Foreign Relations Authorization, FY2002/2003: An Overview

Report for Congress
Foreign Relations Authorization, FY2003:
An Overview
Updated November 8, 2002
Susan B. Epstein, Coordinator
Specialist in Foreign Policy and Trade
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Foreign Relations Authorization, FY2003:
An Overview
Congress is required by law to authorize the spending of appropriations for the
State Department and foreign policy activities every two years. The authorization
process dovetails with the annual appropriation process for the Department of State
(within the Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agency appropriation) and foreign
policy/foreign aid activities (within the foreign operations appropriation).
While Congress intended the legislation would serve as authorization for both
FY2002 and FY2003, the delay in getting it through Congress led to a waiver of the
authorization requirement for FY2002 (P.L. 107-77, Section 405); the law that was
eventually enacted (P.L. 107-228) authorizes foreign relations spending only for
The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (H.R. 1646/S.
1401/S. 1803) authorizes, among other things, the Department of State’s operations
and programs, arms sales to Taiwan, the U.S. embassy to be located in Jerusalem,
UNESCO, and U.S. assistance to Colombia. Both H.R. 1646 and S. 1803 contain
authorization for security assistance, as well.
Congressman Hyde introduced H.R. 1646 on April 27, 2001. The House
International Relations Committee reported the bill May 4, 2001 (H.Rept. 107-57).
The House passed it, as amended, on May 16, 2001 by a recorded vote of 352-73.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed its foreign relations
authorization bill (S. 1401) by unanimous voice vote on August 1, 2001. The
Committee filed its report (S.Rept. 107-60) on September 4, 2001. With a crowded
schedule after the September 11th attacks, the Senate did not take up the authorization
bill. Rather, within the context of the Commerce, Justice, State (CJS) appropriation
(section 405, P.L. 107-77), Congress waived the requirement for authorization prior
to the State Department spending its appropriations as is required by law.
On May 1, 2002, the Senate amended its version of H.R. 1646 by substituting
S. 1803 (the Security Assistance Act) language. Throughout the 2002 summer,
House and Senate staff met to iron out the differences of the two sides’ authorization
bills. As a result of staff-level meetings, several provisions that had been in House
and Senate bills (such as global warming and international family planning measures)
were not included in the conference report that was voted on and passed by
The House and Senate conferees met for the first time on September 18, 2002
and filed the conference report September 23rd (H.Rept 107-671). The House passed
the conference report by voice vote on September 25th; the Senate passed it by
unanimous consent on September 26, 2002. The President signed it into law (P.L.

107-228) on September 30, 2002.

Most Recent Developments..........................................1
Background ......................................................1
Key Issues–Foreign Relations .......................................2
Arms Sales to Taiwan..........................................2
China-U.S. Policy.............................................4
Tibet ....................................................4
Taiwan ..................................................4
Colombia Assistance...........................................5
Drug Certification Procedures....................................6
East Timor...................................................9
Family Planning, Abortion Restrictions, and the Mexico City Policy......9
Global Warming..............................................12
HIV/AIDS ..................................................13
Human Rights – Child Soldiers, Trafficking, Human Rights and
Democracy Fund.........................................14
IMET in Lebanon.............................................15
Jerusalem – U.S. Embassy......................................16
State Department and International Broadcasting Issues...............16
Deputy Secretary of State for Management.....................17
Right-Sizing Overseas Posts................................17
Consular Activities.......................................18
Minority Recruitment at State...............................18
Private Funding for Exchanges..............................19
International Broadcasting in the Middle East...................19
U.N. Issues..................................................20
UNESCO ...............................................20
U.N. Arrears.............................................21
Key Issues–Security Assistance Act of 2002............................21
Military Assistance and Arms Export Control Provisions..............22
Nonproliferation and Export Control Assistance.....................22
Russian Debt-Swap for Nonproliferation......................23
Iran Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 2002...............23
Nuclear and missile proliferation in South Asia.................24
Appendix .......................................................26
State Department Authorization History...........................26
List of Tables
Table 1. State Department and Related Agencies Appropriations and Proposed
Authorizations ...............................................27

Foreign Relations Authorization, FY2003:
An Overview
Most Recent Developments
The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2003 (H.R. 1646/S.
1401/S. 1803) authorizes the Department of State’s operations and programs
through FY2003, and establishes U.S. policy on: Colombia assistance, a U.S.
embassy in Jerusalem, U.S. human rights policy, UNESCO, and arms sales to
Taiwan, among other measures. Congressman Hyde introduced H.R. 1646 on April
27, 2001. The House passed the bill, as amended, on May 16, 2001 by a recorded
vote of 352-73. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed its version of thest
authorization legislation by a unanimous voice vote on August 1. The Committee
filed its report (S.Rept. 107-60) on September 4, 2001. Conferees met on Septemberrd
18, 2002 and filed the conference report (H.Rept. 107-671) on September 23. The
House passed the conference report by voice vote on September 25th and the Senate
passed it by unanimous consent the next day. President Bush signed the legislation
into law (P.L. 107-228) on September 30, 2002.
The foreign relations authorization legislation provides authority for the State
Department and related foreign policy agencies to conduct foreign policy activities
and programs in the coming year. It authorizes foreign policy programs and enacts
changes in U.S. foreign policy. It also serves as a vehicle for Congress to influence
executive branch management of foreign policy. Since Congress has not passed a
foreign assistance authorization bill since 1985, activities such as authorization 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
authorization legislation.
By law, authorization of foreign policy agencies and programs is required prior
to expenditure of Foreign Operations and State Department appropriations. In effect,
the authorizing legislation sets spending ceilings for the foreign policy agency
appropriations. (See Table 1 below.) Prior to 1995, Congress had reauthorized U.S.
government foreign policy agencies and activities 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 that Congress
has passed since 1994. In the intervening years, Congress waived the requirement or
included authorization in appropriation laws. (See State Department Authorization
History in the Appendix.)

Key Issues–Foreign Relations
The foreign relations authorization legislation typically provides authority for
State Department spending for such activities as salaries and other operating
expenses, passport and visa processing, embassy activities, as well as foreign service
benefits. In addition, the legislation often becomes a convenient vehicle for
numerous foreign policy-related issues, such as nonproliferation, human rights,
international family planning policy, and Foreign Service issues. Congress can
influence U.S. foreign policy toward specific regions or countries as well. Some keyth
issues in the authorization legislation of the 107 Congress follow.
Arms Sales to Taiwan1
In the 107th Congress, some Members called for ensuring regular and high-level
consultations with Taiwan and a role for Congress in determining arms sales to
Taiwan, after President Bush announced on April 24, 2001, that he would drop the
annual arms talks process with Taiwan in favor of normal, routine considerations on
an “as-needed” basis. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY2002 and
FY2003 (H.R. 1646), passed in the House on May 16, 2001, contained provisions on
arms sales to Taiwan. First, H.R. 1646 included authority (in Section 851) for the
President to sell the four Kidd-class destroyers to Taiwan, not as Foreign Military
Sales, but Excess Defense Articles (EDA), under Section 21 of the Arms Export
Control Act (AECA). Second, in the House International Relations Committee,
Representative Brad Sherman proposed an amendment (Section 813) to require that
Taiwan be treated as the “equivalent of a major non-NATO ally” for defense transfers
under the AECA or the Foreign Assistance Act, while the language stopped short of
designating Taiwan as a major non-NATO ally. According to the Member’s office,
the provision would show tangible support for Taiwan’s defense, provide it with
status similar to that given to Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina, offer it the
“right of first refusal” for EDA, and treat it with enhanced status for anti-terrorism
assistance, cooperative research and development projects in the defense area, and
expedited review in satellite licensing. Some observers said that authority has
existed under the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) to provide defense assistance to
Taiwan. Third, Representative Gary Ackerman introduced an amendment (Section
814) to require the President to consult annually with Congress and Taiwan about the
availability of defense articles and services for Taiwan. The consultations with
Taiwan would occur at a level not less than that of the Vice Chief of General Staff
and in Washington, D.C. – as has been the case.
The Senate’s Foreign Relations Authorization Act (S. 1401), introduced and
placed on the calendar on September 4, 2001, sought to require the Administration
to brief Congress every three months on discussions between any executive agency
and Taiwan on arms sales (Section 603). The Committee on Foreign Relations said
that it wished to ensure that consultations between the executive branch and Congress
on arms sales to Taiwan and the congressional role are maintained (S.Rept. 107-60).
On May 1, 2002, the Senate incorporated S. 1803 in H.R. 1646 and passed it. The

