Foreign Relations Authorization, FY2003: An Overview
Released: 2002-11-08T00:00:00

Most Recent Developments

The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2003 ( H.R. 1646 / S. 1401 / S. 1803 ) authorizes the Departmentof State's operations and programs through FY2003, and establishes U.S. policy on: Colombia assistance, a U.S.embassy in Jerusalem, U.S. human rightspolicy, UNESCO, and arms sales to Taiwan, among other measures. Congressman Hyde introduced H.R. 1646 on April 27, 2001. The Housepassed the bill, as amended, on May 16, 2001 by a recorded vote of 352-73. The Senate Foreign RelationsCommittee passed its version of the authorizationlegislation by a unanimous voice vote on August 1st. The Committee filed its report ( S.Rept. 107-60 )on September 4, 2001. Conferees met on September 18,2002 and filed the conference report ( H.Rept. 107-671 ) on September 23rd. The House passed theconference report by voice vote on September 25th and theSenate passed it by unanimous consent the next day. President Bush signed the legislation into law ( P.L. 107-228 )on September 30, 2002.

Background

The foreign relations authorization legislation provides authority for the State Department and related foreignpolicy agencies to conduct foreign policy activitiesand programs in the coming year. It authorizes foreign policy programs and enacts changes in U.S. foreign policy. It also serves as a vehicle for Congress toinfluence executive branch management of foreign policy. Since Congress has not passed a foreign assistance authorization bill since 1985, activities such asauthorization for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), as well as U.S. economic, development,and military assistance are also typicallyincluded in the foreign authorization legislation.

By law, authorization of foreign policy agencies and programs is required prior to expenditure of Foreign Operations and State Department appropriations. Ineffect, the authorizing legislation sets spending ceilings for the foreign policy agency appropriations. (See Table 1below.) Prior to 1995, Congress hadreauthorized U.S. government foreign policy agencies and activities in the foreign relations authorization legislationevery two years until 1994 ( P.L. 103-236 ,April 30, 1994). P.L. 107-228 is the first stand-alone foreign relations authorization bill that Congress has passedsince 1994. In the intervening years, Congresswaived the requirement or included authorization in appropriation laws. (See State Department AuthorizationHistory in the Appendix.)

Key Issues-Foreign Relations

The foreign relations authorization legislation typically provides authority for State Department spending forsuch activities as salaries and other operatingexpenses, passport and visa processing, embassy activities, as well as foreign service benefits. In addition, thelegislation often becomes a convenient vehicle fornumerous foreign policy-related issues, such as nonproliferation, human rights, international family planning policy,and Foreign Service issues. Congress caninfluence U.S. foreign policy toward specific regions or countries as well. Some key issues in the authorizationlegislation of the 107th Congress follow.

Arms Sales to Taiwan (1)

In the 107th Congress, some Members called for ensuring regular and high-level consultations with Taiwan and a role for Congress in determining arms sales toTaiwan, after President Bush announced on April 24, 2001, that he would drop the annual arms talks process withTaiwan in favor of normal, routineconsiderations on an "as-needed" basis. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY2002 and FY2003( H.R. 1646 ), passed in the House on May16, 2001, contained provisions on arms sales to Taiwan. First, H.R. 1646 included authority (in Section 851)for the President to sell the fourKidd-class destroyers to Taiwan, not as Foreign Military Sales, but Excess Defense Articles (EDA), under Section21 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA). Second, in the House International Relations Committee, Representative Brad Sherman proposed an amendment(Section 813) to require that Taiwan be treated asthe "equivalent of a major non-NATO ally" for defense transfers under the AECA or the Foreign Assistance Act,while the language stopped short of designatingTaiwan as a major non-NATO ally. According to the Member's office, the provision would show tangible supportfor Taiwan's defense, provide it with statussimilar to that given to Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina, offer it the "right of first refusal" for EDA, and treatit with enhanced status for anti-terrorismassistance, cooperative research and development projects in the defense area, and expedited review in satellitelicensing. Some observers said that authority hasexisted under the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) to provide defense assistance to Taiwan. Third, Representative GaryAckerman introduced an amendment (Section814) to require the President to consult annually with Congress and Taiwan about the availability of defense articlesand services for Taiwan. The consultationswith Taiwan would occur at a level not less than that of the Vice Chief of General Staff and in Washington, D.C.- as has been the case.

The Senate's Foreign Relations Authorization Act ( S. 1401 ), introduced and placed on the calendar on September 4, 2001, sought to require theAdministration to brief Congress every three months on discussions between any executive agency and Taiwan onarms sales (Section 603). The Committee onForeign Relations said that it wished to ensure that consultations between the executive branch and Congress onarms sales to Taiwan and the congressional roleare maintained ( S.Rept. 107-60 ). On May 1, 2002, the Senate incorporated S. 1803 in H.R. 1646 andpassed it. The Senate's version(Section 701) sought to authorize the President to sell the four Kidd-class destroyers to Taiwan.

Enacted as P.L. 107-228 , the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY2003 authorizes - at the Bush Administration's request - the Department of State andother departments or agencies (including the Department of Defense) to detail employees to the American Institutein Taiwan (AIT) (Section 326); requires thatTaiwan be "treated as though it were designated a major non-NATO ally" (Section 1206); requires consultationswith Congress on U.S. security assistance toTaiwan every 180 days (Section 1263); and authorizes the sale to Taiwan of the four Kidd-class destroyers (Section1701). Section 326, amending the ForeignService Act of 1980, has significant implications for the assignment of government officials to AIT, includingactive-duty military personnel for the first timesince 1979. (AIT, the non-profit corporation that Congress set up under the TRA, has handled the relationship withTaiwan in the absence of diplomatic relationssince 1979. Employees have been separated from government service for a period of time in the name of "unofficial"relations, but personnel issues have affectedAIT.)

In signing the bill into law on September 30, 2002, President Bush issued a statement that criticized Section 1206. He said that "Section 1206 could bemisconstrued to imply a change in the 'one China' policy of the United States when, in fact, that U.S. policy remainsunchanged. To the extent that this sectioncould be read to purport to change United States policy, it impermissibly interferes with the President'sconstitutional authority to conduct the Nation's foreignaffairs."

There are other relevant legislation. The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2002 ( P.L. 107-107 ), enacted December 28, 2001, authorized the President totransfer (by sale) the four Kidd-class destroyers to Taiwan (Section 1011), under Section 21 of the AECA. TheForeign Operations Appropriations Act forFY2002 ( P.L. 107-115 ), enacted on January 10, 2002, brought unprecedented close coordination between theexecutive and legislative branches on arms sales toTaiwan. Section 573 required the Departments of State and Defense to provide detailed briefings (not specified asclassified) to congressional committees(including those on appropriations) within 90 days of enactment and not later than every 120 days thereafter duringFY2002. The briefings were required to reporton U.S.-Taiwan discussions on potential sales of defense articles or services to Taiwan. The Senate's ForeignOperations Appropriations bill for FY2003( S. 2779 ), introduced and placed on the calendar on July 24, 2002, would continue into FY2003 therequirement for briefings on arms sales to Taiwan(Section 569).

See CRS Report RL30957 , Taiwan: Major U.S. Arms Sales Since 1990 , by Shirley Kan.

China-U.S. Policy (2)

P.L. 107-228 contains a number of provisions relating to the People's Republic of China (PRC). Section 232 of the authorization denies visas to any Chinesenational who has been involved directly in the coercive transplanting of human organs or tissues. The moresubstantive and detailed China-related provisions dealwith U.S. policy and practices toward Tibet and Taiwan.

