| UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA - AFRICAN STUDIES CENTER |
Washington Office on Africa Update / Action Alert
July 28, 1995
CONGRESSIONAL CALENDAR
The aid budget for fiscal year 1995 has already been crippled through rescission bills which take back dollars previously appropriated for specific items. These reduced the Development Fund for Africa from $802 million to $781 million.
Action on the 1996 budget is moving through a complicated legislative calendar, with both the House and Senate debating authorization bills (substantive legislation that also sets budget ceilings) and appropriations bills (which allocate actual amounts). This year there was also a separate budget resolution setting out a plan to balance the federal budget over a seven-year period.
As of late July:
1. The budget resolution has been adopted and agreed on by both the House and Senate.
2. The House has passed an authorization act (H.R. 1561), which would merge USAID into the State Department and drastically cut development assistance. The House has also passed the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act (H.R. 1868), which contains only $529.5 million for the Development Fund for Africa (a 34% cut) and $10 million for the African Development Foundation (a 41% cut).
The cuts would have been much greater without sustained opposition from Africa advocacy groups throughout the first half of this year. And a last-minute amendment increased the funds for a newly- created Child Survival Fund to $592 million, of which $131 million is expected to go to Africa.
3. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, under Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), has approved separate bills calling for agency reorganization (the State Department authorization bill, S. 908) and foreign aid reduction (S. 961). S. 908 would eliminate the U.S. Agency for International Development and merge its functions into the State Department. The report accompanying the bill explicitly states that "providing development assistance is not vital to United States national security interests." S. 961 includes no earmarked funds for the African Development Foundation, cuts development assistance by 36%, and reduces the Development Fund for Africa by 23% to $183 million.
The Senate may act very soon on S. 908. S. 961 may come to the floor independently or as an amendment to S. 908. Or it may be held back by Sen. Helms as unnecessary, since the specific figures will be addressed in appropriations bills.
4. The next step will be Senate action on appropriations bills. Senate subcommittees have not yet started to consider these, and they may not reach a full Senate vote until September.
President Clinton has threatened to veto foreign affairs authorization bills containing excessive policy restrictions, such as those in H.R. 1561 and S. 908. But it will be far more difficult for him to veto appropriations bills which are required to fund government operations. The actual figures will be determined in hard bargaining between the House, the Senate and the Administration.
Senate action during the appropriations process will therefore play a critical role in determining actual funding levels for aid to Africa. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who chairs the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, has said he has "a hard time finding a U.S. national interest" in assistance to Africa. Even Sen. McConnell, however, may be influenced by evidence that his constituents disagree with him. Other Republicans on the Appropriations Committee, including committee chair Mark Hatfield (Ore.), Arlen Specter (Pa.) and James Jeffords (Vt.), are undecided and may be significantly influenced by the mail they receive on the issue. So will other Senators, all of whom will vote on the appropriations bill once it comes to the floor.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
1. WRITE, FAX OR PHONE YOUR TWO SENATORS. Urge them to:
- Maintain $2.1 billion in development aid through the U.S. Agency for International Development, especially $802 million for the Development Fund for Africa.
- Maintain $17 million in funding for the African Development Foundation.
- Maintain independent agency status for long-term sustainable development programs and protect them from the short-term political priorities of the State Department. Ask Senators to oppose the move to eliminate USAID and merge its functions into the State Department.
Remind them that foreign aid makes up less than 1 percent of the U.S. budget, and that Africa is already disadvantaged compared to more favored regions in the amount of U.S. aid it receives. U.S. aid to Israel and Eygpt, at around $5 billion a year, exceeds all forms of aid for the approximately 45recipient countries in sub-Saharan Africa. It is immoral and short-sighted that the countries most in need of assistance should take the deepest cuts, while other countries are protected for political purposes.
2. Write, fax or phone a similar message to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), chair of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Sen. McConnells phone number is (202) 224-2541; his fax number is (202) 224-2499.
Also write or call the other members of the subcommittee: Republicans: Arlen Specter (Pa.), Connie Mack (Fl.), Phil Gramm (Tex.), James Jeffords (Vt.), Judd Gregg (N.H.) and Richard Shelby (Ala.). Democrats: Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Ranking; Daniel Inouye (Hawaii), Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Barbara Mikulski (Md.), Patty Murray (Wash.).
3. After subcommittee action, communicate your message to the other members of the full Appropriations Committee:
Republicans: Mark Hatfield (Ore.), Chair; Ted Stevens (Alaska), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Pete Domenici (N.M.), Christopher Bond (Mo.), Slade Gorton (Wash.), Conrad Burns (Mont.), and Robert Bennett (Utah). Democrats: Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Ranking; Ernest Hollings (S.C.), Bennett Johnston (La.), Harry Reid (Nev.), Robert Kerrey (Neb.) and Herb Kohl (Wis.).