1 Written by Shirley Kan, Specialist in National Security Policy, Foreign Affairs, Defense,
and Trade Division.

Senate’s version (Section 701) sought to authorize the President to sell the four Kidd-
class destroyers to Taiwan.
Enacted as P.L. 107-228, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY2003
authorizes – at the Bush Administration’s request – the Department of State and other
departments or agencies (including the Department of Defense) to detail employees
to the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) (Section 326); requires that Taiwan be
“treated as though it were designated a major non-NATO ally” (Section 1206);
requires consultations with Congress on U.S. security assistance to Taiwan every 180
days (Section 1263); and authorizes the sale to Taiwan of the four Kidd-class
destroyers (Section 1701). Section 326, amending the Foreign Service Act of 1980,
has significant implications for the assignment of government officials to AIT,
including active-duty military personnel for the first time since 1979. (AIT, the non-
profit corporation that Congress set up under the TRA, has handled the relationship
with Taiwan in the absence of diplomatic relations since 1979. Employees have been
separated from government service for a period of time in the name of “unofficial”
relations, but personnel issues have affected AIT.)
In signing the bill into law on September 30, 2002, President Bush issued a
statement that criticized Section 1206. He said that “Section 1206 could be
misconstrued to imply a change in the ‘one China’ policy of the United States when,
in fact, that U.S. policy remains unchanged. To the extent that this section could be
read to purport to change United States policy, it impermissibly interferes with the
President’s constitutional authority to conduct the Nation’s foreign affairs.”
There are other relevant legislation. The National Defense Authorization Act
for FY2002 (P.L. 107-107), enacted December 28, 2001, authorized the President to
transfer (by sale) the four Kidd-class destroyers to Taiwan (Section 1011), under
Section 21 of the AECA. The Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for FY2002
(P.L. 107-115), enacted on January 10, 2002, brought unprecedented close
coordination between the executive and legislative branches on arms sales to Taiwan.
Section 573 required the Departments of State and Defense to provide detailed
briefings (not specified as classified) to congressional committees (including those
on appropriations) within 90 days of enactment and not later than every 120 days
thereafter during FY2002. The briefings were required to report on U.S.-Taiwan
discussions on potential sales of defense articles or services to Taiwan. The Senate’s
Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for FY2003 (S. 2779), introduced and placed
on the calendar on July 24, 2002, would continue into FY2003 the requirement for
briefings on arms sales to Taiwan (Section 569).
See CRS Report RL30957, Taiwan: Major U.S. Arms Sales Since 1990, by
Shirley Kan.

China-U.S. Policy2
P.L. 107-228 contains a number of provisions relating to the People’s Republic
of China (PRC). Section 232 of the authorization denies visas to any Chinese
national who has been involved directly in the coercive transplanting of human
organs or tissues. The more substantive and detailed China-related provisions deal
with U.S. policy and practices toward Tibet and Taiwan.
Tibet. The “Tibetan Policy Act of 2002” begins at Section 611, Subtitle B. The
stated purpose of the language is “to support the aspirations of the Tibetan people to
safeguard their distinct identity.” It calls on the U.S. government to encourage China
to enter into dialogue with the Dalai Lama or his representatives to negotiate a
settlement; work to ensure compliance with any negotiated settlement; and report
annually to Congress on the status of such dialogue. The Act also expands the
responsibilities of the Congressional-Executive Commission on the People’s
Republic of China (CECPRC) to include monitoring and reporting on the status of
dialogue between the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama. In addition, the
measure requires U.S. representatives in international financial institutions to support
only those economic development projects on the Tibetan Plateau that meet certain
principles, including: that they have been preceded by an assessment of the needs of
the Tibetan people through field visits and interviews, as well as by cultural and
environmental impact statements; that they foster Tibetan self-sufficiency; that
Tibetans actively participate in all project phases; that the development agency use
Tibetan as the working language of the project; and that Tibetan culture and
traditions be respected, among other principles.
The law requires the Secretary of State to make a “best effort” to open a U.S.
consular office in Lhasa; requires that Tibetan language training be made available
to U.S. foreign service officers; calls for the U.S. Ambassador to China to meet with
and ask for the release of the 11th Panchen Lama, now thought to be held incognito
by the Chinese government; and calls for the release of political prisoners in Tibet.
The bill provides statutory authority for the position of Special Coordinator for
Tibetan Affairs (as opposed to current practice of a presidentially appointed
position). Finally, the bill authorizes $500,000 in FY2003 for the “Ngawang
Choephel Exchange Programs” (the former “programs of educational and cultural
exchange between the United States and the people of Tibet”); and separate entries
for Tibet in various mandated reporting requirements. These Tibet provisions are
similar to (although not as extensive as) provisions in separate legislation–The
Tibetan Policy Act of 2001 (H.R. 1779 and S. 852)–introduced by Representative
Tom Lantos and Senator Dianne Feinstein, respectively.
Taiwan. P.L. 107-228 contains provisions on Taiwan that would make changes
in current U.S. practice and have an affect on U.S.-China relations. Provisions
dealing with Taiwan are particularly sensitive to Beijing because of the latter’s view
that the bill’s language seeks to make U.S. security relations with Taiwan more
formal and routinized. Among other things, the Act contains a provision allowing

2 Prepared by Kerry Dumbaugh, Specialist in China Policy, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
Trade Division.

the Secretary of State to detail a State Department employee to the American Institute
in Taiwan (AIT) while remaining on the U.S. government payroll if he determines
such a detail is in the U.S. national interest. (The United States does not have official
relations with Taiwan, and all bilateral contacts since 1979 have been handled
through AIT.) The measure also includes House language providing that, for the
purposes of U.S. arms sales, Taiwan should be treated as the equivalent of a major
non-NATO ally; and that the President consult with appropriate congressional
committees every six months about Taiwan’s request for defense articles and
services. The Act also contains sense-of-Congress resolutions that the Taiwan
situation be resolved peacefully and with the consent of the people on Taiwan; and
that the American flag be publicly displayed at U.S. offices in Taiwan as at other
U.S. embassies, consulates, and official residences around the world.
For more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB98018, U.S.-China Policy.
Colombia Assistance3
The House International Relations Committee reported out H.R. 1646 (Foreign
Relations Authorization for FY2002-FY2003) on May 4, 2001, with four reporting
requirements on Colombia and a prohibition on the issuance of visas to illegal armed
groups in Colombia. This bill was passed by the House on May 16, 2001, without
additions to, or modifications of, conditions on counter-narcotics and other assistance
to Colombia and regional neighbors under the Andean Regional Initiative. The
required reports relate to the elimination of Colombian opium, the effects of Plan
Colombia on Ecuador, alternative development and resettlement programs, and the
transfer of counter-narcotics activities by contracted U.S. businesses to Colombian
nationals, especially Colombian anti-narcotics police.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported out S. 1401 (the Senate
version of the Foreign Relations Authorization for FY2002-FY2003) on September
4, 2001, with a provision in section 606, similar to a provision in the House version
of the bill, requiring the Secretary of State to submit to appropriate congressional
committees within 60 days after enactment a report that outlines a comprehensive
strategy to eradicate all opium at its source in Colombia. In subsequent action, the
Senate approved H.R. 1646 on May 1, 2002, after incorporating the text of a Senate
measure on security assistance (S. 1803) approved in December 2001.
The conference report on H.R. 1646 (H. Rept. 107-671) filed on September 23,
2002, contains two sections on Colombia, with requirements for reports that are
similar to the requirements in the House-passed version of the bill, except that the
required reports in Section 694 are broadened to include the activities of the
Department of Defense, and the subsequent reports are to be made yearly rather than
semi-annually. The prohibition on the issuance of visas to illegal armed groups in
Colombia was dropped on grounds that it was duplicative of existing authorities,
particularly authorities in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The
conference report on H.R. 1646 was approved by the House by voice vote on

3 Prepared by K. Larry Storrs (Specialist in Latin American Affairs) and Nina M. Serafino
(Specialist in International Security Affairs), Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.

