Order Code RL31986
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Foreign Relations Authorization,
FY2004 and FY2005: State Department,
The Millennium Challenge Account,
and Foreign Assistance
Updated September 2, 2003
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, The
Millennium Challenge Account, and Foreign Assistance
Summary
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.
House floor action occurred on July 15th and 16th. 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). Senator Lugar introduced S. 925
on April 24, 2003. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee amended it and
reported it out on the same day (S.Rept. 108-39). The bill authorizes about $11
billion in spending for FY2004 only. In addition it contains measures on a Peace
Corp Charter for the 21st Century, expanding public diplomacy to improve outreach
to Muslim populations, and international parental child abduction prevention. Senate
floor action occurred July 9 and 10 during which a number of amendments were
adopted. Amendment 1136 (Lugar) would merge into S. 925 the Senate bills (S.
1160) the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) and (S. 1161) foreign Assistance
authorization. Other adopted amendments included a proposal for rural development
assistance for Mexico, emergency food aid to HIV/AIDS victims in sub-Saharan
Africa, and a Sense of Congress that the United States remain engaged in Iraq. A
Senate vote on S. 925 is expected before the August recess.

---

Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
CRS Division
Tel.
Department of State, Public
Susan Epstein,
FDT
7-6678
Diplomacy , and Int’l
Coordinator
Broadcasting
Afghanistan security
Ken Katzman
FDT
7-7612
The Africa Society
Nic Cook
FDT
7-0429
Belarus
Steve Woehrel
FDT
7-2291
Biotech agriculture
Geoffrey Becker
RSI
7-7287
Climate Change, Congo Basin
Susan Fletcher
RSI
7-7231
Forest Partnership
Colombia
Connie Veillette
FDT
7-7127
Larry Storrs
FDT
7-7672
Copyright protection
Margaret Lee
ALD
7-2579
Cuba
Mark Sullivan
FDT
7-7689
Export Controls
Ian Fergusson
FDT
7-4997
Export of Satellites
Marcia Smith
RSI
7-7076
International narcotics control
Raphael Perl
FDT
7-7664
International Organizations,
Vita Bite
FDT
7-7662
UNESCO
International Organizations,
Marjorie Browne
FDT
7-7695
Peacekeeping, Israel at UN,
Brahimi Rept
International Parental Child
Susan Epstein
FDT
7-6678
Abduction
Mexico-U.S. relations
Larry Storrs
FDT
7-7672
Missile threat reduction
Andrew Feickert
FDT
7-7673
Peace Corps
Curt Tarnoff
FDT
7-7656
Security Assistance
Richard Grimmett
FDT
7-7675
Terrorist-related measures
Audrey Cronin
FDT
7-7676
UNFPA
Larry Nowels
FDT
7-7645
Vietnam
Mark Manyin
FDT
7-7653
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.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Foreign Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Belarus
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Biotech Agriculture Promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Child Abduction Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Climate Change Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Copyright Piracy Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Cuba: Support for Democracy Building
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
International Broadcasting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
International Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Brahimi Report Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Peacekeeping Contributions Cap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Status of Israel in U.N. Regional Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
UNESCO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Israel-Palestine Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Jerusalem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Mexico: Migration, Pollution Control, Consular ID, Extradition Issues . . 17
Migration Accord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Pollution Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Extradition Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Consular ID Cards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Peace Corps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Public Diplomacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
State Department Authorities and Personnel Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Defense Trade and Security Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Export Controls for Satellites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Israeli Palestinian Peace Enhancement Act of 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Missile Technology Control Regime Annex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Missile Threat Reduction Act of 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Munitions Export Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Security Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Terrorist Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Terrorist-Related Prohibitions and Enforcement Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Foreign Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Afghanistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
The Africa Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Colombia and Andean Region Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Congo Basin Forest Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Foreign Assistance Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
International Family Planning Aid and the U.N. Population Fund . . . . . . . 39
UNFPA Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Mexico City policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
International Narcotics Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

---

Mexico Rural Development Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Millennium Challenge Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Assistance for Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
State Department Authorization History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
List of Tables
Table 1. State Department and Related Agencies Appropriations and Proposed
Authorizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

---

Foreign Relations Authorization,
FY2004 and FY2005: State Department,
The Millennium Challenge Account, and
Foreign Assistance
Most Recent Developments
Senator Lugar introduced the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year
2004 (S. 925) on April 24, 2003. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee marked
it up and reported it out the same day (S.Rept. 108-39). Senate floor action occurred
on July 9 and 10 with numerous amendments adopted, including one that would
merge the bills related to the Millennium Challenge Account (S. 1160) and foreign
assistance authorization (S. 1161) into the Foreign Relations Authorization
legislation. S. 925 would authorize Department of State and foreign assistance
spending at about $27 billion for one year (FY2004).
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.
The House bill would authorize the
Department of State’s operations and programs at more than $27 billion through
FY2005, and would 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.
Background
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

---

CRS-2
appropriations. (See Table 1 in appendix.) Prior to 1995, Congress had reauthorized
U.S. government foreign policy agencies and activities in the foreign relations
authorization legislation every two years until 1994 (P.L. 103-236, April 30, 1994).
P.L. 107-228 is the first stand-alone foreign relations authorization bill that Congress
has passed since 1994. In the intervening years, Congress waived the requirement
or included authorization in appropriation laws.
(See State Department
Authorization History in the Appendix.)
Foreign Relations
The foreign relations authorization legislation typically provides authority for
State Department spending for such activities as salaries and other operating
expenses, passport and visa processing, embassy 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. 925. (S. 1160 and S. 1161 will be merged into S. 925, according
to an adopted floor amendment, S.Amdt. 1136.) 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.
Belarus1
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
1 Written by Steven Woehrel, Specialist in European Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
Trade Division.

