Congressman Christopher H. Smith introduced H.R. 2601 on May 24, 2005. The Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Relations held a markupsession on May 26 and forwarded the bill on to the full committee the same day. The HouseInternational Relations Committee held markup sessions on June 8 and 9. The House InternationalRelations Committee completed its full committee markup on June 9, 2005. The bill was reportedon July 13 ( H.Rept. 109-168 ). House floor debate occurred the week of July 18, 2005. Earlier in 2005, Senator Lugar introduced a Senate version of the foreign relationsauthorization legislation ( S. 600 ) on March 10. The measure was reported to the Senatethe same day ( S.Rept. 109-35 ). On April 5 and 6, the Senate debated the bill at which time thecombination of numerous amendments on the bill, world events (the death of the Pope),nominations, and filibusters on judges put off action on the measure. Congress is required by law to authorize the spending of appropriations for the StateDepartment and foreign policy activities every two years. The authorization acts as a ceiling for theappropriations. The foreign relations authorization process dovetails with the annual appropriationprocess for the Department of State (within the Science, State, Justice, Commerce and RelatedAgency Appropriation in the House and the State-Foreign Operations Appropriation in the Senate)and foreign assistance activities (within the Foreign Operations Appropriation in both House andSenate). In the past 10 years, Congress has had an inconsistent record on getting a stand-alone foreignrelations authorization bill passed and signed into law. During the two decades prior to thegovernment shutdown of November 1995, virtually every Congress enacted stand-alone foreignrelations authorization laws. Since 1995, however, Congress has waived the requirement to provideauthorization prior to expenditures more times than it has met the requirement. The mostrecently-enacted stand-alone authorization Act was for FY2003 ( P.L. 107-228 / H.R. 1646 ) signed September 30, 2002. (See Appendix II for foreign relations authorization history.) Since foreign relations authorization legislation is typically passed the first session of eachCongress, the Senate Foreign Relation Committee and the House International Relations Committeeof the 109th Congress began working on their bills early in 2005. The foreign relations authorizationlegislation typically provides authority for State Department spending for such activities as salariesand other operating expenses, passport and visa processing, embassy and Foreign Service activities,as well as public diplomacy and international broadcasting. In addition, the legislation oftenbecomes a convenient vehicle for numerous foreign policy-related issues, such as nonproliferation,human rights, international family planning policy, and international health and environment issues. Congress can influence U.S. foreign policy regarding specific regions or countries via this biannuallegislation, as well. The foreign relations authorization bills introduced in the 109th Congress House and Senatediffer significantly. Both contain similar provisions for the State Department spending levels, theoperation, organization and personnel of State. S. 600 goes beyond that to include titleson: 1) authorizing foreign assistance programs, 2) radiological terrorism security, 3) global pathogensurveillance, 4) safe water, 5) protection of vulnerable populations during humanitarian emergencies,and 6) reconstruction and stabilization issues. H.R. 2601 includes measures on: 1)democracy promotion, 2) U.N. reform, 3) export controls and security assistance, and 4)nonproliferation. Because of Congress' inability to get an authorization bill to the President's deskin some Congresses, some Members in both House and Senate Committees are determined toproduce foreign policy authorization legislation this year, since they see it as one of their primaryresponsibilities. Titles in both bills include State Department Authorizations of Appropriations; StateDepartment Authorities and Activities; Organization and Personnel of the Department of State,International Organizations; and International Broadcasting (Board of Governors). The two billshave no foreign assistance measures in common, as there are no substantive foreign assistanceprovisions in the H.R. 2601 . By law, authorization to spend funds for foreign policy agencies and programs is requiredprior to expenditure of Foreign Operations and State Department appropriations. In effect, theauthorizing legislation sets spending ceilings for the foreign policy agency appropriations for thenext two years. (See Table 1 in Appendix III of this report.) CRS Products: CRS Report RL31370 , State Department and Related Agencies: FY2005 Appropriations andFY2006 Request. 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), H.R. 2601 and S. 600 both contain measuresranging from authorizing an international litigation fund, medical reimbursement issues,accountability review boards not required to convene in the case of serious injury or loss of life inAfghanistan or Iraq, and the designation of the federal building in Kingston, Jamaica to be referredto as the Colin L. Powell Residential Plaza. On these issues, both bills have similar provisions, noneof which appear controversial at this time. Sec. 214 of S. 600 has a provision giving authority to the Secretary of State toenhance the U.S. diplomacy center with museum and educational outreach services. Sec. 215 of thebill would require the Secretary of State to establish scholarship programs with colleges anduniversities primarily within eligible countries for students to pursue degree programs and Englishlanguage proficiency in the Islamic world. The House does not have a comparable measure. Section 215 of H.R. 2601 , on the other hand, contains a provision to make $5million available for Cuban human rights dissidents, pro-democracy activists, and independent civilsociety members to participate in the Fulbright, Humphrey, and other exchange programs. TheSenate has no comparable language. Education allowances, increased post differential and danger pay allowances, home leave,the Fellowship Hope Program, suspension of Foreign Service members without pay, limitedappointments in the Foreign Service, are in both H.R. 2601 and S. 600 . The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) was established by the U.S. InternationalBroadcasting Act of 1994 ( P.L. 103-236 , Title III) to consolidate the international broadcastingactivities of the U.S. government, while maintaining international broadcasting as an activityindependent from the former U.S. Information Agency (USIA) and the Department of State. TheBBG consists of a 9-member board appointed by the President with the advice and consent of theSenate. Its responsibilities include direction and oversight of all nonmilitary internationalbroadcasting, including the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Cuba Broadcasting,Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcasting Network. Middle East Broadcasting. (1) The Middle East BroadcastingNetworks (MBN) consist of two TV channels -- Alhurra and Alhurra Iraq -- and Radio Sawa. Allthree entities, established by the Broadcasting Board of Governors to promote U.S. views andcounter U.S.-perceived distortions in existing regional broadcasting, began broadcasting in FY2004. Virtually identical measures in both H.R. 2601 and S. 600 wouldauthorize grants that are made for broadcasting activities under the U.S. International BroadcastingAct of 1994 ( P.L. 103-236 , Title III) to be extended to the Middle East Broadcasting Networks,subject to specified limitations and restrictions. For example, the BBG must take responsibility forthe direction of the MBN, the MBN shall not be deemed a federal agency or instrumentality, and theMBN is subject to financial and inspector general audits. CRS Products: CRS Report RS21565 , The Middle East Television Network: An Overview . Cuba Broadcasting. (2) U.S.-government sponsoredradio and television broadcasts to Cuba -- Radio and TV Marti -- began in 1985 and 1990respectively, and have had the objective of providing accurate and uncensored news to the Cubanpeople. From FY1984 through FY2005, Congress has appropriated about $493 million forbroadcasting to Cuba, with about $300 million for Radio Marti and $193 million for TV Marti. Cuban jamming of the broadcasts -- especially TV Marti -- has been a problem since their inception.Critics assert that TV Marti has no audience because of the jamming. In May 2004, the BushAdministration's Commission for Assistance for a Free Cuba called for the immediate deploymentof the EC-130E/J Commando Solo airborne platform (3) for airborne radio and television broadcasts to Cuba in order toovercome Cuban jamming. The aircraft has been used periodically since August 2004 to transmitRadio and TV Marti programming. The Commission also called for funds "to acquire and refit adedicated airborne platform for full-time transmission of Radio and TV Marti into Cuba." Thiswould not be a military aircraft, but an aircraft acquired and operated by the Broadcasting Board ofGovernors' Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB). For FY2006, the Administration is requesting $37.7 million for Cuba broadcasting, about a$10 million increase from the $27.6 million appropriated for FY2005. The increase is for theBroadcasting Board of Governors to acquire and outfit an aircraft for dedicated airborne radio andtelevision broadcasts to Cuba. According to the budget request, the aircraft would support 4 hoursa day of Radio and TV Marti broadcasts with the goal of overcoming Cuban government jamming. Both H.R. 2601 and S. 600 , in Section 503 of each bill, wouldauthorize the OCB to use additional AM frequencies as well as FM and shortwave frequencies forRadio Marti in order to help overcome Cuban jamming. H.R. 2601 (Section 106) wouldauthorize the Administration's full request of $37.7 million for Cuba broadcasting for FY2006 and$29.9 million for FY2007, including funds for an aircraft to improve radio and televisiontransmission and reception. S. 600 (Section 111) would authorize funding for Cubabroadcasting under the International Broadcasting Operations account, but without a specificearmark. During Senate floor consideration of S. 600 on April 6, 2005, the Senate rejected S.Amdt. 284 (Dorgan), by a vote of 65-35 that would have prohibited funds from beingused for television broadcasting to Cuba. In other legislative action, the report to the House-passed version of H.R. 2862 ( H.Rept. 109-118 ), the FY2006 Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related AgenciesAppropriations Act, includes a committee recommendation for $27.9 million for Cuba broadcasting,$10 million below the Administration's request. According to the report, the Committee does notprovide funding for an aircraft to transmit Radio and TV Marti programming, but assumes thecontinuation of periodic Commando Solo flights, operating within U.S. air space, for suchtransmissions. The House approved H.R. 2862 on June 16, 2005. In the Senate,appropriations for Cuba broadcasting is included in the Senate version of the FY2006 ForeignOperations appropriations bill, H.R. 3057 ( S.Rept. 109-96 ). As approved by the Senateon July 20, 2005, the bill would provide $37.7 million for Cuba broadcasting, including funds foran aircraft to transmit Radio and TV Marti programming. During July 19, 2005 floor consideration,the Senate defeated (33-66) S.Amdt. 1294 (Dorgan) that would have eliminated fundingfor television broadcasting to Cuba. CRS Products : CRS Report RL32730 , Cuba: Issues for the 109th Congress . S. 600 (Sec. 811) and H.R. 2601 (Sec. 1101, as passed by theHouse) (5) contain broadlyrelated provisions that call for reports to Congress on U.S. strategies for combating internationalterrorism in Western Africa, but the two reports' regional and programmatic foci differ, as do theirrespective reporting requirements. The proposal in H.R. 2601 focuses specifically on the"Sahara region" and "the plan" of the U.S. government "to expand the Pan Sahel Initiative" (PSI) intoa "robust" counter-terrorism (CT) effort, "the Trans-Sahara Counter Terrorism Initiative" (TSCTI).The report would be submitted by the Secretary of State in classified form within 120 days after thepassage of H.R. 2601. It would require: a list of TSCTI participant countries; types ofsecurity assistance necessary to create rapid reaction security forces in them; a description of trainingto ensure respect for human rights and civilian authority by these forces and other recipient countryentities; and a description of public diplomacy and "related assistance that will be provided topromote development and counter radical Islamist elements that may be gaining a foothold in theregion." The measure would require all relevant U.S. government agencies to "cooperate fully with,and assist in the implementation of" TSCTI. The measure in S. 600 focuses on a broader region, West Africa, whichcommonly is taken to include both sub-Saharan Sahel and coastal countries in Western Africa. Itwould require that the Secretary of State, in consultation with other relevant agencies, submit areport to Congress on a "strategy for combating terrorism in West Africa during the three-yearperiod" six months after passage of S. 600. The strategy would contain a "comprehensiveassessment" of international terrorist organization activities in West Africa; "an interagency plan fordealing with" the threat of such activities and a description of resources necessary