Table of Contents

• A big aid package for Colombia and its Andean neighbors

• "Tracking" of trainees

• A new name for the School of the Americas

• Reporting of Defense Department counter-drug aid

• Leahy law

• Foreign military training report

• National security assistance strategy

• Changes to the riverine counter-drug program

• Live-fire training at Vieques, Puerto Rico

• Drawdown changes

• Transfers of naval vessels

• International Narcotics Control

• Increasing IMET

• Restrictions on aid to Guatemala

• Reports and restrictions on aid to Peru

• Restrictions on aid to Haiti

• Restrictions on aid to Cuba

• Notification for Colombia and Haiti

• Urban MEDRETEs

• Report on the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies

A big aid package for Colombia and its Andean neighbors

In July 2000 a $1.3 billion appropriation for Colombia, its neighbors, and U.S. counter-drug agencies was approved as part of the 2001 Military Construction Appropriations bill (Title III of Division B, H.R. 4425, Public Law 106-246). The aid package is discussed in detail on a separate page.

Aid to other countries

Colombia’s neighbors get about $180 million in assistance from this aid package, $87 million of it for their military and police forces. $110 million will go to Bolivia ($25 million police/military, $85 million economic), $32 million to Peru (all for KMAX helicopters for the Peruvian National Police), $20 million to Ecuador ($12 million police/military, $8 million economic), and $18 million in military/police aid for other countries in the region.

Forward Operating Locations (FOLs)

The supplemental appropriation also contained funding for U.S. agencies with counter-drug responsibilities. This included $116 million for improvements to U.S. Forward Operating Locations (FOLs) in Ecuador ($61.3 million), Aruba ($10.3 million) and Curacao ($43.9 million), plus funds for planning and design of a new site in El Salvador ($1.1 million).

FOLs are arrangements that allow U.S. military, DEA, Coast Guard and Customs personnel to use existing airfields in Central America, the Caribbean and South America as platforms for U.S. counter-narcotics flights. U.S. aircraft on detection and monitoring missions have access to runways and other facilities at three locations: Manta, Ecuador; Aruba and Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles; and Comalapa, El Salvador. The Manta and Aruba-Curaçao sites were established in 1999, and an agreement with El Salvador was signed in 2000. The third FOL currently being established in El Salvador did not receive a large amount of funding through the military construction appropriations bill because the agreement between the United States and El Salvador was not finalized until after the bill’s passage.

Section 139 of the 2001 Military Construction Appropriations Act (H.R. 4425, Public Law 106-246) requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the FOLs' construction, security and operation. The report must include a detailed schedule for making them operational, including cost estimates; a description of each site’s capabilities and relationship to the overall counter-drug strategy; a plan explaining how the FOLs will satisfy the operating requirements of U.S. agencies with counter-drug responsibilities; a plan for guaranteeing the security of FOL personnel from outside threats; and a safety plan. The report is due within 60 days of the bill’s enactment, or September 11, 2000. It may have been classified, however: an October 2000 White House report on the Colombia aid notes, “Per Congressional instruction, the Department of Defense submitted a separate classified report on the FOLs in September of 2000.”

"Tracking" of trainees

Section 202 of the Security Assistance Act of 2000 (H.R. 4919, Public Law 106-280) institutes for the first time a degree of “after-training tracking” of foreign military personnel trained by the United States. The provision adds a new Section 548 to the Foreign Assistance Act, the law governing most U.S. overseas aid programs, requiring the Defense Department to keep a database of its trainees’ subsequent career moves.

All foreign military or defense-ministry civilian personnel trained by the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program after December 31, 2000 will be entered into a database including “the type of instruction received, the dates of such instruction, whether such instruction was completed successfully, and to the extent practicable, a record of the person's subsequent military or defense ministry career and current position and location.”

The House-Senate Conference Committee that drafted the Security Assistance Act’s final version (H. Rpt. 106-868) explained its expectations and rationale for the database.

The conferees expect that the record of a person's subsequent career will include positions held, reports of exceptional successes or failures in those positions, and any credible reports of involvement in criminal activity or human rights abuses. The conferees believe that such a database will improve the effectiveness of foreign military education and training activities by enabling the Department of Defense to better determine: what follow up training may be most appropriate for previously trained personnel; which courses are most effective in improving the performance of foreign military personnel; and where personnel are located in foreign defense establishments who, by virtue of their prior training, are most likely to understand U.S. modes of operation and share U.S. standards of military professionalism. This section does not require, however, that the Department of Defense institute dramatic new collection programs to gather information for the database.

