Foreign Relations Authorization, FY2004 and FY2005: State Department and Foreign Assistance
CRS Report for Congress
Foreign Relations Authorization,
FY2004 and FY2005: State Department and
Updated April 1, 2004
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,
FY2004 and FY2005: State Department and Foreign
The foreign relations 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). Congress is required by law to
authorize the spending of appropriations for the State Department and foreign policy
activities every two years. Foreign assistance authorization measures (such as
authorization for the U.S. Agency for International Development, economic and
military assistance to foreign countries, and international population programs) have
been merged into the State Department authorization legislation since 1985. Since
that time, Congress has not passed a stand-alone foreign assistance authorization bill.
Congressman Hyde introduced H.R. 1950 on May 5, 2003. The House
International Relations Committee reported the bill May 16 (H.Rept. 108-105, Part
I). H.R. 1950, as reported out by the Committee, contained authorization legislation
for FY2004 and FY2005 and included a defense trade and security assistance title,
as well as a foreign assistance title. As amended (July 15 and 16) and passed (July
16) by the House, H.R. 1950 also includes the Millennium Challenge Account and
Peace Corps provisions. The legislation authorizes about $27 billion for FY2004 and
FY2005. The House bill contains the Israeli-Palestinian peace plan, also known as
the “road map” which goes beyond the President’s plan by including conditions that
must be met before the United States can agree to a Palestinian state. Also included
are terrorist-related enforcement measures, munition and satellite export controls.
Eliminated by amendment was a provision providing $50 million in U.S.
contributions to the U.N. Population Fund for each year that the legislation covers.thth
House floor action occurred on July 15 and 16. The House passed the bill, as
amended, by recorded vote (382-42) on July 16th.
The Senate originally reported three separate bills providing authority for only
FY2004: a foreign relations authorization (S. 925), a foreign assistance authorization
bill (S. 1161) which includes arms export control and counter terrorism measures,
and the Millennium Challenge Account (S. 1160). After political differences with
unrelated floor amendments in 2003, the Senate gave up trying to vote on S. 925
(within which the other two bills had been merged). On February 27, 2004, Senator
Lugar introduced the Senate’s new Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY2005 (S.
2144). The Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported it out on March 18, 2004
Key Policy Staff
Area of ExpertiseNameCRS DivisionTel.
Department of State, PublicSusan Epstein,FDT7-6678
Diplomacy , and Int’lCoordinator
Afghanistan securityKen KatzmanFDT7-7612
The Africa SocietyNic CookFDT7-0429
Biotech agricultureGeoffrey BeckerRSI7-7287
Climate Change, Congo BasinSusan FletcherRSI7-7231
Colombia Connie VeilletteFDT7-7127
Copyright protectionMargaret LeeALD7-2579
Export ControlsIan FergussonFDT7-4997
Export of SatellitesMarcia SmithRSI7-7076
International narcotics controlRaphael PerlFDT7-7664
International Organizations,Vita BiteFDT7-7662
International Organizations,Marjorie BrowneFDT7-7695
Peacekeeping, Israel at UN,
International Parental ChildSusan EpsteinFDT7-6678
Mexico-U.S. relationsLarry StorrsFDT7-7672
Missile threat reductionAndrew FeickertFDT7-7673
Peace CorpsCurt TarnoffFDT7-7656
Security AssistanceRichard GrimmettFDT7-7675
Terrorist-related measuresAudrey CroninFDT7-7676
Vietnam Mark ManyinFDT7-7653
Division abbreviations: ALD = American Law Division; G&F = Government and Finance
Division; RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry Division, DSP = Domestic Social Policy
Division; FDT = Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
Foreign Relations .................................................2
Biotech Agriculture Promotion...................................4
Child Abduction Prevention.....................................5
Climate Change Policy..........................................5
Copyright Piracy Protection......................................7
Cuba: Support for Democracy Building ...........................9
Brahimi Report Implementation.............................11
Peacekeeping Contributions Cap.............................12
Status of Israel in U.N. Regional Group.......................13
Consular ID Cards........................................18
Rural Development Assistance..............................18
State Department Authorities and Personnel Issues..................21
Defense Trade and Security Assistance................................22
Export Controls for Satellites...................................22
Israeli Palestinian Peace Enhancement Act of 2003..................23
Missile Technology Control Regime Annex........................24
Missile Threat Reduction Act of 2003.............................26
Munitions Export Controls.....................................27
Terrorist-Related Prohibitions and Enforcement Measures.............31
Development Fund for Africa...............................34
African Development Foundation............................34
Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP).......................34
Independent Media in Ethiopia..............................34
Human Rights Abuse Accountability in Central Africa...........35
African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance
The Africa Society............................................36
Colombia and Andean Region Assistance .........................37
Congo Basin Forest Partnership..................................40
Foreign Assistance Authorization................................40
HIV/AIDS Assistance for the Caribbean and India...................42
International Family Planning Aid and the U.N. Population Fund.......43
U.N. Population Fund.....................................43
Mexico City Policy.......................................44
International Narcotics Control ..................................45
Assistance for Vietnam........................................47
State Department Authorization History...........................48
List of Tables
Table 1. State Department and Related Agencies Appropriations and
Foreign Relations Authorization,
FY2004 and FY2005: State Department
and Foreign Assistance
Most Recent Developments
On February 27, 2004, Senator Lugar introduced S. 2144, the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, FY2005. This bill replaces S. 925 which received no Senate floor
vote because of political disputes over unrelated floor amendments.1 The Committee
on Foreign Relations reported its new authorization bill out on March 18, 2004
On May 5, 2003, Congressman Hyde introduced the House Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 (H.R. 1950). The House
International Relations Committee held markup on it beginning May 7 and filed a
report (H.Rept 108-105) on May 16. If enacted, the House bill would have
authorized the Department of State’s operations and programs at more than $27
billion for FY2004 and FY2005, and would have establish U.S. policy on the Israeli-
Palestinian peace plan, export controls, security assistance to certain foreign
countries, and funding for the U.N. Population Fund. House floor action occurred
on July 15th and 16th. The House passed the bill on July 16, 2003.
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
relations 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 in appendix.) Prior to 1995, Congress had reauthorized
1 Senator Lugar had introduced the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2004
(S. 925) on April 24, 2003.
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.)
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 and Foreign Service activities, as
well as public diplomacy and international broadcasting. 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
international environment issues. Congress can influence U.S. foreign policy
regarding specific regions or countries via this biannual legislation, as well.
Legislation in the 108th Congress on foreign relations authorization include
H.R. 1950 and S. 2144. The Senate bill provides authorization for FY2005 only and
includes Division A — Foreign Relations Authorization and Division B — Foreign
Assistance Authorization. H.R. 1950 has five divisions: Division A is entitled,
Millennium Challenge Account; Division B is entitled Peace Corps Expansion Act
of 2003; Division C is entitled Department of State Authorization Act, Fiscal Years
2004 and 2005; Division D is entitled Defense Trade and Security Assistance
Reform Act of 2003; and Division E is Assistance for Viet Nam.
Bel a r us 2
Since his election in 1994, Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko has
reversed Belarus’s modest progress toward democracy and a free market economy
and created an authoritarian, Soviet-style regime. The Bush Administration has
called him “Europe’s last dictator.” The 2002 State Department Human Rights report
said that Belarus’s human rights record is “very poor.” Lukashenko has extended his
term in office by illegitimate means; drastically reduced the power of the legislature
and judiciary; harassed, arrested, and beaten opposition figures (perhaps having four
of them killed in 1999); forced the closure of independent media; and restricted
freedom of religion. In November 2002, the United States joined 14 European Union
countries in imposing a visa ban against Lukashenko and other top Belarusian
officials due to Belarus’s closure of an OSCE human rights monitoring mission in
the country. The visa ban was lifted in April 2003 after the OSCE office was
reopened. Belarus allegedly has ties with rogue regimes. Before the war in Iraq,
Lukashenko made statements opposing U.S. military action and supporting Saddam
Hussein. In April 2003, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Stephen Pifer said that
there have been “repeated reports from a variety of credible sources that Belarus is
2 Written by Steven Woehrel, Specialist in European Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
involved in arms transfers to states or groups that support terrorism, and in the
military training of individuals associated with these states.” He said those states
included Iran and Iraq under Saddam Hussein.3
Congressional concerns about Belarus are reflected in the House version of H.R.
Section 1602 authorizes appropriations for increased broadcasting to Belarus by
Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL); Section 1603
expresses the sense of the Congress that sanctions be imposed on Belarus until
conditions are met that require Belarus’s democratization; and Section 1604
expresses the sense of the Congress that the President should coordinate with
European countries to take measures similar to those in this title. Section 1605
requires the President to report within 90 days and every year thereafter on the sale
of weapons or weapons-related assistance to regimes supporting terrorism, and on the
personal wealth of Lukashenko and other senior Belarusian leaders.
This title could be viewed as non-controversial in that it does not formally
require the Administration to take action, except to submit a regular report on
Belarus’s military ties with regimes supporting terrorism. The title’s authorization
for aid for Belarus democratization and VOA and RFE/RL broadcasts is also unlikely
to be controversial. Section 1603, which expresses support for, but does not
mandate, sanctions against Belarus, could conceivably cause some disquiet among
some U.S. allies in Europe, if it were perceived to be part of a U.S. effort to
completely isolate Lukashenko. While sharing U.S. distaste for the Belarusian
leader, some European countries may worry that isolation could provoke the regime
into unpredictable actions, or contribute to instability in a country that will border on
the European Union in 2004. Policymakers who support Title XVI argue that
Lukashenko’s regime is a source of instability, and that the sooner it is deposed and
democracy is restored, the more stable the region will be. A mix of sanctions and
support for pro-democracy groups would be the best way to achieve this aim, they
Neither the previous Senate version of the bill (S. 925) nor the current one (S.
CRS Issue Brief IB95077, The Former Soviet Union and U.S. Foreign Assistance,
by Curt Tarnoff.
CRS Report 95-776, Belarus: Country Background Report, by Steven Woehrel.
3 Associated Press wire dispatch, April 16, 2003
Biotech Agriculture Promotion4
U.S. farmers have been rapidly adopting genetically engineered (GE) crops —
mainly corn, soybean, and cotton varieties — to lower production costs and improve
management. However, many foreign countries are wary of agricultural
biotechnology, such as in the European Union (EU) where consumer and
environmental organizations have been very vocal in expressing concerns about the
human health and environmental impacts of GE crops. U.S. exporters often have
encountered barriers to trade in the EU and other markets, where in some cases their
sales have been slowed or halted.
Both S. 2144 and H.R. 1950 contain provisions intended to promote
agricultural biotechnology in international trade and development. The Senate bill
(Sec. 211) would authorize the Secretary of State to support through grants,
cooperative agreements, or contracts, “outreach and public diplomacy activities” on
the benefits of agricultural biotechnology and science-based regulatory systems, and
on the application of agricultural biotechnology for trade and development purposes.
Grants cannot exceed $500,000 annually. The House version (Sec. 728) requires the
Secretary to provide other countries, as appropriate, scientific evidence on the
benefits, safety, and potential uses of agricultural biotechnology. The Secretary of
State is required to chair a federal interagency task force to develop and disseminate
such scientific information; and to instruct USAID to develop a program
demonstrating agricultural biotechnology benefits for the developing world, among
Agricultural groups and the biotechnology industry might be expected to
strongly support a biotechnology provision in this legislation; they have been
working for a number of years to urge the Administration and Congress to do more
to promote the products of U.S. agricultural biotechnology — which, they assert, are
as safe as conventionally produced crops — in foreign markets. Some U.S.
consumer and environmental advocacy organizations, who have expressed concerns
about the safety of such products, might oppose it; others could argue that numerous
federal agencies, including the Department of State, the U.S. Trade Representative,
and U.S. Department of Agriculture, already are working aggressively to open
foreign markets to U.S. biotechnology.
State is the lead department dealing with the so-called Cartagena Biosafety
Protocol. This January 2000 agreement, under the U.N. Convention on Biological
Diversity, deals with the safe handling, transfer and transboundary movement of bio-
engineered organisms and products, and it came into effect in September 2003. The
United States is a party to neither the Convention nor the Protocol, but has been
attempting to work with the nearly 90 country ratifiers, and others, to ensure that each
country’s implementation does not present obstacles to U.S. biotechnology exports.
USDA operates numerous programs to promote GE products in international
trade. For example, USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) has undertaken a
4 Written by Geoffrey Becker, Specialist in Agriculture Policy, Resources, Science, and
variety of activities to educate, train, and provide technical assistance to foreign
countries developing and/or purchasing biotechnology products, and to negotiate and
resolve disputes with trading partners. Also, Section 3204 of the 2002 farm bill (P.L.
107-171) created a new Biotechnology and Trade Program to provide grants for
public and private sector projects that will address nontariff barriers to U.S.
agricultural exports involving biotechnology, food safety, disease, or related
concerns. The measure authorizes annual appropriations of up to $6 million through
See Agricultural Biotechnology in the CRS Agriculture Policy Briefing Book
for more information and references to other CRS reports.
Child Abduction Prevention5
Section 702 of S. 2144 (identical to the measure in S. 925) amends the
Immigration and Nationality Act to declare inadmissible any aliens and relatives who
support a child being abducted from a parent in the United States who has custody.
The alien(s) in question would remain inadmissible until the abducted child is
surrendered to the person with custody or until the abducted child reaches age 21.
Individuals deemed inadmissible under this provision would be placed on the
Consular Lookout and Support System data base with identifying information.
Within 180 days after enactment and annually for the following 4 years, the Secretary
of State shall submit a report to specified congressional committees providing factual
information on the number of cases over the past year of such inadmissible aliens.
Section 275, H.R. 1950 would require the Secretary of State to establish
procedures to notify U.S. embassies regarding international child abduction situations
and guidelines for embassy personnel on providing sanctuary. Section 276 is similar
to the Senate’s section 702, but the House adds “spouse of the abducted child” to the
list of inadmissible aliens relatives. The House bill also requires an annual report,
but does not stipulate a deadline for the first report.
Climate Change Policy6
H.R. 1950 (Section 730) includes a “Sense of Congress on Climate Change” that
“the United States should demonstrate international leadership and responsibility in
reducing the health, environmental, and economic risks posed by climate change,”
through several actions: “taking responsible action to ensure significant and
meaningful reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases from all sectors”; creating
flexible mechanisms such as tradable credits for emissions reductions and carbon
5 Prepared by Susan B. Epstein, Specialist in Foreign Policy and Trade, Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division.