to implement it;and an analysis of "the expected level of cooperation" that countries in West Africa and elsewherewould provide toward that end. The report would also describe "planned coordination" between theplanned strategy and all other regional counter-terrorism efforts, including PSI and the East AfricaCounter-Terrorism Initiative (EACTI), and any other similar regional programs, including in NorthAfrica. Background. Armed activities by groups allegedto have connections with Al Qaeda have been reported in the Sahel region of West Africa. Othergroups, such as Hizballah and Hamas, have reportedly provided social services and other types ofaid in this region. The United States has provided security assistance to regional governments tocounter such groups. One such program is the Pan Sahel Initiative, a regional CT, border security,and regional security cooperation program that has provided military training and related equipmentto the governments of Mali, Niger, Chad and Mauritania. PSI is intended to create military rapidreaction and patrol forces in these countries to bolster their capacity to protect and govern theirlengthy, porous frontiers and sparsely inhabited, arid hinterlands. It seeks to provide them with anenhanced ability to counter in-country insurgencies, interdict transnational terrorist and armedreligious extremists, smugglers of contraband goods and/or persons, bandits, and other criminalelements, and halt their activities. The bulk of PSI activities took place between 2002 and 2004, andwere funded with $6.85 million in FY2002 and FY2003 Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) funds. There was no PSI funding in FY2004. Further PSI sustainment activities may be pursued using anunspecified portion of $3.968 million in FY2005 Africa Coastal/Border Security Program ForeignMilitary Financing (FMF) funds. A possible expansion of PSI, dubbed Trans-Sahara Counter Terrorism Initiative (TSCTI),is under consideration by the Bush Administration. TSCTI would reportedly include a geographicalexpansion of the kind of CT training provided under PSI, to include Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia,Nigeria, and Senegal; a broadening of TSCTI assistance, to include development assistance (DA)and increased regional U.S. public diplomacy efforts; and a rise in program funding, to $132 millionfor first year start-up costs, and about $125 million per year in subsequent years, for a five to six yearprogram. (6) According toState Department officials, TSCTI is at present technically a conceptual plan only, but has reportedlybeen agreed upon by key U.S. implementing agencies at the deputy principal level. TheAdministration has sought Congressional approval to use a mix of about $11 million in StateDepartment and $5 million in Defense Department FY2005 and FY2006 funds to initiate TSCTIstart-up activities. It may then request full TSCTI funding under its FY2007 budget proposal.Despite the State Department's view that TSCTI is not yet a fully-fledged program, U.S. EuropeanCommand (EUCOM) already uses the term TSCTI to describe its activities under PSI (whichEUCOM documents have described as "formerly known" as PSI), as well as some training exercises. These include Exercise Flintlock, a June 2005 effort in which U.S. special operations forces providedseven Saharan host country armed forces with tactical military training aimed at improving regionalsecurity and stability. EUCOM's decision to use this term before TSCTI was fully authorized by theState Department reportedly created tensions between it and the Defense Department. There is no shortage of humanitarian emergencies worldwide stemming from naturaldisasters or manmade conflicts. As a result of these crises, population movements often occur withinthe affected country or flow to those countries that are within close proximity. Definitions of statusare assigned to various groups and may include refugees, internally displaced persons, statelesspersons, and vulnerable populations (such as women, children, and the elderly). All can emerge asgroups requiring particular protection, the basis of which may be found under internationalhumanitarian law, and emergency assistance, which is typically provided by U.N. agencies,governments, international organizations and non-governmental organizations. Different aspects of this problem are addressed in S. 600 and H.R. 2601 . S. 600, Title XXVIII Protection of Vulnerable Populations During HumanitarianEmergencies , focuses on women and children and the development of strategies to protect them fromexploitation and abuse before, during, and following a crisis. It outlines three categories -- Programand Policy Coordination, Prevention and Preparedness, and Protection Mechanisms. In H.R.2601, under Section 104 Migration and Refugee Assistance, the bill authorizes thedevelopment of a two-year pilot program to study the problems specific to refugee populationshoused long term in camps or other settlements and to consider ways to improve their livingconditions, provide protection mechanisms, and enhance their basic human rights. Of the amountsin this section, H.R. 2601 authorizes $3 million in FY2006 and $3 million in FY2007 foremergency aid to internally displaced people of Burma. CRS Products: CRS Report RL31689 , U.S. International Refugee Assistance: Issues for Congress ; CRS Report RL31690(pdf) , United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) ; CRS Report RL31269 , Refugee Admissions and Resettlement Policy ; and CRS Report RL32714, International Disasters and Humanitarian Assistance: U.S. GovernmentalResponse . The Bush Administration's initiatives to enhance U.S. civilian capabilities to carry outstabilization and reconstruction (S&R) activities in unstable states have met with both enthusiasmand skepticism in Congress. The Senate, in particular the Senate Foreign Relations Committee(SFRC), has provided both impetus and support for the establishment of the State Department Officeof the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS). Additional Senate support hasbeen expressed by the Senate Armed Services Committee, which, in its report accompanying theNational Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 ( S. 1042 , S.Rept. 109-069 ,May 17, 2005), commended the Department of Defense's (DOD) "active support of and cooperation"with S/CRS. The House, on the other hand, appears skeptical of the initiatives, providing littlefunding thus far in 2006. Several prominent foreign and defense policy think tanks advanced proposals in 2003 and2004 to establish civilian capabilities through an office similar to S/CRS. SFRC Chairman Lugarand Ranking Member Biden submitted legislation, S. 2127 (with companion bill H.R. 3996 , introduced by Representative Schiff), in 2004 to establish a similar office. Legislation with similar aims was proposed in the House in 2003 by Representative Farr( H.R. 2616 ) and by Representative Dreier in 2004 ( H.R. 4185 ) and 2005( H.R. 1361 ). Supporters perceive the development of civilian capabilities as a meansto relieve the stress on the U.S. military caused by the need to devote troops to post-conflictstate-building functions and to rectify the ad hoc nature of each S&R operation by creating a cadreof personnel experienced in such operations and trained to work together. In July 2004, the Administration created S/CRS, which now has some 35 staff members ondetail from the Department of State and other executive agencies. It is tasked with designing, andin some cases establishing, the new structures within the State Department and elsewhere that wouldallow civilian agencies to develop effective policies, processes, and personnel -- including a readyresponse corps -- to build stable and democratic states in post-conflict situations. The Administration requested FY2005 emergency supplemental appropriations for S/CRS,as the office was created well after the FY2005 budget request was submitted in February 2004. The$17.2 million request included funding for S/CRS start-up operations and software, and fordevelopment of a ready response cadre of State Department personnel and the design of relatedtraining and exercises. While the Senate, in floor action, approved an amendment supporting the fullrequest, the conferees on the supplemental appropriations measure provided the SenateAppropriations Committee's $7.7 million, an amount closer to the House-approved $3.0 million( H.R. 1268 , P.L. 109-13 , signed into law May 11, 2005). The President's $24.1 million FY2006 budget request for S/CRS would provide for 54 newS/CRS positions and the establishment of a 100-person "Ready Response" cadre within theDepartment of State. The President also requested the establishment of a no-year $100 million,automatically replenishable, emergency Conflict Response fund to be administered by S/CRS inorder "to prevent or respond to conflict or civil strife in foreign countries or regions, or to enabletransition from such strife." Critics, some of whom label themselves "supportive skeptics," question whether S/CRS would do sufficiently more than existing capabilities to justify the additional cost. Whilerecognizing the importance of planning for post-conflict reconstruction assistance, several analystshave criticized various aspects of the Administration's request, especially the creation of the100-person ready response cadre. Critics question the State Department's ability to create a base-linetemplate for post-conflict reconstruction assistance when there are few similarities among the casesthat the United States has been involved with so far; whether the State Department is the appropriateagency to coordinate post-conflict reconstruction assistance; and to what extent a ready responsecadre may duplicate existing reconstruction efforts already being undertaken by agencies such as theDepartment of Defense, USAID and the Department of the Treasury, among others. S. 600 , as reported, would authorize the Administration's full $24.1 millionFY2006 funding request for S/CRS and "such sums as may be necessary" for its personnel, educationand training, equipment, and travel costs in FY2007, as well as the $100 million Conflict Responsefund. It would also provide S/CRS with statutory status and authorities for its operations. It wouldauthorize a larger ready response corps than requested by the Administration: a 250 -- rather thana 100 -- person force. H.R. 2601 , as reported, contains no authorization for FY2006 funding forS/CRS. In July 19, 2005, floor action on the bill, the House approved an amendment adopted byRepresentative Dreier which would authorize the establishment of an Active Response Corps tocarry out stabilization and reconstruction activities in foreign countries or regions that are in, are intransition from, or are likely to enter into conflict or civil strife. No specific funding was authorizedfor the Corps. House appropriators would provided limited funding for S/CRS and the Conflict Responsefund. The Science State, Justice, Commerce and related agencies FY2006 appropriations bill( H.R. 2862 , H.Rept. 109-118 ), which passed the House June 16, 2005, contains $7.7million for S/CRS operations for a staff increase of 33. The House foreign operations appropriationsbill ( H.R. 3057 , H.Rept. 109-152 , named the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, andRelated Programs Appropriations Act, 2006 in the House) as passed on June 28, 2005, contains nonew funding for the Conflict Response fund. However, the bill would authorize the Secretary ofState to transfer $100 million from either within the State Department, or from other federal agenciessuch as the Department of Defense, to carry out reconstruction and stabilization assistance (Sec.580). The Senate version of H.R. 3057 (named the Department of State, ForeignOperations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2006, in the Senate), as reported June 30,2005 ( S.Rept. 109-96 ), provides substantially more support for S/CRS and the Conflict ResponseFund than do the two related House appropriations bill. The Senate version of H.R. 3057would fund S/CRS at $24 million, the full amount of the Administration request. It would provide$74 million in earmarked appropriations for the Conflict Response Fund, i.e., almost three-quartersof the Administration request. CRS Products: CRS Report RL32862 , Peacekeeping and Conflict Transitions: Background and CongressionalAction on Civilian Capabilities ; and CRS Issue Brief IB94040, Peacekeeping and Related Stability Operations: Issues of U.S. MilitaryInvolvement . The Andean Counterdrug Initiative (ACI) is the primary U.S. program that supports PlanColombia, a six-year plan developed by the Colombian government in 1999 to combat drugtrafficking and related guerrilla activity. U.S. support for Plan Colombia began in 2000, whenCongress passed legislation providing $1.3 billion in interdiction and development assistance ( P.L.106-246 ) for Colombia and six regional neighbors: Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela, Brazil, andPanama. For FY2006, the Administration has requested $734.5 million, of which $40 million wouldbe for a new Critical Flight Safety Program, to upgrade aging aircraft. Colombia produces the majority of the world's supply of cocaine and increasing amounts ofhigh quality heroin. Illegally armed groups of both the left and right are believed to participate inthe drug trade. In addition to the basic debate over what role the United States should play inColombia's struggle against drug trafficking and illegally armed groups, Congress has repeatedlyexpressed concern with a number of related issues. These include