---

CRS-3
there have been “repeated reports from a variety of credible sources that Belarus is
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.2
Congressional concerns about Belarus are reflected in the House version of H.R.
1950. Title XVI Section 1601 authorizes U.S. aid to assist Belarusian democracy;
Section 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
believe.
The Senate version of the bill contains no such provisions.
CRS Products:
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.
Biotech Agriculture Promotion3
U.S. farmers have been rapidly adopting genetically engineered (GE) crops —
mainly corn, soybean, and cotton varieties — to lower production costs and improve
2 Associated Press wire dispatch, April 16, 2003
3 Written by Geoffrey Becker, Specialist in Agriculture Policy, Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.

---

CRS-4
management.
However, many foreign countries are wary of agricultural
biotechnology, particularly in the European Union (EU) where consumer and
environmental organizations have been more vocal in expressing concerns about the
human health and environmental impacts of GE crops. U.S. exporters often have
encountered barriers to trade in these markets, where in some cases their sales have
been slowed or halted.
Both S. 925 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 provide grants, cooperative agreements, or
contracts totaling up to $500,000 annually for “outreach and public diplomacy
activities” which are aimed at ensuring that foreign government decisions on
biotechnology policy reflect scientific findings. The House version (Sec. 728) is
more prescriptive, requiring 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 other things.
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 (USDA), 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. It is expected to take effect in 2003 upon
ratification by the necessary 50 countries. The United States is a party to neither the
Convention nor the Protocol, but is working with 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
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
FY2007.

---

CRS-5
CRS Products:
See Agricultural Biotechnology in the CRS Agriculture Policy Briefing Book
for more information and references to other CRS reports.
Child Abduction Prevention4
Section 702 of 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
next 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 Policy5
Both H.R. 1950 (Section 730) and S. 925 (Section 813) include sections
outlining a “Sense of Congress on Climate Change” that are nearly identical, with
only minor differences in the wording of a few subsections. Both bills state the sense
of Congress 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 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.”
4 Prepared by Susan B. Epstein, Specialist in Foreign Policy and Trade, Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division.
5 Prepared by Susan R. Fletcher, Senior Analyst in International Environmental Policy,
Resources, Science, and Industry Division.

---

CRS-6
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.
Senate.
CRS Products:
For additional information, see CRS Issue Brief IB89005, Global Climate
Change; and CRS Report RL31931, Climate Change: Federal Laws and Policies
Related to Greenhouse Gas Reductions.
Copyright Piracy Protection6
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
6 Prepared by Margaret Mikyung Lee, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division.

---

CRS-7
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.7 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
of personnel.
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.8 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. 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 regulations.
Section 1810 of H.R. 1950, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY2004
and FY2005, authorizes $10 million 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 provision further requires the State Department to make every effort to
consult with and assist the WIPO in promoting the integration of such developing,
non-OECD countries into the global intellectual property system. The chief U.S.
diplomatic representative to a country identified under the USTR Priority Watch List
7 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).
8 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). See, e.g., International Copyright Institute funded under
Pub. L. 108-7, § 1209, 117 Stat. 11 (2003), and programs established under Pub. L. 103-392,
§ 501, 108 Stat. 4098 (1994).

---

CRS-8
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 shall have priority in receiving assistance
under this provision, but other countries may also receive such assistance. Section
1810 of H.R. 1950 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 developing countries.
Neither Senate bill (S. 925 or S. 1161) contains similar language.
Cuba: Support for Democracy Building9
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. 925 does not contain language regarding 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.10 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; and $5.750
million will be provided in FY2003 (the Administration requested $6 million as part
of its foreign aid request, but following the enactment of the FY2003 omnibus
appropriations bill, P.L. 108-7, the Administration allocated $5.750 million). For
FY2004, the Administration has requested $7 million for information dissemination
to foster democratic progress and the development of a civil society in Cuba.
9 Prepared by Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division.
10 See USAID’s Cuba program website: [http://www.usaid.gov/regions/lac/cu/].

---

CRS-9
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. In FY2001, NED funded $765,000
in democracy projects for Cuba; in FY2002, it funded $841,000 in Cuba projects.
Funding levels for NED’s Cuba projects in FY2003 and in the FY2004 request are
not available yet but will probably rise because of increased overall funding for NED.
A major 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, a major argument countering the House provision is
that the Administration already has been funding democracy building in Cuba for
several years and has requested $7 million for such purposes in the FY2004 Foreign
Operations budget request. The House provision would more than double the
Administration’s request for such projects 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 TV Marti.
CRS Products:
For additional information, see CRS Report RL31740, Cuba: Issues for the
108th Congress.
International Broadcasting11
In addition to authorizing FY2004 funding of international broadcasting
activities at a 13% increase over current-year funding in the Senate bill and a 29.7%
increase in the House bill, both House and Senate bills provide for a Mideast
Broadcasting Network. The bills differ on several provisions. For example, the
House bill provides measures to structurally reorganize international broadcasting,
promote global internet access, and establish in the Department of State a coordinator
for international free media, none of which are in the Senate bill. The Senate bill
includes foreign language broadcasting stipulations not found in the House version
of the foreign relations authorization.
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.
S. 925, Section 810 and H.R. 1950, Section 501 both similarly amend the
United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 by authorizing grants for a
11 Prepared by Susan B. Epstein, Specialist in Foreign Policy and Trade, Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division.

