Foreign Assistance Authorization Act, FY2005
Released: 2004-03-16T00:00:00

Most Recent Developments

On March 4, 2004, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ordered reported S. 2144 , the Foreign Affairs Authorization Act, FY2005. Division B ofthe measure is designated as the Foreign Assistance Authorization Act, FY2005, textthat is largely patterned after foreign aid authorizing legislation ( S. 1161 ) debated, but not passed, in the Senate last year. Division B of S. 2144 authorizes about $16.9 billion for most, but not all, foreign assistance programs,funding many economic and military aid activities at levels requested by theAdministration for FY2005. Division B also incorporates two policy initiatives: theRadiological Terrorism Security Act and the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act.

Background

Congress last enacted a broad foreign assistance authorization act in 1985. Priorto 1985 beginning in the mid-1950s, it had been the congressional practice to debateand approve general foreign aid legislation either annually or biennially. Thesedebates frequently evolved into a wide-ranging consideration of U.S. foreign policythat went well beyond discussions of economic and military assistance programs. Assuch, the legislation was frequently marked by controversy, internal congressionaldisagreements concerning international issues, and disputes between the executiveand legislative branches regarding Presidential management of foreign policy. Inseveral years since 1985, Congress considered foreign aid authorizing measures, butthe bills failed to reach final passage. (1) In the interim,lawmakers have approved morenarrowly focused, "single-issue" foreign aid authorization bills, such as the Supportfor East European Democracy (SEED) Act (1989), the FREEDOM Support Act(1992), the International Malaria Control Act (2000), and the more recently enactedUnited States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003.

Lack of Administration support for foreign aid bills has been a continuing obstacle to enactment over the past 18 years. The Clinton Administration submitteddraft legislation in 1994 seeking to re-write the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, butin most cases, the executive has opposed or not encouraged consideration of broadforeign assistance measures which were perceived as intrusions into Presidentialflexibility in managing foreign policy or excessive congressional earmarking.

In the absence of omnibus foreign aid authorizations, the majority of the foreign assistance legislation has been enacted as part of annual Foreign Operationsappropriation measures. Over the past 19 years, these appropriation bills increasingly have expanded their scope beyond spending issues and played a majorrole in shaping, authorizing, and guiding both executive and congressional foreignaid and broader foreign policy initiatives. It has been largely through ForeignOperations appropriations that the United States has modified aid policy and resourceallocation priorities since the end of the Cold War. Legislation authorizing U.S.participation in most multilateral development bank replenishments since the early1980s has been incorporated into Foreign Operation measures. The legislation andcompanion supplemental appropriation bills have also been the channel throughwhich the President has utilized foreign aid as a tool in the global war on terrorismsince the attacks of September 11, 2001. Earlier this year, the President's newforeign aid initiative -- the Millennium Challenge Corporation -- was authorizedwith the FY2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. Appropriation measures have also been a key instrument used by Congress to apply restrictions and conditionson Administration management of foreign assistance, actions that have frequentlyresulted in executive-legislative clashes similar to those that occurred previously inauthorization debates.

Last year, the Foreign Relations Committee reported a similar bill -- S. 1161 -- characterizing the action as effort to "reinforce" theCommittee's role in foreign assistance policy making. (2) Chairman Lugar noted duringthe Committee's markup of that bill that it was not an attempt to comprehensivelyreview and re-write existing foreign aid legislation. Rather, S. 1161 represented a first step in providing necessary authorization for programappropriations in FY2004 and updating selected legislative provisions to reflectcurrent policy. Senator Lugar said that it was his intent to launch a more ambitiouseffort in the future to revamp the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and otherlong-standing foreign aid laws.

After being folded into S. 925 (the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2004), the Senate debated on July 9 and 10, 2003, the foreign aidauthorizing legislation, adopting several amendments but without coming to a finalvote. S. 2144 is a continuation of the 2003 Committee's effort to steeran omnibus foreign policy authorizing bill for FY2005 through the Senate forconsideration by the House-Senate conference committee. The House approved onJuly 16, 2003, companion legislation ( H.R. 1950 ) that includes many ofthe same provisions on State Department operations and security assistance issuesas the new Senate measure, but does not address economic aid programs.

Contents of the Foreign Aid Legislation

Division B of S. 1161 is divided into five titles:

Title XXI includes a series of FY2005 authorizations of appropriations.

Title XXII updates and amends several existing foreign aid authorities, some of which have been annually extended in appropriation acts inrecent years.

Title XXIII is the Radiological Terrorism Security Act.

Title XXIV is the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act.

Title XV consists of a number of miscellaneous provisions, several of which address Africa and Latin America issues, including authorizationfor additional aid to Haiti.

