APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY1999: FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
CRS Report for Congress
Export Financing, and Related Programs
Updated November 2, 1998
Larry Nowels
Specialist in Foreign Affairs
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
bounded by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current program
authorizations.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees on Foreign Operations. It summarizes the current legislative
status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related legislative activity. The
report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with
active links is available to congressional staff at
http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html
Appropriations for FY1999:
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Summary
The annual Foreign Operations appropriations bill is the primary legislative
vehicle through which Congress reviews the U.S. foreign aid budget and influences
executive branch foreign policy making generally. It contains the largest share —
over two-thirds — of total U.S. international affairs spending. For Foreign
Operations programs, President Clinton sought $13.6 billion in discretionary budget
authority for FY1999, nearly $800 million, or 6% higher than available for FY1998.
But unlike a year ago, when the President concentrated most of the added funds
requested on a few high priority areas, the FY1999 request asked for increases across
a wide array of Foreign Operations programs, including export promotion agencies,
development assistance, debt reduction initiatives, the Peace Corps, drug control aid,
arrearage payments for multilateral development banks, and others. Israel, Egypt,
Russia, Ukraine, and Bosnia would be the largest recipients of bilateral aid, as has
been the case in the recent past. Beyond these regular Foreign Operations programs,
the President also sought $17.9 billion for U.S. contributions to two IMF facilities and
$502 million for U.S. arreage payments to multilateral development banks.
In addition to funding questions, the Foreign Operations debate also included
important policy issues, such as priorities of development aid strategies, abortion
restrictions on international family planning programs, adjusting Middle East aid
allocations, policy restrictions on aid to Russia and Ukraine, and the use of American
assistance as a tool in the Armenian-Azerbaijan dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh.
Foreign Operations is one of eight appropriation bills incorporated and enacted
in H.R. 4238, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999. As passed on October 20/21, H.R. 4328 includes $12.827
billion for discretionary Foreign Operations. In addition, the omnibus bill includes
$539 million to clear U.S. arrears at multilateral development banks, $399 million in
"emergency" Foreign Operations supplementals, and $17.9 billion for the IMF, funds
that are not "scored" against the Foreign Operations budget cap, but which provide
additional resources for U.S. foreign aid activities. In total, H.R. 4328 provides
$31.63 billion for Foreign Operations in FY1999.
Although this still falls about $385 million below the President's request, it
provides a substantial increase from what the House and Senate had approved in bills
(H.R. 4569 and S. 2334) passed in September. Senior executive branch officials had
advised the President to veto these earlier measures because of inadequate funding.
Compared with the Senate-passed bill, the higher of the two, budget negotiations
between congressional leaders and the White House during the final days of the 105th
Congress resulted in $880 million more for Foreign Operations in FY1999. Much of
the additional money included in H.R. 4328 is allocated for former Soviet aid, USAID
operating expenses, disaster relief, the Peace Corps and U.S. contributions to the
Global Environment Facility. The bill caps international family planning aid at $385
million, but drops House-passed abortion restrictions. The enacted legislation also
initiates a ten year process to phase out economic aid to Israel and trim by half
Egypt's aid, reducing total combined assistance for FY1999 by $100 million to just
over $5 billion.
Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise Name CRS DivisionTelephone
CoordinatorLarry NowelsFAND7-7645
Africa AidRaymond CopsonFAND7-7661
Agency for Intl DevelopmentLarry NowelsFAND7-7645
Agency for Intl DevelopmentCurt TarnoffFAND7-7656
BosniaJulie KimFAND7-3692
Development AssistanceLarry NowelsFAND7-7645
Development AssistanceCurt TarnoffFAND7-7656
Drug control ProgramsRaphael PerlFAND7-7664
Export-Import BankJames JacksonECON7-7751
Family Planning ProgramsLarry NowelsFAND7-7645
International Affairs BudgetLarry NowelsFAND7-7645
International Monetary FundPatricia WertmanECON7-7748
Middle East AssistanceClyde MarkFAND7-7681
Military Aid/Arms SalesRichard GrimmettFAND7-7675
Multilateral Development BanksLarry NowelsFAND7-7645
Nagorno-KarabakhCarol MigdalovitzFAND7-2667
NATO/Partnership for PeacePaul GallisFAND7-7679
NIS/East Europe AidCurt TarnoffFAND7-7656
NonproliferationRobert ShueyFAND7-7677
North Korea/KEDOLarry NikschFAND7-7680
Overseas Private Investment CorpJames JacksonECON7-7751
Peace CorpsCurt TarnoffFAND7-7656
PeacekeepingMarjorie BrowneFAND7-7695
Refugees & Humanitarian AidLois McHughFAND7-7627
TerrorismRaphael PerlFAND7-7664
Trade and Development AgencySusan EpsteinFAND7-6678
U.N. Voluntary ContributionsLois McHughFAND7-7627
Contents
Most Recent Developments........................................1
Introduction ................................................... 1
Status ........................................................ 3
Foreign Operations Funding Trends..................................4
Foreign Operations Appropriations Request for FY1999 and Congressional
Consideration .............................................. 5
Funding Issues for Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY1999........5
Total Foreign Operations Funding Levels......................5
Funding for Selected Foreign Operations Accounts..............8
Funding for Countries and Regions.........................12
Policy Issues in the Foreign Operations Debate....................16
Policy priorities of U.S. development aid.....................16
Population and family planning assistance.....................19
Middle East aid and Israel’s plan to phase-out economic assistance.22
Aid Restrictions for Russia and Ukraine......................23
U.S. aid to the Caucasus and the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.....25
For Additional Reading..........................................27
Selected World Wide Web Sites...................................29
Appendix — Detailed Foreign Operations Accounts....................30
List of Figures
Figure 1 -- International Affairs Budget...............................2
Figure 2 -- Foreign Operations FY1998-99 Compared....................6
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY1999.............3
Table 2. Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY1993 to FY1999...........4
Table 3. Summary of Foreign Operations Appropriations..................8
Table 4. Leading Recipients of U.S. Foreign Aid: FY1997 — FY1999......13
Table 5. USAID Sustainable Development Programs....................17
Table 6. Foreign Operations Appropriations — Discretionary Budget Authority30
Appropriations for FY1999: Foreign Operations,
Export Financing, and Related Programs
Most Recent Developments
During executive-legislative budget discussions during the final days of the
FY1999 to amounts approved by the House and Senate (H.R. 4569 and S. 2334) in
September. Senior executive branch officials had advised the President to veto these
earlier measures because of inadequate funding. As enacted on October 21 in H.R.
1999, Foreign Operations funds total $31.63 billion, including $12.827 billion for
regular programs, $539 million for MDB arrears payments, $399 million in Child
Survival, former Soviet aid, Africa embassy bombing-related, and counter-narcotics
"emergency" supplemental spending, and $17.9 billion for the IMF. Excluding the
IMF, total Foreign Operations money approved for FY1999 is $618 million more
than for FY1998, but $385 million less than the President requested. Much of the
additional Foreign Operations resources added in H.R. 4328 is allocated for former
Soviet aid, USAID operating expenses, disaster relief, the Peace Corps and U.S.
contributions to the Global Environment Facility.
Congressional negotiators also settled several other major Foreign Operations
issues in disagreement between the House and Senate. The bill caps international
family planning aid at $385 million but drops House-passed abortion restrictions.
H.R. 4328 includes the full $17.9 billion U.S. payment to the International Monetary
Fund (IMF), subject to conditions concerning recipient country trade and financial
policies, greater transparency in IMF operations, and Fund lending at above-market
rates. The measure drops the House-passed ban on U.S. funding for the
Administration's program to curb North Korea's nuclear weapons production but
subjects the $35 million to additional certification requirements and delays the
money's availability until next year. The legislation, as approved by both houses,
begins aid reductions for Israel and Egypt.
Introduction
The annual Foreign Operations appropriations bill is the primary legislative
vehicle through which Congress reviews and votes on the U.S. foreign assistance
budget and influences executive branch foreign policy making generally. It contains1
Although the Foreign Operations appropriations bill is often characterized as the “foreign1
aid” spending measure, it does not include funding for all foreign assistance programs. Food
(continued...)
the largest share — about 69% — of total international affairs spending by the United
States (see Figure 1). The legislation funds all U.S. bilateral development assistance
programs, managed mostly by the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID), together with several smaller independent foreign aid agencies, such as the
Peace Corps and the Inter-American and African Development Foundations. Foreign
Operations includes separate accounts for aid programs in the former Soviet Union
(also referred to as the New Independent States (NIS) account) and Central/Eastern
Europe, activities that are jointly managed by USAID and the State Department.
