On Feb. 13, 2009 Rep. Ileana Los-Lehtinen (R-FL) and 18 co-sponsors introduced H.R. 1062, the Partner Vetting System Act of 2009. It would mandate a controversial vetting program for grantees receiving U.S. foreign assistance. It mirrors a rule proposed by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) that would require recipients of U.S. foreign assistance funds to submit detailed personal information on officials and employees to USAID for vetting against "appropriate government databases." Referred to as the Partner Vetting System (PVS), the process is meant to ensure no funds go to persons that are affiliated with terrorist organizations or commit acts of terrorism. Like the proposed USAID rule, the bill leaves key terms undefined, but unlike the USAID proposal, spells out a minimal appeals process for grantees. The bill would require the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID to implement PVS by June 30, 2010. Nonprofits have criticized this list-checking approach as ineffective and detrimental to their work.

Section 2 of the bill begins with a broad claim that "current measures….are insufficient to secure the interest and citizens of the United States at home and abroad." To support this claim, it lists a set of "findings" which are mostly based on news reports that, upon closer examination, do not reveal that any U.S. funds were used to support terrorism. One "finding" notes that a grant went to an organization that was later designated as a supporter of terrorism, implying that the vetting process must predict future events. Nonprofits have questioned whether PVS is the right overall strategy for ensuring USAID resources are used for humanitarian purposes, and not to support terrorist violence. For an analysis on whether PVS is necessary see the Charity and Security Network Issue Brief.

The goal of the bill is to ensure funds do not go to "persons who are affiliated with or support foreign terrorist organizations or who otherwise commit or support acts of international terrorism" (emphasis added). Section 3 of the bill, which contains definitions, does not define what constitutes "affiliation." Support is defined as money, equipment and other items, exempting only medicine and religious materials. This mirrors the problematic definition of "material support" found elsewhere in U.S. law that bars humanitarian aid and conflict resolution programs for persons "associated with" terrorist organizations.

The vetting system proposed in the bill has two parts: list checking and certifications. It would apply to all grants funded under the Foreign Assistance Act, the Freedom Support Act, the Support for East European Democracy Act of 1989, the Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 and the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 and any funds authorized under the International Affairs Budget Function.

The list-checking system would require foreign assistance grant applicants to submit the information listed below on "individuals who are directors, officers, or other officials, or are otherwise employed by such person for the specific project for which the person is applying for funding:"

            • Name
            • Date and place of birth
            • Country of origin and nationality
            • Social security number or foreign equivalent
            • Home address and mailing address
            • Phone number, email address
            • Organizational affiliations

The bill would allow the Secretary of State to modify the requirements where foreign records make it impractical. The collected information would then be vetted "against appropriate United States government databases."

The certification requirement does not clearly limit the number of persons in each organization who would have to sign it. It would require "persons who receive" foreign assistance funds to sign a statement that they "are not affiliated with or do not support foreign terrorist organizations or do not otherwise commit or support" acts of terror. In addition, they must certify they "have taken all reasonable steps to ensure persons for the specific project "also are not affiliated with or support terrorism." There is no list or definition of what constitutes "reasonable steps."

The bill spells out an appeal process that is meant to provide "procedural safeguards relating to denials" of grant applications. When a grant application is denied, the applicant would be entitled to "as comprehensive and detailed a written explanation of the basis for the determination as the national security interests of t he United States and other applicable law permit." The applicant could then request a review by a panel of at least three persons appointed by the Secretary of State, with an opportunity to "appear personally and to present relevant documents, materials, and information." The panel would provide a written decision. If this fails, the applicant would have no right to appeal to federal court.

The bill would require reports from the Secretary of State and the Comptroller General on the implementation of the program. It has been referred to the House Foreign Relations Committee, where no action is currently scheduled.