Tibet. The "Tibetan Policy Act of 2002" begins at Section 611, Subtitle B. The stated purpose of the languageis "to support the aspirations of the Tibetan people to safeguard their distinct identity." It calls on the U.S.government to encourage China to enter into dialoguewith the Dalai Lama or his representatives to negotiate a settlement; work to ensure compliance with any negotiatedsettlement; and report annually to Congresson the status of such dialogue. The Act also expands the responsibilities of the Congressional-ExecutiveCommission on the People's Republic of China(CECPRC) to include monitoring and reporting on the status of dialogue between the Chinese government and theDalai Lama. In addition, the measure requiresU.S. representatives in international financial institutions to support only those economic development projects onthe Tibetan Plateau that meet certain principles,including: that they have been preceded by an assessment of the needs of the Tibetan people through field visits andinterviews, as well as by cultural andenvironmental impact statements; that they foster Tibetan self-sufficiency; that Tibetans actively participate in allproject phases; that the development agency useTibetan as the working language of the project; and that Tibetan culture and traditions be respected, among otherprinciples.

The law requires the Secretary of State to make a "best effort" to open a U.S. consular office in Lhasa; requires that Tibetan language training be made available toU.S. foreign service officers; calls for the U.S. Ambassador to China to meet with and ask for the release of the 11thPanchen Lama, now thought to be heldincognito by the Chinese government; and calls for the release of political prisoners in Tibet. The bill providesstatutory authority for the position of SpecialCoordinator for Tibetan Affairs (as opposed to current practice of a presidentially appointed position). Finally, thebill authorizes $500,000 in FY2003 for the"Ngawang Choephel Exchange Programs" (the former "programs of educational and cultural exchange between theUnited States and the people of Tibet"); andseparate entries for Tibet in various mandated reporting requirements. These Tibet provisions are similar to(although not as extensive as) provisions in separatelegislation-The Tibetan Policy Act of 2001 ( H.R. 1779 and S. 852 )-introduced by Representative TomLantos and Senator DianneFeinstein, respectively.

Taiwan. P.L. 107-228 contains provisions on Taiwan that would make changes in current U.S. practice andhave an affect on U.S.-China relations. Provisions dealing with Taiwan are particularly sensitive to Beijing becauseof the latter's view that the bill's languageseeks to make U.S. security relations with Taiwan more formal and routinized. Among other things, the Actcontains a provision allowing the Secretary of Stateto detail a State Department employee to the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) while remaining on the U.S.government payroll if he determines such a detail isin the U.S. national interest. (The United States does not have official relations with Taiwan, and all bilateralcontacts since 1979 have been handled through AIT.)The measure also includes House language providing that, for the purposes of U.S. arms sales, Taiwan should betreated as the equivalent of a major non-NATOally; and that the President consult with appropriate congressional committees every six months about Taiwan'srequest for defense articles and services. The Actalso contains sense-of-Congress resolutions that the Taiwan situation be resolved peacefully and with the consentof the people on Taiwan; and that the Americanflag be publicly displayed at U.S. offices in Taiwan as at other U.S. embassies, consulates, and official residencesaround the world.

For more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB98018, U.S.-China Policy .

Colombia Assistance (3)

The House International Relations Committee reported out H.R. 1646 (Foreign Relations Authorization for FY2002-FY2003) on May 4, 2001, withfour reporting requirements on Colombia and a prohibition on the issuance of visas to illegal armed groups inColombia. This bill was passed by the House onMay 16, 2001, without additions to, or modifications of, conditions on counter-narcotics and other assistance toColombia and regional neighbors under theAndean Regional Initiative. The required reports relate to the elimination of Colombian opium, the effects of PlanColombia on Ecuador, alternative developmentand resettlement programs, and the transfer of counter-narcotics activities by contracted U.S. businesses toColombian nationals, especially Colombiananti-narcotics police.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported out S. 1401 (the Senate version of the Foreign Relations Authorization for FY2002-FY2003) onSeptember 4, 2001, with a provision in section 606, similar to a provision in the House version of the bill, requiringthe Secretary of State to submit to appropriatecongressional committees within 60 days after enactment a report that outlines a comprehensive strategy to eradicateall opium at its source in Colombia. Insubsequent action, the Senate approved H.R. 1646 on May 1, 2002, after incorporating the text of a Senatemeasure on security assistance( S. 1803 ) approved in December 2001.

The conference report on H.R. 1646 ( H.Rept. 107-671 ) filed on September 23, 2002, contains two sections on Colombia, with requirements forreports that are similar to the requirements in the House-passed version of the bill, except that the required reportsin Section 694 are broadened to include theactivities of the Department of Defense, and the subsequent reports are to be made yearly rather than semi-annually. The prohibition on the issuance of visas toillegal armed groups in Colombia was dropped on grounds that it was duplicative of existing authorities, particularlyauthorities in the Immigration andNationality Act (INA). The conference report on H.R. 1646 was approved by the House by voice vote onSeptember 25, 2002, and was approved bythe Senate by unanimous consent on September 26, 2002. It was signed into law ( P.L. 107-228 ) on September 30,2002.

Section 694 (a) of the legislation requires the Secretary of State to submit within 180 days of enactment, and not later than April 1 of each year thereafter, a reporton State or Defense Department funded and authorized activities to promote alternative development, recovery andresettlement of internally displaced persons,judicial reform, the peace process, and human rights. This report is to include summaries of activities undertakenduring the previous 12-month period, estimatedtimetables for the next 12-month period, an explanation of any delays in meeting planned timetables, and anassessment of steps to be taken to correct such delays.

Section 694(b) states that it is the policy of the United States to encourage the transfer of counter-narcotics activities in Colombia now carried out by contractedU.S. businesses to Colombian nationals, "in particular personnel of the Colombian anti-narcotics police, whenproperly qualified personnel are available." Itrequires the Secretary of State to report, within 180 days of enactment and not later than April 1 of each yearthereafter, on the counter-narcotics activities carriedout by U.S. businesses under State or Defense Department contracts. The report must include the names of suchbusinesses, the total State or Defense Departmentpayments to each business, a statement justifying each agreement, an assessment of risks to personnel safety andpotential involvement in hostilities incurred byemployees of each such business, and a plan to provide for the transfer of these activities to Colombians, inparticular personnel of the Colombian anti-narcoticspolice.

Section 695 requires the Secretary of State to submit, within 150 days of enactment, a report which sets forth a comprehensive strategy for United States activitiesin Colombia related to (1) the eradication of opium cultivation at its source in Colombia, and (2) the impact of PlanColombia on Ecuador and the other adjacentcountries to Colombia.

For more information, see CRS Report RL31383(pdf) , Andean Regional Initiative (ARI): FY2002Supplemental and FY2003 Assistance for Colombia and Neighbors ,by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

Drug Certification Procedures (4)

Under Sections 489-490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, the President was required from the mid-1980s to FY2002 to certify by March 1st thatillicit drug producing and drug-transit countries are cooperating fully with the United States in counter-narcoticsefforts in order to avoid a series of sanctions. Ifthe President was unable to fully certify a country, or to determine that a less-than-fully-cooperative country shouldbe given a certification in the national interest,certain sanctions would apply, including the withholding of most U.S. foreign assistance and sales financing, andU.S. opposition to loans for the country in themultilateral development banks. The sanctions would also apply if the Congress, within 30 calendar days, were topass a joint resolution of disapproval tooverturn the presidential certification; however, the resolution would be subject to presidential veto. Congressionalattention in this area often has focused onMexico, and in many years resolutions to disapprove the certification of Mexico were introduced, but were neverfully enacted.

