Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the "Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission Act of 2009" (H.R. 2134) by voice vote. This bill, first introduced by Congressman Eliot Engel (D-NY) at the end of April 2009, would create "an independent commission to evaluate U.S. policies and programs aimed at reducing illicit drug supply and demand in the Western Hemisphere," according to a press release from Rep. Engel's office.

The version of the bill that passed yesterday was only slightly different from the original text, and the overall responsibilities of the Commission remain the same. If passed by the Senate, the 10-member Commission will "conduct a comprehensive review of United States policy regarding illicit drug supply reduction, interdiction, and demand reduction policies." Within 12 months after its first meeting, the Commission must submit a report, which will be made available to the public, that "contains a detailed statement of the recommendations, findings, and conclusions of the Commission."

In May, we wrote a blog entry in which we compared the House's Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission Act to the Senate's "National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009." The Senate's bill, which is more domestically-focused, is up for consideration in the Senate Judiciary Committee first thing tomorrow morning.

Whether one of these bills, or a combination of the two, will become law is still subject to multiple votes and possible revisions in both the House and the Senate. The Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission Act is now headed to the Senate and it is unclear whether it will gain sufficient support for passage. Some analysts suggest that because the bill was treated as uncontroversial legislation and put up to a voice vote in the House, it could enjoy similar treatment in the Senate and pass easily.

Here are some notes on relevant sections of the recently enacted 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, compiled by Senior Fellow George Withers at the Washington Office on Latin America. This bill establishes or renews legal authority for programs that provide about one-quarter of all U.S. assistance to the Western Hemisphere's security forces.

A House-Senate Conference Committee finalized its report (111-288) on the 2010 Defense Autorization bill (H.R. 2647) on Wednesday, October 7th, and sent it to the House floor on the 8th, where it was adopted. The Senate is expected to approve it soon.

Items in the bill of import for Latin American security are as follows:

4 of the 10 sections in Title XII, Matters Relating to Foreign Nations, are of interest.

• Section 1201 - Reauthorizing "Section 1207" transfers to the State Department for economic and social development assistance. Authorizes a one-year extension of authority for the security and stabilization assistance authorities originally set forth in the NDAA FY06 bill, known as "1207 authorities" or "security and stabilization assistance." Of particular interest beyond the bill language is the Statement of Managers language, which reads, in part, "[T]he conferees reaffirm that Congress has always intended for this transfer of authority to be temporary and are disappointed that the Department of State has not yet achieved the capacity to fulfill its statutory requirements. The conferees urge the administration to work toward this goal as rapidly as possible."

• Section 1203 - Annual Report on Foreign Assistance. Makes permanent the earlier requirement that the Department of Defense provide an annual report on foreign-assistance related programs carried out by the Department of Defense. The section also added the humanitarian and civil assistance provided through the Combatant Commander's Initiative Fund as an authority subject to the reporting requirement.

• Section 1204 - State and Defense Authorities Report. Requires a report from the President by March, 2010, on the relationship between security cooperation authorities of the Department of Defense and the security assistance authroities of the Department of State to train, equip or otherwise build the capacity of foreign nations, and to address the distinctions between the authorities. It is another "strengths and weaknesses" report very much like the 1206(f) report in the original NDAA FY06 language, asking for recommendations on whatever changes may be needed to make the authorities more efficient.

  Depending on how such a report is written and implemented, this could have a dramatic impact on either further blurring the lines between State and Defense, or it could finally begin the process of returning these foreign policy authorities to State.

• Section 1206 - Reauthorizing the "Section 1206" program allowing use of Defense budget funds to train and equip foreign militaries. Reauthorizes the original 1206 authorities and makes a minor modification which would limit the amount that could be spent in countries in which the U.S. military is active (essentially Iraq and Afghanistan) to $75 million per year.

Also of interest in Title X, General Provisions:

• Section 1083 - Release of Names of WHINSEC Students and Trainers. Requires the Secretary of Defense to release to the public, upon request, the names of the students and instructors at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC). It includes a provision under which the Secretary may waive the requirement if it is determined to be in the national interest.

• Section 1084 - Sense of Congress Endorsing WHINSEC. The Section 1083 requirement to release names is followed by Section 1084 which is another Sense of Congress endorsement of WHINSEC, noting among other things, that it "promotes democracy, subordination to civilian authority, and respect for human rights," and that it "is an essential tool to educate future generations of Latin American leaders."

Also of interest in Title XXVIII, Military Construction General Provisions:

• Section 2873 - Conditions on establishment of Palanquero Base in Colombia. Requires a notice-and-wait period of 15 days after the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional defense committees that an agreement with Colombia has been reached that allows U.S. military access to the base for the duration of the agreement "to carry out mutually agreed-upon activities." It also prohibits the establishment of a U.S. military installation or base for the permanent stationing of U.S. armed forces in Colombia.