---

CRS-10
“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
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.
S. 925, Sec 803 prevents elimination of certain foreign language broadcasting
within 1 year of the enactment of the Act. The languages listed are: Bulgarian,
Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Slovenian, Slovak,
Romanian, Croatian, Armenian, and Ukrainian.
A report within 6 months of
enactment of the Act is required by the secretary. H.R. 1950 has no parallel measure.
CRS Products:
For more information, see CRS Report RL31370, State Department and Related
Agencies: FY2003 Appropriations and FY2004 Request and RS21565, Middle East
Television Network: An Overview.

---

CRS-11
International Organizations
Both H.R. 1950 and S. 925 would authorize funding of the International
Organizations accounts within the State Department budget at $1,010.5 million for
U.S. Contributions to International Organizations and $550.2 million for U.S.
Contributions to International Peacekeeping, the same as the Administration’s
FY2004 request. Other issues addressed in the legislation include:
Brahimi Report Implementation12.
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. 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 implementation.
Section 402 of S. 925 directs 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.” Enactment of this reporting requirement depends
on its acceptance by the full Senate and by House conferees. H.R. 1950 does not
include a similar provision.
Peacekeeping Contributions Cap13. 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.
12 Prepared by Marjorie Ann Browne, Specialist in International Relations, Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division.
13 Contributed by Marjorie Ann Browne, Specialist in International Relations, Foreign
Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.

---

CRS-12
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).
Section 401 of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommends 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.
CRS Products:
CRS Issue Brief IB90103, United Nations Peacekeeping: Issues for Congress, by
Marjorie Ann Browne.
Status of Israel in U.N. Regional Group.14 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
14 Prepared by Marjorie Ann Browne, Specialist in International Relations, Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division.

---

CRS-13
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
57/61) in the fall of 2002. In late April 2003, the U.N. Economic and Social Council
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 has no similar provision.

---

CRS-14
UNESCO.15 On September 12, 2002, President Bush announced that the
United States would return to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO), after having withdrawn from it in 1984. Last
year’s Foreign Relations Authorization Act (P. L. 107-228) expressed the sense of
Congress that the President should submit a report to Congress on the merits of a
U.S. return to UNESCO and provide details of the costs. The State Department is
preparing a report which is expected to be submitted later this year.
The President’s FY2004 budget request includes $71.429 million for U.S.
assessed contributions to UNESCO. This amount includes funds for the U.S.
assessed share (22%) for the final three months of calendar year 2003 (October-
December), a one-time payment to the UNESCO Working Capital Fund, and full
calendar year 2004 U.S. assessment.
The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in its report (S.Rept. 109-39) on
S. 925 recommends funding at the level requested by the President for the account.
The Committee expressed support for a U.S. return to UNESCO and for an increase
in the UNESCO budget. The House Committee on International Relations in
reporting (H.Rept. 108-105, part 1) its bill, H.R. 1950, recommends authorization
of such sums as may be necessary for FY2004 and FY2005 for U.S. contributions to
the regular budget of UNESCO. The House Committee also expresses the view that
in conjunction with returning to UNESCO, the President should take the following
steps: appoint a U.S. Representative to the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) who should also serve as the U.S. Representative to
UNESCO; ensure an increase in U.S. employment at UNESCO especially at senior
levels; request the creation of a Deputy Director for Management position at
UNESCO to be filled by an American; insist that increases in UNESCO’s budget
level beyond zero nominal growth for 2004-2005 focus primarily on adoption of
management and administrative reforms; and request that the U.S. contribution for
the last quarter of calendar year 2003 be spent on key education and science priorities
that directly benefit U.S. national interests. Each member of UNESCO is required
to establish a National Commission on Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Cooperation. The House Committee recommends updating the 1946 law governing
the U.S. National Commission.
CRS Products:
For additional information on UNESCO see CRS Report RL30985, UNESCO
Membership: Issues for Congress.
Israel-Palestine Issues16
Both H.R. 1950 and S. 925 authorize $50 million for settling Jewish migrants
in Israel, both bills seek to promote wider Israeli diplomatic relations, and both call
15 Prepared by Vita Bite, Analyst in International Relations, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
Trade Division..
16 By Clyde Mark, Specialist in Middle East Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade
Division.

---

CRS-15
upon the Administration to press for membership in the International Red Cross for
the Israeli Magan David Adom society, all non-controversial issues in Congress.
Funds for Jewish migrants originally were intended for Jews escaping from the
former Soviet Union and Ethiopia. The bills seek to expand Israel’s diplomatic
relations by directing the Secretary of State to encourage other nations to develop and
maintain relations with Israel.
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. On another issue, Section 809 of the Senate bill repeats the
President’s 24 June 2002 position that the United States will recognize a Palestinian
state only if: 1) its leaders are not compromised by terrorism, 2) it restates an
acceptance of Israel, and 3) it has taken steps to counter terrorism.
H.R. 1950 has provisions not found in the Senate bill. Section 501 of H.R. 1950
amends the International Broadcasting Act (22 U.S.C. 6201) to establish a non-
government Mideast Radio and Television Network to provide programing for the
Middle East region that will present reliable, objective news, a balanced projection
of U.S. thought, a clear presentation of U.S. policies, and an accurate picture of world
developments. (See in this report: International Broadcasting above.)
Section 732 states that Congress recognizes the hardships under which the
Palestinian refugees live and the humanitarian nature of the $2.5 billion in U.S.
assistance given to the refugees since 1950. Section 732 calls upon the U.N.
Secretary General to implement reforms in the United Nations Relief and Works
Agency (UNRWA) that would compel UNRWA to deny support to terror-related
activity. The same section calls upon the Secretary of State to campaign for such
UNRWA reforms.
The section also criticizes UNRWA for not resettling the
refugees, for allowing terrorist training in UNRWA facilities, and for permitting anti-
Jewish sentiments in textbooks in UNRWA schools. Israeli supporters maintain that
UNRWA perpetuates the refugee status, permits terrorists in the camps, and uses
anti-Jewish textbooks. But others point out that the criticism of UNRWA may be
misplaced. UNRWA’s mandate is to provide benefits for the refugees and not to
resettle them. Also, UNRWA does not own or control the refugee camps, which are
on host country property, operated by the host countries, and policed by host country
security personnel. It is the responsibility of the host country to stop military or
terrorist training that may occur in the refugee camps. Finally, UNRWA follows host
country textbooks and curriculum, and does not provide textbooks of its own. The
UNRWA schools used Egyptian textbooks in Gaza and Jordanian textbooks in the
West Bank. Israeli officials censured the Egyptian and Jordanian books from 1967
until 1994, but did not replace them.
The Palestinian Authority assumed
responsibility for West Bank/Gaza education in 1994, and did not introduce their
own textbooks in the UNRWA West Bank and Gaza schools until 2000.17 Refugee
camps in Syria and Lebanon continue to use Syrian and Lebanese text books. Section
732 encourages the General Accounting Office to audit U.S. assistance to UNRWA
17 See Brown, Nathan J. Democracy, History, and the Contest Over the Palestinian
Curriculum, n.p., the Adam Institute, November 2001. Brown, a professor at George
Washington University, found the Palestinian textbooks to be “innocuous.”

