From the Congressional Record, April 3, 2003
Pages S4849 - S4856
This is the State Department's section-by-section analysis of the foreign relations authorization bill that State submitted to the Senate.




   This section authorizes appropriations under the heading ``Administration of Foreign Affairs'' for fiscal years 2004 and 2005. It includes funds for executive direction and policy formulation, conduct of diplomatic relations with foreign governments and international organizations, effective implementation of consular programs and its border security component, the acquisition and maintenance of office space and living quarters for the United States missions abroad, provision of security for those operations, and information resource management.

   In particular, this section provides authorization of appropriations for the necessary expenses of the Department of State and the Foreign Service, not otherwise provided for, including expenses authorized by the State Department Basic Authorities Act. These expenses include an authorization for worldwide security upgrades. This section also includes authorization of appropriations for the conduct of U.S. public diplomacy programs, capital investment, representation, protection of foreign missions and officials, emergencies in the diplomatic and consular service, repatriation loans, and payment to the American Institute in Taiwan. This section includes the funding for the final year of the Department's Diplomatic Readiness Initiative aimed to hire 1158 additional employees beyond attrition over a three-year period to fill our staffing gaps (particularly in critical overseas positions), provide a ``personnel complement'' to allow for training, and respond quickly to crises and emerging policy priorities.


   This section authorizes appropriations for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 under the heading ``International Organizations and Conferences.'' It authorizes the necessary funds for U.S. contributions of its assessed share of the expenses of the United Nations and other international organizations of which the United States is a member. In addition, provision is made for assessed contributions to international peacekeeping activities under United Nations auspices.

   This section also authorizes such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2004 and 2005 to offset adverse fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates.


   This section authorizes appropriations for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 under the heading ``International Commissions.'' It authorizes funds necessary to enable the United States to meet its obligations as a participant in international commissions, including those dealing with American boundaries and related matters with Canada and Mexico, and international fisheries commissions.


   This section authorizes appropriations for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 under the heading ``Migration and Refugee Assistance'' to enable the Secretary of State to provide assistance and make contributions for migrants and refugees, including contributions to international organizations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee for the Red Cross, through private volunteer agencies, governments, and bilateral assistance, as authorized by law.


   This section authorizes appropriations for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 for the East-West Center, the National Endowment for Democracy, and the Asia Foundation.



   The Department of Defense provides a variety of airlift support for official Secretary of State overseas travel on a reimbursable basis. The airlift mission involves, for example, transporting armored vehicles necessary to provide a safe environment for the Secretary, when such vehicles are not available in country. The Department of Defense has a two-tiered rate structure for charging for such support. At present the Department of State is paying the higher rate, which is nearly twice as much as the lower. This section would authorize the Department of State to pay the Department of Defense for airlift services at the Department of Defense rate.

   Legislation has already been enacted under which the CIA receives the Department of Defense rate on missions, which the Secretary of Defense has determined to be related to national security objectives (10 U.S.C. 2642). The Secretary of State's travel is similarly aimed at national security objectives, and similar treatment is therefore warranted. This section would therefore amend 10 U.S.C. 2642 to add the Department of State.


   The Department plays a critical role in U.S. Government efforts to ensure that foreign governments consider biotechnology and its applications in agriculture/food on the basis of science. Currently, the Department does not have grant authority for funds that the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs (EB) receives for biotechnology policy programs and for the Business Financial Incentive Fund. Unlike a contractual arrangement, where a contractor provides a good or service to the governmental agency in return for payment, the grant process allows the government and the grantee to enter into a partnership to achieve a shared objective that serves the public good. Grant and cooperative agreement authority would enable the Department to use these funds more effectively, permitting it to work more directly with universities, non-governmental organizations, international organizations, private voluntary organizations, scientific groups, and private sector associations. It is anticipated that grants and cooperative agreements, as well as contracts, would be used to support public-private partnerships, workshops, seminars, media events, speaker programs, and publications. The Department will implement this authority in compliance with applicable statutory and regulatory guidelines governing grants and cooperative agreements. This section provides for up to $500,000 in grant authority each fiscal year.


   In recent years, the Department has experienced a need to stand up a diplomatic facility on very short notice to achieve urgent, high-visibility foreign policy objectives. The most dramatic cases were the situations in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, immediately after the 1998 bombings. A recent example is the immediate temporary facilities in Kabul in the aftermath of the war. Other circumstances demanding immediate action would include, for example, destruction or incapacitation of a U.S. diplomatic facility by a terrorist attack, a natural disaster, or a war or insurrection to which the U.S. is not a party. To ensure that the Department has the flexibility to respond rapidly in emergency situations, this section would provide that not to exceed $15,000,000 of the funds appropriated under the heading ``Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance'' may be reprogrammed to provide immediate response facilities without having to provide advance congressional notification pursuant to any other provision of law, including but not limited to section 34(a) of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2706). In such instances where advance notification would otherwise be required, the Department is required to notify and provide an explanation of the circumstances requiring the deployment of immediate response facilities to the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate as soon as practicable, but not later than 3 days after the obligation or expenditure of such funds. This post-notification procedure is similar to the one provided for in Section 34(c) of the Basic Authorities Act of 1956 for situations involving substantial risk to human health or welfare.

   This authority will not be used to circumvent advance notification where a facility is not an immediately-needed response to an urgent situation. It will be used for existing posts or facilities, but not to stand up a new post or commit initial funds toward a long-term project, such as construction of a New Embassy Compound. Thus, for example, had this authority existed at the time of the war in Afghanistan, it would have been appropriately used for the Phase 1 immediate temporary facilities, but not for the Phase 2 embassy annex and reconstruction.


   The Department, through its Office of Mine Action Initiatives and Partnerships (PM/MAIP), is actively working with non-governmental organizations, foundations, and companies to raise awareness and resources for mine action. In particular, the

[Page: S4850]
Department has developed over two dozen public-private partnerships which promote mine clearance; survivors assistance, education programs, and research and development of promising technologies for finding and destroying landmines. To maximize the effectiveness of these public-private partnerships, it is important that the Department have the ability to enter into grants and cooperative agreements. Unlike a contractual arrangement, where a contractor provides a good or service to the governmental agency in return for payment, the grant process allows the government and the grantee to enter into a partnership to achieve a shared objective that serves the public good. This section provides for up to $450,000 in grant authority each fiscal year.