Spokesmen from many countries complained about the unilateral and non-cooperative nature of the drug certification requirements, and urged the United States toend the process and to rely upon various multilateral methods of evaluation that have been developed. Mexicoparticularly expressed dissatisfaction with theprocess, even though it was regularly certified as being a fully cooperative country. Following the July 2000election of opposition candidate Vicente Fox asPresident of Mexico, a number of legislative measures were introduced to modify the drug certificationrequirements, and these initiatives were mentioned whenPresident Bush and President Fox met in Mexico in mid-February 2001, and in the United States in early September2001.

S. 1401 , the Foreign Relations Authorization for FY2002-FY2003, reported out by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 4, 2001( S.Rept. 107-60 ), contained proposed modifications to the drug certification procedures in Title VII, Subtitle D,Reform of Certification Procedures Applicable toCertain Drug Producing or Trafficking Countries. The provisions in Subtitle D are similar to provisions in S. 219 , previously reported out by theCommittee on April 5, 2001, that focused attention primarily on the worst offending countries subject to sanctions. Under the new procedures, the Presidentwould be required to identify by October 1 of each year major drug-transit or major illicit drug producing countries,and to designate each country that has "faileddemonstrably," during the previous 12 months, to make substantial efforts to adhere to its obligations underinternational counter-narcotics agreements(multilateral and bilateral) and other standards. U.S. assistance would be withheld from any designated countriesunless the President determined that theprovision of assistance was vital to the national interest of the United States or until the countries subsequently madesubstantial counter-narcotics efforts.

The House International Relations Committee reported out H.R. 1646 (Foreign Relations Authorization for FY2002-FY2003) on May 4, 2001,without any provisions on drug certification, and the measure was passed by the House on May 16, 2001. TheSenate approved H.R. 1646 on May 1,2002, after incorporating the text of a Senate measure on security assistance ( S. 1803 ) approved in December2001.

With congressional action on the Foreign Relations Authorization bills pending, the drug certification requirements were temporarily modified by enactment ofthe Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for FY2002 ( H.R. 2506 / P.L. 107-115 ). This measure waived thedrug certification requirements forFY2002 and, using language similar to that in S. 1401 , required the President to designate only countrieswhich had demonstrably failed to meetinternational counter-narcotics obligations. In action on the Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY2003, thebill ( S. 2779 ) reported by the SenateAppropriations Committee in July 2002 would extend through FY2003 the modifications of the U.S. drugcertification requirements enacted last year, while thebill ( H.R. 5410 ) reported by the House Appropriations Committee in September 2002 did not contain asimilar provision.

Under the conference report on H.R. 1646 , the Foreign Relations Authorization, ( H.Rept. 107-671 ) filed on September 23, 2002, Section 706 of thebill deals with International Drug Control Certification Procedures. Drawing from S. 1401 , the newprocedures require the President to make areport, not later than September 15 of each year, identifying the major drug transit or major illicit drug producingcountries. At the same time he is required todesignate any of the named countries that has "failed demonstrably," during the previous 12 months, to makesubstantial efforts to adhere to internationalcounter-narcotics agreements (defined in the legislation) and to take the counter-narcotics measures set forth insection 489(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of1961. U.S. assistance would be withheld from any designated countries unless the President determines that theprovision of assistance to that country is vital tothe national interest of the United States, or that the designated country subsequently made substantialcounter-narcotics efforts. Another section clarifies that therequirement for the yearly International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR) detailing the performance ofindividual countries by March 1st of each year isretained.

Notwithstanding the general suspension of the previous drug certification and sanctions procedures, subsection 706(5)(B) of H.R. 1646 provides thatthe President may apply those procedures at his discretion. In keeping with this approach, the Joint ExplanatoryStatement of the Committee of Conferenceindicates that Managers believe that the President should direct U.S. Executive Directors in multilateraldevelopment banks to vote against loans for countriesfailing to qualify for assistance under either the old or the new procedures.

In short, Section 706 requires the President to designate and withhold assistance from the worst offending countries (those that have "failed demonstrably" tomake substantial counter-narcotics efforts). It also permits the President to use his discretion to maintain a higherstandard and to withhold assistance and applyother sanctions against countries that are failing to cooperate fully with the United States in counter-narcotics effortswhenever he determines that such actionswould be helpful. A transition rule provides that for FY2003, the required report must be submitted at least 15 daysbefore foreign assistance funds are obligatedor expended.

The conference report on H.R. 1646 was approved by the House by voice vote on September 25, 2002, and was approved by the Senate byunanimous consent on September 26, 2002. It was signed into law ( P.L. 107-228 ) on September 30, 2002.

For further information, see CRS Report RL30892, Drug Certification Requirements and Proposed Congressional Modifications in 2001-2002; CRS Report RL30950, Drug Certification Procedures: A Comparison of Current Law to S. 219 and S. 1401 asReported; CRS Report 98-174 , MexicanDrug Certification Issues: Congressional Action, 1986-2002; and CRS Issue Brief IB10070, Mexico-U.S. Relations: Issues for the 107th Congress , by K. LarryStorrs.

East Timor (5)

East Timor formally became independent on May 20, 2002. The United States established diplomatic relations with the new state and supports a continued UnitedNations presence in East Timor. However, the United States withdrew the handful of U.S. military personnelinvolved in the U.N.-sponsored peacekeeping forcethat remains in East Timor, led by Australia. (The U.S. contribution never amounted to more than 50 personnel.) This leaves 80 American police officersadvising on the formation of East Timorese police. The Bush Administration has budgeted $19 million in economicaid to East Timor for FY2003. The aidprogram supports East Timor's coffee industry, the country's main export. It also includes democracy supporttargeted at the judiciary, law enforcers,non-governmental groups, and the media. A U.S. military aid program will provide for East Timorese what theState Department describes as "a smallInternational Military Education and Training (IMET) program."

Title VI, Subtitle C, consists of "East Timor Transition to Independence Act of 2002." The measure:1) authorizes $25 million in FY2003 for East Timorprograms, 2) mandates the U.S. government use its voice to support multilateral economic and developmentassistance, 3) encourages the Broadcasting Board ofGovernors (BBG) to establish broadcasting programs in appropriate languages for East Timor, and 4) requires astudy on security assistance for East Timor.

East Timor has receded in U.S. priorities in policies toward Indonesia. The Bush Administration has pushed hard in Congress to secure a softening ofcongressional restrictions on U.S. contacts with the Indonesian military in the interests of cooperation againstterrorism. These restrictions were placed in foreignoperations appropriations in late 1999 in response to the Indonesian military's instigation of large-scale violence inEast Timor following the August 1999referendum vote for separation from Indonesia. The Administration has allocated $50 million in training programsfor the Indonesian police and military, andIndonesia likely will receive additional funds contained in appropriations for counter-terrorism training for foreignmilitary organizations. Congress also hasremoved the restriction on Indonesian military participation in the IMET program.

For further information, see CRS Report RL30975 , East Timor Situation Report .

Family Planning, Abortion Restrictions, and the Mexico City Policy (6)

House and Senate conferees did not raise international family planning issues during their deliberations, and the final bill contains no language related to thismatter. Meanwhile, the Foreign Operations Appropriations FY2003 bill, as reported in the Senate ( S. 2779 )and the House ( H.R. 5410 ),include several provisions related to population assistance, the Mexico City policy, and U.S. contributions to theU.N. Population Fund (UNFPA).