Security assistance (economic and military aid) for Israel and Egypt is also part of the
Foreign Operations spending measure, as are smaller security aid programs
administered largely by the State Department, in conjunction with USAID and the
Pentagon. U.S. contributions to the World Bank and other regional multilateral
development banks, managed by the Treasury Department, and voluntary payments
to international organizations, handled by the State Department, are also funded in the
Foreign Operations bill. Finally, the legislation includes appropriations for three
export promotion agencies: the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC),
the Export-Import Bank, and the Trade and Development Agency.
Figure 1 -- International Affairs Budget
International Affairs Budget Enacted - FY1999
Discretionary Budget Authority by Appropriation Bills
Foreign Operations
$12.8 billion 68.8%
Agriculture-Food aid
$0.9 billion 4.8%
State Dept/Commerce
$4.9 billion 26.3%
An additional $12.2 million for the US Institute for Peace is in the Labor/H bill.
Figures exclude arrears and emergency supplemental appropriations.
(...continued)1
aid, administered under the P.L. 480 program and managed by USAID, is appropriated in the
Agriculture appropriations bill. Further, the Foreign Operations measure includes funds for
one activity—the Export-Import Bank—that is not regarded as “foreign assistance,” but
rather as a U.S. government activity promoting trade opportunities for American businesses.
In most years, this results in a Foreign Operations appropriation (including the EximBank)
that is slightly less (1.5% in FY1998) than the official “foreign aid” budget. Throughout this
report, references to Foreign Operations and foreign aid are used interchangeably.
From the perspective of congressional oversight and involvement in U.S. foreign
aid policy making, the Foreign Operations bill has taken on even greater significance
during the past decade. Congress has not enacted a foreign aid authorization bill since
1985, leaving most foreign assistance programs without regular authorizations
emanating from the legislative oversight committees. As a result, Foreign Operations
spending measures increasingly have expanded their scope beyond spending issues
and played a major role in shaping, authorizing, and guiding both executive and
congressional foreign aid and broader foreign policy initiatives. It has been largely
through Foreign Operations appropriations that the United States has modified aid
policy and resource allocation priorities since the end of the Cold War. The
legislation has also been a key tool used by Congress to apply restrictions and
conditions on Administration management of foreign assistance, actions that have
frequently resulted in executive-legislative clashes over presidential prerogatives in
foreign policy making.
Status
Table 1. Status of Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY1999
SubcommitteeConference Report
MarkupApprovalHouse ReportPublic LawHouseSenateSenateConference
Passage Report Passage Report
Senate House Senate
9/10/98 7/21/98 10/19/98
NAH.R. 45699/17/98S. 23349/2/98HR 432810/20/9810/21/9810/21/98H.Rept.255-161S.Rept.90-3H.Rept.333-9565-29105-277
105-719 105-255 105-825
President Clinton submitted his FY1999 Federal budget request to Congress on
February 2, 1998, including funding proposals for Foreign Operations Appropriations
programs. During the next several months, House and Senate Foreign Operations
Subcommittees held a series of hearings, including testimony from Secretary of State
Albright, Treasury Secretary Rubin, and USAID Administrator Atwood. In mid-May,
House and Senate Appropriations Committees issued budget authority and outlay
allocations in May and June to each of their 13 subcommittees, paving the way for
initial action on these spending bills. The House Foreign Operations Subcommittee
approved a draft bill on July 15, 1998, that was amended and ordered reported by the
full Appropriations Committee on September 10 (H.R. 4569). The House passed
H.R. 4569 on September 17, 255-161. The Senate skipped a subcommittee markup,
as the full Appropriations Committee reported a bill on July 21 (S. 2334). After two
days of debate, the full Senate approved S. 2334 on September 2 by a vote of 90-3.
Foreign Operations, like seven other regular spending measures, was incorporated
into H.R. 4328, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations, 1999, passed by the House and Senate on October 20/21, and signed
into law on October 21.
Foreign Operations Funding Trends
In recent years, as the United States has adjusted its foreign and defense policy
to a post-Cold War environment, one of the major foreign assistance issues for
Congress and executive branch policymakers has been the question of budget
resource allocation and how to reduce foreign aid spending while sustaining the
program as an effective foreign policy tool.