   By being able to provide grants and enter into cooperative agreements with organizations participating in the public-private partnership program, the Department would be able to provide support to such private sector projects as training demining personnel and mine-detecting dogs; developing training materials and mine risk education materials that teach children and adults about how to recognize, report, and avoid landmines; and research and development into new technologies to increase the effectiveness and speed of detecting and removing landmines. To the maximum extent feasible, grants and cooperative agreements would be used to support mine action activities of non-governmental organizations. The Department will implement this authority in compliance with all statutory and regulatory guidelines governing grants and cooperative agreements.


   This section would provide necessary authorities for the operation of the new U.S. Diplomacy Center at the Department of State. As envisioned, this Center would be dedicated to creating a better understanding of the history and practice of United States diplomacy. The Center would organize and sponsor educational and outreach programs, including conferences, seminars, and educational materials. It would also include a museum area, focusing on the history of U.S. diplomacy in safeguarding U.S. security, searching for peace, increasing prosperity, promoting U.S. values, and protecting U.S. lives abroad. As is customary in connection with such activities, the Center should include appropriate visitor services such as a museum shop, and should be able to pay for reasonable expenses in connection with conferences and outreach activities, such as refreshments and travel of participants. This legislation would provide clear statutory authority in these areas. Authority is also provided to retain fees to support the Center's activities. It would also include authority to dispose and lend museum artifacts and materials, similar to the authority already provided to the Department of State for the Diplomatic Reception Areas on the seventh and eighth floors of the Harry S Truman Building. Consistent with the Code of Ethics for Museums of the American Association of Museums, the legislation provides that proceeds from disposition of museum holdings can only be used for collection purposes. This section also provides that, except as may be identified subject to reprogramming procedures, the Bureau of Public Affairs may not expend more than $950,000 in fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may. be necessary in fiscal year 2005 for the U.S. Diplomacy Center.


   The Department is actively pursuing outreach programs designed to educate the American public about foreign affairs issues and the development and implementation of foreign policy. In particular, the Bureau of Public Affairs is working with a number of nonprofit organizations (such as academic institutions of higher learning, organizations representing associations of American educators, local organizations or community groups, and broadcasting entities) in order to reach different sectors of the domestic audience.

   In certain situations, a grant or cooperative agreement is a more appropriate vehicle than a contractual agreement to meet the Department's goals. Unlike a contractual arrangement, where a contractor provides a good or service to the governmental agency in return for payment, the grant process allows the government and the grantee to enter into a partnership to achieve a shared objective that serves a public good. In this case, the shared purpose is to educate the American public on foreign affairs matters in a factual and fair manner.

   The Department would continue to use its existing contract authority for many activities and would exercise authority to enter into grants and cooperative agreements only in those limited instances where appropriate. The Department will implement this authority in compliance with applicable statutory and regulatory guidelines governing grants and cooperative agreements.



   The proposed changes to the education allowance in 5 U.S.C. 5924(4) would: (1) allow for educational travel to the United States for children in kindergarten through 12th grade, when schools at post are not adequate; (2) allow for educational travel to a school outside the United States for children at the secondary and college level; (3) provide for educational travel at the graduate level for children who are still dependents; (4) permit payment of fees required by overseas schools for successful completion of a course or grade; and (5) allow the option of storing a child's personal effects near the school during their trip home, rather than transporting it back and forth.

   Currently, when families are serving in a post without adequate local school facilities, the law allows for transportation of children in kindergarten through 12th grade to the nearest place where there is adequate education. For instance, if an employee is assigned to Guinea-Bissau, transportation for his/her dependents is calculated based on hub-points in Europe (London and Rome). This causes significant financial hardships for families, who are often serving in the most difficult overseas assignments, and whose children are in school in the United States. By changing the wording of the law to allow transportation back to the United States, the transportation component will ensure that parents can afford to send their children to the United States for an American education.

   On the other hand, when a child has reached the secondary or post-secondary level, aside from a limited exception, current law allows payment for travel only to and from a school in the United States. This amendment would permit transportation to schools outside the United States as well. It would also allow educational travel at the post-baccalaureate level, when a child is still a dependent but has graduated from college. This would be consistent with what is allowed for military member dependents.

   Overseas schools frequently require participation in programs that would not fall into the category of expenses considered ``ordinarily provided without charge in the United States,'' as described in 5 U.S.C. 5924(4)(A). For example, students may be required to participate in a cultural studies program that may include mandatory field trips. The proposed amendment would allow associated costs to be paid with the education allowance.

   Finally, the proposed amendment would allow for local storage of a child's effects in lieu of transporting them back and forth during school closings for students in kindergarten and elementary school as well as higher levels of education, provided that payment for local storage would not exceed the cost of transport. Section 319 of the FY 2003 Foreign Relations Authorization Act (P.L. 107-228) added this option for educational travel under 5 U.S.C. 5924(4)(B), and this amendment would extend the option to educational travel under 5 U.S.C. 5924(4)(A).

   In addition, this section makes technical amendments including Puerto Rico as part of the ``United States,'' eliminating language referring to the Canal Zone, and removing a reference to an irrelevant statute.


   Foreign Service annuitants hired on a full-time basis have their annuities terminated. Those employed on a parttime, intermittent or temporary basis face a cap on the total sum of their salary and their retirement annuity. The ``dual compensation restrictions'' on Foreign Service annuitants, many of whom have unique experience and talents, hamper the Department's ability to hire these individuals to meet mission needs. This section amends the Foreign Service Act to allow the Secretary of State and heads of other relevant agencies to waive these restrictions for positions for which there is exceptional difficulty in recruiting or retaining a qualified employee.

   Section 824(g) of the Foreign Service Act was last amended in 1988 to authorize the Secretary to waive the annuity limitations on re-employed Foreign Service annuitants on a case by case basis if the annuitant is reemployed on a temporary basis due to an emergency involving a direct threat to life or property or other unusual circumstances. This amendment extended to the 10 Foreign Service a waiver authority that had existed and currently exists for the Civil Service.

   Subsection (a) again seeks to amend section 824(g) of the Foreign Service Act, and again to extend a waiver authority to the Foreign Service that already exists for the Civil Service. It would provide the Secretary authority to waive the annuity limitations for annuitants reemployed on a temporary basis in positions for which it is exceptionally difficult to recruit or retain qualified employees. This authority, which we do not expect to be used very often, would better enable the Department to recruit and retain. highly qualified persons necessary, for example, to meet our mission needs in the war on terrorism and in our public diplomacy efforts.

