Foreign Relations Authorization, FY2004 and FY2005: State Department and Foreign Assistance
Released: 2004-04-01T00:00:00

Most Recent Developments

On February 27, 2004, Senator Lugar introduced S. 2144 , the Foreign RelationsAuthorization Act, FY2005. This bill replaces S. 925 which received no Senate floorvote because of political disputes over unrelated floor amendments. (1) The Committee on ForeignRelations reported its new authorization bill out on March 18, 2004 ( S.Rept. 108-248 ).

On May 5, 2003, Congressman Hyde introduced the House Foreign Relations AuthorizationAct, Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 ( H.R. 1950 ). The House International RelationsCommittee held markup on it beginning May 7 and filed a report ( H.Rept 108-105 ) on May 16. Ifenacted, the House bill would have authorized the Department of State's operations and programsat more than $27 billion for FY2004 and FY2005, and would have establish U.S. policy on theIsraeli-Palestinian peace plan, export controls, security assistance to certain foreign countries, andfunding for the U.N. Population Fund. House floor action occurred on July 15th and 16th. The Housepassed the bill on July 16, 2003.

Background

The foreign relations authorization legislation provides authority for the State Departmentand related foreign policy agencies to conduct foreign policy activities and programs in the comingyear. It authorizes foreign policy programs and enacts changes in U.S. foreign policy. It also servesas a vehicle for Congress to influence executive branch management of foreign policy. SinceCongress 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 typically included in the foreign relationsauthorization legislation.

By law, authorization of foreign policy agencies and programs is required prior toexpenditure of Foreign Operations and State Department appropriations. In effect, the authorizinglegislation sets spending ceilings for the foreign policy agency appropriations. (See Table 1 inappendix.) Prior to 1995, Congress had reauthorized U.S. government foreign policy agencies andactivities in the foreign relations authorization legislation every two years until 1994 ( P.L. 103-236 ,April 30, 1994). P.L. 107-228 is the first stand-alone foreign relations authorization bill thatCongress has passed since 1994. In the intervening years, Congress waived the requirement orincluded authorization in appropriation laws. (See State Department Authorization History in theAppendix.)

Foreign Relations

The foreign relations authorization legislation typically provides authority for StateDepartment spending for such activities as salaries and other operating expenses, passport and visaprocessing, embassy and Foreign Service activities, as well as public diplomacy and internationalbroadcasting. In addition, the legislation often becomes a convenient vehicle for numerous foreignpolicy-related issues, such as nonproliferation, human rights, international family planning policy,and international environment issues. Congress can influence U.S. foreign policy regarding specificregions or countries via this biannual legislation, as well.

Legislation in the 108th Congress on foreign relations authorization include H.R. 1950 and S. 2144 . The Senate bill provides authorization for FY2005 only and includesDivision A -- Foreign Relations Authorization and Division B -- Foreign Assistance Authorization . H.R. 1950 has five divisions: Division A is entitled, Millennium Challenge Account; Division B is entitled Peace Corps Expansion Act of 2003; Division C is entitled Department ofState Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005; Division D is entitled Defense Trade andSecurity Assistance Reform Act of 2003; and Division E is Assistance for Viet Nam .

Belarus(2)

Since his election in 1994, Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko has reversedBelarus's modest progress toward democracy and a free market economy and created anauthoritarian, Soviet-style regime. The Bush Administration has called him "Europe's last dictator."The 2002 State Department Human Rights report said that Belarus's human rights record is "verypoor." Lukashenko has extended his term in office by illegitimate means; drastically reduced thepower of the legislature and judiciary; harassed, arrested, and beaten opposition figures (perhapshaving four of them killed in 1999); forced the closure of independent media; and restricted freedomof religion. In November 2002, the United States joined 14 European Union countries in imposinga visa ban against Lukashenko and other top Belarusian officials due to Belarus's closure of an OSCEhuman rights monitoring mission in the country. The visa ban was lifted in April 2003 after theOSCE office was reopened. Belarus allegedly has ties with rogue regimes. Before the war in Iraq,Lukashenko made statements opposing U.S. military action and supporting Saddam Hussein. InApril 2003, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Stephen Pifer said that there have been "repeatedreports from a variety of credible sources that Belarus is involved in arms transfers to states orgroups that support terrorism, and in the military training of individuals associated with these states." He said those states included Iran and Iraq under Saddam Hussein. (3)

Congressional concerns about Belarus are reflected in the House version of H.R. 1950 . Title XVI Section 1601 authorizes U.S. aid to assist Belarusian democracy; Section 1602authorizes appropriations for increased broadcasting to Belarus by Voice of America and Radio FreeEurope/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL); Section 1603 expresses the sense of the Congress that sanctionsbe imposed on Belarus until conditions are met that require Belarus's democratization; and Section1604 expresses the sense of the Congress that the President should coordinate with Europeancountries to take measures similar to those in this title. Section 1605 requires the President to reportwithin 90 days and every year thereafter on the sale of weapons or weapons-related assistance toregimes supporting terrorism, and on the personal wealth of Lukashenko and other senior Belarusianleaders.

This title could be viewed as non-controversial in that it does not formally require theAdministration to take action, except to submit a regular report on Belarus's military ties withregimes supporting terrorism. The title's authorization for aid for Belarus democratization and VOAand RFE/RL broadcasts is also unlikely to be controversial. Section 1603, which expresses supportfor, but does not mandate, sanctions against Belarus, could conceivably cause some disquiet amongsome U.S. allies in Europe, if it were perceived to be part of a U.S. effort to completely isolateLukashenko. While sharing U.S. distaste for the Belarusian leader, some European countries mayworry that isolation could provoke the regime into unpredictable actions, or contribute to instabilityin a country that will border on the European Union in 2004. Policymakers who support Title XVIargue that Lukashenko's regime is a source of instability, and that the sooner it is deposed anddemocracy is restored, the more stable the region will be. A mix of sanctions and support forpro-democracy groups would be the best way to achieve this aim, they believe.

Neither the previous Senate version of the bill ( S. 925 ) nor the current one( S. 2144 ) contain similar provisions.

CRS Products

CRS Issue Brief IB95077, The Former Soviet Union and U.S. Foreign Assistance , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report 95-776(pdf) , Belarus: Country Background Report , by [author name scrubbed].

Biotech Agriculture Promotion(4)

U.S. farmers have been rapidly adopting genetically engineered (GE) crops -- mainly corn,soybean, and cotton varieties -- to lower production costs and improve management. However,many foreign countries are wary of agricultural biotechnology, such as in the European Union (EU)where consumer and environmental organizations have been very vocal in expressing concerns aboutthe human health and environmental impacts of GE crops. U.S. exporters often have encounteredbarriers to trade in the EU and other markets, where in some cases their sales have been slowed orhalted.

Both S. 2144 and H.R. 1950 contain provisions intended topromote agricultural biotechnology in international trade and development. The Senate bill (Sec.211) would authorize the Secretary of State to support through grants, cooperative agreements, orcontracts, "outreach and public diplomacy activities" on the benefits of agricultural biotechnologyand science-based regulatory systems, and on the application of agricultural biotechnology for tradeand development purposes. Grants cannot exceed $500,000 annually. The House version (Sec. 728)requires the Secretary to provide other countries, as appropriate, scientific evidence on the benefits,safety, and potential uses of agricultural biotechnology. The Secretary of State is required to chaira federal interagency task force to develop and disseminate such scientific information; and toinstruct USAID to develop a program demonstrating agricultural biotechnology benefits for thedeveloping world, among other things.

Agricultural groups and the biotechnology industry might be expected to strongly supporta biotechnology provision in this legislation; they have been working for a number of years to urgethe Administration and Congress to do more to promote the products of U.S. agriculturalbiotechnology -- which, they assert, are as safe as conventionally produced crops -- in foreignmarkets. Some U.S. consumer and environmental advocacy organizations, who have expressedconcerns about the safety of such products, might oppose it; others could argue that numerous federalagencies, including the Department of State, the U.S. Trade Representative, and U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, already are working aggressively to open foreign markets to U.S. biotechnology.

State is the lead department dealing with the so-called Cartagena Biosafety Protocol. ThisJanuary 2000 agreement, under the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity, deals with the safehandling, transfer and transboundary movement of bio-engineered organisms and products, and itcame into effect in September 2003. The United States is a party to neither the Convention nor theProtocol, but has been attempting to work with the nearly 90 country ratifiers, and others, to ensurethat each country's implementation does not present obstacles to U.S. biotechnology exports.

USDA operates numerous programs to promote GE products in international trade. Forexample, USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) has undertaken a variety of activities toeducate, train, and provide technical assistance to foreign countries developing and/or purchasingbiotechnology products, and to negotiate and resolve disputes with trading partners. Also, Section3204 of the 2002 farm bill ( P.L. 107-171 ) created a new Biotechnology and Trade Program toprovide grants for public and private sector projects that will address nontariff barriers to U.S.agricultural exports involving biotechnology, food safety, disease, or related concerns. The measureauthorizes annual appropriations of up to $6 million through FY2007.

CRS Products

See Agricultural Biotechnology in the CRS Agriculture Policy Briefing Book( http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebagr52.html ) for more information and references to otherCRS reports.

Child Abduction Prevention(5)

Section 702 of S. 2144 (identical to the measure in S. 925 ) amendsthe Immigration and Nationality Act to declare inadmissible any aliens and relatives who supporta child being abducted from a parent in the United States who has custody. The alien(s) in questionwould remain inadmissible until the abducted child is surrendered to the person with custody or untilthe abducted child reaches age 21. Individuals deemed inadmissible under this provision would beplaced on the Consular Lookout and Support System data base with identifying information. Within180 days after enactment and annually for the following four years, the Secretary of State shallsubmit a report to specified congressional committees providing factual information on the numberof cases over the past year of such inadmissible aliens.

Section 275, H.R. 1950 would require the Secretary of State to establishprocedures to notify U.S. embassies regarding international child abduction situations and guidelinesfor embassy personnel on providing sanctuary. Section 276 is similar to the Senate's section 702,but the House adds "spouse of the abducted child" to the list of inadmissible aliens relatives. TheHouse bill also requires an annual report, but does not stipulate a deadline for the first report.

Climate Change Policy(6)

H.R. 1950 (Section 730) includes a "Sense of Congress on Climate Change" that "the United States should demonstrate international leadership and responsibility in reducing thehealth, environmental, and economic risks posed by climate change," through several actions:"taking responsible action to ensure significant and meaningful reductions in emissions ofgreenhouse gases from all sectors"; creating flexible mechanisms such as tradable credits foremissions reductions and carbon sequestration; participating in international negotiations, includingmaking proposals that have the objective of obtaining U.S. participation in a future binding climatechange treaty in a manner consistent with the United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC), that "protects the economic interests of the United States, and that recognizesthe shared international responsibility for addressing climate change, including developing countryparticipation"; and establishing in the House and Senate bipartisan observer groups to "monitor anyinternational negotiations on climate change." The previous Senate bill ( S. 925 ) had alsoincluded this sense of Congress; however, the current Senate bill, S. 2144 , does not.

The findings sections of both bills review evidence that "....atmospheric concentrations ofmanmade greenhouse gases are contributing to global climate change," and note some of theconsequences, such as rising sea levels, warming of the oceans, and reduced snow and ice cover. The findings also note that the United States is a party to the UNFCCC, which has the objective ofstabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would preventdangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, and that the United States has electedagainst becoming a party to the Kyoto Protocol (which establishes legally binding greenhouse gasreductions for developed countries), but that the U.S. position is not to interfere with other nations'activities in support of the Protocol. The findings also state "United States businesses need to knowhow governments worldwide will address the risks of climate change."

In 2001, President Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, and with it the conceptof legally binding international emissions reductions. The current U.S. policy stresses voluntarydomestic actions, not mandatory regulatory requirements, and outlines a number of voluntaryinitiatives and government research priorities that are aimed at fulfilling U.S. responsibility fortaking action. This Sense of Congress accepts the importance of the consequences of climate change,and asserts a U.S. role in taking responsibility and assuming leadership in reducing risks posed bythese consequences. It goes somewhat beyond current Administration policy in urging a proposalto gain U.S. participation in a future binding treaty on climate change. It retains caveats on the needfor developing country participation and protecting the economic interests of the United States thathave been part of the congressional debate since S.Res. 98 , including these concerns,was passed in 1997 by the U.S. Senate.

CRS Products

CRS Issue Brief IB89005, Global Climate Change

CRS Report RL31931 , Climate Change: Federal Laws and Policies Related to Greenhouse GasReductions.

Copyright Piracy Protection(7)

International copyright protection against unauthorized use depends upon the national lawsof each country and effective enforcement of those laws. Although there is no single "internationalcopyright" which automatically grants protection in every country, various treaties concerningcopyright and intellectual property rights [IPR] establish minimum protection and enforcementstandards and reciprocity among the parties to those treaties, which include, inter alia , theAgreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights [TRIPS] of the World TradeOrganization [WTO], the Berne Convention, and the World Intellectual Property Organization[WIPO] Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. The latter two,popularly known as the WIPO Internet Treaties, increased minimum standards of protectionparticularly for internet-based delivery of copyrighted works. Also, pursuant to the WIPO-WTOAgreement of 1995, which entered into force on January 1, 1996, each of these two organizationsagreed to provide legal-technical assistance to the developing country members of the other and toenhance their technical cooperation activities; WIPO has assisted over 130 developing and leastdeveloped countries in TRIPS implementation. (8) Under the TRIPS, developing and least developed countries weregiven a transition period within which to implement the laws and regulations and enforcementinfrastructure necessary to comply with TRIPS obligations. Under Article 65.2, developing countrieshad until January 1, 2000, and under Article 65.3, the least-developed countries have until January1, 2005, for implementation. Article 67 of the TRIPS requires developed countries to provide, uponrequest, technical cooperation to assist developing and least developed countries in implementation,including in the training of personnel.