Table 2. Foreign Operations Appropriations,
FY1993 to FY1999
(discretionary budget authority in billions of current dollars)
FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998* FY1999*
$13.901 $14.298 $13.611 $12.456 $12.267 $12.787 $12.864
* Amounts for FY1998 and FY1999 do not include appropriations for payments of U.S. arrears to
multilateral development banks (MDBs) ($360 million and $539 million, respectively). FY1999
further does not include a $17.861 billion for the IMF and $399 million in "emergency"
supplemental funds. Under terms of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and other budget laws,
appropriations for MDB arrears, the IMF, and "emergency" supplementals are not scored against
the Foreign Operations spending allocation. For comparative purposes with prior years, including
MDB arrears and "emergency" supplementals, FY1998 appropriations would total $13.147 billion
and FY1999 $13.765 billion.
After peaking in size at $20.7 billion in FY1985, Foreign Operations
appropriations began a period of declining levels, falling to about $12.3 billion in
FY1997. Foreign aid spending cuts were especially sharp in FY1996 when Congress
cut funding by $1.15 billion, or nearly 9% from the previous year. Administration
officials and many in the broader foreign policy community argued that such severe
budget reductions in a short period of time seriously undermined many U.S. foreign
policy interests and limited the ability of American officials to influence overseas
events. After Foreign Operations funding levels fell again in FY1997 — although by
much smaller amounts — the State Department and other executive agencies
launched an aggressive campaign in support of a foreign policy budget request for
FY1998 that sought to reverse the decade-long downward trend. Congress approved
much of the President’s $1 billion increase recommended for this year, setting Foreign
Operations appropriations at $13.15 billion for FY1998. Currently, Foreign
Operations represents 0.78% of the entire federal budget and 2.4% of total
discretionary budget authority. By comparison, these same figures in FY1985 were
Over the longer term of the past 20 years, Foreign Operations spending has
experienced three distinct trends when calculated in real terms, taking into account
the effects of inflation. The first period was marked by a steady growth in Foreign
Operations appropriations levels during the early 1980s when the United States
rapidly expanded security-related aid programs in Central America, Pakistan, and to
countries providing the U.S. with military bases. Funding peaked in FY1985 at $31.9
billion (in FY1999 dollars) followed by a sharp cut in FY1986 as the effects of the
Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction initiative took hold and limited federal spending in
most areas. For the next five years, during a second phase of Foreign Operations
budget trends, appropriations remained relatively stable at about $19.5 billion per year
(real terms).
At about the time of the end of the Cold War, foreign aid spending began to fall
steadily — from about $16.7 billion in FY1992, to $15 billion in FY1995, to $13
billion in FY1997 (real terms). Appropriations for FY1997 were the smallest Foreign
Operations level, in real terms, since 1975 when Congress slashed foreign assistance
spending during the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam. Even with additional funding for
this year, in real terms FY1998 Foreign Operations spending is about 30% below the
average appropriation level approved by Congress during the late 1980s, 19% less
than FY1992, a year that might be considered the first post-Cold War foreign aid
budget, and 10% less than FY1995 when the majority in Congress changed.
Data Notes
Unless otherwise indicated, this report expresses dollar amounts in terms
of discretionary budget authority. The Foreign Operations Appropriations bill
includes one mandatory program that is not included in figures and tables —
USAID’s Foreign Service retirement fund. The retirement fund is scheduled
to receive $44.6 million for FY1999.
In addition, funding levels and trends discussed in this report exclude
U.S. contributions to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), proposals that are
enacted periodically (about every five years) in Foreign Operations bills.
Congress is presently considering a $17.9 billion IMF request. Including these
large, infrequent, and uniquely “scored” IMF appropriations tends to distort a
general analysis of Foreign Operations funding trends. Although Congress
provides new budget authority through appropriations for the full amount of
U.S. participation, the transaction is considered an exchange of assets between
the United States and the IMF, and results in no outlays from the U.S. treasury.
In short, the appropriations are off-set by the creation of a U.S. counterpart
claim on the IMF that is liquid and interest bearing. For more, see CRS Report
Foreign Operations Appropriations Request for FY1999
and Congressional Consideration
Funding Issues for Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY1999
Total Foreign Operations Funding Levels. After convincing Congress in 1997
to raise Foreign Operations spending by about $500 million over the previous year,
the President submitted a request for FY1999 that would set foreign aid
appropriations nearly $800 million higher than the level enacted for FY1998. The
$13.6 billion proposal was 6.2% higher than FY1998 discretionary budget authority.