   Subsection (b) indicates that effective October 1, 2005, section 824(g) will revert to its current form.


   This section clarifies the authority underlying a current exchange program between the foreign affairs agencies of the United States, the European Union, and its member states, created to promote collaboration among its young leaders. Under this very successful program, Foreign Service officers are identified on an annual basis to serve one-year details at the European Union in Brussels and designated European foreign ministries. After the Foreign Service Officers complete the details at the EU or in the foreign ministries, they are assigned to a position in the U.S. embassy in the relevant

[Page: S4851]
European capital. Conversely, the State Department also will receive members of the diplomatic corps from the European Union and designated foreign ministries. While the present program is limited to EU members, it may be that this program could be extended to other designated countries.

   This provision renders moot a potential legal concern under the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution (Article 1, section 9, clause 8). The Emoluments Clause provides that no person holding an office of profit or trust under the United States may, without the consent of Congress, accept an emolument from a foreign state. Under the Fellowship of Hope program, diplomats from the Commission and designated foreign countries accept an emolument from a foreign state through the course of compensation by their own government. However, these diplomats are also holding an office of profit or trust in the U.S. government. Explicit Congressional authority for the exchange program would obviate any issue regarding the Emoluments Clause.

   The Secretary will be responsible for administering this program consistent with the national security and the foreign policy interests of the United States. In particular, it should be noted that information security considerations have been carefully considered in the implementation of this exchange program. Moreover, the Secretary will consult with the Department of Justice or the Central Intelligence Agency, as appropriate, to meet these responsibilities.


   This section clarifies the Department's authority to make technical corrections or enter into settlements of claims or grievances brought by its employees involving lost pay, allowances, or differentials. These complaints may involve simple technical ``glitches'' in the payment of salary or benefits, for which the Department (like other agencies) routinely retroactively corrects the payment or makes a payment as appropriate. Administrative adjustments also may be required in order, for example, that a member of the Foreign Service is made whole in connection with a retroactive promotion.

   In addition, the Department routinely settles non-Title VII claims brought by Civil Service employees before the Merit Systems Protection Board, or those brought by Foreign Service employees before the Foreign Service Grievance Board. In settling or compromising such claims, the normal authority for the payment of back pay would be the Back Pay Act (5 U.S.C. 5596). However, as is the case with most settlements, the Department does not usually make any admission as to liability, and therefore does not make a finding of an unwarranted or unjustified personnel action under the provisions of the Back Pay Act. This section would make clear that no such finding would be necessary in the event of a settlement or compromise of a claim or grievance which otherwise is in accordance with all provisions of the Back Pay Act.

   The Department is seeking this provision as clarification to resolve back pay claims consistent with the spirit of conciliation that underlies settlements generally. This provision is not meant to question the current ability of agencies to settle claims without admitting fault.


   This amendment brings the Foreign Service into parity with the Civil Service. Current statutes, in particular, 5 U.S.C. 7512 and 7513, permit an indefinite suspension or enforced leave of an employee during an investigation into the revocation of a security clearance, where a security clearance has been suspended, where there is reasonable cause to believe the employee has committed a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment may be imposed, or for such other cause as will promote the efficiency of the service. The due process requirements in this amendment are the same as those afforded Civil Service employees.

   ``Reasonable cause'' may include, but is not limited to, an indictment or circumstances attendant to an arrest or investigation conducted by the Department or criminal law enforcement authorities. The Board is substantially constrained in what it may review with respect to suspensions and enforced leave authorized by this amendment. The Board will not, for example, have the authority to review the merits of any security clearance revocation investigation, which triggers a suspension under this amendment. In reviewing any suspension or enforced leave under this amendment, it is the Department's expectation that the considerable body of law interpreting 5 U.S.C. sections 7512 and 7513 will guide the Board. Decisions as to whether or not to grant the employee back pay upon the resolution of the underlying matter will be at the discretion of the Department. Under no circumstance may the Board grant prescriptive relief with respect to an indefinite suspension or enforced leave.

   SEC. 306. HOME LEAVE.

   This section reduces the time period for eligibility for home leave from 18 to 12 months. In addition, this amendment provides that members may take authorized rest and recuperation travel under section 4081(6) even if they take accrued, unused home leave authorized by this amendment. This would ensure that eligibility for R&R would not be affected if someone took home leave while on other travel to the United States.

   The effect of these two amendments will be to facilitate members to take home leave during tours of duty (including at R&R posts) rather than at the end of their tours of duty as is the Department's current practice. The Department does not plan, however, to change its current policies related to the authorization of home leave travel, i.e., that members take home leave normally at the end of a two-year tour or at the midpoint of a four-year tour. This amendment simply provides some flexibility.


   In section 172 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY 1988 and 1989 (P.L. 100-204), the Congress expressed its objective that the contributions of Civil Service employees to the Department of State would not be overlooked and would be adequately protected. It therefore established an Ombudsman for Civil Service Employees in the Office of the Secretary. This section is intended to enhance the responsibilities of the Ombudsman to better serve the Department's mission.

   This provision further ensures that the Ombudsman would continue to report directly to the Secretary, and will have the ability to participate in meetings regarding management of the Department in order to be able to protect the interests of all Department employees.


   This section repeals the provision in the Foreign Service Act that requires the Secretary to establish a recertification requirement for members of the Senior Foreign Service (SFS) that is equivalent to the recertification process for the Senior Executive Service (SES).

   In section 1321 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296), the Congress repealed the recertification 14 requirements for SES employees contained in title 5 of the United States Code. The rationale was that these periodic recertification requirements for the SES did not serve a useful purpose. We believe the same rationale applies to the SFS.



   This provision would set at 27.1% for calendar years 2004 and 2005 the cap on UN peacekeeping assessments. This would allow the United States to pay its peacekeeping assessment in full in 2004 and 2005. This provision will allow us to avoid accruing future peacekeeping arrears.



   Overview: This section amends section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (``INA'') (8 U.S.C. 1189), authorizing the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury (the ``Secretary''), to designate foreign terrorist organizations (``FTOs''), in order to improve the statutory designation procedures. It eliminates the statute's redesignation provision, requiring the Secretary instead to review FTO designations regularly, and it adds a procedure for amending designations.