---

CRS-16
to ensure that U.S. funds are not supporting terrorism, anti-Jewish teachings, or the
glorification of violence.
Israel receives about one quarter of its Foreign Military Financing (FMF)
assistance from the United States as a direct grant to be spent in Israel, rather than as
funds to be spent in the United States for purchase of U.S.-produced military
equipment and services. Israel is the only country to receive direct FMF grants. By
prior agreement, the United States is reducing the amount of Economic Support
Funds (ESF) for Israel and increasing the annual FMF payments. Section 1321 of
H.R. 1950 increases the amount of the direct grant portion of the FMF to match the
increases in overall FMF for Fiscal Years 2003, 2004, and 2005. Section 1332
authorizes the Department of Defense to sell to Israel at market prices surplus U.S.
military equipment currently held in a stockpile in Israel. There is no sizeable
congressional opposition to these sections.
Section 1804 directs the Secretary of State to certify to Congress that the
Comptroller General of the United States has access to financial information in order
to review U.S. assistance to the West Bank and Gaza to ensure that the assistance is
not used to support terrorism.
CRS Products:
For more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB85066, Israel: U.S. Foreign
Assistance, and CRS Issue Brief IB92052, Palestinians and Middle East Peace:
Issues for the United States.
Jerusalem18
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
call for negotiations on the future of the city, and most nations agree that Jerusalem’s
status should be negotiated. Section 807 of S. 925 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 H.R. 1950 repeats the two Senate subsections, then adds a
third; that U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem may request that their passports list
Jerusalem, Israel as their birthplace. Both the Senate and House versions appear to
be congressional attempts to compel the Administration to take steps leading toward
a recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Israel agrees with the congressional
position.
18 Written by Clyde Mark, Specialist in Middle East Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
Trade Division.

---

CRS-17
CRS Products:
For more information, see CRS Report RS20339, Jerusalem, the U.S. Embassy
and P.L. 104-45, 22 September 1999, and CRS Issue Brief IB91137, Middle East
Peace Talks.
Mexico:
Migration,
Pollution
Control,
Consular
ID,
Extradition Issues19
The House passed H.R. 1950 on July 16, 2003, with several 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 are no similar provisions in the bill (S. 925) under
consideration by the Senate.
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
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
19 Prepared by K. Larry Storrs, Specialist in Latin American Affairs.

---

CRS-18
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
Mexican ownership.”
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

---

CRS-19
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.
CRS Products:
For further information, see CRS Report RL31876, Mexico-U.S. Relations:
Issues for the 108th Congress, by K. Larry Storrs.
Peace Corps20
The Peace Corps Charter for the 21st Century Act, appearing as title IX in the
Senate bill (S. 925), 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. S.
20 Prepared by Curt Tarnoff, Specialist in Foreign Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
Trade Division.

---

CRS-20
925 is nearly identical to the 2002 Senate-approved bills, S. 2667 and S. 12, except
for altered authorization amounts and the requirement of a plan on increasing the
number of volunteers. The Peace Corps Expansion Act of 2003, originally H.R.
2441 (H.Rept. 108-205), was added during floor debate to H.R. 1950.
S. 925 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
(see table).
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. 925 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. 925 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. 925 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 purpose, S. 925 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

---

CRS-21
capacities and suggesting that expansion may have to be drawn out over more than
five years.
CRS Products:
For further discussion, see CRS Report RS21168, The Peace Corps: Expansion
Initiative and Related Issues.
Public Diplomacy21
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. 925 — Strengthening Outreach to the Islamic World — 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
diplomacy.
House 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. 925, 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;
21 By Susan B. Epstein, Specialist in Foreign Policy and Trade, Foreign Affairs, Defense,
and Trade Division.