But unlike a year ago, when the President concentrated most of the added funds
requested on a few high priority areas, most notably for payment of arrears at
multilateral development banks, the FY1999 request asked for increases across a wide
array of Foreign Operations programs. Nearly every major component of foreign aid
spending was slated to rise in FY1999. However, as illustrated in Figure 2 and
discussed immediately below, enacted FY1999 appropriations for Foreign Operations
provides only modest increases from FY1998 for major areas of foreign aid spending,
resulting in few changes among the proportional distribution of funds. Table 3
summarizes the President's request and congressional action, while an appendix at the
end of this report provides details on individual account spending levels.
Figure 2 -- Foreign Operations FY1998-99 Compared
Foreign Operations - FY1998 & FY1999 Compared
FY1999 enacted = $12.827 billion
export programs$0.66 billion 5.1%development aid$2.08 billion 16.2%
refugee aid$0.67 billion 5.2%multilateral economic$1.12 billion 8.8%
Russia/other NIS$0.80 billion 6.2%other military*$0.26 billion 2.0%
Bosnia/E Europe$0.43 billion 3.4%
other economic*$1.55 billion 12.1%
Peace Corps
$0.24 billion 1.9%
Israel/Egypt
$5.02 billion 39.1%
FY1998 enacted = $12.787 billion
export programs$0.56 billion 4.4%development aid$2.06 billion 16.2%
refugee aid$0.71 billion 5.5%multilateral economic$1.29 billion 10.1%
Russia/other NIS$0.77 billion 6.0%other military*$0.28 billion 2.2%
Bosnia/E Europe$0.49 billion 3.8%other economic*$1.27 billion 10.0%
Peace Corps$0.22 billion 1.7%
Israel/Egypt
$5.12 billion 40.1%
* Excludes economic and military aid for Israel and Egypt.Note: Amounts exclude MDB arrears,IMF funds, & emergency supplementals.
Initially, Congress was reluctant to meet the President's recommendation for
significant foreign aid increases in FY1999. In fact, until final decisions were reached
in mid-October regarding overall funding levels, it appeared that Foreign Operations
programs would receive less in FY1999 than amounts provided in FY1998. As
shown in Figure 2 above, enacted appropriations for regular Foreign Operations
programs in FY1999 are $40 million higher than in FY1998. Including additional
funds for multilateral development bank arrears and several "emergency"
supplementals, none of which are "scored" against Foreign Operations spending
limits, FY1999 funds are $618 million higher than the previous year. Not counting
the $17.9 billion IMF transfer, Congress approved roughly two-thirds of the overall
increase sought by the President for FY1999.
The first step influencing congressional debate on Foreign Operations occurred
in mid-May when House and Senate Appropriations Committees issued allocations
to each of their 13 subcommittees. This process, known as the "section 302(b)
allocations," usually comes after the House and Senate have agreed to a common
budget resolution. Because of delays this year in taking up a budget resolution,
however, House and Senate Appropriations Committee chairmen decided to issue
their 302(b) allocations in advance of final action on a budget resolution.
Both Appropriations Committees issued very low allocations for Foreign
Operations. On May 14, the Senate panel provided $12.6 billion in budget authority
(BA) and $12.4 billion in outlays for Foreign Operations in FY1999 (outlays were
later revised upward to $12.6 billion). (These figures exclude MDB arrears and IMF
funding.) The Senate allocation set budget authority for Foreign Operations about
$1 billion below the President's request and nearly $250 million less than enacted for
FY1998. The House Committee, on May 22, set Foreign Operations BA and outlays
each at $12.5 billion, $100 million less than Senate levels.
House and Senate committees began markups on the Foreign Operations request
at nearly the same time. On July 15, the House Foreign Operations Subcommittee,
recommended a $12.471 billion funding measure ($12.82 billion with MDB arrears),
about $315 million (-2.5%) below existing levels for FY1998 and $1.1 billion (-8.1%)
less than the President's proposal for FY1999. The full House Appropriations
adopted the subcommittee's funding proposals on September 10 (H.R. 4569) and the
House passed the measure on September 17 without changes in funding levels. The
Senate did not hold a subcommittee markup, but went straight to full committee
consideration on July 21, followed by full Senate passage on September 2. As passed
by the Senate, S. 2334 included a slightly higher amount than recommended in the
House -- $12.575 billion ($12.885 billion including MDB arrears). Added to these
amounts were funds for a U.S. contribution to the IMF which brought the House bill
to a total of $16.2 billion and the Senate to $30.7 billion. The Senate designated both
MDB arrears and IMF appropriations as FY1998 supplementals.