   Amending the Redesignation Requirement: The Duration of Designation provision removes the requirement for the Secretary to redesignate FTOs every two years for designations to remain in effect. It permits an FTO designation to remain in effect until it is revoked by an Act of Congress or by the Secretary or set aside by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

   The Review of Designation upon Petition provision requires the Secretary to review the designation of an FTO if a designated organization petitions the Secretary for revocation once two years have elapsed from the date of its designation. It also requires such review if an organization files another petition once two years have elapsed from the date of its last petition. This provision requires the Secretary to issue a determination on a petition for revocation within 180 days. It also permits an organization to petition for judicial review of the Secretary's determination within 30 days after that determination is published in the Federal Register.

   The Other Review of Designation provision requires the Secretary to review the designation of each FTO at least once every four years in order to determine whether it should be revoked, even if the organization does not submit a petition for revocation. Absent such a petition, this automatic review would be completed according to procedures to be developed by the Secretary, and there would be no judicial review. This periodic review is intended as an 17 automatic check on the continued vitality of a designation, even in the absence of a petition for revocation by the designated organization.

   With 36 FTOs designated as of March 2003, and others on the way to designation, the demands that the current statutory requirement to redesignate organizations every two years imposes on the interagency counterterrorism workforce are great. Each redesignation requires an interagency review process and preparation of an administrative record that can take months. The time demands associated with proving repeatedly

[Page: S4852]
that terrorist groups have retained their character as terrorists significantly drain resources from other pressing counterterrorism work, including the pursuit of additional designations pursuant to section 219 of the INA, section 212(a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182) (designation of terrorist organizations for immigration purposes), and Executive Order 13224 (terrorist financing).

   The proposed changes would streamline the current procedures and permit a more effective use of USG resources, while ensuring that the Secretary would regularly review an organization's designation to determine if it should be revoked. The terrorist threat we face has increased greatly since section 219 was enacted in 1996, and now more than ever, the USG needs to marshal its counterterrorism resources as efficiently as possible.

   Aliases: Section 219 does not contain any explicit statutory authority or guidance for making additional alias designations after an organization is designated as an FTO. In designating FTOs, the Secretary of State routinely lists the names of the designated entities together with their aliases, a practice that has been upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Recently, certain groups that have been designated as FTOs have changed their names in an effort to evade asset freezing and other consequences of designation. Some FTOs have dissolved and reconstituted themselves under a different name or names, or merged with other organizations, even while retaining the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism. The difficulty of identifying all of an organization's aliases also can slow down the process of designating an organization as an FTO, creating unnecessary delays that weaken an otherwise powerful tool for combating international terrorism.

   This section would enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the designation process by adding explicit, streamlined procedures for adding new aliases to an underlying designation. It would allow the Secretary, or the Secretary's designee if the Secretary subsequently delegates that authority, to amend the existing administrative record for an organization's designation, rather than requiring the Secretary to create an additional administrative record in support of the amendment.

   This section would require the Secretary of State (or the Secretary's designee if the Secretary delegates that authority) to make amendments in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury (or their designees if they delegate that authority), ensuring that amendments reflect the expertise of Justice and Treasury. Because it is a criminal offence to provide material support or resources to a designated FTO, and because of the asset blocking consequences of FTO designation, it is important that designations be made in consultation with Justice and Treasury. An organization covered by any such amendment also would have the ability to seek judicial review of the amendment or submit a petition to the Secretary for revocation of an amendment.



   The annual restriction that $10M of the ESF designated for Lebanon be withheld from central government until the President certifies their armed forces effectively assert authority over Lebanon's southern border accomplishes little beyond reducing the amount of ESF available to that country. Since none of our ESF assistance monies go directly to the government, but rather to NGOs, this restriction serves neither as a carrot nor a stick from the perspective of the Lebanese government. Rather, this provision restricts our ability to promote democracy and economic development precisely when we have a strong interest in helping Lebanon rebuild its institutions. We believe that using this money in water projects in southern Lebanon will help defuse Lebanese-Israeli tensions and would directly support USG efforts to assure careful management of scarce water resources. Amending this section to allow this funding to be used for water projects would provide more transparency to Lebanese water management and thereby more comfort to Israel, than would be done by keeping this funding in escrow.


   This section reflects the need for meaningfully increasing the congressional notification thresholds for arms sales and exports beyond the relatively modest increases for NATO and Japan, Australia and New Zealand enacted in section 1404 of the FY 2003 Foreign Relations Authorization Act. These recent increases will only minimally reduce the number of congressional notifications required and will, therefore, result in the continued notification of what are often rather insignificant sales of defense articles or services, particularly since the recent threshold increases apply to so few countries.

   The proposed revision would in effect repeal the modest increases enacted last year and substitute in their place new notification thresholds for defense sales and exports applicable to all countries as follows: $100,000,000 for Major Defense Equipment; $200,000,000 for other defense articles and services; and, $500,000,000 for design and construction services, sold via Foreign Military Sales. The Administration plans to enhance its process for consultation on cases of lesser value that may nonetheless be sensitive in order to ensure an opportunity for Congressional input and oversight. In that regard, the Administration would be prepared to an exchange of letters with the chairs and ranking members of the SFRC and the HIRC, indicating that we would notify cases of concern to the committees even though they might be of a lesser value than the higher thresholds proposed by in this amendment.


   The Security Assistance Act of 2000 converted into a legal requirement the policy which set as a prerequisite for a foreign country qualifying for a country exemption from defense export licensing that the country have entered into a binding bilateral agreement committing it to apply specific defense export controls comparable to those of the United States. Fundamental differences between U.S. law and the legal regimes of the two countries with which the U.S. commenced negotiations in July 2000, Australia and the U.K., have proven that the specific commitments required by the law are in many instances too strict or specific, making it very difficult, if not impossible, to conclude an agreement that will satisfy all the Act's requirements.

   To overcome this undue constraint on the President's otherwise extremely flexible authorities to control commercial defense trade, it is imperative, at very least, that appropriate legislative relief be provided. The amendment would allow the President to waive any of the law's specific requirements for the agreement. This would give the Administration, in this case the State Department, latitude to conclude the best agreements that are achievable, and that represent in its judgment sufficient significant improvements in a country's defense export regulatory regime so as to justify extending an exemption from U.S. defense export licensing requirements. A second proposed revision would narrow the scope of the commitments required of a foreign country, to comport more with reasonable expectations that a country would be 21 required to apply its enhanced defense export controls mainly to U.S. origin defense items that are exempt from U.S. licensing, which are harder to keep track of, versus those items in that country that are subject to U.S. licenses.


   Subsection (a) authorizes $4,414,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2005 for Foreign Military Financing (``FMF'').