---

CRS-22
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
exchange.
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
S. 925 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 seem controversial at this
time.
CRS Reports:
For more detail on State Department and related agencies, see CRS Report
RL31370, State Department and Related Agencies: FY2003 Appropriations and
FY2004 Request.
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
22 Written by Susan B. Epstein, Specialist in Foreign Policy and Trade, Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division.
23 By Marcia S. Smith, Specialist in Aerospace and Telecommunications Policy, Resources,
Science, and Industry Division

---

CRS-23
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,
P.L. 105-261).
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. (In 2001 and 2002, U.S. companies 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 107th Congress, the House International Relations
Committee (HIRC) recommended returning jurisdiction to the Commerce
Department in Title VII of the Export Administration Act (H.R. 2581) as reported
(H.Rept. 107-297, Part I). The House Armed Service Committee (HASC) struck
Title VII, however, when it reported its version of the bill (H.Rept. 107-297, Part II).
There was no further action on the bill.
In the 108th Congress, Title XV of H.R.
1950 as reported from HIRC (H.Rept. 108-105, Part 1) would leave 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.
In addition, 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. Section 1202 of the HIRC version of H.R. 1950
recommended changing that time period back to 30 days for those three countries, a
recommendation that is included in the bill as passed by the House July 16.
CRS Products:
For further information, see CRS Issue Brief IB93062 , Space Launch Vehicles:
Government Activities, Commercial Competition, and Satellite Exports, by Marcia
Smith.

---

CRS-24
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
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
24 Prepared by Carol Migdalovitz, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs, Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division.

---

CRS-25
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.
CRS Products:
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
United States.
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
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. 925, 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
following:
! An analysis of the effectiveness of the regulatory and enforcement
regimes of the United States as they relate to the MTCR, and;
25 Written by Andrew Feickert, Analyst in National Defense, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
Trade Division.

---

CRS-26
! 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
intent.
CRS Products:
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
26 Prepared by Andrew Feickert, Analyst in National Defense, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
Trade Division.

---

CRS-27
technology, equipment, and components”. Such a binding instrument is not reflected
in current law.
The Senate version of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, S. 925, does not
address the establishment of a binding agreement restricting the trade of ballistic
missiles.
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
shipments.
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.
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-

---

CRS-28
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 Products:
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)
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
27 Prepared by Richard F. Grimmett, Specialist in National Defense, Foreign Affairs,
Defense, and Trade Division.

---

CRS-29
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
this provision.28
On May 29, 2003, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported S. 1161,
a bill to authorize foreign assistance for FY2004. The reported committee bill
contains technical amendments to current law. Section 231 of the committee bill
raises the minimum dollar thresholds at which sales of certain defense articles, design
and construction services, and major defense articles (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 232 requires the President to make certifications to Congress under section
36(c)(1) of the AECA before issuing comprehensive authorizations (under section
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 233 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 238 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. Section 239 of the Senate
committee bill also contains a sense of the Congress statement that once a bilateral
agreement with the United Kingdom for an exemption from the International Traffic
in Arms Regulations (ITA) for certain United States-origin defense items is finalized,
the United States should approve an appropriately-crafted exception the current
requirements of section 38(j) of the Arms Export Control Act.
CRS Products:
For related background see CRS Report RL31675, Arms Sales Congressional
Review Process; and CRS Report RL31559, Proliferation Control Regimes:
Background and Status.
28
For related background see CRS Report RL31675, Arms Sales Congressional Review
Process; and CRS Report RL31559, Proliferation Control Regimes: Background and Status.

---

CRS-30
Security Assistance29
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
explosive device.
On May 29, 2003, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported S. 1161,
to authorize foreign assistance for FY2004. The Senate Committee bill 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 204 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
207 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 208 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 209
authorizes the President, through FY2004, to transfer excess items to the Defense
Department’s War Reserve Stockpile in Israel. Section 212 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 213 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
29 Richard F. Grimmett, Specialist in National Defense, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade
Division.

---

CRS-31
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.30
CRS Products:
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.
Terrorist Organizations31
The overall purpose of Section 501 in S. 925 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.
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
place.
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
first place.
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
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
Trade Division.

---

CRS-32
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
remain valid.
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
“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
Defense.
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. 925.
32 Prepared by Audrey Kurth Cronin, Specialist in Terrorism. Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
Trade Division.

---

CRS-33
CRS Products:
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.
Foreign Assistance33
Afghanistan34
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.-
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
33 For more information on Foreign Assistance Authorization, see CRS report RL31959, by
Larry Nowels.
34 This section was prepared by Kenneth Katzman, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs.
35 Former Commander: Forces Can Be Reduced Next Year in Afghanistan. Associated
Press, May 28, 2003.

---

CRS-34
the interim, the United States and international peacekeeping forces will be needed
to ensure stability.
CRS Products:
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.
The Africa Society36
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
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, the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, FY2004, nor S. 1161, the Foreign Assistance Authorization Act,
FY2004, make reference to the Africa Society.
36 Contributed by Nicolas Cook, Analyst in African Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense and
Trade Division.

---

CRS-35
Colombia and Andean Region Assistance37 38
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 it has not completed action, and that measure
and has not considered S. 1161.
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
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
37 Prepared by K. Larry Storrs and Connie Veillette, Analysts in Latin American Affairs,
Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division.
38 See also in this report the section International Narcotics Control below.

---

CRS-36
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
interdicting.”
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, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported out S. 925
with one provision related to Colombia and the Andean region. 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.
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.
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

---

CRS-37
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, 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.
CRS Products:
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 Nina M. Serafino; and CRS Report RL31383, Andean Regional
Initiative (ARI): FY2002 Supplemental and FY2003 Assistance for Colombia and
Neighbors, by K. Larry Storrs and Nina M. Serafino.
Congo Basin Forest Partnership39
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. 1161 contains a Congo Basin initiative (sec. 223), 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
environmental protection.
39 Written by Susan R. Fletcher, Senior Analyst in International Environmental Policy,
Resources, Science, and Industry Division.