September 25, 2002, and was approved by the Senate by unanimous consent on
September 26, 2002. It was signed into law (P.L. 107-228) on September 30, 2002.
Section 694 (a) of the legislation requires the Secretary of State to submit within
180 days of enactment, and not later than April 1 of each year thereafter, a report on
State or Defense Department funded and authorized activities to promote alternative
development, recovery and resettlement of internally displaced persons, judicial
reform, the peace process, and human rights. This report is to include summaries of
activities undertaken during the previous 12-month period, estimated timetables for
the next 12-month period, an explanation of any delays in meeting planned
timetables, and an assessment of steps to be taken to correct such delays.
Section 694(b) states that it is the policy of the United States to encourage the
transfer of counter-narcotics activities in Colombia now carried out by contracted
U.S. businesses to Colombian nationals, “in particular personnel of the Colombian
anti-narcotics police, when properly qualified personnel are available.” It requires
the Secretary of State to report, within 180 days of enactment and not later than April

1 of each year thereafter, on the counter-narcotics activities carried out by U.S.

businesses under State or Defense Department contracts. The report must include the
names of such businesses, the total State or Defense Department payments to each
business, a statement justifying each agreement, an assessment of risks to personnel
safety and potential involvement in hostilities incurred by employees of each such
business, and a plan to provide for the transfer of these activities to Colombians, in
particular personnel of the Colombian anti-narcotics police.
Section 695 requires the Secretary of State to submit, within 150 days of
enactment, a report which sets forth a comprehensive strategy for United States
activities in Colombia related to (1) the eradication of opium cultivation at its source
in Colombia, and (2) the impact of Plan Colombia on Ecuador and the other adjacent
countries to Colombia.
For more information, see CRS Report RL31383, Andean Regional Initiative
(ARI): FY2002 Supplemental and FY2003 Assistance for Colombia and Neighbors,
by K. Larry Storrs and Nina M. Serafino.
Drug Certification Procedures4
Under Sections 489-490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, the
President was required from the mid-1980s to FY2002 to certify by March 1st that
illicit drug producing and drug-transit countries are cooperating fully with the United
States in counter-narcotics efforts in order to avoid a series of sanctions. If the
President was unable to fully certify a country, or to determine that a less-than-fully-
cooperative country should be given a certification in the national interest, certain
sanctions would apply, including the withholding of most U.S. foreign assistance and
sales financing, and U.S. opposition to loans for the country in the multilateral
development banks. The sanctions would also apply if the Congress, within 30

4 Prepared by K. Larry Storrs, Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division.

calendar days, were to pass a joint resolution of disapproval to overturn the
presidential certification; however, the resolution would be subject to presidential
veto. Congressional attention in this area often has focused on Mexico, and in many
years resolutions to disapprove the certification of Mexico were introduced, but were
never fully enacted.
Spokesmen from many countries complained about the unilateral and non-
cooperative nature of the drug certification requirements, and urged the United States
to end the process and to rely upon various multilateral methods of evaluation that
have been developed. Mexico particularly expressed dissatisfaction with the process,
even though it was regularly certified as being a fully cooperative country. Following
the July 2000 election of opposition candidate Vicente Fox as President of Mexico,
a number of legislative measures were introduced to modify the drug certification
requirements, and these initiatives were mentioned when President Bush and
President Fox met in Mexico in mid-February 2001, and in the United States in early
September 2001.
S. 1401, the Foreign Relations Authorization for FY2002-FY2003, reported out
by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 4, 2001 (S.Rept. 107-60),
contained proposed modifications to the drug certification procedures in Title VII,
Subtitle D, Reform of Certification Procedures Applicable to Certain Drug Producing
or Trafficking Countries. The provisions in Subtitle D are similar to provisions in S.
219, previously reported out by the Committee on April 5, 2001, that focused
attention primarily on the worst offending countries subject to sanctions. Under the
new procedures, the President would be required to identify by October 1 of each
year major drug-transit or major illicit drug producing countries, and to designate
each country that has “failed demonstrably,” during the previous 12 months, to make
substantial efforts to adhere to its obligations under international counter-narcotics
agreements (multilateral and bilateral) and other standards. U.S. assistance would
be withheld from any designated countries unless the President determined that the
provision of assistance was vital to the national interest of the United States or until
the countries subsequently made substantial counter-narcotics efforts.
The House International Relations Committee reported out H.R. 1646 (Foreign
Relations Authorization for FY2002-FY2003) on May 4, 2001, without any
provisions on drug certification, and the measure was passed by the House on May
16, 2001. The Senate approved H.R. 1646 on May 1, 2002, after incorporating the
text of a Senate measure on security assistance (S. 1803) approved in December


With congressional action on the Foreign Relations Authorization bills pending,
the drug certification requirements were temporarily modified by enactment of the
Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for FY2002 (H.R. 2506/P.L. 107-115). This
measure waived the drug certification requirements for FY2002 and, using language
similar to that in S. 1401, required the President to designate only countries which
had demonstrably failed to meet international counter-narcotics obligations. In action
on the Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY2003, the bill (S. 2779) reported by
the Senate Appropriations Committee in July 2002 would extend through FY2003
the modifications of the U.S. drug certification requirements enacted last year, while

the bill (H.R. 5410) reported by the House Appropriations Committee in September

2002 did not contain a similar provision.

Under the conference report on H.R. 1646, the Foreign Relations Authorization,
(H.Rept. 107-671) filed on September 23, 2002, Section 706 of the bill deals with
International Drug Control Certification Procedures. Drawing from S. 1401, the new
procedures require the President to make a report, not later than September 15 of
each year, identifying the major drug transit or major illicit drug producing countries.
At the same time he is required to designate any of the named countries that has
“failed demonstrably,” during the previous 12 months, to make substantial efforts to
adhere to international counter-narcotics agreements (defined in the legislation) and
to take the counter-narcotics measures set forth in section 489(a)(1) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961. U.S. assistance would be withheld from any designated
countries unless the President determines that the provision of assistance to that
country is vital to the national interest of the United States, or that the designated
country subsequently made substantial counter-narcotics efforts. Another section
clarifies that the requirement for the yearly International Narcotics Control Strategy
Report (INCSR) detailing the performance of individual countries by March 1st of
each year is retained.
Notwithstanding the general suspension of the previous drug certification and
sanctions procedures, subsection 706(5)(B) of H.R. 1646 provides that the President
may apply those procedures at his discretion. In keeping with this approach, the Joint
Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference indicates that Managers
believe that the President should direct U.S. Executive Directors in multilateral
development banks to vote against loans for countries failing to qualify for assistance
under either the old or the new procedures.
In short, Section 706 requires the President to designate and withhold assistance
from the worst offending countries (those that have “failed demonstrably” to make
substantial counter-narcotics efforts). It also permits the President to use his
discretion to maintain a higher standard and to withhold assistance and apply other
sanctions against countries that are failing to cooperate fully with the United States
in counter-narcotics efforts whenever he determines that such actions would be
helpful. A transition rule provides that for FY2003, the required report must be
submitted at least 15 days before foreign assistance funds are obligated or expended.
The conference report on H.R. 1646 was approved by the House by voice vote
on September 25, 2002, and was approved by the Senate by unanimous consent on
September 26, 2002. It was signed into law (P.L. 107-228) on September 30, 2002.
For further information, see CRS Report RL30892, Drug Certification
Requirements and Proposed Congressional Modifications in 2001-2002; CRS Report
RL30950, Drug Certification Procedures: A Comparison of Current Law to S. 219
and S. 1401 as Reported; CRS Report 98-174, Mexican Drug Certification Issues:
Congressional Action, 1986-2002; and CRS Issue Brief IB10070, Mexico-U.S.
Relations: Issues for the 107th Congress, by K. Larry Storrs.

East Timor5
East Timor formally became independent on May 20, 2002. The United States
established diplomatic relations with the new state and supports a continued United
Nations presence in East Timor. However, the United States withdrew the handful
of U.S. military personnel involved in the U.N.-sponsored peacekeeping force that
remains in East Timor, led by Australia. (The U.S. contribution never amounted to
more than 50 personnel.) This leaves 80 American police officers advising on the
formation of East Timorese police. The Bush Administration has budgeted $19
million in economic aid to East Timor for FY2003. The aid program supports East
Timor’s coffee industry, the country’s main export. It also includes democracy
support targeted at the judiciary, law enforcers, non-governmental groups, and the
media. A U.S. military aid program will provide for East Timorese what the State
Department describes as “a small International Military Education and Training
(IMET) program.”
Title VI, Subtitle C, consists of “East Timor Transition to Independence Act of