continuing allegations of humanrights abuses; the expansion of U.S. assistance for counterterrorism and infrastructure protection;the health and environmental consequences of aerial fumigation of drug crops; the progress ofalternative development to replace drug crops; the level of risk to U.S. personnel in Colombia,including the continued captivity of three American hostages by the Revolutionary Armed Forcesof Colombia (FARC); and a new demobilization law that intends to reincorporate rightistparamilitary fighters into civilian life. Critics of U.S. policy contend that winning the war against drugs is a losing proposition aslong as demand continues. They argue that despite the successes in eradicating illicit crops, theamount of drugs entering the United States has not declined, and prices have remained stable. TheBush Administration contends that the United States faces not only a threat from drug trafficking,but also from the increasing instability brought on by insurgent guerrilla organizations that are fueledby the drug trade. Supporters of U.S. policy argue that assistance to Colombia is necessary to helpa democratic government besieged by drug-supported leftist and rightist armed groups. While somecritics agree with this assessment, they argue that U.S. assistance overemphasizes military andcounter-drug assistance and provides inadequate support for protecting human rights andencouraging a peace process in Colombia. The House International Relations Committee reported H.R. 2601 with aprovision making U.S. assistance to Colombia contingent on a certification from the Secretary ofState that Colombia has a workable framework in place for the demobilization and dismantling offormer combatants, and that Colombia is cooperating with the United States on extradition requests. H.R. 2601 also calls for a report from the Secretary of State that details tax codeenforcement in Colombia. On the House floor, a Representative Burton amendment was approvedby voice vote that would transfer two tactical marine patrol aircraft to the Colombian Navy for druginterdiction purposes. S. 600 authorizes funding for ACI and includes a number ofconditions on assistance consistent with current law. The bill would authorize a unified campaignagainst narcotics trafficking and terrorist activities; maintains the existing caps on military andcivilian personnel allowed to be stationed in Colombia; prohibits U.S. military and civilian personnelfrom participating in combat operations; and maintains reporting requirements relating to humanrights conditions and the conduct of U.S. operations. CRS Products: CRS Report RL32774 , Plan Colombia: A Progress Report ; and CRS Report RL32337 , Andean Counterdrug Initiative (ACI) and Related Funding Programs:FY2005 Assistance . Congress last enacted a broad foreign assistance authorization act in 1985. In the absenceof omnibus foreign aid measures, the majority of foreign assistance legislation has been enacted aspart of annual Foreign Operations appropriation measures. Division B of S. 600 is aneffort to "reinforce" the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's role in foreign assistance policymaking. Foreign aid provisions in S. 600 are similar to those reported by the ForeignRelations Committee in the 108th Congress ( S. 2144 ). The intention was not to attempta comprehensive review and to re-write existing foreign aid legislation, but rather to initiate a firststep in providing necessary authorization for program appropriations and updating selectedlegislative provisions to reflect current policy. Senator Lugar has said frequently since becomingChairman of the Committee that he planned to launch a more ambitious effort in the future torevamp the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and other long-standing foreign aid laws. Division B is divided into eight titles, three of which provide general authorizations forforeign aid programs, incorporate into permanent law legislative provisions that have been approvedannually in Foreign Operations appropriation measures, and update and revise conditions on foreignaid funds and reporting requirements. Title XXI includes FY2006 and FY2007 authorizations ofappropriations for most, but not all foreign aid programs. The legislation would authorize theappropriation of $18.4 billion for 25 foreign assistance programs, closely matching the accountstructure of the annual Foreign Operations appropriations for bilateral economic and military aid. The amounts authorized are identical to levels requested by the Administration for FY2006,providing nearly $2 billion more than provided in FY2005. Title XII of Division B would update and amend several existing foreign aid authorities,including some that have been annually extended in appropriation acts in recent years. Title XXVwould address reporting requirements, adding new submissions concerning such issues as Haiti, theGlobal Peace Operations Initiative, international HIV/AIDS programs, and tsunami relief andreconstruction in Aceh, Indonesia. The other five titles in Division represent specific initiatives, which in some cases have beenintroduced as stand-alone legislation. Title XXIII is the Radiological Terrorism Security Act. TitleXXIV is the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act. Title XXVI authorizes a new water for health anddevelopment program. Title XXVII incorporates the Protection of Vulnerable Populations DuringHumanitarian Emergencies Act of 2005. Title XXVIII adds the Conventional Arms DisarmamentAct of 2005. These titles are discussed elsewhere in the this report. Although the House International Relations Committee did not consider a substantive foreignassistance authorization separately or as part of the Foreign Relations Authorization bill, H.R. 2601 includes several foreign aid provisions. On balance, however, title IX ofH.R. 2601 addresses a series of specific foreign aid issues, some related tocountry matters and others dealing with types of foreign assistance programs. H.R.2601 includes provisions regarding: Aid supporting democracy in Zimbabwe (Sec. 903); Contributions to the U.N. Development Program and Burma (Sec. 904); Aiding the police ombudsman in Northern Ireland (Sec. 905); Supporting democracy in Belarus (Sec. 908); Conditions on aid to Egypt (Sec. 921); West Bank and Gaza aid (Sec. 924) and aid to the Palestinian Authority (Sec. 932); Aid to Venezuela (Sec. 925) Reconstruction assistance to Afghanistan (Sec. 941); Aid to disarm former irregular combatants in Colombia (Sec. 944); Supporting famine relief in Ethiopia (Sec. 945); Promoting democracy in Vietnam (Sec. 946); Establishing centers for the treatment of obstetric fistula (Sec. 901); Aid for disaster mitigation (Sec. 907); and Exempting aid that promotes democracy and human rights organizations fromrestrictions regarding terrorism (Sec. 931). One of these provisions -- the establishment of centers for the treatment of obstetric fistula-- was the focus of a contentious debate during House consideration of H.R. 2601 . Obstetric fistula, which affects an estimated two million women mainly in Africa, occurs primarilyfrom a prolonged labor that results in a hole or rupture in tissues between the vagina and bladder(and at times the rectum). Women with this condition are stigmatized and often shunned by theirfamily and community. It is especially common in girls aged 15-19 whose bodies are not fullydeveloped for childbirth and in girls and women suffering from malnutrition. Obstetric fistula occursalmost exclusively in developing countries where access to health care services is severelylimited. (11) H.R. 2601 , as reported by the House International Relations Committee,earmarked $5 million in FY2006 and FY2007 to create 12 centers for the treatment and preventionof obstetric fistula in developing nations. The provision specified that to the maximum extentpossible, each center would perform certain services, including surgical repair and post-surgerysupport, educational activities to prevent incidents of fistula, and expanded access to contraceptiveservices for the prevention of pregnancies among women that were at high risk for a prolonged orobstructed childbirth. During floor debate, Representative Smith (N.J.) proposed an amendment thatdeleted the requirement for each center to expand contraceptive services for high-risk women, andadded a new activity requiring centers to broaden "abstinence education, postponement of marriageand child-bearing until after teenage years, and activities to expand access to family planningservices" for women in a high-risk category. Unlike the treatment services that each center mustprovide "to the maxim extent possible," the revised prevention activities would be provided at thediscretion of the centers. The Smith amendment further increased funding to $7.5 million annually. In support of his amendment, Congressman Smith argued that the changes would allowfaith-based hospitals to perform the required activities, something that would not have occurredunder the committee-reported language because of opposition of faith-based facilities to providingcontraceptive services. He further stated that the amendment's reference to "family planningservices" would include contraception. Opponents of the amendment, however, charged that therevised text "gutted" the prevention aspect of the obstetric fistula centers by making these activitiesdiscretionary rather than mandatory in the original text. They contend that the most effective methodto reduce the incidents of obstetric fistula is to ensure that young girls and high-risk women do notget pregnant. The House adopted the Smith amendment on a 223-205 vote. Sec. 806 of S. 600 and Sec. 1114 of H.R. 2601 continue to pressfor full membership for the Israeli Magen David Adom Society in the International Red CrossMovement. Since 1949, Magen David Adom (MDA) (Red Star of David) has been deniedmembership in the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) because it refuses to use eitherthe red cross or the red crescent, which are the organization's only recognized symbols. MDA hasobserver status at the Red Cross. The Red Cross is considering recognition of a red crystal (a squaresitting on its corner), an emblem devoid of religious or national connotations, and the Swissgovernment has begun to solicit international support to convene a conference to amend the GenevaConventions and adopt the new symbol. The exclusion of Magen David Adom from a humanitarianorganization of 180 member countries with a claim to universality is reported to offend manyMembers of Congress. Switzerland is convening an ICRC meeting in December to take up the issue. Sec. 807 of S. 600 and Sec. 210 of H.R. 2601 are identical andpertain to U.S. government action with respect to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The sections prohibit use of authorized funds for the operation of a U.S. consulate or diplomatic facility inJerusalem that is not under the supervision of the U.S. Ambassador to Israel and for the publicationof U.S. official documents that list countries and their capitals unless they identify Jerusalem as thecapital of Israel. These prohibitions have been in past legislation. In 1967, Israel annexed EastJerusalem and declared the reunified city to be its eternal, undivided capital. The foreign aidauthorization bills reflect the views of many Members of Congress who maintain that United Statesshould consider Jerusalem to be part of Israel. P.L. 104-45 , November 8, 1995, called for the U.S.embassy to be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and, in 1997, both houses of Congress passedresolutions ( H.Con.Res. 60 and S.Con.Res. 21 ) calling on theAdministration to affirm that Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of Israel. SuccessiveAdministrations have asserted that Jerusalem is a subject of final status negotiations between Israeland the Palestinians and that Congress should not prejudge the outcome of those negotiations orundermine the U.S. role as an "honest broker" in the talks. Sec. 209 of H.R. 2601 , but no comparable provision of S. 600 ,states Congress's view of its power in a tacit debate with the State Department over whether thelegislative branch has the authority to require the issuance of U.S. passports indicating Jerusalem,Israel, as the place of birth of a U.S. citizen. Sec. 209 refers to Congress's authority under Article1, Section 8 of the Constitution as well as the first section of "An Act to regulate the issue andvalidity of passports," approved July 3, 1926, which requires that accurate entries be made onpassports at the request of citizens. Prior foreign aid authorization legislation mandated thedesignation Jerusalem, Israel, but the State Departments has not implemented it in line with its desirenot to prejudge final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The issue also is beinglitigated. In 2002, the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv declined to issue passports with Jerusalem, Israel,as the place of birth of children born in Israel to U.S. citizens and instead issued ones notingJerusalem as the city of birth with the country of birth left blank. Two sets of parents sued the StateDepartment but, in September 2004, the U.S. District Court in Washington dismissed the lawsuits. The Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over a political matter within the purview of the executivebranch. The judge asserted, "The status of Jerusalem is without question one of the most sensitiveforeign policy issues," and not a simple administrative matter as the plaintiffs had argued. She alsoheld