The debate over international family planning policy and abortion began nearly three decades ago when Congress added a provision to the Foreign Assistance Actof 1961 prohibiting the use of U.S. appropriated funds for abortion-related activities and coercive family planningprograms. During the mid-1980s, in what hasbecome known as the "Mexico City" policy (because it was first announced at the 1984 Mexico City PopulationConference), the Reagan, and later the Bush,Administrations restricted funds for foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that were involved inperforming or promoting abortions in countries wherethey worked, even if such activities were undertaken with non-U.S. funds. President Clinton in 1993 reversed theposition of his two predecessors.

During the past six years, the House and Senate have taken opposing positions on the Mexico City issue. For FY2000, however, Congress linked approval ofU.N. arrears payments to White House acceptance of modified Mexico City restrictions. In order to remove theobstacles to U.N. arrears payments, PresidentClinton reluctantly agreed to the abortion restrictions, marking the first time that Mexico City conditions had beenincluded in legislation signed by the President. Because the President could waive the restrictions up to a certain point, there was no major impact on USAID familyplanning programs in FY2000, other than theloss of $12.5 million in population assistance that the legislation required if the White House exercised the waiverauthority. For FY2002, Congress again came toan impasse over the international family issue and agreed to allow the new President to set policy early in 2001. Under the FY2001 Foreign Operations measure,none of the $425 million appropriation could be obligated until after February 15, 2001.

Subsequently, on January 22, 2001, two days after taking office, President Bush issued a memorandum to the USAID Administrator reinstating in full all of therequirements of the Mexico City Policy in effect on January 19, 1993. The President said that it was his "convictionthat taxpayer funds should not be used to payfor abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad." (7) A separate statement from the President's press secretary said that President Bushwas "committed to maintaining the $425 million funding level" for population assistance "because he knows thatone of the best ways to prevent abortion is byproviding quality voluntary family planning services." The press secretary further emphasized that it was the intentthat any restrictions "do not limitorganizations from treating injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortions, for example, post abortioncare." (8) On February 15, the day on which FY2001population aid funds became available for obligation, USAID issued specific policy language and contract clausesto implement the President's directive. Theguidelines are nearly identical to those used in the 1980s and early 1990s when the Mexico City policy applied.

Critics of the certification requirement oppose it on several grounds. Some argue that it will reduce quality health care for women in developing nations bydenying U.S. funding to some of the most experienced and effective organizations. These critics further believe thatfamily planning organizations that do remaineligible for U.S. aid will cut back on services because of uncertainty over the full implications of the restrictionsand their desire not to risk losing access toUSAID funding. Thus, opponents contend that the Mexico City policy may actually lead to more abortionsoverseas. Critics also believe the new conditions willundermine relations between the U.S. Government and foreign NGOs and multilateral groups, creating a situationwhere the United States challenges their right todecide how to spend their own money and imposes a so-called "gag" order on their ability to promote changes toabortion laws and regulations in developingnations. The latter, these critics note, would be unconstitutional if applied to American groups working in theUnited States. From an administrative standpoint,they say it increases USAID costs to manage family planning programs because of the additional paperwork andis likely to delay implementation of projects.

Supporters of the certification requirement argue that even though permanent law bans USAID funds from being used to perform or promote abortions, money isfungible; that organizations receiving American-taxpayer funding can simply use USAID resources for permittedactivities while diverting money raised fromother sources to perform abortions or lobby to change abortion laws and regulations. The certification process, theycontend, stops the fungibility "loophole." They further note that the Mexico City policy does not stop organizations from continuing their family planningoperations overseas. It merely requires them toadhere to the conditions or to carry out their programs without U.S. Government support.

In the first several votes on the issue in 2001, the House International Relations Committee adopted (26-22) an amendment to H.R. 1646 byRepresentative Lee that would overturn the Mexico City policy. The Lee amendment, which incorporated the textof H.R. 755 , would not subjectforeign groups to different restrictions imposed on U.S. NGOs concerning the use of non-USAID funding foradvocacy and lobbying activities. It further directedthat foreign NGOs would not be ineligible for U.S. grants solely on the basis of health or medical services providedwith non-USAID funding so long as theseactivities were not in violation of the laws of the country in which the groups operated and would not violate U.S.law if provided here. On May 16, however, thefull House voted (218-210) to delete the Lee amendment from H.R. 1646 . The Administration had said President Bush would veto H.R. 1646 if the committee language on Mexico City policy remained in the bill.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee did not address the international family planning issue when it marked up its version of the Foreign RelationsAuthorization bill on August 1. The Senate panel, however, on the same day reported favorably S. 367 ,legislation identical to H.R. 755 and the text added by the House International Relations Committee to H.R. 1646 .

For more detail, see CRS Report RL30830 , International Family Planning: the Mexico City Policy; and CRS Issue Brief IB96026, Population Assistance andForeign Policy Programs: Issues for Congress .

Global Warming (9)

The global warming provisions that had been in both bills were dropped in conference, as the conferees sought to avoid an area of potential controversy.

Both H.R. 1646 (Section 745) and S. 1401 (Sec. 778) expressed a "Sense of Congress Relating to Global Warming." The two billscontained a number of similar findings, including reviews of the scientific findings of the Inter-governmental Panelon Climate Change (IPCC) and threats tovarious ecological and agricultural systems, and the U.S. participation in the United Nations Framework Conventionon Climate Change (UNFCCC). Both billsstated the sense of Congress that the United States should demonstrate international leadership in mitigating globalwarming threats by taking action to achievereductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and by continuing to participate in international negotiations with theobjective of completing the rules and guidelines forthe Kyoto Protocol in a manner that is consistent with the interests of the United States and that ensures theenvironmental integrity of the protocol. The wordingof the bills in these sections was not identical, and there were some items in each that are absent in the other, butthey shared most of the same concepts such asthe contribution of human activities to global climate change, and "the need for American business to know howgovernments worldwide will respond to thethreat of global warming."

The Kyoto Protocol, completed in 1997, and signed but not ratified by the United States, includes legally binding requirements for 38 industrialized nations toreduce their emissions of 6 greenhouse gases, including the predominant one, carbon dioxide, which is released byburning of fossil fuels and wood. Under thisprotocol, the U.S. reduction would be 7% below 1990 levels of emissions as an average over the period 2008-2012. Since this bill passed the House, PresidentBush has indicated that although it is his intention to remain engaged in the U.N. Framework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC) and related internationalnegotiations, the United States rejects the Kyoto Protocol and will not participate in it. The U.S. Senate is on recordin S.Res. 98, passed in 1997,rejecting a treaty that does not include developing countries or that would harm the U.S. economy-the two majorobjections to the Kyoto Protocol that PresidentBush has identified. Therefore, the provisions that state the United States should pursue the objective of"completing the rules and guidelines for the KyotoProtocol...." could be interpreted as recommending a modification in the policy articulated by President Bush.

For additional information, see the CRS Issue Brief IB89005, Global Climate Change .

HIV/AIDS (10)

P.L. 107-228 contains limited provisions on the HIV/AIDS pandemic affecting sub-Saharan Africa and other parts of the world. Both the House and Senate havedealt comprehensively with HIV/AIDS in another authorization bill, H.R. 2069 . The House version of thisbill, titled The Global Access toHIV/AIDS Prevention, Awareness, Education, and Treatment Act of 2001 , passed on December 11, 2001. The Senate version, The United States LeadershipAgainst HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2002 , passed on July 12, 2002. The House-passedversion of H.R. 1646 had includedprovisions on the coordination of U.S. international AIDS policy, but these were dropped in conference. AIDSpolicy coordination provisions are a major featureof both the House and Senate versions of H.R. 2069 .

Section 112(1)(A) of P.L. 107-228 authorizes $1 million under the State Department's Fulbright program for HIV/AIDS scholarships for New Century Scholars. These are foreign researchers and professionals who come to the United States to collaborate on issues of globalsignificance.