BACKGROUND
Conservative budget cutters of the 104th Congress have targeted foreign aid, and Africa faces severe losses. Deep cuts are proposed in the Development Fund for Africa and the African Development Foundation, both of which provide support for sustainable grassroots development. Refugee and disaster relief, food aid, and commitments to various UN agencies that help Africa are also threatened. Additional cuts would deplete the funds for development available through multilateral institutions such as the World Bank.
The drastic reductions in the aid budget are not being distributed fairly or equally. Favored countries and regions, such as Israel and Eastern Europe, are immune to cuts for political reasons. The result is that cuts fall disproportionately on Africa and other less favored regions. Africa also is especially hard hit by cuts in U.S. funds flowing to agencies such as the United Nations Development Program.
Several members of Congress have suggested that aid to Africa, and foreign aid in general, are irrelevant to the national interests of the United States. This is a tragically short-sighted view. Aid for sustainable development reflectsthe best of American ethics and values. When we assist in the development process, we help reduce the negative effects that poverty, environmental degradation, and conflict have on the entire globe.
Furthermore, the United States and Africa share historical and cultural bonds. Our intertwined histories give this country a moral responsibility to assist Africa and hold out promise of mutually beneficial economic ties in the future.
If Aid Is Cut
Many Americans assume that foreign aid is a huge drain on the public purse, but this is far from the truth. U.S. foreign aid to all countries around the world amounts to only 1% of the federal budget. Africa gets a fraction of that 1%. The cuts proposed in African aid will be of little use in balancing the U.S. budget, but they will have a devastating impact on some of the world's poorest populations.
The $802 million budgeted in 1995 for the Development Fund for Africa--the main channel for direct U.S. development assistance to sub-Saharan Africa--was only one-half of one-tenth of one percent of the total federal budget. This is equal to roughly $3 per year, per American family, for development aid to Africa. The African Development Foundation, which makes small grants to support promising grassroots development efforts, is funded at a paltry $17 million.
Many of the poorest countries in the world are in sub-Saharan Africa. If the proposed cuts are made, they will contribute to a spiraling humanitarian crisis, setbacks in the democratization process, and the loss of opportunities for Africa's trading partners.
Child health programs funded by USAID save the lives of an estimated 800,000 children each year in Africa. If the budget is slashed, an estimated 4 million children each year may not be vaccinated against preventable diseases. At least 100,000 children could die of diarrhea without U.S.-supported oral rehydration therapy.
Democratic initiatives under way in two-thirds of the sub-Saharan African countries will be undermined. It will be more difficult to find funds to support the preventive diplomacy and fragile peace processes that help avoid more costly conflicts.
Finally, support will be lost for mutually profitable long-term economic ties between the United States and Africa. U.S. exports to developing countries have more than doubled over the last decade. In 1994, U.S. exports to Africa were 22% greater than U.S. exports to the former Soviet Union. It is estimated that for every $1 billion in U.S. exports, 19,000 jobs are created at home. At $4.4 billion in 1994, our exports to Africa accounted for some 85,000 jobs in the United States.
Cuts Won't Help Reform
Most advocates of aid to Africa agree that there is a need to rework and improve existing policies and programs. All too often, U.S. aid has been guided by Cold War imperatives. New policy mandates calling for grassroots participation have been inconsistently implemented in practice. Insistence on rigid structural adjustment programs has frequently taken priority over evaluating the effectiveness of the aid programs themselves.
Aid nevertheless has made significant contributions to health, education, small business creation, and democratization in many African countries. And the current USAID management team has taken significant steps towards improving efficiency and responsiveness to the concerns of nongovernmental and grassroots organizations.
The budget-cutting and reorganization proposals now dominating the congressional debate, however, do nothing to move this reform forward. Instead, they will undermine the most constructive components of U.S. foreign assistance and make real reform more difficult. The cuts will weigh heavily on those who need the aid most, such as African countries undertaking political and economic reforms.
The proposals also threaten to curtail the ability of the United States to play a constructive role in the post-Cold War world. The essential goal of foreign aid in this new era should be to reduce global poverty through sustainable development, to foster peace, and to provide humanitarian relief in the face of natural and manmade disasters. Such efforts lay the basis for the building of participatory democracies and stable economies.
*******************************************************
Message-Id:199507302106.OAA22054@igc3.igc.apc.org
From: "Washington Office on Africa"woa@igc.apc.org
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 1995 17:00:58 +0000
Subject: Aid to Africa: The Senate's Turn
Editor: Ali B. Ali-Dinar
| Previous Menu | Home Page | What's New | Search | Country Specific |