Authorization of Appropriations

Division B of S. 2144 authorizes the appropriation of about $16.9 billion for 22 foreign assistance programs, closely matching the account structure ofthe annual Foreign Operations appropriations for bilateral economic and military aid. As shown in Table 1, the authorizations in many cases are identical to amountsrequested by the Administration. The total for foreign aid programs, however, is$182 million less than proposed by the Administration. These "savings" in foreignassistance are added to authorizations for the State Department and otherinternational affairs programs covered in S. 2144 or for funding anotherCommittee initiative, the Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian Management Actof 2004 ( S. 2127 ). In total, authorizations recommended in S. 2144 and S. 2127 equal the President's FY2005 budgetfor the equivalent accounts.

While several foreign aid programs are authorized at the requested level, the Committee bill adds funding for others:

$200 million increase for child survival and health programs, largely to increase resources for international HIV/AIDSactivities.

$17 million increase for development assistance.

$25 million more for aid to the former Soviet Union.

$5 million increase for East European assistance.

$70 million increase for the Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining, and Related Assistance (NADR) programs.

Table 1. Foreign Assistance Authorizations in Div. B, S.2144 (3) (millions of dollars)

a. Each account is adjusted for the 0.59% across-the-board rescission required by Division H of P.L. 108-199 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2004.

b. FY2003 supplemental includes funds appropriated in P.L. 108-106 .

Offsetting these and additions made in other parts of S. 2144 is a reduction of $500 million for the President's new foreign aid initiative, theMillennium Challenge Account (MCA). The legislation, however, continues forFY2005 existing authority to use up to 10% of MCA funding to assist countries thatfail, by a narrow margin, to qualify for the MCA program in hopes of improving theirchances in future years.

Total amounts authorized in S. 2144 conform to the overall level for international affairs spending approved in the Senate on March 11 in the FY2005Budget Resolution ( S.Con.Res. 95 ). The Senate-passed measureincreases the President's $31.6 billion foreign policy budget request to $32.33 billionin discretionary spending, largely due to floor amendments by Senators Lugar,Durbin, and Dewine adding $1.83 billion to the Committee-reported level. Althoughnot binding, amendment sponsors said they intended the additional funds to be usedfor higher resources for HIV/AIDS, aid to Haiti, and more broadly to fill fundinggaps throughout the international affairs budget.

General Foreign Aid Authorities

Title XXII of Division B of S. 2144 includes 35 sections, most of which incorporate into permanent law legislative items that have been included inannual appropriations in recent years or update existing provisions that have not beenamended to reflect current circumstances. For example, provisions routinely carriedin appropriation acts concerning assistance to non-governmental organizations,authority to undertake reconstruction projects with disaster aid funds, aid to theformer Soviet Union, aid prohibitions for countries whose elected head ofgovernment has been deposed by a military coup, and Administration of Justice,demining, and debt relief programs would be added to the Foreign Assistance Actof 1961. Presumably, similar measures would be dropped from future ForeignOperations appropriation bills.

The legislation also updates long-standing authorities, such as those related to the President's special waiver authority [section 614(a) of the Foreign AssistanceAct], prohibition on aid to countries in default on debt owed to the United States,additions to war reserve stockpiles in Israel, restrictions on aid to Lebanon, dollarthresholds of arms sales that must be notified to Congress, and several otheradministrative authorities. S. 2144 further extends an existing waiverfor Pakistan aid restrictions through FY2005.

Radiological Terrorism Security Act (4)

Title XXIII of S. 2144 addresses the threat posed by terrorist use of radiological dispersal devices, or RDDs. These devices spread radioactivematerial, whether by a chemical explosive ("dirty bombs") or by spraying, scattering,or dumping it without an explosive.

The United States has devoted far more resources to studying the effects of RDDs and to planning responses to an RDD attack than have many other countries. Accordingly, Section 2304 authorizes the Secretary of State to help other countries -- directly or through the IAEA -- develop national response plans and train firstresponders for dealing with an RDD attack.

In addition, section 2303 would require the Secretary of State to submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on preparations to detect and mitigatea radiological attack on U.S. diplomatic missions abroad; a rank-ordered list of theSecretary's priorities for improving radiological security and consequencemanagement at these facilities, and a budget for such improvements; and arank-ordered list of facilities where improvement is most important. This reportwould be submitted within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, and annuallythereafter beginning with the budget submission for FY2006. The legislationauthorizes $2 million to undertake both provisions under this title.

Global Pathogen Surveillance Act of 2003 (5)

Title XXIV of S. 2144 -- The Global Pathogen Surveillance Act -- would authorize $35 million for FY2005 to enhance the capability of developingnations to detect, identify, and contain infectious disease outbreaks, whether naturallyoccurring or the result of a bioterrorist attack. Similar legislation was first introducedon May 9, 2002, by Senators Biden, Helms, Kennedy, and Frist ( S. 2487 ). It passed the Senate, amended, on August 1, 2002. No further action wastaken on the measure during the 107th Congress.