Section 689 of P.L. 107-228 states the sense of the Congress that the United Nations be urged to adopt an HIV/AIDS mitigation strategy as a component ofpeacekeeping operations. In part, this provision reflects concern over the role of conflict in creating chaoticconditions, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, thatfoster the spread of HIV. When peacekeeping operations are deployed, many argue, it is essential that theyimmediately launch programs to combat HIV/AIDS,which may already be affecting a significant portion of the population. This provision may also partly reflect theconcern that peacekeepers could serve as vectorsfor the HIV virus. The United Nations Security Council held a debate on this topic on January 19, 2001, at theinsistence of then-U.S. Representative to theUnited Nations, Richard Holbrooke. The representative of India, which has contributed troops to manypeacekeeping operations, expressed resentment at the"imputation that peacekeepers are necessarily at risk or carriers of the disease," while others noted that manycountries lack the resources to test for HIVinfection. (11) A December 2001 General Accounting Office report foundthat the United Nations has taken a number of steps to reduce the spread of HIV duringpeacekeeping operations, but that several challenges remain. (12)

For further information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10050, AIDS in Africa .

Human Rights - Child Soldiers, Trafficking, Human Rights and Democracy Fund (13)

P.L. 107-228 , as enacted, includes a number of provisions relating to human rights issues. Section 663 expresses the sense of Congress that the budget of theBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) should be substantially increased so that, beginning inFY2005 and thereafter, not less than 1% ofamounts made available for the Department under the heading "Diplomatic and Consular Programs" should be madeavailable for DRL salaries and expenses. Italso calls for a role for DRL in assigning individuals to embassies as political officers with primary responsibilityfor monitoring human rights. The measure alsorequires the Secretary of State to submit within 180 days of enactment a report providing a plan showing how theDepartment would improve human rights policyintegration. Section 664 establishes and authorizes $21.5 million for FY2003 for a Human Rights and DemocracyFund to be administered by the AssistantSecretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. The Fund is to support defenders of human rights, assistvictims of human rights violations, respond tohuman rights emergencies, and promote and encourage the growth of democracy. Of the total dollars authorizedfor the Fund, $1 million is to be for theDocumentation Center of Cambodia and $500,000 for the Father Kaiser Memorial Fund.

Section 665 expands the requirements for the annual country reports on human rights to include the extent to which the United States has taken, or will take,actions to encourage and end such practices for each country found to have extrajudicial killings, torture, or otherserious violations of human rights. Section 683 requires the reports to included information on the compulsory recruitment and conscription of individuals underthe age of 18 by the armed forces, paramilitaries,or other armed groups, as well as the participation of such individuals in such armed groups. Section 1212 requiresan annual report by March 1 from theSecretary of State to Congress describing the involvement of any former IMET participant in human rightsviolations.

Section 682 amends the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to state that programs of assistance to foreign victims should, as much as possible, support localin-country non-governmental organizations providing protection and assistance to trafficking victims and theirfamilies, including for hotlines, protective shelters,service centers, legal, social, and other services, education and training, and for repatriation. It also authorizes $10million in FY2002 and $15 million forFY2003 to provide assistance for victims of trafficking and violence in other countries.

IMET in Lebanon (14)

The House adopted an amendment ( H.Amdt. 39 ) to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY2002-2003 ( H.R. 1646 ) on May 16,2001, which dealt with U.S. military and economic assistance to Lebanon. The amendment passed the House bya vote of 216-210 and was incorporated into thebill as Sec. 1224: Assistance to Lebanon .

Section 1224 states that the President shall not provide $10 million in economic assistance for the Government of Lebanon for FY2003 and all subsequent yearsunless the President certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that the armed forces of Lebanon had beendeployed to the internationally recognizedborder between Lebanon and Israel and that the Government of Lebanon effectively asserted its authority in the areain which such forces have been deployed.Unless the President is able to certify that the Government of Lebanon has extended its control along the border,Section 1224 will delete $10 million from theU.S. assistance programs to Lebanon. In recent fiscal years, IMET grants to Lebanon have amounted to $600,000per year. ESF funds for Lebanon have increasedfrom $12 million in FY1999 to an estimated $35 million for FY2002. The President requested $32 million forFY2003. The USAID mission in Lebanon currentlydivides ESF funds into three major program areas: reconstruction and expanded economic opportunity; increasedeffectiveness of selected institutions that supportdemocracy; and improved environmental practices.

The provision to reduce assistance to Lebanon stems from the political and security vacuum that has existed in south Lebanon since Israel withdrew from itsself-declared "security zone" on May 24, 2000. Although Lebanon deployed a small mixed force of army and policeunits to some of the formerly Israeli-occupiedareas, it did not deploy any forces to the international border with Israel, in part because Lebanon claims that Israelhas not withdrawn fully from Lebaneseterritory. The area in question is called the Shabaa farms, occupied by Israel, and claimed by Lebanon and Syria tobe Lebanese territory. Israel, supported by theUnited Nations, claims the Shabaa farms area is Syrian territory, and therefore not subject to Israeli withdrawal fromLebanon. Israel and Lebanon remainstalemated over the issue. (See CRS Report RL31078(pdf) , The Shib'a Farms Dispute and Its Implications .) The Hizballah organization uses the absence of Lebanesetroops to maintain a military presence near the international border with Israel and to initiate cross-borderengagements with Israeli troops.

Supporters of Section 1224 in H.R. 1646 view the provisions to reduce assistance to Lebanon as a means of pressuring Lebanon to deploy its troopsto the international border with Israel, thereby potentially filling the political and security vacuum in south Lebanon,reducing the influence of Hizballah, curbingits military operations against Israel, decreasing Syrian influence in Lebanon, and increasing regional security. Opponents of the provisions tend to argue thatSyria exercises a great degree of influence over or controls Lebanese defense and foreign policy through itsestimated 20,000-25,000 troops and intelligence agentsstationed in the country. Many analysts believe that Syria, which is reported to support logistically and encourageongoing Hizballah military operations againstIsrael, will not allow Lebanon to deploy its troops to the Israeli border until after an Israeli-Syrian bilateral peacetreaty. Therefore, opponents of the provisionstend to view Lebanon's ability to fulfill the conditions for presidential certification as impractical and point to thepotential damage to U.S.-Lebanese relations ifthese assistance programs are terminated.

For further information, see CRS Issue Brief IB89118, Lebanon , and CRS Report RS20634, South Lebanon: Economic Reconstruction .

Jerusalem - U.S. Embassy (15)

Section 214(a) of H.R. 1646 repeats the congressional position that the U.S. embassy in Israel should be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. P.L.104-45 , of November 8, 1995, set a May 31, 1999 deadline for moving the embassy, but also provided a Presidentialwaiver in Section 7 that Presidents Clintonand Bush exercised to delay the move. U.S. administrations have opposed the move because they believed thepermanent status and control of the city should bedecided through negotiations and not through unilateral action. Congress supports the Israeli contention thatJerusalem belongs solely to Israel.

Section 214(b) of H.R. 1646 mandates that the Jerusalem consulate be under the supervision of the U.S. Ambassador to Israel; Section 214(c) statesthat U.S. publications should name Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; and Section 214(d) allows U.S. citizens bornin Jerusalem to list Israel as their birthplace. The three subsections reflect further congressional support for the current Israeli contention that Jerusalem isnon-negotiable Israeli territory. The September 1993Declaration of Principles that Israel signed stated that the status of Jerusalem would be negotiated. The UnitedStates has not recognized Israel's claim to all ofJerusalem.