   Subsection (b) authorizes $91,700,000 for fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be necessary for Fiscal Year 2005 for the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program. This requested level of funding for 2004 is an increase of $6,700,000 over the Congress' authorization of appropriations for fiscal year 2003 and reflects the Administration's strong support for the IMET program.

   Subsection (c) authorizes $385,200,000 for fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2005 for ``Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs.''


   This section provides a permanent annual waiver for the restrictions contained in subsection (d) of 22 U.S.C. 5952 and the requirements of section 502 of the Freedom Support Act (Public Law 102-511). Section 1306 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2003 (Public Law 107-314) provided authorization for an annual waiver only for Fiscal Years 2003 through 2005. This permanent annual waiver would ensure continuity for program planning purposes.


   This provision amends section 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act to require congressional defense export notifications for comprehensive defense export authorizations. Specifically, the existing procedures for such notifications of commercial defense exports applicable under section 36(c) shall now apply in the case of comprehensive defense export authorizations set forth in section 126.14 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations where the estimated total value of the transfers anticipated at the time of application meets the value thresholds of subsection (c) (1). The amendment addresses a Congressional concern that the congressional notification provided by the Administration for the Global Project Authorization, a type of comprehensive defense export authorization provided for in the above mentioned regulation, may not have necessarily been viewed to be covered by section 36(c), despite the willingnesss to provide such notification. This amendment will clarify that such notifications are to be provided, pursuant to the statute.


   The amendment would expand the scope of the authority under section 65 of the Arms Export Control Act to loan items for cooperative research and development beyond the current NATO and major non-NATO ally recipients to include ``friendly foreign countries'' as that term is used in section 27(j)(2) of the Act. It would permit the loan authority to be used in a manner that corresponds

[Page: S4853]
to that for the countries with which cooperative activities may be conducted under section 27.


   This proposal seeks to establish the same dollar limit for advance notification to Congress for all excess defense articles. Currently, Congress requires advance notification of all transfers of excess defense articles that are Significant Military Equipment (SME), whereas Congress only receives advance notification for those transfers of other excess defense articles valued at $7 million or more. SME are articles for which special export controls are warranted because of their capacity for substantial military utility of capability. This proposal would apply the $7 million advance notice threshold to transfers of all excess defense 23 articles, including SME. This would reduce the number of congressional notifications sent annually to Congress.


   This proposal allows the President to waive the requirement that net proceeds resulting from the disposal of defense articles provided to a foreign country on a grant basis be paid to the United States. Existing law limits the waiver authority to items delivered before 1985. This proposal supports the goal of reducing the volume of defense articles worldwide, and reduces the potential that Defense articles inadvertently may fall into the hands of parties hostile to the United States. This legislation would retain the requirement that the net proceeds greater than 5 percent of the original acquisition value needs to be paid to the United States Government, absent a Presidential determination that a waiver is in the national interest of the United States.


   This proposal provides the United States increased authority to transfer obsolete or surplus defense items to Israel, in exchange for concessions to be negotiated by the Secretary of Defense. Section 514 of the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321h) provides that defense articles included in DoD War Reserve Stocks (WRS) be transferred to foreign governments only through Foreign Military Sales (where the foreign government buys the articles) or through grant military assistance (where the value of the article is counted against military assistance appropriations provided for the recipient country). The DoD maintains a WRS stockpile in Israel. This is a separate stockpile of U.S.-owned munitions and equipment set aside, reserved, or intended for use as war reserve stocks by the U.S. and which may be transferred to the Government of Israel in an emergency, subject to reimbursement. The DoD now seeks authority from Congress to transfer to Israel certain of these WRS stocks to Israel. In return for transferring these stocks to Israel, the U.S. would negotiate equivalent value concessions from the Government of Israel. This initiative is not without precedent. During 1995-96 pursuant to section 509 of the FY94/FY95 Foreign Relations Authorization Act (P.L. 103-236), the U.S. Government provided $66.62M (fair market value) of WRS equipment to the Republic of Korea (ROK) for equivalent value concessions. This proposal would allow the U.S. to receive fair market value consideration, relieve the U.S. Government of storage and other stockpile maintenance costs, and avoid millions in cost to demilitarize, destroy, or retrograde munitions and equipment back to the U.S.


   This proposal would allow the United States to transfer excess items to the DoD War Reserve Stock in Israel. Section 514(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961, provides for DoD War Reserve Stockpiles in a host country that remain the property of the U.S. government. These stockpiles enable equipment and supplies to be prepositioned in key parts of the world to enhance U.S. and host country defense readiness. DoD maintains a War Reserve Stockpile in Israel that directly supports the U.S. European Command's strategy for the defense of Israel. This proposal is necessary to allow the U.S. to transfer excess items to the War Reserve Stockpile in Israel. The transfer allows excess assets to remain under U.S. title but shifts the costs for maintenance, storage, transportation, and demilitarization of the excess munitions to Israel. By agreement with Israel, the U.S. does not pay for the storage, maintenance, transport, and warehousing of assets designated as War Reserve Stockpile, although the assets remain under U.S. title.


   The United States provides cataloging data and services to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and member governments on a reciprocal basis. The United States also provides such services to several non-NATO countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, but on a reimbursable basis under foreign military sales. There are instances when the interests of the United States would best be served if such data and services could be provided to a non-NATO country under a reciprocal agreement. This section would authorize 25 the President to provide such services to non-NATO countries on a reciprocal basis.

   For almost 50 years, the NATO Codification System, which is based on United States standards for naming, describing and numbering items of supply, has served as the cornerstone for interoperability between the United States and its NATO allies. Many non-NATO countries that participate in joint exercises and deployments with the United States have adopted the NATO Codification System. Facilitating the provision of United States cataloging data for materials produced in the United States has been and continues to be in the Nation's strategic interest. This is especially true in light of contingency operations that have and may be initiated in the war on terrorism.


   This amending legislation would extend the authority contained in P.L. 107-57 to make inapplicable for FY 2004 foreign assistance restrictions relating to coups with respect to Pakistan and. would waive for FY 2005 any coup restrictions applicable in that year so long as the President exercised that authority prior to October 1, 2005, the amended and extended date of expiration of this amendment. It would also make inapplicable foreign assistance restrictions relating to debt with respect to Pakistan through fiscal year 2005. With respect to missile sanctions, the amendment would extend the authority of current law waiving the notification period for a missile sanction waiver with respect to any sanctions imposed on foreign persons in Pakistan. It would also continue the reduced notification period for drawdowns and transfer of excess defense articles.