2002.” The measure:1) authorizes $25 million in FY2003 for East Timor programs,

2) mandates the U.S. government use its voice to support multilateral economic and
development assistance, 3) encourages the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG)
to establish broadcasting programs in appropriate languages for East Timor, and 4)
requires a study on security assistance for East Timor.
East Timor has receded in U.S. priorities in policies toward Indonesia. The
Bush Administration has pushed hard in Congress to secure a softening of
congressional restrictions on U.S. contacts with the Indonesian military in the
interests of cooperation against terrorism. These restrictions were placed in foreign
operations appropriations in late 1999 in response to the Indonesian military’s
instigation of large-scale violence in East Timor following the August 1999
referendum vote for separation from Indonesia. The Administration has allocated
$50 million in training programs for the Indonesian police and military, and
Indonesia likely will receive additional funds contained in appropriations for counter-
terrorism training for foreign military organizations. Congress also has removed the
restriction on Indonesian military participation in the IMET program.
For further information, see CRS Report RL30975, East Timor Situation Report.
Family Planning, Abortion Restrictions, and the Mexico City
House and Senate conferees did not raise international family planning issues
during their deliberations, and the final bill contains no language related to this
matter. Meanwhile, the Foreign Operations Appropriations FY2003 bill, as reported
in the Senate (S. 2779) and the House (H.R. 5410), include several provisions related

5 Prepared by Larry Niksch, Asian Specialist, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.
6 Prepared by Larry Nowels, Specialist in Foreign Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
Trade Division.

to population assistance, the Mexico City policy, and U.S. contributions to the U.N.
Population Fund (UNFPA).
The debate over international family planning policy and abortion began nearly
three decades ago when Congress added a provision to the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 prohibiting the use of U.S. appropriated funds for abortion-related activities
and coercive family planning programs. During the mid-1980s, in what has become
known as the “Mexico City” policy (because it was first announced at the 1984
Mexico City Population Conference), the Reagan, and later the Bush,
Administrations restricted funds for foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
that were involved in performing or promoting abortions in countries where they
worked, even if such activities were undertaken with non-U.S. funds. President
Clinton in 1993 reversed the position of his two predecessors.
During the past six years, the House and Senate have taken opposing positions
on the Mexico City issue. For FY2000, however, Congress linked approval of U.N.
arrears payments to White House acceptance of modified Mexico City restrictions.
In order to remove the obstacles to U.N. arrears payments, President Clinton
reluctantly agreed to the abortion restrictions, marking the first time that Mexico City
conditions had been included in legislation signed by the President. Because the
President could waive the restrictions up to a certain point, there was no major
impact on USAID family planning programs in FY2000, other than the loss of $12.5
million in population assistance that the legislation required if the White House
exercised the waiver authority. For FY2002, Congress again came to an impasse
over the international family issue and agreed to allow the new President to set policy
early in 2001. Under the FY2001 Foreign Operations measure, none of the $425
million appropriation could be obligated until after February 15, 2001.
Subsequently, on January 22, 2001, two days after taking office, President Bush
issued a memorandum to the USAID Administrator reinstating in full all of the
requirements of the Mexico City Policy in effect on January 19, 1993. The President
said that it was his “conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for
abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad.”7 A
separate statement from the President’s press secretary said that President Bush was
“committed to maintaining the $425 million funding level” for population assistance
“because he knows that one of the best ways to prevent abortion is by providing
quality voluntary family planning services.” The press secretary further emphasized
that it was the intent that any restrictions “do not limit organizations from treating
injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortions, for example, post abortion
care.”8 On February 15, the day on which FY2001 population aid funds became
available for obligation, USAID issued specific policy language and contract clauses
to implement the President’s directive. The guidelines are nearly identical to those
used in the 1980s and early 1990s when the Mexico City policy applied.

7 White House. Memorandum for the Administrator of the United States Agency for
International Development. January 22, 2001. Found at
[ ht t p: / / www.whi t e pr ess/ r e l e ases/ ml ] .
8 White House. Restoration of the Mexico City Policy. January 22, 2001. Found at
[ ht t p: / / www.whi t e pr ess/ r e l e ases/ ml ] .

Critics of the certification requirement oppose it on several grounds. Some
argue that it will reduce quality health care for women in developing nations by
denying U.S. funding to some of the most experienced and effective organizations.
These critics further believe that family planning organizations that do remain
eligible for U.S. aid will cut back on services because of uncertainty over the full
implications of the restrictions and their desire not to risk losing access to USAID
funding. Thus, opponents contend that the Mexico City policy may actually lead to
more abortions overseas. Critics also believe the new conditions will undermine
relations between the U.S. Government and foreign NGOs and multilateral groups,
creating a situation where the United States challenges their right to decide how to
spend their own money and imposes a so-called “gag” order on their ability to
promote changes to abortion laws and regulations in developing nations. The latter,
these critics note, would be unconstitutional if applied to American groups working
in the United States. From an administrative standpoint, they say it increases USAID
costs to manage family planning programs because of the additional paperwork and
is likely to delay implementation of projects.
Supporters of the certification requirement argue that even though permanent
law bans USAID funds from being used to perform or promote abortions, money is
fungible; that organizations receiving American-taxpayer funding can simply use
USAID resources for permitted activities while diverting money raised from other
sources to perform abortions or lobby to change abortion laws and regulations. The
certification process, they contend, stops the fungibility “loophole.” They further
note that the Mexico City policy does not stop organizations from continuing their
family planning operations overseas. It merely requires them to adhere to the
conditions or to carry out their programs without U.S. Government support.
In the first several votes on the issue in 2001, the House International Relations
Committee adopted (26-22) an amendment to H.R. 1646 by Representative Lee that
would overturn the Mexico City policy. The Lee amendment, which incorporated the
text of H.R. 755, would not subject foreign groups to different restrictions imposed
on U.S. NGOs concerning the use of non-USAID funding for advocacy and lobbying
activities. It further directed that foreign NGOs would not be ineligible for U.S.
grants solely on the basis of health or medical services provided with non-USAID
funding so long as these activities were not in violation of the laws of the country in
which the groups operated and would not violate U.S. law if provided here. On May

16, however, the full House voted (218-210) to delete the Lee amendment from H.R.

1646. The Administration had said President Bush would veto H.R. 1646 if the
committee language on Mexico City policy remained in the bill.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee did not address the international
family planning issue when it marked up its version of the Foreign Relations
Authorization bill on August 1. The Senate panel, however, on the same day
reported favorably S. 367, legislation identical to H.R. 755 and the text added by the
House International Relations Committee to H.R. 1646.
For more detail, see CRS Report RL30830, International Family Planning: the
Mexico City Policy; and CRS Issue Brief IB96026, Population Assistance and
Foreign Policy Programs: Issues for Congress.

Global Warming9
The global warming provisions that had been in both bills were dropped in
conference, as the conferees sought to avoid an area of potential controversy.
Both H.R. 1646 (Section 745) and S. 1401 (Sec. 778) expressed a “Sense of
Congress Relating to Global Warming.” The two bills contained a number of similar
findings, including reviews of the scientific findings of the Inter-governmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) and threats to various ecological and agricultural systems,
and the U.S. participation in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC). Both bills stated the sense of Congress that the United States
should demonstrate international leadership in mitigating global warming threats by
taking action to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and by continuing
to participate in international negotiations with the objective of completing the rules
and guidelines for the Kyoto Protocol in a manner that is consistent with the interests
of the United States and that ensures the environmental integrity of the protocol. The
wording of the bills in these sections was not identical, and there were some items
in each that are absent in the other, but they shared most of the same concepts such
as the contribution of human activities to global climate change, and “the need for
American business to know how governments worldwide will respond to the threat
of global warming.”
The Kyoto Protocol, completed in 1997, and signed but not ratified by the
United States, includes legally binding requirements for 38 industrialized nations to
reduce their emissions of 6 greenhouse gases, including the predominant one, carbon
dioxide, which is released by burning of fossil fuels and wood. Under this protocol,
the U.S. reduction would be 7% below 1990 levels of emissions as an average over
the period 2008-2012. Since this bill passed the House, President Bush has indicated
that although it is his intention to remain engaged in the U.N. Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and related international negotiations, the United
States rejects the Kyoto Protocol and will not participate in it. The U.S. Senate is on
record in S.Res. 98, passed in 1997, rejecting a treaty that does not include
developing countries or that would harm the U.S. economy–the two major objections
to the Kyoto Protocol that President Bush has identified. Therefore, the provisions
that state the United States should pursue the objective of “completing the rules and
guidelines for the Kyoto Protocol....” could be interpreted as recommending a
modification in the policy articulated by President Bush.
For additional information, see the CRS Issue Brief IB89005, Global Climate

9 Prepared by Susan R. Fletcher, Senior Analyst in International Environmental Policy,
Resources, Science and Industry Division.

