|
Algeria
Angola
Benin
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central Afr. Rep.
Chad
Comoros
Congo (Brazzaville)
Congo (Kinshasa)
C�te d'Ivoire
Djibouti
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Kenya
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mauritius
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Niger
Nigeria
Rwanda
São Tomé
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Africa
South Sudan
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania
Togo
Tunisia
Uganda
Western Sahara
Zambia
Zimbabwe
|
Get AfricaFocus Bulletin by e-mail!
Print this page
|
Note: This document is from the archive of the Africa Policy E-Journal, published
by the Africa Policy Information Center (APIC) from 1995 to 2001 and by Africa Action
from 2001 to 2003. APIC was merged into Africa Action in 2001. Please note that many outdated links in this archived
document may not work.
|
Africa: Aid to Africa, The Senate's Turn
Any links to other sites in this file from 1995 are not clickable,
given the difficulty in maintaining up-to-date links in old files.
However, we hope they may still provide leads for your research.
Africa: Aid to Africa, The Senate's Turn
Date Distributed (ymd): 950730
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.
*******************************************************
This material is made available by the Washington Office on
Africa (WOA). WOA is a not-for-profit church, trade union
and civil rights group supported organization that works
with Congress on Africa-related legislation.
*******************************************************
|