   The coup waiver of section 508 of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act in Section 1 is most critical for Pakistan. Section 1(b)(1), as amended, would legislatively extend the authority to waive coup-related sanctions for Pakistan for FY 2004 and FY 2005--the President has waived the sanction for FY 2003 under the current authority. Five (5) days advance notice to Congress required under P.L 107-57 is continued. Section 2, as amended, would waive the requirement for a 45 day advance notification to Congress prior to waiving the missile 26 sanctions imposed on Pakistan pursuant to section 73 of the AECA with respect to any such sanctions imposed on foreign persons in Pakistan (versus waiving only with respect to those sanctions imposed prior to January 1, 2001, which would have already expired in any event). Section 3 exempts Pakistan from foreign assistance prohibitions in section 512 of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act relating to loan defaults by foreign nations and similar restrictions contained in the Foreign Assistance Act through fiscal year 2005, the period through which the exemptions or waiver authority with respect to the coup sanctions would be extended by these amendments.


   General: The International Parental Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2003 would amend Section 212(a)(10)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and is proposed to provide additional tools to deter international parental child abduction and/or wrongful retention, and to create incentives for the return of children abducted from or wrongfully retained outside the United States by their foreign national parent or others., This measure's efficacy in particular cases of international child abduction will necessarily depend in large part on the degree to which the taking parent and/or their family members desire to travel to the United States and apply for a visa. Unlike legislation proposed last year in the Government Reform Committee, this measure would not adversely affect the lives or travel of innocent adult American citizens. This legislation also seeks. to avoid certain counterproductive definitional difficulties from which the earlier proposals suffered, while achieving many of the same results intended.

   Section 702(a)(3). This provision would expand the range of persons who could be designated inadmissible by the Secretary of State in international child abduction and wrongful retention cases, even though those individuals were not culpable in the abduction or wrongful retention. This would be accomplished by amending existing subclause (III) of INA 212(a)(10)(C)(ii) to include a wider range of persons who could be designated inadmissible based on their familial connections to an abducting alien.

   Sections 702(a)(4) and (5). This language specifies the circumstances under which inadmissibility based on any one of subclauses I, II, or III of INA 212(a)(10)(C)(ii) will terminate. It also makes a purely technical amendment to clarify that the concluding clause of (C)(ii) is the operative provision for subclauses (C)(ii)(I), (II), and (III). As originally enacted, the concluding clause is erroneously printed as if it were part of subclause (III), when it in fact clearly applies to each of subclauses (I)-(III). Finally, the concluding clause is amended to provide that inadmissibility based on (C)(ii) would terminate with the return of the abducted child or the child's attainment of age 21.

   Section 702(b). This would create new subsections (iv)-(vii). Subsection (iv) would (1) make explicit the Secretary of State's authority to cancel designations of inadmissibility applicable to relatives of abductors,

[Page: S4854]
and (2) make clear that inadmissibility pursuant to subclauses (I) and (II) (which is not discretionary) will expire only on occurrence of the events specified in INA 212(a)(10)(C)(ii) (the return of the abducted child or the child reaching age 21). These amendments will maximize the leverage available to the Department when inadmissibility is used to encourage relatives to place pressure on abductors for the return of abducted children.

   New subsection (v) would require the Department of State to identify the persons potentially inadmissible under clause (ii) of INA 212(a)(10)(C) .

   New subsection (vi) would require the Department to enter the names of persons inadmissible or potentially inadmissible for a visa under subsections (i) or (ii) of INA 212(a)(10)(C) into the visa lookout system. Together these requirements would codify what the Department does through its intake procedures to ensure that individuals who may be inadmissible under the provisions of subsections (C)(i) and (ii) are identified and that their names are entered into the visa lookout system.

   New subsection (vii) defines ``child'' in a way that is not inconsistent with the word's meaning throughout the INA while taking account of concerns about abducted or wrongfully retained children who marry at very young ages, often against their will. The definition proposed seeks to avoid the unintended consequences of potential alternatives. For example, H.R. 5715, introduced last session, would have effectively created a class of permanent children for purposes of the visa ineligibility laws, frustrating the Department's efforts to promote reconciliation and contact within what are often multinational families. The effect of the definition proposed in H.R. 5715 would have been to compromise the rights normally accorded adult U.S. citizens to travel while doing little to promote the return of abducted or wrongfully removed children. This subsection also changes the definition of ``sibling'' to include step- and half-siblings.

   Section 702(c). Finally, this Title includes a requirement that the Department of State report to Congress annually for five years with a description of the operation of 212(a)(10)(C), including data on the number of visas denied and names entered into the visa lookout system on the basis of the statute. The report will provide Congress with information useful to its ongoing communication with the Department about the effectiveness of efforts to deter international parental child abductions and to promote the return of abducted and wrongfully retained American children to the United States.


   Subtitle A--Streamlining Reporting Requirements


   This section would eliminate reporting requirements on progress toward achieving the benchmarks for a sustainable peace process in Bosnia that must be done as long as U.S. ground combat forces continue to participate in the SFOR. Significant reductions in U.S. and allied troops have continued regularly since 1998. Regular briefings to congressional staff (and Members, as desired) are sufficient to address continuing concerns. This is a very timeconsuming report for the Departments of State and Defense.


   This section would repeal this semi-annual report required by section 704 of the FY 2003 Foreign Relations Authorization Act. The State Department, in particular the office of the Special Envoy on Holocaust Issues, offers regular formal and informal briefings to Members and staff on this issue. This report duplicates the information conveyed at these briefings. Moreover, we have no authority to require the ``Eagleburger Commission'' (the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims, or ICHEIC) or the Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany to supply the data needed for this report.


   This report is currently due every two months. This section would change it to a semi-annual requirement. The Administration is in regular contact with Congress on the Cyprus situation. Generally, the situation does not change rapidly in two months. If it did, the Administration would brief Congress immediately.


   This section repeals the two reports required by section 694 of the FY 2003 Authorization Act (P.L. 107-228).

   Section 694(a) requires the Secretary, not later than 180 days after the enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003, and annually thereafter to report to Congress on the status of activities funded or authorized, in whole or in part, by the Department or the Department of Defense in Colombia to promote alternative development, recovery and resettlement of internally displaced persons, judicial reform, the peace process, and human rights. This report duplicates material from a number of other reports on Colombia:

   USAID includes much of the information that Section 694(a) requires in the Congressional Budget Justification it submits annually. For each program area, USAID provides progress on implementation.