that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had suffered no injury as a result of theDepartment's action. The parents have filed an appeal. CRS Products CRS Issue Brief IB91137, The Middle East Peace Talks . Both House and Senate bills touch on the issue of intellectual property right protections. Section 107 of the House bill authorizes, in addition to such sums as may otherwise be authorizedfor such purpose, $5 million for equipment and training for foreign law enforcement, training judgesand prosecutors, and assistance with copyright and intellectual property treaties and agreements. Section 204 of S. 600 authorizes the Secretary of State to support (by grants,cooperative agreements, or contract) training and technical assistance projects regarding protectionof intellectual property rights. On July 20, 2005, the House incorporated into H.R. 2601 , as Title XII, the textof H.R. 2745 , Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005, as earlier passed. This Title of more than 100 pages requires many State Department certifications and reports andwould withhold 50% of U.S. assessed dues to the U.N. regular budget beginning with calendar year2007 if 32 of 40 specific changes aimed at reform of the United Nations are not in place, including15 mandatory reforms. The Bush Administration has expressed reservations about this legislationbecause of its withholding provisions and because it infringes on the President's authority to carryout foreign affairs. CRS Products : CRS Issue Brief IB86116, United Nations System Funding: Congressional Issues . The Bush Administration has strongly emphasized spreading freedom and democracy to Iraqand around the world. Congress has also sought legislative measures to promote democracyoverseas. H.R. 2601 , Title VI, Advance Democracy Act of 2005, states that promotingfreedom and democracy shall be a fundamental component of U.S. foreign policy. Among otherthings, the measure would codify the position and responsibilities of Under Secretary of State forDemocracy and Global Affairs and adds new duties for the Assistant Secretary of State forDemocracy, Human Rights, and Labor to include responsibility for matters relating to the transitionto and development of democracy in nondemocratic countries. Title VI would create within theBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and labor an office that shall be responsible for working withdemocratic movements and transitions. The act also would require the Secretary to establish regional democracy hubs at U.S.missions abroad to carry out the provisions of this title and provides for coordination of such efforts. Sec. 612 of the title would require an annual report on democracy which will provide thedefinitions, category designations, and basis for much of the State Department activities and focuson democracy promotion worldwide. The measure would require that a nine-member Democracy Promotion and Human RightsAdvisory Board be established, and no later than 120 days after the date of this act, the Secretarymust appoint all members. No more than five may be appointed from the same political party. Furthermore, the Advance Democracy Act of 2005 seeks to strengthen the Community ofDemocracies by supporting the efforts of the government of Hungary and governments of otherEuropean countries to establish an International Center for Democratic Transition. For this purpose,the measure authorizes the appropriation of $1 million each for FY2006, FY2007, and FY2008. There is no similar provision in S. 600 at this time. Title XIII of H.R. 2601 notes how important foreign students are to the U.S.economy, to the exchange of ideas, and to U.S. institutions of higher learning. The Title alsodocuments a significant decline in foreign students entering the United States since September 11,2001. The measure would require the Secretary of State, in consultation with other agencysecretaries and within one year of enactment of this Act, to encourage foreign students to study inthe United States. In addition, the measure would require the Secretary of State to meet withindividuals and organizations involved in international education and the recruitment of foreignstudents to get their input on the matter. Furthermore, the Title would amend existing law ontraining in processing and facilitating visa applications for students and exchange visitors. Some lawmakers believe that U.S. assistance to Egypt has not been effective in promotingpolitical and economic reform and that foreign assistance agreements should be renegotiated toinclude benchmarks that Egypt would need to meet to continue to qualify for U.S. foreign aid. Othershave periodically called for restrictions on U.S. aid to Egypt based on the allegations that Egyptindirectly supports Palestinian terrorism, suppresses its own population, including minorityChristians, and continues to allow Egyptian state-owned media outlets to publish unsubstantiatedconspiratorial theories regarding Israel and the Jewish people. The Administration and Egyptian government assert that reducing Egypt's military aid wouldundercut peace between Israel and Egypt. Overall, many U.S. observers believe that U.S. support forEgypt stabilizes the region and extends U.S. influence in the most populous Arab country.Supporters of continued U.S. assistance note that Egypt helps train Iraqi and Palestinian securityforces, cooperates with the U.S. military, and will be helping to patrol the Egyptian-Gaza border afterIsrael's withdrawal. An amendment offered on July 15, 2004, to the House FY2005 foreign operations bill( H.R. 4818 ) would have reduced U.S. military aid to Egypt by $570 million andincreased economic aid by the same amount, but the amendment failed by a vote of 131 to 287. More recently, an amendment offered on June 28, 2005 to the House FY2006 foreign operations bill( H.R. 3057 ) would have reduced U.S. military aid to Egypt by $750 million and wouldhave transferred that amount to child survival and health programs managed by USAID. Theamendment failed by a recorded vote of 87 to 326. H.R. 3057 , the House FY2006 foreign operations bill, earmarks $100 millionin ESF for good governance and education programs in Egypt, a doubling of previous obligatedamounts. The Senate version provides $35 million for democracy and governance programs inEgypt. H.R. 2601 , the FY2006/FY2007 House Foreign Relations Authorization bill,would reduce U.S. military assistance to Egypt by $240 million over the next three fiscal years, whileusing the same amount of funds to promote economic changes, fight poverty, and improve educationin Egypt. There is no companion provision in the Senate's Foreign Relations Authorization bill( S. 600 ). Section 1021 of H.R. 2601 would establish a number ofrequirements Egypt would have to meet in order to continue receiving U.S. economic assistance. It also would make cash flow financing benefits available only for projects focused on economicreform, education, and poverty reduction rather than for military purchases. Finally, H.R.2601 would transfer any interest earned from amounts in an interest bearing account forEgypt's FMF to the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) for reform-oriented programming inEgypt. Title VII of H.R. 2601 , as passed by the House, contains a variety of provisionsrelating to export control policies of the United States. What follows is a brief summary of keysections of this Title of the House committee bill, as reported to the House. S. 600 , hasalmost no directly comparable provisions at this stage of its consideration in the Senate. It ispossible that some of the matters addressed in H.R. 2601 may become the subject ofamendments during Senate floor consideration of its related bill. Section 711 would amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 by: creating the position of Deputy Under Secretary of State for Strategic ExportControl; making the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and InternationalSecurity the chairman of an inter-agency Strategic Export Control Board, to be established by section712 of this bill; and authorizing the use of defense trade registration fees to offset costs related tothe work of the Strategic Export Control Board. Section 712 would establish a Strategic Export Control Board, composed of representativesof Departments having export control policy, licensing or duties for enforcement of the U.S. exportcontrols and related matters. The Chairman of this Board is to be the Under Secretary of State forArms Control and International Security. Section 721 would require the Departments of Commerce and State to publish the results oftheir determinations regarding export jurisdiction in the Federal Register and on their Internetwebsites. This is intended to make clear which items are being controlled through the United StatesMunitions List and those controlled through the Commodity Control List. Section 722 would amend section 36 (c) of the Arms Export Control Act to establish aCongressional notification requirement for the new so-called comprehensive export licenses, notcurrently subject to mandatory Congressional review. Section 723 would direct the State Department not to provide preferential treatment in theprocessing of licenses for export to other parties of items needed for U.S. Armed Forces and alliedforces participating in United States-led coalitions operations. Section 724 would require the State Department to include information on the number ofofficers assigned to munitions export licensing and their workloads in the quarterly report toCongress required by section 36(a) of the Arms Export Control Act. Section 725 would amend the reporting requirements of section 655 of the ForeignAssistance Act of 1961, to require that the information found in this report to Congress on U.S.Munitions List items transferred or licensed for export abroad be maintained in a database formatthat can be searched by the general public. Section 726 would require the State Department office responsible for processing U.S.Munitions List export licenses to designate a coordinator for small business affairs to aid smalldefense firms in application procedures and related matters. Section 727 would require the Secretary of State to create an exemption from export licensingin the International Traffic in Arms Regulations for certain technical data related to foreign salesmarketing of commercial satellites under conditions and parameters for this data established by theSecretary of Defense. Section 728 would amend the reporting requirements of Section 655 of the ForeignAssistance Act of 1961 to require inclusion in the report to Congress of information concerning thevolume and types of defense articles being exported without a license. Section 731 would require an annual report to Congress on certain sensitive items warrantinglicensing scrutiny before being transferred to a foreign person located within the United States. Inthe future any U.S. Munitions List item specified in this new report would require a license beforeit could be transferred. Section 732 would require a report by the Secretary of State certifying that there is nonational security risk arising from the current exemption in the International Traffic in ArmsRegulations which permits any foreign person to bring unclassified weapons temporarily into theUnited States from Canada without prior U.S. Government review and approval. The report wouldalso have to certify that the State Department is providing guidance to Homeland Security andBorder Protection personnel needed to enable them effectively to detect and enforce the unlawfuluse of a Canadian license exemption. Section 733 would amend section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act to require that theUnited States does not transfer items on the U.S. Munitions List or the Commodity Control List toany entity of an embargoed country, other than the military, intelligence, or other security forces ofsuch country, and only through issuance of an export license in which the Secretaries of State andDefense concur. Section 735 would amend section 3 of the Arms Export Control Act to require a report toCongress regarding any unauthorized transfer of a U.S. defense article by a foreign person to a nationdesignated by the United States as a state sponsor of international terrorism. This provision wouldapply to articles licensed under section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act. Other sections of Title VII of H.R. 2601 provide for various reportingrequirements on technical matters, authorizations for transfers of specific decommissioned navalvessels, transfers of obsolete and surplus military stocks, and terms of reimbursement forinternational military education and training provided by the United States. In a floor amendment to the bill during House consideration, Chairman Henry Hyde, addeda new Title IX (Sections 901-910) which contains a number of Congressional policy statements andother detailed provisions to tighten oversight by the United States over exports of its defense articles,services and technology to other nations who might re-export such items to China. This titlecontains a number of reporting requirements that the President provide specific information relatingto arms exporting activities of nations in the European Union that might transfer U.S. origin defenseitems or technology to China, as well as reporting requirements related to U.S. defense exportslicensing generally to ensure that defense items or technology that potentially find their way toChina, have been rigorously scrutinized in advance to ensure that no risk to U.S. national securityinterests are involved. Section 