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.