6 Prepared by Susan R. Fletcher, Senior Analyst in International Environmental Policy,
Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
sequestration; participating in international negotiations, including making proposals
that have the objective of obtaining U.S. participation in a future binding climate
change treaty in a manner consistent with the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC), that “protects the economic interests of the United
States, and that recognizes the shared international responsibility for addressing
climate change, including developing country participation”; and establishing in the
House and Senate bipartisan observer groups to “monitor any international
negotiations on climate change.” The previous Senate bill (S. 925) had also included
this sense of Congress; however, the current Senate bill, S. 2144, does not.
The findings sections of both bills review evidence that “....atmospheric
concentrations of manmade greenhouse gases are contributing to global climate
change,” and note some of the consequences, such as rising sea levels, warming of
the oceans, and reduced snow and ice cover. The findings also note that the United
States is a party to the UNFCCC, which has the objective of stabilization of
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, and that the United
States has elected against becoming a party to the Kyoto Protocol (which establishes
legally binding greenhouse gas reductions for developed countries), but that the U.S.
position is not to interfere with other nations’ activities in support of the Protocol.
The findings also state “United States businesses need to know how governments
worldwide will address the risks of climate change.”
In 2001, President Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, and with
it the concept of legally binding international emissions reductions. The current U.S.
policy stresses voluntary domestic actions, not mandatory regulatory requirements,
and outlines a number of voluntary initiatives and government research priorities that
are aimed at fulfilling U.S. responsibility for taking action. This Sense of Congress
accepts the importance of the consequences of climate change, and asserts a U.S. role
in taking responsibility and assuming leadership in reducing risks posed by these
consequences. It goes somewhat beyond current Administration policy in urging a
proposal to gain U.S. participation in a future binding treaty on climate change. It
retains caveats on the need for developing country participation and protecting the
economic interests of the United States that have been part of the congressional
debate since S.Res. 98, including these concerns, was passed in 1997 by the U.S.
CRS Issue Brief IB89005, Global Climate Change
CRS Report RL31931, Climate Change: Federal Laws and Policies Related to
Greenhouse Gas Reductions.
Copyright Piracy Protection7
International copyright protection against unauthorized use depends upon the
national laws of each country and effective enforcement of those laws. Although
there is no single “international copyright” which automatically grants protection in
every country, various treaties concerning copyright and intellectual property rights
[IPR] establish minimum protection and enforcement standards and reciprocity
among the parties to those treaties, which include, inter alia, the Agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights [TRIPS] of the World Trade
Organization [WTO], the Berne Convention, and the World Intellectual Property
Organization [WIPO] Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms
Treaty. The latter two, popularly known as the WIPO Internet Treaties, increased
minimum standards of protection particularly for internet-based delivery of
copyrighted works. Also, pursuant to the WIPO-WTO Agreement of 1995, which
entered into force on January 1, 1996, each of these two organizations agreed to
provide legal-technical assistance to the developing country members of the other
and to enhance their technical cooperation activities; WIPO has assisted over 130
developing and least developed countries in TRIPS implementation.8 Under the
TRIPS, developing and least developed countries were given a transition period
within which to implement the laws and regulations and enforcement infrastructure
necessary to comply with TRIPS obligations. Under Article 65.2, developing
countries had until January 1, 2000, and under Article 65.3, the least-developed
countries have until January 1, 2005, for implementation. Article 67 of the TRIPS
requires developed countries to provide, upon request, technical cooperation to assist
developing and least developed countries in implementation, including in the training
The United States has been providing such assistance, as reported to the WTO,
through its IPR Training Coordination Group, which is comprised of federal agencies
responsible for IPR law and enforcement and of private sector industry associations
with an interest in IPR protection.9 This Group provides programs, training, and
technical assistance to foreign officials and policy makers. In its 2003 Special 301
Report, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) describes these and other
ongoing efforts in combating the perennial and increasing problem of IPR piracy
generally, through the negotiation of bilateral and regional free trade agreements and
implementation of the WIPO Internet Treaties. Currently, the USTR notes a special
focus on reducing counterfeiting and piracy of “optical media” products such as CDs,
VCDs, DVDs, and CD-ROMs. It is also addressing counterfeiting of U.S.
7 Prepared by Margaret Mikyung Lee, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division.
8 Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Technical Cooperation
Activities: Information from Other Intergovernmental Organizations — WIPO,
IP/C/W/376/Add.5 (Jan. 6, 2003).
9 Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Technical Cooperation
Activities: Information from Developed Country Members — United States,
IP/C/W/377/Add.6 (Feb. 4, 2003), and Technical Cooperation Activities: Information from
Members — United States, IP/C/W/408/Add.3 (Nov. 11, 2003). See, e.g., International
Copyright Institute funded under P.L. 108-7, § 1209, 117 Stat. 11 (2003), and programs
established under P.L. 103-392, § 501, 108 Stat. 4098 (1994).
trademarked goods, internet-disseminated piracy, and government use of
unauthorized software. Additionally, there has been increased attention to the
problem of profits from piracy as a source of funding for terrorist organizations and
other organized criminal organizations.10 Some developing and least developed
countries have made progress in both implementation of laws and enforcement of
such laws against IPR infringement; others have recently enacted laws but as yet have
no track record on enforcement; still others have not yet implemented laws and
Section 814 of S. 2144, the Foreign Affairs Authorization Act for FY2005,
authorizes $5 million from funds appropriated for other educational and cultural
exchange programs to be available for the State Department to provide direct
assistance for combating copyright piracy to non-members of the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, whose members are developed countries
that adhere to the principles of an open market economy, democratic pluralism and
respect for human rights. The authorized assistance specifically includes equipment
and training for foreign law enforcement, training for judges and prosecutors, and
assistance in compliance with international IPR treaty obligations, including the
TRIPS. The assistance program would be carried out through the Bureau of
Economic Affairs of the State Department. The provision further requires the
Secretary of State, to the maximum extent practicable, to consult with and assist the
WIPO in promoting the integration of such developing, non-OECD countries into the
global intellectual property system. Section 814 of S. 2144 is consistent with current
U.S. international IPR obligations and policy in combating copyright piracy through
training and other technical assistance to developing and least developed countries
in the process of implementing and enforcing international IPR standards. Although
some commentators have questioned the benefit to developing countries of strong
IPR protections because of the increased costs of importing and using protected
works, others have noted a correlation between stronger IPR protections and
increased foreign direct investment, imports, and internationalization that can benefit
Section 1810 of H.R. 1950, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY2004
and FY2005, contained similar language, but it would have authorized $10 million
(over two fiscal years) in addition to funds otherwise authorized for such purposes.
According to House report language accompanying H.R. 1950, the chief U.S.
diplomatic representative to a country identified under the USTR Priority Watch List
as particularly deficient in IPR enforcement would be responsible for preparing a
plan and recommendations for actions the United States should take to address such
deficiencies. Priority Watch List countries would have priority in receiving
assistance under this provision, but other countries could also receive such
assistance. Earlier Senate bills (S. 925 or S. 1161) did not contain similar language.
10 Intellectual Property Crimes: Are Proceeds from Counterfeited Goods Funding
Terrorism?, Hearing before the House International Relations Committee, Serial No. 108-th
Cuba: Support for Democracy Building11
As passed by the House, H.R. 1950, in Section 1807, would authorize $15
million for each of FY2004 and FY2005 to the President to support democracy-
building efforts for Cuba as allowed pursuant to the Cuban Liberty and Democratic
Solidarity Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-114, Section 109(a)). Section 1807 also states “that
it is U.S. policy to support individuals and groups who struggle for freedom and
democracy in Cuba, including human rights dissidents, independent journalists,
independent labor leaders, and other opposition groups.” The House Report to the bill
(H.Rept. 108-105) states that the funds are designated only for Cuba-related
programs and should not be diverted. (In the Senate, S. 1089, introduced May 20,
2003, also would authorize $15 million to support democracy building in Cuba, as
well as $30 million to establish a fund to provide assistance to a future transition
government in Cuba.) S. 2144 does not contain similar language regarding
democracy-building in Cuba.
Over the past several years, the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) has provided assistance to increase the flow of information on democracy,
human rights, and free enterprise to Communist Cuba. The assistance has been part
of the U.S. strategy of supporting the Cuban people while at the same time isolating
the government of Fidel Castro through economic sanctions. USAID’s Cuba
program supports a variety of U.S.-based non-governmental organizations to promote
rapid, peaceful transition to democracy, help develop civil society, and build
solidarity with Cuba’s human rights activists.12 These efforts are funded through the
annual foreign operations appropriations bill. In FY2001, $4.989 million was
provided for various Cuba projects; $5 million was provided in FY2002; $6 million
was provided in FY2003; and almost $7 million will be provided in FY2004. For
FY2005, the Administration has requested $9 million to back public diplomacy to
promote democratization, respect for human rights, and the development of a free
market economy in Cuba.
In addition to funding through foreign operations appropriations, the United
States provides democratization assistance for Cuba through the National
Endowment for Democracy (NED), which is funded through the annual Commerce,
Justice, and State (CJS) appropriations measure. Cuba funding through NED has
steadily increased over the past several years. NED-funded democracy projects for
Cuba amounted to $765,000 in FY2001; $841,000 in FY2002; and $1.143 million
in FY2003. Funding levels for NED’s Cuba projects in FY2004 are not yet available.
An argument in support of the House provision to increase funding for
democracy building in Cuba is that it helps respond to the Cuban government’s harsh
crackdown on human rights and democracy activists in 2003. The increased funding
could be viewed as bolstering the long-standing U.S. policy of providing support for
the Cuban people. In contrast, an argument countering the House provision is that
the Administration already has been funding significant democracy building efforts
11 Prepared by Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division.
12 See USAID’s Cuba program website: [http://www.usaid.gov/regions/lac/cu/].
in Cuba for several years. The House provision would more than double the
estimated $7 million being provided for such efforts in FY2004 foreign aid
appropriations, and would be in addition to some $25 million spent for another
program designed to support the Cuban people, broadcasting to Cuba via Radio and
CRS Report RL31740, Cuba: Issues for the 108th Congress.
The Senate bill (S. 2144) would authorize FY2005 funding of international
broadcasting activities at $584.3 million (a 2.6% increase over the FY2005 request
and 4.9% increase over current-year funding). The House bill would set funding for
FY2005 at $650.9 million (a 14.3% increase over the FY2005 request and 16.8%
more than the FY2004 enacted appropriation). Both House and Senate bills provide
for a Mideast Broadcasting Network.
In 2002, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) began a pilot project to
create the Middle East Radio Network (MERN) within the Voice of America (VOA).
The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY2003 (H.R. 1646/ P.L. 107-228)
authorized $20 million for the Middle East Radio Network of VOA. In the
Administration’s FY2004 budget request, the BBG proposed the creation of a new
U.S. Middle East Television Network. Within the Emergency Wartime
Supplemental of FY2003 (P.L. 108-11), signed April 16, 2003, Congress provided
$30.5 million for “activities related to Middle East Television Network broadcasting
in the Middle East and radio broadcasting to Iraq.”
S. 2144, Section 808 and H.R. 1950, Section 501 both similarly amend the
United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 by authorizing grants for a
“Mideast Radio and Television Network” (House) or “Middle East Broadcasting
Network” (Senate). Both bills establish a Board of Directors for the network, include
language directing the Board to avoid duplication of language services with other
broadcasting activities to the extent possible, and explicitly state that the network is
not connected to the U.S. federal government in any way. Little controversy on this
measure is expected in the United States; however, some Middle East experts suggest
that increased broadcast activity in that region could draw the ire of fundamentalists
in the Muslim/Arab world.
Additionally, H.R. 1950, Div. C, Title V, Section 531 — United States
International Broadcasting Activities — would amend Section 304 of the United
States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6203) to reorganize
international broadcasting by creating the United States International Broadcasting
Agency which would be headed by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). It
would establish a full-time director who is appointed by the Board, rather than being
13 Prepared by Susan B. Epstein, Specialist in Foreign Policy and Trade, Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division.
run by the Board itself, as in the current broadcasting operation. This measure would
aim primarily to improve lines of authority and establish greater accountability.
Other than establishing an agency rather than a board to run international
broadcasting, most other aspects of the international broadcasting entity remain
virtually the same. The Senate bill has no similar provision.
Title V, subtitle B — Global Internet Freedom — would establish an office
within the BBG with the sole mission of countering internet blocking worldwide; to
encourage development of technology to prevent such blocking; and to pressure
repressive governments engaged in blocking internet access to its people. Currently,
the IBB has been handling internet access blocks on an ad hoc basis with current
appropriation levels. BBG officials say that this action would bring more visibility
to a problem and an activity that they were already handling, but it would not
substantively change the internet counter-blocking activities that they would continue
to conduct. S. 925 has no similar provision.
Other international broadcasting measures in H.R. 1950 include a sense of
Congress expressing the need for expanded broadcasting to North Korea by Radio
Free Asia; improved broadcasting measures to Cuba and counter jamming of radio
and TV Marti; establishing in the Department of State a coordinator for International
Free Media; a pilot program to promote travel and tourism in the United States via
international broadcasting; and a measure to prevent the elimination of international
broadcasting in Eastern Europe.
CRS Report RL31370, State Department and Related Agencies: FY2003
Appropriations and FY2004 Request
CRS Report RS21565, Middle East Television Network: An Overview
H.R. 1950 would authorize funding of the International Organizations accounts
within the State Department budget at $1,040.8 million for U.S. Contributions to
International Organizations (CIO) for FY2005 and S. 2144 would authorize CIO at
$1,109.2 million for the same year. (The enacted funding level for FY2004 is
$1,010.5 million before rescissions.) For U.S. Contributions to International
Peacekeeping, H.R. 1950 would authorize such sums as may be necessary, while S.
2144 would authorize $650 million for FY2005. (The FY2004 enacted level before
rescissions is $465.3 million.) Other issues addressed in the legislation include:
Brahimi Report Implementation.14 In August 2000, a panel of experts on
United Nations Peace Operations, created by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in
March 2000, issued a report assessing the shortcomings of the United Nations in the
peacekeeping area and offering nearly 60 recommendations for reform and change.
14 Prepared by Marjorie Ann Browne, Specialist in International Relations, Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division.
The report is often referred to as the Brahimi Report, named after the chairman of the
Panel, Lakhdar Brahimi, former Foreign Minister of Algeria and currently, the
Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Afghanistan. Since August 2000,
the U.N. General Assembly, its Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, and
the U.N. Security Council have reviewed and implemented many of the Panel’s
recommendations. Secretary-General Annan has issued reports outlining areas of
Section 402 of S. 925 directed that the Secretary of State submit to “appropriate
committees of Congress” a report “assessing the progress made to implement the
recommendations” of the Brahimi Panel. Specifically, the Secretary’s report, due 90
days after enactment, “shall include — (1) an assessment of the United Nations
progress toward implementing the recommendations...; (2) a description of the
progress made toward strengthening the capability of the United Nations to deploy
a civilian police force and rule of law teams on an emergency basis at the request of
the United Nations Security Council; and (3) a description of the policies, programs,
and strategies of the United States Government that support the implementation of
the recommendations..., especially in the areas of civilian police and rule of law.”