734 would require the Secretary of State to annually certify that U.S. missiletechnology controls are clearly established and updated. This certification requirement is in responseto Government Accountability Office (GAO) findings that jurisdiction over about 25 percent ofmissile-related items controlled by the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) is ambiguouslyshared between the Departments of State and Commerce and that there is a long-standing absenceof export license requirements for many dual-use MTCR items exported to Canada. The issue ofexport license requirements for Canada is likely based on a need to close an identified loophole toavoid the re-export of missile-related items from Canada to nations of concern. Section 741 would require that any foreign person, entity, or government that has beensanctioned by the U.S. for missile transfer violations will be on probation for the issuance ofdual-use licenses for a period of three years after the expiration of the designated period of formalsanctions. The three year probation can be waived if the President informs Congress that the person,entity, or government has verifiably ceased their illegal activities and have instituted a program oftransparency in order to verify compliance. These provisions are intended to raise the potential costsfor those involved in proliferation activities as well as provide a means to monitor their activity byplacing them on a watch list. Section 742 increases the period of U.S. missile sanctions from twoto four years which is also intended to raise the potential costs to proliferants. There are no similarprovisions in S. 600 . Section 743 would expand U.S. missile sanctions to all foreign persons, including responsiblegovernment entities. This provision is intended to deter foreign governments from using individualsor front companies to conduct government-sponsored trade and transfers of missiles and relatedtechnologies as a means to avoid U.S. sanctions. This is considered by some as a very powerfulmeasure whereby the U.S. government could sanction an entire country over the illegal activities ofindividuals or companies from that country. Even in a situation where a foreign government is notusing front companies or persons to further its missile programs, this provision might compelgovernments to exercise greater monitoring or export control over missile-related trade in order toavoid the possibility of U.S. sanctions against their country. CRS Products: CRS Report RL31559 , Proliferation Control Regimes: Background and Status . Nonproliferation experts were shocked in 2004 by the revelation that Pakistani scientist A.Q.Khan sold sensitive nuclear technology and equipment to Iran, Libya, and North Korea. PresidentBush responded with several nonproliferation proposals: a ban on sales of uranium enrichment andreprocessing to states that do not already have fully operational capabilities, a similar ban for thosethat have not signed an Additional Protocol (expanded measures to strengthen International AtomicEnergy Agency safeguards), and expansion of the Proliferation Security Initiative. Much of thenonproliferation language in H.R. 2601 addresses the nuclear black market issue andpolicy proposals. Title VIII, the Nuclear Black Market Elimination Act, seeks to strengthen U.S. leverage inshutting down nuclear black market transfers. The bill has four basic components: sanctions,penalties for corporate entities associated with proliferation activities, incentives for proliferationinterdiction cooperation, and nonproliferation conditions for U.S. assistance. Subtitle A wouldauthorize the President to impose any or all sanctions listed (e.g., bans on foreign assistance, aid,defense articles, licenses for defense and dual-use articles and for any commodities other than food,agriculture, medicines and medical equipment) to individuals that transfer enrichment andreprocessing technology to non-nuclear weapon states that do not already have fully operationalcapability as of January 1, 2004, that do not have in force an Additional Protocol, or are developinga nuclear weapon. The sanctions, which would be imposed for two years or more, may besuspended by the President after 15 days with congressional notification. Subtitle C would authorizeassistance to other countries cooperating in proliferation interdiction, including provision of defenseequipment. Section 836 prohibits transfer of excess aircraft or ships to states that have not agreedit will support U.S. interdiction efforts. Subtitle D would make nonproliferation cooperation aprecondition for U.S. assistance and would suspend arms sales licenses and deliveries to countriesthat host nuclear proliferation networks. The President would need to certify to Congress that thosecountries are fully investigating such networks, are taking steps to halt such activity, are fullycooperating with the United States, and have enacted laws to prevent future activities. Thesemeasures appear to address the frustration among some in Congress that the United States seems tohave little leverage over Pakistan in uncovering and eliminating the A.Q. Khan network. In addition, there are several sense of Congress resolutions in Title XIV (MiscellaneousProvisions) related to nonproliferation. On Iran, Section 1402 calls for the G-8 governments to insistthat Russia terminate all assistance to the Bushehr nuclear facility (including fuel) and conditionRussia's continued membership in the G-8 on that termination of assistance. On A.Q. Khan, Section1423 calls for the U.S. government to ask Pakistan for direct access to Khan to learn more about theoperation of his illicit nuclear black market network, and to take the steps to ensure that Pakistan hasverifiably halted any cooperation with any country in the development of weapons of massdestruction-related (WMD) technology, material, or equipment. There is also a sense of Congressresolution in Section 1431 on the Proliferation Security Initiative, urging the Secretary of State toseek ways of strengthening PSI along the lines of what the President proposed in February 2004. Inparticular, says H.R. 2601 , the United States should seek authority through aninternational instrument such as a United Nations Security Council resolution, multilateral treaty,or other agreement not just to interdict, but also to seize and impound illicit shipments ofWMD-related items. CRS Products: CRS Report RS21881 , Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) ; CRS Report RL32745 , Pakistan's Nuclear Proliferation Activities and the Recommendations of the9/11 Commission: U.S. Policy Constraints and Options ; and CRS Report RS21592 , Iran's Nuclear Program: Recent Developments . In recent years, there has been considerable concern in Congress and elsewhere that theWorld Bank is continuing to make loans to Iran even as that country seems to be striving to developnuclear weapons. Many believe that access to credit from the World Bank helps Iran to fundindirectly its nuclear program. Others assert that while the case for indirect financing may bedebatable, the present situation suggests that the international community is not seriously concernedabout the Iran's current activities. H.R. 2601 includes language (Sec. 1406) directing the Secretary of State towork, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, to secure the support of governmentsrepresented on the board of executive directors of the World Bank Group to oppose any furtheractivity in Iran by the Bank Group until Iran abandons its program to develop nuclear weapons. Notification by the Secretary to the "appropriate congressional committees" is required. The G8 and other European countries have a working majority on the World Bank executiveboard. If the United States can persuade them to oppose further assistance to Iran, then no futureassistance would be approved. Barring extraordinary circumstances, however, it seems unlikely thatthe Bank could discontinue projects which it has already approved and for which it is contractuallyobligated. From 1993 to 2000, there was a consensus on the executive board opposing new loans. In 2000, however, the consensus broke down as several major European countries sought toinfluence Iran's policy through constructive dialog. More than a half-dozen loans have beenapproved since that time. The new legislation might help strengthen the Administration's efforts toreestablish the prior consensus. On the other hand, unless the United States and major Europeancountries agree on their basic strategy, efforts to recreate the earlier consensus may be futile. Directing the Secretary of State to take the lead will bring the resources of the State Department tobear on the issue. However, the Department of the Treasury has jurisdiction for U.S. participationin the World Bank and other international financial institutions and would normally be the one tolead this effort. In any case, the President is required by Sec. 10 of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Actof 1996 ( P.L. 104-172 ) to undertake an international effort to persuade countries to pressure Iran tocease development of weapons of mass destruction. This effort would presumably include effortsto stop lending by the World Bank so long as Iran continues to pursue WMD ambitions. Typically,legislative jurisdiction for matters pertaining to the World Bank lies with the House FinancialServices Committee. During floor action, the House passed an amendment to Section 106 which authorizes theBroadcasting Board of Governors to use such sums as are necessary for FY2006 and FY2007 tobroadcast at least 30 minutes a day to Venezuela. S. 600 contains a number of measures in addition to those authorizing StateDepartment appropriations, organization measures, and broadcasting. Included in S. 600are provisions that would authorize foreign assistance programs, radiological terrorism security,global pathogen surveillance, safe water, protection of vulnerable populations during humanitarianemergencies, and conventional arms disarmament. U.S. Assessments. Effective October 1, 1995,Congress, in Section 404 (b)(2), P. L. 103-236, limited U.S. assessed payments to U.N. peacekeepingaccounts to 25%, irrespective of the higher percent level assessed the U.S. government by the UnitedNations General Assembly. Congress had taken this action in response to continuing increases inthe overall costs of U.N. peacekeeping operations and the failure of U.N. member governments toaccept increases in their own assessment levels, a step that would enable U.S. assessments to belowered. This difference between U.S. peacekeeping contributions and U.N. peacekeepingassessments, created by the gap between U.N. and U.S.-recognized assessment levels, helped toproduce a growing arrearage in U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping accounts. In 2001, in response to a December 2000 agreement by the U.N. General Assembly that theU.S. regular budget assessment would be reduced from 25% to 22%, the U.S. peacekeepingassessment level started to fall toward 25%. [The U.N. peacekeeping assessment is based on amodification of the regular budget assessment level. See CRS Issue Brief IB90103, United NationsPeacekeeping: Issues for Congress , Table 1 . U.N. Peacekeeping Assessment Levels for the UnitedStates and accompanying text for further details and background.] (21) In 2002, Congressstipulated that the 25% cap set for peacekeeping payments in 1995 would be raised for calendar years(CY) 2001 through 2004 to a range of 28.15% for CY2001 through 27.4 % for CY2004. This wouldenable current U.S. peacekeeping assessments to be paid in full (section 402, P. L. 107-228). TheFY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P.L. 108-447 , December 8, 2004), set the peacekeepingassessment cap for CY2005 at 27.1%. The Senate on April 6, 2005, accepted an amendment to S. 600 that would dropthe assessment cap limitation changes, returning the cap to 25%. The Foreign Relations Committeehad recommended a permanent change to 27.1% and an amendment sponsored by Senator Bidenwould have adopted the 27.1% cap for CY 2005, 2006, and 2007, a change requested by theAdministration. According to the U.N. General Assembly resolution (A/RES/58/256, adoptedDecember 23, 2003) which endorsed peacekeeping assessment levels for CY 2004 through 2006,the U.S. assessment level for its peacekeeping contributions is: The Senate action, if it became law, would appear to return the United States to the automaticaccumulation of arrearages in its U.N. peacekeeping contributions. H.R. 2601 does nothave language relating to the peacekeeping cap. CRS Products: CRS Issue Brief IB90103, United Nations Peacekeeping: Issues for Congress. The Brahimi Report. 