  The Statement of Managers section describes having adopted the House bill provision which makes reference to a requirement that "[A]n agreement has been entered into with the government of Colombia that will enable the United States Southern Command to execute its Theater Posture Strategy in cooperation with the armed forces of Colombia."

  The actual $46 million authorized is found in the Air Force construction tables, in Section 2301.

Rhetoric against Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez often appears in the U.S. Congressional Record, which is the official record of the proceedings and debates of the U.S. Congress. From floor speeches about President Obama's "socialist" tendencies to a push to extend the United States' radio program in Asia to the need for nuclear energy in the United States, President Chávez is often cited as an enemy of the United States.

The excerpts below demonstrate the range of topics that incite the use of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, chiefly by Republicans, in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. All of the comments below were made last week.

• To justify the extension of Radio Free Asia via H.R. 3593 (To amend the United States Broadcasting Act of 1994 to extend by one year the operation of Radio Free Asia, and for other purposes), President Chávez's name was mentioned by Congressman Ed Royce (R-California):

All around the globe, an information war is at play. Iran is spending heavily to block our broadcasting, while beaming its own message into Afghanistan and even the Balkans to sow division. Russia is broadcasting into southeastern Europe as well. Hugo Chavez is crippling local media while bolstering Venezuela's state broadcasts around Latin America, and he is preaching anti-Americanism with those broadcasts. Then there are the 150 sharia-friendly radio broadcasts in Pakistan's Swat Valley. Those are the broadcasts that the Taliban are making in Afghanistan and in northwest Pakistan.

So, from Caracas to Tehran to Pyongyang, these totalitarian regimes understand that controlling information is central to their being. Radio Free Asia is one of our pieces on this chess board.

• Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) compared President Obama to President Chávez in his speech on the House floor on Thursday, "Socialist versus Progressive."

I recall looking at a picture of President Obama standing next to Hugo Chavez, and they asked what I thought. I said, well, my reflection is that there are two huge nationalizers here. Hugo Chavez has been nationalizing right and left in Venezuela, but in the previous 30 days, he had only nationalized a Cargill rice plant, a Minnesota proud, privately held company, and nationalized that rice plant down in Venezuela. He simply said, I don't like the way you are running your rice plant; I will run it. And they will decide what the production is and what the people get paid that work there, and what they are going to pay for the product, and they will take their margin out that goes in to run the Government of Venezuela.

Well, what is going on with General Motors and Chrysler and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and AIG and the three large investment banks, what is different about that?

...

I can't draw a moral distinction between an ACORN shakedown, a Mafia shakedown, or a shakedown that might come from Hugo Chavez or some strongman in some other country. ``You will pay the protection or you will not be in business.''

I wonder if Cargill refused to pay protection in Venezuela and that was why Hugo Chavez nationalized the rice company down there, the rice plant in Venezuela earlier this spring, in about April.

• Congressman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives on Friday about missile defense.

It is, indeed, correct, as the gentleman from Iowa said, that if the Russians had been helping us to pressure the Iranians in a nonviolent embargo approach, that we would be further along in that effort to try to pressure the Iranians to use only a peaceful nuclear program, rather than what we, I think justifiably, suspect for all kinds of concepts that would be going there. We would not have Mr. Morgenthau from New York City, who can never be considered a right-wing radical Republican, talking in newspaper and magazine articles about the interconnect between Iran and Venezuela and how some of the money that was supposed to be stopped in the embargo has been able to be laundered through Venezuela and the connection between this. Eight times Chavez has visited Iran. Iran is now putting money into Chavez' efforts. So I see the future of the problem when we look at the Iranians on the east, Venezuela on the south of our country, the North Koreans on our west coast and realize that we are living in some very perilous times.
...
I'm concerned with our enemies, especially Venezuela, who are clearly malevolent in their approach to us, spreading that document throughout the rest of Latin South America. At the same time, the Iranians are very bellicose, to say the least. And North Korea, who knows what you want to do with him. Those are the concerns. Those are concerns.

• Congressman Trent Franks (R-Arizona) speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives about the "clear and present threat" of Iran.

Moreover, it is just this week--I think this is an important thing to know--Venezuela's Hugo Chavez announced the purchase of more than $2 billion in arms from Russia, including rocket technology, and has declared that Venezuela will get started on a nuclear program with Iran's help. This is some sort of unholy alliance here. To somehow suggest that Russia is going to be a help here, I think, is naive beyond degree.

• Congressman Ted Poe (R-Texas) speaking about the United Nations' role as a "haven for international tyrants."