For more background, see CRS Report RS20339, Jerusalem: The U.S. Embassy and P.L. 104-45 .

State Department and International Broadcasting Issues (16)

In addition to providing the required authority for the State Department and related agencies to spend specified levels of appropriations (see Table 1 forappropriation and authorization levels), H.R. 1646 and S. 1401 contained measures ranging from"right-sizing" American embassies, toallowing private funding for educational exchange programs, to promotion of minority hiring in the Departmentof State, to funding for a Middle East RadioNetwork (MERN) of Voice of America (VOA). Following are selected issues in the authorization legislationregarding the Department of State, its personnel andprograms, and international broadcasting.

Deputy Secretary of State for Management. Expressing concern for the multi-layered management andperceived inadequate attention to management issues at the Department of State, Congress required within the State Department FY2001 Appropriations Act(Section 404, P.L. 106-553 ) the creation of a new Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resourcesposition. Section 303, S. 1401 wouldeliminate the provision. The Senate Committee expressed full confidence in Secretary of State Powell and DeputySecretary Armitage to carry out theDepartment's management functions without the creation of a new position. This provision was not in the conferencereport or the law as signed by PresidentBush. While the provision that the President "shall appoint a Deputy Secretary of State for Management" waspassed by Congress in the FY2001 appropriation,State Department, to date, does not have a Deputy Secretary of State for Management.

Right-Sizing Overseas Posts. In the late 1990s, two different reports recommended "right-sizing" Americanoverseas posts. (17) The idea of maintaining an appropriate level of staff andexpertise at each overseas post that reflects the needs and importance of that post toU.S. foreign policy could reduce program and security expenditures and improve U.S. effectiveness overseas. Forexample, in the past, some have criticized thelarge U.S. embassies in European countries, while some posts in Asian or Middle East countries of arguably greaterstrategic concern are much smaller with lessexpertise for the needs of that region.

Section 302 of H.R. 1646 , as enacted in the final law, requires that the Secretary of State establish a task force on right-sizing overseas posts. Apreliminary report within 120 days of enactment of this legislation would be required to be submitted to theappropriate congressional committees. The report isto include the status, plans, and activities of the task force and must include: 1) the objectives of the task force; 2)measures for achieving the objectives; 3) theofficial of the Department with primary responsibility for the issue of "right-sizing"; and 4) the plans of the StateDepartment for relocation of staff and resourcesbased on changing needs at overseas posts and in Washington, D.C. The Secretary must submit task force progressreports to congress every six monthsthroughout 2003.

An interagency working group would also be established to draw up plans for "right-sizing" U.S. overseas presence. This working group would have the samereporting requirements and schedule as the task force.

Section 302 of S. 1401 also contained "rightsizing" language. It required the Department to establish both an internal and an interagency task force toreview issues of overseas presence rightsizing overseas posts and report on their findings.

Consular Activities. The State Department, within its FY2002 budget requested that machine readable visafees become a permanent appropriation for State. In FY2000 the fees amounted to an allocation of $327.9 millionfor State's budget. In FY2001 the estimateallocation is $395.1 million. The FY2002 estimate is $478.9 million and the FY2003 request is for $642.7 million.

Section 231, H.R. 1646 would authorize these offsetting collection fees for the Department throughFY2003, setting the FY2002 allocation at $414million and FY2003 at $422 million.

Section 231, S. 1401 authorizes allocation of machine readable visa fees for FY2003.

The enacted law authorizes machine readable visa fees for State, but caps them at $460 million for FY2003.

Minority Recruitment at State. For years, the Department of State has received criticism regarding the underrepresentation of minorities on its staff, particularly in the Foreign Service. In 1980 Congress required the Secretaryof State to establish a minority recruitmentprogram for the Foreign Service and report on minority recruitment activities to Congress annually. (18) Some Members of Congress continued to express concernregarding State Department minority recruitment and hiring activities and Congress required the Secretary of Stateto report on these activities and progress in1998 and 1999. (19) Within the Commerce, Justice, State, and RelatedAgencies Appropriations for FY2001( P.L. 106-553 ) Congress provided $1 million toestablish a partnership with specified colleges for promoting minority hiring. Secretary Of State Powell hassupported increasing minority hiring saying, "Americaoverseas should look like America at home."

Section 101(B)(iii) of H.R. 1646 provided $2 million in FY2003 for minority recruitment. Section 342 required the Secretary of State to report toCongress presenting the numbers and percentages of minorities who, 1) take the Foreign Service exam, 2) are hiredfor Foreign Service positions, at each FSgrade, and 3) are hired for Civil Service positions. Section 343 required the Secretary to establish a database toreport on minority recruitment efforts over time. S. 1401 did not contain minority hiring provisions.

Section 111 (a) (1) of P.L. 107-228 contains the House measure of $2 million earmarked for minority hiring. Section 324 requires the Administration to report onminority recruitment in both the Civil and Foreign Service. Section 325 requires the State Department to expandits recruitment to 25% of historically Blackcolleges and to 25% of Hispanic-serving institutions. This section also requires the Secretary of State to establisha database reflecting and evaluating efforts torecruit minorities into the Department.

Private Funding for Exchanges. Secretary of State Colin Powell stated in his April 26, 2001 testimony beforethe House Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations subcommittee, "I believe cultural exchanges arean essential component of a successful foreignpolicy, particularly for nations like Russia which are just now learning how to become democracies."

Section 225 of S. 1401 , and also in the final enacted law, authorizes $500,000 in each FY2002 and FY2003 for American Corners in the RussianFederation. This program would provide information about U.S. history, government, culture, and values to hostlibraries in the Russian Federation. The measureincludes access to computers and the Internet. The House bill had no similar provision.

H.R. 1646 listed a number of findings, including that funding for international educational and cultural exchanges had declined in recent years, andthat the U.S. private sector should be encouraged to assist. Section 402 authorizes the Secretary of State to establishprivate, nonprofit, nongovernmentalorganizations to encourage participation and financial support from U.S. corporations and other private sectorentities for international cultural, arts, andeducational exchanges. The Secretary is authorized to solicit funds, designate a program to receive the funds,appoint members of a board of directors toadminister the private entity, and make recommendations for specific programs to be the focus of the entity. Thissection also would provide $500,000 forFY2003 for administrative costs of such private, nonprofit entities. Each entity established under this provisionwould be required to report annually to Congresson its funding and activities; its financial transactions would be subject to an independent audit. These measureswere not enacted.

Section 223 of S. 1401 would establish an advisory committee on cultural diplomacy to devise initiatives to expand public diplomacy withpublic-private partnerships. The final law includes Section 224 which provides the Senate language for a temporaryadvisory committee to explore public-privaterelationships in funding expanded public diplomacy activities in the future.

International Broadcasting in the Middle East. P.L. 107-228 authorizes, in addition to the $485.8 million forinternational broadcasting operations, $20 million for FY2003 for Middle East Radio Network of VOA. The Housebill had provided $15 million and the SenateForeign Relations Committee also had provided "additional" funds within its total broadcast funding level for theMiddle East Radio Network.

Even prior to the September 11, 2001 attack, both Congress and the Broadcasting Board of Governors had shown increasing interests in broadcasting to theMiddle East. In P.L. 105-277 Congress authorized Radio Free Iran and Radio Free Iraq. In 2001 VOA set asideabout $6 million for Arabic programming. AfterSeptember 11th, Congress provided $12.25 million in supplemental funding to support VOAbroadcasts in Arabic, Farsi, Pashto, Dari, and Urdu and to supportRFE/RL broadcasts in Arabic, Farsi, Tajik, Turkmen, Uzbek, Kazakh, Krygyz, and Azeri. In addition, Congressprovided authority for the Administration toestablish a new Radio Free Afghanistan ( P.L. 107-148 ).