---

CRS-38
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
additional contributions.
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
the CBFP.
Foreign Assistance Authorization40
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 2004, as originally
introduced and reported as S. 1161 and folded into S. 925 during Senate debate on
July 9, 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 FY2004 and updating selected
legislative provisions to reflect current policy. Committee Chairman Lugar said that
it was his intent to launch a more ambitious effort next year to revamp the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 and other long-standing foreign aid laws.
Division B of S. 925, as amended on July 9 and 10, is divided into five titles.
Title I includes FY2004 authorizations of appropriations and authority for the United
States to participate in three new multilateral development bank (MDB)
arrangements. Title II updates and amends several existing foreign aid authorities,
some of which have been annually extended in appropriation acts in recent years.
Title III is the Radiological Terrorism Threat Reduction Act. Title IV is the Global
Pathogen Surveillance Act. Title V consists of several provisions, some of which
address Latin America and Africa issues.
The legislation authorizes the appropriation of about $14 billion for 21 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 FY2004,
40 Prepared by Larry Nowels, Specialist in Foreign Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
Trade Division.

---

CRS-39
although the bill would increase spending for development aid, assistance to the
former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and nonproliferation programs.
Division B 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 authorizes $15 million to address this threat, including $4
million for the Secretary of State to make voluntary contributions to the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for helping nations create facilities providing secure
storage of radioactive material, and $4 million to discover, inventory, and recover
radioactive sources.
The legislation also includes the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act, authorizing
$35 million for FY2004 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 Act 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. 925, as amended, 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 Products:
CRS Report RL31959. Foreign Assistance Authorization Act, FY2004.
International Family Planning Aid and the U.N. Population
Fund41
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
9 floor debate on S. 925, added a provision that would effectively reverse the
President’s so-called “Mexico City” policy. These issues have been among the most
41 Prepared by Larry Nowels, Specialist in Foreign Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense and
Trade Division.

---

CRS-40
controversial matters considered by Congress in foreign aid legislation for nearly two
decades.
UNFPA Funding. 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.
For FY2002, Congress provided not more than $34 million for UNFPA. 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 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 has not yet issued
a determination regarding the status of UNFPA funding for FY2003.
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.

---

CRS-41
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.
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

---

CRS-42
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 Products:
CRS Issue Brief IB96026. Population Assistance and Family Planning Programs:
Issues for Congress.
International Narcotics Control42 43
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.
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 House version of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2004
and 2005 (H.R. 1950) contains four notable provisions that refer to international
narcotics control issues. All of these provisions, arguably, relate either directly, or
indirectly to Colombia.
Section 1801 of the House bill broadens the scope of activities for which U.S.
narcotics related assistance under chapter 8 part I of the Foreign Assistance Act can
be used. The proposed language provides that assistance provided to combat aerial
trafficking of illicit narcotics includes authority to interdict illicit arms in connection
with the traffic in illicit narcotics.
Section 1802 of the bill requires the Department of State, within 180 days of the
Act’s enactment, to seek to ensure that Colombian trained pilots [and not U.S.
42 Prepared by Raphael Perl, Specialist in International Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense,
and Trade Division.
43 See also in this report the section Colombia and Andean Region Assistance above.

---

CRS-43
national contractor pilots] be those participating in “the United States opium
eradication program in Colombia”. The bill text provides that preference be given
to “individuals who are members of the Colombian National Police”.
Section 1813 of the bill provides for limited assistance for policing which
supports democratic governance, an exception to the general prohibition under
section 660 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 on U.S. assistance to police forces
in foreign countries. Included in this democratic policing exception is “training and
technical assistance ... in counter-narcotics.”
Finally, 709 of the proposed legislation, addresses an ongoing concern by many
over the spillover effects of Plan Colombia and its successor programs on
neighboring Ecuador — not only in terms of counter-drug repercussions, but also in
terms of the humanitarian and economic development implications of increased
eradication there. The bill notes that Administration has not complied with existing
requirements to submit a report to Congress on “the impact of Plan Colombia on
Ecuador and the other adjacent countries to Colombia” and requires that such a report
be submitted within 30 days from enactment of the Act.
CRS Products:
CRS Issue Brief IB88093, Drug Control: International Policy and Approaches.
CRS Report RS21213, Colombia: Summary and Tables on U.S. Assistance, FY1889-
FY2004.
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.
Relations.
Mexico Rural Development Assistance44
During Senate floor consideration of the Foreign Relations Authorization for
FY2004 (S. 925) on July 10, 2003, Senator Reid offered S.Amdt. 1164 to provide
$100 million to Mexico to deal with the existing rural development crisis in the
country. The funds would be used for four purposes, primarily in the rural areas of
Mexico: (1) to provide microcredit lending to non-traditional sectors of the economy;
(2) to promote small business entrepreneurial development and training; (3) to aid
small farmers, such as coffee farmers, devastated by the collapse of commodity
prices; and (4) to support the private property ownership system and increased
mortgage financing. Senator Reid argued that the United States should assist the
neighboring country of Mexico not only because the countryside in particular was
experiencing serious economic difficulties, but because the assistance would have a
positive impact on the United States by reducing the flow of illegal migrants and
drugs to the United States and by creating conditions for greater trade between the
44 Prepared by Larry Storrs, Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense,
and Trade Division.

