, includes funding that is not in the Department
of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) appropriation; in particular,
international food assistance programs (Food for Peace Act (FFPA), Title II and McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition programs) are in the Agriculture
Appropriations, and the Foreign Claim Settlement Commission and the International Trade
Commission are in the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations. In addition, the SFOPS
appropriation measure includes funding for certain international commissions that are not part of
the International Affairs Function 150 account.
CRS-29

link to page 34
Table B-1. International Affairs Budget, FY2020-FY2022
(In mil ions of U.S. dol ars; numbers in parentheses are the portion of the account totals designated as OCO or emergency funds)

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. 4374.
Notes: 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 bas 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.
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),
not function 150 (International Affairs).

CRS-30

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Appendix C. International Affairs Components Chart
Figure C-1.

Source: Created by CRS.

Author Information

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

Marian L. Lawson

Section Research Manager

Congressional Research Service

31

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Disclaimer
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
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
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
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
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.

Congressional Research Service
R46935 · VERSION 1 · NEW
32