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 Special Adviser to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Many of those recommendations, after being reviewed by the U.N. General Assembly and its SpecialCommittee on Peacekeeping Operations and the U.N. Security Council, were implemented. Section 403 of S. 600 would require the Secretary of State, within 120 days afterenactment, to submit a report "assessing the progress made to implement the recommendations setout in the Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations, transmitted...on August 21,2000...." This State Department report "shall" include "(1) an assessment of the progress made bythe United Nations toward implementing the recommendations set out in the Report; (2) adescription of the progress made toward strengthening the capability of the United Nations to deploya civilian police force and rule of law teams on an emergency basis at the request of the UnitedNations Security Council; and (3) a description of the policies, programs, and strategies of the UnitedStates Government that support the implementation of the recommendations set out in the Report,especially in the areas of civilian police and rule of law." The Senate Foreign Relations Committeein explaining its intent recognized "the importance of the U.N. peacekeeping operations, includingtheir capability to deploy civil police forces in post-conflict stabilization missions" and stated itsbelief "that the report required by this section will contribute to its oversight of U.S. efforts andsupport for implementing any outstanding recommendations of the 2000 Brahimi assessment." (22) H.R. 2601 does not include comparable language. This is not the first time the Senate Committee has recommended such a report. In April2003 and in March 2004, the Committee recommended in Section 402 of S. 925 forFY2004 and S. 2144 for FY2005, respectively, that the Foreign Relations AuthorizationAct require the Secretary of State submit to "appropriate committees of Congress" a report "assessingthe progress made to implement the recommendations" of the Brahimi Panel. The contentsrequirements for the report were identical to those in Section 403 of S. 600 . The Housebill in the 108th Congress, H.R. 1950 , did not include a similar provision and thelegislation was not enacted. Neither House or Senate authorization bills, as reported by the respective committees, address the long-standing and frequently contentious matter of U.S. international family planningassistance and abortion. The Senate, however, adopted a floor amendment to S. 600 ,offered by Senator Boxer, that would effectively reverse the President's so-called "Mexico City"policy. In the past, the Bush Administration has said the President would veto legislation thatincluded such text. 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 non-governmentorganizations (NGOs) and multilateral groups, creating a situation in which the United Stateschallenges their sovereignty on how to spend their own money and impose a so-called "gag" orderon their ability to promote changes to abortion laws and regulations in developing nations. The latterrestriction, these critics note, would be unconstitutional if applied to American groups working inthe United States. Supporters of the policy argue that even though permanent law bans USAID funds frombeing used 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. 600 , the Senate approved (52-46) on April 5 an amendmentoffered by Senator Boxer that would effectively overturn the President's Mexico City policy. Specifically, the Boxer language states that foreign NGOs shall not be ineligible for U.S. funds solelyon the basis of health or medical services they provide (including counseling and referral services)with non-U.S. government funds. This exemption would apply so long as the services do not violatethe laws of the country in which they are performed and that they would not violate U.S. laws ifprovided in the United States. The amendment further provides that non-U.S. government fundsused by foreign NGOs for advocacy and lobbying activities shall be subject to conditions that alsoapply to U.S. NGOs. Since it is largely held that American NGOs would not be subject to theserestrictions under the Constitutional protection of free speech, it is possible that this latter exemptionwould lift current prohibitions that apply to overseas NGOs. CRS Products: CRS Issue Brief IB96026, Population Assistance and Family Planning Programs: Issues forCongress. There has been strong public concern in the past decade that many poor countries are stifledin their efforts to escape poverty and develop their economies by their comparatively heavy burdensof external debt. Since the late 1980s, the G7 countries have adopted various plans for cancellingthe debt of these countries. To qualify, countries must adopt reforms in their economic policies andprocedures. In July 2005, the G8 announced plans for a program of 100% debt cancellation for 18countries that have successfully completed the program for assistance to heavily indebted poorcountries (HIPCs) as well as for other that meet those standards in the future. Among other things,this will include deep cancellation of debt owed to the international financial institutions. S. 600 contains language (Sec. 2114) that would authorize the appropriation of$99.75 million during fiscal 2006 for debt reduction under the HIPC program and the Tropical ForestConservation Act of 1998. No more than $20 million of the total may be used to carry out the latteract. There is no indication what share should be used to fund U.S. bilateral debt cancellation ormultilateral debt cancellation via contribution to the HIPC Trust Fund administered by the WorldBank. For fiscal 2005, the Administration requested an appropriation of $105 million to completeU.S. bilateral debt cancellation for the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DROC). The UnitedStates is one of the last countries not to cancel debts owed to it by the DROC under the HIPCagreement approved in 2003. S. 600 also includes language (Sec. 2221) authorizing thePresident to reduce further most debts owed to the United States by the poorest countries, in lightof the debt reduction plan recently announced by the G8. H.R. 2601 has no comparablelanguage related to debt cancellation. It does mention in Sec. 954 that debt relief could be part ofthe comprehensive strategy called for by the Sense of Congress statement for the elimination ofextreme poverty in developing countries. From the point of view of supporters, greater debt cancellation will help poor countries fightpoverty and enhance their development prospects. Few groups have voiced opposition to themeasures. Many worry, however, that -- he G8 having promised to reimburse the World Bank foronly a small part of the total multilateral debt forgiveness announced at the recent G8 meeting --future aid levels from the Bank's concessional aid program will be reduced proportionally to theplanned debt cancellation. On that basis, debt cancellation would provide few net benefits for theBank's prospective aid recipients. CRS Products: CRS Report RS21482 , The Paris Club and International Debt Relief ; CRS Report RL32489(pdf) , Africa: Development Issues and Policy Options ; CRS Report RL32796 , Africa, the G8 and the Blair Initiative ; and CRS Issue Brief IB95052, Africa: U.S. Foreign Assistance Issues . The State Department is responsible for protecting more than 60,000 government andcontract employees, and their family members, who work in embassies and consulates in 180countries. Given the threat of a terrorist act against U.S. personnel located overseas, assessing andresponding to a Chemical, Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear (CBRN) attack is of concern to theDepartment of State. "Terrorist groups, particularly Al Qaeda, remain interested in CBRN weapons. Al Qaeda's stated intention to conduct an attack exceeding the destruction of 9/11 raises thepossibility that a future attack may involve unconventional weapons." (26) S. 600 contains numerous provisions, under Title XXIII - the RadiologicalTerrorism Security Act of 2005, that address preparing for and responding to a CBRN attack. ( H.R. 2601 does not contain a provision that addresses radiological terrorism issues.) Section 2303 of S. 600 would require the Secretary of State to provide to Congress reportsdetailing various aspects of preparations of U.S. diplomatic facilities to detect and mitigate aradiological attack. This report is due no later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this act. This section of the act also would require that a report be submitted by the Secretary that prioritizes:radiological security and consequence management efforts at U.S. diplomatic facilities and the U.S.missions where such improvements are most needed. These two reports are to be submitted toCongress annually commencing in FY2007. Currently the State Department addresses issues relatedto responding to a radiological incident in each embassy's Emergency Action Plan (EAP).Radiological response efforts supported by the EAP consist of providing CBRN equipment andtraining to U.S. personnel stationed overseas. (27) Section 2304 of this act would require the Secretary to assist foreign country first responderefforts. The provisions contained in this section would require the State Department to train foreignfirst responders to: detect, identify, and characterize radioactive material, understand the hazardsposed by radioactive contamination, and enter and assist individuals located in contaminated areas. These efforts complement the Department of State's Antiterrorism Assistance Program (ATA) thatfocuses on "developing a comprehensive and structured response within a host Nation's firstresponder community". (28) In FY2004, this ATA program trained first responders from 15Countries. Section 2305 proposes $2 million in FY2006 to undertake the efforts delineated in theRadiological Terrorism Security Act of 2005. The State Department's FY2006 funding request forprograms related to safeguarding of overseas diplomatic security facilities is $689.5 million (29) an increase of $39.6million (6 percent) over FY2005 levels. In 1997 a new strain of influenza jumped from poultry directly to humans in Hong Kong,resulting in several human deaths. This marked the first documented occurrence of directtransmission of an avian flu virus from birds to people. Despite efforts to contain the virus throughmass-culling of poultry flocks, the virus (also called H5N1 for specific proteins on its surface)re-emerged in 2003. It has since been reported in domestic poultry and/or migratory birds inCambodia, People's Republic of China, Taipei, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea,Laos, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. (31) Also since 2003, it has infected 97 people in Cambodia,Thailand and Vietnam, resulting in 53 deaths. (32) As yet the virus has not developed the ability to transmitefficiently from person to person. Were that to occur, Asia could become the epicenter of a globalinfluenza pandemic. The high lethality of the strain and its tendency to affect young people remindhealth authorities of the deadly 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, which is estimated to have killed asmany as 2% of the world's population, and was a substantial cause of mortality among U.S. militarypersonnel serving in World War I. (33) U.S. and world health authorities believe that while influenza pandemics are inevitable andcannot be stopped, their progress may be slowed by rapid detection and local efforts to controlspread. The added time would allow affected nations to better manage the situation, and countriesnot yet affected to better prepare. To realize these benefits, Asian countries affected by avian flumust be able to track the spread of the virus in birds, and quickly detect and investigate suspectedhuman cases. Hence, a country's capabilities in epidemiology, laboratory detection and other publichealth services affect the welfare of the global community as well as the country itself. This factpresents developed nations with novel policy challenges, such as whether to reserve scarce healthresources such as antiviral drugs for themselves, or to rapidly deploy them to developing nations atthe center of an emerging pandemic. Section 2117 of S. 600 calls on the President to establish an interagency taskforce to design and implement a comprehensive international strategy to prevent and, if necessary,respond to outbreaks of avian flu, and to assure that U.S. efforts are well coordinated with those ofother nations. The task force is to be composed of officials at the assistant secretary level or higher. In addition, the act would authorize $25 million for FY2006 (through Section 491 of the ForeignAssistance Act) for assistance in preventing and responding to avian flu outbreaks. H.R. 2601 , is silent on the matter of avian flu. Related legislation addressinginternational aspects of pandemic flu preparedness includes 1) supplemental appropriations forFY2005, in which Congress provided $25 million for foreign assistance to prevent and control thespread of avian flu, directing that not less than $15 million of that be re-directed to the Centers forDisease Control and Prevention (CDC), to be obligated only after consultation with USAID; (34) and 2) S. 969 ,the Attacking Viral Influenza Across Nations Act of 2005, which would direct a number of effortsfor domestic and global preparedness for pandemic influenza, including creation of a cabinet-levelpolicy coordinating committee, foreign assistance for public health and medical capacity, anddevelopment of a proposal for an international fund to support pandemic influenza control and reliefactivities. Title XXIV of S. 600 -- The Global Pathogen Surveillance Act -- wouldauthorize $35 million for FY2006 to enhance the capability of developing nations to detect, identify,and contain infectious disease outbreaks, whether naturally occurring or the result of a bioterroristattack. The legislation was first introduced in the 107th Congress by Senators Biden, Helms,Kennedy, and Frist ( S. 2487 ), where it passed the Senate, amended, in August 2002. Nofurther action was taken on the measure during the 107th Congress. Similar legislation wasintroduced in both chambers in the 108th Congress but was not ultimately enacted. H.R. 2601 is silent on the matter of pathogen surveillance. Infectious disease outbreaks need not originate in the United