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in its report, noted that it was interested
in “learning how the U.S. government is contributing to the development of a more
robust U.N. peacekeeping capacity, especially its ability to organize civil police units
for use on an emergency basis.” Section 402 of S. 2144, the bill replacing S. 925,
contains an identical requirement, but with an increase of the reporting date to 120
days after enactment. H.R. 1950 does not include a similar provision.
Peacekeeping Contributions Cap15. Effective October 1, 1995, Congress
limited to 25% the U.S. assessed payments to U.N. peacekeeping accounts,
irrespective of the higher percent level assessed by the United Nations (Section 404
(b)(2), P. L. 103-236). Congress took this action as a result of continuing increases
in the overall costs of U.N. peacekeeping operations and of the failure of U.N.
member governments to accept increases in their own assessment levels, a step that
would enable U.S. assessments to be lowered. This difference between U.S.
peacekeeping contributions and U.N. peacekeeping assessments, created by the gap
between U.N. and U.S.-recognized assessment levels, helped to produce a growing
arrearage in U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping accounts. In 2001, in response
to a December 2000 agreement by the U.N. General Assembly that the U.S. regular
budget assessment would be reduced from 25% to 22%, the U.S. peacekeeping
assessment level started to fall. [The U.N. peacekeeping assessment is based on a
modification of the regular budget assessment level.] (See IB90103, Table 1. U.N.
Peacekeeping Assessment Levels for the United States and accompanying text for
further details and background.)
In 2002, Congress stipulated that the 25% cap for peacekeeping payments would
be raised for four calendar years to a range of 28.15% for CY2001 to 27.4 % for
CY2004. This would enable current U.S. peacekeeping assessments to be paid in full
(section 402, P. L. 107-228).
15 Contributed by Marjorie Ann Browne, Specialist in International Relations, Foreign
Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.
Section 401 of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended S. 925
set the assessment limit for U.S. peacekeeping contributions beyond calendar year
2004 at 27.4%. This is the same as the level in P. L. 107-228 for CY2004. Section
401 of the House International Relations Committee recommends H.R. 1950 set the
peacekeeping assessment limit at 27.1% for calendar years 2005 and 2006. In
summary, S. 925 would establish 27.4% as the assessment level cap for the future,
unless an initiative were taken to change it. H.R. 1950 would set the cap at 27.1 %,
but for only two years. Acceptance of the H.R. 1950 recommendation would require
a return to this issue either to continue the 27.1% cap or to change it for calendar
years beyond 2006. As reported, Section 401 of S. 2144 set the assessment limit for
U.S. peacekeeping contributions beyond calendar year 2004 at 27.4%, the same as
Section 401 of S. 925.
CRS Issue Brief IB90103, United Nations Peacekeeping: Issues for Congress, by
Marjorie Ann Browne.
Status of Israel in U.N. Regional Group.16 In May 2000, Israel was
admitted, on a temporary basis, to membership into the Western European and Others
Group (WEOG) that meets at United Nations headquarters in New York. This
decision meant that, for the first time, Israel could be recommended or nominated for
participation as a member or an officer of U.N. bodies. A primary function of these
regional groups is to elect and thus nominate a regional candidate for membership in
U.N. organs and bodies, including the U.N. Economic and Social Council and the
U.N. Security Council. Regional groups were devised for the purpose of ensuring
what is called “equitable geographic distribution,” a principle referred to in the U.N.
Charter (Article 23, paragraph 2, on election of the non-permanent members of the
Security Council). If a member state is not a member of a regional group, that state
has no chance of being elected, for example, to membership on the Economic and
Social Council or the Security Council. Israel would naturally be eligible for
membership in the Asian Group which includes other countries in the Middle East.
A consensus has not existed within that Group to admit Israel. Some authorities have
maintained that not being a member of a regional group violates the Charter principle
of “equality among all member states” (Article 2, paragraph 1).
The WEOG was seen as an alternative location for Israel, pending resolution of
disputes in the Middle East. WEOG’s decision was that Israel’s membership would
have to be reviewed in full after four years. In addition, Israel could not be
nominated from the WEOG for the first two years. On February 7, 2003, Israel was
elected, as a candidate from WEOG, as one of the three Vice-Chair on the Open-
Ended Working Group on Disarmament to consider the objectives and agenda for the
fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (SSOD IV).
This working group was established by the U.N. General Assembly (Resolution
16 Prepared by Marjorie Ann Browne, Specialist in International Relations, Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division.
elected Israel to a four-year term on the U.N. Commission on Narcotic Drugs, with
membership starting on January 1, 2004.
Congress has, over the past few years, expressed its concern that Israel, by not
being a member of a regional group, did not have equal access for full participation
as a member of the United Nations. The currently enacted legislation, in Section 721
of P. L. 106-113 (Appendix G. The Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001), is entitled United
Nations Policy on Israel and the Palestinians. Under this section, Congress
expressed its view that U.S. policy shall “promote an end to the persistent inequity
experienced by Israel in the United Nations” by being “denied acceptance into any
of the United Nations regional blocs.” This section further requires the Secretary of
State to report, by January 15, of each year, on (1) actions taken by U.S.
representatives to “encourage the nations of the Western Europe and Others Group
(WEOG) to accept Israel into their regional bloc;” and (2) “other measures being
undertaken, and which will be undertaken, to ensure and promote Israel’s full and
equal participation in the United Nations.” The report submitted to Congress in
January 2003 noted that “since the Asia Group where Israel most appropriately
belongs also excludes it from participation in its activities at UN agencies outside of
New York, our efforts are now focused on gaining Israel’s admittance into WEOG
or similar groups at those agencies.” The report went on, “We will continue efforts
in 2003 and future years to gain Israel’s entry into all WEOG or similar groups where
it has interest in participating.”
Under Section 405 of H.R. 1950, U.S. officials “should pursue an aggressive
diplomatic effort and take all necessary steps to ensure the extension and upgrade of
Israel’s membership in the Western European and Others Group at the United
Nations.” The Secretary of State is required to report, semiannually through
September 30, 2005, on the steps taken by the United States on this issue. As
explained in its report, the Committee urged extension of WEOG membership “in
UN bodies and UN affiliated agencies in New York and throughout the world.”
While S. 925 does not contain a comparable provision, it is likely that Congress will
enact language identical or similar to this. It might be useful to review and compare
this language with that of Section 721. S. 925 did not have a similar provision, and
neither does S. 2144.
Section 105 of S. 2144 and Section 115 of H.R. 1950 authorize $50 million for
settling Jewish migrants in Israel. Funds for Jewish migrants originally were intended
for Jews escaping from the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia. Section 806 of S.
2144 and Section 223 of H.R. 1950 call for a report on U.S. efforts to promote wider
Israeli diplomatic relations. The bill seeks to expand Israel’s diplomatic relations by
directing the Secretary of State to encourage other nations to develop and maintain
relations with Israel. Section 809 of S. 2144 and Section 703 of H.R. 1950 call upon
the Administration to press for membership in the International Red Cross for the
17 By Clyde Mark, Specialist in Middle East Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade
Israeli Magan David Adom society. The International Red Cross refused Israel’s
membership because the Israelis wanted to use the Star of David as their symbol,
which the Red Cross believed would open the door to other nations seeking their own
individual emblems. Israel rejected a Red Cross offer to adopt an internationally
neutral red diamond.
Section 2225 of S. 2144 establishes a private, non-profit Middle East
Foundation, funded through the Middle East Partnership Initiative, to make grants
to persons involved in projects in civil society, human rights, political participation,
education reform, rule of law, and other areas. H.R. 1950 does not have comparable
H.R. 1950 has some provisions not found in the Senate bill. Section 222 adds
to the annual State Department terrorism report a listing of facts about attacks against
U.S. citizens in Israel, Israeli administered territory, and Palestinian territory. The
listing should include date of attack, number of U.S. citizens killed or wounded, total
killed or wounded, groups responsible for the attack, where the groups found refuge
or support, suspects arrested, detained, indicted, or convicted for the attacks, and
other data. The Secretary of State is to consult with other agencies in making the
report. Section 739 lists U.S. citizens killed by Palestinian terrorists since 1993, and
seeks a listing of all U.S. citizens killed in terror attacks. Section 731 states a sense
of the Congress that the United States has played the major role in funding the United
Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for assisting the Palestinian refugees.
Section 731 urges UNRWA to resettle the refugees, eliminate anti-Jewish textbooks
from the schools, stop terrorists from diverting funds, and stop anti-Israeli incitement.
Section 1321 extends the authorization date for FMF assistance to Israel, and Section
Comptroller General access to financial records of U.S. aid to the West Bank and
Gaza Strip, and calls upon the Secretary of State to ensure that the funds are not used
CRS Issue Brief IB85066, Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance
CRS Issue Brief IB92052, Palestinians and Middle East Peace: Issues for the United
A majority of the Members of Congress believe that the United States should
recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel as evidenced by congressional passage
of numerous resolutions and bills, including P.L. 104-45 of November 8, 1995
calling for the U.S. embassy to be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. U.S.
Administrations have disagreed, arguing that Jerusalem’s final status should be
negotiated rather than decided unilaterally by Israel. Palestinian-Israeli agreements
18 Written by Clyde Mark, Specialist in Middle East Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
call for negotiations on the future of the city, and most nations agree that Jerusalem’s
status should be negotiated. Section 805 of S. 2144 states that no funds authorized
in the bill may be used for a U.S. Consulate in east Jerusalem unless the consulate is
under the authority of the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, and that no funds may be used
to publish materials listing national capitals unless Jerusalem is named as the capital
of Israel. Section 221 of Title I, H.R. 1950, has similar provisions, but adds that
people born in Jerusalem may list Israel as their birthplace when applying for U.S.
CRS Report RS20339, Jerusalem, the U.S. Embassy and P.L. 104-45
CRS Issue Brief IB91137, Middle East Peace Talks.
The House passed H.R. 1950 on July 16, 2003, with four provisions relating to
Mexico. This included a modified version of a sense of the Congress provision
regarding a possible bilateral migration accord with Mexico reported out by the
House International Relations Committee on May 16, 2003 (H.Rept. 108-105, Part
1), two amendments stating the sense of Congress on joint pollution control on the
border and Mexican extradition policy, and restrictions on Mexico’s issuance of
consular ID cards. There were no similar provisions in the Senate bill (S. 925) that
the Senate considered but did not pass in July 2003, and there are no similar
provisions in the Senate bill (S. 2144) reported out by the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee in March 2004.
Migration Accord. The idea of a migration accord has been advanced by
President Vicente Fox and by President Bush at presidential meetings in the last two
years. Mexican officials have been pressing for the legalization of undocumented
Mexican workers in the United States through amnesty or guest worker arrangements
to protect their human rights and to reduce the number of migrants who die each year
while seeking entry into the United States. In mid-February 2001, the two presidents
agreed to hold cabinet-level negotiations to address migration and labor issues
between the countries. Subsequent press reports suggested that various proposals
were being considered by the Administration and by Congress, with leaders of both
U.S. political parties reportedly seeking to gain favor with Hispanic voters and to
deal with the existence of numerous undocumented workers in hard-to-fill jobs. In
early September 2001, the two presidents pledged to reach agreement as soon as
possible on a range of issues, including border safety, a temporary worker program,
and the status of undocumented Mexicans in the United States. However, following
the September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, congressional action
focused on strengthening border security and alien admission and tracking
procedures. In March 2002, the two presidents noted that important progress had
been made to enhance migrant safety, and they agreed to continue the cabinet-level
19 Prepared by K. Larry Storrs, Specialist in Latin American Affairs.
talks to achieve safe, legal, and orderly migration flows between the countries.
During the annual Binational Commission meetings of cabinet secretaries in
November 2002, Secretary of State Powell and Foreign Secretary Castañeda
reaffirmed the intention to continue talks toward a migration agreement, but in
January 2003, Castañeda resigned, reportedly in part out of frustration with the lack
of progress in negotiating a migration accord with the United States.
When the House International Relations Committee marked up H.R. 1950 on
May 8, 2003, Representative Menendez offered an amendment, which, in modified
form, became Section 731. The initial amendment recounted the recent
commitments on migration matters by the two governments as findings, and stated
the sense of Congress that the United States should reach an agreement with Mexico
on a migration accord that would ensure that migration to the United States is “safe,
orderly, legal, and dignified.” Arguing that the Menendez provision was too broad,
Representative Ballenger offered a substitute amendment, subsequently approved 24-
22, that stated the sense of Congress that a Mexico-U.S. migration agreement should
address the key issues of concern for both nations, and should include an accord to
open Mexico’s state-run petroleum monopoly (PEMEX) to reform and to investment
by U.S. oil companies. It also added a finding that PEMEX “is inefficient, plagued
by corruption and in need of substantial reform and private investment in order to
provide sufficient petroleum products to Mexico and the United States to fuel future
economic growth which can help curb illegal migration into the United States.”
Representative Gallegly, expressing concern about fugitives from U.S. justice that
Mexico will not extradite, offered an amendment to the Ballenger substitute measure,
which was approved by unanimous consent, that the issues of extradition and law
enforcement cooperation should be addressed in any migration agreement between
the countries. In sum, Section 731, as reported, states the sense of Congress that the
United States should as soon as practicable commence negotiations to reach a
migration accord with Mexico which addresses the key issues of concern in both
countries, which opens PEMEX to reform and investment by U.S. oil companies, and
which addresses extradition and law enforcement issues.
Mexican officials and commentators criticized the Committee-reported
provisions related to PEMEX and extradition as an intrusion in the domestic affairs
of Mexico. The Office of the Mexican Presidency issued a statement on May 11,
2003, acknowledging that the negotiation of a migration agreement was a priority
for the Fox Administration, but pointing out that “negotiating such an agreement in
exchange for opening up Petróleos Mexicanos (the state oil industry - PEMEX) to
foreign investment would be wholly unacceptable.” The statement further asserted
that “major changes have been undertaken at PEMEX to modernize its infrastructure
and make its management transparent, and thus guarantee that oil shall remain in
During floor consideration on July 15, 2003, the House approved, as part of an
en bloc amendment, an amendment proposed by Representative David Dreier, as
modified by HIRC Chairman Henry Hyde, that became Section 730, that removed
the previously mentioned references to PEMEX, and stated the sense of Congress
that the United States and Mexico should conclude negotiations in an attempt to
reach a migration accord that is as comprehensive as possible and which addresses
the key issues of concern for both nations; and that as part of any agreement, the
issues of extradition and law enforcement cooperation be addressed.