The House and Senate did not hold a formal conference on the Foreign
Operations measures, but instead incorporated foreign aid funding into H.R. 4328, the
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999.
During executive-legislative budget discussions during the final days of the 105th
Congress, negotiators added more than $880 million for Foreign Operations spending
in FY1999 to amounts approved by the House and Senate in September. Senior
executive branch officials had advised the President to veto these earlier measures
because of inadequate funding. As enacted on October 21 in H.R. 4328, Foreign
Operations funds total $31.63 billion, including $12.827 billion for regular programs,
$539 million for MDB arrears payments, $399 million in Child Survival, former Soviet
aid, counter-narcotics, and African embassy bombing-related "emergency"
supplemental spending, and $17.9 billion for the IMF. Excluding the IMF, total
Foreign Operations money approved for FY1999 is $618 million more than for
FY1998, but $385 million less than the President requested.
Funding for Selected Foreign Operations Accounts. Whereas the President
sought increased funding in FY1999 for most Foreign Operations programs, Congress
was more selective in which areas to add resources above FY1998 levels.
Table 3. Summary of Foreign Operations Appropriations
(Discretionary funds -- in millions of dollars)
Bill Title & ProgramS. 2334FY1998FY1999 H.R.FY1999EnactedRequest4569Enacted
Title I - Export Assistance563.1708.9635.3674.0656.5
Title II - Bilateral Econ. Aid7,554.68,088.97,255.57,407.17,625.4
(Of which:
(Development aid)(2,061.0)(2,123.7)(2,015.4)(2,113.0)(2,083.5)
(Africa aid)(700.0)(730.0)(700.0)(NA)(NA)
(Israel/Egypt economic aid)(2,015.0)(2,015.0)(1,855.0)(1,855.0)(1,855.0)
(Former Soviet Union)(770.0)(925.0)(595.0)(740.0)(801.0)
Title III - Military Assistance3,378.13,409.93,449.23,448.93,420.5
(Of which: Israel/Egypt)(3,100.0)(3,100.0)(3,160.0)(3,160.0)(3,160.0)
Title IV - Multilateral Aid1,650.91,871.81,483.61,355.31,663.3
(Of which: MDB arrears)(359.5)(502.0)(352.0)(310.7)(539.0)
Title VI - Intl Monetary Fund-.-17,861.03,361.017,861.017,861.0
Total - no MDB arrears/IMF$12,787.2$13,577.0$12,471.4$12,574.6$12,826.6
Total - MDB arrears, no IMF$13,146.7$14,079.5$12,823.6$12,885.3$13,365.6
Total - MDB arrears & IMF$13,146.7$31,940.5$16,184.6$30,746.3$31,226.6
Source: House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Under the terms of the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997, appropriations for multilateral development bank (MDB) arrearage
payments and the IMF do not score against budget allocations for Foreign Operations
programs in FY1999. The TOTAL lines in this table show three different amounts: 1)
excluding MDB arrears and IMF funds, amounts that reflect Foreign Operations allocations;
2) including MDB arrears, but excluding the IMF; and 3) including all funds in the bills. In
addition, H.R. 4328 as enacted, includes $399 million in "emergency" supplemental funds for
Child Survival, former Soviet aid, counter-narcotics, and Africa embassy bombing-related
funds that are not included in this table. These "emergency" supplementals also do score
against Foreign Operations budget caps.
IMF funding. Securing full funding for a U.S. transfer to the IMF's New
Arrangements to Borrow (NAB) ($3.36 billion) and the Fund's new quota increase
($14.5 billion) was arguably the Administration's highest priority in the Foreign
Operations bill. Viewed by supporters as an important tool with which to confront
the Asian financial crisis, Russia's economic problems, and other situations threatening
global economic stability, the IMF also came under attack by critics who believed the
Fund was not equipped to deal with current economic difficulties, was not prescribing
the right policy reforms, and was operating without sufficient public scrutiny. The
Administration countered that it agreed with many congressional concerns regarding
IMF policies, but that some of the conditions proposed by lawmakers for U.S.
payments to Fund were unworkable and would ultimately block the transfer of
American resources.
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in S. 2334, fully funded the President's
$17.9 billion request, attaching conditions that were acceptable to the Administration.