HI V/ AI DS 10
P.L. 107-228 contains limited provisions on the HIV/AIDS pandemic affecting
sub-Saharan Africa and other parts of the world. Both the House and Senate have
dealt comprehensively with HIV/AIDS in another authorization bill, H.R. 2069. The
House version of this bill, titled The Global Access to HIV/AIDS Prevention,
Awareness, Education, and Treatment Act of 2001, passed on December 11, 2001.
The Senate version, The United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis,
and Malaria Act of 2002, passed on July 12, 2002. The House-passed version of
H.R. 1646 had included provisions on the coordination of U.S. international AIDS
policy, but these were dropped in conference. AIDS policy coordination provisions
are a major feature of both the House and Senate versions of H.R. 2069.
Section 112(1)(A) of P.L. 107-228 authorizes $1 million under the State
Department’s Fulbright program for HIV/AIDS scholarships for New Century
Scholars. These are foreign researchers and professionals who come to the United
States to collaborate on issues of global significance.
Section 689 of P.L. 107-228 states the sense of the Congress that the United
Nations be urged to adopt an HIV/AIDS mitigation strategy as a component of
peacekeeping operations. In part, this provision reflects concern over the role of
conflict in creating chaotic conditions, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, that foster
the spread of HIV. When peacekeeping operations are deployed, many argue, it is
essential that they immediately launch programs to combat HIV/AIDS, which may
already be affecting a significant portion of the population. This provision may also
partly reflect the concern that peacekeepers could serve as vectors for the HIV virus.
The United Nations Security Council held a debate on this topic on January 19, 2001,
at the insistence of then-U.S. Representative to the United Nations, Richard
Holbrooke. The representative of India, which has contributed troops to many
peacekeeping operations, expressed resentment at the “imputation that peacekeepers
are necessarily at risk or carriers of the disease,” while others noted that many
countries lack the resources to test for HIV infection.11 A December 2001 General
Accounting Office report found that the United Nations has taken a number of steps
to reduce the spread of HIV during peacekeeping operations, but that several
challenges remain.12
For further information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10050, AIDS in Africa.

10 Prepared by Ray Copson, Specialist in African Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense and
Trade Division.
11 Christopher S. Wren, “U.N. Council Addresses HIV/AIDS in Its Forces,” New York
Times, January 20,2001.
12 United Nations Faces Challenges in Responding to the Impact of HIV/AIDS on
Peacekeeping Operations, GAO Report GAO-02-194, December 12, 2001.

Human Rights – Child Soldiers, Trafficking, Human Rights
and Democracy Fund13
P.L. 107-228, as enacted, includes a number of provisions relating to human
rights issues. Section 663 expresses the sense of Congress that the budget of the
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) should be substantially
increased so that, beginning in FY2005 and thereafter, not less than 1% of amounts
made available for the Department under the heading “Diplomatic and Consular
Programs” should be made available for DRL salaries and expenses. It also calls for
a role for DRL in assigning individuals to embassies as political officers with primary
responsibility for monitoring human rights. The measure also requires the Secretary
of State to submit within 180 days of enactment a report providing a plan showing
how the Department would improve human rights policy integration. Section 664
establishes and authorizes $21.5 million for FY2003 for a Human Rights and
Democracy Fund to be administered by the Assistant Secretary for Democracy,
Human Rights, and Labor. The Fund is to support defenders of human rights, assist
victims of human rights violations, respond to human rights emergencies, and
promote and encourage the growth of democracy. Of the total dollars authorized for
the Fund, $1 million is to be for the Documentation Center of Cambodia and
$500,000 for the Father Kaiser Memorial Fund.
Section 665 expands the requirements for the annual country reports on human
rights to include the extent to which the United States has taken, or will take, actions
to encourage and end such practices for each country found to have extrajudicial
killings, torture, or other serious violations of human rights. Section 683 requires
the reports to included information on the compulsory recruitment and conscription
of individuals under the age of 18 by the armed forces, paramilitaries, or other armed
groups, as well as the participation of such individuals in such armed groups. Section
1212 requires an annual report by March 1 from the Secretary of State to Congress
describing the involvement of any former IMET participant in human rights
Section 682 amends the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to state that
programs of assistance to foreign victims should, as much as possible, support local
in-country non-governmental organizations providing protection and assistance to
trafficking victims and their families, including for hotlines, protective shelters,
service centers, legal, social, and other services, education and training, and for
repatriation. It also authorizes $10 million in FY2002 and $15 million for FY2003
to provide assistance for victims of trafficking and violence in other countries.

13 Prepared by Vita Bite, Analyst in International Relations, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
Trade Division.

IMET in Lebanon14
The House adopted an amendment (H.Amdt. 39) to the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, FY2002-2003 (H.R. 1646) on May 16, 2001, which dealt with
U.S. military and economic assistance to Lebanon. The amendment passed the
House by a vote of 216-210 and was incorporated into the bill as Sec. 1224:
Assistance to Lebanon.
Section 1224 states that the President shall not provide $10 million in economic
assistance for the Government of Lebanon for FY2003 and all subsequent years
unless the President certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that the
armed forces of Lebanon had been deployed to the internationally recognized border
between Lebanon and Israel and that the Government of Lebanon effectively asserted
its authority in the area in which such forces have been deployed. Unless the
President is able to certify that the Government of Lebanon has extended its control
along the border, Section 1224 will delete $10 million from the U.S. assistance
programs to Lebanon. In recent fiscal years, IMET grants to Lebanon have amounted
to $600,000 per year. ESF funds for Lebanon have increased from $12 million in
FY1999 to an estimated $35 million for FY2002. The President requested $32
million for FY2003. The USAID mission in Lebanon currently divides ESF funds
into three major program areas: reconstruction and expanded economic opportunity;
increased effectiveness of selected institutions that support democracy; and improved
environmental practices.
The provision to reduce assistance to Lebanon stems from the political and
security vacuum that has existed in south Lebanon since Israel withdrew from its
self-declared “security zone” on May 24, 2000. Although Lebanon deployed a small
mixed force of army and police units to some of the formerly Israeli-occupied areas,
it did not deploy any forces to the international border with Israel, in part because
Lebanon claims that Israel has not withdrawn fully from Lebanese territory. The area
in question is called the Shabaa farms, occupied by Israel, and claimed by Lebanon
and Syria to be Lebanese territory. Israel, supported by the United Nations, claims the
Shabaa farms area is Syrian territory, and therefore not subject to Israeli withdrawal
from Lebanon. Israel and Lebanon remain stalemated over the issue. (See CRS
Report RL31078, The Shib’a Farms Dispute and Its Implications.) The Hizballah
organization uses the absence of Lebanese troops to maintain a military presence near
the international border with Israel and to initiate cross-border engagements with
Israeli troops.
Supporters of Section 1224 in H.R. 1646 view the provisions to reduce
assistance to Lebanon as a means of pressuring Lebanon to deploy its troops to the
international border with Israel, thereby potentially filling the political and security
vacuum in south Lebanon, reducing the influence of Hizballah, curbing its military
operations against Israel, decreasing Syrian influence in Lebanon, and increasing
regional security. Opponents of the provisions tend to argue that Syria exercises a
great degree of influence over or controls Lebanese defense and foreign policy

14 Prepared by Clyde Mark, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense
and Trade Division.

through its estimated 20,000-25,000 troops and intelligence agents stationed in the
country. Many analysts believe that Syria, which is reported to support logistically
and encourage ongoing Hizballah military operations against Israel, will not allow
Lebanon to deploy its troops to the Israeli border until after an Israeli-Syrian bilateral
peace treaty. Therefore, opponents of the provisions tend to view Lebanon’s ability
to fulfill the conditions for presidential certification as impractical and point to the
potential damage to U.S.-Lebanese relations if these assistance programs are
For further information, see CRS Issue Brief IB89118, Lebanon, and CRS
Report RS20634, South Lebanon: Economic Reconstruction.
Jerusalem – U.S. Embassy15
Section 214(a) of H.R. 1646 repeats the congressional position that the U.S.
embassy in Israel should be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. P.L. 104-45, of
November 8, 1995, set a May 31, 1999 deadline for moving the embassy, but also
provided a Presidential waiver in Section 7 that Presidents Clinton and Bush
exercised to delay the move. U.S. administrations have opposed the move because
they believed the permanent status and control of the city should be decided through
negotiations and not through unilateral action. Congress supports the Israeli
contention that Jerusalem belongs solely to Israel.
Section 214(b) of H.R. 1646 mandates that the Jerusalem consulate be under the
supervision of the U.S. Ambassador to Israel; Section 214(c) states that U.S.
publications should name Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; and Section 214(d)
allows U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem to list Israel as their birthplace. The three
subsections reflect further congressional support for the current Israeli contention that
Jerusalem is non-negotiable Israeli territory. The September 1993 Declaration of
Principles that Israel signed stated that the status of Jerusalem would be negotiated.
The United States has not recognized Israel’s claim to all of Jerusalem.
For more background, see CRS Report RS20339, Jerusalem: The U.S. Embassy
and P.L. 104-45.
State Department and International Broadcasting Issues16
In addition to providing the required authority for the State Department and
related agencies to spend specified levels of appropriations (see Table 1 for
appropriation and authorization levels), H.R. 1646 and S. 1401 contained measures
ranging from “right-sizing” American embassies, to allowing private funding for
educational exchange programs, to promotion of minority hiring in the Department
of State, to funding for a Middle East Radio Network (MERN) of Voice of America

15 Clyde Mark, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade
16 Prepared by Susan Epstein, Specialist in Foreign Policy and Trade, Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division.