The United States has been providing such assistance, as reported to the WTO, through itsIPR Training Coordination Group, which is comprised of federal agencies responsible for IPR lawand enforcement and of private sector industry associations with an interest in IPR protection. (9) This Group providesprograms, training, and technical assistance to foreign officials and policy makers. In its 2003Special 301 Report, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) describes these and otherongoing efforts in combating the perennial and increasing problem of IPR piracy generally, throughthe negotiation of bilateral and regional free trade agreements and implementation of the WIPOInternet Treaties. Currently, the USTR notes a special focus on reducing counterfeiting and piracyof "optical media" products such as CDs, VCDs, DVDs, and CD-ROMs. It is also addressingcounterfeiting of U.S. trademarked goods, internet-disseminated piracy, and government use ofunauthorized software. Additionally, there has been increased attention to the problem of profitsfrom piracy as a source of funding for terrorist organizations and other organized criminalorganizations. (10) Somedeveloping and least developed countries have made progress in both implementation of laws andenforcement of such laws against IPR infringement; others have recently enacted laws but as yethave no track record on enforcement; still others have not yet implemented laws and regulations.

Section 814 of S. 2144 , the Foreign Affairs Authorization Act for FY2005,authorizes $5 million from funds appropriated for other educational and cultural exchange programsto be available for the State Department to provide direct assistance for combating copyright piracyto non-members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, whose membersare developed countries that adhere to the principles of an open market economy, democraticpluralism and respect for human rights. The authorized assistance specifically includes equipmentand training for foreign law enforcement, training for judges and prosecutors, and assistance incompliance with international IPR treaty obligations, including the TRIPS. The assistance programwould be carried out through the Bureau of Economic Affairs of the State Department. Theprovision further requires the Secretary of State, to the maximum extent practicable, to consult withand assist the WIPO in promoting the integration of such developing, non-OECD countries into theglobal intellectual property system. Section 814 of S. 2144 is consistent with currentU.S. international IPR obligations and policy in combating copyright piracy through training andother technical assistance to developing and least developed countries in the process of implementingand enforcing international IPR standards. Although some commentators have questioned thebenefit to developing countries of strong IPR protections because of the increased costs of importingand using protected works, others have noted a correlation between stronger IPR protections andincreased foreign direct investment, imports, and internationalization that can benefit developingcountries.

Section 1810 of H.R. 1950 , the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY2004and FY2005, contained similar language, but it would have authorized $10 million (over two fiscalyears) in addition to funds otherwise authorized for such purposes. According to House reportlanguage accompanying H.R. 1950 , the chief U.S. diplomatic representative to a countryidentified under the USTR Priority Watch List as particularly deficient in IPR enforcement wouldbe responsible for preparing a plan and recommendations for actions the United States should taketo address such deficiencies. Priority Watch List countries would have priority in receivingassistance under this provision, but other countries could also receive such assistance. EarlierSenate bills ( S. 925 or S. 1161 ) did not contain similar language.

Cuba: Support for Democracy Building(11)

As passed by the House, H.R. 1950 , in Section 1807, would authorize $15million for each of FY2004 and FY2005 to the President to support democracy-building efforts forCuba as allowed pursuant to the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 ( P.L.104-114 , Section 109(a)). Section 1807 also states "that it is U.S. policy to support individuals andgroups who struggle for freedom and democracy in Cuba, including human rights dissidents,independent journalists, independent labor leaders, and other opposition groups." The House Reportto the bill ( H.Rept. 108-105 ) states that the funds are designated only for Cuba-related programs andshould not be diverted. (In the Senate, S. 1089 , introduced May 20, 2003, also wouldauthorize $15 million to support democracy building in Cuba, as well as $30 million to establish afund to provide assistance to a future transition government in Cuba.) S. 2144 does notcontain similar language regarding democracy-building in Cuba.

Over the past several years, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) hasprovided assistance to increase the flow of information on democracy, human rights, and freeenterprise to Communist Cuba. The assistance has been part of the U.S. strategy of supporting theCuban people while at the same time isolating the government of Fidel Castro through economicsanctions. USAID's Cuba program supports a variety of U.S.-based non-governmental organizationsto promote rapid, peaceful transition to democracy, help develop civil society, and build solidaritywith Cuba's human rights activists. (12) These efforts are funded through the annual foreign operationsappropriations bill. In FY2001, $4.989 million was provided for various Cuba projects; $5 millionwas provided in FY2002; $6 million was provided in FY2003; and almost $7 million will beprovided in FY2004. For FY2005, the Administration has requested $9 million to back publicdiplomacy to promote democratization, respect for human rights, and the development of a freemarket economy in Cuba.

In addition to funding through foreign operations appropriations, the United States providesdemocratization assistance for Cuba through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), whichis funded through the annual Commerce, Justice, and State (CJS) appropriations measure. Cubafunding through NED has steadily increased over the past several years. NED-funded democracyprojects for Cuba amounted to $765,000 in FY2001; $841,000 in FY2002; and $1.143 million inFY2003. Funding levels for NED's Cuba projects in FY2004 are not yet available.

An argument in support of the House provision to increase funding for democracy buildingin Cuba is that it helps respond to the Cuban government's harsh crackdown on human rights anddemocracy activists in 2003. The increased funding could be viewed as bolstering the long-standingU.S. policy of providing support for the Cuban people. In contrast, an argument countering theHouse provision is that the Administration already has been funding significant democracy buildingefforts in Cuba for several years. The House provision would more than double the estimated $7million being provided for such efforts in FY2004 foreign aid appropriations, and would be inaddition to some $25 million spent for another program designed to support the Cuban people,broadcasting to Cuba via Radio and TV Marti.

CRS Products

CRS Report RL31740 , Cuba: Issues for the 108th Congress .

International Broadcasting(13)

The Senate bill ( S. 2144 ) would authorize FY2005 funding of internationalbroadcasting activities at $584.3 million (a 2.6% increase over the FY2005 request and 4.9%increase over current-year funding). The House bill would set funding for FY2005 at $650.9 million(a 14.3% increase over the FY2005 request and 16.8% more than the FY2004 enactedappropriation). Both House and Senate bills provide for a Mideast Broadcasting Network.

In 2002, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) began a pilot project to create theMiddle East Radio Network (MERN) within the Voice of America (VOA). The Foreign RelationsAuthorization Act, FY2003 ( H.R. 1646 / P.L. 107-228 ) authorized $20 million for theMiddle East Radio Network of VOA. In the Administration's FY2004 budget request, the BBGproposed the creation of a new U.S. Middle East Television Network. Within the EmergencyWartime Supplemental of FY2003 ( P.L. 108-11 ), signed April 16, 2003, Congress provided $30.5million for "activities related to Middle East Television Network broadcasting in the Middle Eastand radio broadcasting to Iraq."

S. 2144 , Section 808 and H.R. 1950 , Section 501 both similarlyamend the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 by authorizing grants for a "MideastRadio and Television Network" (House) or "Middle East Broadcasting Network" (Senate). Bothbills establish a Board of Directors for the network, include language directing the Board to avoidduplication of language services with other broadcasting activities to the extent possible, andexplicitly state that the network is not connected to the U.S. federal government in any way. Littlecontroversy on this measure is expected in the United States; however, some Middle East expertssuggest that increased broadcast activity in that region could draw the ire of fundamentalists in theMuslim/Arab world.

Additionally, H.R. 1950 , Div. C, Title V, Section 531 -- United StatesInternational Broadcasting Activities -- would amend Section 304 of the United States InternationalBroadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6203) to reorganize international broadcasting by creating theUnited States International Broadcasting Agency which would be headed by the Broadcasting Boardof Governors (BBG). It would establish a full-time director who is appointed by the Board, ratherthan being run by the Board itself, as in the current broadcasting operation. This measure would aimprimarily to improve lines of authority and establish greater accountability. Other than establishingan agency rather than a board to run international broadcasting, most other aspects of theinternational broadcasting entity remain virtually the same. The Senate bill has no similar provision.

Title V, subtitle B -- Global Internet Freedom -- would establish an office within the BBGwith the sole mission of countering internet blocking worldwide; to encourage development oftechnology to prevent such blocking; and to pressure repressive governments engaged in blockinginternet access to its people. Currently, the IBB has been handling internet access blocks on an adhoc basis with current appropriation levels. BBG officials say that this action would bring morevisibility to a problem and an activity that they were already handling, but it would not substantivelychange the internet counter-blocking activities that they would continue to conduct. S. 925 has no similar provision.

Other international broadcasting measures in H.R. 1950 include a sense ofCongress expressing the need for expanded broadcasting to North Korea by Radio Free Asia;improved broadcasting measures to Cuba and counter jamming of radio and TV Marti; establishingin the Department of State a coordinator for International Free Media; a pilot program to promotetravel and tourism in the United States via international broadcasting; and a measure to prevent theelimination of international broadcasting in Eastern Europe.

CRS Products

CRS Report RL31370 , State Department and Related Agencies: FY2003 Appropriations andFY2004 Request

CRS Report RS21565 , Middle East Television Network: An Overview

International Organizations

H.R. 1950 would authorize funding of the International Organizations accountswithin the State Department budget at $1,040.8 million for U.S. Contributions to InternationalOrganizations (CIO) for FY2005 and S. 2144 would authorize CIO at $1,109.2 millionfor the same year. (The enacted funding level for FY2004 is $1,010.5 million before rescissions.) For U.S. Contributions to International Peacekeeping, H.R. 1950 would authorize suchsums as may be necessary, while S. 2144 would authorize $650 million for FY2005.(The FY2004 enacted level before rescissions is $465.3 million.) Other issues addressed in thelegislation include:

Brahimi Report Implementation. (14) In August 2000, a panelof experts on United Nations Peace Operations, created by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan inMarch 2000, issued a report assessing the shortcomings of the United Nations in the peacekeepingarea and offering nearly 60 recommendations for reform and change. The report is often referredto as the Brahimi Report, named after the chairman of the Panel, Lakhdar Brahimi, former ForeignMinister of Algeria and currently, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General forAfghanistan. Since August 2000, the U.N. General Assembly, its Special Committee onPeacekeeping Operations, and the U.N. Security Council have reviewed and implemented many ofthe Panel's recommendations. Secretary-General Annan has issued reports outlining areas ofimplementation.

Section 402 of S. 925 directed that the Secretary of State submit to "appropriatecommittees of Congress" a report "assessing the progress made to implement the recommendations"of the Brahimi Panel. Specifically, the Secretary's report, due 90 days after enactment, "shall include-- (1) an assessment of the United Nations progress toward implementing the recommendations...;(2) a description of the progress made toward strengthening the capability of the United Nations todeploy a civilian police force and rule of law teams on an emergency basis at the request of theUnited Nations Security Council; and (3) a description of the policies, programs, and strategies ofthe United States Government that support the implementation of the recommendations..., especiallyin the areas of civilian police and rule of law." The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in itsreport, noted that it was interested in "learning how the U.S. government is contributing to thedevelopment of a more robust U.N. peacekeeping capacity, especially its ability to organize civilpolice units for use on an emergency basis." Section 402 of S. 2144 , the bill replacing S. 925 , contains an identical requirement, but with an increase of the reporting date to120 days after enactment. H.R. 1950 does not include a similar provision.

Peacekeeping Contributions Cap(15). EffectiveOctober 1, 1995, Congress limited to 25% the U.S. assessed payments to U.N. peacekeepingaccounts, irrespective of the higher percent level assessed by the United Nations (Section 404 (b)(2),P. L. 103-236). Congress took this action as a result of continuing increases in the overall costs ofU.N. peacekeeping operations and of the failure of U.N. member governments to accept increasesin their own assessment levels, a step that would enable U.S. assessments to be lowered. Thisdifference between U.S. peacekeeping contributions and U.N. peacekeeping assessments, createdby the gap between U.N. and U.S.-recognized assessment levels, helped to produce a growingarrearage in U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping accounts. In 2001, in response to a December2000 agreement by the U.N. General Assembly that the U.S. regular budget assessment would bereduced from 25% to 22%, the U.S. peacekeeping assessment level started to fall. [The U.N.peacekeeping assessment is based on a modification of the regular budget assessment level.] (SeeCRS Issue Brief IB90103, Table 1. U.N. Peacekeeping Assessment Levels for the United States andaccompanying text for further details and background.)

In 2002, Congress stipulated that the 25% cap for peacekeeping payments would be raisedfor four calendar years to a range of 28.15% for CY2001 to 27.4 % for CY2004. This would enablecurrent U.S. peacekeeping assessments to be paid in full (section 402, P. L. 107-228).

Section 401 of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended S. 925 set the assessment limit for U.S. peacekeeping contributions beyond calendar year 2004 at 27.4%.This is the same as the level in P. L. 107-228 for CY2004. Section 401 of the House InternationalRelations Committee recommends H.R. 1950 set the peacekeeping assessment limit at27.1% for calendar years 2005 and 2006. In summary, S. 925 would establish 27.4%as the assessment level cap for the future, unless an initiative were taken to change it. H.R. 1950 would set the cap at 27.1 %, but for only two years. Acceptance of the H.R. 1950 recommendation would require a return to this issue either to continue the27.1% cap or to change it for calendar years beyond 2006. As reported, Section 401 of S. 2144 set the assessment limit for U.S. peacekeeping contributions beyond calendaryear 2004 at 27.4%, the same as Section 401 of S. 925 .