A new name for the School of the Americas

Section 911 of the 2001 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4205, Public Law 106-398) established several changes to the U.S. Army School of the Americas, an institution for the training of Latin American militaries located at Fort Benning, Georgia.

A new section 2166 of Title 10, U.S. Code (the part of U.S. law that governs the military) gives the Fort Benning facility a new name: the "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation."

The renamed school's official purpose shall be "to provide professional education and training to eligible personnel of nations of the Western Hemisphere within the context of the democratic principles set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States ... while fostering mutual knowledge, transparency, confidence, and cooperation among the participating nations and promoting democratic values, respect for human rights, and knowledge and understanding of United States customs and traditions."

The new law allows Latin American civilians and police personnel to attend the school, and requires that the Secretary of State be consulted in the selection of students.

Codifying an existing school policy, the new law requires that each student receive at least eight hours of instruction in "human rights, the rule of law, due process, civilian control of the military, and the role of the military in a democratic society."

Courses given at the school must focus on leadership development, counter-drug operations, peace support operations, disaster relief, or "any other matter the Secretary [of Defense] deems appropriate." It is not clear whether this provision will require any specific changes in the school's curriculum.

The new law allows Latin American civilians and police personnel to attend the school, and requires that the Secretary of State be consulted in the selection of students.

The new law codifies the school's decade-old practice of inviting a "Board of Visitors" to review and evaluate "curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, and academic methods." The board must include the chairmen and ranking minority members of both houses' Armed Services Committees (or surrogates), the senior Army officer responsible for training (or a surrogate), one person chosen by the Secretary of State, the head of the U.S. Southern Command (or a surrogate), and six people chosen by the Secretary of Defense ("including, to the extent practicable, persons from academia and the religious and human rights communities"). The board will review the school's curriculum to determine whether it complies with U.S. laws and doctrine; and whether it is consistent with U.S. policy goals toward Latin America and the Caribbean. Within sixty days of its annual meeting, the Board must submit a report to the Secretary of Defense describing its activities and its recommendations for the "Institute."

The law requires a detailed annual report on the school's activities, which the Secretary of Defense, after consulting with the Secretary of State, must submit to Congress by March 15 of each year.

Reporting of Defense Department counter-drug aid

Section 1022 of the 2001 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4205, Public Law 106-398) requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report detailing the Defense Department’s counter-drug assistance to foreign governments during fiscal year 2000. The report must be submitted to the congressional defense committees and is due on January 1, 2001.

The Pentagon has been authorized to provide counter-drug aid to foreign countries since the passage of Section 1004 of the 1991 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 101-510). Until now, however, the Pentagon has not been required to account publicly for this assistance through a report to Congress.

The new report is an important step for transparency and congressional oversight, as “Section 1004” and similar assistance to Latin America totals over $300 million per year, none of it publicly reported until now. The report must include (1) the total amount of assistance provided to, or spent on behalf of, the foreign government; (2) a description of the types of counter-drug activities carried out using the assistance; and (3) an explanation of the legal authority (such as “Section 1004”) that allowed the aid to be provided.

The House Armed Services Committee’s narrative report (H. Rpt. 106-616) explains the rationale for this new reporting requirement:

Under section 1004 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101 510) and section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105 85), the Department is presently authorized to support various types of foreign assistance ranging from equipment maintenance to military training and intelligence sharing. While the committee recognizes the important role of the Department of Defense in supporting regional allies in combating the flow of illegal narcotics into the United States, the committee believes that any additional counter-drug authorities for the Department should be considered only after a comprehensive review of the current foreign counter-drug support activities of the Department.

Leahy law

Sections of two 2001 funding bills renew the "Leahy Amendment," a measure to ban assistance to foreign military units that abuse human rights with impunity. (The relevant provisions are section 563 of the 2001 Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act [H.R. 5526, Public Law 106-429] and section 8092 of the 2001 Department of Defense Appropriations Act [H.R. 4576, Public Law 106-259].)

This legislation, originally sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), has been added to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill every year since 1997, and to the Defense Department Appropriations bill every year since 1999.

Section 563, the Foreign Operations version of the Leahy Amendment, prohibits the use of funds in the bill (chiefly INC, FMF, IMET, drawdowns and Excess Defense Articles) to assist a foreign security-force unit, if (1) the Secretary of State has credible evidence that the unit has committed gross human rights violations, and (2) “effective measures” are not being taken to bring the responsible unit members to justice.