The SARS outbreak underscores the importance of developing a global surveillance system to detect and track the spread of infectious disease around theworld. Public health experts view SARS as just the latest manifestation of thegrowing threat of infectious disease. That threat, driven by a complex set ofbiological, social, political, and economic factors, encompasses not only new andreemerging infectious diseases of natural origin but also bioterrorist attacks. International trade, travel, and migration patterns facilitate the rapid spread ofpathogens from one continent to another. Infectious disease outbreaks need notoriginate in the United States to pose a threat to the nation.

Global surveillance, especially for newly recognized infectious diseases, is crucial to responding to and containing microbial threats before isolated outbreaksdevelop into regional or worldwide pandemics. Key components of an effectivesurveillance system include trained epidemiologists, a network of modern fullyequipped laboratories able to isolate and identify emerging pathogens, and a publichealth communications infrastructure to transmit and share information on diseaseoutbreaks. In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) established the GlobalAlert and Response Network to monitor and track infectious disease outbreaks inevery region of the world. But the WHO network is only as strong as its individualcomponents. Many developing nations lack the trained personnel, laboratoryfacilities, and public health infrastructure to detect emerging pathogens and trackevolving disease patterns. The 2003 Institute of Medicine report Microbial Threatsto Health: Emergence, Detection, and Response recommended that the United Statestake a leading role in promoting the development of a global infectious diseasesurveillance capability based on existing systems. (6)

The Global Pathogen Surveillance Act includes several provisions that are intended to support and strengthen the disease surveillance capabilities of developingnations. First, it seeks to address the lack of adequately trained public health officialswho can identify and diagnose infectious disease outbreaks. The legislation, inSections 2406 and 2407, would provide for in-country training for medical andlaboratory personnel and permit eligible nationals of developing countries to cometo the United States to pursue a master of public health degree or advanced publichealth training in epidemiology. Second, Sections 2408 and 2409 would provideassistance to developing nations, subject to the availability of appropriations, topurchase (1) basic laboratory equipment necessary for the collection, analysis, andidentification of pathogens and (2) communications equipment and informationtechnology for the dissemination of information on disease patterns throughoutregional health networks.

Additionally, Sections 2410 and 2411 would permit the expansion of CDC facilities overseas to further the goals of global disease monitoring. It would alsoauthorize the heads of executive branch agencies to assign public health officials toU.S. diplomatic missions and international health organizations when requested. Finally, Section 2412 of the bill would authorize the President to provide funding andother assistance for the purpose of enhancing WHO's surveillance and reportingcapabilities and those of existing regional health networks, and for the developmentof new regional health networks.

S. 2144 authorizes a total of $35 million for these activities in FY2005, funds that would be drawn from the Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism,Demining, and Related (NADR) Programs account. The legislation allocates thefunds as follows:

$25 million for training public health officials and assisting developing nations to procure lab and communication equipment (Sections2406-2409).

$0.5 million for the assignment of public health officials at U.S. missions overseas and international organizations (Section2410).

$2.5 million for the expansion of U.S. government labs overseas (Section 2411).

$7 million to assist WHO and existing regional health network surveillance and reporting capabilities, and to develop new regional health networks(Section 2412).

In related legislative activity, Representative Kirk introduced the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act ( H.R. 2329 ) in the House on June 4, 2003. H.R. 2329 is nearly the same as the Senate language, except that itwould authorize $70 million for FY2004 and $80 million for FY2005.

Reporting Requirements and Other Regional and Foreign Policy Issues

Division B of S. 2144 also includes several provisions, in Title XXV that address specific country and regional foreign policy issues. .

Africa:

Expresses the Sense of Congress supporting the Congo Forest Basin Partnership (Section 2223). This multi-year initiative announced by theAdministration at the September 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on SustainableDevelopment, represents the largest conservation effort by the United States inAfrica.

Supports "such sums as are necessary" for programs in Ethiopia that promote an independent media by strengthening the capacity of journalists andincreasing access to printing facilities (Section 2513).

Supports as a matter of U.S. policy efforts to establish accountability for human rights abuses occurring in Central Africa since 1993, backprograms to encourage reconciliation, and promote activities that will prevent similarcrimes in the future (Section 2514). The Secretary of State would be required toreport on U.S. actions taken in this regard within six months of enactment. Theprovision further authorizes up to $12 million in FY2005 for the development ofjustice and reconciliation mechanisms in the Democratic Republic of Congo,Rwanda, Burundi, and Uganda.

Authorizes the African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance Program (ACOTA), establishes eligibility criteria for countryparticipation, and states a Sense of Congress regarding local consultations andmonitoring of ACOTA programs (Section 2516). The provision also authorizes $15million for FY2005, the same as requested by the President. ACOTA is a programthat replaced in FY2004 the then-existing Africa Crisis Response Initiative aimed athelping train and equip African militaries to perform in a peacekeeping andhumanitarian relief role.

East Asia:

Places conditions on military financing and training funds (FMF and IMET programs) for Indonesia (Section 2517). The provision requires thatprior to release of FY2005 FMF and IMET appropriations (excludingexpanded-IMET activities), the President must certify to Congress that theIndonesian government and military are taking steps to investigate the August 31,2002, attack on U.S. citizens and to prosecute thoseresponsible.

South Asia:

Adds India to the list of 14 "focus" countries under the President's Global HIV/AIDS Initiative (Section 2519). Substantial amounts of the$15 billion, five year program will be concentrated in these "focus" nations where theepidemic is the worst. The Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY2004 requiresthe Administration to name a 15th country that would come from outside sub-SaharanAfrica and the Caribbean. The State Department, however, has not yet identifiedwhich nation will be selected.

States a sense of Congress that in order for Afghan elections to occur in a free and fair manner, adequate security must be maintained throughout theentire country (Section 2522). The provision further calls on the U.N. AssistanceMission to Afghanistan to expand efforts to register women for upcomingelections.

Latin America:

Authorizes at least $150 million for assistance to Haiti and requires the Secretary of State to report within 60 days about U.S. plans forreconstruction and stabilization assistance to Haiti.

Adds the names of 14 Caribbean nations to the list of countries eligible for assistance from the Combat HIV/AIDS Global Fund (Section 2519). TheUnited States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003( P.L. 108-25 ; H.R. 1298 ) named 14 specific countries, includingGuyana, Haiti, and 12 African states, on which U.S. programs directed by the newState Department HIV/AIDS Response Coordinator would focus. Although thePresident could expand the list to include other nations, some expressed concern thatmost Caribbean nations were not named among the 14 priority countries, a regionwhere HIV/AIDS prevalence is second only to sub-Saharan Africa. The Senate hadrejected (44-51) an amendment by Senator Dodd during debate on H.R. 1298 to add these Caribbean nations. As noted above, Congress directed theAdministration to name a 15th country from a region outside of Africa and theCaribbean to the focus list. The Administration has yet tocomply.

Amends current law so that new expropriation claims filed against the Nicaraguan government by U.S. citizens would not influence U.S.decisions on whether to apply foreign aid sanctions against Nicaragua (Section 2511). The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY1994/1995 prohibits U.S. aid to anygovernment that has nationalized or expropriated property after 1956 owned by anAmerican citizen and has not returned such property or otherwise satisfied asubmitted claim. Nicaragua falls under this aid prohibition due to numerousunsettled expropriation claims, but the restriction has been waived annually forforeign policy reasons. The intent of Section 2511 is to establish a specific date afterwhich no additional expropriation claims would be considered in the decision ofwhether or not to restrict U.S. foreign aid to Nicaragua. Supporters of continuedassistance note the positive efforts made by President Enrique Bolanos to addressNicaragua's economic and corruption problems, and urge American support. At thesame time, they emphasize that Nicaragua would remain responsible for settlingclaims occurring prior to the Bolanos administration that were properly submitted. The legislation would authorize the Secretary of State to establish a deadline forsubmission of any new expropriation claims that occurred prior to January 9, 2002,a date corresponding to the inauguration of President Bolanos. Only those claimsfiled within 120 days of that deadline would be considered as properlysubmitted. (7)

Middle East:

Adds a sense of Congress that it is in the U.S. best interests to negotiate a comprehensive debt reduction package for Iraq and encourages Americanallies and Iraq's creditors in the Middle East to extend aid and debt and reparationsrelief to Baghdad (Section 2520).

Includes a sense of Congress that the rights of women in Iraq should be protected after the transfer of authority to Iraq in June 2004 (Section 2521).

Supports the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) andauthorizes the creation of a Middle East Foundation (Section 2225). MEPI, whichwas announced by the State Department in December 2002, seeks to promotedemocratic and economic reforms in the region. This provision would permit theSecretary of State to designate a private, non-profit organization as the Middle EastFoundation. The Foundation, operating in a similar way as the existing AsiaFoundation and Eurasia Foundation, would receive proposals and issue grants tonon-governmental entities located in the Middle East to implement projectssupporting the goals of MEPI.

Title XXV also makes technical changes to several executive branch reporting requirements and repeals obsolete sections of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 thatauthorized U.S. assistance for victims of previous natural and manmade disasters.