CRS Products

CRS Issue Brief IB90103, United Nations Peacekeeping: Issues for Congress , by Marjorie AnnBrowne.

Status of Israel in U.N. Regional Group. (16) In May 2000,Israel wasadmitted, on a temporary basis, to membership into the Western European and Others Group(WEOG) that meets at United Nations headquarters in New York. This decision meant that, for thefirst time, Israel could be recommended or nominated for participation as a member or an officer ofU.N. bodies. A primary function of these regional groups is to elect and thus nominate a regionalcandidate for membership in U.N. organs and bodies, including the U.N. Economic and SocialCouncil and the U.N. Security Council. Regional groups were devised for the purpose of ensuringwhat is called "equitable geographic distribution," a principle referred to in the U.N. Charter (Article23, paragraph 2, on election of the non-permanent members of the Security Council). If a memberstate is not a member of a regional group, that state has no chance of being elected, for example, tomembership on the Economic and Social Council or the Security Council. Israel would naturallybe eligible for membership in the Asian Group which includes other countries in the Middle East. A consensus has not existed within that Group to admit Israel. Some authorities have maintained thatnot being a member of a regional group violates the Charter principle of "equality among all memberstates" (Article 2, paragraph 1).

The WEOG was seen as an alternative location for Israel, pending resolution of disputes inthe Middle East. WEOG's decision was that Israel's membership would have to be reviewed in fullafter four years. In addition, Israel could not be nominated from the WEOG for the first two years.On February 7, 2003, Israel was elected, as a candidate from WEOG, as one of the three Vice-Chairon the Open-Ended Working Group on Disarmament to consider the objectives and agenda for thefourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (SSOD IV). This workinggroup was established by the U.N. General Assembly (Resolution 57/61) in the fall of 2002. In lateApril 2003, the U.N. Economic and Social Council elected Israel to a four-year term on the U.N.Commission on Narcotic Drugs, with membership starting on January 1, 2004.

Congress has, over the past few years, expressed its concern that Israel, by not being amember of a regional group, did not have equal access for full participation as a member of theUnited Nations. The currently enacted legislation, in Section 721 of P. L. 106-113 (Appendix G. The Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years2000 and 2001), is entitled United Nations Policy on Israel and the Palestinians . Under this section,Congress expressed its view that U.S. policy shall "promote an end to the persistent inequityexperienced by Israel in the United Nations" by being "denied acceptance into any of the UnitedNations regional blocs." This section further requires the Secretary of State to report, by January 15,of each year, on (1) actions taken by U.S. representatives to "encourage the nations of the WesternEurope and Others Group (WEOG) to accept Israel into their regional bloc;" and (2) "other measuresbeing undertaken, and which will be undertaken, to ensure and promote Israel's full and equalparticipation in the United Nations." The report submitted to Congress in January 2003 noted that"since the Asia Group where Israel most appropriately belongs also excludes it from participationin its activities at UN agencies outside of New York, our efforts are now focused on gaining Israel'sadmittance into WEOG or similar groups at those agencies." The report went on, "We will continueefforts in 2003 and future years to gain Israel's entry into all WEOG or similar groups where it hasinterest in participating."

Under Section 405 of H.R. 1950 , U.S. officials "should pursue an aggressivediplomatic effort and take all necessary steps to ensure the extension and upgrade of Israel'smembership in the Western European and Others Group at the United Nations." The Secretary ofState is required to report, semiannually through September 30, 2005, on the steps taken by theUnited States on this issue. As explained in its report, the Committee urged extension of WEOGmembership "in UN bodies and UN affiliated agencies in New York and throughout the world."While S. 925 does not contain a comparable provision, it is likely that Congress willenact language identical or similar to this. It might be useful to review and compare this languagewith that of Section 721. S. 925 did not have a similar provision, and neither does S. 2144 .

Israel-Palestine Issues(17)

Section 105 of S. 2144 and Section 115 of H.R. 1950 authorize $50million for settling Jewish migrants in Israel. Funds for Jewish migrants originally were intended forJews escaping from the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia. Section 806 of S. 2144 andSection 223 of H.R. 1950 call for a report on U.S. efforts to promote wider Israelidiplomatic relations. The bill seeks to expand Israel's diplomatic relations by directing the Secretaryof State to encourage other nations to develop and maintain relations with Israel. Section 809 of S. 2144 and Section 703 of H.R. 1950 call upon the Administration topress for membership in the International Red Cross for the Israeli Magan David Adom society. TheInternational Red Cross refused Israel's membership because the Israelis wanted to use the Star ofDavid as their symbol, which the Red Cross believed would open the door to other nations seekingtheir own individual emblems. Israel rejected a Red Cross offer to adopt an internationally neutralred diamond.

Section 2225 of S. 2144 establishes a private, non-profit Middle EastFoundation, funded through the Middle East Partnership Initiative, to make grants to personsinvolved in projects in civil society, human rights, political participation, education reform, rule oflaw, and other areas. H.R. 1950 does not have comparable provisions.

H.R. 1950 has some provisions not found in the Senate bill. Section 222 addsto the annual State Department terrorism report a listing of facts about attacks against U.S. citizensin Israel, Israeli administered territory, and Palestinian territory. The listing should include date ofattack, number of U.S. citizens killed or wounded, total killed or wounded, groups responsible forthe attack, where the groups found refuge or support, suspects arrested, detained, indicted, orconvicted for the attacks, and other data. The Secretary of State is to consult with other agencies inmaking the report. Section 739 lists U.S. citizens killed by Palestinian terrorists since 1993, andseeks a listing of all U.S. citizens killed in terror attacks. Section 731 states a sense of the Congressthat the United States has played the major role in funding the United Nations Relief and WorksAgency (UNRWA) for assisting the Palestinian refugees. Section 731 urges UNRWA to resettle therefugees, eliminate anti-Jewish textbooks from the schools, stop terrorists from diverting funds, andstop anti-Israeli incitement. Section 1321 extends the authorization date for FMF assistance to Israel,and Section 1322 extends the authorization for aid to Egypt. Section 1804 ensures the U.S.Comptroller General access to financial records of U.S. aid to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, andcalls upon the Secretary of State to ensure that the funds are not used for terrorism.

CRS Products

CRS Issue Brief IB85066, Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance

CRS Issue Brief IB92052, Palestinians and Middle East Peace: Issues for the United States.

Jerusalem(18)

A majority of the Members of Congress believe that the United States should recognizeJerusalem as the capital of Israel as evidenced by congressional passage of numerous resolutions andbills, including P.L. 104-45 of November 8, 1995 calling for the U.S. embassy to be moved from TelAviv to Jerusalem. U.S. Administrations have disagreed, arguing that Jerusalem's final status shouldbe negotiated rather than decided unilaterally by Israel. Palestinian-Israeli agreements call fornegotiations on the future of the city, and most nations agree that Jerusalem's status should benegotiated. Section 805 of S. 2144 states that no funds authorized in the bill may beused for a U.S. Consulate in east Jerusalem unless the consulate is under the authority of the U.S.Ambassador to Israel, and that no funds may be used to publish materials listing national capitalsunless Jerusalem is named as the capital of Israel. Section 221 of Title I, H.R. 1950 , hassimilar provisions, but adds that people born in Jerusalem may list Israel as their birthplace whenapplying for U.S. passports.

CRS Products

CRS Report RS20339, Jerusalem, the U.S. Embassy and P.L. 104-45

CRS Issue Brief IB91137, Middle East Peace Talks.

Mexico Issues(19)

The House passed H.R. 1950 on July 16, 2003, with four provisions relating toMexico. This included a modified version of a sense of the Congress provision regarding a possiblebilateral migration accord with Mexico reported out by the House International Relations Committeeon May 16, 2003 ( H.Rept. 108-105 , Part 1), two amendments stating the sense of Congress on jointpollution control on the border and Mexican extradition policy, and restrictions on Mexico's issuanceof consular ID cards. There were no similar provisions in the Senate bill ( S. 925 ) thatthe Senate considered but did not pass in July 2003, and there are no similar provisions in the Senatebill ( S. 2144 ) reported out by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March 2004.

Migration Accord. The idea of a migrationaccord has been advanced by President Vicente Fox and by President Bush at presidential meetingsin the last two years. Mexican officials have been pressing for the legalization of undocumentedMexican workers in the United States through amnesty or guest worker arrangements to protect theirhuman rights and to reduce the number of migrants who die each year while seeking entry into theUnited States. In mid-February 2001, the two presidents agreed to hold cabinet-level negotiationsto address migration and labor issues between the countries. Subsequent press reports suggested thatvarious proposals were being considered by the Administration and by Congress, with leaders ofboth U.S. political parties reportedly seeking to gain favor with Hispanic voters and to deal with theexistence of numerous undocumented workers in hard-to-fill jobs. In early September 2001, the twopresidents pledged to reach agreement as soon as possible on a range of issues, including bordersafety, a temporary worker program, and the status of undocumented Mexicans in the United States. However, following the September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, congressional actionfocused on strengthening border security and alien admission and tracking procedures. In March2002, the two presidents noted that important progress had been made to enhance migrant safety, andthey agreed to continue the cabinet-level talks to achieve safe, legal, and orderly migration flowsbetween the countries. During the annual Binational Commission meetings of cabinet secretariesin November 2002, Secretary of State Powell and Foreign Secretary CastaÃ±eda reaffirmed theintention to continue talks toward a migration agreement, but in January 2003, CastaÃ±eda resigned,reportedly in part out of frustration with the lack of progress in negotiating a migration accord withthe United States.

When the House International Relations Committee marked up H.R. 1950 onMay 8, 2003, Representative Menendez offered an amendment, which, in modified form, becameSection 731. The initial amendment recounted the recent commitments on migration matters by thetwo governments as findings, and stated the sense of Congress that the United States should reachan agreement with Mexico on a migration accord that would ensure that migration to the UnitedStates is "safe, orderly, legal, and dignified." Arguing that the Menendez provision was too broad,Representative Ballenger offered a substitute amendment, subsequently approved 24-22, that statedthe sense of Congress that a Mexico-U.S. migration agreement should address the key issues ofconcern for both nations, and should include an accord to open Mexico's state-run petroleummonopoly (PEMEX) to reform and to investment by U.S. oil companies. It also added a finding thatPEMEX "is inefficient, plagued by corruption and in need of substantial reform and privateinvestment in order to provide sufficient petroleum products to Mexico and the United States to fuelfuture economic growth which can help curb illegal migration into the United States." Representative Gallegly, expressing concern about fugitives from U.S. justice that Mexico will notextradite, offered an amendment to the Ballenger substitute measure, which was approved byunanimous consent, that the issues of extradition and law enforcement cooperation should beaddressed in any migration agreement between the countries. In sum, Section 731, as reported, statesthe sense of Congress that the United States should as soon as practicable commence negotiationsto reach a migration accord with Mexico which addresses the key issues of concern in both countries,which opens PEMEX to reform and investment by U.S. oil companies, and which addressesextradition and law enforcement issues.

Mexican officials and commentators criticized the Committee-reported provisions relatedto PEMEX and extradition as an intrusion in the domestic affairs of Mexico. The Office of theMexican Presidency issued a statement on May 11, 2003, acknowledging that the negotiation of amigration agreement was a priority for the Fox Administration, but pointing out that "negotiatingsuch an agreement in exchange for opening up PetrÃ³leos Mexicanos (the state oil industry - PEMEX)to foreign investment would be wholly unacceptable." The statement further asserted that "majorchanges have been undertaken at PEMEX to modernize its infrastructure and make its managementtransparent, and thus guarantee that oil shall remain in Mexican ownership."

During floor consideration on July 15, 2003, the House approved, as part of an en blocamendment, an amendment proposed by Representative David Dreier, as modified by HIRCChairman Henry Hyde, that became Section 730, that removed the previously mentioned referencesto PEMEX, and stated the sense of Congress that the United States and Mexico should concludenegotiations in an attempt to reach a migration accord that is as comprehensive as possible andwhich addresses the key issues of concern for both nations; and that as part of any agreement, theissues of extradition and law enforcement cooperation be addressed.

Pollution Control. During floor consideration onJuly 15, 2003, the House approved, as part of an en bloc amendment, an amendment proposed byRepresentatives Hunter, Cunningham, Davis, and Filner, that became Section 740, that expressesthe sense of Congress that the U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commissionshould give priority attention to treaty negotiations with Mexico on the building of a public-privatewastewater treatment facility in Mexico that can treat sewage flowing from Tijuana to San Diego,as outlined in P.L. 105-457 . The amendment recounted in the findings the damage to San Diegobeaches, and the three year delay in negotiations, and it required that monthly progress reports besubmitted to appropriate congressional committees.

Extradition Issues. During floor considerationon July 15, 2003, the House approved Amendment 27 proposed by Representative McKeon thatexpresses in Section 744 the sense of the Congress that the U.S. government should encourage theMexican government to work closely with the Mexican Supreme Court to persuade the Court toreconsider its October 2001 ruling so that the possibility of life imprisonment in the United Stateswill not have an adverse effect on the timely extradition of criminal suspects from Mexico to theUnited States.