Pollution Control. During floor consideration on July 15, 2003, the House
approved, as part of an en bloc amendment, an amendment proposed by
Representatives Hunter, Cunningham, Davis, and Filner, that became Section 740,
that expresses the sense of Congress that the U.S. Section of the International
Boundary and Water Commission should give priority attention to treaty negotiations
with Mexico on the building of a public-private wastewater treatment facility in
Mexico that can treat sewage flowing from Tijuana to San Diego, as outlined in P.L.
105-457. The amendment recounted in the findings the damage to San Diego
beaches, and the three year delay in negotiations, and it required that monthly
progress reports be submitted to appropriate congressional committees.
Extradition Issues. During floor consideration on July 15, 2003, the House
approved Amendment 27 proposed by Representative McKeon that expresses in
Section 744 the sense of the Congress that the U.S. government should encourage the
Mexican government to work closely with the Mexican Supreme Court to persuade
the Court to reconsider its October 2001 ruling so that the possibility of life
imprisonment in the United States will not have an adverse effect on the timely
extradition of criminal suspects from Mexico to the United States.
Consular ID Cards. In floor action on July 15, 2003, the House voted 226-
198 to accept Amendment 17 by Representative John Hostettler that would establish
in Section 232 a series of restrictions on the issuance of consular identification cards
by foreign missions. In recent years, the Mexican consulates have been issuing
matrícula consular cards for identity purposes, and they have been increasingly
accepted in the United States in situations where proof of identity is required, such
as for establishing banking accounts and obtaining credit cards, and transferring
funds from the United States to Mexico. Critics argue that the cards are used
primarily by illegal aliens seeking to obtain benefits not achieved through regular
immigration law and procedures, and that they might facilitate money-laundering and
terrorist activity. The amendment would require that foreign missions issue consular
identification cards only to bona fide citizens of the country as verified by birth
certificates, voter IDs, and passports; that card recipients be required to notify the
mission of any change of address; that automated records be kept by the missions to
prevent duplicate or fraudulent issuance; that records be subject to audit by the
United States; and that the United States be notified of each issuance, including the
name and address. In the event that a foreign mission has issued consular ID cards
in violation of these provisions, it could be required to suspend the issuance of cards;
and in the event of non-compliance, the State Department would suspend the
issuance of immigrant or nonimmigrant visas, or both, to nationals of that country
until it was in compliance with the requirements. Supporters of the amendment
argued that the issuance of the cards was out of control and needed to be controlled.
Opponents argued that it was an attack on the Mexican identity card and persons of
Hispanic heritage, and that the requirements were onerous and excessive.
Rural Development Assistance. When the Senate considered S. 925 on
July 10, 2003, it adopted an amendment offered by Senator Reid to provide $100
million in assistance to Mexico to deal with the existing rural development crisis in
the country. The Senate did not complete action on S. 925 in 2003, and there is no
similar provision in the Senate bill (S. 2144) reported out by the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee in March 2004.
CRS Report RL31876, Mexico-U.S. Relations: Issues for the 108th Congress, by K.
The Peace Corps Charter for the 21st Century Act, appearing as title IX in the
Senate bill (S. 2144), is partly a response to a January 2002 initiative of the Bush
Administration to double the size of the Peace Corps over a period of five years. In
the House, the Peace Corps Expansion Act of 2003, originally H.R. 2441 (H.Rept.
S. 2144 and H.R. 1950 share many features. Chiefly, both bills support an
expanded volunteer force by authorizing appropriations to the year FY2007. Both
bills require that volunteers be trained in the education, prevention, and treatment of
infectious diseases so that they can convey this knowledge during their service. They
establish a number of reporting requirements, including reports to Congress on how
the Agency plans to increase the number of volunteers, new agency initiatives,
country security concerns, student loans, and recruitment of volunteers for priority
countries. The two bills reaffirm the Peace Corps’ status as an independent agency.
Both pieces of legislation focus attention on returned volunteers (RPCVs). They
require that some members of a revived Advisory Council be RPCVs. Both bills
urge that RPCVs be utilized to open or reopen programs in Muslim countries.
The two bills differ in several ways. Their authorization levels are slightly
different. S. 2144 authorizes $351 million for FY2005, $443 for FY2006, and $485
million for FY2007, while H.R. 1950 authorizes $411.80 million, $455.93 million,
and $299.40 million for these years. H.R. 1950 requires more reports — on federal
equal opportunity programs and on medical screening procedures and health
considerations for putting volunteers in a country. It requires that recruiting be the
responsibility of the Peace Corps; the Senate bill requires that it be “primarily” its
responsibility. H.R. 1950 raises the minimum readjustment allowance provided
volunteers at completion of service from $125 for each month served to $275 in
FY2004 and $300 thereafter, while S. 2144 raises it to $275 only (volunteers
currently receive $225). Under H.R. 1950, the Advisory Council has 11 members,
6 of whom are RPCVs; S. 2144 would have 7 members, including 4 RPCVs. The
latter measure requires regular meetings and an annual report from the Council on its
functions. Both bills authorize establishment of an annual grant program to help
RPCVs implement small projects — in S. 2144 eligible projects must meet the so-
called “third goal” of the Peace Corps (promoting an understanding of other peoples
by Americans); in H.R. 1950 they could meet all Peace Corps goals. For this
20 Prepared by Curt Tarnoff, Specialist in Foreign Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
purpose, S. 2144 authorizes the Corporation for National and Community Service to
utilize $10 million in funds additional to the regular Corporation budget; H.R. 1950
authorizes the Peace Corps Director to allocate the grants which are additional to the
Peace Corps budget (or the role can be delegated to the Corporation). H.R. 1950
requires that the number of Crisis Corps volunteers be expanded to at least 120 in
FY2004, 140 in FY2005, 160 in FY2006, and 165 in FY2007. It also contains a
declaration of support for the Bush goal of doubling the Peace Corps by FY2007.
Although the Peace Corps is viewed positively by the public and is widely
supported in Congress, the Peace Corps provisions raise a number of potential issues
for policymakers. The doubling of the size of the Peace Corps means a substantial
increase in the size of the agency’s budget to nearly $500 million by FY2007,
presumably to be maintained for years thereafter. Budget constraints may prevent
this rapid growth — the FY2003 Administration request of $317 million was
trimmed in the final appropriations bill to $295 million. Further, Senate
appropriators in their 2003 report (S.Rept. 107-219) called the expansion plan
“overly ambitious,” potentially causing strains in administrative and programming
capacities and suggesting that expansion may have to be drawn out over more than
five years. The FY2004 request of $359 million was effectively cut to $325 million
($310 million in the regular Peace Corps account, plus $15 million to be transferred
to Peace Corps from the Global HIV/AIDS account).
For further discussion, see CRS Report RS21168, The Peace Corps: Expansion
Initiative and Related Issues.
Public diplomacy consists of U.S. government activities designed to present the
American culture and promote understanding by foreign publics of U.S. government
policies. Public diplomacy includes government exchange programs, international
information programs, and U.S. government international broadcasting. (For details
on international broadcasting measures, see that section above.) Both House and
Senate bills include funding authorization and new program authority relating public
diplomacy to the post 9/11 world.
Title VI, S. 2144 — Strengthening United States Outreach — would require the
President to develop an international information strategy, focusing on regions with
significant Muslim populations, and report to the relevant congressional committees.
In addition, Section 602 would require the Secretary of State to include public
diplomacy training at all levels of the Foreign Service. Section 612 of this title
would expand existing educational and cultural exchanges and would include
exchanges to promote religious freedom, information technology, and sports
21 By Susan B. Epstein, Specialist in Foreign Policy and Trade, Foreign Affairs, Defense,
and Trade Division.
H.R. 1950 Title II of Div C, Subtitle A, United States Public Diplomacy —
Section 202 emphasizes that public diplomacy must be an integral component of U.S.
foreign policy. The Department, in coordination with international broadcasting
entity is called on to coordinate efforts of all federal agencies in promoting public
diplomacy activities. The section would establish a public diplomacy reserve corps
which may include public diplomacy experts and related field experts from the
private sector. Section 203 would require the Secretary of State to develop annually
a public diplomacy strategy and specify goals, agency responsibilities and resources
needed to achieve the stated goals. The Secretary would annually review the public
diplomacy strategy and its impact on target audiences. Each annual report shall
include an assessment of the U.S. public diplomacy strategy both worldwide and by
region. Comparable to Section 602 in S. 2144, Section 204 establishes public
diplomacy as a priority in recruiting and training Foreign Service officers. It would
require the Secretary to seek to increase, through recruitment and incentives, the
number of Foreign Services officers who are proficient in languages spoken in
predominantly Muslim countries.
Other measures contained in H.R. 1950, Title II, Subtitle A include reporting
requirements and enhancements of the Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy;
implementation of a pilot program to assist foreign governments in order to establish
or improve a public library system in their countries in order to improve literacy and
public education; and a sense of Congress that the Secretary should include the
predominantly Muslim populated countries in sub-Saharan Africa in the
Department’s public diplomacy activities.
Similar to Section 612 of the Senate bill, H.R. 1950, Title II of Div C, Subtitle
C — Educational and Cultural Activities — contains Section 251 which would
establish an array of exchange initiatives for predominantly Muslim countries.
Included would be an expansion of the Fulbright Exchange and the Hubert H.
Humphrey Fellowship programs in Muslim countries, a journalism training program,
grants for U.S. citizens to teach English language overseas, and library training
State Department Authorities and Personnel Issues22
In addition to providing the required authority for the Department of State and
related agencies to spend specified levels of appropriations (see Table 1 in the
Appendix for appropriation and authorization levels), Division C of H.R. 1950 and
Title II and III of S. 2144 contain measures ranging from authorizing a U.S.
diplomacy center to raising post differential pay and danger pay allowances for
Foreign Service Officers to a security cost sharing among all agencies represented in
overseas posts. On these issues, both bills have similar provisions, none of which
appear controversial at this time.
22 Written by Susan B. Epstein, Specialist in Foreign Policy and Trade, Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division.
For more detail on State Department and related agencies, see CRS Report
RL31370, State Department and Related Agencies: FY2003 Appropriations and
Defense Trade and Security Assistance
Export Controls for Satellites23
Between 1992 and 1996, responsibility for decisions regarding export of
commercial communications satellites was transferred from the State Department to
the Commerce Department. In 1997, issues arose in connection with the launch of
U.S.-built satellites by China as to whether U.S. satellite manufacturers were abiding
by the terms of the export licenses granted by the Commerce Department, and
whether such exports should be under the more restrictive controls of the State
Department. The concern was that China might be gaining militarily useful
information in connection with its launches of U.S.-built satellites. Subsequently,
Congress directed that export control responsibility for these satellites be returned to
the State Department effective March 15, 1999 (FY1999 DOD authorization bill,
Which agency should control these exports remains controversial because of
concern that uncertainty associated with State Department control over the licenses
(particularly in terms of the time required for the licenses to be approved or denied)
places U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage with European satellite
manufacturing companies. The Satellite Industry Association (SIA) released figures
in May 2001 showing U.S. satellite manufacturers losing market share to foreign
companies in 2000. SIA and others attributed that loss in part to the shift in
jurisdiction to State. Congress directed the Secretary of State to establish an export
regime that includes expedited approval for exports to NATO allies and major non-
NATO allies in the FY2000 State Department authorization act (part of the FY2000
Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 106-113). The new rules took effect on July
1, 2000. (Since 2001, U.S. companies have won the majority of contracts for new
commercial communications satellites, though it is not possible to draw a direct link
between that and the regulatory change.)
Efforts to shift jurisdiction over these satellite exports back to the Commerce
Department continue. In the 108th Congress, Title XV of H.R. 1950 as reported from
HIRC (H.Rept. 108-105, Part 1) would have left the decision on agency jurisdiction
to the President if the export is to a NATO country or major non-NATO ally; exports
to China would remain under State Department jurisdiction. However, the House
Armed Services Committee struck Title XV when it marked up the bill (H.Rept. 108-
105, Part 3), and it was not included in the version of the bill that passed the House
on July 16, 2003.
23 By Marcia S. Smith, Specialist in Aerospace and Telecommunications Policy, Resources,
Science, and Industry Division
Separately, the Security Assistance Act (P.L. 106-280) reduced from 30 days to
15 days the time Congress has to review decisions on exporting commercial
communications satellites to Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan, making the time
period the same as for NATO allies. H.R. 1950 as passed by the House changes that
time period back to 30 days.
S. 2144, the FY2005 Foreign Affairs Authorization Act, includes section 2239,
which would exempt from export licensing requirements marketing information (as
defined in the Act) related to sales of commercial communications satellites if the
sale is to a NATO country, Australia, Japan, or New Zealand. The exemption does
not apply to defense items and defense services. The same provision was included
in S. 1161 (later incorporated into S. 925) last year.
CRS Issue Brief IB93062, Space Launch Vehicles: Government Activities,
Commercial Competition, and Satellite Exports, by Marcia Smith.
Israeli Palestinian Peace Enhancement Act of 200324
Title XVI of Div. C, H.R. 1950 addresses the effort to achieve peace between
the Israelis and Palestinians that began with President Bush’s speech on June 24,
2002. It envisioned “two states, living side by side in peace and security.” The
President called on the Palestinians to elect new leaders “not compromised by terror”
and to undertake “true reforms” to build a practicing democracy. He declared that
the United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state until its
leaders fight terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure. He promised that when
there are new leaders and new security arrangements with Israel, the United States
will then support the creation of a Palestinian state, but certain aspects of its
sovereignty will be “provisional” until a final settlement in the Middle East. The
President also declared that “as we make progress toward security, Israeli forces need
to withdraw to positions they held prior to September 28, 2000, and Israeli settlement
in the occupied territories must stop.” The President added that in real peace, the
“Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated
by the parties, based on U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal to
secure and recognized borders.”
Building on the President’s vision, the United States, European Union, United
Nations, and Russia (the “Quartet”) developed a three-phase “Performance-Based
Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” In
Phase I, the focus will be on an end to terror and violence, the building of Palestinian
political and security institutions, and the normalization of Palestinians life through
humanitarian and economic responses, the dismantlement of Israeli settlement
outposts erected since March 2001, and the freezing of all settlement activity. Phase
II, will focus on the creation of an independent Palestinian state with provisional
borders. Phase III, will see negotiations for a permanent agreement and an end of the
24 Prepared by Carol Migdalovitz, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs, Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division.