---

CRS-44
countries. Senator Lugar while finding merit in the program, argued against the
amendment on the grounds that Mexico was already scheduled to receive $67.5
million in funding, that the program had not been fully considered by the
Administration and the Committee, and that the additional funding under the
amendment would have to be cut from other programs to meet the budget guidelines.
After discussion, the amendment was approved 54-43.
Currently, there is no similar provision in the House bill.
CRS Products:
For more detail on U.S.-Mexico relations see CRS Report RL31876, Mexico-U.S.
Relations: Issues for the 108th Congress.
Millennium Challenge Account45
In a speech on March 14, 2002, President Bush outlined a proposal for the United
States to increase foreign economic assistance beginning in FY2004 so that by FY2006
American aid would be $5 billion higher than three years earlier. The new funds, which
would supplement the current estimated $13.1 billion economic aid budget, would be
placed in a Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) and be available on a competitive
basis to a few countries that have demonstrated a commitment to sound development
policies and where U.S. support is believed to have the best opportunities for achieving
the intended results. These “best-performers” would be selected based on their records
in three areas: ruling justly, investing in people, and pursuing sound economic policies.
Development of a new foreign aid initiative by the Bush Administration has been
influenced by a number of factors, including the widely perceived poor track record of
past aid programs, recent evidence that the existence of certain policies by aid recipients
may be more important for success than the amount of resources invested, the war on
terrorism, and the March 2002 U.N.-sponsored International Conference on Financing
for Development in Monterrey, Mexico.
The MCA initiative would be limited to countries with per capita incomes below
$2,975, although in the first two years — FY2004 and FY2005 — only countries below
the $1,435 level would compete for MCA resources. Participants would be selected
based on a transparent evaluation of a country’s performance on 16 economic and
political indicators, divided into three clusters corresponding to the three policy areas
of governance, economic policy, and investment in people. Eligible countries must
score above the median on half of the indicators in each area. One indicator — control
of corruption — is a pass/fail measure: a country must score above the median on this
single measure or be excluded from further consideration.
The Administration proposes to create a new entity — the Millennium Challenge
Corporation (MCC) — to manage the initiative. The MCC would be supervised by a
Board of Directors chaired by the Secretary of State. Several other key issues, including
45 Prepared by Larry Nowels, Specialist in Foreign Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense and
Trade Division.

---

CRS-45
the number of participating countries and monitoring mechanisms, have yet to be
determined.
House and Senate authorizing committees initially marked-up and reported separate
bills authoring the Millennium Challenge Account (S. 1160 and H.R. 2441). However,
during floor debate on the omnibus foreign policy authorization bills — S. 925 and H.R.
1950 — lawmakers attached amended versions of S. 1160 and H.R. 2441 to their
respective omnibus bills. The Senate, which debated but did not pass S. 925 on July 9
and 10, incorporated the MCA authorization as Division C; the House included the
MCA text as Division A of H.R. 1950, renamed the bill as the Millennium Challenge
Account, Peace Corps Expansion, and Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2003, and
passed it on July 16.
The initial Senate measure, as reported by the Foreign Relations Committee on
May 29, 2003, as S. 1160, had rejected the Administration’s request for creation of
a new Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) to manage the foreign aid
initiative, placing responsibility instead within the State Department. Supporters of
the change noted that in 1998 Congress had consolidated two independent agencies
— USIA and ACDA — in the State Department in order to give the Secretary more
direct authority over all tools of U.S. foreign policy. To create a separate entity to
manage what could become the cornerstone of American foreign assistance, they
argued, would run counter to these recent efforts to better integrate and coordinate
foreign policy decision-making.
Opponents of placing the MCA in the State
Department noted the value of a new, independent, and creative entity for managing
this “new start” to U.S. foreign aid. Secretary Powell informed the Committee that
he would recommend the President veto the legislation if this organizational structure
remained in the bill.
Senator Lugar, who opposed the Committee recommendation, proposed an
alternative structure in new legislation. S. 1240, as introduced on June 11, would
create a Millennium Challenge Corporation, headed by a CEO who would report to
the Secretary of State. Senator Lugar intended that such an arrangement would
provide the Corporation with the same degree of independence and status as USAID,
but with a chain of command that would permit the Secretary of State broad direction
over the MCA. The full Senate adopted the general approach proposed by Senator
Lugar when it voted on July 9 to incorporate a modified text of MCA authorizing
legislation into S. 925. The approved text further strengthens the explicit relationship
between the Corporation and the Secretary of State by adding that the CEO shall
“report to and be under the direct authority and foreign policy guidance of the
Secretary.”
The Administration has not expressed objection to the revised
legislation.
On other issues, S. 925 authorizes $1 billion for the MCA in FY2004, $2.3 billion
in FY2005, and $5 billion in FY2006. Members of the MCA Board of Directors
would change the Administration’s proposal of the Secretary of State (chair),
Secretary of the Treasury, and the OMB Director, by replacing the OMB Director
with the USAID Administrator and the U.S. Trade Representative. S. 925 places
primary authority over key MCA decisions with the Board. In order to emphasize aid
for the poorest developing countries, the Senate measure further permits low-middle

---

CRS-46
income nations to participate in MCA programs in FY2006 and beyond, but only if
MCA appropriations exceed $5 billion.
The House-passed MCA legislation authorizes $1.3 billion for FY2004, as
requested, $3 billion for FY2005, and $5 billion for FY2006. H.R. 1950 creates a
new Millennium Challenge Corporation, headed by a CEO who reports to the
President and maintains a large degree of decision-making authority compared with
the Senate measure. Like S. 925, the House bill adds to the Board of Directors the
USAID Administrator and the U.S. Trade Representative, but includes four
additional members to be selected from lists provided by the congressional
leadership. The House measure also creates an Advisory Council made up of
individuals from non-government organizations, businesses, labor unions, and other
outside entities. It further limits assistance to low-middle income countries in
FY2006, capping the amount of aid to 20% of the total.
CRS Products:
For more details see CRS Report RL31687, The Millennium Challenge Account:
Congressional Consideration of a New Foreign Aid Initiative.
Assistance for Vietnam46
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.47 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
to Vietnam.
CRS Products:
For more details, see CRS Issue Brief IB98033, Foreign Assistance to Vietnam.
46 Prepared by Mark Manyin, Analyst in Asian Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade
Division.
47 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.