Consular ID Cards. In floor action on July15, 2003, the House voted 226-198 to accept Amendment 17 by Representative John Hostettler thatwould establish in Section 232 a series of restrictions on the issuance of consular identification cardsby foreign missions. In recent years, the Mexican consulates have been issuing matrÃ­cula consularcards for identity purposes, and they have been increasingly accepted in the United States insituations where proof of identity is required, such as for establishing banking accounts andobtaining credit cards, and transferring funds from the United States to Mexico. Critics argue thatthe cards are used primarily by illegal aliens seeking to obtain benefits not achieved through regularimmigration law and procedures, and that they might facilitate money-laundering and terroristactivity. The amendment would require that foreign missions issue consular identification cards onlyto bona fide citizens of the country as verified by birth certificates, voter IDs, and passports; that cardrecipients be required to notify the mission of any change of address; that automated records be keptby the missions to prevent duplicate or fraudulent issuance; that records be subject to audit by theUnited States; and that the United States be notified of each issuance, including the name andaddress. In the event that a foreign mission has issued consular ID cards in violation of theseprovisions, it could be required to suspend the issuance of cards; and in the event of non-compliance,the State Department would suspend the issuance of immigrant or nonimmigrant visas, or both, tonationals of that country until it was in compliance with the requirements. Supporters of theamendment argued that the issuance of the cards was out of control and needed to be controlled. Opponents argued that it was an attack on the Mexican identity card and persons of Hispanicheritage, and that the requirements were onerous and excessive.

Rural Development Assistance. When the Senateconsidered S. 925 on July 10, 2003, it adopted an amendment offered by Senator Reidto provide $100 million in assistance to Mexico to deal with the existing rural development crisisin the country. The Senate did not complete action on S. 925 in 2003, and there is nosimilar provision in the Senate bill ( S. 2144 ) reported out by the Senate ForeignRelations Committee in March 2004.

CRS Products

CRS Report RL31876 , Mexico-U.S. Relations: Issues for the 108th Congress , by [author name scrubbed].

Peace Corps(20)

The Peace Corps Charter for the 21st Century Act, appearing as title IX in the Senate bill( S. 2144 ), is partly a response to a January 2002 initiative of the Bush Administrationto double the size of the Peace Corps over a period of five years. In the House, the Peace CorpsExpansion Act of 2003, originally H.R. 2441 ( H.Rept. 108-205 ), was added during floordebate to H.R. 1950 .

S. 2144 and H.R. 1950 share many features. Chiefly, both billssupport an expanded volunteer force by authorizing appropriations to the year FY2007. Both billsrequire that volunteers be trained in the education, prevention, and treatment of infectious diseasesso that they can convey this knowledge during their service. They establish a number of reportingrequirements, including reports to Congress on how the Agency plans to increase the number ofvolunteers, new agency initiatives, country security concerns, student loans, and recruitment ofvolunteers for priority countries. The two bills reaffirm the Peace Corps' status as an independentagency. Both pieces of legislation focus attention on returned volunteers (RPCVs). They requirethat some members of a revived Advisory Council be RPCVs. Both bills urge that RPCVs beutilized to open or reopen programs in Muslim countries.

The two bills differ in several ways. Their authorization levels are slightly different. S. 2144 authorizes $351 million for FY2005, $443 for FY2006, and $485 million forFY2007, while H.R. 1950 authorizes $411.80 million, $455.93 million, and $299.40million for these years. H.R. 1950 requires more reports -- on federal equal opportunityprograms and on medical screening procedures and health considerations for putting volunteers ina country. It requires that recruiting be the responsibility of the Peace Corps; the Senate bill requiresthat it be "primarily" its responsibility. H.R. 1950 raises the minimum readjustmentallowance provided volunteers at completion of service from $125 for each month served to $275in FY2004 and $300 thereafter, while S. 2144 raises it to $275 only (volunteerscurrently receive $225). Under H.R. 1950 , the Advisory Council has 11 members, 6of whom are RPCVs; S. 2144 would have 7 members, including 4 RPCVs. The lattermeasure requires regular meetings and an annual report from the Council on its functions. Both billsauthorize establishment of an annual grant program to help RPCVs implement small projects -- in S. 2144 eligible projects must meet the so-called "third goal" of the Peace Corps(promoting an understanding of other peoples by Americans); in H.R. 1950 they couldmeet all Peace Corps goals. For this purpose, S. 2144 authorizes the Corporation forNational and Community Service to utilize $10 million in funds additional to the regular Corporationbudget; H.R. 1950 authorizes the Peace Corps Director to allocate the grants which areadditional to the Peace Corps budget (or the role can be delegated to the Corporation). H.R. 1950 requires that the number of Crisis Corps volunteers be expanded to at least120 in FY2004, 140 in FY2005, 160 in FY2006, and 165 in FY2007. It also contains a declarationof support for the Bush goal of doubling the Peace Corps by FY2007.

Although the Peace Corps is viewed positively by the public and is widely supported inCongress, the Peace Corps provisions raise a number of potential issues for policymakers. Thedoubling of the size of the Peace Corps means a substantial increase in the size of the agency'sbudget to nearly $500 million by FY2007, presumably to be maintained for years thereafter. Budgetconstraints may prevent this rapid growth -- the FY2003 Administration request of $317 million wastrimmed in the final appropriations bill to $295 million. Further, Senate appropriators in their 2003report ( S.Rept. 107-219 ) called the expansion plan "overly ambitious," potentially causing strainsin administrative and programming capacities and suggesting that expansion may have to be drawnout over more than five years. The FY2004 request of $359 million was effectively cut to $325million ($310 million in the regular Peace Corps account, plus $15 million to be transferred to PeaceCorps from the Global HIV/AIDS account).

CRS Products

For further discussion, see CRS Report RS21168 , The Peace Corps: Expansion Initiative andRelated Issues.

Public Diplomacy(21)

Public diplomacy consists of U.S. government activities designed to present the Americanculture and promote understanding by foreign publics of U.S. government policies. Publicdiplomacy includes government exchange programs, international information programs, and U.S.government international broadcasting. (For details on international broadcasting measures, see thatsection above.) Both House and Senate bills include funding authorization and new programauthority relating public diplomacy to the post 9/11 world.

Title VI, S. 2144 -- Strengthening United States Outreach -- would require thePresident to develop an international information strategy, focusing on regions with significantMuslim populations, and report to the relevant congressional committees. In addition, Section 602would require the Secretary of State to include public diplomacy training at all levels of the ForeignService. Section 612 of this title would expand existing educational and cultural exchanges andwould include exchanges to promote religious freedom, information technology, and sportsdiplomacy.

H.R. 1950 Title II of Div C, Subtitle A, United States Public Diplomacy -- Section 202 emphasizes that public diplomacy must be an integral component of U.S. foreign policy. The Department, in coordination with international broadcasting entity is called on to coordinateefforts of all federal agencies in promoting public diplomacy activities. The section would establisha public diplomacy reserve corps which may include public diplomacy experts and related fieldexperts from the private sector. Section 203 would require the Secretary of State to develop annuallya public diplomacy strategy and specify goals, agency responsibilities and resources needed toachieve the stated goals. The Secretary would annually review the public diplomacy strategy andits impact on target audiences. Each annual report shall include an assessment of the U.S. publicdiplomacy strategy both worldwide and by region. Comparable to Section 602 in S. 2144 , Section 204 establishes public diplomacy as a priority in recruiting and training ForeignService officers. It would require the Secretary to seek to increase, through recruitment andincentives, the number of Foreign Services officers who are proficient in languages spoken inpredominantly Muslim countries.

Other measures contained in H.R. 1950 , Title II, Subtitle A include reportingrequirements and enhancements of the Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy; implementationof a pilot program to assist foreign governments in order to establish or improve a public librarysystem in their countries in order to improve literacy and public education; and a sense of Congressthat the Secretary should include the predominantly Muslim populated countries in sub-SaharanAfrica in the Department's public diplomacy activities.

Similar to Section 612 of the Senate bill, H.R. 1950 , Title II of Div C, SubtitleC -- Educational and Cultural Activities -- contains Section 251 which would establish an array ofexchange initiatives for predominantly Muslim countries. Included would be an expansion of theFulbright Exchange and the Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship programs in Muslim countries, ajournalism training program, grants for U.S. citizens to teach English language overseas, and librarytraining exchange.

State Department Authorities and Personnel Issues(22)

In addition to providing the required authority for the Department of State and relatedagencies to spend specified levels of appropriations (see Table 1 in the Appendix for appropriationand authorization levels), Division C of H.R. 1950 and Title II and III of S. 2144 contain measures ranging from authorizing a U.S. diplomacy center to raising post differentialpay and danger pay allowances for Foreign Service Officers to a security cost sharing among allagencies represented in overseas posts. On these issues, both bills have similar provisions, none ofwhich appear controversial at this time.

CRS Reports:

For more detail on State Department and related agencies, see CRS Report RL31370 , StateDepartment and Related Agencies: FY2003 Appropriations and FY2004 Request.

Defense Trade and Security Assistance

Export Controls for Satellites(23)

Between 1992 and 1996, responsibility for decisions regarding export of commercialcommunications satellites was transferred from the State Department to the Commerce Department. In 1997, issues arose in connection with the launch of U.S.-built satellites by China as to whetherU.S. satellite manufacturers were abiding by the terms of the export licenses granted by theCommerce Department, and whether such exports should be under the more restrictive controls ofthe State Department. The concern was that China might be gaining militarily useful informationin connection with its launches of U.S.-built satellites. Subsequently, Congress directed that exportcontrol responsibility for these satellites be returned to the State Department effective March 15,1999 (FY1999 DOD authorization bill, P.L. 105-261 ).

Which agency should control these exports remains controversial because of concern thatuncertainty associated with State Department control over the licenses (particularly in terms of thetime required for the licenses to be approved or denied) places U.S. companies at a competitivedisadvantage with European satellite manufacturing companies. The Satellite Industry Association(SIA) released figures in May 2001 showing U.S. satellite manufacturers losing market share toforeign companies in 2000. SIA and others attributed that loss in part to the shift in jurisdiction toState. Congress directed the Secretary of State to establish an export regime that includes expeditedapproval for exports to NATO allies and major non-NATO allies in the FY2000 State Departmentauthorization act (part of the FY2000 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 106-113 ). The newrules took effect on July 1, 2000. (Since 2001, U.S. companies have won the majority of contractsfor new commercial communications satellites, though it is not possible to draw a direct linkbetween that and the regulatory change.)

Efforts to shift jurisdiction over these satellite exports back to the Commerce Departmentcontinue. In the 108th Congress, Title XV of H.R. 1950 as reported from HIRC ( H.Rept.108-105 , Part 1) would have left the decision on agency jurisdiction to the President if the export isto a NATO country or major non-NATO ally; exports to China would remain under StateDepartment jurisdiction. However, the House Armed Services Committee struck Title XV when itmarked up the bill ( H.Rept. 108-105 , Part 3), and it was not included in the version of the bill thatpassed the House on July 16, 2003.

Separately, the Security Assistance Act ( P.L. 106-280 ) reduced from 30 days to 15 days thetime Congress has to review decisions on exporting commercial communications satellites to Russia,Ukraine, and Kazakhstan, making the time period the same as for NATO allies. H.R. 1950 as passed by the House changes that time period back to 30 days.

S. 2144 , the FY2005 Foreign Affairs Authorization Act, includes section 2239,which would exempt from export licensing requirements marketing information (as defined in theAct) related to sales of commercial communications satellites if the sale is to a NATO country,Australia, Japan, or New Zealand. The exemption does not apply to defense items and defenseservices. The same provision was included in S. 1161 (later incorporated into S. 925 ) last year.

CRS Products

CRS Issue Brief IB93062, Space Launch Vehicles: Government Activities, CommercialCompetition, and Satellite Exports , by Marcia Smith.

Israeli Palestinian Peace Enhancement Act of 2003(24)

Title XVI of Div. C, H.R. 1950 addresses the effort to achieve peace betweenthe Israelis and Palestinians that began with President Bush's speech on June 24, 2002. It envisioned"two states, living side by side in peace and security." The President called on the Palestinians toelect new leaders "not compromised by terror" and to undertake "true reforms" to build a practicingdemocracy. He declared that the United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinianstate until its leaders fight terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure. He promised that when thereare new leaders and new security arrangements with Israel, the United States will then support thecreation of a Palestinian state, but certain aspects of its sovereignty will be "provisional" until a finalsettlement in the Middle East. The President also declared that "as we make progress towardsecurity, Israeli forces need to withdraw to positions they held prior to September 28, 2000, andIsraeli settlement in the occupied territories must stop." The President added that in real peace, the"Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated by the parties,based on U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognized borders."

Building on the President's vision, the United States, European Union, United Nations, andRussia (the "Quartet") developed a three-phase "Performance-Based Roadmap to a PermanentTwo-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict." In Phase I, the focus will be on an end toterror and violence, the building of Palestinian political and security institutions, and thenormalization of Palestinians life through humanitarian and economic responses, the dismantlementof Israeli settlement outposts erected since March 2001, and the freezing of all settlement activity. Phase II, will focus on the creation of an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders. Phase III, will see negotiations for a permanent agreement and an end of the Israeli-Palestinianconflict. The Roadmap was presented on April 30, 2003. The Roadmap calls for Israeli actions to"accompany" those of the Palestinians, although in Phase I the Palestinians are to unconditionallycease violence "immediately." The Palestinians, EU, and U.N. view the Roadmap as a parallelprocess, requiring simultaneous steps by both sides. The Israeli government and its supportersconsider it to be a sequential process, beginning with an end to Palestinian violence, and maintainthat the President's June 24, 2002 speech does so, as well.

