PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 13, 2009
United States Foreign Assistance Partner Vetting System Act of 2009 - States that it is U.S. policy to protect the people, property, and territory of the United States against acts of international terrorism through the implementation of a system to verify that persons who receive U.S. foreign assistance funds do not commit or support acts of international terrorism.
Amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to direct the Secretary of State to: (1) establish a system to verify that persons receiving U.S. foreign assistance funds are not affiliated with or supporting foreign terrorist organizations, or otherwise commiting or supporting acts of international terrorism; and (2) ensure that persons denied assistance pursuant to such vetting system are provided specified information and afforded specified procedural safeguards.
Sets forth system elements.
Prohibits providing foreign assistance funds to persons determined, pursuant to such system, to be affiliated with or supporting such organizations or commit or support international terrorism.
People & committees
Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R-FL-18] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1062 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1062 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1062 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1062 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.