States to pose a threat to thenation. The outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Disease (SARS) in 2003 and growing concernsabout pandemic influenza underscore the importance of global surveillance system to detect andtrack the spread of infectious diseases around the world, whether of natural origin or from abioterrorist attack. International trade, travel, and migration facilitate the rapid spread of pathogensfrom one continent to another. In turn, widespread outbreaks of infectious disease threaten thehealth, economic and social stability not just of those countries directly affected, but of theirneighbors and trading partners as well. Global surveillance is crucial in containing microbial threats before isolated outbreaksdevelop into regional or worldwide pandemics. In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO)established the Global Alert and Response Network to monitor and track infectious disease outbreaksin every region of the world. But many developing nations lack the trained personnel, laboratoryfacilities, and public health infrastructure to detect emerging pathogens and track evolving diseasepatterns. The Global Pathogen Surveillance Act states that priority for provision of assistance will begiven to those countries that provide early notification of disease outbreaks, share data withappropriate U.S. authorities, and permit WHO and CDC officials to investigate outbreaks ofinfectious diseases on their territories (Section 2404). The act includes several provisions intendedto strengthen the disease surveillance capabilities of developing nations. First, it would provide forin-country training for medical and laboratory personnel and permit eligible nationals of developingcountries to come to the United States to pursue a master of public health degree or advancedtraining in epidemiology (Sections 2406 and 2407). Second, it would provide assistance for thepurchase of basic laboratory equipment for the collection, analysis, and identification of pathogens,and communications equipment and information technology for the dissemination of informationon disease patterns throughout regional health networks, excluding any types of equipment subjectto export controls (Sections 2408 and 2409). Additionally, the act would authorize the heads of executive branch agencies to assign publichealth officials to U.S. diplomatic missions and international health organizations when requested,and permit the expansion of CDC facilities overseas to further the goals of global disease monitoring(Sections 2410 and 2411). Finally, the act would authorize the President to provide funding andother assistance for the purpose of enhancing WHO's surveillance and reporting capabilities andthose of existing regional health networks, and for the development of new regional health networks(Section 2412). The act would authorize a total of $35 million for these activities in FY2006, fundsthat would be drawn from the Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining, and Related (NADR)Programs account, allocated as follows: $25 million for training public health officials and assisting in the procurementof lab and communication equipment (Sections 2406-2409); $0.5 million for the assignment of public health officials at U.S. missionsoverseas and international organizations (Section 2410); $2.5 million for the expansion of U.S. government labs overseas (Section2411); and $7 million to assist WHO and existing regional surveillance capabilities, andto develop new regional health networks (Section 2412). Lack of access to safe water and sanitation affects the health and livelihoods of billions ofpeople in developing countries. This absence is widely viewed as undermining development andpoverty reduction efforts. Appreciation of the linkages between water, development, and health isleading to a reassessment of the delivery of international water assistance. Several recentinternational development initiatives recognize the importance of improving access to water andsanitation as a means for achieving broader development and security objectives. Almost 1.1 billion people lack access to improved drinking water sources; an estimated 2.6billion people lack access to improved sanitation. These circumstances affect health anddevelopment through numerous pathways, including the health and economic costs of water-relateddiseases, and work and educational time lost to water collection. In response, Title VI of S. 600 (Safe Water: Currency for Peace Act of 2005) has been introduced to makeaccess to safe water and sanitation a policy objective of U.S. foreign assistance. (37) H.R. 2601 contains no similar title or provision. Title XXVI of S. 600 would amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 toauthorize funding for safe water and sanitation assistance, and mandate the development andimplementation of a water strategy. Title XXVI would authorize such sums as may be necessary tocarry out the title beginning FY2006 through FY2011. Section 2604 of Title XXVI would authorizea five-year pilot water program in countries with high rates of water-borne disease; the programwould have two main components: (1) technical assistance, capacity building, and monitoring and(2) financial assistance mechanisms (e.g., investment insurance and guarantees, loan guarantees, anddirect investment). Title XXVI also calls for a Safe Water Strategy "to further the United States foreignassistance objective to promote economic development by promoting good health through theprovision of assistance to expand access to safe water and sanitation, to promote sound watermanagement, and to improve hygiene for people around the world." Existing U.S. foreign assistancestrategies, addressing such issues as education, and HIV/AIDS, tend to be implementedindependently of one another. Title XXVI would emphasize the role of water in water-relateddisease prevention, thus linking water more explicitly with health and development objectives. Thetitle would require the Secretary of State to develop a water strategy in close coordination with theAdministrator of U.S. Agency for International Development, and to submit the strategy to Congressnot later than 180 days after enactment. Title XXVI also would require that an assessment ofactivities to improve water and sanitation in sub-Saharan Africa be included in the water strategy. Sub-Saharan Africa is the region that currently has the lowest overall rates of improved water andsanitation coverage. The Foreign Assistance Act currently specifies numerous development assistance objectives,all generally aimed at promoting economic development, and many focused on health issues;however, improving access to safe water and sanitation is not a stated priority. Title XXVI wouldestablish as a policy objective for U.S. foreign assistance the promotion of health and economicdevelopment by providing assistance for expanded access to safe water and sanitation, sound watermanagement, and improved hygiene. The second policy objective of Title XXVI is theencouragement of private investment in water and sanitation. Title I. Sec. 104 (c)(3). Within one year of establishing a pilot program for long-term refugee populations the Secretary is required to submit a report to congressionalcommittees on the implementation and recommendations. Title II Sec. 205. Accountability review boards ; limited exemptionsregarding facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq with incidents of injury or loss of life in Iraq andAfghanistan. The Secretary shall promptly notify HIRC and SFRC of such anincident. Title II, Sec. 216. Within 180 days after enactment the Secretary must reportto the appropriate congressional committees on the status of efforts to establish the Active ResponseCorps. Title II, Sec.217. Within one year, the Secretary of State must report tocongressional committees on security weaknesses regarding passports. Title III, Sec. 303 (e). Within two years after enactment, the Secretary shallreport to appropriate congressional committees on the effect of increases in post differentials anddanger pay allowances . Title III, Sec. 318 (c). Biennial report to be submitted by the Secretary toappropriate congressional committees regarding State Department human resources policies,skills, training, and diversity . Title IV. Sec. 403 (e) (3). Within 90 days after the date of this Act andannually until September 31, 2010, the Secretary of State must report to the appropriatecongressional committees on U.S. efforts to promote full compliance on U.N. Security CouncilResolution 1540. Title VI, Subtitle A, Sec.612. Secretary shall report to appropriatecongressional committees annually by July 1st of each year on democracy . And subsection (b) aone-time report on democracy training and guidelines for the Foreign Service. Title VI, Subtitle C, Sec 642. Human Rights and Democracy Fund annualreport required of the Secretary to be submitted to the appropriate congressional committees within60 days of the end of each fiscal year. Title VII, Subtitle B, Sec. 712 (c). Not later than one year, two years and threeyears after the date of enactment of the act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the appropriatecongressional committees a report on the Strategic Export Control Board . Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 721(c). Within 120 days after the date of enactmentof the act, the Secretaries of State and Commerce shall submit to appropriate congressionalcommittees a joint report on export licenses and jurisdictionaldeterminations. Title VII, Subtitle D, Sec. 731(c). Not later than 180 days after the date ofenactment of the act and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the AttorneyGeneral and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall report to appropriate congressional committeeson issues regarding sensitive technology transfers to a foreign person. Title VII, Subtitle D, Sec. 733(c). Within 120 days after enactment, theSecretary shall submit to appropriate congressional committees a report on establishment of foreignpolicy and national security export controls. Title VII, Subtitle E, Sec. 743(c)(4). The President shall report annually tospecified committees on the identity of any foreign person engaging in transactions related todual use sanctions . Title VIII, Subtitle A, Sec. 812. Not later than 180 days after enactment of theact, and no later than January 31st annually thereafter, the President shall report to the appropriatecommittees detailing Sec. 811 activity by any foreign person on sanction, export, trade, transferof nuclear enrichment equipment, materials or technology. Title VIII, Subtitle B, Sec 824. Within one year of enactment of this act andannually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the appropriate congressional committees on U.S.government actions to dissuade foreign government and business officials from engaging insanctioned activities under Sec. 811. Title VIII, Subtitle D, Sec. 842. Within 90 days, the President shall report tothe appropriate congressional committees on identification of nuclear proliferation network hostcountries. Title IX, Sec. 903 (a). The President shall report within 180 days afterenactment of this Act and within 12 months thereafter to the appropriate congressional committeeson Foreign Military Exports to China. Title IX, Sec. 904 (b). The President shall report to the appropriatecongressional committees no later than 180 days after the date of this Act and every 12 monthsthereafter on China arms transfer policies of countries participating in U.S. defense cooperativeprojects. Title IX, Sec. 906(b).Within 60 days after the end of each calendar quarter, theSecretary of Commerce shall report to the appropriate congressional committees on Chinesemilitary end use of dual use exports. Title X, Subtitle A, Sec 1001 (a)(F). No later than January 31, 2008, thePresident shall report to Congress on activities in FY2006 and FY2007 for establishing centers fortreatment of obstetric fistula in developing countries. Title X, Subtitle A, Sec. 1004(a)(5). Within 180 days after enactment and every180 days thereafter during FY2006 and FY2007 the secretary shall report to the appropriatecommittees on all UNDP activities in Burma. Title X, Sec. 1021. The President through the Secretary of State shall transmita report for each fiscal year to specified congressional committees on the requirement for assistanceto Egypt . Title X, Sec 1032. No later than 180 days after enactment of this act, theComptroller General of the United States shall report to appropriate congressional committees onthe U.S. assistance to the Palestinian Authority. Title X, Sec. 1045. Not later that one year and two years after the date ofenactment of this act, the Secretary shall report to the appropriate congressional committees on the Demonstration Insurance Project support for Ethiopia famine relief. Title X, Sec. 1051. No later than 180 days after enactment, the Secretary shallreport to appropriate congressional committees on all U.S. weapons transfers, sales, licensing toHaiti between October 4, 1991 through the date of enactment of this act. Title XI. Sec 1101(b). Within 120 days of enactment the Secretary shall reportin classified form on the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Initiative to appropriate congressionalcommittees. Title XI, Sec.1102. Amends annual Patterns of Global Terrorism Reportlanguage. Title XI, Sec. 1103. Within 180 days after enactment of this act, the Secretaryshall report to the appropriate congressional committees on dual gateway policy of the governmentof Ireland. Title XI, Sec. 1104. No later