Title XVII, Sec. 1602 declares that the security of Israel is a national security interest of theUnited States. It endorses the two-state solution as necessary to achieving the security of Israel, ifthe Palestinian state is peaceful, democratic, "and abandons the use of terror forever." Sec. 1603states a willingness to provide substantial assistance to the Palestinians after they achieve peace withIsrael. Sec. 1604 indicates that transformation of the Palestinian system of government along thelines outlined in President Bush's June 24, 2002 speech is a precondition for peace negotiations. Sec.1605 calls on the President not to recognize a Palestinian state until it embodies his June 24, 2002vision. Sec. 1606 allows the provision of assistance to a Palestinian state if the President certifiesthat an international peace agreement has been signed, in which both parties commit to aninternationally recognized boundary with no remaining territorial claims and, in which, the issue ofrefugees is resolved. In other words, the bill bans aid to the Palestinian state with provisionalborders that is to emerge from Phase II of the Roadmap. However, the President may waive thisprovision if he determines and certifies that it is in the U.S. national interest. The limitations onassistance do not apply to humanitarian assistance or aid to help reform the Palestinian Authority.Assistance to the Palestinian state for economic development, democratization, security cooperationwith Israel, and to help compensate Palestinian refugees is specifically authorized.

The Senate bill has no parallel provisions.

CRS Products

For background, see CRS Issue Brief IB91137, The Middle East Peace Talks , and CRS Issue Brief IB92052, Palestinians and Middle East Peace: Issues for the United States .

Missile Technology Control Regime Annex(25)

H.R. 1950 requires that the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretaryof Commerce, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Defense certify to Congress no later thanMarch 1 of each year that items on the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Annex havebeen under stringent control in accordance with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations(ITAR) and Export Administration Regulations (EAR) for the previous year. The legislation alsorequires that if the requirement has not been met, then reasons why this did not occur must also beincluded in the certification. This proposed annual certification also requires that the Secretary ofState describe any updated coverage in both the ITAR and EAR as they relate to MTCR Annexitems. In addition, any overlap or omissions in these regulations as they relate to MTCR Annexitems will also be included in the certification to Congress. The Senate version, S. 2144 ,Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2004, does not contain similar provisions.

Section 1201 of H.R. 1950 appears to be an attempt to strengthen controls byassigning specific accountability for U.S. missile-related activities. Current law (Section 832 of theForeign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003) requires reporting on allinternational transfers of MTCR equipment or technology to any country seeking to acquire suchequipment, including U.S. transfers of such equipment or technology. Furthermore, current lawrequires the following:

An analysis of the effectiveness of the regulatory and enforcement regimes ofthe United States as they relate to the MTCR, and;

An explanation of U.S. policy regarding the transfer of MTCR equipment andtechnology to foreign programs.

Section 1201, as proposed, also formally designates the Secretary of Commerce and theAttorney General to be part of the review and certification process, whereas current law stipulatesroles only for the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense. The formal inclusion of theSecretary of Commerce and the Attorney General in this requirement will likely be viewed infavorable terms as both are involved in a variety of missile nonproliferation capacities. Thereporting on overlaps and omissions in terms of the ITAR and EAR in the proposed annualcertification might help Congress identify areas where both regulations can be improved bylegislative action. The proposal of the annual certification proposed in Section1201 may generateopposition, particularly in the Executive Branch. The question that may arise is one ofCongressional intent: Is this certification intended to establish legal accountability, or is it to compelthe Secretaries of State, Defense, and Commerce, and the Attorney General to cooperate inimproving U.S. government control of MTCR-related items? If it is to establish legal accountability,there could be a significant degree of opposition. If it is to improve cooperation, it may be arguedthat there is alternative legislative language that could achieve the same intent.

CRS Products

CRS Report RL31848(pdf) , Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and International Code ofConduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (ICOC): Background and Issues forCongress, [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RL31502 , Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, and Missile Proliferation Sanctions: SelectedCurrent Law , [author name scrubbed].

Missile Threat Reduction Act of 2003(26)

H.R. 1950 , Section 1412 calls for a U.S.-led effort to seek a bindinginternational instrument(s) to restrict trade of offensive ballistic missiles. This proposal addressesoffensive ballistic missiles with a range of at least 300 km and a payload capacity of 500 kg or moreand would apply to both conventional and weapons of mass destruction-armed missiles. Becausethis proposal stipulates only offensive ballistic missiles, it is assumed that surface-to-air missiles andballistic missile defense interceptor missiles would not be subject to the binding instrument. Cruisemissiles and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which are included in provisions of the MissileTechnology Control Regime (MTCR), are not included in this proposal. This binding instrumentmay be in the form of a multilateral treaty, United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR),or another instrument of international law. No matter what form this instrument takes, it is proposedthat it should also include enforcement measures including "interdiction, seizure, and impoundmentof illicit shipments of offensive ballistic missiles and related technology, equipment, andcomponents". Such a binding instrument is not reflected in current law.

The Senate version of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, S. 2144 , doesnot address the establishment of a binding agreement restricting the trade of ballistic missiles.

It is unclear if the proposed instrument would replace the MTCR and the International Codeof Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (ICOC), or if it would complement thesevoluntary, non-binding arrangements. U.S. sponsorship of a Security Council resolution or multilateral treaty could prove to be controversial, given the current climate in the United Nations. Attempts to include an enforcement mechanism, especially provisions for "interdiction, seizure, andimpoundment," may face considerable resistance on a legal, policy, and practical basis. Thismeasure has led some experts to ask whether some sort of an international enforcement organizationwould be created or whether any country might "interdict" what they deem to be illicit ballisticmissile or technology shipments.

Those in Congress who favor revitalizing nonproliferation efforts in lieu of the currentAdministration's emphasis on a counterproliferation strategy involving potential preemption mightbe generally supportive of legislation that attempts to strengthen nonproliferation controls. There also likely will be skepticism, both in Congress and the Administration, based on the argument that proliferating countries would decline to accede to the treaty or refuse to comply with its provisionsif they become members. The U.S. aerospace industry, particularly companies involved in ballisticmissile interceptors, cruise missiles, and UAVs, might be supportive of this treaty as it does notinclude restrictions on these systems in its provisions. Likewise, the Department of Defense mightbe supportive as such exempted systems are considered by many the "workhorses" of the modernU.S. military.

H.R. 1950 , Section 1413 calls for U.S. sponsorship of a U.N. Security CouncilResolution prohibiting United Nations members from "purchasing, receiving, assisting or allowingtransfer of" missile or missile- related equipment and technology from North Korea and permitsinterdiction, seizure, or impoundment of North Korean missiles or related technology and equipment. (The Senate version, S. 925 , does not contain similar provisions.) This resolution mightreceive support from countries that are concerned about continuing North Korean missileproliferation, particularly proliferation to countries such as Iran, Pakistan, and Libya. The proposaladdresses the possibility that countries such as North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and Libya might notaccede to the proposed U.S.-sponsored ballistic missile treaty. Proponents believe that thisresolution, if vigorously and uniformly enforced, could significantly impede North Korean missileand technology sales and could also have a detrimental impact on the medium andintermediate-range ballistic programs of Iran, Pakistan, and Libya -- all reported to be heavilydependent on North Korean missile technology and assistance.

Critics are likely to maintain that a U.N. Security Council resolution presents the same issuesas does the proposed U.S.-sponsored treaty in terms of enforcement mechanisms. From theirperspective, the December 2002 U.S. release of Yemen-bound North Korean SCUDs seized at seacould serve as a legal precedent for countries opposing such a resolution. Additionally, theymaintain that there is likely to be resistance to this resolution if it permits interdiction withoutSecurity Council approval. Some analysts suggest that, to be approved, the resolution would haveto contain provisions for the Security Council to review evidence on a case-by-case basis andestablish "probable cause" before sanctioning interdiction or seizure.

CRS Products

CRS Report RL31848(pdf) , Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and International Code ofConduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (ICOC): Background and Issues forCongress, [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RL31502 , Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, and Missile Proliferation Sanctions: SelectedCurrent Law , [author name scrubbed].

Munitions Export Controls(27)

H.R. 1950 , as passed by the House, contains, in Title XIII, provisions relatedto export controls of items on the U.S. Munitions List, as well as new reporting requirements. Specifically, the committee bill contains technical amendments to the Arms Export Control Act(AECA) in Sections 1202-1204. Section 1202 amends section 36(c) of the AECA to require advancecertification to Congress of any comprehensive export authorization in the amount of $100 millionor more, regardless of whether a signed contract exists. This section also repeals clause (B) ofparagraph 2 of section 36(c), thus establishing a 30 day waiting period for satellite launches byRussia, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine. Section 1203 amends section 36(d) of the AECA to no longerrequire advance notification of agreements involving the manufacture abroad of significant militaryequipment that is valued at less than $7 million in the case of major defense equipment, or $25million in the case of all other significant military equipment. Section 1204 amends section 38 ofthe AECA to establish an accelerated and streamlined munitions license approval procedure of tendays for Australia and the United Kingdom. The procedure would apply to those defense articles,services, and technology that are currently exempt by regulation (i.e. section 126.5 of theInternational Traffic in Arms Regulations, title 22 C.F.R.) from prior U.S. Government review andlicensing requirements when they are to be exported or transferred to Canada. Section 1205 of theHouse bill would require the Secretary of State to establish a coordinator for small business affairsin the Office of Defense Trade Controls to serve as a point of contact for U.S. small businesses onexport licensing, registration, and other matters.

The House bill also contains two reporting requirements. Section 1201 requires the Secretaryof State, in consultation with the Secretaries of Commerce and Defense, and the Attorney General,to provide an annual certification and report to Congress on U.S. missile technology export controls. The intent is to ensure that U.S. missile technology controls are clearly established and keptup-to-date, in light of the special threat to U.S. security interests that would be presented by theunauthorized export and proliferation of missile technologies. Section 1206 contains a sense of theCongress provision noting that administrative, licensing and compliance-related functions associatedwith arms exports under section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act could be expedited by areduction in those matters necessitating inter-agency referral outside of the State Department, or byco-locating munitions control functions of the Departments of State, Defense, and HomelandSecurity. Section 1206 requires the Secretary of State to consult with the Secretaries of HomelandSecurity and Defense, and the public -- through the U.S. Government's federal advisory committeestructure -- to examine the relative advantages and disadvantages of co-location of munitions controlfunctions, and to report on this matter to the appropriate committees of Congress within 180 daysof enactment of this provision. (28)

On May 29, 2003, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported S. 1161 ,a bill to authorize foreign assistance for FY2004. Subsequently on March 4, 2004, the ForeignRelations Committee ordered reported S. 2144 , an original bill which incorporated mostof the elements of S. 1161 . The latest committee bill ( S. 2144 ) containstechnical amendments to current law. Section 2231 of S. 2144 , as reported, raises theminimum dollar thresholds at which sales of certain defense articles, design and constructionservices, and major defense equipment (or upgrades of such sales) must be reported to Congressunder Section 36 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA). These thresholds were raised from $14million to $50 million for major defense equipment, from $50 million to $100 million for defensearticles and defense services, and from $200 million to $350 million for design and constructionservices. Section 2232 requires the President to make certifications to Congress under section36(c)(1) of the AECA before issuing comprehensive authorizations (under section 126.14 of theInternational Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) Title 22 C.F.R.) for the export of defense articlesor defense services to an eligible country or foreign partner. Section 2233 provides an exception tothe requirements for bilateral agreements for country exemptions from International Traffic in ArmsRegulations contained in section 38(j)(A) of the AECA with respect to transfers of certainU.S.-origin defense items within Australia. Section 2233 also provides for an exemption fromcertain export licensing restrictions in Section 38(j) of the AECA for the United Kingdom. Section2233 further provides that not later than 30 days before authorizing any 38(j) exemptions forAustralia or the United Kingdom, the President must make specific certifications to Congressregarding such exemptions. In addition, the President is required to make an annual report toCongress for five years detailing various actions taken by the United States with the Governmentsof Australia and the United Kingdom relating to these exemptions. Section 2238 grants eligibilityto Haiti for the purchase of defense articles and services for the Haitian Coast Guard under theAECA, subject to existing notification requirements.

CRS Products

For related background see CRS Report RL31675 , Arms Sales Congressional ReviewProcess ; and CRS Report RL31559 , Proliferation Control Regimes: Background and Status .

Security Assistance(29)

H.R. 1950 , as passed by the House, contains, in Title XIII, a number ofprovisions relating to military assistance and arms export control, including authorizations forappropriations for a number of security assistance programs. Specifically, the House bill containsprovisions providing funding authorizations for Foreign Military Sales and Financing, InternationalMilitary Education and Training, de-mining assistance, and the non-proliferation and disarmamentfund. A variety of technical language changes to existing law are made. Authority is also providedto transfer certain obsolete or surplus war reserve defense articles to Israel, and the authority isexpanded to loan to friendly foreign countries, material, supplies, and equipment for research anddevelopment purposes. Title XIII includes provisions establishing reporting requirements toCongress relating to U.S. cooperative efforts with foreign governments to foster development anddeployment of defenses against missile attack, as well as the obligation to submit to the HouseInternational Relations Committee all reports provided to the Senate Foreign Relations Committeeon Strategic Offensive Reductions between the U.S. and the Russian Federation. Fundingauthorization is provided for refurbishment and various costs associated with the transfer of up tofour maritime interdiction patrol boats for Mozambique. The House bill also contains a statementof the House of Representatives regarding the treaty with the Russian Federation on StrategicOffensive Reductions, as well as a statement of Congressional findings regarding Iran's program todevelop a nuclear explosive device.