---

CRS-47
Appendix
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.

---

CRS-48
Table 1. State Department and Related Agencies Appropriations and Proposed Authorizations
(millions of dollars)
Supple-
Auth.
Auth.
Auth.
Approp.
Approp.
mental
Approp.
Approp.
Senate
House
House
FY2001
FY2002
Approps
FY2003
FY2004
S. 925
H.R. 1950
H.R. 1950
Enacted
Enacted
since 9/11a
Enacted
Request
FY2004
FY2004
FY2005
State Department
Diplomatic & Consular Program
3,167.2
3,630.1
281.9
3,822.3
4,163.5
4,171.5
4,187.5
4,438.8
Public Diplomacy
-.-
(270.3)
-.-
(292.7)
(287.7)
-.-
(320.9)
(329.8)
Worldwide Security Upgrades
(409.1)
(487.7)
-.-
(553.0)
(646.7)
(646.7)
(646.7)
(679.7)
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor
-.-
-.-
-.-
-.-
-.-
-.-
(20.0)
(20.0)
Minority recruitment
-.-
-.-
-.-
-.-
-.-
-.-
(2.0)
(2.0)
Ed & cultural exchange programs
231.6
237.0
15.0
245.3
345.3b
407.3
393.3
405.0
Fulbright Academic Exchange
(123.4)
(118.0)
-.-
(123.0)
(127.4)
(132.7)
(142.0)
(142.0)
Office of Inspector General
28.4
29.0
-.-
29.3
31.7
31.7
31.7
32.7
Representation allowances
6.5
6.5
-.-
6.5
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
Protec.-missions & officials
15.4
9.4
-.-
11.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
Embassy security/constr/maintenance
1,077.6
1,274.0
412.9
1,263.5
1,514.4
1,826.4
1,653.0
1,784.0
Worldwide security upgrades**
(661.2)
(816.0)
-.-
(755.0)
(861.4)
(900.0)
(1,000.0)
(1,000.0)
Emergency-diplo. & consular services
5.5
6.5
101.0
6.5
1.0
1.0
1.0 Unspecified
Repatriation loans
1.2
1.2
-.-
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Payment American Inst. Taiwan
16.3
17.0
-.-
18.5
19.8
19.8
19.8
20.8
Foreign Service Retirement Fund
131.2
135.6
-.-
138.2
135.0
-.-
-.-
-.-
Capitol Investment Fund
96.8
203.0
15.0
183.3
157.0
157.0
157.0
161.7
International Organ. & Conf.
Contributions to international organizations
868.9
850.0
-.-
866.0
1,010.5
1,010.5
1,010.5
1,040.8

---

CRS-49
Supple-
Auth.
Auth.
Auth.
Approp.
Approp.
mental
Approp.
Approp.
Senate
House
House
FY2001
FY2002
Approps
FY2003
FY2004
S. 925
H.R. 1950
H.R. 1950
Enacted
Enacted
since 9/11a
Enacted
Request
FY2004
FY2004
FY2005
Contributions to international peacekeeping
844.1
844.1
-.-
673.7
50.2
550.2
550.2 Unspecified
U.N. Arrearage payments
-.-
-.-
-.-
-.-
-.-
-.-
-.-
-.-
Total International Commissions
56.1
60.5
-.-
57.5
71.7
69.6
69.6
69.6
Related Appropriations
The Asia Foundation
9.2
9.3
-.-
10.4
9.3
15.0
18.0
18.0
National Endowment for Democracy
30.9
33.5
-.-
42.0
36.0
42.0
45.0
47.0
Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow
-.-
-.-
-.-
-.-
-.-
-.-
1.0
1.0
Benjamin Gillman Int’l Scholars Program
-.-
-.-
-.-
-.-
-.-
-.-
2.5
2.5
East-West Center
13.5
14.0
-.-
18.0
14.3
15.0
14.3
14.3
North-South Center
-.-
-.-
-.-
-.-
-.-
2.0
(1.0)
(1.0)
Eisenhower Exchange
0.5
0.5
-.-
0.5
0.5
-.-
-.-
-.-
Israeli Arab Scholarship
0.3
0.4
-.-
-.-
-.-
-.-
-.-
-.-
Migration/Refugees
698.5
705.0
-.-
787.0
760.2
760.2
927.0
957.0
Total State Department
7,299.7
8,066.6
825.8
8,180.7
8,840.6
9,099.4
9,101.6
8,966.9
International Broadcasting
Capital Improvements
-.-
25.9
-.-
12.7
11.4
11.4
29.9
11.4
Broadcasting Operations
-.-
428.2
-.-
468.9
525.2
561.0
600.4
612.1
Broadcasting to Cuba
-.-
24.9
-.-
25.0
26.9
-.-
26.9
27.4
Total International Broadcasting
450.4
479.0
93.5
506.6
563.5
572.4
657.2
650.9
TOTAL State & Broadcasting
7,750.1
8,545.6
919.3
8,687.3
9,404.1
9,671.8
9,758.8
9,617.8
*FY2002 enacted numbers do not include funds provided in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act (P.L. 107-38).
**P.L 106-113 sec. 604 authorized up to $900 million for FY2000 through FY2004.
a. Includes funding supplementals from P.L. 107-38; P.L. 107-117, P.L. 107-206, and P.L. 108-11.

---

CRS-50
b. Funding level includes a transfer of $100.040 million from Foreign Operations appropriations to State Department appropriations for FSA and Seed
programs.

---