(VOA). Following are selected issues in the authorization legislation regarding the
Department of State, its personnel and programs, and international broadcasting.
Deputy Secretary of State for Management. Expressing concern for the
multi-layered management and perceived inadequate attention to management issues
at the Department of State, Congress required within the State Department FY2001
Appropriations Act (Section 404, P.L. 106-553) the creation of a new Deputy
Secretary of State for Management and Resources position. Section 303, S. 1401
would eliminate the provision. The Senate Committee expressed full confidence in
Secretary of State Powell and Deputy Secretary Armitage to carry out the
Department’s management functions without the creation of a new position. This
provision was not in the conference report or the law as signed by President Bush.
While the provision that the President “shall appoint a Deputy Secretary of State for
Management” was passed by Congress in the FY2001 appropriation, State
Department, to date, does not have a Deputy Secretary of State for Management.
Right-Sizing Overseas Posts. In the late 1990s, two different reports17
recommended “right-sizing” American overseas posts. The idea of maintaining an
appropriate level of staff and expertise at each overseas post that reflects the needs
and importance of that post to U.S. foreign policy could reduce program and security
expenditures and improve U.S. effectiveness overseas. For example, in the past,
some have criticized the large U.S. embassies in European countries, while some
posts in Asian or Middle East countries of arguably greater strategic concern are
much smaller with less expertise for the needs of that region.
Section 302 of H.R. 1646, as enacted in the final law, requires that the Secretary
of State establish a task force on right-sizing overseas posts. A preliminary report
within 120 days of enactment of this legislation would be required to be submitted
to the appropriate congressional committees. The report is to include the status,
plans, and activities of the task force and must include: 1) the objectives of the task
force; 2) measures for achieving the objectives; 3) the official of the Department with
primary responsibility for the issue of “right-sizing”; and 4) the plans of the State
Department for relocation of staff and resources based on changing needs at overseas
posts and in Washington, D.C. The Secretary must submit task force progress reports
to congress every six months throughout 2003.
An interagency working group would also be established to draw up plans for
“right-sizing” U.S. overseas presence. This working group would have the same
reporting requirements and schedule as the task force.
Section 302 of S. 1401 also contained “rightsizing” language. It required the
Department to establish both an internal and an interagency task force to review
issues of overseas presence rightsizing overseas posts and report on their findings.

17 America’s Overseas Presence in the 21st Century, by the Overseas Presence Advisory
Panel, November 1999 (sometimes referred to as the Kaden report, as it was chaired by
Lewis Kaden, a partner of Davis, Polk & Wardwell law firm); and Equipped for the Future,st
Managing the U.S. Foreign Affairs in the 21 Century, by the Project on the Advocacy of
U.S. Interests Abroad, October 1998.

Consular Activities. The State Department, within its FY2002 budget
requested that machine readable visa fees become a permanent appropriation for
State. In FY2000 the fees amounted to an allocation of $327.9 million for State’s
budget. In FY2001 the estimate allocation is $395.1 million. The FY2002 estimate
is $478.9 million and the FY2003 request is for $642.7 million.
Section 231, H.R. 1646 would authorize these offsetting collection fees for the
Department through FY2003, setting the FY2002 allocation at $414 million and
FY2003 at $422 million.
Section 231, S. 1401 authorizes allocation of machine readable visa fees for
The enacted law authorizes machine readable visa fees for State, but caps them
at $460 million for FY2003.
Minority Recruitment at State. For years, the Department of State has
received criticism regarding the under representation of minorities on its staff,
particularly in the Foreign Service. In 1980 Congress required the Secretary of State
to establish a minority recruitment program for the Foreign Service and report on
minority recruitment activities to Congress annually.18 Some Members of Congress
continued to express concern regarding State Department minority recruitment and
hiring activities and Congress required the Secretary of State to report on these
activities and progress in 1998 and 1999.19 Within the Commerce, Justice, State, and
Related Agencies Appropriations for FY2001(P.L. 106-553) Congress provided $1
million to establish a partnership with specified colleges for promoting minority
hiring. Secretary Of State Powell has supported increasing minority hiring saying,
“America overseas should look like America at home.”
Section 101(B)(iii) of H.R. 1646 provided $2 million in FY2003 for minority
recruitment. Section 342 required the Secretary of State to report to Congress
presenting the numbers and percentages of minorities who, 1) take the Foreign
Service exam, 2) are hired for Foreign Service positions, at each FS grade, and 3) are
hired for Civil Service positions. Section 343 required the Secretary to establish a
database to report on minority recruitment efforts over time. S. 1401 did not contain
minority hiring provisions.
Section 111 (a) (1) of P.L. 107-228 contains the House measure of $2 million
earmarked for minority hiring. Section 324 requires the Administration to report on
minority recruitment in both the Civil and Foreign Service. Section 325 requires the
State Department to expand its recruitment to 25% of historically Black colleges and
to 25% of Hispanic-serving institutions. This section also requires the Secretary of
State to establish a database reflecting and evaluating efforts to recruit minorities into
the Department.

18 The Foreign Service Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-465), Section 105(d) and Section 1201.
19 Foreign Relations Authorization Act (P.L. 105-277).

Private Funding for Exchanges. Secretary of State Colin Powell stated in
his April 26, 2001 testimony before the House Commerce, Justice, State and
Judiciary Appropriations subcommittee, “I believe cultural exchanges are an essential
component of a successful foreign policy, particularly for nations like Russia which
are just now learning how to become democracies.”
Section 225 of S. 1401 , and also in the final enacted law, authorizes $500,000
in each FY2002 and FY2003 for American Corners in the Russian Federation. This
program would provide information about U.S. history, government, culture, and
values to host libraries in the Russian Federation. The measure includes access to
computers and the Internet. The House bill had no similar provision.
H.R. 1646 listed a number of findings, including that funding for international
educational and cultural exchanges had declined in recent years, and that the U.S.
private sector should be encouraged to assist. Section 402 authorizes the Secretary
of State to establish private, nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations to encourage
participation and financial support from U.S. corporations and other private sector
entities for international cultural, arts, and educational exchanges. The Secretary is
authorized to solicit funds, designate a program to receive the funds, appoint
members of a board of directors to administer the private entity, and make
recommendations for specific programs to be the focus of the entity. This section
also would provide $500,000 for FY2003 for administrative costs of such private,
nonprofit entities. Each entity established under this provision would be required to
report annually to Congress on its funding and activities; its financial transactions
would be subject to an independent audit. These measures were not enacted.
Section 223 of S. 1401 would establish an advisory committee on cultural
diplomacy to devise initiatives to expand public diplomacy with public-private
partnerships. The final law includes Section 224 which provides the Senate language
for a temporary advisory committee to explore public-private relationships in funding
expanded public diplomacy activities in the future.
International Broadcasting in the Middle East. P.L. 107-228 authorizes,
in addition to the $485.8 million for international broadcasting operations, $20
million for FY2003 for Middle East Radio Network of VOA. The House bill had
provided $15 million and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee also had provided
“additional” funds within its total broadcast funding level for the Middle East Radio
Even prior to the September 11, 2001 attack, both Congress and the
Broadcasting Board of Governors had shown increasing interests in broadcasting to
the Middle East. In P.L. 105-277 Congress authorized Radio Free Iran and Radio
Free Iraq. In 2001 VOA set aside about $6 million for Arabic programming. After
September 11th, Congress provided $12.25 million in supplemental funding to
support VOA broadcasts in Arabic, Farsi, Pashto, Dari, and Urdu and to support
RFE/RL broadcasts in Arabic, Farsi, Tajik, Turkmen, Uzbek, Kazakh, Krygyz, and
Azeri. In addition, Congress provided authority for the Administration to establish
a new Radio Free Afghanistan (P.L. 107-148).