For more detail on the Department of State and related agency appropriations, see CRS Report RL31370 , State Department and Related Agencies FY2003Appropriations .

U.N. Issues (20)

As enacted, P.L. 107-228 authorized appropriations for FY2003 for U.S. contributions to international organizations including $891.378 million for U.S. assessedcontributions to international organizations, and $ 725.98 million for assessed peacekeeping. The measure amendedthe 25% cap on the U.S. share of U.N.peacekeeping contributions for calendar years 2001-2004. It called on the United States to move toward makingpayment of its assessments at the beginning ofeach calendar year. The measure supported retention of the 25% U.S. assessment for the regular budget of theInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), butamended the U.N. Participation Act of 1945 to cap the U.S. share of assessments for the U.N. regular budget at 22%.

UNESCO. On September 12, 2002 President Bush announced that the United States would return to theUnited Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Renewed U.S. participation isexpected to begin in FY2004. P.L. 107-228 expressed the sense of Congress that the President should submit to Congress a report on the merits of U.S. returnto UNESCO and giving details of the costs.

H.R. 1646 , as passed by the House, had authorized appropriations for U.S. contributions to international organizations including (section 104)$944.067 million for U.S. assessed contributions to international organizations, (section 105) $844.139 million forassessed peacekeeping operations, (section107) $186 million for voluntary contributions to international organizations plus an additional $120 million forUNICEF for FY2002 and such sums as may benecessary for these organizations for FY2003. The House had funded international organizations at the levelrequested by the Bush Administration, adding $10million more for UNICEF and including $59.8 million in each of FY2003 to cover the U.S. return to UNESCO.

Representative Leach had sponsored a House International Relations Committee amendment authorizing funding to allow the United States to return to UNESCO. This amendment had been adopted by the Committee on a vote of 23 to 14. The Committee report ( H.Rept. 107-57 )included the views of thirteen members whoopposed rejoining UNESCO and urged the House to reconsider the Committee recommendation. During floordebate Representative Tancredo had sponsored anamendment to strike the provisions authorizing funding for UNESCO which he described as an organization insearch of a mission. He pointed out that currentlythe U.S. contributes $2-3 million annually to UNESCO in voluntary contributions to cover projects the U.S. believesto be worthwhile. If the United States rejoins,it would be obliged to fund "the good and the bad alike." Representative Leach opposed the amendment arguingthat UNESCO had reformed - that it was acredible international body. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 193 to 225.

For additional information on UNESCO see CRS Report RL30985(pdf) , UNESCO Membership: Issues for Congress .

U.N. Arrears. Section 401 of P.L. 107-228 amended several conditions that must be certified by the Secretaryof State in order to release the third and final installment ($244 million) of U.S. arrears to the United Nations andother international organizations, as providedunder the Helms-Biden agreement. The measure allows arrears payments to each international organization uponcertification of the conditions established forthat agency or immediately if no conditions applied.

Conferees on H.R. 1646 reportedly had agreed on a plan to pay the third and final installment ($244 million) of U.S. arrears to internationalorganizations. In its version of H.R. 1646 , the House also had amended the conditions (Helms-Bidenagreement) for release of the second and thirdinstallment of U.S. arrears to international organizations. The House increased the maximum level for the U.S.peacekeeping assessment (to 28.15% from 25%). In the meanwhile, free standing legislation, P.L. 107-46 ( S. 248 ) was enacted raising the maximumpeacekeeping assessment level to 28.15%. Thisallowed payment of the second installment ($582 million) of U.S. arrears. H.R. 1646 as passed by the Housealso had placed additional conditions onrelease of the third and final installment of U.S. arrears ($244 million):

the Secretary of State must certify that the United States has regained a seat on the U.N. Commission on HumanRights;

the Secretary has made a determination or issued an analysis on voting by secret ballot in the UnitedNations and its specialized agencies;

and the General Accounting Office (GAO) has to submit to Congress a detailed accounting of U.S.contributions to U.N. peacekeepingoperations from 1990 through 2001.

For additional information on U.N. arrears, see CRS Issue Brief IB86116, U.N. System Funding: Congressional Issues .

Key Issues-Security Assistance Act of 2002

P.L. 107-228 contains, in Division B, the text of the Security Assistance Act of 2002, which was originallyintroduced in the Senate as S. 1803 . S. 1803 was a relatively short bill that was subsequently incorporated into H.R. 1646 when it waspassed by the Senate and sent to aconference committee with the House. Division B of H.R. 1646 , as enacted, is comprised of seven sections:general provisions (Title X);Verification of Arms Control and Nonproliferation Agreements (Title XI); Military and Related Assistance (TitleXII); Nonproliferation and Export ControlAssistance (Title XIII); Expediting the Munitions Licencing Process (Title XIV), National Security Assistancestrategy (Title XV); Miscellaneous Provisions(Title XVI); and Authority to Transfer Naval Vessels (Title XVII). The major components of the Security AssistanceAct are analyzed below.

Military Assistance and Arms Export Control Provisions

(21)

Title XII of P.L. 107-228 authorizes appropriations for a number of security assistance programs, including Foreign Military Sales and Financing and InternationalMilitary Education and Training. Several technical changes to existing legislation are detailed, as well as provisionsfor establishing or modifying reporting andpolicy requirements relating to Excess Defense Articles, small arms and light weapons license approvals, and armssales under the Arms Export Control Act.Authorization for transferring specific naval vessels is found in Title XVII, while Title XIV provides fundingauthorization and policy guidance aimed atexpediting the munitions licensing process. (For funding levels authorized for military assistance programs throughthis bill see CRS Report RL31311 , Appropriations for FY2003: Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs. )

Nonproliferation and Export Control Assistance

(22)

In keeping with growing concern about the potential for weapons of mass destruction or their ingredients falling into terrorist hands, the Security Assistance Actprovides greater financial support for export control assistance and for the International Atomic Energy Agency. Subtitle A includes general provisions thatrepresent an amalgamation of House and Senate provisions. From the House, technical amendments such as Sec.1306 to amend the Iran Nonproliferation Act of2000 and Sec. 1307 to amend the North Korea Threat Reduction Act of 1999 , as well as reportingrequirements (Sec. 1308, which consolidates four existingreporting requirements into one annual report on the proliferation of missiles and nuclear, biological and chemicalweapons, and Sec. 1309, which calls for theSecretary of State to report on a three-year international arms control and nonproliferation strategy) were includedin Subtitle A under Title XIII of H.R. 1646 , as enacted. The Senate Security Assistance Act ( S. 1803 ) did not contain any of theseprovisions. In addition, the Houseinitially passed a provision for counterproliferation education and training, which became Sec. 1303 on internationalnonproliferation and export control training. This section authorizes provision of weapons of mass destruction detection equipment for other countries' exportcontrol services. P.L. 107-228 incorporates aprovision initially sponsored by the Senate to provide an additional $10 million for the IAEA's program to secureorphaned radioactive sources from theft.

Subtitles B and C, which cover the Russian Federation Debt Reduction for Nonproliferation and Nonproliferation Assistance Coordination, were Senateinitiatives that did not appear in the House version of H.R. 1646 . Subtitle D, Iran Nuclear ProliferationPrevention Act of 2002, was a Houseinitiative.