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Roadmap was presented on April 30, 2003. The
Roadmap calls for Israeli actions to “accompany” those of the Palestinians, although
in Phase I the Palestinians are to unconditionally cease violence “immediately.” The
Palestinians, EU, and U.N. view the Roadmap as a parallel process, requiring
simultaneous steps by both sides. The Israeli government and its supporters consider
it to be a sequential process, beginning with an end to Palestinian violence, and
maintain that the President’s June 24, 2002 speech does so, as well.
Title XVII, Sec. 1602 declares that the security of Israel is a national security
interest of the United States. It endorses the two-state solution as necessary to
achieving the security of Israel, if the Palestinian state is peaceful, democratic, “and
abandons the use of terror forever.” Sec. 1603 states a willingness to provide
substantial assistance to the Palestinians after they achieve peace with Israel. Sec.
1604 indicates that transformation of the Palestinian system of government along the
lines outlined in President Bush’s June 24, 2002 speech is a precondition for peace
negotiations. Sec. 1605 calls on the President not to recognize a Palestinian state
until it embodies his June 24, 2002 vision. Sec. 1606 allows the provision of
assistance to a Palestinian state if the President certifies that an international peace
agreement has been signed, in which both parties commit to an internationally
recognized boundary with no remaining territorial claims and, in which, the issue of
refugees is resolved. In other words, the bill bans aid to the Palestinian state with
provisional borders that is to emerge from Phase II of the Roadmap. However, the
President may waive this provision if he determines and certifies that it is in the U.S.
national interest. The limitations on assistance do not apply to humanitarian
assistance or aid to help reform the Palestinian Authority. Assistance to the
Palestinian state for economic development, democratization, security cooperation
with Israel, and to help compensate Palestinian refugees is specifically authorized.
The Senate bill has no parallel provisions.
For background, see CRS Issue Brief IB91137, The Middle East Peace Talks,
and CRS Issue Brief IB92052, Palestinians and Middle East Peace: Issues for the
Missile Technology Control Regime Annex25
H.R. 1950 requires that the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary
of Commerce, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Defense certify to Congress
no later than March 1 of each year that items on the Missile Technology Control
Regime (MTCR) Annex have been under stringent control in accordance with the
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and Export Administration
Regulations (EAR) for the previous year. The legislation also requires that if the
requirement has not been met, then reasons why this did not occur must also be
included in the certification. This proposed annual certification also requires that the
25 Written by Andrew Feickert, Analyst in National Defense, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
Secretary of State describe any updated coverage in both the ITAR and EAR as they
relate to MTCR Annex items. In addition, any overlap or omissions in these
regulations as they relate to MTCR Annex items will also be included in the
certification to Congress. The Senate version, S. 2144, Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2004, does not contain similar provisions.
Section 1201 of H.R. 1950 appears to be an attempt to strengthen controls by
assigning specific accountability for U.S. missile-related activities. Current law
(Section 832 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2002 and
2003) requires reporting on all international transfers of MTCR equipment or
technology to any country seeking to acquire such equipment, including U.S.
transfers of such equipment or technology. Furthermore, current law requires the
!An analysis of the effectiveness of the regulatory and enforcement
regimes of the United States as they relate to the MTCR, and;
!An explanation of U.S. policy regarding the transfer of MTCR
equipment and technology to foreign programs.
Section 1201, as proposed, also formally designates the Secretary of Commerce
and the Attorney General to be part of the review and certification process, whereas
current law stipulates roles only for the Secretary of State and the Secretary of
Defense. The formal inclusion of the Secretary of Commerce and the Attorney
General in this requirement will likely be viewed in favorable terms as both are
involved in a variety of missile nonproliferation capacities. The reporting on overlaps
and omissions in terms of the ITAR and EAR in the proposed annual certification
might help Congress identify areas where both regulations can be improved by
legislative action. The proposal of the annual certification proposed in Section1201
may generate opposition, particularly in the Executive Branch. The question that
may arise is one of Congressional intent: Is this certification intended to establish
legal accountability, or is it to compel the Secretaries of State, Defense, and
Commerce, and the Attorney General to cooperate in improving U.S. government
control of MTCR-related items? If it is to establish legal accountability, there could
be a significant degree of opposition. If it is to improve cooperation, it may be
argued that there is alternative legislative language that could achieve the same
CRS Report RL31848, Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and
International Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (ICOC):
Background and Issues for Congress, Andrew Feickert.
CRS Report RL31502, Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, and Missile Proliferation
Sanctions: Selected Current Law, Dianne E. Rennack.
Missile Threat Reduction Act of 200326
H.R. 1950, Section 1412 calls for a U.S.-led effort to seek a binding
international instrument(s) to restrict trade of offensive ballistic missiles. This
proposal addresses offensive ballistic missiles with a range of at least 300 km and a
payload capacity of 500 kg or more and would apply to both conventional and
weapons of mass destruction-armed missiles. Because this proposal stipulates only
offensive ballistic missiles, it is assumed that surface-to-air missiles and ballistic
missile defense interceptor missiles would not be subject to the binding instrument.
Cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which are included in
provisions of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), are not included in
this proposal. This binding instrument may be in the form of a multilateral treaty,
United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR), or another instrument of
international law. No matter what form this instrument takes, it is proposed that it
should also include enforcement measures including “interdiction, seizure, and
impoundment of illicit shipments of offensive ballistic missiles and related
technology, equipment, and components”. Such a binding instrument is not reflected
in current law.
The Senate version of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, S. 2144, does
not address the establishment of a binding agreement restricting the trade of ballistic
It is unclear if the proposed instrument would replace the MTCR and the
International Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (ICOC), or if
it would complement these voluntary, non-binding arrangements. U.S. sponsorship
of a Security Council resolution or multilateral treaty could prove to be
controversial, given the current climate in the United Nations. Attempts to include
an enforcement mechanism, especially provisions for “interdiction, seizure, and
impoundment,” may face considerable resistance on a legal, policy, and practical
basis. This measure has led some experts to ask whether some sort of an
international enforcement organization would be created or whether any country
might “interdict” what they deem to be illicit ballistic missile or technology
Those in Congress who favor revitalizing nonproliferation efforts in lieu of the
current Administration’s emphasis on a counterproliferation strategy involving
potential preemption might be generally supportive of legislation that attempts to
strengthen nonproliferation controls. There also likely will be skepticism, both in
Congress and the Administration, based on the argument that proliferating countries
would decline to accede to the treaty or refuse to comply with its provisions if they
become members. The U.S. aerospace industry, particularly companies involved in
ballistic missile interceptors, cruise missiles, and UAVs, might be supportive of this
treaty as it does not include restrictions on these systems in its provisions. Likewise,
the Department of Defense might be supportive as such exempted systems are
considered by many the “workhorses” of the modern U.S. military.
26 Prepared by Andrew Feickert, Analyst in National Defense, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
H.R. 1950, Section 1413 calls for U.S. sponsorship of a U.N. Security Council
Resolution prohibiting United Nations members from “purchasing, receiving,
assisting or allowing transfer of” missile or missile- related equipment and
technology from North Korea and permits interdiction, seizure, or impoundment of
North Korean missiles or related technology and equipment. (The Senate version,
S. 925, does not contain similar provisions.) This resolution might receive support
from countries that are concerned about continuing North Korean missile
proliferation, particularly proliferation to countries such as Iran, Pakistan, and Libya.
The proposal addresses the possibility that countries such as North Korea, Iran,
Pakistan, and Libya might not accede to the proposed U.S.-sponsored ballistic missile
treaty. Proponents believe that this resolution, if vigorously and uniformly enforced,
could significantly impede North Korean missile and technology sales and could also
have a detrimental impact on the medium and intermediate-range ballistic programs
of Iran, Pakistan, and Libya — all reported to be heavily dependent on North Korean
missile technology and assistance.
Critics are likely to maintain that a U.N. Security Council resolution presents
the same issues as does the proposed U.S.-sponsored treaty in terms of enforcement
mechanisms. From their perspective, the December 2002 U.S. release of Yemen-
bound North Korean SCUDs seized at sea could serve as a legal precedent for
countries opposing such a resolution. Additionally, they maintain that there is likely
to be resistance to this resolution if it permits interdiction without Security Council
approval. Some analysts suggest that, to be approved, the resolution would have to
contain provisions for the Security Council to review evidence on a case-by-case
basis and establish “probable cause” before sanctioning interdiction or seizure.
CRS Report RL31848, Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and
International Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (ICOC):
Background and Issues for Congress, Andrew Feickert.
CRS Report RL31502, Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, and Missile Proliferation
Sanctions: Selected Current Law, Dianne E. Rennack.
Munitions Export Controls27
H.R. 1950, as passed by the House, contains, in Title XIII, provisions related to
export controls of items on the U.S. Munitions List, as well as new reporting
requirements. Specifically, the committee bill contains technical amendments to the
Arms Export Control Act (AECA) in Sections 1202-1204. Section 1202 amends
section 36(c) of the AECA to require advance certification to Congress of any
comprehensive export authorization in the amount of $100 million or more,
regardless of whether a signed contract exists. This section also repeals clause (B)
of paragraph 2 of section 36(c), thus establishing a 30 day waiting period for satellite
launches by Russia, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine. Section 1203 amends section 36(d)
27 Prepared by Richard F. Grimmett, Specialist in National Defense, Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division.
of the AECA to no longer require advance notification of agreements involving the
manufacture abroad of significant military equipment that is valued at less than $7
million in the case of major defense equipment, or $25 million in the case of all other
significant military equipment. Section 1204 amends section 38 of the AECA to
establish an accelerated and streamlined munitions license approval procedure of ten
days for Australia and the United Kingdom. The procedure would apply to those
defense articles, services, and technology that are currently exempt by regulation (i.e.
section 126.5 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, title 22 C.F.R.) from
prior U.S. Government review and licensing requirements when they are to be
exported or transferred to Canada. Section 1205 of the House bill would require the
Secretary of State to establish a coordinator for small business affairs in the Office
of Defense Trade Controls to serve as a point of contact for U.S. small businesses on
export licensing, registration, and other matters.
The House bill also contains two reporting requirements. Section 1201 requires
the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretaries of Commerce and Defense,
and the Attorney General, to provide an annual certification and report to Congress
on U.S. missile technology export controls. The intent is to ensure that U.S. missile
technology controls are clearly established and kept up-to-date, in light of the special
threat to U.S. security interests that would be presented by the unauthorized export
and proliferation of missile technologies. Section 1206 contains a sense of the
Congress provision noting that administrative, licensing and compliance-related
functions associated with arms exports under section 38 of the Arms Export Control
Act could be expedited by a reduction in those matters necessitating inter-agency
referral outside of the State Department, or by co-locating munitions control
functions of the Departments of State, Defense, and Homeland Security. Section
1206 requires the Secretary of State to consult with the Secretaries of Homeland
Security and Defense, and the public — through the U.S. Government’s federal
advisory committee structure — to examine the relative advantages and
disadvantages of co-location of munitions control functions, and to report on this
matter to the appropriate committees of Congress within 180 days of enactment of
On May 29, 2003, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported S. 1161,
a bill to authorize foreign assistance for FY2004. Subsequently on March 4, 2004,
the Foreign Relations Committee ordered reported S. 2144, an original bill which
incorporated most of the elements of S. 1161. The latest committee bill (S. 2144)
contains technical amendments to current law. Section 2231 of S. 2144, as reported,
raises the minimum dollar thresholds at which sales of certain defense articles, design
and construction services, and major defense equipment (or upgrades of such sales)
must be reported to Congress under Section 36 of the Arms Export Control Act
(AECA). These thresholds were raised from $14 million to $50 million for major
defense equipment, from $50 million to $100 million for defense articles and defense
services, and from $200 million to $350 million for design and construction services.
Section 2232 requires the President to make certifications to Congress under section
28 For related background see CRS Report RL31675, Arms Sales Congressional Review
Process; and CRS Report RL31559, Proliferation Control Regimes: Background and Status.
126.14 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) Title 22 C.F.R.) for
the export of defense articles or defense services to an eligible country or foreign
partner. Section 2233 provides an exception to the requirements for bilateral
agreements for country exemptions from International Traffic in Arms Regulations
contained in section 38(j)(A) of the AECA with respect to transfers of certain U.S.-
origin defense items within Australia. Section 2233 also provides for an exemption
from certain export licensing restrictions in Section 38(j) of the AECA for the United
Kingdom. Section 2233 further provides that not later than 30 days before
authorizing any 38(j) exemptions for Australia or the United Kingdom, the President
must make specific certifications to Congress regarding such exemptions. In
addition, the President is required to make an annual report to Congress for five years
detailing various actions taken by the United States with the Governments of
Australia and the United Kingdom relating to these exemptions. Section 2238 grants
eligibility to Haiti for the purchase of defense articles and services for the Haitian
Coast Guard under the AECA, subject to existing notification requirements.
For related background see CRS Report RL31675, Arms Sales Congressional
Review Process; and CRS Report RL31559, Proliferation Control Regimes:
Background and Status.
H.R. 1950, as passed by the House, contains, in Title XIII, a number of
provisions relating to military assistance and arms export control, including
authorizations for appropriations for a number of security assistance programs.
Specifically, the House bill contains provisions providing funding authorizations for
Foreign Military Sales and Financing, International Military Education and Training,
de-mining assistance, and the non-proliferation and disarmament fund. A variety of
technical language changes to existing law are made. Authority is also provided to
transfer certain obsolete or surplus war reserve defense articles to Israel, and the
authority is expanded to loan to friendly foreign countries, material, supplies, and
equipment for research and development purposes. Title XIII includes provisions
establishing reporting requirements to Congress relating to U.S. cooperative efforts
with foreign governments to foster development and deployment of defenses against
missile attack, as well as the obligation to submit to the House International
Relations Committee all reports provided to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
on Strategic Offensive Reductions between the U.S. and the Russian Federation.
Funding authorization is provided for refurbishment and various costs associated
with the transfer of up to four maritime interdiction patrol boats for Mozambique.
The House bill also contains a statement of the House of Representatives regarding
the treaty with the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions, as well as
a statement of Congressional findings regarding Iran’s program to develop a nuclear
29 Richard F. Grimmett, Specialist in National Defense, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade
On May 29, 2003, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported S. 1161,
to authorize foreign assistance for FY2004. Subsequently on March 4, 2004, the
Foreign Relations Committee ordered reported S. 2144, an original bill which
incorporated most of the elements of S. 1161. The latest committee bill (S. 2144)
contains a number of provisions relating to military assistance and arms export
control, including authorizations for appropriations for a number of security
assistance programs. Specifically, the committee bill contains funding authorizations
for Foreign Military Sales and Financing, de-mining assistance, the non-proliferation
and disarmament fund, and International Military Education and Training (IMET).
