On February 27, 2004, Senator Lugar introduced S. 2144 , the Foreign RelationsAuthorization Act, FY2005. This bill replaces S. 925 which received no Senate floorvote because of political disputes over unrelated floor amendments. (1) The Committee on ForeignRelations reported its new authorization bill out on March 18, 2004 ( S.Rept. 108-248 ). On May 5, 2003, Congressman Hyde introduced the House Foreign Relations AuthorizationAct, Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 ( H.R. 1950 ). The House International RelationsCommittee held markup on it beginning May 7 and filed a report ( H.Rept 108-105 ) on May 16. Ifenacted, the House bill would have authorized the Department of State's operations and programsat more than $27 billion for FY2004 and FY2005, and would have establish U.S. policy on theIsraeli-Palestinian peace plan, export controls, security assistance to certain foreign countries, andfunding for the U.N. Population Fund. House floor action occurred on July 15th and 16th. The Housepassed the bill on July 16, 2003. The foreign relations authorization legislation provides authority for the State Departmentand related foreign policy agencies to conduct foreign policy activities and programs in the comingyear. It authorizes foreign policy programs and enacts changes in U.S. foreign policy. It also servesas a vehicle for Congress to influence executive branch management of foreign policy. SinceCongress has not passed a foreign assistance authorization bill since 1985, activities such asauthorization for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), as well as U.S.economic, development, and military assistance are also typically included in the foreign relationsauthorization legislation. By law, authorization of foreign policy agencies and programs is required prior toexpenditure of Foreign Operations and State Department appropriations. In effect, the authorizinglegislation sets spending ceilings for the foreign policy agency appropriations. (See Table 1 inappendix.) Prior to 1995, Congress had reauthorized U.S. government foreign policy agencies andactivities in the foreign relations authorization legislation every two years until 1994 ( P.L. 103-236 ,April 30, 1994). P.L. 107-228 is the first stand-alone foreign relations authorization bill thatCongress has passed since 1994. In the intervening years, Congress waived the requirement orincluded authorization in appropriation laws. (See State Department Authorization History in theAppendix.) The foreign relations authorization legislation typically provides authority for StateDepartment spending for such activities as salaries and other operating expenses, passport and visaprocessing, embassy and Foreign Service activities, as well as public diplomacy and internationalbroadcasting. In addition, the legislation often becomes a convenient vehicle for numerous foreignpolicy-related issues, such as nonproliferation, human rights, international family planning policy,and international environment issues. Congress can influence U.S. foreign policy regarding specificregions or countries via this biannual legislation, as well. Legislation in the 108th Congress on foreign relations authorization include H.R. 1950 and S. 2144 . The Senate bill provides authorization for FY2005 only and includesDivision A -- Foreign Relations Authorization and Division B -- Foreign Assistance Authorization . H.R. 1950 has five divisions: Division A is entitled, Millennium Challenge Account; Division B is entitled Peace Corps Expansion Act of 2003; Division C is entitled Department ofState Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005; Division D is entitled Defense Trade andSecurity Assistance Reform Act of 2003; and Division E is Assistance for Viet Nam . Since his election in 1994, Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko has reversedBelarus's modest progress toward democracy and a free market economy and created anauthoritarian, Soviet-style regime. The Bush Administration has called him "Europe's last dictator. "The 2002 State Department Human Rights report said that Belarus's human rights record is "verypoor." Lukashenko has extended his term in office by illegitimate means; drastically reduced thepower of the legislature and judiciary; harassed, arrested, and beaten opposition figures (perhapshaving four of them killed in 1999); forced the closure of independent media; and restricted freedomof religion. In November 2002, the United States joined 14 European Union countries in imposinga visa ban against Lukashenko and other top Belarusian officials due to Belarus's closure of an OSCEhuman rights monitoring mission in the country. The visa ban was lifted in April 2003 after theOSCE office was reopened. Belarus allegedly has ties with rogue regimes. Before the war in Iraq,Lukashenko made statements opposing U.S. military action and supporting Saddam Hussein. InApril 2003, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Stephen Pifer said that there have been "repeatedreports