On May 29, 2003, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported S. 1161 ,to authorize foreign assistance for FY2004. Subsequently on March 4, 2004, the Foreign RelationsCommittee ordered reported S. 2144 , an original bill which incorporated most of theelements of S. 1161 . The latest committee bill ( S. 2144 ) contains a numberof provisions relating to military assistance and arms export control, including authorizations forappropriations for a number of security assistance programs. Specifically, the committee billcontains funding authorizations for Foreign Military Sales and Financing, de-mining assistance, thenon-proliferation and disarmament fund, and International Military Education and Training (IMET). The Senate bill makes various technical changes to existing law. Section 2204 creates the authorityfor the Secretary of State to receive lethal excess property from other U.S. Government agencies forthe purpose of providing it to foreign governments. Section 2207 authorizes the President to waivethe requirement that net proceeds from the disposal of defense articles granted to a foreign countrybe paid to the United States. Section 2208 authorizes the President to transfer certain obsolete orsurplus defense items to Israel, in exchange for concessions of equivalent value, with the requirementthat Congress receive prior notification before any transfer is made. Section 2209 authorizes thePresident, through FY2004, to transfer excess items to the Defense Department's War ReserveStockpile in Israel. Section 2212 makes permanent an authority to allow the State Department andUSAID to dispose of de-mining equipment on a grant basis in foreign countries. Section 2213updates authorities provided to the President in Section 614 of the Foreign Assistance Act, to waiverestrictions on providing economic and military assistance, and increases the amount of assistancethat can be provided, through use of this authority, to any single country from $50 million to $75million in any fiscal year. Section 2240 provides statutory authority to transfer certain naval vesselsby grant to Bahrain and to Portugal, and by sale to Chile. (30)

CRS Products

For funding levels for military assistance programs that are associated with this legislationsee CRS Report RL31811 , Appropriations for FY2004: Foreign Operations, Export Financing, andRelated Programs .

Terrorist Organizations(31)

The overall purpose of Section 501 in S. 2144 is to make it harder for terroristorganizations to be removed from designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization absent a petitionby a designated entity itself and/or review by the Secretary of State. It also prevents groups fromusing aliases to evade the law. It is intended to improve U.S. ability to keep track of, and sanction,these groups.

Section 501(a) removes the current requirement set forth in Section 219 of the Immigrationand Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) that the designation of an organization as a Foreign TerroristOrganization (FTO) automatically lapse after two years unless the Secretary of State renews it. Instead it places the onus on the FTO to petition to ask to be removed. If the FTO does not petitionto be removed within a four-year period, however, then the Secretary must take the initiative and review the designation to determine whether or not it should continue. As amended, neither theresults of the four-year evaluation nor the procedures established to make such an evaluation aresubject to judicial review; thus, there is much more procedural protection if the FTO chooses tochallenge the designation before the four-year review. The ability to revoke the FTO's designationby act of Congress also stays in place.

An interesting implication of these changes is that, in placing the burden on the ForeignTerrorist Organization to come forward, the process could be useful to the U.S. government ingathering counter terrorist intelligence. A terrorist group must reveal its identity and membership,at least to some extent, in order to petition to be removed from the list. Since designation as aterrorist organization carries numerous legal implications, including the possible freezing of U.S.assets and barring of members' entry into the United States, this provision increases the leverage thatthe Executive branch has in both identifying and potentially controlling terrorist groups -- assumingthat Foreign Terrorist Organizations are appropriately labeled in the first place.

Section 501(b) gives the Secretary the flexibility to amend an FTO's designation to take intoaccount new or different names that a terrorist group might use. This is an effort to keep the lawfrom being evaded by groups that evolve or change their names but continue to be essentially thesame group -- an important problem in the current international terrorist environment. Sections 501(c) and 501 (d) are technical changes designed to make this part of the bill conform to Section 219of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and to ensure that earlier redesignations of FTOs remainvalid.

No similar provisions are in the House bill.

Terrorist-Related Prohibitions and Enforcement Measures(32)

Title XI of H.R. 1950 , as passed by the House, deals with prohibitions that arerelated to preventing terrorists and their state sponsors from acquiring arms and other materials. Section 1101 amends section 3 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) strengthening theineligibility language to include specific reference to state sponsors of international terrorism andthose who trade with them. The next five sections relate to section 38 of the AECA: Section 1102strengthens and expands the statutory authority of the State Department (administering thePresident's authority) to regulate access by foreign persons to munitions and other defense articles,even in situations where the foreign person is in the United States and there is no classic "export"involved. (The legislation also notes that this authority must be exercised in close coordination withthe Attorney General.) Section 1103 expresses the sense of Congress that new exemptions fromlicensing requirements should be undertaken after coordination with law enforcement agencies. Section 1104 is a technical amendment that updates language to reflect new legislation enacted sinceSeptember 11. And Section 1105 attempts to prevent any prohibited material from being exportedwithout a license to the military, police, or intelligence services of embargoed countries unless thereis concurrence by both the Secretaries of State and Defense.

Section 1106 changes language in section 40 of the AECA, expanding upon the list ofprohibited items that may not be sold to state sponsors of international terrorism. Section 1107,which apparently aims to increase the deterrent effect of the penalties, strengthens the ability toenforce violations of the AECA, for example, by increasing the fines for criminal violations whenthey involve state sponsors of international terrorism. It also includes technical changes of languagein Section 47. Section 1108 changes the standards for high risk exports under Section 38 to requirefrequent coordination among the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, the Directorof the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of Intelligence. Finally, Section 1110requires the President to submit a report to the Committee about the nature and origin offoreign-supplied items discovered by coalition forces in Iraq.

There are no similar measures in the Senate bill S. 2144 .

CRS Products

For more information on defense export controls, see CRS Report RL30983 , U.S. DefenseArticles and Services Supplied to Foreign Recipients: Restrictions on Their Use , and CRS Report RL31675 Arms Sales: Congressional Review Process.

Foreign Assistance(33)

Afghanistan(34)

The House bill ( H.R. 1950 ) contains a provision calling on the Administrationto increase its efforts to strengthen the central government in Kabul. The "findings" section of theprovision asserts that the U.S.-led reconstruction effort in Afghanistan is in jeopardy because of alack of security throughout Afghanistan and the limited writ of the U.S.-backed central governmentin Kabul. The provision, no equivalent of which is contained in the Senate version, calls forexpanding the mandate and capabilities of an international peacekeeping force, the InternationalSecurity Assistance Force (ISAF), and augmentation of the number of forces devoted to U.S.-led"provincial reconstruction teams," -- local groupings of U.S. and other forces and aid workersdesigned to promote the climate for reconstruction.

The provision is likely to be interpreted as a criticism of the Administration and an assertionthat the Administration has devoted insufficient resources to the Afghan reconstruction effort. Several recent press articles have reported that, among other difficulties, much of Afghanistanremains under the control of regional leaders, some of whom are clashing with each other, and thatinternational relief organizations are reluctant to work in parts of Afghanistan because of securityconcerns. In recent statements, Administration officials have identified some of the same securitydifficulties mentioned in the provision, although Administration statements say that these problemsare manageable and are not at a level of intensity where they materially hinder reconstruction or thereturn of political stability. The departing U.S. commander of the 9,000 U.S. troops still inAfghanistan said in late May 2003 that security is improving to the point where the United Statesis likely to begin reducing U.S. forces there by mid-2004. (35) According to the former commander, Lt. Gen. Dan McNeill,"the preponderance of the country is enjoying a high degree of stability," and the U.S.-trained AfghanNational Army should begin to become self-sufficient within the coming year. Since training beganin mid-2002, the United States has trained about 4,500 recruits to the national army and the U.S. andAfghan plan is to build it to a force strength of 70,000. However, many experts believe it will beat least several more years before the army reaches that strength and that, in the interim, the UnitedStates and international peacekeeping forces will be needed to ensure stability.

CRS Products

CRS Report RL30588 , Afghanistan: Current Issues and U.S. Policy .

CRS Report RL31759 , Reconstruction Assistance in Afghanistan: Goals, Priorities, and Issues forCongress .

CRS Report RL31389 , Afghanistan: Challenges and Options for Reconstructing a Stable andModerate State .

Africa-Related Provisions(36)

S. 2144 , as introduced in the Senate on February 27, 2004, contained severalAfrica-related provisions. Two of these measures, Section 2513, "Support for Sierra Leone," andSection 2515, "Support for Somalia," were stricken from the bill following a Senate ForeignRelations Committee mark-up hearing and vote on March 4, 2004. S. 2144 , as amendedand reported by the Foreign Relations Committee, contains the following Africa-specific measures:

Development Fund for Africa. Title XXI, SubtitleA, Section 2101 (d) would technically amend Section 497 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 asit relates to the authorization of appropriations for the Development Fund For Africa.

African Development Foundation. The AfricanDevelopment Foundation (ADF) is a public corporation and federal agency created by Congress in1980. Its activities center on the extension of small direct grants to African self-help organizations.Its grant work and other activities, administered primarily by local hires, support community-levelself-help initiatives aimed at alleviating poverty, promoting sustainable, participatory developmentin Africa, and supporting the growth of small, local development institutions. Title XXI, SubtitleC, Section 2132 would authorize $17 million -- the amount requested by the Administration in itsFY2005 budget request -- for the African Development Foundation for FY2005 by amending Section510 of the International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1980. (37)

Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP). TheCBFP is an association of governmental and nongovernmental organizations that supports projects,programs, and policies to promote sustainable management of central African Congo Basin Forestecosystems and wildlife. It seeks to improve the income earning potential and quality of life of Basinresidents through sustainable community-based natural resource and forestry concessionmanagement, and agriculture and eco-tourism projects; and help Basin countries to developeffectively-managed parks, protected areas, and ecological corridors. Title XXII, Subtitle A, Section2223 would endorse the aims of the CBFP and U.S. participation in the initiative, and in "sense ofCongress" language recommend that in FY2005 the President should make available "for all [U.S.]agencies participating" in the CBFP "at least" the amount he submitted in his FY2005 foreignassistance budget request. (38)

Independent Media in Ethiopia. According to theState Department, the private press in Ethiopia is active and often publishes articles that are highlycritical of the government. Nevertheless, the Department reports, constitutionally-protected freedomsof expression in Ethiopia are frequently restricted by the government, which prosecutes journalistsand editors for violating press laws; some journalists practice self-censorship; and "the majority ofprivate papers... [are] printed at government-owned presses." The State Department also reports that"much" of the private press lacks reporting professionalism, and publishes "inaccurate information,unsubstantiated stories, and harsh anti-government articles," though such actions are often notpenalized by the government, and some print media are developing into "more responsible"fora. (39) Title XXV,Subtitle B, Section 2513 would authorize the expenditure of "such sums as are necessary" tostrengthen the "capacity" of journalists and support increased access to printing facilities by printindustry workers in Ethiopia.

Human Rights Abuse Accountability in CentralAfrica. Title XXV, Subtitle B, Section 2514 finds that the central African states ofBurundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, and Uganda "have all been involved inoverlapping, regionally destabilizing armed conflicts that have contributed millions of civiliandeaths," and that serious, on-going human rights abuses occur in each of these countries. Section2514 would make it U.S. policy to support efforts to account for serious human rights abuses andcrimes that have taken place in central Africa since 1993; programs to prevent the future occurrenceof such crimes; and efforts to encourage reconciliation in relation to the past perpetration of suchabuses. For such purposes, it authorizes in FY2005 up to $12 million to support the development ofresponsible justice and reconciliation mechanisms, including programs to "respond to" gender-basedviolence and increase awareness and prevention efforts to counter it within the four central Africanstates previously noted. It would also require that the Secretary of State submit to congressionalcommittees of jurisdiction a report on U.S. actions taken to implement such a policies. (40)

African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance(ACOTA). The ACOTA program seeks to improve select African militaries'capacity to undertake joint multinational peace support operations and humanitarian crises in Africa.ACOTA consists primarily of country-tailored programs integrating classroom instruction, fieldtraining, and computer-assisted exercises. These are aimed at building equipment maintenance, forceprotection, and negotiations skills; and improving logistics support, refugee protection, convoy escortoperational, and command and control capabilities, particularly in potentially high-threat contexts.It also includes efforts to improve sub-regional organizations' abilities to mount and jointlycoordinate peacekeeping operations.

Title XXV, Subtitle B, Section 2516 would authorize the expenditure of $15 million inFY2005 for support of ACOTA; $15 million for this purpose was requested by the Administrationin its FY2005 budget request. It would also mandate that eligibility for participation in ACOTA bereviewed "at least" annually on the basis of "consideration" of a participant country's willingness toparticipate in peace support operations; its military capability; its human rights record, particularlywith regard to its military; its adherence to democratic governance principles; the nature ofcivil-military relations within the country; and the candidate country's relations with its neighboringstates. In "sense of congress" language, the bill also recommends that "to the extent possible" priorto ACOTA training activities in a given country, the United States provide information about thenature and purpose of such training to that country's nationals, including legislators andnon-governmental humanitarian and human rights organizations. It also recommends that relevantU.S. departments and agencies monitor the performance and conduct of military units that receiveACOTA training or support, and that information on such monitoring efforts be reported annuallyto Congress.