And let's not forget Hugo Chavez, the tyrant of Venezuela who railed against the United States. He spoke also at the U.N. He is good buddies with the desert rat of Iran. And a New York district attorney recently said that there is evidence that Venezuela is setting up a Venezuelan missile crisis for the United States. Now isn't that lovely. Why do we send U.S. taxpayer money to the U.N. at all? Twenty percent of U.N. funds come from the United States, and the American public is asking: Why? Why do we finance the U.N. that embraces thugs, dictators, terrorists and everyone who hates America and Israel.

• Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee) speaking about the Fiscal Year 2010 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

For instance, right now the Russians are building a commercial reactor for Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. He is not exactly friendly toward the United States. To make things more interesting, Manhattan District Attorney Morganthau recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal that his office has recently uncovered evidence that Iran may be providing Venezuela with missile technology.

Over the past month, Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) and Representative Eliot Engel (D-NY) have introduced separate bills in their respective chambers that attempt to address U.S. public security and drug policy. Each bill aims to set up a bi-partisan commission to address failed U.S. policies and provide recommendations for improvement. While Representative Engel's bill (H.R. 2134) "Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission Act of 2009", focuses entirely on the United States' failed drug policies for both supply and demand, Senator Webb's bill (S. 714) "The National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009" aims to address the troubled criminal justice system in the United States, which by default includes drug policy, international gangs and drug cartels. Rep. Engel's bill is more international in focus, looking at the Western Hemisphere as a whole, yet it appears that Webb's bill has more support within the Senate and, although it does not have a sister bill in the House, may have a better chance of being passed first.

Both bills attempt to tackle issues that warrant the attention of Congress, yet some analysts feel that the similarities among both bills will make it difficult for both to be passed. Below are summaries of both bills, highlighting the main similarities and differences between them.

Representative Engel's bill: The Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission Act of 2009

According to Rep. Engel, the Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission Act of 2009 is "a bill that will create an independent commission to evaluate U.S. policies and programs aimed at reducing illicit drug supply and demand." The purpose of the bill is to "review and evaluate United States illicit drug supply policy, with particular emphasis on international drug policies and programs directed toward the countries of the Western Hemisphere and demand reduction policies and programs. The Commission shall identify policy and program options to improve existing international and domestic counternarcotics policy."

The Commission will assess:

• 1. The effectives of U.S. illicit drug control policies, such as interdiction, crop eradication, and alternative development;
• 2. The impact of Plan Colombia and the Mérida Initiative in curbing drug trafficking and drug-related violence in the region;
• 3. Improved uses of available technology to target major drug cartels; and
• 4. The impact of the U.S. drug certification process in reducing drug production, cultivation and trafficking.

As Rep. Engel introduced the bill in the House, he noted that "Clearly, the time has come to reexamine our counternarcotics efforts here at home and throughout the Americas. My bill will assess all aspects of the drug war--including prevention and treatment programs in the United States." Yet, he continued to specify that this bill is not intended to support the legalization of illegal drugs.

Senator Webb's bill: The National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009

The purpose of the National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009 is to establish a national criminal justice commission, which will, according to Senator Webb, "not to simply talk about the problems that we have in our criminal justice system but actually to look at all of the elements in this system, how they are interrelated in terms of the difficulties that we have in remedying issues of criminal justice in this country, and to deliver us from a situation that has evolved over time where we are putting far too many of the wrong people into prison and we are still not feeling safer in our neighborhoods."

The themes similar to Rep. Engel's bill that will be addressed by Webb's National Criminal Justice Commission include:

• 1. The impact of gangs, both national and foreign-based, in the United States;
• 2. The role of the military in the prevention of crime and the maintenance of stability along national borders; and
• 3. Policies intended to decrease the demand for illicit drugs and improve treatment for addiction.

While this is a far more domestic-focused bill than Rep. Engel's, it does involve taking a look at the role drug policy and international gangs have on the criminal justice system. As a result, it could produce a set of similar recommendations as those that would be addressed in Rep. Engel's Western Hemisphere Commission, but most likely will not go into such details as to how to address U.S. counternarcotics policy.

The U.S. Congress is nearing completion of the 2009 federal budget. On Wednesday, the House passed the "omnibus" spending bill, which combines ten sections of the budget, with a recorded vote of 398 - 24. The Senate will take it up next week.

One of the bill's ten sections is the 2009 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act. This section funds U.S. foreign assistance programs, including most of the military, police and economic aid programs tracked on this website.

The House-Senate Conference Committee, which developed the omnibus bill, offers non-binding instructions for how Congress intends to see some of this foreign aid distributed, country by country. For some aid programs, the committee's narrative report includes recommended aid levels for specific contries.