The Senate bill makes various technical changes to existing law. Section 2204
creates the authority for the Secretary of State to receive lethal excess property from
other U.S. Government agencies for the purpose of providing it to foreign
governments. Section 2207 authorizes the President to waive the requirement that
net proceeds from the disposal of defense articles granted to a foreign country be paid
to the United States. Section 2208 authorizes the President to transfer certain
obsolete or surplus defense items to Israel, in exchange for concessions of equivalent
value, with the requirement that Congress receive prior notification before any
transfer is made. Section 2209 authorizes the President, through FY2004, to transfer
excess items to the Defense Department’s War Reserve Stockpile in Israel. Section
2212 makes permanent an authority to allow the State Department and USAID to
dispose of de-mining equipment on a grant basis in foreign countries. Section 2213
updates authorities provided to the President in Section 614 of the Foreign Assistance
Act, to waive restrictions on providing economic and military assistance, and
increases the amount of assistance that can be provided, through use of this authority,
to any single country from $50 million to $75 million in any fiscal year. Section
2240 provides statutory authority to transfer certain naval vessels by grant to Bahrain
and to Portugal, and by sale to Chile.30
For funding levels for military assistance programs that are associated with this
legislation see CRS Report RL31811, Appropriations for FY2004: Foreign
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs.
The overall purpose of Section 501 in S. 2144 is to make it harder for terrorist
organizations to be removed from designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization
absent a petition by a designated entity itself and/or review by the Secretary of State.
It also prevents groups from using aliases to evade the law. It is intended to improve
U.S. ability to keep track of, and sanction, these groups.
30 For funding levels for military assistance programs that are associated with this legislation
see: CRS Report RL31811, Appropriations for FY2004: Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs.
31 Prepared by Audrey Kurth Cronin, Specialist in Terrorism, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
Section 501(a) removes the current requirement set forth in Section 219 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) that the designation of an
organization as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) automatically lapse after two
years unless the Secretary of State renews it. Instead it places the onus on the FTO
to petition to ask to be removed. If the FTO does not petition to be removed within
a four-year period, however, then the Secretary must take the initiative and review
the designation to determine whether or not it should continue. As amended, neither
the results of the four-year evaluation nor the procedures established to make such
an evaluation are subject to judicial review; thus, there is much more procedural
protection if the FTO chooses to challenge the designation before the four-year
review. The ability to revoke the FTO’s designation by act of Congress also stays in
An interesting implication of these changes is that, in placing the burden on the
Foreign Terrorist Organization to come forward, the process could be useful to the
U.S. government in gathering counter terrorist intelligence. A terrorist group must
reveal its identity and membership, at least to some extent, in order to petition to be
removed from the list. Since designation as a terrorist organization carries numerous
legal implications, including the possible freezing of U.S. assets and barring of
members’ entry into the United States, this provision increases the leverage that the
Executive branch has in both identifying and potentially controlling terrorist groups
— assuming that Foreign Terrorist Organizations are appropriately labeled in the
Section 501(b) gives the Secretary the flexibility to amend an FTO’s designation
to take into account new or different names that a terrorist group might use. This is
an effort to keep the law from being evaded by groups that evolve or change their
names but continue to be essentially the same group — an important problem in the
current international terrorist environment. Sections 501 (c) and 501 (d) are technical
changes designed to make this part of the bill conform to Section 219 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, and to ensure that earlier redesignations of FTOs
No similar provisions are in the House bill.
Terrorist-Related Prohibitions and Enforcement Measures32
Title XI of H.R. 1950, as passed by the House, deals with prohibitions that are
related to preventing terrorists and their state sponsors from acquiring arms and other
materials. Section 1101 amends section 3 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA)
strengthening the ineligibility language to include specific reference to state sponsors
of international terrorism and those who trade with them. The next five sections
relate to section 38 of the AECA: Section 1102 strengthens and expands the
statutory authority of the State Department (administering the President’s authority)
to regulate access by foreign persons to munitions and other defense articles, even in
situations where the foreign person is in the United States and there is no classic
32 Prepared by Audrey Kurth Cronin, Specialist in Terrorism. Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
“export” involved. (The legislation also notes that this authority must be exercised
in close coordination with the Attorney General.) Section 1103 expresses the sense
of Congress that new exemptions from licensing requirements should be undertaken
after coordination with law enforcement agencies. Section 1104 is a technical
amendment that updates language to reflect new legislation enacted since September
11. And Section 1105 attempts to prevent any prohibited material from being
exported without a license to the military, police, or intelligence services of
embargoed countries unless there is concurrence by both the Secretaries of State and
Section 1106 changes language in section 40 of the AECA, expanding upon the
list of prohibited items that may not be sold to state sponsors of international
terrorism. Section 1107, which apparently aims to increase the deterrent effect of the
penalties, strengthens the ability to enforce violations of the AECA, for example, by
increasing the fines for criminal violations when they involve state sponsors of
international terrorism. It also includes technical changes of language in Section 47.
Section 1108 changes the standards for high risk exports under Section 38 to require
frequent coordination among the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney
General, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of
Intelligence. Finally, Section 1110 requires the President to submit a report to the
Committee about the nature and origin of foreign-supplied items discovered by
coalition forces in Iraq.
There are no similar measures in the Senate bill S. 2144.
For more information on defense export controls, see CRS Report RL30983,
U.S. Defense Articles and Services Supplied to Foreign Recipients: Restrictions on
Their Use, and CRS Report RL31675 Arms Sales: Congressional Review Process.
Af ghani stan34
The House bill (H.R. 1950) contains a provision calling on the Administration
to increase its efforts to strengthen the central government in Kabul. The “findings”
section of the provision asserts that the U.S.-led reconstruction effort in Afghanistan
is in jeopardy because of a lack of security throughout Afghanistan and the limited
writ of the U.S.-backed central government in Kabul. The provision, no equivalent
of which is contained in the Senate version, calls for expanding the mandate and
capabilities of an international peacekeeping force, the International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF), and augmentation of the number of forces devoted to U.S.-
33 For more information on Foreign Assistance Authorization, see CRS report RL31959, by
34 This section was prepared by Kenneth Katzman, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs.
led “provincial reconstruction teams,” — local groupings of U.S. and other forces
and aid workers designed to promote the climate for reconstruction.
The provision is likely to be interpreted as a criticism of the Administration and
an assertion that the Administration has devoted insufficient resources to the Afghan
reconstruction effort. Several recent press articles have reported that, among other
difficulties, much of Afghanistan remains under the control of regional leaders, some
of whom are clashing with each other, and that international relief organizations are
reluctant to work in parts of Afghanistan because of security concerns. In recent
statements, Administration officials have identified some of the same security
difficulties mentioned in the provision, although Administration statements say that
these problems are manageable and are not at a level of intensity where they
materially hinder reconstruction or the return of political stability. The departing
U.S. commander of the 9,000 U.S. troops still in Afghanistan said in late May 2003
that security is improving to the point where the United States is likely to begin
reducing U.S. forces there by mid-2004.35 According to the former commander, Lt.
Gen. Dan McNeill, “the preponderance of the country is enjoying a high degree of
stability,” and the U.S.-trained Afghan National Army should begin to become self-
sufficient within the coming year. Since training began in mid-2002, the United
States has trained about 4,500 recruits to the national army and the U.S. and Afghan
plan is to build it to a force strength of 70,000. However, many experts believe it
will be at least several more years before the army reaches that strength and that, in
the interim, the United States and international peacekeeping forces will be needed
to ensure stability.
CRS Report RL30588, Afghanistan: Current Issues and U.S. Policy.
CRS Report RL31759, Reconstruction Assistance in Afghanistan: Goals, Priorities,
and Issues for Congress.
CRS Report RL31389, Afghanistan: Challenges and Options for Reconstructing a
Stable and Moderate State.
S. 2144, as introduced in the Senate on February 27, 2004, contained several
Africa-related provisions. Two of these measures, Section 2513, “Support for Sierra
Leone,” and Section 2515, “Support for Somalia,” were stricken from the bill
following a Senate Foreign Relations Committee mark-up hearing and vote on March
contains the following Africa-specific measures:
35 Former Commander: Forces Can Be Reduced Next Year in Afghanistan. Associated
Press, May 28, 2003.
36 Africa section by Nicolas Cook, Analyst in African Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense and
Development Fund for Africa. Title XXI, Subtitle A, Section 2101 (d)
would technically amend Section 497 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as it
relates to the authorization of appropriations for the Development Fund For Africa.
African Development Foundation. The African Development Foundation
(ADF) is a public corporation and federal agency created by Congress in 1980. Its
activities center on the extension of small direct grants to African self-help
organizations. Its grant work and other activities, administered primarily by local
hires, support community-level self-help initiatives aimed at alleviating poverty,
promoting sustainable, participatory development in Africa, and supporting the
growth of small, local development institutions. Title XXI, Subtitle C, Section 2132
would authorize $17 million — the amount requested by the Administration in its
FY2005 budget request — for the African Development Foundation for FY2005 by
amending Section 510 of the International Security and Development Cooperation
Act of 1980.37
Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP). The CBFP is an association of
governmental and nongovernmental organizations that supports projects, programs,
and policies to promote sustainable management of central African Congo Basin
Forest ecosystems and wildlife. It seeks to improve the income earning potential and
quality of life of Basin residents through sustainable community-based natural
resource and forestry concession management, and agriculture and eco-tourism
projects; and help Basin countries to develop effectively-managed parks, protected
areas, and ecological corridors. Title XXII, Subtitle A, Section 2223 would endorse
the aims of the CBFP and U.S. participation in the initiative, and in “sense of
Congress” language recommend that in FY2005 the President should make available
“for all [U.S.] agencies participating” in the CBFP “at least” the amount he submitted38
in his FY2005 foreign assistance budget request.
Independent Media in Ethiopia. According to the State Department, the
private press in Ethiopia is active and often publishes articles that are highly critical
of the government. Nevertheless, the Department reports, constitutionally-protected
freedoms of expression in Ethiopia are frequently restricted by the government,
which prosecutes journalists and editors for violating press laws; some journalists
practice self-censorship; and “the majority of private papers... [are] printed at
government-owned presses.” The State Department also reports that “much” of the
private press lacks reporting professionalism, and publishes “inaccurate information,
unsubstantiated stories, and harsh anti-government articles,” though such actions are
often not penalized by the government, and some print media are developing into
“more responsible” fora.39 Title XXV, Subtitle B, Section 2513 would authorize the
expenditure of “such sums as are necessary” to strengthen the “capacity” of
37 On the ADF, see the website of the African Development Foundation
[http://www.adf.gov] and CRS Issue Brief IB95052, Africa: U.S. Foreign Assistance Issues.
38 On the CBFP, among other sources, see USAID, “Congo Basin Forest Partnership,”
39 See State Department, “Ethiopia,” Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2003,
Feb. 25, 2004.
journalists and support increased access to printing facilities by print industry
workers in Ethiopia.
Human Rights Abuse Accountability in Central Africa. Title XXV,
Subtitle B, Section 2514 finds that the central African states of Burundi, the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, and Uganda “have all been involved in
overlapping, regionally destabilizing armed conflicts that have contributed millions
of civilian deaths,” and that serious, on-going human rights abuses occur in each of
these countries. Section 2514 would make it U.S. policy to support efforts to account
for serious human rights abuses and crimes that have taken place in central Africa
since 1993; programs to prevent the future occurrence of such crimes; and efforts to
encourage reconciliation in relation to the past perpetration of such abuses. For such
purposes, it authorizes in FY2005 up to $12 million to support the development of
responsible justice and reconciliation mechanisms, including programs to “respond
to” gender-based violence and increase awareness and prevention efforts to counter
it within the four central African states previously noted. It would also require that
the Secretary of State submit to congressional committees of jurisdiction a report on
U.S. actions taken to implement such a policies.40
African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance (ACOTA).
The ACOTA program seeks to improve select African militaries’ capacity to
undertake joint multinational peace support operations and humanitarian crises in
Africa. ACOTA consists primarily of country-tailored programs integrating
classroom instruction, field training, and computer-assisted exercises. These are
aimed at building equipment maintenance, force protection, and negotiations skills;
and improving logistics support, refugee protection, convoy escort operational, and
command and control capabilities, particularly in potentially high-threat contexts. It
also includes efforts to improve sub-regional organizations’ abilities to mount and
jointly coordinate peacekeeping operations.
Title XXV, Subtitle B, Section 2516 would authorize the expenditure of $15
million in FY2005 for support of ACOTA; $15 million for this purpose was
requested by the Administration in its FY2005 budget request. It would also mandate
that eligibility for participation in ACOTA be reviewed “at least” annually on the
basis of “consideration” of a participant country’s willingness to participate in peace
support operations; its military capability; its human rights record, particularly with
regard to its military; its adherence to democratic governance principles; the nature
of civil-military relations within the country; and the candidate country’s relations
with its neighboring states. In “sense of congress” language, the bill also recommends
that “to the extent possible” prior to ACOTA training activities in a given country,
the United States provide information about the nature and purpose of such training
to that country’s nationals, including legislators and non-governmental humanitarian
and human rights organizations. It also recommends that relevant U.S. departments
and agencies monitor the performance and conduct of military units that receive
40 For information on developments in central Africa, see CRS Report RL32128, Africa’s
Great Lakes Region: Current Conditions in Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Rwanda, and Uganda.
ACOTA training or support, and that information on such monitoring efforts be
reported annually to Congress.
Debt Relief for the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The DRC,
a central African country emerging from over three decades of dictatorship under the
late Mobutu Sese Seko and eight years of armed civil and inter-state war, has a total
external debt estimated by the World Bank to be about $8.21 billion in 2002. Of this
amount, about $2.28 billion is owed to the United States. Under the Heavily Indebted
Poor Country Initiative (HIPC), Title XXI, Subtitle A, Section 2115 would require
the President to cancel all debts associated with U.S. loans or credits extended before
June 20, 1999, and owed to the United States by the DRC, “subject to the availability
of amounts provided in advance in appropriations Acts” and “in addition to” and in
a manner not limiting any other U.S. debt relief authority. For such purposes, it
would authorize the appropriation in FY2005 and FY2006 of $105 million, to
“remain available until expended.” The provisions in Section 2115 derive from a
Chairman’s amendment offered at the request of the Treasury Department.41
The Africa Society42
The Africa Society is an organization set up to implement the National Policy
Plan of Action for U.S.-Africa Relations in the 21st Century, a programmatic
document produced by the National Summit on Africa, and to pursue other activities
similar to those described in H.R. 1950, as amended. The Summit, held in 2000,
culminated a series of U.S. regional policy planning and outreach meetings. These
sought to increase U.S. public support awareness of Africa and formulate a grassroots
foreign policy strategy to increase public engagement with — and guide —
U.S.-Africa relations. The Society, hitherto financially supported by corporate and
non-profit organizations, is chaired by former U.S. United Nations ambassador
Andrew Young. Its President is Leonard H. Robinson, Jr., a former State Department
African Affairs official and the first president of the African Development
Foundation. The Society has hosted many Africa-focused public policy forums that
have included bipartisan congressional Member and staff participation, as well as
African leaders, and Clinton and Bush administration officials. The Society has
initiated a joint project with the University of California, Los Angeles to establish a
National Research Institute on African Affairs.