Section 8092, the Defense Appropriations version of the Leahy Amendment, prohibits the use of Defense Department funds (chiefly "section 1004" and "section 1033" counter-narcotics aid and the Special Forces' "JCET" program) to train a foreign security-force unit, if (1) the State Department informs the Defense Department that the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights, and (2) “all necessary corrective steps” have not been taken. The secretary of Defense may waive this provision if he determines that “extraordinary circumstances” require it. The congressional defense committees must be notified of such a waiver within fifteen days.

Section 563 is more strongly worded than section 8092. While section 8092 is limited to training programs only, the Foreign Operations provision applies to all assistance programs, including arms transfers. While section 8092 calls for vague “corrective steps” to restore a questioned unit’s eligibility, section 563 calls more specifically for “effective measures to bring the responsible members of the security forces unit to justice.” Section 8092 allows the Secretary of Defense to waive this provision if “extraordinary circumstances” exist, while the Foreign Operations measure includes no waiver.

Foreign military training report

Section 571 of the 2001 Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act (H.R. 5526, Public Law 106-429) renews, for the third consecutive year, an annual report on the United States’ training of foreign military personnel worldwide. For every military training activity, the Foreign Military Training Report (or "FMTR") must include the activity's foreign policy justification and purpose, the number of foreign military personnel provided training, the names of their units, the location of the training, the U.S. military units involved, the aggregate number of students trained from each country, the aggregate cost of military training activities with each country, and the operational benefits to U.S. personnel derived from each military training activity.

The law allows the Defense and State Departments to include a classified annex "if deemed necessary and appropriate." The House Appropriations Committee's July 2000 narrative report accompanying its version of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act (H. Rpt. 106-720) added, “the Committee emphasizes strongly that it expects this report to be unclassified and believes that the classified annex should be used only when necessary to protect intelligence sources or methods.”

The report may exclude training purchased by the recipient countries and training of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members. Due March 1, it must be submitted to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, the House International Relations Committee, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Current law already requires a very similar report. In 1999, section 1307 of the 2000-2001 "Foreign Relations Authorization Act" (H.R. 3427, enacted as part of Public Law 106-113) added a new section (656) to the Foreign Assistance Act, requiring that an almost identical report be submitted each year by January 31. Section 656 does not exempt NATO countries or purchased training, and while it allows classified information to be provided in a separate annex, it requires that all unclassified information be posted on the Internet.

National security assistance strategy

Section 501 of the Security Assistance Act of 2000 (H.R. 4919, Public Law 106-280) requires the Secretary of State to prepare and submit to the appropriate congressional committees an annual National Security Assistance Strategy document. Due on April 6, 2001 and on February 1 of each year hereafter, the report must set forth a multi-year plan for security assistance programs. It must explain their fit with the overall U.S. national security strategy and with Defense Department programs, identify overall and country-specific security-assistance objectives, explain how resources will be allocated to meet those objectives, and explain how aid from various programs will be combined to meet objectives. The report, however, is only limited to assistance provided under three programs: Foreign Military Financing (FMF), International Military Education and Training (IMET), and Excess Defense Articles (EDA).

Changes to the riverine counter-drug program

Section 1021 of the 2001 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4205, Public Law 106-398) amends and expands a Defense Department counter-drug assistance program for Colombia and Peru. This program was first authorized by Section 1033 of the 1998 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 105-85).

Section 1033 allowed the Department of Defense to aid the Colombian and Peruvian security forces during fiscal years 1998 through 2002. Section 1033 is often referred to as “the riverine program,” as most of the aid is aimed at improving both countries’ ability to interdict drugs and other contraband being smuggled on rivers. The law directed that not more than $20 million be spent each year from 1999 to 2002.

Extension through 2006, elimination of Peru

Section 1021 extends the riverine program through 2006, but funds may only go to Colombia after 2002. The Senate’s version of the law would have expanded the annual maximum to $40 million, but this was removed from the final version.

Evaluation

Section 1024 of the same bill requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the riverine program's past performance. The report must be drafted by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, and submitted to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2001. It must include (1) the assistant secretary’s assessment of the program’s effectiveness and (2) a recommendation regarding “which of the Armed Forces, units of the Armed Forces, or other organizations within the Department of Defense should be responsible for managing the program.”

The Senate Armed Services Committee’s narrative report (S. Rpt. 106-292) explains the rationale for this report:

The committee is concerned with reports of problems in the management and operation of certain portions of the riverine counter-drug program. While this program has made great strides improving the counter-drug capability of some forces, other forces have had far less success. Therefore, the committee includes a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, to review the riverine counter-drug program and provide a report to Congress on the results of that review.