from a variety of credible sources that Belarus is involved in arms transfers to states orgroups that support terrorism, and in the military training of individuals associated with these states." He said those states included Iran and Iraq under Saddam Hussein. (3) Congressional concerns about Belarus are reflected in the House version of H.R. 1950 . Title XVI Section 1601 authorizes U.S. aid to assist Belarusian democracy; Section 1602authorizes appropriations for increased broadcasting to Belarus by Voice of America and Radio FreeEurope/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL); Section 1603 expresses the sense of the Congress that sanctionsbe imposed on Belarus until conditions are met that require Belarus's democratization; and Section1604 expresses the sense of the Congress that the President should coordinate with Europeancountries to take measures similar to those in this title. Section 1605 requires the President to reportwithin 90 days and every year thereafter on the sale of weapons or weapons-related assistance toregimes supporting terrorism, and on the personal wealth of Lukashenko and other senior Belarusianleaders. This title could be viewed as non-controversial in that it does not formally require theAdministration to take action, except to submit a regular report on Belarus's military ties withregimes supporting terrorism. The title's authorization for aid for Belarus democratization and VOAand RFE/RL broadcasts is also unlikely to be controversial. Section 1603, which expresses supportfor, but does not mandate, sanctions against Belarus, could conceivably cause some disquiet amongsome U.S. allies in Europe, if it were perceived to be part of a U.S. effort to completely isolateLukashenko. While sharing U.S. distaste for the Belarusian leader, some European countries mayworry that isolation could provoke the regime into unpredictable actions, or contribute to instabilityin a country that will border on the European Union in 2004. Policymakers who support Title XVIargue that Lukashenko's regime is a source of instability, and that the sooner it is deposed anddemocracy is restored, the more stable the region will be. A mix of sanctions and support forpro-democracy groups would be the best way to achieve this aim, they believe. Neither the previous Senate version of the bill ( S. 925 ) nor the current one( S. 2144 ) contain similar provisions. CRS Products CRS Issue Brief IB95077, The Former Soviet Union and U.S. Foreign Assistance , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 95-776(pdf) , Belarus: Country Background Report , by [author name scrubbed]. U.S. farmers have been rapidly adopting genetically engineered (GE) crops -- mainly corn,soybean, and cotton varieties -- to lower production costs and improve management. However,many foreign countries are wary of agricultural biotechnology, such as in the European Union (EU)where consumer and environmental organizations have been very vocal in expressing concerns aboutthe human health and environmental impacts of GE crops. U.S. exporters often have encounteredbarriers to trade in the EU and other markets, where in some cases their sales have been slowed orhalted. Both S. 2144 and H.R. 1950 contain provisions intended topromote agricultural biotechnology in international trade and development. The Senate bill (Sec.211) would authorize the Secretary of State to support through grants, cooperative agreements, orcontracts, "outreach and public diplomacy activities" on the benefits of agricultural biotechnologyand science-based regulatory systems, and on the application of agricultural biotechnology for tradeand development purposes. Grants cannot exceed $500,000 annually. The House version (Sec. 728)requires the Secretary to provide other countries, as appropriate, scientific evidence on the benefits,safety, and potential uses of agricultural biotechnology. The Secretary of State is required to chaira federal interagency task force to develop and disseminate such scientific information; and toinstruct USAID to develop a program demonstrating agricultural biotechnology benefits for thedeveloping world, among other things. Agricultural groups and the biotechnology industry might be expected to strongly supporta biotechnology provision in this legislation; they have been working for a number of years to urgethe Administration and Congress to do more to promote the products of U.S. agriculturalbiotechnology -- which, they assert, are as safe as conventionally produced crops -- in foreignmarkets. Some U.S. consumer and environmental advocacy organizations, who have expressedconcerns about the safety of such products, might oppose it; others could argue that numerous federalagencies, including the Department of State, the U.S. Trade Representative, and U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, already are working aggressively to open foreign markets to U.S. biotechnology. State is the lead department dealing with the so-called Cartagena Biosafety Protocol.