Russian Debt-Swap for Nonproliferation. Known as the Russian Federation Debt for Nonproliferation Act of2002 , this "debt swap" program seeks to use a portion of the Russian Federation's foreign debt to fundnonproliferation programs and ensure that the resourcesmade available to the Russian Federation are targeted to achieving nonproliferation objectives. The program isintended to provide a new stream of funding forthese purposes. The bill authorizes the President to enter into a "Russian Federation Nonproliferation InvestmentAgreement." Such an agreement shall ensurethat a) the value of the debt reduced will be made available for agreed nonproliferation programs and projects; b)each program or project will be approved by thePresident; c) administration and oversight will incorporate best practices from established threat reduction andnonproliferation assistance programs; d) audits areconducted; e) unobligated funds are not diverted; e) funds for projects are not taxed by the Russian Federation; f)intellectual property rights issues are addressedbefore funds are expended; and g) not less than 75 percent of the funds are spent in the Russian Federation itself. The bill has provisions for spending funds on a"Center for Independent Press and the Rule of Law" and for an annual certification by the President to Congress thatRussia has made "material progress" inreducing proliferation. First introduced by Senator Biden in S. 1803 in late 2001, a similar measure with thesame objectives, H.R. 3836 , was introduced in the House by Rep. Ellen Tauscher on March 4, 2002 and referred to the House InternationalRelations Committee. (See CRS Report RL30617(pdf) , Russia's Paris Club Debt and U.S. Interests , by [author name scrubbed].)

Iran Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 2002. (23) The Iran Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 2002isvirtually identical to a bill introduced in the 106th Congress, H.R. 1477 , which passed the House by a voteof 383-1 but did not receive Senate flooraction. A similar bill, H.R. 3743 , passed the House in the 105th Congress, by a vote of 405-13, and did notreceive any Senate action. Thelegislation seeks to prohibit the use of U.S. voluntary contributions to the IAEA's Technical Cooperation Fund foruse in Iran. The vehicle for this is anamendment to Section 307 of the Foreign Assistance Act. Although Iran and several other state sponsors ofterrorism cannot receive U.S. funds throughinternational organizations under Section 307 (c), the IAEA and UNICEF are exempt from those restrictions. Theamendment would allow the restriction to applyif the Secretary of State determines that IAEA programs in Iran are inconsistent with U.S. nuclear nonproliferationor safety goals or provide Iran withproliferation-relevant training or are used as a cover for proliferation activities. The bill requires the Secretary ofState to assess IAEA projects for theirconsistency with U.S. nuclear nonproliferation and safety goals and conduct an annual review of all IAEA programs. Section 1344 requires the Secretary of Stateto submit a detailed report to Congress each year for 5 years on Iran's Bushehr reactor project and IAEA technicalassistance to Iran. In a separate provision(Section 1306), the Security Assistance Act amends the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 by specifying in greaterdetail the content of the reports to the Congressthat are required under that act. It also makes clear a person is not exempt from sanctions if he/she only transfersconventional weapons (rather than weapons ofmass destruction).

Between 1995 and 1999, the IAEA's Technical Cooperation Fund provided over $1.5 million in technical assistance to Iran's civilian nuclear power program,including a reactor being built by Russia near the Iranian port city of Bushehr. Most of that assistance is nuclearsafety training. IAEA assistance programs on theBushehr reactor date as far back as 1985. U.S. voluntary contributions (approximately $18 million in 2002) providealmost 27% of the Technical CooperationFund. U.S. assessed contributions to the IAEA, which would not be affected by the legislation, provide about 25%of the total annual IAEA budget. There is aprecedent of the U.S. withholding its share of funding for projects in Cuba for the past several years.

Members and outside experts who support the legislation maintain that a cut in U.S. voluntary contributions would not prevent the IAEA from continuing work inIran, but that U.S. funds should not be devoted to a nuclear project the United States fundamentally opposes. Analternate view is that reducing U.S.contributions would limit U.S. influence over IAEA assistance to the Bushehr project, an Iranian civilian nuclearpower project at the city of Bushehr, Iran.According to critics, this could hinder the U.S. ability to monitor the Bushehr project to ensure it is not serving anynuclear weapons program. Others believe thatthe United States should support IAEA assistance to the Bushehr project because the IAEA will contribute to itssafe operation and because Iran, according to theIAEA, is abiding by its commitments as a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and therefore qualifies forassistance. Supporters of the legislation notethat it provides for a waiver of the contribution reduction if the conditions sought by both advocates and opponentsare met. (For further reading, see CRS Report RL30551 , Iran: Arms and Technology Acquisitions .)

Nuclear and missile proliferation in South Asia. Although South Asia is now a military theater of operations inthe war on terrorism and the United States is building new, cooperative relations with both India and Pakistan, therisk that this region will contribute to theproliferation, or even the use, of nuclear weapons has not declined. In their joint explanatory statement, conferencemanagers ( H.Rept. 107-671 ) noted their intentthat the executive branch maintain a high priority for these concerns while ensuring that U.S. policy and actions onnuclear issues in South Asia are consistentwith U.S. obligations under the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons and with past U.S. policy. Section 1601 of Title XVI of P.L. 107-228 outlinesnonproliferation objectives to be achieved with respect to nuclear testing, nuclear weapons and ballistic missiledeployments and developments, export controlsand confidence-building measures. In addition, the section states that it shall be the policy of the United Statesconsistent with its NPT obligations, to encourage,and where appropriate, work with the governments of India and Pakistan to achieve not later than September 30,2003, the establishment of "modern, effectivesystems to protect and secure nuclear devices and materiel from unauthorized use, accidental employment, or theft." The conferees noted that "any such dialoguewith India or Pakistan would not be represented or considered, nor would it be intended, as granting any recognitionto India or Pakistan, as appropriate, as anuclear weapon state. The section requires the President to submit a report to Congress no later than March 1, 2003,on U.S. efforts to achieve the objectives andlikelihood of success by September 2003. These provisions appeared in S. 1803 and are describedadditionally in S.Rept. 107-122 ; H.R. 1646 as passed by the House contained no provisions related to nuclear and missile proliferation in South Asia. (SeeCRS Report 31589, Nuclear ThreatReduction Measures for India and Pakistan .)

Appendix

State Department Authorization History

Authorization of State Department appropriations are required by law every two years. Typically, the authorization is passed in the first year of a new Congressfor the following even/odd year authority.

FY1973- P.L. 93-126

FY1975- P.L. 93-475

FY1977- P.L. 94-350

FY1978- P.L. 95-105

FY1979- P.L. 95-426

FY1984-1985- P.L. 98-164

FY1986-87- P.L. 99-93

FY1988-89- P.L. 100-204

FY1990-91- P.L. 101-246

FY1992-93- P.L. 102-138

FY1994-95- P.L. 103-236

Government shutdown-Nov. 1995-Jan. 1996

FY1996- P.L. 104-134 , Sec. 405 (appropriations legislation)

FY1997- P.L. 104-208 , Sec. 404 (appropriations legislation)

FY1998-99-State Dept authorization was passed in the omnibus appropriations bill, Nov. 1998- P.L. 105-277

FY2000-2001- P.L. 106-113 , ( H.R. 3427 ), appendix G of consolidated appropriations Act/D.C.appropriations legislation

FY2002-authorization requirement waived for FY2002 in CJS appropriations Act. (Section 405, P.L. 107-77 ,signed Nov. 28, 2001)

FY2003- P.L. 107-228 , authorization for FY2003, signed September 30, 2002.

Table 1. State Department and Related Agencies Appropriations and Proposed Authorizations (millionsof dollars)

*FY2002 enacted numbers do not include funds provided in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act ( P.L.107-38 ).

**Authorized up to $900 million by P.L. 106-113 through FY2004.