Debt Relief for the Democratic Republic of Congo(DRC). The DRC, a central African country emerging from over three decades ofdictatorship under the late Mobutu Sese Seko and eight years of armed civil and inter-state war, hasa total external debt estimated by the World Bank to be about $8.21 billion in 2002. Of this amount,about $2.28 billion is owed to the United States. Under the Heavily Indebted Poor Country Initiative(HIPC), Title XXI, Subtitle A, Section 2115 would require the President to cancel all debtsassociated with U.S. loans or credits extended before June 20, 1999, and owed to the United Statesby the DRC, "subject to the availability of amounts provided in advance in appropriations Acts" and"in addition to" and in a manner not limiting any other U.S. debt relief authority. For such purposes,it would authorize the appropriation in FY2005 and FY2006 of $105 million, to "remain availableuntil expended." The provisions in Section 2115 derive from a Chairman's amendment offered at therequest of the Treasury Department. (41)

The Africa Society(42)

The Africa Society is an organization set up to implement the National Policy Plan of Actionfor U.S.-Africa Relations in the 21st Century , a programmatic document produced by the NationalSummit on Africa, and to pursue other activities similar to those described in H.R. 1950 , as amended. The Summit, held in 2000, culminated a series of U.S. regional policy planningand outreach meetings. These sought to increase U.S. public support awareness of Africa andformulate a grassroots foreign policy strategy to increase public engagement with -- and guide --U.S.-Africa relations. The Society, hitherto financially supported by corporate and non-profitorganizations, is chaired by former U.S. United Nations ambassador Andrew Young. Its Presidentis Leonard H. Robinson, Jr., a former State Department African Affairs official and the firstpresident of the African Development Foundation. The Society has hosted many Africa-focusedpublic policy forums that have included bipartisan congressional Member and staff participation, aswell as African leaders, and Clinton and Bush administration officials. The Society has initiated ajoint project with the University of California, Los Angeles to establish a National Research Instituteon African Affairs.

Title XVIII, Section 1815, of H.R. 1950 , as passed by the House on July 16,2003, authorizes the Secretary of State to make grants to the Africa Society of the National Summiton Africa of $1 million in FY2004 and "such sums as may be necessary" in FY2005. Such sumswould fund public and private partnership-based programs and activities, defined under "necessaryand appropriate" grant agreements, that advance U.S. interests and values in Africa. The billcharacterizes such interests as those that support the development in Africa of more open, democraticsystems; assist civil society capacity building; increase equitable trade and investment-basedeconomic growth; enhance public and private sector transparency and openness; and promote U.S.public awareness about Africa. Section 1815 had earlier been considered and adopted by voice voteby HIRC on May 8, 2003, after being offered by Representative Donald M. Payne on the same day. Neither S. 925 nor S. 2144 make reference to the Africa Society.

Colombia and Andean Region Assistance(43)

The House passed H.R. 1950 on July 16, 2003, with several provisions relatingto Colombia and neighboring countries in the Andean region, following the recommendationsreported out by the House International Relations Committee (House Report 108-105, Part 1) onMay 16, 2003. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) reported out S. 925 (Foreign Relations Authorization for FY2004, Senate Report 108-39) on April 24, 2003, with aprovision to repeal the requirement for a semi-annual report on extradition of narcotics traffickersfrom Andean countries; and it reported out S. 1161 , Foreign Assistance AuthorizationAct for FY2004 (Senate Report 108- 56) on May 29, 2003, with several provisions on Colombia. The Senate considered S. 925 on July 9-10, 2003, and added several amendmentsrelated to Colombia, but action on it was not completed. On February 27, 2004, S. 2144 , the Foreign Affairs Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2005, was introduced in the Senate.

Reflecting continuing concern with the persistent and complex conflict in Colombia, thespill-over of guerrilla and drug trafficking activities into neighboring countries, and the ongoinginvolvement of the United States (including the kidnaping and killing of American citizens), HIRCreported out H.R. 1950 , with three reporting requirements similar to provisions in theForeign Relations Authorization for FY2003 ( H.R. 1646 / P.L. 107-228 ), and with theprovision of additional authority related to the interdiction of illicit arms trafficking. Theseprovisions were subsequently approved by the House without modification.

Section 702 of the House-passed bill requires the Secretary of State, after consulting withinternationally recognized human rights organizations, to make a very detailed report to Congress,not later than 30 days after enactment and every 180 days thereafter, on the specific measures thatthe Colombian authorities are taking to apprehend and prosecute leaders of paramilitaryorganizations and other terrorist organizations. The Committee report expressed concern about theillegal activities not only of two leftist guerrilla groups -- the Revolutionary Armed Forces ofColombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN) -- but also of the rightist paramilitarygroups, specifically the United Self Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), that are reported to beresponsible for at least half of all non-combatant killings, torture, and disappearances. Noting thatthe State Department's March 2003 human rights report found some continuing collusion with theAUC by members of the Colombian security forces, the Committee report stated that Colombia'sgovernment has not committed at every level to confront the paramilitaries and to protect civiliansfrom paramilitary abuses.

Section 708 requires the Secretary of State to submit a report on the impact of the U.S.assistance plan known as Plan Colombia on Ecuador and Colombia's neighboring countries toappropriate congressional committees not later than 30 days after enactment. This report is to setforth a comprehensive strategy for United States activities in Colombia, with specific reference tothe impact of U.S. assistance on Ecuador and other adjacent countries, and it is to provide thereasons for the failure to submit a report on this subject as required by the Foreign RelationsAuthorization Act for FY2003. Stating that a State Department report of March 4, 2003 wasinadequate, the Committee report expressed the expectation that a new report "will address in detailnot only the counter-drug repercussions of Plan Colombia and its successor programs on Ecuadorand other adjacent countries, but also the humanitarian and economic development implications ofincreased eradication efforts for these countries."

Section 1801 provides specific authority for U.S. counter-drug assistance which is being usedto support the interdiction of aerial trafficking of illicit narcotics to be used to support theinterdiction of illicit arms in connection with illicit drug trafficking. The Committee report notesthat "this provision ensures that any and all illegal arms brought into Colombia by aerial means thatare in any way trafficked in connection with the illicit drug trade, are also clearly eligible for U.S.assistance in interdicting."

Section 1802 requires the Secretary of State, acting through the Department of State'sNarcotics Affairs Section (NAS) in Bogota, Colombia, to ensure, not later than 180 days afterenactment, "that all pilots participating in the United States opium eradication program in Colombiaare Colombians and are fully trained, qualified and experienced pilots, with preference provided toindividuals who are members of the Colombian National Police." The Committee report states thatlocal Colombian police anti-drug pilots are more familiar with the terrain and can be more effectivein locating crops, thereby enhancing efforts to eradicate the small but potent opium crop that makesup nearly two-thirds of U.S. heroin use, according to recent United States estimates, while promotingthe Colombianization of the programs and reducing the involvement of U.S. private contractors.

On the Senate side, S. 2144 , the Foreign Affairs Authorization Act for FiscalYear 2005, was introduced on February 27, 2004. It includes several provisions relating to Colombiaand the Andean region that are similar to language contained in S. 925 , the ForeignRelations Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. Responding to a request from the ExecutiveBranch, Section 801 of the bill would repeal the requirement in the Emergency SupplementalAppropriation Act for FY2000 ( P.L. 106-246 ) that the State Department report semi-annually on theextradition of narcotics traffickers from Andean countries. Section 2121 of the bill authorizesfunding for international narcotics control programs, including $731 million for the AndeanCounterdrug Initiative. These funds can be used to support a "unified campaign against narcoticstrafficking and terrorist activities." The bill also maintains the limitations as contained in currentlaw on the number of U.S. military and U.S. contract employees that may be stationed in Colombiain support of Plan Colombia at 400 each. It prohibits U.S. military personnel from engaging in anycombat operations, and conditions assistance to Colombia on its respect for human rights.

In floor action on S. 925 on July 10, 2003, the Senate approved two amendmentsrelated to Colombia and Andean region assistance, both approved by voice vote. Neither of theamendments are included in S. 2144 . S.Amdt. 1162 , proposed byChairman Lugar, added Section 815 which would modify the reporting requirements on U.S.personnel involved in the anti-narcotics campaign in Colombia by changing the frequency of thereports from bimonthly to quarterly, and by clarifying that the reports were to be provided toappropriate committees of Congress. S.Amdt. 1194 , proposed by Majority Leader Frist,added Section 2522 which commends the leadership and people of Colombia for the progress madeagainst illicit drug traffickers and terrorists, and which expresses U.S. support for the efforts ofPresident Uribe and the government and the people of Colombia to preserve and strengthendemocracy, human rights, and economic opportunity in Colombia.

On May 29, 2003, the Committee reported out S. 1161 , the Foreign AssistanceAuthorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, with several modifications on assistance to Colombia andthe Andean region. Section 122 authorizes $700 million (rather than the $731 million requested)for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. It further provides that assistance for Colombia for FY2004and previous years may be used to support a unified campaign against narcotics trafficking andterrorist activities; and to take actions to protect human health and welfare in emergencycircumstances, including undertaking rescue operations. It further provides that U.S. personnelproviding such assistance shall be subject to the personnel caps in the Emergency Supplemental Actfor 2000, shall not participate in any combat operation in connection with such assistance; and shallbe subject to the condition that Colombia is fulfilling its commitment to the United States withrespect to its human rights practices, including specific conditions set forth in the Foreign OperationsAppropriations for FY2003. Section 502 provides that information on the extent of involvement ofU.S. businesses in counter-narcotics activities under State or Defense Department contracts, requiredby the previous Foreign Relations Authorization, may be reported in the annual report detailing thecounter-narcotics performance of drug producing and drug transit countries.

CRS Products:

For more information, see the section on Colombia and the Andean Regional Initiative in CRS Report RL31726 Latin America and the Caribbean: Issues for the 108th Congress, by Mark Sullivan; CRS Report RL32250 Colombia: Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed]; and CRS Report RL32021 Andean Regional Initiative (ARI): FY2003 Supplemental and FY2004 Assistance forColombia and Neighbors , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

Congo Basin Forest Partnership(44)

Section 1809 of H.R. 1950 authorizes $18.6 million for each of fiscal years 2004and 2005 for the Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP) program. The Senate bill S. 2144 contains a Congo Basin initiative (sec. 2223), but without specifying a particular funding level. H.R. 1950 notes that the Subcommittee on Africa conducted an oversight hearing onthis program, which was announced by Secretary of State Colin Powell in 2002. The bill describesthe CBFP as "an impressive and innovative approach to conservation in this environmentally at riskregion." The bill also notes that the program will help protect some 25,000,000 acres of landscapeagainst poorly managed and non-managed logging, and states the importance of the tropical forestsof the Congo Basin to both human livelihoods, the existence of several species, and environmentalprotection.

Announced as a key U.S. initiative at the World Summit on Sustainable Development inJohannesburg, South Africa, on September 4, 2002, and in Gabon, one of the key participatingcountries, the CBFP is a partnership that includes several Congo Basin African countries, theEuropean Union, the World Bank, the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), and anumber of non-governmental organizations. In December 2002, the United States announced thatthe U.S. contribution would be through a $12 million per year increase within the Central AfricanRegional Program for the Environment (CARPE), and that the U.S. plan is to invest or leverage upto $53 million in the CBFP through the year 2005. The non-governmental organizations in thepartnership pledged to match the U.S. government's contribution, and other partners are expectedto provide significant additional contributions.

The bill provides for an increase in the announced level of annual support for this program,stating that $16 million each year is authorized for the on-going (CARPE), which will be the leadprogram through which the United States will participate in the CBFP.

Foreign Assistance Authorization(45)

Congress last enacted a broad foreign assistance authorization act in 1985. In the absence ofomnibus foreign aid measures, the majority of foreign assistance legislation has been enacted as partof annual Foreign Operations appropriation measures. The Foreign Assistance Authorization Act,Fiscal Year 2005, Division B of S. 2144 , is an effort to "reinforce" the Senate ForeignRelations Committee's role in foreign assistance policy making. It is not an attempt tocomprehensively review and re-write existing foreign aid legislation, but rather it is a first step inproviding necessary authorization for program appropriations in FY2005 and updating selectedlegislative provisions to reflect current policy. Committee Chairman Lugar said that it was his intentto launch a more ambitious effort in the future to revamp the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 andother long-standing foreign aid laws.

Division B is divided into five titles. Title XXI includes FY2005 authorizations ofappropriations for most but not all foreign aid programs. Title XII updates and amends severalexisting foreign aid authorities, some of which have been annually extended in appropriation actsin recent years. Title XXIII is the Radiological Terrorism Security Act. Title XXIV is the GlobalPathogen Surveillance Act. Title XXV consists of several provisions, some of which address LatinAmerica and Africa issues, including additional aid for Haiti.

The legislation authorizes the appropriation of about $16.9 billion for 22 foreign assistanceprograms, closely matching the account structure of the annual Foreign Operations appropriationsfor bilateral economic and military aid. The amounts authorized are nearly identical to levelsrequested by the Administration for FY2005, although the bill would increase spending forHIV/AIDS, development aid, assistance to the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, andnonproliferation programs, while reducing amounts for the Millennium Challenge Account.

Title XXII addresses the threat posed by terrorist use of radiological dispersal devices, or RDDs. These devices spread radioactive material, whether by a chemical explosive ("dirty bombs") or byspraying, scattering, or dumping it without an explosive. The legislation requires the Secretary ofState to prepare and submit to Congress reports assessing the threat of a radiological attack on U.S.missions. The bill further authorizes the Secretary to aid foreign countries, or propose that theInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) develop programs, helping foreign first respondersidentify and address threats posed by radioactive materials.