For more detail on the Department of State and related agency appropriations,
see CRS Report RL31370, State Department and Related Agencies FY2003
U.N. Issues20
As enacted, P.L. 107-228 authorized appropriations for FY2003 for U.S.
contributions to international organizations including $891.378 million for U.S.
assessed contributions to international organizations, and $ 725.98 million for
assessed peacekeeping. The measure amended the 25% cap on the U.S. share of
U.N. peacekeeping contributions for calendar years 2001-2004. It called on the
United States to move toward making payment of its assessments at the beginning
of each calendar year. The measure supported retention of the 25% U.S. assessment
for the regular budget of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), but
amended the U.N. Participation Act of 1945 to cap the U.S. share of assessments for
the U.N. regular budget at 22%.
UNESCO. On September 12, 2002 President Bush announced that the United
States would return to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO). Renewed U.S. participation is expected to begin in
FY2004. P.L. 107-228 expressed the sense of Congress that the President should
submit to Congress a report on the merits of U.S. return to UNESCO and giving
details of the costs.
H.R. 1646, as passed by the House, had authorized appropriations for U.S.
contributions to international organizations including (section 104) $944.067 million
for U.S. assessed contributions to international organizations, (section 105) $844.139
million for assessed peacekeeping operations, (section 107) $186 million for
voluntary contributions to international organizations plus an additional $120 million
for UNICEF for FY2002 and such sums as may be necessary for these organizations
for FY2003. The House had funded international organizations at the level requested
by the Bush Administration, adding $10 million more for UNICEF and including
$59.8 million in each of FY2003 to cover the U.S. return to UNESCO.
Representative Leach had sponsored a House International Relations Committee
amendment authorizing funding to allow the United States to return to UNESCO.
This amendment had been adopted by the Committee on a vote of 23 to 14. The
Committee report (H.Rept. 107-57) included the views of thirteen members who
opposed rejoining UNESCO and urged the House to reconsider the Committee
recommendation. During floor debate Representative Tancredo had sponsored an
amendment to strike the provisions authorizing funding for UNESCO which he
described as an organization in search of a mission. He pointed out that currently the
U.S. contributes $2-3 million annually to UNESCO in voluntary contributions to
cover projects the U.S. believes to be worthwhile. If the United States rejoins, it
would be obliged to fund “the good and the bad alike.” Representative Leach

20 Prepared by Vita Bite, Analyst in International Relations, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
Trade Division.

opposed the amendment arguing that UNESCO had reformed – that it was a credible
international body. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 193 to 225.
For additional information on UNESCO see CRS Report RL30985, UNESCO
Membership: Issues for Congress.
U.N. Arrears. Section 401 of P.L. 107-228 amended several conditions that
must be certified by the Secretary of State in order to release the third and final
installment ($244 million) of U.S. arrears to the United Nations and other
international organizations, as provided under the Helms-Biden agreement. The
measure allows arrears payments to each international organization upon certification
of the conditions established for that agency or immediately if no conditions applied.
Conferees on H.R. 1646 reportedly had agreed on a plan to pay the third and
final installment ($244 million) of U.S. arrears to international organizations. In its
version of H.R. 1646, the House also had amended the conditions (Helms-Biden
agreement) for release of the second and third installment of U.S. arrears to
international organizations. The House increased the maximum level for the U.S.
peacekeeping assessment (to 28.15% from 25%). In the meanwhile, free standing
legislation, P.L. 107-46 (S. 248) was enacted raising the maximum peacekeeping
assessment level to 28.15%. This allowed payment of the second installment ($582
million) of U.S. arrears. H.R. 1646 as passed by the House also had placed
additional conditions on release of the third and final installment of U.S. arrears
($244 million):
!the Secretary of State must certify that the United States has
regained a seat on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights;
!the Secretary has made a determination or issued an analysis on
voting by secret ballot in the United Nations and its specialized
!and the General Accounting Office (GAO) has to submit to
Congress a detailed accounting of U.S. contributions to U.N.
peacekeeping operations from 1990 through 2001.
For additional information on U.N. arrears, see CRS Issue Brief IB86116, U.N.
System Funding: Congressional Issues.
Key Issues–Security Assistance Act of 2002
P.L. 107-228 contains, in Division B, the text of the Security Assistance Act of
2002, which was originally introduced in the Senate as S. 1803. S. 1803 was a
relatively short bill that was subsequently incorporated into H.R. 1646 when it was
passed by the Senate and sent to a conference committee with the House. Division
B of H.R. 1646, as enacted, is comprised of seven sections: general provisions (Title
X); Verification of Arms Control and Nonproliferation Agreements (Title XI);
Military and Related Assistance (Title XII); Nonproliferation and Export Control
Assistance (Title XIII); Expediting the Munitions Licencing Process (Title XIV),
National Security Assistance strategy (Title XV); Miscellaneous Provisions (Title

XVI); and Authority to Transfer Naval Vessels (Title XVII). The major components
of the Security Assistance Act are analyzed below.
Military Assistance and Arms Export Control Provisions21
Title XII of P.L. 107-228 authorizes appropriations for a number of security
assistance programs, including Foreign Military Sales and Financing and
International Military Education and Training. Several technical changes to existing
legislation are detailed, as well as provisions for establishing or modifying reporting
and policy requirements relating to Excess Defense Articles, small arms and light
weapons license approvals, and arms sales under the Arms Export Control Act.
Authorization for transferring specific naval vessels is found in Title XVII, while
Title XIV provides funding authorization and policy guidance aimed at expediting
the munitions licensing process. (For funding levels authorized for military assistance
programs through this bill see CRS Report RL31311, Appropriations for FY2003:
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs.)
Nonproliferation and Export Control Assistance22
In keeping with growing concern about the potential for weapons of mass
destruction or their ingredients falling into terrorist hands, the Security Assistance
Act provides greater financial support for export control assistance and for the
International Atomic Energy Agency. Subtitle A includes general provisions that
represent an amalgamation of House and Senate provisions. From the House,
technical amendments such as Sec. 1306 to amend the Iran Nonproliferation Act of
2000 and Sec. 1307 to amend the North Korea Threat Reduction Act of 1999, as well
as reporting requirements (Sec. 1308, which consolidates four existing reporting
requirements into one annual report on the proliferation of missiles and nuclear,
biological and chemical weapons, and Sec. 1309, which calls for the Secretary of
State to report on a three-year international arms control and nonproliferation
strategy) were included in Subtitle A under Title XIII of H.R. 1646, as enacted. The
Senate Security Assistance Act (S. 1803) did not contain any of these provisions. In
addition, the House initially passed a provision for counterproliferation education and
training, which became Sec. 1303 on international nonproliferation and export
control training. This section authorizes provision of weapons of mass destruction
detection equipment for other countries’ export control services. P.L. 107-228
incorporates a provision initially sponsored by the Senate to provide an additional
$10 million for the IAEA’s program to secure orphaned radioactive sources from
Subtitles B and C, which cover the Russian Federation Debt Reduction for
Nonproliferation and Nonproliferation Assistance Coordination, were Senate

21 Prepared by Richard Grimmett, Specialist in National Defense, Foreign Affairs, Defense,
and Trade Division.
22 Prepared by Sharon Squassoni, Specialist in National Defense, Foreign Affairs, Defense,
and Trade Division.

initiatives that did not appear in the House version of H.R. 1646. Subtitle D, Iran
Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 2002, was a House initiative.
Russian Debt-Swap for Nonproliferation. Known as the Russian
Federation Debt for Nonproliferation Act of 2002, this “debt swap” program seeks
to use a portion of the Russian Federation’s foreign debt to fund nonproliferation
programs and ensure that the resources made available to the Russian Federation are
targeted to achieving nonproliferation objectives. The program is intended to provide
a new stream of funding for these purposes. The bill authorizes the President to enter
into a “Russian Federation Nonproliferation Investment Agreement.” Such an
agreement shall ensure that a) the value of the debt reduced will be made available
for agreed nonproliferation programs and projects; b) each program or project will
be approved by the President; c) administration and oversight will incorporate best
practices from established threat reduction and nonproliferation assistance programs;
d) audits are conducted; e) unobligated funds are not diverted; e) funds for projects
are not taxed by the Russian Federation; f) intellectual property rights issues are
addressed before funds are expended; and g) not less than 75 percent of the funds are
spent in the Russian Federation itself. The bill has provisions for spending funds on
a “Center for Independent Press and the Rule of Law” and for an annual certification
by the President to Congress that Russia has made “material progress” in reducing
proliferation. First introduced by Senator Biden in S. 1803 in late 2001, a similar
measure with the same objectives, H.R. 3836, was introduced in the House by Rep.
Ellen Tauscher on March 4, 2002 and referred to the House International Relations
Committee. (See CRS Report RL30617, Russia’s Paris Club Debt and U.S.
Interests, by John P. Hardt.)
Iran Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 2002.23 The Iran Nuclear
Proliferation Prevention Act of 2002 is virtually identical to a bill introduced in the
106th Congress, H.R.1477, which passed the House by a vote of 383-1 but did not
receive Senate floor action. A similar bill, H.R. 3743, passed the House in the 105th
Congress, by a vote of 405-13, and did not receive any Senate action. The legislation
seeks to prohibit the use of U.S. voluntary contributions to the IAEA’s Technical
Cooperation Fund for use in Iran. The vehicle for this is an amendment to Section
307 of the Foreign Assistance Act. Although Iran and several other state sponsors
of terrorism cannot receive U.S. funds through international organizations under
Section 307 (c), the IAEA and UNICEF are exempt from those restrictions. The
amendment would allow the restriction to apply if the Secretary of State determines
that IAEA programs in Iran are inconsistent with U.S. nuclear nonproliferation or
safety goals or provide Iran with proliferation-relevant training or are used as a cover
for proliferation activities. The bill requires the Secretary of State to assess IAEA
projects for their consistency with U.S. nuclear nonproliferation and safety goals and
conduct an annual review of all IAEA programs. Section 1344 requires the Secretary
of State to submit a detailed report to Congress each year for 5 years on Iran’s
Bushehr reactor project and IAEA technical assistance to Iran. In a separate
provision (Section 1306), the Security Assistance Act amends the Iran
Nonproliferation Act of 2000 by specifying in greater detail the content of the reports