Expansion to new countries?

Section 1023 of the same bill requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report making recommendations about a possible expansion elsewhere in Latin America of the riverine program. The report must include the Defense Secretary’s recommendations about (1) additional countries, if any, to be included in the program; (2) what additional support, if any, should be provided and why; and (3) a plan for providing support to each country, including a description of the activities to be supported. It must be submitted to the congressional defense committees and is due on February 1, 2001.

The Senate Armed Services Committee’s narrative report (S. Rpt. 106-292) explains that the report responds to concerns "about efforts to seek an expansion of current authority to other nations without a clear plan on how this assistance will be put to the most effective use."

Live-fire training at Vieques, Puerto Rico

Sections 1501 through 1508 of the 2001 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4205, Public Law 106-398) provide a mechanism for determining the future of the U.S. Navy’s Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility (AFWTF) on the island of Vieques, off the eastern coast of Puerto Rico. The Navy occupies nearly two thirds of Vieques, while civilians live on the remaining third; bombing tests have taken place on the island since the 1940s despite regular citizen protests. The AFWTF has been a center of attention since April 19, 1999, when a plane practicing bombing at the facility missed its target by three miles, killing a Puerto Rican civilian AFWTF security guard.

According to a January 2000 agreement, the U.S. Navy is conducting bombing tests on Vieques using inert (non-explosive) bombs, pending the results of a referendum on the facility’s future. The language in the Defense bill codifies this agreement, whose components include the following:

• The municipality of Vieques will immediately receive $40 million in economic assistance. The 2001 Military Construction Appropriations Act (H.R. 4425, Public Law 106-246) mandates that the Defense Department may use the $40 million through 2003, and allows fund transfers to other U.S. agencies better equipped to provide economic assistance. The law specifies that the funds can be used for a health study, fire-fighting equipment, improvements to a commercial ferry pier, construction of an artificial reef, conservation of a natural reef, payments to fishermen for earnings lost due to bombing tests, construction of roads and bridges, apprenticeship and training programs, natural resource preservation, other economic development activities, and the cost of a referendum, discussed below, on the future of live-fire testing.

• The Navy will immediately hand over its Ammunition Support Detachment on the western side of the island to the municipality of Vieques, except for two facilities: a new relocatable over-the-horizon radar (ROTHR) facility and a telecommunications equipment site on Mount Pirata. Conservation zones on this land will be transferred to the Department of the Interior for use as a wildlife refuge.

• A referendum on the future of live-fire training at Vieques must take place 270 days before or after May 1, 2001 (the voting has been scheduled for November 6, 2001). Voters have two options:

1. Allow the Navy to resume live-fire training immediately, and receive $50 million in additional economic assistance.

2. Allow the Navy to conduct inert bombing tests until 2003, when all Navy facilities on the eastern side of the island would be closed and handed over to the Department of the Interior for use as a wildlife refuge. No additional economic assistance would be forthcoming.

Drawdown changes

Section 121 of the Security Assistance Act of 2000 (H.R. 4919, Public Law 106-280) increases to $200 million per year the amount of articles and services the Defense Department may “draw down” from its existing stocks for distribution to other countries. The existing law (section 2318 of Title 22, U.S. Code) allowed such “drawdowns” for only four purposes: counternarcotics assistance, disaster assistance, migration and refugee assistance, and efforts to locate U.S. personnel unaccounted for from the Vietnam War. Section 121 adds two new rationales for drawdowns: anti-terrorism assistance and non-proliferation assistance.

Transfers of naval vessels

Section 1013 of the 2001 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4205, Public Law 106-398) and Section 601 of the Security Assistance Act of 2000 (H.R. 4919) authorize the transfer, through the Excess Defense Articles program (section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act) of naval vessels to several countries worldwide.

These sections authorize the Defense Department to grant Brazil the Thomaston-class dock landing ships Alamo and Hermitage and the Garcia-class frigates Bradley, Davidson, Sample and Albert David. They also allow the transfer to Chile, on a lease-sale basis, of the Oliver Hazard Perry-class guided missile frigates Wadsworth and Estocin. These transfers, the law indicates, need not be counted in the State Department's annual notification to Congress of grant Excess Defense Articles.

International Narcotics Control

The 2001 Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act (H.R. 5526, Public Law 106-429) appropriates $325 million for the worldwide activities of the State Department’s International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INC) program, a significant source of military and police assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean. This exceeds the State Department’s request of $312 million and the amounts initially approved by the House ($305 million) and Senate ($220 million).

