Foreign Assistance Authorization Act, FY2004

CRS Report for Congress
Foreign Assistance Authorization Act, FY2005
Updated March 16, 2004
Larry Nowels
Specialist in Foreign Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Foreign Assistance Authorization Act, FY2005
Summary
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. Division B of S. 2144 — Foreign Assistance Authorization for FY2005
— is an effort to “reinforce” the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s role in
foreign aid policy making. It is not an attempt to comprehensively review and re-
write existing foreign aid legislation, but rather it is a first step in providing necessary
authorization for program appropriations in FY2005 and updating selected legislative
provisions to reflect current policy. Committee Chairman Lugar said that it was his
intent to launch a more ambitious effort later that would revamp the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 and other long-standing foreign aid laws. The Committee
reported and the Senate debated similar legislation last year — S. 1161, later merged
into S. 925 — authorizing foreign aid programs for FY2004. The bill remains
pending in the Senate, but is unlikely to receive further consideration.
Division B of S. 2144 is divided into five titles. Title XXI includes FY2005
authorizations of appropriations. Title XXII updates and amends several existing
foreign aid authorities, some of which have been annually extended in appropriation
acts. Title XXIII is the Radiological Terrorism Security Act of 2004. Title XXIV is
the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act of 2004. Title XXV consists of several
provisions, some of which address Africa and Latin America issues, including
additional aid for Haiti.
The legislation authorizes the appropriation of about $16.9 billion for 22 foreign
assistance programs, closely matching the account structure of the annual Foreign
Operations appropriations for bilateral economic and military aid. The amounts
authorized are nearly identical to levels requested by the Administration for FY2005,
although the bill would increase spending for HIV/AIDS, development aid, assistance
to the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and nonproliferation programs, while
reducing amounts for the Millennium Challenge Account.
S. 2144 addresses the threat posed by terrorist use of radiological dispersal
devices, or RDDs. The bill requires the Secretary of State to prepare and submit to
Congress reports assessing the threat of a radiological attack on U.S. missions. The
bill further authorizes the Secretary to aid foreign countries, or propose that the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) develop programs, helping foreign first
responders identify and address threats posed by radioactive materials.
The legislation also includes the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act, authorizing
$35 million for FY2005 to enhance the capability of developing nations to detect,
identify, and contain infectious disease outbreaks, whether naturally occurring or the
result of a bioterrorist attack. The measure includes several provisions that are
intended to support and strengthen the disease surveillance capabilities of developing
nations. Additionally, it would permit the expansion of Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention facilities overseas to further the goals of global disease monitoring.
This report will be updated as Congress considers the legislation.

Key Policy Staff
Area of ExpertiseNameTelephoneE-Mail
Raymond Copson7-7661rcopson@crs.loc.gov
AfricaNicholas Cook7-0429ncook@crs.loc.gov
Theodros Dagne7-7646tdagne@crs.loc.gov
Development AssistanceLarry NowelsCurt Tarnoff7-76457-7656lnowels@crs.loc.govctarnoff@crs.loc.gov
Foreign AidLarry NowelsCurt Tarnoff7-76457-7656lnowels@crs.loc.govctarnoff@crs.loc.gov
HIV/AIDSRaymond CopsonTiaji Salaam7-76617-7677rcopson@crs.loc.gov tsalaam@crs.loc.gov
IndonesiaLarry Niksch7-7680lniksch@crs.loc.gov
Middle East Partnership InitiativeJeremy Sharp7-8687jsharp@crs.loc.gov
Military aid/Arms salesRichard Grimmett7-7675rgrimmett@crs.loc.gov
HaitiMaureen Taft-Morales7-7659mtmorales@crs.loc.gov
PathogensC. Stephen Redhead7-2261creadhead@crs.loc.gov
Radiological terrorismJonathan Medalia7-7632jmedalia@crs.loc.gov
Russia/East Europe AidCurt Tarnoff7-7656ctarnoff@crs.loc.gov

Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
Background ......................................................1
Contents of the Foreign Aid Legislation................................3
Authorization of Appropriations..................................3
General Foreign Aid Authorities..................................5
Radiological Terrorism Security Act...............................5
Global Pathogen Surveillance Act of 2003..........................6
Reporting Requirements and Other Regional and Foreign Policy Issues...8
List of Tables
Table 1. Foreign Assistance Authorizations in Div. B, S. 2144..............4

Foreign Assistance Authorization Act,
FY2004
Most Recent Developments
On March 4, 2004, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ordered reported
S. 2144, the Foreign Affairs Authorization Act, FY2005. Division B of the measure
is designated as the Foreign Assistance Authorization Act, FY2005, text that is
largely patterned after foreign aid authorizing legislation (S. 1161) debated, but not
passed, in the Senate last year. Division B of S. 2144 authorizes about $16.9 billion
for most, but not all, foreign assistance programs, funding many economic and
military aid activities at levels requested by the Administration for FY2005. Division
B also incorporates two policy initiatives: the Radiological Terrorism Security Act
and the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act.
Background
Congress last enacted a broad foreign assistance authorization act in 1985. Prior
to 1985 beginning in the mid-1950s, it had been the congressional practice to debate
and approve general foreign aid legislation either annually or biennially. These
debates frequently evolved into a wide-ranging consideration of U.S. foreign policy
that went well beyond discussions of economic and military assistance programs. As
such, the legislation was frequently marked by controversy, internal congressional
disagreements concerning international issues, and disputes between the executive
and legislative branches regarding Presidential management of foreign policy. In
several years since 1985, Congress considered foreign aid authorizing measures, but
the bills failed to reach final passage.¹ In the interim, lawmakers have approved more
narrowly focused, “single-issue” foreign aid authorization bills, such as the Support
for East European Democracy (SEED) Act (1989), the FREEDOM Support Act
(1992), the International Malaria Control Act (2000), and the more recently enacted
United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003.
Lack of Administration support for foreign aid bills has been a continuing
obstacle to enactment over the past 18 years. The Clinton Administration submitted
draft legislation in 1994 seeking to re-write the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, but
in most cases, the executive has opposed or not encouraged consideration of broad
foreign assistance measures which were perceived as intrusions into Presidential
flexibility in managing foreign policy or excessive congressional earmarking.

¹ The closest Congress came to approving a foreign aid bill came in 1991 when the House
and Senate passed H.R. 2508 (102^nd Congress), the International Cooperation Act of 1991.
After passing the Senate, however, the conference agreement failed in the House.

In the absence of omnibus foreign aid authorizations, the majority of the foreign
assistance legislation has been enacted as part of annual Foreign Operations
appropriation measures. Over the past 19 years, these appropriation bills
increasingly have expanded their scope beyond spending issues and played a major
role in shaping, authorizing, and guiding both executive and congressional foreign
aid and broader foreign policy initiatives. It has been largely through Foreign
Operations appropriations that the United States has modified aid policy and resource
allocation priorities since the end of the Cold War. Legislation authorizing U.S.
participation in most multilateral development bank replenishments since the early
1980s has been incorporated into Foreign Operation measures. The legislation and
companion supplemental appropriation bills have also been the channel through
which the President has utilized foreign aid as a tool in the global war on terrorism
since the attacks of September 11, 2001. Earlier this year, the President’s new
foreign aid initiative — the Millennium Challenge Corporation — was authorized
with the FY2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. Appropriation measures
have also been a key instrument used by Congress to apply restrictions and conditions
on Administration management of foreign assistance, actions that have frequently
resulted in executive-legislative clashes similar to those that occurred previously in
authorization debates.
Last year, the Foreign Relations Committee reported a similar bill — S. 1161
— characterizing the action as effort to “reinforce” the Committee’s role in foreign
assistance policy making.² Chairman Lugar noted during the Committee’s markup
of that bill that it was not an attempt to comprehensively review and re-write existing
foreign aid legislation. Rather, S. 1161 represented a first step in providing necessary
authorization for program appropriations in FY2004 and updating selected legislative
provisions to reflect current policy. Senator Lugar said that it was his intent to
launch a more ambitious effort in the future to revamp the Foreign Assistance Act of

1961 and other long-standing foreign aid laws.

After being folded into S. 925 (the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal
Year 2004), the Senate debated on July 9 and 10, 2003, the foreign aid authorizing
legislation, adopting several amendments but without coming to a final vote. S. 2144
is a continuation of the 2003 Committee’s effort to steer an omnibus foreign policy
authorizing bill for FY2005 through the Senate for consideration by the House-
Senate conference committee. The House approved on July 16, 2003, companion
legislation (H.R. 1950) that includes many of the same provisions on State
Department operations and security assistance issues as the new Senate measure, but
does not address economic aid programs.

² Foreign Assistance Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2004; report to accompany S. 1161.
S.Rept. 108-56, May 29, 2003.

Contents of the Foreign Aid Legislation
Division B of S. 1161 is divided into five titles:
^!Title XXI includes a series of FY2005 authorizations of
appropriations.
^!Title XXII updates and amends several existing foreign aid
authorities, some of which have been annually extended in
appropriation acts in recent years.
^!Title XXIII is the Radiological Terrorism Security Act.
^!Title XXIV is the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act.
^!Title XV consists of a number of miscellaneous provisions, several
of which address Africa and Latin America issues, including
authorization for additional aid to Haiti.
Authorization of Appropriations
Division B of S. 2144 authorizes the appropriation of about $16.9 billion for 22
foreign assistance programs, closely matching the account structure of the annual
Foreign Operations appropriations for bilateral economic and military aid. As shown
in Table 1, the authorizations in many cases are identical to amounts requested by the
Administration. The total for foreign aid programs, however, is $182 million less
than proposed by the Administration. These “savings” in foreign assistance are
added to authorizations for the State Department and other international affairs
programs covered in S. 2144 or for funding another Committee initiative, the
Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian Management Act of 2004 (S. 2127). In
total, authorizations recommended in S. 2144 and S. 2127 equal the President’s
FY2005 budget for the equivalent accounts.
While several foreign aid programs are authorized at the requested level, the
Committee bill adds funding for others:
^!$200 million increase for child survival and health programs, largely
to increase resources for international HIV/AIDS activities.
^!$17 million increase for development assistance.
^!$25 million more for aid to the former Soviet Union.
^!$5 million increase for East European assistance.
^!$70 million increase for the Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism,
Demining, and Related Assistance (NADR) programs.

Table 1. Foreign Assistance Authorizations in Div. B, S. 2144³
(millions of dollars)
ProgramFY2004Regular^aFY2004Supp.^bFY2004TotalFY2005RequestFY2005S. 2144
Economic Assistance:
Child Survival & Health (CS/H)1,824.2 — 1,824.21,420.01,620.0
Development Assistance Fund1,376.8 — 1,376.81,329.01,346.0
Intl Disaster Aid254.0110.0364.0385.5385.5
Transition Initiatives54.7 — 54.762.862.8
Development Credit Programs8.0 — 8.08.08.0
USAID Operating Expenses 600.540.0640.5623.4623.4
USAID Inspector General34.8 — 34.835.036.4
USAID Capital Investment Fund81.716.698.364.864.8
Millennium Challenge Account994.0 — 994.02,500.02,000.0
Economic Support Fund (ESF)2,119.9872.02,991.92,520.02,520.0
Eastern Europe/Baltic States442.4 — 442.4410.0 415.0
Former Soviet Union 583.5 — 583.5550.0575.0
Inter-American Foundation16.2 — 16.215.215.2
African Development Foundation18.6 — 18.617.017.0
Intl Narcotics & Andean Initiative967.0170.01,137.01,089.81,089.8
Non-Proliferation/anti-terrorism 351.4 35.0 386.4 415.2 485.2
Treasury Dept. Technical Aid18.9 — 18.917.517.5
Debt Reduction94.4 — 94.4200.0200.0
Intl Organizations & Programs319.8 — 319.8304.5304.5
Total, Economic Aid10,160.81,243.611,404.411,967.711,786.1
Military Assistance:
Intl Military Ed. & Training91.2 — 91.289.789.7
Foreign Mil Financing (FMF)4,268.7287.04,555.74,957.54,957.5
Peacekeeping Operations74.550.0124.5104.0104.0
Total, Military Aid4,434.4337.04,771.45,151.2 5,151.2
TOTAL 14,595.2 1,580.6 16,175.8 17,118.9 16,937.3
^{a. Each}^accouⁿ^t^is^adj^u^s^t^{ed f}^o^{r th}^{e 0.59% acros}^s^-^th^e-^board^res^c^is^sⁱ^on^requ^{ired by}^Divⁱ^sⁱ^on^{H of}^P^.^L^.
^108-^{199, t}^h^{e C}^oⁿ^s^olⁱ^d^at^{ed A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^,^F^Y^2004.
^{b. F}^Y^{2003 s}^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^lⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^es^f^uⁿ^d^s^appropri^a^t^e^{d i}ⁿ^P.L^.^108-^106.

³ Two other foreign assistance programs are authorized in S. 2144, but not within Division
B, the foreign aid portion of the bill. In Division A, sec. 105, the Migration and Refugee
Assistance account is authorized at $765 million for FY2005, $35 million above the request.
Title IX of Division A broadly modifies Peace Corps authorities and authorizes $351
million, $50 million less than the budget proposal.

Offsetting these and additions made in other parts of S. 2144 is a reduction of $500
million for the President’s new foreign aid initiative, the Millennium Challenge
Account (MCA). The legislation, however, continues for FY2005 existing authority
to use up to 10% of MCA funding to assist countries that fail, by a narrow margin,
to qualify for the MCA program in hopes of improving their chances in future years.
Total amounts authorized in S. 2144 conform to the overall level for
international affairs spending approved in the Senate on March 11 in the FY2005
Budget Resolution (S.Con.Res. 95). The Senate-passed measure increases the
President’s $31.6 billion foreign policy budget request to $32.33 billion in
discretionary spending, largely due to floor amendments by Senators Lugar, Durbin,
and Dewine adding $1.83 billion to the Committee-reported level. Although not
binding, amendment sponsors said they intended the additional funds to be used for
higher resources for HIV/AIDS, aid to Haiti, and more broadly to fill funding gaps
throughout the international affairs budget.
General Foreign Aid Authorities
Title XXII of Division B of S. 2144 includes 35 sections, most of which
incorporate into permanent law legislative items that have been included in annual
appropriations in recent years or update existing provisions that have not been
amended to reflect current circumstances. For example, provisions routinely carried
in appropriation acts concerning assistance to non-governmental organizations,
authority to undertake reconstruction projects with disaster aid funds, aid to the
former Soviet Union, aid prohibitions for countries whose elected head of
government has been deposed by a military coup, and Administration of Justice,
demining, and debt relief programs would be added to the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961. Presumably, similar measures would be dropped from future Foreign
Operations appropriation bills.
The legislation also updates long-standing authorities, such as those related to
the President’s special waiver authority [section 614(a) of the Foreign Assistance
Act], prohibition on aid to countries in default on debt owed to the United States,
additions to war reserve stockpiles in Israel, restrictions on aid to Lebanon, dollar
thresholds of arms sales that must be notified to Congress, and several other
administrative authorities. S. 2144 further extends an existing waiver for Pakistan
aid restrictions through FY2005.
Radiological Terrorism Security Act⁴
Title XXIII of S. 2144 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 United States has devoted far more resources to studying the effects of
RDDs and to planning responses to an RDD attack than have many other countries.

⁴ This section was prepared by Jonathan Medalia, Specialist in National Defense.

Accordingly, Section 2304 authorizes the Secretary of State to help other countries
— directly or through the IAEA — develop national response plans and train first
responders for dealing with an RDD attack.
In addition, section 2303 would require the Secretary of State to submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report on preparations to detect and mitigate
a radiological attack on U.S. diplomatic missions abroad; a rank-ordered list of the
Secretary’s priorities for improving radiological security and consequence
management at these facilities, and a budget for such improvements; and a rank-
ordered list of facilities where improvement is most important. This report would be
submitted within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter
beginning with the budget submission for FY2006. The legislation authorizes $2
million to undertake both provisions under this title.
Global Pathogen Surveillance Act of 2003⁵
Title XXIV of S. 2144 — The Global Pathogen Surveillance Act — would
authorize $35 million for FY2005 to enhance the capability of developing nations to
detect, identify, and contain infectious disease outbreaks, whether naturally occurring
or the result of a bioterrorist attack. Similar legislation was first introduced on May
9, 2002, by Senators Biden, Helms, Kennedy, and Frist (S. 2487). It passed the
Senate, amended, on August 1, 2002. No further action was taken on the measure
during the 107^th Congress.
The SARS outbreak underscores the importance of developing a global
surveillance system to detect and track the spread of infectious disease around the
world. Public health experts view SARS as just the latest manifestation of the
growing threat of infectious disease. That threat, driven by a complex set of
biological, social, political, and economic factors, encompasses not only new and
reemerging infectious diseases of natural origin but also bioterrorist attacks.
International trade, travel, and migration patterns facilitate the rapid spread of
pathogens from one continent to another. Infectious disease outbreaks need not
originate in the United States to pose a threat to the nation.
Global surveillance, especially for newly recognized infectious diseases, is
crucial to responding to and containing microbial threats before isolated outbreaks
develop into regional or worldwide pandemics. Key components of an effective
surveillance system include trained epidemiologists, a network of modern fully
equipped laboratories able to isolate and identify emerging pathogens, and a public
health communications infrastructure to transmit and share information on disease
outbreaks. In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) established the Global
Alert and Response Network to monitor and track infectious disease outbreaks in
every region of the world. But the WHO network is only as strong as its individual
components. Many developing nations lack the trained personnel, laboratory
facilities, and public health infrastructure to detect emerging pathogens and track
evolving disease patterns. The 2003 Institute of Medicine report Microbial Threats
to Health: Emergence, Detection, and Response recommended that the United States

⁵ This section was prepared by C. Stephen Redhead, Specialist in Life Sciences.

take a leading role in promoting the development of a global infectious disease
surveillance capability based on existing systems.⁶
The Global Pathogen Surveillance Act includes several provisions that are
intended to support and strengthen the disease surveillance capabilities of developing
nations. First, it seeks to address the lack of adequately trained public health officials
who can identify and diagnose infectious disease outbreaks. The legislation, in
Sections 2406 and 2407, would provide for in-country training for medical and
laboratory personnel and permit eligible nationals of developing countries to come
to the United States to pursue a master of public health degree or advanced public
health training in epidemiology. Second, Sections 2408 and 2409 would provide
assistance to developing nations, subject to the availability of appropriations, to
purchase (1) basic laboratory equipment necessary for the collection, analysis, and
identification of pathogens and (2) communications equipment and information
technology for the dissemination of information on disease patterns throughout
regional health networks.
Additionally, Sections 2410 and 2411 would permit the expansion of CDC
facilities overseas to further the goals of global disease monitoring. It would also
authorize the heads of executive branch agencies to assign public health officials to
U.S. diplomatic missions and international health organizations when requested.
Finally, Section 2412 of the bill would authorize the President to provide funding and
other assistance for the purpose of enhancing WHO’s surveillance and reporting
capabilities and those of existing regional health networks, and for the development
of new regional health networks.
S. 2144 authorizes a total of $35 million for these activities in FY2005, funds
that would be drawn from the Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining, and
Related (NADR) Programs account. The legislation allocates the funds as follows:
^!$25 million for training public health officials and assisting
developing nations to procure lab and communication equipment
(Sections 2406-2409).
^!$0.5 million for the assignment of public health officials at U.S.
missions overseas and international organizations (Section 2410).
^!$2.5 million for the expansion of U.S. government labs overseas
(Section 2411).
^!$7 million to assist WHO and existing regional health network
surveillance and reporting capabilities, and to develop new regional
health networks (Section 2412).
In related legislative activity, Representative Kirk introduced the Global
Pathogen Surveillance Act (H.R. 2329) in the House on June 4, 2003. H.R. 2329 is

⁶ For the text of the report, see [http://www.nap.edu/books/030908864X/html/].

nearly the same as the Senate language, except that it would authorize $70 million
for FY2004 and $80 million for FY2005.
Reporting Requirements and Other Regional and Foreign
Policy Issues
Division B of S. 2144 also includes several provisions, in Title XXV that
address specific country and regional foreign policy issues. .
Africa:
^!Expresses the Sense of Congress supporting the Congo Forest Basin
Partnership (Section 2223). This multi-year initiative announced by
the Administration at the September 2002 Johannesburg World
Summit on Sustainable Development, represents the largest
conservation effort by the United States in Africa.
^!Supports “such sums as are necessary” for programs in Ethiopia that
promote an independent media by strengthening the capacity of
journalists and increasing access to printing facilities (Section 2513).
^!Supports as a matter of U.S. policy efforts to establish accountability
for human rights abuses occurring in Central Africa since 1993, back
programs to encourage reconciliation, and promote activities that
will prevent similar crimes in the future (Section 2514). The
Secretary of State would be required to report on U.S. actions taken
in this regard within six months of enactment. The provision further
authorizes up to $12 million in FY2005 for the development of
justice and reconciliation mechanisms in the Democratic Republic
of Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, and Uganda.
^!Authorizes the African Contingency Operations Training and
Assistance Program (ACOTA), establishes eligibility criteria for
country participation, and states a Sense of Congress regarding local
consultations and monitoring of ACOTA programs (Section 2516).
The provision also authorizes $15 million for FY2005, the same as
requested by the President. ACOTA is a program that replaced in
FY2004 the then-existing Africa Crisis Response Initiative aimed at
helping train and equip African militaries to perform in a
peacekeeping and humanitarian relief role.
East Asia:
^!Places conditions on military financing and training funds (FMF and
IMET programs) for Indonesia (Section 2517). The provision
requires that prior to release of FY2005 FMF and IMET
appropriations (excluding expanded-IMET activities), the President
must certify to Congress that the Indonesian government and

military are taking steps to investigate the August 31, 2002, attack
on U.S. citizens and to prosecute those responsible.
South Asia:
^!Adds India to the list of 14 “focus” countries under the President’s
Global HIV/AIDS Initiative (Section 2519). Substantial amounts of
the $15 billion, five year program will be concentrated in these
“focus” nations where the epidemic is the worst. The Foreign
Operations Appropriations for FY2004 requires the Administration
to name a 15^th country that would come from outside sub-Saharan
Africa and the Caribbean. The State Department, however, has not
yet identified which nation will be selected.
^!States a sense of Congress that in order for Afghan elections to occur
in a free and fair manner, adequate security must be maintained
throughout the entire country (Section 2522). The provision further
calls on the U.N. Assistance Mission to Afghanistan to expand
efforts to register women for upcoming elections.
Latin America:
^!Authorizes at least $150 million for assistance to Haiti and requires
the Secretary of State to report within 60 days about U.S. plans for
reconstruction and stabilization assistance to Haiti.
^!Adds the names of 14 Caribbean nations to the list of countries
eligible for assistance from the Combat HIV/AIDS Global Fund
(Section 2519). The United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS,
Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-25; H.R. 1298)
named 14 specific countries, including Guyana, Haiti, and 12
African states, on which U.S. programs directed by the new State
Department HIV/AIDS Response Coordinator would focus.
Although the President could expand the list to include other
nations, some expressed concern that most Caribbean nations were
not named among the 14 priority countries, a region where
HIV/AIDS prevalence is second only to sub-Saharan Africa. The
Senate had rejected (44-51) an amendment by Senator Dodd during
debate on H.R. 1298 to add these Caribbean nations. As noted
above, Congress directed the Administration to name a 15^th country
from a region outside of Africa and the Caribbean to the focus list.
The Administration has yet to comply.
^!Amends current law so that new expropriation claims filed against
the Nicaraguan government by U.S. citizens would not influence
U.S. decisions on whether to apply foreign aid sanctions against
Nicaragua (Section 2511). The Foreign Relations Authorization
Act, FY1994/1995 prohibits U.S. aid to any government that has
nationalized or expropriated property after 1956 owned by an
American citizen and has not returned such property or otherwise

satisfied a submitted claim. Nicaragua falls under this aid
prohibition due to numerous unsettled expropriation claims, but the
restriction has been waived annually for foreign policy reasons. The
intent of Section 2511 is to establish a specific date after which no
additional expropriation claims would be considered in the decision
of whether or not to restrict U.S. foreign aid to Nicaragua.
Supporters of continued assistance note the positive efforts made by
President Enrique Bolanos to address Nicaragua’s economic and
corruption problems, and urge American support. At the same time,
they emphasize that Nicaragua would remain responsible for settling
claims occurring prior to the Bolanos administration that were
properly submitted. The legislation would authorize the Secretary
of State to establish a deadline for submission of any new
expropriation claims that occurred prior to January 9, 2002, a date
corresponding to the inauguration of President Bolanos. Only those
claims filed within 120 days of that deadline would be considered as
properly submitted.⁷
Middle East:
^!Adds a sense of Congress that it is in the U.S. best interests to
negotiate a comprehensive debt reduction package for Iraq and
encourages American allies and Iraq’s creditors in the Middle East
to extend aid and debt and reparations relief to Baghdad (Section

2520).

^!Includes a sense of Congress that the rights of women in Iraq should
be protected after the transfer of authority to Iraq in June 2004
(Section 2521).
^!Supports the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) and
authorizes the creation of a Middle East Foundation (Section 2225).
MEPI, which was announced by the State Department in December
2002, seeks to promote democratic and economic reforms in the
region. This provision would permit the Secretary of State to
designate a private, non-profit organization as the Middle East
Foundation. The Foundation, operating in a similar way as the
existing Asia Foundation and Eurasia Foundation, would receive
proposals and issue grants to non-governmental entities located in
the Middle East to implement projects supporting the goals of MEPI.
Title XXV also makes technical changes to several executive branch reporting
requirements and repeals obsolete sections of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 that
authorized U.S. assistance for victims of previous natural and manmade disasters.

⁷ The House passed similar legislation — H.R. 868 — on March 18, 2003.