The increasing Department of Defense (DOD) emphasis on expanding U.S. partnerships and building partnership capacity with foreign military and other security forces has refocused congressional attention on two long-standing human rights provisions affecting U.S. security assistance policy. Sponsored in the late 1990s by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and often referred to as the "Leahy amendments" or the "Leahy laws," one is Section 620M of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (FAA, P.L. 87-195, made permanent law by its codification at 22 U.S.C. 2378d) and the other is a recurring provision in annual defense appropriations. FAA Section 620M prohibits the furnishing of assistance authorized by the FAA and the Arms Export Control Act, as amended (AECA, P.L. 90-629), to any foreign security force unit that is credibly believed to have committed a gross violation of human rights. The other provision, inserted annually in DOD appropriations legislation, for years prohibited the use of DOD funds to support any training program (as defined by DOD) involving members of a unit of foreign security or police force if the unit had committed a gross violation of human rights. For FY2014, the prohibition has been expanded to also include "equipment, or other assistance." As two of the many laws that Congress has enacted in recent decades to promote respect for human rights, which has become widely recognized as a core U.S. national interest, the Leahy laws have been the subject of long-standing debate. Policy makers, practitioners, and advocacy groups continue to deliberate overarching questions regarding their utility and desirability, as well as specific questions regarding their appropriate scope and problems in implementation. For many, the Leahy laws are important U.S. foreign policy tools not only because of their potential to promote human rights but because they may help safeguard the U.S. image abroad by distancing the United States from corrupt or brutal security forces. Some, however, raise concerns that these laws limit the Administration's flexibility to balance competing national interests and may constrain the United States' ability to respond to national security needs. Central to this debate are overarching questions that are difficult to answer given the lack of systematic study of Leahy law results. Have these laws indeed been effective in promoting human rights? To what extent have these laws impeded or advanced other key U.S. objectives, such as countering terrorism, preventing violence, or stabilizing territory? Do the laws lead other nations to choose competitors for foreign influence as the source of military materiel and training? Will the United States be able to control down-range effects as it outsources military training through third-party nations? Competing perceptions of these overarching issues underlie perspectives on specific proposals for congressional action. In the 113 th Congress, an illustration of the enduring debate surrounding the Leahy laws is deliberation on a provision in the Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) version of the FY2014 DOD Appropriations bill (Section 8057 of S. 1429 ), a modified version of which is now contained in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Division C, Section 8057, P.L. 113-76 , signed into law January 17). This provision expanded the scope of the DOD Leahy law by extending the FY2013 (and prior fiscal year) prohibition on training to all DOD assistance. Further action in the 113 th Congress may occur during consideration of FY2015 foreign aid appropriations, which may include proposals to fund implementation of the laws. This report provides background on the Leahy laws, including a brief history of their legislative development; an overview guide to the standards and processes used to "vet"—that is, review and clear—foreign military and other security forces for gross violations of human rights; and a brief review of salient issues regarding the provisions of the laws and their implementation. Two of these issues concern debate over the consistency of the language of the two laws: whether the scope of the DOD provision should be expanded or altered to bring it closer to the FAA version, and whether the FAA and DOD "remediation standards" (the conditions for clearing units found guilty of a gross violations of human rights in order to provide aid) should be made consistent. Two others concern debate over implementation: whether the resources to conduct vetting are adequate, and whether implementation practices and procedures should be standardized. Several text boxes provide information on security assistance subject to the Leahy laws, the types of acts defined as gross violations of human rights, the language of the FAA and DOD Leahy laws and key differences between them, a discussion of the "credible information" standard for denying assistance, and a case study on Colombia. A concluding section offers further observations for Congress. Since Congress first enacted the two "Leahy laws" in the late 1990s, these laws have been regarded as a key element of U.S. human rights policy. Beginning in the 1970s, Congress passed many conditions on U.S. assistance to foreign governments seeking to promote respect for human rights. Most were—and continue to be—attached to legislation for an individual country or region. A major precursor to the Leahy laws was the broad legislative provision passed in 1974, known as "Section 502B," which prohibits security assistance to any country found to engage in a "consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights." This legislation provides the basis for the standard definition of human rights used for U.S. government purposes, including for Leahy law vetting, but has been rarely if ever invoked. In 1997, Congress enacted a condition on counternarcotics (CN) assistance similar to the current Leahy laws, prohibiting the use of FY1998 State Department CN appropriations for foreign security forces where there was credible evidence that a unit had committed gross violations of human rights. In 1998, Congress passed the first of what are now known as the Leahy laws, extending the scope of the CN condition to all assistance provided by foreign operations appropriations. The expanded provision was thereafter included in annual foreign operations appropriations acts until 2008, when that