   Although it does not specifically address U.S.-funded activities, the Department's annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices contain detailed information concerning human rights and internally displaced persons in Colombia.

   Although not specifically required to report on internally displaced persons, judicial reform, the peace process, and general human rights matters, a number of other reports typically include information on these issues:

   Pursuant to section 564(c) of the FY 2003 Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-7), the Secretary is required to submit two reports and certifications to Congress in conjunction with the obligation of funds for the Colombian Armed Forces describing actions taken by the Colombian Armed Forces to meet the human rights conditions on the provision of assistance in section 564(a).

   Pursuant to section 3204(e) of the Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2001 (P.L. 106-246), the President is required to report to Congress semiannually through Fiscal Year 2005 on costs incurred by any department, agency, or other entity of the executive branch during the two previous quarters in support of Plan Colombia. Each of those reports includes information on subobligations of funds by the Department of State in support of Plan Colombia.

   Pursuant to section 3204(f) of P.L. 106-246, the President provides a bimonthly, classified report to Congress on the aggregate number, locations, activities, and lengths of assignments for all U.S. military personnel and U.S. individuals civilians retained as contractors involved in the antinarcotics campaign in Colombia. These reports include certain information on contract personnel who are participating in U.S.-funded efforts to promote alternative development, recovery and resettlement of internally displaced persons, judicial reform, the peace process, or human rights.

   Finally, it is burdensome and inefficient to require the Department of State to report on activities of the Department of Defense.

   Section 694(b) requires an annual report on the activities of U.S. businesses that have entered into agreements in the previous 12-month period with the Departments of State or Defense to carry our counternarcotics activities in Colombia. Information responding to some of the information sought in this report is available in the classified report we submit to the Congress bimonthly pursuant to section 3204(f) of P.L. 106-246. We also cannot easily track and report on DOD's contract activities.

   We are also concerned that recurrent, public reporting of the names of businesses under contract to the Department of State to support counternarcotics activities is likely to increase the security risks to these businesses and their employees both in Colombia and the United States. The Department finances contracts for counternarcotics support in Colombia expressly because the Colombian National Police cannot meet the need for all services. P.L. 106-246, as amended by the FY 2002 Foreign Operations Act (P.L. 107-115), already provides limitations on the numbers of U.S. contract personnel permitted in Colombia in support of counternarcotics programs. Moreover, the Department is making every effort to minimize the number of U.S. citizen personnel employed by its contractors. The U.S. Embassy in Colombia continually assesses the potential for U.S. businesses to be involved in hostilities, and the risks to personal safety of their personnel. These risks vary widely from day to day and week to week. A report at any given moment in time would not have general applicability.


   This section repeals Section 3203 of the 2001 Military Construction Appropriations Act. This section requires the Secretary of State to report biannually during the period Plan Colombia resources are made available on extradition of narcotics traffickers from any country receiving assistance in support of Plan Colombia from the U.S. This reporting requirement is burdensome and duplicative of other required reports. For instance, section 696 of the FY 2003 Foreign Relations Authorization Act requires the Secretary of State to submit a report on extradition practice between the United States and governments of all foreign countries with which the United States has an extradition relationship that contains numerous similar requirements. This section 696 report includes: an aggregate list, by country, of the number of extradition requests made by the United States to that country in 2002; the number of fugitives extradited by that country to the United States in 2002; an aggregate list, by country, of the number of extradition requests made by that country to the United States in 2002 and the number of fugitives extradited by the United States to that country in 2002; any other relevant information regarding difficulties the United States has experienced in obtaining the extradition of fugitives; and a summary of the Department's efforts in 2002 to negotiate new or revised extradition treaties and its agenda for such negotiations in 2003. Additionally, the Department's annual International Narcotics Control Strategy Report also contains certain information about extradition from countries worldwide with which we have extradition treaties in force. We would also be happy to brief members of Congress or their staffs on any issues of particular concern.

[Page: S4855]


   This section would eliminate this semi-annual report. The information is already available elsewhere: the Americans killed overseas in terrorist attacks are prominently listed in the Introduction to the Department's annual Patterns of Global Terrorism report to Congress, and the names are available on the State Department's Rewards for Justice web-site. PLO activities are also covered in the semi-annual PLO Compliance with Obligations Under the Oslo Accords Report. Moreover, the names and details of Americans killed overseas in terrorist attacks are well covered in the press. The separate compilation and preparation of a report specifically on American casualties diverts scarce manpower resources from other activities to fight terrorism.


   This section would make the waiver and accompanying report an annual, rather than semi-annual, requirement. The Jerusalem Embassy Act prohibits obligation of more than our annual overseas building acquisition and maintenance appropriation unless the Secretary reports to Congress that we have opened an embassy in Jerusalem. This prohibition may be waived for successive six-month periods on ``national security interest'' grounds; each waiver must be accompanied by a report detailing progress made during the preceding six months on moving our embassy to Jerusalem. Although the reports have not significantly varied from one another, they still require a significant amount of work to draft and clear.


   This section repeals section 620F(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 which addresses efforts made by the United States to achieve regional agreement on nuclear nonproliferation in South Asia and a list of obstacles to such an agreement. The report is duplicative, since South Asia nonproliferation issues are covered extensively in other classified and unclassified reports by State and the CIA. For example, India and Pakistan are included in the major nonproliferation report done annually pursuant to section 1308 of the FY 2003 Foreign Relations Authorization Act and in the CIA's annual ``721 Report'' on proliferation activities.


   Section 25(a) requires the President to submit a report to the SFRC, HIRC, and the House and Senate Appropriations Committees by February 1 of each year listing all FMS and commercial sales of military hardware anticipated in the coming year. Preparation of this report is extremely labor-intensive, as security assistance officers at U.S. embassies around the world must begin compiling data in October. Unfortunately, while this report grows in size and complexity each year, its value and utility are increasingly questionable. Since the report includes all possible U.S. sales of military equipment (760 in 2002) and has a dollar threshold for reporting sales that is half that required for congressional notification of actual sales, it includes a large number of potential sales that are too minor to have genuine military significance, or, in fact, never materialize. In recent years, less than 20% of the entries on the report (58 pages long in 2002) result in actual sales during the reporting year. It is also redundant as a reporting channel. The congressional committees that receive this report also receive similar data for FMS sales on a quarterly basis from reports provided under DSCA under section 36(a)(6) of the AECA which cover all projected FMS sales through the end of the year. Furthermore, prenotification consultations assure that congressional staff are advised of potentially controversial transfers well in advance of formal notification.