In its discussion of the INC appropriation, the House-Senate Conference Committee’s narrative report (H. Rpt. 106-997) praises, “and direct[s] the State Department to favorably consider, Notre Dame University’s program of human rights, democracy, and conflict resolution training in Colombia.” The report also calls on the Secretary of State “to engage the government of Panama in good faith negotiations for the conclusion of an agreement which provides the U.S. military a forward operating location.”

Increasing IMET

Section 201 of the Security Assistance Act of 2000 (H.R. 4919, Public Law 106-280) authorizes a rapid increase in appropriations for the International Military Training and Education (IMET) program. Authorized levels of IMET funding worldwide are set at $55 million in 2001 and $65 million in 2002. This would mean a significant increase over previous years’ worldwide IMET spending ($50.0 million in 1998, $50.0 million in 1999, and an estimated $49.8 million in 2000; Latin America and the Caribbean get roughly 20 percent).

Restrictions on aid to Guatemala

The 2001 Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act (H.R. 5526, Public Law 106-429) renews a prohibition on Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and International Military Education and Training (IMET) assistance for Guatemala’s security forces in 2001. Guatemala remains eligible, however, to receive Expanded IMET assistance, which is open to both military and civilian personnel, and funds courses in defense resource management, doctrine, civil-military relations, human rights and related topics.

Reports and restrictions on aid to Peru

Section 530 of the 2001 Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act (H.R. 5526, Public Law 106-429) requires the Secretary of State to issue a report every 90 days during 2001 determining “whether the Government of Peru has made substantial progress in creating the conditions for free and fair elections, and in respecting human rights, the rule of law, the independence and constitutional role of the judiciary and national congress, and freedom of expression and independent media.” The report, first due on February 4, 2001, must be submitted to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.

If the report finds that substantial progress has not been made, section 530 prohibits further assistance to the Peruvian government. Section 530 also requires that at least $2 million be made available to support the work of Peruvian non-governmental organizations and the Organization of American States on behalf of democracy and human rights in Peru.

The House-Senate Conference Committee’s narrative report on the Foreign Operations bill (H. Rpt. 106-997) directs the Secretary of State to submit a report “evaluating United States, political, economic, and military relations with Peru.” The report, due on December 6, 2000, must be submitted to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.

Restrictions on aid to Haiti

Section 558 of the 2001 Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act (H.R. 5526, Public Law 106-429) prohibits aid to Haiti until the Secretary of State reports to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees that (1) Haiti has held free and fair elections to seat a new parliament, and (2) The director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (or “Drug Czar”) reports to the committees that Haiti’s government is fully cooperating with U.S. drug interdiction efforts. Section 561 of the same act allows the Haitian government to buy weapons and defense services for its Coast Guard, subject to “the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.”

Restrictions on Cuba

In section 507 and 523 of the 2001 Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act (H.R. 5526, Public Law 106-429), Cuba appears on a list of seven countries worldwide (along with Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) prohibited from receiving direct or indirect assistance from any program funded through the Foreign Operations bill. (The People’s Republic of China appears in place of Iran on the list of countries that cannot receive indirect funding.)

Notification for Colombia and Haiti

Section 520 of the 2001 Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act (H.R. 5526, Public Law 106-429) places Colombia and Haiti on a list of ten countries worldwide to which aid cannot be provided “except as provided through the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.” This means that the House and Senate Appropriations Committees must receive at least fifteen days’ notice before any funds are to be obligated for these countries. The chairmen and ranking members of the committees have a limited power to delay (or “hold”) these funding obligations if dissatisfied with the programs' execution.

Urban MEDRETEs

As part of its regular overseas “Humanitarian and Civic Assistance” exercise program, U.S. military doctors, dentists and veterinarians frequently offer health care services to civilians in foreign countries. These activities are normally called Medical Readiness Training Exercises, or “MEDRETEs” (or, in the case of veterinarians, “VETRETEs”). Existing law (section 401 of Title 10, U.S. Code) limits MEDRETEs to rural areas only. Section 1024 of the 2001 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4205, Public Law 106-398) amends the law to allow MEDRETEs to take place in any areas that are “underserved by medical, dental, and veterinary professionals.”

Report on the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies

Section 912 of the 2001 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4205, Public Law 106-398) requires an annual report to the congressional armed services committees on the operations of regional centers for security studies, such as the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies located at Fort McNair in Washington, DC. The report, due by February 1 of each year, must indicate the center's status and objectives, its budget including operating costs, the extent of international participation in its programs, and a description of any accepted foreign gifts and donations.