condition was codified in permanent law first as FAA Section 620J, now FAA Section 620M (22 U.S.C. 2378d), applying to all assistance authorized by the FAA and AECA, unless exempted by a notwithstanding provision. In 1998, for FY1999, Congress placed a similar condition in the DOD appropriations bill. This condition prohibited the use of DOD funds to train units of foreign military and other security forces if there was credible information that a member of a unit had committed a gross violation of human rights. (Unlike the FAA version, the DOD Leahy law, as contained in DOD FY2013 and prior DOD appropriations, pertained only to training, but not to any other form of assistance and activities—such as equipment, support services, grants, loans and cash transfers, and exercises—that might be provided under a variety of DOD authorities.) DOD defines military training of foreign personnel as the "instruction of foreign security force personnel that may result in the improvement of their capabilities." This condition has been retained in all subsequent DOD appropriations legislation, with two changes. In 2000, the reference to a "member" of a unit was deleted, and in 2013 the words "or police" were added. In 2011, Congress amended the FAA provision (and renumbered it as Section 620M of the FAA) with three word changes to align it more closely with the DOD language. First, the requirement invoking "gross violations" of human rights was changed from the plural to the singular "a gross violation" of human rights. Second, Congress modified the standard to resume aid to require that the government take "effective steps" (rather than "effective measures") to bring responsible members of the foreign security unit to justice. Finally, the standard of proof was changed from "credible evidence" to "credible information," a term that expresses Congress's intent that the standard not require a level of substantiation that would be admissible in a U.S. court. Congress also added seven procedural requirements to the provision. In January 2014, Congress expanded the scope of the DOD provision, making it equivalent in scope to the FAA provision. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76), contains a provision extending the FY2013 (and earlier) prohibition on any support for training where a gross violation of human rights occurred to "any training, equipment, or other assistance for the members of a unit of a foreign security force if the Secretary of Defense has credible information that the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights." An exception is made for disaster and humanitarian assistance. Depending on the legal interpretation, this provision applies to many of the DOD programs and activities conducted with foreign military and other security forces under a wide variety of DOD authorities. These may include counternarcotics, coalition, and logistics support and assistance, including equipment; services such as transportation and logistics, maintenance and operation of equipment; and grants and loans to procure goods and services in support of security forces, as well as cash transfers of funds. They may also include some types of military-to-military contacts, including advising and mentoring. Not all military activities with foreign forces would necessarily constitute assistance, however. As contained in P.L. 113-76 , the expanded provision would not apply to DOD-funded foreign disaster assistance and other humanitarian assistance, where the ultimate beneficiaries are foreign populations but where U.S. military personnel often work with or support foreign military or other security forces in delivering assistance. The FAA and DOD appropriations Leahy laws both prohibit assistance to foreign military and other security units credibly believed to be involved in a gross violation of human rights. After the FY2014 change, three differences remain. First, in the FAA language, the prohibition does not apply if the Secretary of State "determines and reports" to specified congressional committees "that the government of such country is taking effective steps to bring the responsible members of the security forces unit to justice." The DOD appropriations language states that the prohibition applies "unless all necessary corrective steps have been taken." These provisions establish the basis for "remediating" units, making them eligible for assistance, but neither remediation standard is defined. Second, the DOD version provides for a waiver by the Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Secretary of State in extraordinary circumstances; the FAA contains no corresponding provision. Third, the FAA legislation includes a "duty to inform" provision requiring the Secretary of State to promptly inform a foreign government of the basis for withholding assistance and to help that government, to the extent practicable, take effective measures to bring the responsible members of the security forces to justice. (See Table 1 , below, which summarizes these key differences.) The State Department and U.S. embassies worldwide have developed a system that seeks to ensure that no applicable State Department assistance or DOD-funded training is provided to units or individuals in foreign security forces who have committed any gross violations of human rights. This procedure, designed to comply with the Leahy laws, is known as "vetting" or "Leahy vetting." Primarily a State Department responsibility with input from other agencies, Leahy vetting is a multi-step process that involves staff at U.S. embassies abroad; the State Department Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) in Washington, DC, which is the lead State Department bureau for vetting; State Department regional bureaus; and other government agencies as required. The State Department policy provides for two separate processes, one for training and one for equipment and other non-training assistance. For DOD and State Department-funded training (and in some cases the provision of equipment related to training), the process has evolved from a "cable-based" system when the State Department began to vet foreign security forces in 1997 to a computerized process through the International Vetting and Security Tracking (INVEST) system. Gradually put in place between April 2010 and February 2011, INVEST is the current official system for Leahy vetting for training. At some posts INVEST is also used for equipment provided in conjunction with training, but this is not mandatory. For State Department-funded equipment and other non-training assistance, the State Department generally approves potential recipients through a memorandum and clearance process generated by the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs at the time funding is allocated to beneficiary countries. (The GAO recommended in November 2011 that the State Department vet individuals and units receiving equipment through the INVEST system, but the State Department has not developed such a policy. In some cases, however, equipment and non-training assistance is vetted through INVEST even though this is not mandatory.) Under the INVEST system, the State Department to date has vetted approximately 400,000 "candidates" for training, a figure that includes both individuals and units. Since its adoption, INVEST has averaged about 130,000 discrete new vettings a year, and the pace seems to be increasing. In FY2012, the State Department reported vetting nearly 165,000 individuals and units. According to some vetters, the 2011 amendments to the FAA Leahy law requiring that, in the case of individual training candidates, the candidate's unit as well as the individual candidate be vetted each time the candidate is named as a potential recipient of assistance have increased their work load. In some embassies, however, vetters had already interpreted the vetting requirements to cover both individuals and their units. Leahy vetting is a multi-stage process that begins in U.S. embassies abroad and concludes with action at State Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. Vetting procedures generally utilize a dedicated online tracking system for vetting candidates—both units and individuals—for training and the exchange of memoranda for other forms of assistance. U.S. embassy staff initiates each vetting request. (For a diagram of the process see Figure 1 , below.) The State Department recommends that each embassy have its own Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that define country-specific requirements for initiating and completing vetting requests such as the lead time needed for turning around a request. Representatives of relevant U.S. departments and agencies at U.S. embassies submit vetting requests to staff conducting the vetting. The subjects of these vetting requests typically are members of the country's military or civilian police, but they may also include prison guards, armed game wardens, and coast guards, as well as customs, border, and tax enforcement personnel. Civilian government officials, including those representing foreign defense ministries, are typically not required to be vetted. Exceptions to this general rule do exist. For example, the DOD Regional Counterterrorism Fellowship Program (CTFP) vets all participants as a matter of policy. As part of the vetting process under INVEST, individuals proposed for receiving U.S. assistance as part of a single event, equipment issuance, or training are grouped together in a "batch." Input of the initial data is just one of the functions that are completed at the embassy. Once a batch of candidates has been identified, embassy personnel check their names as well their units against a variety of sources for derogatory information. (See the textbox below regarding the standard for judging derogatory information to be credible enough to disqualify candidates for U.S. assistance.) Sources include local and U.S. government databases and reports, as well as a range of civil society and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The vetting at the embassy stage is completed with one of four determinations: to approve, reject, or suspend candidates, or to request further guidance from State Department headquarters. Once the suspended or rejected cases are removed from an INVEST batch, the remaining candidates are sent on to State Department headquarters for further vetting. In Washington, DRL and the State Department regional bureaus further vet approved individuals in the batch. DRL and the relevant regional bureau work independently, although the two offices stay in communication as the vetting process proceeds. If the regional bureau and the DRL vetters agree that no derogatory information was found, then the individual is deemed approved and the embassy vetting staff is notified of the positive determination. One exception to this process involves vetting candidates from "Fast Track" countries, determined by the State Department to be functional democracies without a record of human rights abuse. Candidates from Fast Track countries are vetted only at the embassy and not in Washington. If further review is deemed required, DRL convenes a "broader team of State Department representatives" who may request further information from the relevant embassy to evaluate the credibility of derogatory information. Until the team reaches consensus, the assistance or training is kept on hold. Except for Fast Track countries, Leahy vetting is complete when the final determination is recorded in INVEST. By and large, most vettings filed through the INVEST system conclude with an approval. Vettings recently have ended in denial around 1% or less of the time, and a suspension about 9% of the time, according to figures provided in news reports. CQ Weekly reports that training was withheld "for a variety of reasons, including the possibility that there was credible information that the person or unit involved had committed a gross violation of human rights," and for administrative difficulties. In some cases, training was suspended if derogatory information other than a human rights violation was found, as candidates may be excluded for other undesirable behavior. In the many cases where training was suspended for administrative reasons, it was subsequently rescheduled once the problem was resolved, according to that source. In general, vetting results are used to determine who will receive U.S. assistance or training. They also form the basis for reporting to foreign governments under the FAA "duty-to-inform" provision when members and units of their security forces fail vetting and assistance is denied. According to some U.S. policy makers, even though only the FAA contains the "duty-to-inform" requirement, in practice the provision should extend also to DOD-funded cases. The logic of this requirement is to garner cooperation with the law, encourage improved compliance by host governments with human rights standards, and make clear that U.S. assistance will not be provided to human rights violators. In addition, the FAA provides that the State Department should offer assistance to a foreign "host" government to investigate and prosecute suspected human rights violators who have been identified through the vetting process. The number of embassy staff involved in Leahy vetting may differ based on work flows, request volumes, funding levels, and other conditions that vary across U.S. embassies. Some embassy operations are quite limited, according to embassy inspection reports by the State Department's Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Some advocates for strengthening implementation of the Leahy law conditions maintain that some vetting operations are underfunded and this has resulted in "thin" to nonexistent efforts at some embassies. In recent years, Congress has supported Leahy vetting operations through a directed allocation of funds to DRL in the Diplomacy and Consular Programs (D&CP) account. In FY2008, for example, DRL received $2.65 million in appropriations for Leahy vetting. Much of this funding was used to develop and establish the INVEST system, an online tool to track and process vetting requests. Subsequently, Congress directed DRL to allocate approximately $2 million for Leahy vetting, which the State Department has made a regular practice. (The joint explanatory statement to the Consolidated Appropriations bill for FY2014 [ H.R. 3547 , Division K] states that State Department Diplomatic and Consular Affairs funding in the bill contains $2.75 million to implement the FAA Leahy law.) According to State Department officials, the $2 million in recent years has supported several regional bureau vetting positions, and a few contract positions to carry out vetting and support running the INVEST system. The number of completed vettings has become a performance indicator for the DRL bureau. In its annual congressional budget justification, the DRL bureau reports completed vettings and sets targets for the future. In the field, vetting-related activities, including personnel costs, are typically funded out of embassy administrative budgets. The State Department generally gives the embassies wide latitude in staffing and financing their operations. There does not appear to be formal guidance on how U.S. embassies should allocate resources and funds for Leahy vetting. As a result, each embassy plans and budgets for Leahy vetting operations differently. Some embassies, for example, receive assistance from the State Department's International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) bureau, through its International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) account. U.S. Embassy Mexico City, which conducts the second-largest number of vettings worldwide, reportedly draws funds from the Mérida Initiative, a multi-year counternarcotics and anticrime assistance program that is funded largely through the State Department's Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and INCLE accounts. Some embassies with large volumes of vetting requests have one or more full-time positions dedicated to the vetting process. Many embassies, however, are very lightly staffed and the data entry into the INVEST system is frequently a part-time duty. Increased workloads resulting from the 2011 amendments to the Leahy law in the FAA have raised concerns at some embassies, among them those that are small and understaffed or those with the heaviest Leahy vetting demands. In the absence of dedicated Leahy vetting funding, such embassies maintain they have inadequate staff to handle the increased demand on their operations. The State Department and DOD are discussing ways to improve the vetting process by increasing DOD participation. (After DOD personnel in each embassy's security assistance organization forward nominees for security assistance to embassy Leahy vetters, DOD generally has no further role in the Leahy vetting process.) One step would be to improve the lines of communication between the State Department and DOD, and creating greater communication within DOD, when the INVEST system identifies potential human rights violations or other obstacles to approving assistance. A related step would be to lengthen the timeline between the embassy's submission of a vetting request to State Department headquarters and the conclusion of the vetting process. This change would allow time for DOD headquarters officials to coordinate a response with the geographic Combatant Commands that might avert the suspension of activities for non-substantive reasons. A third step would be to improve training on how to conduct vetting. DOD is also looking into updating its own guidance on Leahy vetting as last articulated in the DOD 2004 Joint Staff policy message. DRL recently broadened its outreach to human rights organizations, increasing dialogue through meetings and developing an Internet-based "portal." DRL has received Leahy-relevant information from NGOs through face-to-face meetings and email, and encouraged U.S.-based NGOs to communicate with the relevant country desk officers in DRL and NGOs outside the United States to communicate with the designated human rights officer in each U.S. embassy. The portal is an online website designed to facilitate the anonymous and confidential reporting of accusations and evidence of human rights abuses. The State Department hopes the portal, scheduled to go online in early 2014, will encourage human rights and other NGOs to post credible information about violations of human rights without fear they are further endangering victims. The portal will augment the current processes by which NGOs can report information through written correspondence, meetings, or briefings with State Department personnel. (Additionally, all written communication to the State Department and embassies is reviewed by desk officers.) Some practitioners and analysts warn that an anonymous reporting system has to be carefully designed or it has the potential to be manipulated or "gamed" by those who might seek to discredit units and block their receipt of U.S. assistance by submitting false reports. The Leahy laws raise many potential policy questions. At the broadest level, questions remain about the extent to which the promotion of human rights abroad and the pursuit of other U.S. national security objectives are mutually reinforcing and the circumstances in which they might diverge. More narrowly, some in Congress question whether the Leahy laws should be further modified and how implementation of those laws might be improved. The following discussion first addresses questions of law: specifically, should the FAA and DOD remediation standards and other remaining differences be made consistent, and should implementation practices be standardized? It then discusses questions of implementation, specifically resource availability and standardization. It concludes with a discussion of the possible challenges presented by Congress's recent expansion of the scope of the DOD law. Over time, Congress has aligned the State Department and DOD Leahy language for greater consistency, most recently by extending the scope of the DOD law in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014. Three differences remain —the difference in remediation standards between the laws, DOD the waiver provision, and the FAA requirement to report the reasons for the denial of assistance to the foreign government. Policymakers and those in the human rights and international security communities debate whether U.S. interests are best served by maintaining, modifying, or eliminating these differences. Some view these differences as inconsistencies that undermine U.S. policy goals related to the promotion of human rights; others view them as providing the United States with flexibility to balance potentially competing interests, or to respond to an emerging threat or disaster in a timely manner. The following explores these perspectives. The differing FAA and DOD language on remediation standards—the criteria that a foreign government must meet before aid can be provided or resumed to units that have been denied funding due to human rights abuses—leaves much open to interpretation. Questions have been raised as to whether these remediation standards are appropriate, given that few if any units appear to have been cleared for aid after they have been denied assistance. The "taint" remains even years later after membership in a unit may have substantially or even entirely changed. Questions are also raised about the degree to which these standards actually differ in practice, given that the State Department makes the decision to deny assistance, and whether they should be aligned. If FAA or AECA assistance is withheld, a foreign government must "take effective steps to bring responsible members of the security forces unit to justice" before assistance can be provided to that unit. Congressional intent regarding the FAA language was expressed in the conference report on the original (1998) legislation, where the conferees stated that "effective steps" required the government to "carry out a credible investigation and that the individuals involved face appropriate disciplinary action or impartial prosecution in accordance with local law." This was echoed in the conference report for subsequent legislation. It is similar to State Department guidance which, according to GAO, states that effective steps "means that the foreign government must carry out a credible investigation and take steps so that individuals who are credibly alleged to have committed gross violations of human rights face impartial prosecution or appropriate disciplinary action." The DOD remediation provision requires that "all necessary corrective steps" be taken before aid can be resumed. There has been no statement of intent in documents accompanying annual DOD appropriations measures. In 1999, Senator Leahy wrote to then Secretary of Defense William Cohen that the FAA and DOD standards were intended to be the same. Secretary Cohen differed, and since then DOD has held that, in the words of the 2013 GAO report, necessary corrective steps "could include removing the identified violator or violators from the unit to be trained, providing human rights training and law-of-war training, or some other combination of steps." Despite this position, according to DOD officials, DOD has never proceeded with DOD-funded training to an otherwise ineligible unit on the basis that "all necessary corrective steps" have been taken by a foreign government. In practice, according to State and DOD officials, the same remediation standards have been applied to potential recipients of DOD and State Department assistance. Some Members would favor incorporating that practice into law as a means of increasing the consistency of U.S. human rights policy and the message sent to foreign governments. Standardization of remediation steps is necessary, they affirm, because the purpose of DOD and FAA Leahy provisions is the same—to promote human rights and protect the U.S. government against the stigma of supporting human rights violators. In addition to expanding the scope of the DOD Leahy law, the SAC version of the FY2014 DOD appropriations bill, S. 1429 , would have made the DOD language on remediation the same as that of the FAA. This provision was not retained in action on the final DOD appropriations measure included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 ( P.L. 113-76 ). On the other hand, given that few, if any, units have been cleared once aid has been denied, some practitioners argue that the State Department standard may set too high a bar and may be perceived as unattainable by a host government. In addition, some analysts argue that the FAA's standard for remediation—punishing all members of a unit for the transgressions of some members of a unit—is inequitable. Some critics view the remediation measures set forth by DOD—removing individuals who have committed abuses from units rather than making all in the unit guilty of their transgressions—as a more realistic standard. In addition, some perceive as an internal contradiction of the Leahy laws that they block even human rights training to "tainted" units whose members, they argue, would potentially most benefit from such training. Some point to the Senate floor colloquy between Senators Graham and Leahy in 1997, regarding the Leahy human rights provision affecting counternarcotics assistance, as evidence that the legislative intent was not meant to permanently bar assistance to "tainted" units after offending individuals were removed, although others caveat that the meaning of the colloquy would depend on the circumstances of the removal. In contrast, those who believe that holding a unit responsible is an appropriate standard point out that it often is difficult to ascertain actions of individuals, and that sanctioning the entire unit may be the only way of ascertaining that U.S. assistance is not provided to human rights violators. In addition, holding units responsible for the actions of their members may serve as a means to promote a "self-cleansing" mechanism, where individuals who feel they are being unfairly denied training will cooperate with or put pressure on authorities to cleanse the unit, promoting an ethos among members of a unit that does not tolerate human rights abuse. In addition to the differences in remediation standards, discussed above, two other differences between the FAA and the DOD Leahy provisions remain: the DOD waiver and the FAA "duty to inform. Neither has a corresponding provision in the other legislation. To some analysts, the DOD waiver seems dispensable, given its historic lack of use. According to DOD officials, the waiver has never been exercised. Others would argue the waiver provides DOD with needed flexibility to act in urgent circumstances where important U.S. security interests are at stake; alternatively, notwithstanding language might be added to authorities that are used in such circumstances. The FAA "duty to inform" requirement for the Secretary of State to "promptly inform the foreign government of the basis" for withholding aid is a precursor to assisting the government in bringing responsible members of the security forces to justice. Some who view this provision as central to promoting reform among foreign security forces would include it in the DOD law. The level of funding available to implement Leahy vetting is determined by Congress (through appropriations measures) and by the State Department (through its internal allocation of resources and personnel positions at embassies). Financial and personnel resources can directly affect the Leahy vetting process. Resource-related questions concerning Leahy implementation include the following and are discussed below. Are Leahy vetting operations adequately funded? Do vetting activities at State Department headquarters and U.S. embassies worldwide receive enough technological support to be successful, and if not, where are the biggest resource deficits? Are those who conduct the vetting adequately trained, and is there sufficient oversight by State Department headquarters of vetting operations at the embassies? The recent expansion of the scope of the DOD Leahy law to cover all DOD assistance, not just training, may present extensive challenges for the current vetting system. Some practitioners have voiced concern that the number of additional vettings required each year could overload the State Department's arguably already overstretched vetting system. Some advocates for strengthening implementation of the Leahy conditions maintain that some vetting operations are underfunded. Indeed, some practitioners consider the vetting requirements an "unfunded mandate" placed on the State Department and its embassies by Congress. Several advocates who promote more vigorous enforcement of the Leahy conditions suggest that leadership from State Department's DRL bureau has improved headquarters vetting operations and they commend DRL for strengthening its outreach to in-country and international human rights organizations. Nevertheless, the quality and capacity of U.S. embassies abroad to carry out Leahy vetting requirements remain mixed; some advocates suggest that this is in part due to the lack of consistent and dedicated funding for vetting operations at post. Some have proposed that vetting be paid for with a dedicated funding source that is proportional to the size of U.S. security assistance expenditures on a global basis. In the 113 th Congress, a variation of this idea was put forth by the Senate Appropriations Committee in its version of the FY2014 Department of State and Foreign Operations appropriations measure ( S. 1372 , S.Rept. 113-81 ) to fund DRL to carry out the amended FAA prohibition, Section 620M. Acknowledging "the technological challenges and staff time involved in the vetting process" in its report, the Committee would provide not less than 0.1% of funds appropriated in the FMF account "for assistance for the security forces of foreign countries" to fund DRL to carry out Section 620M. This would amount to over $5 million in FY2014, depending on the final level of appropriation for FMF, which would be a significant increase over the roughly $2 million that DRL has received for Leahy vetting in recent appropriations. Neither the House version of the FY2014 Department of State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill ( H.R. 2855 , H.Rept. 113-185 ), nor the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2014 ( P.L. 113-76 ) makes reference to funding for Leahy vetting. Another resource challenge for carrying out the Leahy conditions concerns developing adequate databases and applying technology to better implement vetting. Some observers maintain that information about the Leahy vetting requirements provided on embassy websites remains limited. One potential consequence of this limitation is that local NGOs that might report alleged human rights abuse are unaware of U.S. requirements and their opportunities to assist the vetting process. Some advocates maintain that many embassy databases are inadequate, and that many do not take advantage of technological tools to gather data and documentation about human rights abuses. Such tools could include those that compile and analyze video images and aerial photography, and that have audio capabilities to facilitate voice and facial recognition of alleged abusers. Concern about the adequacy of resources extends to whether personnel and time are made available to train and oversee those at U.S. embassies who conduct the vetting. The State Department provides training at its Foreign Service Institute and DOD provides training through the Defense Institute for Security Assistance Management (DISAM). In its September 2013 report, GAO found that the State Department offers training to human rights vetting personnel by various means. These include two web-based training courses; modules in Foreign Service Institute (FSI) courses; a specially developed briefing that provides an overview of State and DOD Leahy laws and explains State's policies and processes (now available online through http://www.humanrights.gov ); and other outreach efforts. Vetting personnel also receive on-the-job training. At the time, GAO found that the web-based courses were out-of-date, lacking changes mandated in the 2011 law, but DRL officials report that the courses were subsequently updated and are now available to everyone in the State Department through the FSI online learning website. DOD personnel assigned to work on security assistance at U.S. embassies and at the geographic combatant commands receive an instructional module on human rights training at DISAM that includes instruction on Leahy vetting. DISAM statistics indicate, however, that while most military personnel destined for security assistance organization posts at U.S. embassies take the three-week training course, some 15% do not. Although there are not many studies of how the Leahy laws are implemented worldwide, a few reports point to an inconsistent application of the laws. For example, a September 2013 non-government publication on trends in security assistance in Latin America and the Caribbean found that the Leahy provisions have been "applied with varying degrees of rigor by U.S. embassies around the world." This report noted, for example, that "while the U.S. Embassy in Colombia had [in 2012] a substantial system in place, the U.S. Embassy in Honduras's system was far less developed." Recently, GAO has identified other implementation inconsistencies across countries. In its September 2013 report, GAO found after examining implementation practices in eight countries that the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) guides of those embassies "contained inconsistent information on how to address" the part of the duty-to-inform requirement that directs State to inform foreign governments when funds are withheld because of human rights violations. GAO's three recommendations were for the State Department to (1) "provide clarifying guidance for implementing the duty-to-inform requirement of the State Leahy law" added in December 2011; (2) ensure that all U.S. embassies have human rights vetting standard operating procedures that address the requirements in the Leahy law;" and (3) update the web-based training for personnel who conduct human rights vetting to reflect December 2011 changes. According to GAO, State agreed with all three of its recommendations, but said that the steps State planned regarding the need for standard operating procedures "do not directly address our recommendation." The GAO recommended that the State Department take further steps to implement its recommendations on SOP guides. To many analysts, standardizing practices and procedures seems a self-evident means to ensure a more rigorous compliance with the Leahy laws. However, others might argue that given the divergent circumstances under which the laws are applied from country to country—including levels and types of training and equipment provided, whether a country's human rights practices are a matter of concern, and whether the United States regards other matters as more pressing than human rights practices in a given country—a certain degree of flexibility in the application of the laws may be desirable. The recent expansion of the scope of the DOD Leahy law in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 ( P.L. 113-76 ), to include not only training but also DOD "equipment and other assistance" is a step toward institutionalizing human rights promotion in U.S. law, according to some analysts. From this perspective, the lack of consistency in scope between the DOD and FAA Leahy laws muddled the intended message regarding the importance of U.S. human rights policy, a problem intensified by the perception that DOD is increasingly providing security assistance and directing security assistance programs under an expanding array of DOD authorities. Nevertheless, the expansion of scope of the DOD prohibition presents the State Department and DOD with a number of challenges. These challenges include the following: Defining what constitutes DOD "assistance" as intended by the law may be one challenge. DOD conducts a wide range of activities that it categorizes as "security cooperation" with no agreement which among them constitute "assistance." The FY2014 expansion in scope seems to require a specific definition of assistance for the purposes of the DOD Leahy law. Determining whether additional resources are needed to implement Leahy vetting may be another challenge. A lack of resources may hinder the United States' ability to thoroughly vet prospective participants in a timely manner and may result in a failure to disqualify ineligible participants or lead to withholding aid from eligible participants. Determining whether DOD vetting will be conducted through a system compatible with the State Department's current two-track system using the INVEST database and memos, or a new, unique DOD-specific system. Whatever the choice, DOD and the State Department may find it necessary to proactively collect information on foreign military units and individuals who may be potential recipients of DOD assistance to expedite the vetting process. Implementing the broadened scope of DOD Leahy vetting may present possible diplomatic challenges. Some practitioners already note that explaining to foreign military and political leaders why U.S. assistance is being withheld can be difficult and disrupt other aspects of a bilateral relationship. Some express concern that the new scope of the DOD Leahy law, even without the express "duty to inform" found in the FAA law, may further complicate diplomatic and military-to-military relations. In some cases, some analysts suggest that the new DOD provision may put at risk U.S. efforts to advance bilateral relations or to achieve other national security priorities. More than a decade after the passage of the Leahy laws, their implementation remains a work in progress, and overarching questions on their utility and desirability persist. Congress continues to deliberate whether and how to strengthen their application, as represented by recent debate over expanding the scope of the DOD law through the omnibus FY2014 appropriations bill ( P.L. 113-76 ), and by proposals to increase available resources, such as the one contained in the Senate Appropriations Committee version of State Department and foreign operations appropriations bill ( S. 1372 ) but not in P.L. 113-76 . Many may judge that an expansion of the scope of the DOD law, which may require extensive additional vetting, could also require substantial new resources. Given that foreign aid appropriations have declined in recent years, an important issue for consideration of FY2015 foreign operations appropriations may be whether existing Leahy vetting requirements receive sufficient funds to be carried out effectively. In hearings and other consideration of the FY2015 budget, Congress may wish to question the quality and effectiveness of Leahy law vetting, and request information about current State Department and DOD efforts to improve procedures, practices, and standards. Congress may wish to be informed of new technologies and methodologies that may require additional resources but could improve data collection as well as the monitoring and assessment of the activities of foreign units. A related question is whether and how to establish metrics or compile standardized narratives; although such measures could involve extra costs, they might provide greater insight to the Leahy laws' utility in advancing foreign policy goals and national security interests. Evolving global conditions and circumstances may warrant ongoing consideration of when and how the Leahy law provisions should be applied. One national security trend raising questions about the utility of the Leahy provisions is the "outsourcing" of U.S. military training—with the United States funding other military forces to train third parties. And, as the United States faces competition in the international security arena in developing relationships with foreign militaries, Congress may wish to stay apprised of whether the Leahy laws are a significant factor leading some foreign militaries to choose other countries as providers of military training and equipment. In addressing the overarching issues of utility and desirability, Congress may wish to question the Obama Administration about the laws' effectiveness. Some questions may target potential indicators of success. For example: Where has the application of the Leahy laws resulted in the United States withholding assistance from units and individuals credibly believed to have committed gross violations of human rights? How have the human rights practices of partner nation security forces improved as a result of the application of the Leahy laws? Do foreign governments and populations view the United States more favorably as a result of the Leahy laws? Other questions may target possible instances of negative effects: Where has application of the Leahy vetting process precluded or significantly delayed a U.S. engagement that in retrospect would have been important for U.S. national security? To what extent might such engagement have been possible if different standards or procedures were in place? Congress may wish to address such questions to the State Department and DOD in hearings, or request that they be examined in the context of the Obama Administration's ongoing review mandated by its April 5, 2013, Presidential Policy Decision (PPD) 23, U.S. Security Assistance Policy , which identifies promoting universal values, including respect for human rights, as a goal. 

Summary: Congressional interest in the laws and processes involved in conditioning U.S. assistance to foreign security forces on human rights grounds has grown in recent years, especially as U.S. Administrations have increased emphasis on expanding U.S. partnerships and building partnership capacity with foreign military and other security forces. Congress has played an especially prominent role in initiating, amending, supporting with resources, and overseeing implementation of long-standing laws on human rights provisions affecting U.S. security assistance. First sponsored in the late 1990s by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the "Leahy laws" (sometimes referred to as the "Leahy amendments") are currently manifest in two places. One is Section 620M of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), as amended, which prohibits the furnishing of assistance authorized by the FAA and the Arms Export Control Act to any foreign security force unit where there is credible information that the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights. The second is a recurring provision in annual defense appropriations, newly expanded by the FY2014 Department of Defense (DOD) appropriations bill as contained in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76), to align its scope with that of the FAA provision. (Prior DOD appropriations measures had applied the prohibition to support for any training program, as defined by DOD, but not to other forms of DOD assistance.) As they currently stand, the FAA and DOD provisions are similar but not identical. Over the years, they have been subject to changes to more closely align their language, most recently with the expansion of scope enacted in the FY2014 DOD appropriations law. Nevertheless, some differences remain. Implementation of Leahy vetting involves a complex process in the State Department and U.S. embassies overseas that determines which foreign security individuals and units are eligible to receive U.S. assistance or training. Beginning in 2010, the State Department has utilized a computerized system called the International Vetting and Security Tracking (INVEST) system, which has facilitated a major increase in the number of individuals and units vetted (some 160,000 in FY2012). Congress supports Leahy vetting operations through a directed allocation of funds in State Department appropriations. The Leahy laws touch upon many issues of interest to Congress. These range from current vetting practices and implementation (involving human rights standards, relations and policy objectives with specific countries, remediation mechanisms, and inter-office and inter-agency coordination, among other issues), to legislative efforts to increase alignment between the Foreign Assistance Act and DOD restrictions, to levels and forms of resources dedicated to conduct vetting. More broadly, overarching policy questions persist about the utility and desirability of applying the Leahy laws, and whether there is sometimes a conflict between promoting respect for human rights and furthering other national interests.