   This section seeks to bring the military training report required by section 656 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 into conformity with a very similar report required in the annual Foreign Operations Appropriation Acts (FOAA) and to eliminate those portions of the current section 656 requirement that make it necessary to classify major portions of the report. We intend to seek a similar amendment to the FOAA requirement.

   To bring the section 656 requirement into conformity with that of the FOAA, this amendment ``excludes training provided through sales'' from the reporting requirement and changes the date upon which the report is due to the Congress from January 31 to March 1.

   To eliminate the portions of the report that must be classified due to foreign policy or force protection reasons, this amendment would eliminate the requirement to report on projected training (i.e., ``training proposed for the current fiscal year''), training locations, the U.S. military units providing the training, and training provided through sales. With these changes, a completely unclassified report could be produced that would be accessible to a wider public audience.


   This section would repeal the report on human rights required by section 549 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (added by section 1212 of the FY 2003 Foreign Relations Authorization Act). This report requires the Secretary of State to submit an annual report ``describing, to the extent practicable, any involvement of any foreign military or defense ministry civilian participant in ..... [the IMET program] in a violation of internationally recognized human rights.'' This provision sends the very dangerous signal that the USG will be tracking anyone enrolled in IMET thereafter. This will deter people from participating in IMET and, thus, damage U.S. national security interests. Moreover, while the Bureau of Democracy and Human Rights maintains data necessary to prepare the annual Human Rights Report, data is not systematically collected on individual human rights violators. As a result, if the department were required to report on human rights violators who attended IMET courses prior to the enactment of the Leahy Laws, we would be forced to rely on the records and memories of security assistance officers in U.S. embassies around the world which would likely be of uneven quality.


   The provision in section 1223 (22 U.S.C. 1928 note) requires the Secretary of Defense to provide Congress with various reports on the development of the European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI) within the NATO Alliance. The ESDI would enable the Western European Union, with the consent of the NATO Alliance, to assume the political control and strategic direction of specified NATO assets and capabilities. This report is obsolete and provides information of limited utility. The requested information is no longer relevant and does not reflect the shift in focus between the European Union and NATO.


   The provision in section 1402(b)(2) (22 U.S.C. 2778) requires the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of Central Intelligence, to provide Congress with an assessment of the cumulative impact of licenses granted by the U.S. for exports of technologies and technical information with potential military applications during the preceding 5-calendar year period on the military capabilities of such countries and entities, and countermeasures that may be necessary to overcome the use of such technologies and technical information. This report is redundant with reports already submitted to Congress by the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, and the Central Intelligence Agency.

   Subtitle B--Other Matters


   This section would amend section 102(a) of the Arms Export Control Act so as to permit Presidential waivers to be granted once again on a one-time, rather than fiscal year, basis. When the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 (NPPA) folded section 670 of the Foreign Assistance Act (the so-called ``Glenn Amendment'', dealing with nuclear reprocessing transfers) into the Arms Export Control Act as a new section 102(a), the NPPA modified the waiver authority originally in section 670. This change eliminated the President's ability to grant one-time waivers from sanctions (cutoff of U.S. economic and military assistance) and replaced it with a requirement that any waivers may only be granted in the fiscal year to which they will apply. The ramifications of this change only became clear after there were real cases to deal with. Specifically, any country, having once been determined by President to have violated section 102(a), is placed in an enduring and unchangeable state of annual jeopardy of a U.S. aid cutoff. This is the case even where the activity that triggered the violation was subsequently terminated, the countries involved are not proliferation threats, and the U.S. is fully satisfied with these countries' current nuclear nonproliferation policies and practices. We do not believe that this was the intent of Congress when it made the waiver provision change.

   The re-establishment of the authority for the President to grant one-time waivers under section 102(a) would not eliminate our nuclear nonproliferation leverage under this section since the President has the authority to impose sanctions should any resumed or new activities occur. More importantly, the processing of annual waivers from section 102(a) sanctions for situations long since satisfactorily resolved is not a constructive use of this and future Presidents' time and has a continuing potential to be an irritant to our relations with these countries. The President has no authority to put this situation to rest once and for all absent a change in the law to allow, once again, one-time waivers for Glenn Amendment violations.


   This section authorizes the President to provide assistance to quickly and effectively respond to or prevent unforeseen complex foreign crises. This authority will be used to provide assistance for a range of foreign assistance activities, including support for peace and humanitarian intervention operations to prevent or to respond to foreign territorial disputes, armed ethnic and civil conflicts that pose threats to regional and international peace, and acts of ethnic cleansing, mass killing or genocide. Use of this authority will require a determination

[Page: S4856]
by the President that a complex emergency exists and that it is in the national interest to furnish assistance in response. These authorities will not be used to fund assistance activities in response to natural disasters because existing contingency funding is available for that purpose. This section authorizes appropriation of such sums as may be necessary.


   Washington, DC, April 2, 2003.
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate.

   DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am pleased to transmit proposed legislation to authorize appropriations for the Department of State to carry out its authorities and responsibilities in the conduct of foreign affairs for fiscal years 2004 and 2005.

   The attached FY 2004-2005 Foreign Relations Authorization Bill also contains provisions related to Department of State authorities and activities, organization and personnel, international organizations, security assistance, child abduction prevention, and other miscellaneous provisions.

   Key sections for the Department, in addition to the FY 2004-2005 authorization of appropriations, would raise the peacekeeping assessment cap, provide for a permanent annual CTR waiver, and provide for greater flexibility in our administration of security assistance. Also included is an emergency fund for complex foreign crises which may be important to operations in Iraq.

   Title VII of the proposed legislation, the International Parental Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2003, is designed to deter international abductions and unlawful retentions and pressure an abductor to return a child to the parent with lawful custody. This could provide an important new lever in addressing child abductions worldwide.

   The FY 2004 Budget contains the first step toward a capital security cost sharing program that will ensure that all agencies and departments pay a fair share of the cost of new, secure diplomatic and consular facilities. The full program implementation is now under development, and a legislative proposal may be forwarded at a later date. Other provisions may be submitted in the near future in a supplemental package. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this proposed legislation to the Congress and that its enactment would be in accord with the President's program.

   We look forward to working with the Committee on this important legislation.

Paul V. Kelly,

   Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs.