PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 3, 2003
United States International Leadership Act of 2003 - Directs the President, acting through the Secretary of State and the relevant U.S. chiefs of mission, to seek to establish a democracy caucus at the United Nations (UN), the UN Human Rights Commission, the UN Conference on Disarmament, and at other broad-based international organizations. Urges such a caucus to: (1) forge common positions on matters of concern before the organization; (2) work to revise the system of regional voting and decision making; and (3) set up a rotational leadership scheme to provide member states an opportunity to serve as the designated president of the caucus.
Requires the Secretary, acting through the principal officers responsible for advising the Secretary on international organizations, to ensure that a high-level delegation from the U.S. Government is sent annually to consult with key foreign governments in every region to promote the U.S. agenda at key international fora, such as the UN General Assembly, UN Human Rights Commission, the UN Education, Science, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the International Whaling Commission.
Directs the President, acting through the Secretary and the relevant U.S. chiefs of mission, to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States to: (1) reform the criteria for leadership and, in appropriate cases for membership, at all UN bodies and at other international organizations and multilateral institutions so as to exclude nations that violate the principles of the specific organization; (2) make it a policy of the UN and other international organizations and multilateral institutions that a member state may not stand in nomination or be in rotation for a leadership position if it is subject to UN Security Council sanctions; and (3) work to ensure that no member state stand in nomination or be in rotation for a leadership position if it is subject to a specified determination under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Arms Export Control Act, or the Export Administration Act.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Amends the Foreign Service Act to direct the Secretary to establish a series of training courses for Foreign Service officers, including appropriate chiefs of mission, on the conduct of diplomacy at international organizations and other multilateral institutions and at broad-based multilateral negotiations of international instruments.
Requires the Secretary to ensure that civil service employees of the Department of State assigned to certain positions under the Foreign Service Act (as amended by this Act) have the proper training.
Declares that the precepts for selection boards responsible for recommending promotions into and within the Senior Foreign Service shall consider whether the Service member has served in a position whose primary responsibility is to formulate policy towards or represent the United States at an international organization, a multilateral institution, or a broad-based multilateral negotiation of an international instrument.
Directs the Secretary to report to the appropriate congressional committees on: (1) whether a new cone should be established for the Foreign Service that concentrates on Service members that serve at international organizations and multilateral institutions or are primarily responsible for participation in broad-based multilateral negotiations of international instruments; and (2) alternative mechanisms for achieving the objective of developing a core group of U.S. diplomats and other government employees who have expertise and broad experience in conducting multilateral diplomacy.
Authorizes the Secretary to establish, within the Bureau of International Organizational Affairs, an Office on Multilateral Negotiations to be headed by a Special Representative for Multilateral Negotiations with the rank of Ambassador-at-Large, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Requires the President to submit to the appropriate congressional committees a plan to synchronize the payment of U.S. assessments to the UN and other international organizations over a multiyear period so that the United States can resume paying its dues to such international organizations at the beginning of each calendar year.
People & committees
Rep. Lantos, Tom [D-CA-12] · D–CA
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 International Relations.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 18, 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.1590 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.1590 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.1590 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.1590 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.