23 Prepared by Ken Katzman, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense,
and Trade Division.

to the Congress that are required under that act. It also makes clear a person is not
exempt from sanctions if he/she only transfers conventional weapons (rather than
weapons of mass destruction).
Between 1995 and 1999, the IAEA’s Technical Cooperation Fund provided over
$1.5 million in technical assistance to Iran’s civilian nuclear power program,
including a reactor being built by Russia near the Iranian port city of Bushehr. Most
of that assistance is nuclear safety training. IAEA assistance programs on the Bushehr
reactor date as far back as 1985. U.S. voluntary contributions (approximately $18
million in 2002) provide almost 27% of the Technical Cooperation Fund. U.S.
assessed contributions to the IAEA, which would not be affected by the legislation,
provide about 25% of the total annual IAEA budget. There is a precedent of the U.S.
withholding its share of funding for projects in Cuba for the past several years.
Members and outside experts who support the legislation maintain that a cut in
U.S. voluntary contributions would not prevent the IAEA from continuing work in
Iran, but that U.S. funds should not be devoted to a nuclear project the United States
fundamentally opposes. An alternate view is that reducing U.S. contributions would
limit U.S. influence over IAEA assistance to the Bushehr project, an Iranian civilian
nuclear power project at the city of Bushehr, Iran. According to critics, this could
hinder the U.S. ability to monitor the Bushehr project to ensure it is not serving any
nuclear weapons program. Others believe that the United States should support IAEA
assistance to the Bushehr project because the IAEA will contribute to its safe
operation and because Iran, according to the IAEA, is abiding by its commitments
as a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and therefore qualifies for
assistance. Supporters of the legislation note that it provides for a waiver of the
contribution reduction if the conditions sought by both advocates and opponents are
met. (For further reading, see CRS Report RL30551, Iran: Arms and Technology
Nuclear and missile proliferation in South Asia. Although South Asia
is now a military theater of operations in the war on terrorism and the United States
is building new, cooperative relations with both India and Pakistan, the risk that this
region will contribute to the proliferation, or even the use, of nuclear weapons has not
declined. In their joint explanatory statement, conference managers (H.Rept. 107-
671) noted their intent that the executive branch maintain a high priority for these
concerns while ensuring that U.S. policy and actions on nuclear issues in South Asia
are consistent with U.S. obligations under the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of
Nuclear Weapons and with past U.S. policy. Section 1601 of Title XVI of P.L. 107-
228 outlines nonproliferation objectives to be achieved with respect to nuclear
testing, nuclear weapons and ballistic missile deployments and developments, export
controls and confidence-building measures. In addition, the section states that it shall
be the policy of the United States consistent with its NPT obligations, to encourage,
and where appropriate, work with the governments of India and Pakistan to achieve
not later than September 30, 2003, the establishment of “modern, effective systems
to protect and secure nuclear devices and materiel from unauthorized use, accidental
employment, or theft.” The conferees noted that “any such dialogue with India or
Pakistan would not be represented or considered, nor would it be intended, as
granting any recognition to India or Pakistan, as appropriate, as a nuclear weapon
state. The section requires the President to submit a report to Congress no later than

March 1, 2003, on U.S. efforts to achieve the objectives and likelihood of success by
September 2003. These provisions appeared in S.1803 and are described additionally
in S.Rept. 107-122; H.R. 1646 as passed by the House contained no provisions
related to nuclear and missile proliferation in South Asia. (See CRS Report 31589,
Nuclear Threat Reduction Measures for India and Pakistan.)

State Department Authorization History
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/odd year 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
FY1984-1985–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.

Table 1. State Department and Related Agencies Appropriations and Proposed Authorizations
(millions of dollars)
Approp. Approp Approp. Approp. Approp. Aut h . Aut h . Aut h .
FY1998FY1999FY2000FY2001FY2002HouseSenateP.L. 107-
EnactedEnactedEnactedEnactedEnacted* H.R.1646S. 1401228
e Department
atic & Consular Program1,730.01,661.62,823.83,167.23,630.13,705.14,103.24,103.0

363.5 354.2 -.- -.- -.- -.- -.- -.-

Upgr ades (254.0) (409.1) ( 487.7) (487.7) (564.0) (564.0)
ocracy, Human Rights and Labor-.--.--.--.--.-(16.0)-.-(20.0)
recruitment -.- -.- -.- -.- -.- (2.0) -.- ( 2.0)
iki/CRS-RL31046 cultural exchange prog. (USIA)197.7200.5204.2231.6237.0242.0286.0260.0
g/wht Academic Exchange(101.9)(107.4)(109.4)(123.4)(118.0)(125.0)-.-(135.0)
leaknspector General 27.528.527.428.429.029.330.430.8
4.2 4.4 5.8 6.5 6.5 9.0 9.5 9.0
://wikimissions & officials7.
bassy security/constr/maintenance397.91,081.1739.41,077.61,274.0**900.0**1,000.0900.0
upgra des -.- (785.7) (313.6) (661.2) (816.0) 475.0 522.6 555.0
ergency-diplo. & consular services5.517.
1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3
ment American Inst. Taiwan14.014.815.316.317.017.017.918.8
n Service Retirement Fund129.9132.5128.5131.2135.6-.--.--.-
nvestment Fund 86.0158.679.796.8203.0210.0231.0200.0
l organizations955.5933.6880.5868.9850.0944.1913.9891.4
eeping 256.0 219.4 498.1 844.1 844.1 844.1 844.1 726.0
e payments475.0351.0-.--.--.--.--.-

Approp. Approp Approp. Approp. Approp. Aut h . Aut h . Aut h .
FY1998FY1999FY2000FY2001FY2002HouseSenateP.L. 107-
EnactedEnactedEnactedEnactedEnacted* H.R.1646S. 1401228
44.0 45.8 48.7 56.1 60.5 61.3 64.2 66.4
ated Appropriations
e Asia Foundation8.
ent for Democracy30.031.030.930.933.536.040.042.0
eagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow1.0-.-(1.0)
West Center12.012.512.513.514.013.515.015.0
South Center1.51.81.8-.--.-4.0-.-2.5
e 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 -.- -.- -.-
iki/CRS-RL31046 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.8 -.- 0.5
s.orees 650.0 640.0 625.0 698.5 705.0 815.0 750.8 820.0
leaktal State Department4,923.36,031.36,496.47,299.78,066.68,348.98,871.78,609.2
://wikiational Broadcasting
httpmprovements 40.0 13.2 11.3 -.- 25.9 16.9 -.- 13.7
Operations 391.5 362.4 388.4 -.- 428.2 428.2 -.- 485.8
to Cuba(22.1)22.122.1-.-24.925.0-.-25.9
(25.0) -.- -.- -.- -.- (30.0) -.- -.-
r oadcasting 431.5 397.7 420.2 450.4 479.0 485.1 506.7 545.4
r oadcasting 5,354.8 6,429.0 6,916.6 7,750.1 8,545.6 8,834.0 9,378.4 9,154.6
bers do not include funds provided in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act (P.L. 107-38).
uthorized up to $900 million by P.L. 106-113 through FY2004.