Title XVIII, Section 1815, of H.R. 1950, as passed by the House on July 16,
2003, authorizes the Secretary of State to make grants to the Africa Society of the
National Summit on Africa of $1 million in FY2004 and “such sums as may be
necessary” in FY 2005. Such sums would fund public and private partnership-based
41 For more information on African debt, see CRS Report RS21329, African Debt to the
United States and Multilateral Agencies. On Congo, see CRS Reports RL31080,
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Peace Process and Background and RL32128, Africa’s
Great Lakes Region: Current Conditions in Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Rwanda, and Uganda. On HIPC, see CRS Foreign Operations Appropriations Briefing Book
entry Debt Reduction — HIPC Initiative.
42 Contributed by Nicolas Cook, Analyst in African Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense and
programs and activities, defined under “necessary and appropriate” grant agreements,
that advance U.S. interests and values in Africa. The bill characterizes such interests
as those that support the development in Africa of more open, democratic systems;
assist civil society capacity building; increase equitable trade and investment-based
economic growth; enhance public and private sector transparency and openness; and
promote U.S. public awareness about Africa. Section 1815 had earlier been
considered and adopted by voice vote by HIRC on May 8, 2003, after being offered
by Rep. Donald M. Payne on the same day. Neither S. 925 nor S. 2144 make
reference to the Africa Society.
Colombia and Andean Region Assistance43 44
The House passed H.R. 1950 on July 16, 2003, with several provisions relating
to Colombia and neighboring countries in the Andean region, following the
recommendations reported out by the House International Relations Committee
(House Report 108-105, Part 1) on May 16, 2003. The Senate Foreign Relations
Committee (SFRC) reported out S. 925 (Foreign Relations Authorization for
FY2004, Senate Report 108-39) on April 24, 2003, with a provision to repeal the
requirement for a semi-annual report on extradition of narcotics traffickers from
Andean countries; and it reported out S. 1161, Foreign Assistance Authorization Act
for FY2004 (Senate Report 108- 56) on May 29, 2003, with several provisions on
Colombia. The Senate considered S. 925 on July 9-10, 2003, and added several
amendments related to Colombia, but action on it was not completed. On February
27, 2004, S. 2144, the Foreign Affairs Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2005, was
introduced in the Senate.
Reflecting continuing concern with the persistent and complex conflict in
Colombia, the spill-over of guerrilla and drug trafficking activities into neighboring
countries, and the ongoing involvement of the United States (including the kidnaping
and killing of American citizens), HIRC reported out H.R. 1950, with three reporting
requirements similar to provisions in the Foreign Relations Authorization for
FY2003 (H.R. 1646/P.L. 107-228), and with the provision of additional authority
related to the interdiction of illicit arms trafficking. These provisions were
subsequently approved by the House without modification.
Section 702 of the House-passed bill requires the Secretary of State, after
consulting with internationally recognized human rights organizations, to make a
very detailed report to Congress, not later than 30 days after enactment and every 180
days thereafter, on the specific measures that the Colombian authorities are taking to
apprehend and prosecute leaders of paramilitary organizations and other terrorist
organizations. The Committee report expressed concern about the illegal activities
not only of two leftist guerrilla groups — the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN) — but also of the
rightist paramilitary groups, specifically the United Self Defense Forces of Colombia
(AUC), that are reported to be responsible for at least half of all non-combatant
43 Prepared by K. Larry Storrs and Connie Veillette, Analysts in Latin American Affairs,
Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division.
44 See also in this report the section International Narcotics Control below.
killings, torture, and disappearances. Noting that the State Department’s March 2003
human rights report found some continuing collusion with the AUC by members of
the Colombian security forces, the Committee report stated that Colombia’s
government has not committed at every level to confront the paramilitaries and to
protect civilians from paramilitary abuses.
Section 708 requires the Secretary of State to submit a report on the impact of
the U.S. assistance plan known as Plan Colombia on Ecuador and Colombia’s
neighboring countries to appropriate congressional committees not later than 30 days
after enactment. This report is to set forth a comprehensive strategy for United States
activities in Colombia, with specific reference to the impact of U.S. assistance on
Ecuador and other adjacent countries, and it is to provide the reasons for the failure
to submit a report on this subject as required by the Foreign Relations Authorization
Act for FY2003. Stating that a State Department report of March 4, 2003 was
inadequate, the Committee report expressed the expectation that a new report “will
address in detail not only the counter-drug repercussions of Plan Colombia and its
successor programs on Ecuador and other adjacent countries, but also the
humanitarian and economic development implications of increased eradication
efforts for these countries.”
Section 1801 provides specific authority for U.S. counter-drug assistance which
is being used to support the interdiction of aerial trafficking of illicit narcotics to be
used to support the interdiction of illicit arms in connection with illicit drug
trafficking. The Committee report notes that “this provision ensures that any and all
illegal arms brought into Colombia by aerial means that are in any way trafficked in
connection with the illicit drug trade, are also clearly eligible for U.S. assistance in
Section 1802 requires the Secretary of State, acting through the Department of
State’s Narcotics Affairs Section (NAS) in Bogota, Colombia, to ensure, not later
than 180 days after enactment, “that all pilots participating in the United States
opium eradication program in Colombia are Colombians and are fully trained,
qualified and experienced pilots, with preference provided to individuals who are
members of the Colombian National Police.” The Committee report states that local
Colombian police anti-drug pilots are more familiar with the terrain and can be more
effective in locating crops, thereby enhancing efforts to eradicate the small but potent
opium crop that makes up nearly two-thirds of U.S. heroin use, according to recent
United States estimates, while promoting the Colombianization of the programs and
reducing the involvement of U.S. private contractors.
On the Senate side, S. 2144, the Foreign Affairs Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2005, was introduced on February 27, 2004. It includes several provisions
relating to Colombia and the Andean region that are similar to language contained
in S. 925, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. Responding
to a request from the Executive Branch, Section 801 of the bill would repeal the
requirement in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act for FY2000 (P.L.
106-246) that the State Department report semi-annually on the extradition of
narcotics traffickers from Andean countries. Section 2121 of the bill authorizes
funding for international narcotics control programs, including $731 million for the
Andean Counterdrug Initiative. These funds can be used to support a “unified
campaign against narcotics trafficking and terrorist activities.” The bill also
maintains the limitations as contained in current law on the number of U.S. military
and U.S. contract employees that may be stationed in Colombia in support of Plan
Colombia at 400 each. It prohibits U.S. military personnel from engaging in any
combat operations, and conditions assistance to Colombia on its respect for human
In floor action on S. 925 on July 10, 2003, the Senate approved two
amendments related to Colombia and Andean region assistance, both approved by
voice vote. Neither of the amendments are included in S. 2144.S.Amdt. 1162,
proposed by Chairman Lugar, added Section 815 which would modify the reporting
requirements on U.S. personnel involved in the anti-narcotics campaign in Colombia
by changing the frequency of the reports from bimonthly to quarterly, and by
clarifying that the reports were to be provided to appropriate committees of Congress.
S.Amdt. 1194, proposed by Majority Leader Frist, added Section 2522 which
commends the leadership and people of Colombia for the progress made against
illicit drug traffickers and terrorists, and which expresses U.S. support for the efforts
of President Uribe and the government and the people of Colombia to preserve and
strengthen democracy, human rights, and economic opportunity in Colombia.
On May 29, 2003, the Committee reported out S. 1161, the Foreign Assistance
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, with several modifications on assistance to
Colombia and the Andean region. Section 122 authorizes $700 million (rather than
the $731 million requested) for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. It further
provides that assistance for Colombia for FY2004 and previous years may be used
to support a unified campaign against narcotics trafficking and terrorist activities; and
to take actions to protect human health and welfare in emergency circumstances,
including undertaking rescue operations. It further provides that U.S. personnel
providing such assistance shall be subject to the personnel caps in the Emergency
Supplemental Act for 2000, shall not participate in any combat operation in
connection with such assistance; and shall be subject to the condition that Colombia
is fulfilling its commitment to the United States with respect to its human rights
practices, including specific conditions set forth in the Foreign Operations
Appropriations for FY2003. Section 502 provides that information on the extent of
involvement of U.S. businesses in counter-narcotics activities under State or Defense
Department contracts, required by the previous Foreign Relations Authorization, may
be reported in the annual report detailing the counter-narcotics performance of drug
producing and drug transit countries.
For more information, see the section on Colombia and the Andean Regional
Initiative in CRS Report RL31726 Latin America and the Caribbean: Issues for the
108th Congress, by Mark Sullivan; CRS Report RL32250 Colombia: Issues for
Congress, by Connie Veillette; and CRS Report RL32021 Andean Regional Initiative
(ARI): FY2003 Supplemental and FY2004 Assistance for Colombia and Neighbors,
by K. Larry Storrs and Connie Veillette.
Congo Basin Forest Partnership45
Section 1809 of H.R. 1950 authorizes $18.6 million for each of fiscal years 2004
and 2005 for the Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP) program. The Senate bill
S. 2144 contains a Congo Basin initiative (sec. 2223), but without specifying a
particular funding level. H.R. 1950 notes that the Subcommittee on Africa conducted
an oversight hearing on this program, which was announced by Secretary of State
Colin Powell in 2002. The bill describes the CBFP as “an impressive and innovative
approach to conservation in this environmentally at risk region.” The bill also notes
that the program will help protect some 25,000,000 acres of landscape against poorly
managed and non-managed logging, and states the importance of the tropical forests
of the Congo Basin to both human livelihoods, the existence of several species, and
Announced as a key U.S. initiative at the World Summit on Sustainable
Development in Johannesburg, South Africa, on September 4, 2002, and in Gabon,
one of the key participating countries, the CBFP is a partnership that includes several
Congo Basin African countries, the European Union, the World Bank, the
International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), and a number of non-
governmental organizations. In December 2002, the United States announced that
the U.S. contribution would be through a $12 million per year increase within the
Central African Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE), and that the U.S.
plan is to invest or leverage up to $53 million in the CBFP through the year 2005.
The non-governmental organizations in the partnership pledged to match the U.S.
government’s contribution, and other partners are expected to provide significant
The bill provides for an increase in the announced level of annual support for this
program, stating that $16 million each year is authorized for the on-going (CARPE),
which will be the lead program through which the United States will participate in
Foreign Assistance Authorization46
Congress last enacted a broad foreign assistance authorization act in 1985. In the
absence of omnibus foreign aid measures, the majority of foreign assistance
legislation has been enacted as part of annual Foreign Operations appropriation
measures. The Foreign Assistance Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2005, Division B
of S. 2144, is an effort to “reinforce” the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s role
in foreign assistance policy making. It is not an attempt to comprehensively review
and re-write existing foreign aid legislation, but rather it is a first step in providing
necessary authorization for program appropriations in FY2005 and updating selected
legislative provisions to reflect current policy. Committee Chairman Lugar said that
45 Written by Susan R. Fletcher, Senior Analyst in International Environmental Policy,
Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
46 Prepared by Larry Nowels, Specialist in Foreign Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
it was his intent to launch a more ambitious effort in the future to revamp the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 and other long-standing foreign aid laws.
Division B is divided into five titles. Title XXI includes FY2005 authorizations
of appropriations for most but not all foreign aid programs. Title XII updates and
amends several existing foreign aid authorities, some of which have been annually
extended in appropriation acts in recent years. Title XXIII is the Radiological
Terrorism Security Act. Title XXIV is the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act. Title
XXV consists of several provisions, some of which address Latin America and Africa
issues, including additional aid for Haiti.
The legislation authorizes the appropriation of about $16.9 billion for 22 foreign
assistance programs, closely matching the account structure of the annual Foreign
Operations appropriations for bilateral economic and military aid. The amounts
authorized are nearly identical to levels requested by the Administration for FY2005,
although the bill would increase spending for HIV/AIDS, development aid, assistance
to the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and nonproliferation programs, while
reducing amounts for the Millennium Challenge Account.
Title XXII addresses the threat posed by terrorist use of radiological dispersal
devices, or RDDs. These devices spread radioactive material, whether by a chemical
explosive (“dirty bombs”) or by spraying, scattering, or dumping it without an
explosive. The legislation requires the Secretary of State to prepare and submit to
Congress reports assessing the threat of a radiological attack on U.S. missions. The
bill further authorizes the Secretary to aid foreign countries, or propose that the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) develop programs, helping foreign first
responders identify and address threats posed by radioactive materials.
The legislation also includes the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act, authorizing
$35 million for FY2005 to enhance the capability of developing nations to detect,
identify, and contain infectious disease outbreaks, whether naturally occurring or the
result of a bioterrorist attack. The measure includes several provisions that are
intended to support and strengthen the disease surveillance capabilities of developing
nations. Additionally, it would permit the expansion of Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention facilities overseas to further the goals of global disease monitoring.
Although the House International Relations Committee did not consider a broad
foreign assistance authorization separately or as part of the Foreign Relations
Authorization bill, H.R. 1950 includes a few similar provisions mostly related to
security assistance issues. In addition, the Senate measure addresses reporting
requirements concerning U.S. counternarcotics aid to Colombia and the Congo Basin
Initiative, other matters included in H.R. 1950. See above under this chapter and the
section on Security Assistance for details regarding these provisions. For the most
part, however, Division B of S. 2144 would introduce many new issues that are not
addressed in H.R. 1950 should House and Senate negotiators meet in a conference
committee to resolve differences between the two bills.
CRS Report RL31959. Foreign Assistance Authorization Act, FY2005.
HIV/AIDS Assistance for the Caribbean and India47
In May 2003, Congress approved the United States Leadership Against
HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, H.R. 1298 (P.L. 108-25), which
authorized $3 billion per year for FY2003 through FY2008 to fight the three diseases
worldwide. The legislation focused on assisting 12 African countries plus Guyana
and Haiti, two of the poorest nations in the Western Hemisphere with high HIV
prevalence rates, although the legislation notes that other countries may be designated
by the President. Some Caribbean leaders and Members of Congress want to expand
the Caribbean countries that would benefit from the assistance, arguing that high
mobility in the region necessitates a regional approach in combating the epidemic.