Below is a table that compares the aid allocated in 2008, the 2009 budget request the Bush Administration issued in February 2008, and the 2009 budget provided in the omnibus spending bill. As can be seen, the 2009 aid bill is smaller than the Bush Administration request, but greater than that allocated in 2008.

The 2009 bill slices into the Bush Administration's request for the Mérida Initiative - allocating only $299 million in lieu of the $499 million requested. The budget justification states that the International Narcotics Control funding allocated to Mexico "does not provide or permit any funds to be used for the purchase or lease of UH-60 transport helicopters, equipment, training or related assistance; such funding will be considered at a later date."

Aid to Colombia remains close to the FY 2008 allocations, and below the higher, more military-focused request submitted by the Bush administration. A more detailed analysis of Colombia-specific aid provided by this bill can be seen on the Center for International Policy blog.

The new bill also allocates a greater percentage of foreign aid to economic and social aid programs than the Bush administration request would have done. In the Bush request, economic and social aid made up 26% of the total allocations, while the 2009 spending bill allocates 39% of the budget to economic and social aid. The amount of economic and social aid also increased from FY 2008 by $132.4 million - which is a factor in why this year's bill is higher than the 2008 bill.

On February 26, the Obama administration issued the broad outlines of its 2010 budget request. It calls for an overall increase in the foreign aid and diplomacy budget, but no details beyond that overall amount are expected until at least April.

The Senate Appropriations Committee finished work last Thursday on its version of the 2009 State / Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, the U.S. government budget legislation that supplies most U.S. aid to Latin America and the Caribbean.

• Excerpts from the Senate's bill are here.
• Excerpts from the Appropriations Committee's non-binding narrative report are here.
• The Bush Administration's 2009 foreign aid budget request, issued in February, is here.

The House of Representatives' Appropriations Committee has also finished its version of the bill; that language is not available yet, though a brief summary press release is here [PDF].

Don't expect this bill to become law anytime soon. The U.S. Congress is only in session for six more weeks between now and the November elections. The Democratic majorities that control both houses are unlikely to hurry and send a bill for a Republican president's signature when they stand at least a 50-50 chance of being able to send a much different bill to a Democratic president in January. Still, this bill is a useful measure of the Senate's view of how foreign assistance programs should evolve.

The bill does not recommend specific aid levels for most countries. In the case of Colombia, however, there are enough recommendations to draw a pretty accurate picture of how the Senate appropriators would assign aid. As the table below indicates, aid to Colombia would remain similar to 2008, which involved a significant cut in military aid and increase in economic aid over 2007 levels. The Bush administration's 2009 aid request sought to undo those 2008 changes; the Senate bill refuses to do so.

Military and Police Assistance
Aid Program	2007	2008 estimate	2009, administration request	2009, Senate Appropriations
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement	386,869,000	247,097,704	329,557,000	241,800,000
Foreign Military Financing	85,500,000	55,050,000	66,390,000	53,000,000
NADR - Anti-Terrorism Assistance	3,395,000	3,288,000	2,750,000	2,750,000
International Military Education and Training	1,646,000	1,428,000	1,400,000	1,400,000
NADR - Humanitarian Demining	691,000
NADR - Small Arms and Light Weapons		427,000
TOTAL	478,101,000	307,290,704	400,097,000	298,950,000
Economic and Social Assistance
Aid Program	2007	2008 estimate	2009, administration request	2009, Senate Appropriations
Economic Support Fund		194,412,000	142,366,000	199,000,000
International Narcotics Control Economic Aid	139,166,000	39,427,296		45,000,000
Transition Initiatives	1,699,970	2,000,000
TOTAL	140,865,970	235,839,296	142,366,000	244,000,000
Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill Total	618,966,970	543,130,000	542,463,000	542,950,000
Military-Police Aid Economic-Social Aid
Other military-police appropriations (est)	126,638,053	126,374,053	126,347,053	126,347,053
Other economic-social appropriations (est)	4,858,000	0	0	0
Total aid to Colombia	750,463,023	669,504,053	668,810,053	669,297,053

(Recall that the Foreign Operations funding bill provides most, but not all, aid to Colombia. Visit the Colombia aid page for the full picture.)

The bill also repeats conditions on the Colombia aid regarding impunity for human rights violations, and the environmental and health impacts of aerial herbicide fumigation.

The Senate bill meanwhile slices deeply into the Bush administration's $500 million request for counter-narcotics aid to Mexico under the "Mérida Initiative," granting $300 million instead. The committee's report recalls that Mexico got $400 million through the special Iraq-Afghanistan war appropriation passed last month, and that this aid will only begin to get spent when the 2009 budget year begins.

Here are some excerpts from the committee's narrative report. (Click to continue)