than one year after enactment of this act, theSecretary shall report to the appropriate congressional committees on the U.S. efforts to assistHaiti. Title XI, Sec. 1108. Within 30 days after completion of a study on autismservices overseas for dependents of Foreign Service personnel , the Secretary shall report to theappropriate congressional committees on the findings of the study. Title XI, Sec. 1109. The Secretary shall direct the U.S. representative to theboard of UNICEF to urge UNICEF to provide a report on worldwide incidence ofautism. Title XI, Sec. 1110. No later than March 1st after enactment of this act, theChairman of the BBG shall report to the appropriate congressional committees on state-sponsoredInternet jamming. Title XI, Sec. 1111 extends previous reporting requirement on minorityrecruitment at the Department of State to April 1, 2006 and April 1, 2007. Title XI, Sec 1112. Current language on annual country reports on humanrights practices is amended to include incitement to acts of discrimination. Title XI, Sec. 1113. No later than 180 days after enactment of this act, theSecretary shall report one time to the appropriate congressional committees on child marriage around the world. Title XI, Sec. 1114. No later than 60 days after enactment of this act, and oneyear thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the appropriate congressional committees on the MagenDavid Adom Society in the International Red Cross and Red CrescentMovement. Title XI, Sec. 1115. Within 180 days after enactment of this act, the Secretaryshall report to the appropriate congressional committees on special autonomy for Papua andAceh. Title XI, Sec. 1116. No later than 30 days after enactment of this act, and every120 days thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the appropriate congressional committees on the murders of three U.S. contract employees in Gaza and any resultingarrests. Title XI, Sec. 1117. No later than 90 days after the date of this act and annuallythereafter, the Secretary shall report to the appropriate congressional committees on diplomaticrelations with Israel. Title XI, Sec. 1118. No later than 90 days after the date of this act, theSecretary shall report to specified committees on tax code enforcement inColombia. Title XI, Sec. 1119. No later than 90 days after the date of this act, theSecretary shall report to appropriate congressional committees on the possibility of providing consular and visa services at the U.S. Office in Pristina, Kosovo. Title XI, Sec. 1120. No later than December 31st 2006 and 2007 the Presidentshall report to the appropriate congressional committees on democracy inPakistan. Title XI, Sec. 1121. No later than 120 days after the date of this act, and every180 days thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the appropriate congressional committees on thestatus of the sovereignty of Lebanon. Title XI, Sec. 1122. No later than 180 days after the date of this act, and byJune 30 of the following year, the Secretary shall report to the appropriate congressional committeeson international terrorist organizations in Latin America and theCaribbean . Title XI, Sec. 1123. No later than November 1, 2006 the Secretary shall reportto appropriate congressional committees on employment of weapons scientists from the formerSoviet Union in Project Bioshield. Title XI, Sec. 1124. No later than six months after the date of this act andannually thereafter, the Secretary shall report on extradition of violent criminals from Mexico tothe United States. Title XI, Sec. 1125. No later than 120 days after enactment of this act theSecretary shall report to the appropriate congressional committees on the actions of the 661Committee of the United Nations. Title XI, Sec. 1128. No later than 90 days after the date of this Act, theSecretary of State must report to the appropriate congressional committees on extraditions ofAfghan drug traffickers and drug kingpins. Title XI, Sec. 1129. No later than 90 days after the date of this Act, theSecretary of State must report to the appropriate congressional committees on the President'semergency plan for AIDS relief. Title XII, Sec 1218. No later than 180 days after enactment of this Act and oneyear thereafter, the Secretary of State shall report to the appropriate congressional committees on U.N. Reform . Title XII, Sec 1219. Within one year after the date of this Act, the Secretaryof State must report to the appropriate congressional committees on United Nations Personnelissues. Title XII, Sec. 1220. Within one year after the date of this Act, the Directorof OMB must report to specified congressional committees on U.S. contributions to the UnitedNations. Title XII, Sec. 1241 (f). No later than six months after the date of this Act, thePresident must report to the appropriate congressional committees on implementation on International Atomic Energy Agency compliance issues . Title XII, Sec. 1263. No later than six months after enactment of this Act, theSecretary of State must review and report to appropriate congressional committees on U.N.programs that are funded through assessed contributions. Title XII, Sec. 1264(a). Within 12 months after enactment of this Act andannually thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States Government Accountability Officemust report to the appropriate congressional committees on the status of the 1997, 2002, and 2005U.N. management reforms initiated by the Secretary General and those mandated by thistitle. Title XII, Sec. 1264 (b). Within six months after each certification by theSecretary of State, the Comptroller General must report to specified congressional committees on costs associated with U.N. building construction and contracting in Geneva,Switzerland. Title XIII, Sec. 1304(d). Within 180 days after enactment of this Act andannually thereafter, the Secretary must report to the appropriate congressional committees onapplication and issuance rates for F-1 and J-1 visas at all diplomatic and consular missionsproviding consular service. Title XIV, Sec. 1414(c). Within one year after enactment of this Act, theSecretary of State must report to the appropriate congressional committees on the prevention ofsmuggling methamphetamine into the United States from Mexico. Title II, Sec. 202(4). Not later than Feb 1 each year the Secretary shall reportto congressional committees on issuing administrative subpoenas. Title II, Sec 208. The Secretary shall promptly report to congressionalcommittees on injury or loss of life in facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Title II, Sec 213. Within one year of enactment the Secretary shall report onthe activities of the Victim of Crime Office. Title III, Sec. 307. Within one year, the Secretary shall report to congressionalcommittees on the waiver authorities of annuity limitations for Foreign Serviceannuitants. Title IV, Sec. 402. No later than 120 days after enactment, the Secretary shallreport to the appropriate congressional committees on the implementation of the BrahimiReport . Title VI, Sec. 602. No later than 180 days after enactment, the Secretary shallreport to Congress on measures to enhance international student exchange programs and thoseto utilize educational advising centers . Title VII, Sec 707(c). No later than 180 days after the date of this act, theSecretary shall report to the appropriate congressional committees on the status of efforts to establishthe Response Readiness Corps. Title VIII, Sec. 805 extends to FY2006 and FY2007 the reporting requirementconcerning efforts to promote Israel's diplomatic relations with othercountries . Title XXI, Sec. 2116 requires the secretary to report to Congress no later than180 days after enactment of this report on the Middle East Partnership Initiative(MEPI). Title XXI, Sec. 2117 requires the President to report to specified congressionalcommittees on interagency coordination to combat the avian flu. Title XXII, Sec. 2224 requires that no later than January 31, 2007 and annuallythereafter, a newly-established Middle East Foundation report to the appropriate congressionalcommittees and make available the Foundation's annual reports for the yearprior. Title XXII, Sec 2236 amends the Foreign Relations Authorization Act ofFY2003 to require a report to Congress no later than April 1, 2006 on consolidation of reports on nonproliferation in South Asia. Title XXII, Sec. 2238 restricts FY2006 U.S. assistance to the Government ofIndonesia or to the Indonesian Armed Forces until the Secretary reports to the appropriatecongressional committees on the status of the investigation of the murders of two U.S. citizens andone Indonesian citizen that occurred August 31, 2002 in Timika,Indonesia. Title XXIII, Sec. 2303. No later than 180 days after enactment of this act andfor each fiscal year after FY2006, the Secretary shall report to the appropriate congressionalcommittees on embassy threat assessments . Title XXIV, Sec. 2413. No later than 120 days after the date of this act, theSecretary shall report on programs having to do with global pathogen surveillance and the levelof funding necessary to implement those programs. Title XXV, Sec 2511. Not later than April 15 of each year, the President shallreport to the Speaker of the House and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on arms control, nonproliferation and disarmament issues. Title XXV, Sec. 2513 requires the Secretary to report to appropriatecongressional committees no later than 180 days after enactment of this act on efforts to strengthen judicial capacity in Africa. Title XXV, Sec. 2520 requires the Secretary to report to appropriate congressional committees no later than 60 days after the date of this act on U.S. policy towardHaiti. Title XXVI, Sec. 2604 requires the President to report annually to specifiedcongressional committees on a clean water sustainability infrastructure development pilotprogram established by this bill. Title XXVI, Sec. 2605 requires the President at least once every two years toreport to Congress on implementation of its safe water strategy. Title XXVII, Sec. 2741 requires the Secretary to report to appropriatecongressional committees within 180 days of enactment of this act U.S. programs by State or USAIDto assist enforcement of foreign country laws designed to protect women and children andimprove accountability for sexual exploitation and abuse. Title XXVIII, Sec. 2806 requires the Secretary to report within 180 days tospecified congressional committees on conventional arms threat reduction . 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 FY1984-85 -- 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. FY2004 -- authorization waived by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2004, P.L. 108-199 ,Sec. 407. FY2005 -- authorization waived by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2005, P.L. 108-447 ,Sec. 410. Table 1. State Department and Related Agencies Appropriations and ProposedAuthorizations (millions of dollars) Source : The Congressional Research Service. Notes: Amounts in parentheses indicate subaccount funds which are included in the account funding level. n.a. = not available. *FY2004 and FY2005 enacted appropriations reflect rescissions and supplementals for those years.

Summary: The foreign relations authorization process dovetails with the annual appropriation processfor the Department of State, foreign policy, and foreign assistance. Congress is required by law toauthorize the spending of appropriations for the State Department and foreign policy activities everytwo years. The last time Congress passed a stand-alone foreign relations authorization bill was inFY2003 ( P.L. 107-228 ). Foreign assistance authorization measures (such as authorization for the U.S. Agency forInternational Development, economic and military assistance to foreign countries, and internationalpopulation programs) typically have been merged into the State Department authorization legislationsince 1985. Since that time, Congress has not passed a stand-alone foreign assistance authorizationbill. On March 10, 2005, Senator Lugar introduced S. 600 . The bill includesappropriations for the Department of State, international broadcasting, the Peace Corps, and foreignassistance programs for FY2006 and FY2007. In early April, the Senate debated S. 600on the Senate floor. The measure is stalled for now with the introduction of numerous flooramendments. Congressman Christopher H. Smith introduced a foreign relations authorization bill( H.R. 2601 ) on May 24, 2005. The bill was marked up at the subcommittee and fullcommittee level in late May and early June. House floor action occurred the week of July 18th. The House and Senate legislation contain similar titles regarding authorization language forthe Department of State, international organizations, and international broadcasting; StateDepartment organization and personnel issues, and miscellaneous reporting requirements. S. 600 goes beyond H.R. 2601 on foreign assistance authorization andnumerous other foreign policy issues including avian flu, debt relief, global pathogen surveillance,safe water, and reconstruction and stabilization initiatives. Issues covered in H.R. 2601,but not significantly in S. 600 include democracy promotion, U.N. reform, strategic exportcontrols, missile and nuclear nonproliferation measures, and World Bank loans to Iran. This report will be updated as legislative action occurs. Key Policy Staff Division abbreviations: RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry Division; DSP = Domestic Social Policy Division; FDT = Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.