During floor debate, the Senate rejected (19-74) an amendment proposed by Senator
Kyl setting out a package of conditions regarded as much tougher than what was
already included in the bill that the IMF would have to meet before receiving the
$14.5 billion quota funds. H.R. 4569, as passed by the House, however, provided
funding only for the NAB.
H.R. 4328 as enacted includes full $17.9 billion funding for both the NAB and
the quota increase. The payment, however, is conditioned on among other things,
a notification that other major industrial nations have agreed to help implement
changes in IMF policies that would require that 1) borrowing nations liberalize trade
restrictions and financial policies; 2) the Fund operate with greater transparency, and
of-payments distressed countries.
Export promotion programs. The President proposed that U.S. government-
backed export assistance would grow by $146 million, or nearly 30% over FY1998.
To a large extent, the additional resources were requested to meet increasing demands
by American businesses for Export-Import Bank loans, loan guarantees, and
insurance, especially for opportunities in Russia. The House, in H.R. 4569, provided
$635 million for the Eximbank and other export promotion agencies, meeting about
half of the proposed increase from FY1998, while the Senate appropriated $674
million in S. 2334. As enacted, the Omnibus spending bill allocates $657 million for
the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the Trade
and Development Agency, nearly 17% more than appropriated in FY1998.
Development assistance. Bilateral development aid managed by USAID would
have grown under the President's budget by $45 million in FY1999, a 3% rise, but
would have reduced spending for some congressional priorities in order to finance
Administration initiatives. The President proposed a $43 million cut in child survival
and infectious disease programs, the subject of previous congressional “add-ons,” in
order to make way for small increases in population assistance, environment projects,
private sector/economic growth programs especially in Africa, and aid to countries
in transition from crisis to peace.
The House reduced USAID development aid — by $48 million — while S. 2334
provided slightly more than the full $1.77 billion Administration request. Of this total,
the Senate earmarked $435 million for population assistance, while the House limited
spending for these purposes to $385 million. The Senate further cut funds for the
African Development Foundation to $8 million, well below the existing level ($14
million), and House and requested amounts. H.R. 4569 sharply cut to $150 million
disaster relief assistance, while the S. 2334 provided $200 million, just under the
President's request.
As enacted, H.R. 4328 funds USAID development aid programs at $1.79 billion,
$65 million more than FY1998 and $20 million above the requested amount
(including the $50 million in Child Survival "emergency" supplemental). Although
USAID will have more development aid resources than it requested, the mix of
program funds will be different. Child and infectious disease programs will receive
over $100 million more than the FY1999 proposal, while a $385 million cap
population aid will limit resources for that development sector. Congress made small
cuts from FY1998 to both the Inter-American Foundation ($20 million) and the
African Development Foundation ($11 million).
Family planning restrictions and the UN Population Fund (UNFPA). Also
within development assistance activities, the President proposed about $400 million
for population assistance and $25 million for UNFPA. Throughout the year, the
President also restated his position that he would veto any legislation that included so-
called "Mexico City" abortion restrictions to U.S. overseas family planning policy.
During House Committee markup, the panel adopted an amendment by
Representative Wicker inserting revised "Mexico City" abortion restrictions and
adding to permanent law a ban on U.S. contributions to UNFPA unless UNFPA
terminated programs in China or the President certified that China no longer engaged
in coercive family planning practices. This came in addition to a subcommittee-added
prohibition of an FY1999 $25 million UNFPA contribution because of the resumption
by the organization of a program in China. H.R. 4569 further capped population aid
at $385 million. S. 2334 took an opposing position, earmarking $435 million for
population assistance without Mexico City abortion restrictions or limitations on
contributions to UNFPA. The Omnibus Appropriation places a $385 million cap on
population assistance but deletes the House-passed abortion restrictions It further
denies all funding for UNFPA due to the organization's new China program (see more
discussion below).
Debt reduction. Funds for reducing debt owed to the U.S. government by
developing countries would have nearly tripled in FY1999 — from $27 million to $72
million — under the President's budget. This would support Administration
initiatives to forgive portions of debt owed by African countries, an element in the
President’s African trade and investment strategy, and to implement a multilateral
effort to reduce debt owed by the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC). The
House and Senate made substantial reductions to the proposed appropriation ($36
and $25 million, respectively), while the Omnibus Appropriation includes $33 million.