They are concerned that only Haiti and Guyana have been identified as countries to
benefit from the Bush Administration’s plans for increased assistance to combat
HIV/AIDS, and that other Caribbean countries will be overlooked. Others have
noted that the legislation does not preclude the President from designating additional
Caribbean or other countries.
Both the House-passed FY2004-FY2005 Foreign Relations Authorization Act,
H.R. 1950 (Section 1818), and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s reported
FY2005 Foreign Affairs Authorization Act, S. 2144 (Section 2518), have provisions
that would add 14 Caribbean countries to those already listed in the United States
Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, H.R. 1298
(P.L. 108-25). The additional countries are Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, the
Bahamas, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, St.
Vincent and the Grenadines, St. Lucia, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, and the
Dominican Republic. The provision in H.R. 1950 was added during July 15, 2003,
House consideration of the bill; a Rangel amendment (H.Amdt. 247) adding the
language was approved by voice vote.
In addition, S. 2144 (Section 2519), would add India to the list of countries listed
in the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act
of 2003, H.R. 1298 (P.L. 108-25). With more than four million Indians infected with
HIV, the country has the second largest HIV-infected population in the world, second
to South Africa. H.R. 1950 does not have a similar provision on India, which some
are concerned would absorb too large a portion of the funds available.
CRS Report RS21181, HIV/AIDS International Programs: Appropriations, FY2002 -
FY2005, by Raymond W. Copson
CRS Report RL32001, AIDS in the Caribbean and Central America, by Mark P.
47 Prepared by Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division.
International Family Planning Aid and the U.N. Population
House and Senate bills have each addressed contentious but different provisions
relating to U.S. international family planning assistance and abortion, although the
House voted to delete a Committee-added section in H.R. 1950 regarding U.S.
funding for the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA). The Senate, however, during July
2003 floor debate on S. 925, added a provision that would effectively reverse the
President’s so-called “Mexico City” policy. The current Senate bill, S. 2144, does
not contain a provision on UNFPA. These issues have been among the most
controversial matters considered by Congress in foreign aid legislation for nearly two
U.N. Population Fund.49 UNFPA is the world’s largest international source
of funding for family planning and reproductive health programs, providing nearly
$6 billion in assistance to over 140 countries since 1969. The United States, which
had been one of the organization’s largest donors, suspended support for UNFPA in
1985 because of concerns over practices of forced abortions and involuntary
sterilizations in China where UNFPA maintained programs. Congress passed the so-
called Kemp-Kasten amendment in that year and in each subsequent year as part of
the annual Foreign Operations appropriations. The amendment bars U.S. funding to
any organization that supports or participates “in the management” of a program of
coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. Presidents Reagan and Bush found
UNFPA to be in violation of Kemp-Kasten, a position that was reversed in 1993 by
President Clinton. In most years since 1993, Congress appropriated about $25
million for UNFPA, but required that the amount be reduced by however much
UNFPA spent in China.
Beginning in FY2002, however, the United States has withheld support for
UNFPA. The matter became especially controversial after Congress approved not
more than $34 million for UNFPA in FY2002 appropriations. The White House,
however, froze the funds because new evidence suggested that coercive practices
were continuing in Chinese counties where UNFPA worked. A State Department
team reviewing the situation (May 2002) concluded that there was no evidence that
UNFPA “knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of
coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization,” although the team found that China
maintains coercive elements in its population programs. Despite the team’s
recommendation to release the $34 million, Secretary of State Powell determined on
July 22, 2002, to withhold funds to UNFPA and to recommend that they be re-
directed to other international family planning and reproductive health activities. The
State Department said that even though UNFPA did not “knowingly” support or
participate in a coercive practice, that alone would not preclude the application of
Kemp-Kasten. Instead, a finding that the recipient of U.S. funds — in this case
48 Prepared by Larry Nowels, Specialist in Foreign Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense and
49 Prepared by Larry Nowels, Specialist in Foreign Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense and
UNFPA — simply supports or participates in such a program, whether knowingly or
unknowingly, would trigger the restriction.
For FY2003 Congress approved in P.L. 108-7 a provision allocating $34 million
to UNFPA, so long as several conditions were met. The most significant requirement
is that the President must certify that UNFPA is no longer involved in the
management of a coercive family planning program. The President did not make the
required determination, however, and resources for the organization have been
reprogrammed for other purposes.
For years in which the United States did not contribute to UNFPA, critics have
argued that U.S. policy was undermining the most important international family
planning organization and limiting reproductive health programs in over 140
countries in which UNFPA operates because of coercive practices in one nation.
Supporters of cutting off support for UNFPA contend that by withdrawing from
China, UNFPA could immediately restore its eligibility for U.S. funding and remove
itself from involvement with a national program that includes practices contrary to
UNFPA’s own non-coercive policies.
During markup on H.R. 1950, the House International Relations Committee
approved a Crowley amendment that would have authorized $50 million for a U.S.
contribution to UNFPA for each of FY2004 and FY2005. The Crowley amendment
further would have altered existing law for determining UNFPA eligibility by
requiring that the President find that UNFPA did not “directly” support or participate
in coercive or involuntary activities. This would appear to have made it more
difficult for the President to block funding for UNFPA than under conditions that
apply for FY2003. Not only did the Crowley amendment add the word “directly,”
but it also defined the circumstances under which UNFPA would be found ineligible
as “knowingly and intentionally working with a purpose to continue, advance or
expand the practice of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization, or playing a
primary and essential role in a coercive or involuntary aspect of a country’s family
planning program.” Nevertheless, during floor debate, the House voted 216-211 to
delete the Crowley amendment.
CRS Issue Brief IB96026. Population Assistance and Family Planning Programs:
Issues for Congress.
Mexico City Policy. With direct funding of abortions and involuntary
sterilizations banned by Congress since the 1970s, the Reagan Administration in
1984 announced that it would further restrict U.S. population aid by terminating
USAID support for any organizations (but not governments) that were involved in
voluntary abortion activities, even if such activities were undertaken with non-U.S.
funds. U.S. officials presented the revised policy at the 2nd U.N. International
Conference on Population in Mexico City in 1984. Thereafter, it become known as
the “Mexico City” policy. The policy continued in effect until lifted by President
Clinton in 1993, but was re-imposed by President Bush in early 2001.
Critics of the Mexico City requirements oppose it on several grounds. They
argue that family planning organizations may cut back on services because they are
unsure of the full implications of the restrictions and do not want to risk losing
eligibility for USAID funding. Opponents also believe the conditions undermine
relations between the U.S. government and foreign NGOs and multilateral groups,
creating a situation in which the United States challenges their sovereignty on how
to spend their own money and impose a so-called “gag” order on their ability to
promote changes to abortion laws and regulations in developing nations. The latter
restriction, these critics note, would be unconstitutional if applied to American
groups working in the United States.
Supporters of the policy 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 legal activities while diverting money raised from other sources to perform
abortions or lobby to change abortion laws and regulations. The policy, they
contend, stops the fungibility “loophole.”
During debate on S. 925, the Senate approved on July 9 an amendment offered
by Senator Boxer that would effectively overturn the President’s Mexico City policy.
(The Senate failed to table the amendment 43-53.) Specifically, the Boxer language
states that foreign NGOs shall not be ineligible for U.S. funds solely on the basis of
health or medical services they provide (including counseling and referral services)
with non-U.S. government funds. This exemption would apply so long as the
services do not violate the laws of the country in which they are performed and that
they would not violate U.S. laws if provided in the United States. The amendment
further provides that non-U.S. government funds used by foreign NGOs for advocacy
and lobbying activities shall be subject to conditions that also apply to U.S. NGOs.
Since it is largely held that American NGOs would not be subject to these restrictions
under the Constitutional protection of free speech, it is possible that this latter
exemption would lift current prohibitions that apply to overseas NGOs. The White
House says that the President would veto any legislation that includes a provision like
the Boxer amendment.
CRS Issue Brief IB96026. Population Assistance and Family Planning Programs:
Issues for Congress.
International Narcotics Control50 51
In the area of international narcotics control, interest often centers on Plan
Colombia and its spillover effect on neighboring countries. An important U.S. policy
objective is an effective narcotics control program in Colombia, one in which
eradication of crops and law enforcement/interdiction play central roles.
50 Prepared by Raphael Perl, Specialist in International Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense,
and Trade Division.
51 See also in this report the section Colombia and Andean Region Assistance above.
Complicating U.S. narcotics policy objectives in Colombia is widespread corruption
— considered to be less in the Colombian National Police than in other institutions
involved in counter-narcotics. Also complicating U.S. policy objectives are concerns
that those involved in counter-narcotics may not maximize respect for human rights
or may commit atrocities in a campaign against members of the Revolutionary
Armed Forces (FARC). Finally, many are concerned that U.S. personnel could be
drawn into a combatant role in what is perceived by a growing number of analysts as
a seemingly endless and unwinable war, thereby prompting efforts to minimize direct
participation by U.S. personnel in counter-narcotics operations. A major criticism of
U.S. foreign drug control policy initiatives from some commentators is that they are
overly “Colombia centric.”
The Foreign Affairs Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2005 (S. 2144) contains a
number of provisions that refer to international narcotics control issues. All of these
provisions relate either directly, or indirectly to Colombia.
Section 2121 (b) of the Act continues existing limitations on the assignment of
U.S. personnel in Colombia found in the Emergency Supplemental Act, 2000
(Section 3204 of P.L. 106-246) which limits assigned military personnel to 500 and
contractors to 300. Contractors are prohibited from participating in combat
operations as well. Section 2121(b) also conditions assistance to fulfilment by the
Government of Colombia of its commitment to human rights practices.
Reporting requirements in the counter-narcotics arena are reduced in the Act.
Section 801 repeals requirements for a semi-annual report on extradition of narcotics
traffickers, and Section 2502 reduces the amount of work required on annual reports
on activities in Colombia by permitting incorporation of language from one required
report into another.
CRS Issue Brief IB88093, Drug Control: International Policy and Approaches.
CRS Report RS21213, Colombia: Summary and Tables on U.S. Assistance, FY1889-
CRS Report RL30541, Colombia: Plan Colombia Legislation and Assistance.
CRS Report RL31383, Andean Regional Initiative (ARI): FY2002 Supplemental and
FY2003 Assistance for Colombia and Neighbors.
CRS Report RS20494, Ecuador: International Narcotics Control Issues.
CRS Report RS21317: Ecuador: Political and Economic Conditions and U.S.
Assistance for Vietnam52
The House version of H.R. 1950 contains a section, Division E, that bans
increases in certain non-humanitarian aid programs to the Vietnamese government
if the President does not certify that Vietnam is making “substantial progress” in
human rights. In FY2003, the Bush Administration planned to spend about $6.6
million on programs — primarily focused on promoting Vietnamese business law
and U.S.-Vietnam trade relations — that would be affected by Division E.53 The
Division E provisions would allow the President to waive the cap on aid increases.
The original version of Division E was introduced as the Vietnam Human Rights Act
in April 2003. For FY2003, the United States government pledged $28 million in aid
For more details, see CRS Issue Brief IB98033, Foreign Assistance to Vietnam.
52 Prepared by Mark Manyin, Analyst in Asian Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade
53 These programs appear likely to be affected by Division E because they meet three
conditions: 1) they are authorized under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Division E
defines non-humanitarian assistance as any assistance under the 1961 act); 2) the legislation
authorizing these aid programs does not have “notwithstanding” language that would exempt
the program from restrictions in other legislation; and 3) the aid programs do not appear on
Division E’s list of exempted categories.
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)
Suppl e- Aut h . Aut h .
Approp. Approp. ment al Approp. Approp. Senat e House
FY2001FY2002AppropsaFY2003FY2004S. 2144H.R. 1950
EnactedEnactedsince 9/11 EnactedRequestFY2005FY2005
atic & Consular Program3,167.23,630.1281.93,822.34,163.54,239.04,438.8
acy -.- (270.3) -.- ( 292.7) (287.7) -.- ( 329.8)
Upgr ades (409.1) (487.7) -.- ( 553.0) (646.7) (658.7) (679.7)
iki/CRS-RL31986ocracy, Human Rights and Labor-.--.--.--.--.--.-(20.0)
s.or cultural exchange programs231.6237.015.0245.3345.3b375.3405.0
leakht Academic Exchange(123.4)(118.0)-.-(123.0)(127.4)(150.0)(142.0)
://wikinspector General 28.429.0-.-29.331.731.432.7
http 6.5 6.5 -.- 6.5 9.0 8.6 9.0
missions & officials15.49.4-.-11.010.09.610.0
upgrades** ( 661.2) (816.0) -.- ( 755.0) (861.4) -.- ( 1,000.0)
ergency-diplo. & consular services5.56.5101.06.51.07.0Unspecified
1.2 1.2 -.- 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
ment American Inst. Taiwan16.317.0-.-18.519.819.520.8
n Service Retirement Fund131.2135.6-.-138.2135.0-.--.-
nvestment Fund 96.8203.015.0183.3157.0155.1161.7
Suppl e- Aut h . Aut h .
Approp. Approp. ment al Approp. Approp. Senat e House
FY2001FY2002AppropsaFY2003FY2004S. 2144H.R. 1950
EnactedEnactedsince 9/11 EnactedRequestFY2005FY2005
eacekeeping 844.1 844.1 -.- 673.7 50.2 650.0 Unspecified
56.1 60.5 -.- 57.5 71.7 70.4 69.6
e Asia Foundation9.29.3-.-10.49.38.918.0
ent for Democracy30.933.5-.-42.036.080.047.0
an-Fascell Democracy Fellow-.--.--.--.--.--.-1.0
iki/CRS-RL31986njamin Gillman Int’l Scholars Program-.--.--.--.--.--.-2.5
e 0.5 0.5 -.- 0.5 0.5 -.- -.-
://wiki 0.3 0.4 -.- -.- -.- -.- -.-
r ation/Refugees 698.5 705.0 -.- 787.0 760.2 729.8 957.0
7,299.7 8,066.6 825.8 8,180.7 8,840.6 9,254.7 8,966.9
mprovements -.- 25.9 -.- 12.7 11.4 8.6 11.4
Operations -.- 428.2 -.- 468.9 525.2 575.7 612.1
r oadcasting 450.4 479.0 93.5 506.6 563.5 584.3 650.9
r oadcasting 7,750.1 8,545.6 919.3 8,687.3 9,404.1 9,839.0 9,617.8
2002 enacted numbers do not include funds provided in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act (P.L. 107-38).
.L 106-113 sec. 604 authorized up to $900 million for FY2000 through FY2004.
cludes funding supplementals from P.L. 107-38; P.L. 107-117, P.L. 107-206, and P.L. 108-11.
nding level includes a transfer of $100.040 million from Foreign Operations appropriations to State Department appropriations for FSA and Seed programs.