The legislation also includes the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act, authorizing $35 million forFY2005 to enhance the capability of developing nations to detect, identify, and contain infectiousdisease outbreaks, whether naturally occurring or the result of a bioterrorist attack. The measureincludes several provisions that are intended to support and strengthen the disease surveillancecapabilities of developing nations. Additionally, it would permit the expansion of Centers forDisease Control and Prevention facilities overseas to further the goals of global disease monitoring.

Although the House International Relations Committee did not consider a broad foreignassistance authorization separately or as part of the Foreign Relations Authorization bill, H.R. 1950 includes a few similar provisions mostly related to security assistance issues. In addition, the Senate measure addresses reporting requirements concerning U.S. counternarcoticsaid to Colombia and the Congo Basin Initiative, other matters included in H.R. 1950 . See above under this chapter and the section on Security Assistance for details regarding theseprovisions. For the most part, however, Division B of S. 2144 would introduce manynew issues that are not addressed in H.R. 1950 should House and Senate negotiatorsmeet in a conference committee to resolve differences between the two bills.

CRS Products

CRS Report RL31959 . Foreign Assistance Authorization Act, FY2005.

HIV/AIDS Assistance for the Caribbean and India(46)

In May 2003, Congress approved the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis,and Malaria Act of 2003, H.R. 1298 ( P.L. 108-25 ), which authorized $3 billion per yearfor FY2003 through FY2008 to fight the three diseases worldwide. The legislation focused onassisting 12 African countries plus Guyana and Haiti, two of the poorest nations in the WesternHemisphere with high HIV prevalence rates, although the legislation notes that other countries maybe designated by the President. Some Caribbean leaders and Members of Congress want to expandthe Caribbean countries that would benefit from the assistance, arguing that high mobility in theregion necessitates a regional approach in combating the epidemic. They are concerned that onlyHaiti and Guyana have been identified as countries to benefit from the Bush Administration's plansfor increased assistance to combat HIV/AIDS, and that other Caribbean countries will be overlooked. Others have noted that the legislation does not preclude the President from designating additionalCaribbean or other countries.

Both the House-passed FY2004-FY2005 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, H.R. 1950 (Section 1818), and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's reported FY2005 ForeignAffairs Authorization Act, S. 2144 (Section 2518), have provisions that would add 14Caribbean countries to those already listed in the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS,Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, H.R. 1298 ( P.L. 108-25 ). The additionalcountries are Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, the Bahamas, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica,Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St. Lucia, Suriname, Trinidad andTobago, and the Dominican Republic. The provision in H.R. 1950 was added during July15, 2003, House consideration of the bill; a Rangel amendment ( H.Amdt. 247 ) addingthe language was approved by voice vote.

In addition, S. 2144 (Section 2519), would add India to the list of countries listedin the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, H.R. 1298 ( P.L. 108-25 ). With more than four million Indians infected with HIV, thecountry has the second largest HIV-infected population in the world, second to South Africa. H.R. 1950 does not have a similar provision on India, which some are concerned wouldabsorb too large a portion of the funds available.

CRS Products

CRS Report RS21181, HIV/AIDS International Programs: Appropriations, FY2002 - FY2005 , by[author name scrubbed]

CRS Report RL32001 , AIDS in the Caribbean and Central America , by [author name scrubbed].

International Family Planning Aid and the U.N. Population Fund(47)

House and Senate bills have each addressed contentious but different provisions relating to U.S.international family planning assistance and abortion, although the House voted to delete aCommittee-added section in H.R. 1950 regarding U.S. funding for the U.N. PopulationFund (UNFPA). The Senate, however, during July 2003 floor debate on S. 925 , addeda provision that would effectively reverse the President's so-called "Mexico City" policy. Thecurrent Senate bill, S. 2144 , does not contain a provision on UNFPA. These issues havebeen among the most controversial matters considered by Congress in foreign aid legislation fornearly two decades.

U.N. Population Fund. (48) UNFPA is the world'slargest international source of funding for family planning and reproductive health programs,providing nearly $6 billion in assistance to over 140 countries since 1969. The United States, whichhad been one of the organization's largest donors, suspended support for UNFPA in 1985 becauseof concerns over practices of forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations in China where UNFPAmaintained programs. Congress passed the so-called Kemp-Kasten amendment in that year and ineach subsequent year as part of the annual Foreign Operations appropriations. The amendment barsU.S. funding to any organization that supports or participates "in the management" of a program ofcoercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. Presidents Reagan and Bush found UNFPA to be inviolation of Kemp-Kasten, a position that was reversed in 1993 by President Clinton. In most yearssince 1993, Congress appropriated about $25 million for UNFPA, but required that the amount bereduced by however much UNFPA spent in China.

Beginning in FY2002, however, the United States has withheld support for UNFPA. The matterbecame especially controversial after Congress approved not more than $34 million for UNFPA inFY2002 appropriations. The White House, however, froze the funds because new evidencesuggested that coercive practices were continuing in Chinese counties where UNFPA worked. AState Department team reviewing the situation (May 2002) concluded that there was no evidence thatUNFPA "knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortionor involuntary sterilization," although the team found that China maintains coercive elements in itspopulation programs. Despite the team's recommendation to release the $34 million, Secretary ofState Powell determined on July 22, 2002, to withhold funds to UNFPA and to recommend that theybe re-directed to other international family planning and reproductive health activities. The StateDepartment said that even though UNFPA did not "knowingly" support or participate in a coercivepractice, that alone would not preclude the application of Kemp-Kasten. Instead, a finding that therecipient of U.S. funds -- in this case UNFPA -- simply supports or participates in such a program,whether knowingly or unknowingly, would trigger the restriction.

For FY2003 Congress approved in P.L. 108-7 a provision allocating $34 million to UNFPA, solong as several conditions were met. The most significant requirement is that the President mustcertify that UNFPA is no longer involved in the management of a coercive family planning program. The President did not make the required determination, however, and resources for the organizationhave been reprogrammed for other purposes.

For years in which the United States did not contribute to UNFPA, critics have argued that U.S.policy was undermining the most important international family planning organization and limitingreproductive health programs in over 140 countries in which UNFPA operates because of coercivepractices in one nation. Supporters of cutting off support for UNFPA contend that by withdrawingfrom China, UNFPA could immediately restore its eligibility for U.S. funding and remove itself frominvolvement with a national program that includes practices contrary to UNFPA's own non-coercivepolicies.

During markup on H.R. 1950 , the House International Relations Committeeapproved a Crowley amendment that would have authorized $50 million for a U.S. contribution toUNFPA for each of FY2004 and FY2005. The Crowley amendment further would have alteredexisting law for determining UNFPA eligibility by requiring that the President find that UNFPA didnot "directly" support or participate in coercive or involuntary activities. This would appear to havemade it more difficult for the President to block funding for UNFPA than under conditions thatapply for FY2003. Not only did the Crowley amendment add the word "directly," but it also definedthe circumstances under which UNFPA would be found ineligible as "knowingly and intentionallyworking with a purpose to continue, advance or expand the practice of coercive abortion orinvoluntary sterilization, or playing a primary and essential role in a coercive or involuntary aspectof a country's family planning program." Nevertheless, during floor debate, the House voted216-211 to delete the Crowley amendment.

CRS Products

CRS Issue Brief IB96026. Population Assistance and Family Planning Programs: Issues forCongress.

Mexico City Policy. With direct funding ofabortions and involuntary sterilizations banned by Congress since the 1970s, the ReaganAdministration in 1984 announced that it would further restrict U.S. population aid by terminatingUSAID support for any organizations (but not governments) that were involved in voluntary abortionactivities, even if such activities were undertaken with non-U.S. funds. U.S. officials presented therevised policy at the 2nd U.N. International Conference on Population in Mexico City in 1984. Thereafter, it become known as the "Mexico City" policy. The policy continued in effect until liftedby President Clinton in 1993, but was re-imposed by President Bush in early 2001.

Critics of the Mexico City requirements oppose it on several grounds. They argue that familyplanning organizations may cut back on services because they are unsure of the full implications ofthe restrictions and do not want to risk losing eligibility for USAID funding. Opponents also believethe conditions undermine relations between the U.S. government and foreign NGOs and multilateralgroups, creating a situation in which the United States challenges their sovereignty on how to spendtheir own money and impose a so-called "gag" order on their ability to promote changes to abortionlaws and regulations in developing nations. The latter restriction, these critics note, would beunconstitutional if applied to American groups working in the United States.

Supporters of the policy argue that even though permanent law bans USAID funds from beingused to perform or promote abortions, money is fungible; that organizations receivingAmerican-taxpayer funding can simply use USAID resources for legal activities while divertingmoney raised from other sources to perform abortions or lobby to change abortion laws andregulations. The policy, they contend, stops the fungibility "loophole."

During debate on S. 925 , the Senate approved on July 9 an amendment offered bySenator Boxer that would effectively overturn the President's Mexico City policy. (The Senate failedto table the amendment 43-53.) Specifically, the Boxer language states that foreign NGOs shall notbe ineligible for U.S. funds solely on the basis of health or medical services they provide (includingcounseling and referral services) with non-U.S. government funds. This exemption would apply solong as the services do not violate the laws of the country in which they are performed and that theywould not violate U.S. laws if provided in the United States. The amendment further provides thatnon-U.S. government funds used by foreign NGOs for advocacy and lobbying activities shall besubject to conditions that also apply to U.S. NGOs. Since it is largely held that American NGOswould not be subject to these restrictions under the Constitutional protection of free speech, it ispossible that this latter exemption would lift current prohibitions that apply to overseas NGOs. TheWhite House says that the President would veto any legislation that includes a provision like theBoxer amendment.

CRS Products

CRS Issue Brief IB96026. Population Assistance and Family Planning Programs: Issues forCongress.

International Narcotics Control(49)

In the area of international narcotics control, interest often centers on Plan Colombia and itsspillover effect on neighboring countries. An important U.S. policy objective is an effectivenarcotics control program in Colombia, one in which eradication of crops and lawenforcement/interdiction play central roles. Complicating U.S. narcotics policy objectives inColombia is widespread corruption -- considered to be less in the Colombian National Police thanin other institutions involved in counter-narcotics. Also complicating U.S. policy objectives areconcerns that those involved in counter-narcotics may not maximize respect for human rights or maycommit atrocities in a campaign against members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC).Finally, many are concerned that U.S. personnel could be drawn into a combatant role in what isperceived by a growing number of analysts as a seemingly endless and unwinable war, therebyprompting efforts to minimize direct participation by U.S. personnel in counter-narcotics operations.A major criticism of U.S. foreign drug control policy initiatives from some commentators is that theyare overly "Colombia centric."

The Foreign Affairs Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2005 ( S. 2144 ) contains anumber of provisions that refer to international narcotics control issues. All of these provisionsrelate either directly, or indirectly to Colombia.

Section 2121 (b) of the Act continues existing limitations on the assignment of U.S. personnelin Colombia found in the Emergency Supplemental Act, 2000 (Section 3204 of P.L. 106-246 ) whichlimits assigned military personnel to 500 and contractors to 300. Contractors are prohibited fromparticipating in combat operations as well. Section 2121(b) also conditions assistance to fulfilmentby the Government of Colombia of its commitment to human rights practices.

Reporting requirements in the counter-narcotics arena are reduced in the Act. Section 801 repealsrequirements for a semi-annual report on extradition of narcotics traffickers, and Section 2502reduces the amount of work required on annual reports on activities in Colombia by permittingincorporation of language from one required report into another.

CRS Products:

CRS Issue Brief IB88093, Drug Control: International Policy and Approaches .

CRS Report RS21213 , Colombia: Summary and Tables on U.S. Assistance, FY1889-FY2004.

CRS Report RL30541 , Colombia: Plan Colombia Legislation and Assistance .

CRS Report RL31383(pdf) , Andean Regional Initiative (ARI): FY2002 Supplemental and FY2003Assistance for Colombia and Neighbors .

CRS Report RS20494(pdf) , Ecuador: International Narcotics Control Issues .

CRS Report RS21317: Ecuador: Political and Economic Conditions and U.S. Relations .

Assistance for Vietnam(50)

The House version of H.R. 1950 contains a section, Division E, that bans increasesin certain non-humanitarian aid programs to the Vietnamese government if the President does notcertify that Vietnam is making "substantial progress" in human rights. In FY2003, the BushAdministration planned to spend about $6.6 million on programs -- primarily focused on promotingVietnamese business law and U.S.-Vietnam trade relations -- that would be affected by DivisionE. (51) The Division Eprovisions would allow the President to waive the cap on aid increases. The original version ofDivision E was introduced as the Vietnam Human Rights Act in April 2003. For FY2003, theUnited States government pledged $28 million in aid to Vietnam.

CRS Products

For more details, see CRS Issue Brief IB98033, Foreign Assistance to Vietnam .

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 Congress for the following even/oddyear 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

(millions of dollars)

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

** P.L. 106-113 sec. 604 authorized up to $900 million for FY2000 through FY2004.

a. Includes funding supplementals from P.L. 107-38 ; P.L. 107-117 , P.L. 107-206 , and P.L. 108-11 .

b. Funding level includes a transfer of $100.040 million from Foreign Operations appropriations to State Department appropriations for FSA and Seedprograms.