Peace Corps. As part of a two year effort to raise the number of Peace Corps
volunteers from 6,500 to 10,000, the FY1999 request sought $270 million for the
Peace Corps, a 22% rise. The House appropriated $230 million, while the Senate
reduced Peace Corps funding below the FY1998 level to $210 million. As enacted,
H.R. 4328 provides $240 million, an amount that will allow the Peace Corps to
expand somewhat in FY1999, but not on a schedule consistent with its 10,000
volunteer target by 2000.
Narcotics aid. Appropriations for international narcotics and law enforcement
programs would have grown to $275 million in FY1999, nearly 20% higher than
FY1998. Much of the increase was concentrated in Latin America, especially for the
Andean drug producing nations of Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru. Congress divided on
the issue of substantial additional funding for State Department counter-narcotics
efforts with the House supporting the President's full request but the Senate approving
only $222 million. The Omnibus Appropriations measure includes $261 million, an
amount conferees believe will be sufficient to fully fund programs proposed in Bolivia,
Colombia, and Peru. Beyond this, the Omnibus bill includes an additional $232.6
million "emergency" supplemental appropriations for counter-narcotics activities,
mostly aimed at efforts in the Andean drug producing countries. Of the total, $144
million is expected to finance the procurement of helicopters and other items for
Colombia and the program's airwing.
Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism and Demining programs (NADR). Funding
for a range of related programs addressing threats posed by weapons of mass
destruction, international terrorism, and the spread of anti-personnel landmines would
rise in FY1999 to $216 million, two-thirds more than FY1998, under the President's
proposed budget. Demining aid would grow from $20 million to $50 million. But
much of the increase in this account resulted from funding activities in FY1999 that
were previously appropriated in other line-items or other spending bills. For FY1999,
the Administration incorporated into the NADR account $21 million to support
science centers in Russia and Ukraine aimed at preventing the “brain drain” of
scientists from these countries who have special skills in nuclear, chemical, and
biological weapons systems. The request also shifted funding from the Commerce,
Justice, and State Department Appropriation bill for the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty Preparatory Convention.
As passed by the House and Senate, NADR account levels were significantly
below the $216 million request — $152 million in the House and $170 million in the
Senate. Some of the House cuts were attributed to the ban on a $35 million U.S.
contribution to the Korean Energy Development Organization (see below) and a $26
million recommendation for demining programs. As approved in the Omnibus
Appropriations, Congress allocated $198 million for NADR account programs,
including targets of $35 million for demining, $35 million to KEDO (subject to
conditions), and $15 million for non-proliferation activities. Separate and in addition
to these amounts, Congress approved, as part of the U.S. embassy security emergency
supplemental initiative $20 million for State Department anti-terrorism programs.
Multilateral Development Bank arrearage payments. For the second portion
of a 3 year plan to clear U.S. arrears at several multilateral development banks
(MDBs), the FY1999 request included $502 million, up from $360 million
appropriated for FY1998. Although MDB arrearage payments had been expected for
FY1999, the Administration recalculated and accelerated the appropriation schedule
for the 3-year plan outlined a year ago. Moreover, Congress provided special budget
exemptions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 so that add-ons for arrearage
payments would not “squeeze” funding for other foreign policy programs. Last year,
the President projected $367 million for FY1999 and $863 million total over 3 years,
compared with the current FY1999 request of $502 million and a total of $998
million. 2
House and Senate-passed Foreign Operations bills made sharp cuts in the MDB
arrears request, providing $352 million and $311 million, respectively. Each measure
provided only about one-fourth of the Administration's $192.5 million request for the
World Bank's Global Environment Facility (GEF), while S. 2334 further included only
$5 million of the $88.3 million proposed for the African Development Fund. Levels
for MDB arrears rose substantially in the enacted Omnibus Appropriations — to $539
million — exceeding the President's request. H.R. 4328 includes full funding for both
the GEF and the African Development Fund.
Funding for Countries and Regions.At the country level, the FY1999
proposal recommended both continuity and change in the list of leading recipients of
U.S. aid. In general, the roster of major recipients included in the President's request
reflects U.S. policy emphasis on Middle East peace, democratic transition in the
former Soviet Union, implementation of the Dayton Peace accords in Bosnia, and to
a somewhat lesser extent, efforts to counter the drug trade in Latin America. Israel
($3 billion), Egypt ($2.116 billion) and Jordan ($198 million) would continue at about
the same levels for FY1998, as would assistance for Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, and
Bosnia. Assistance to Russia, which Congress has reduced the past few years due to
overall cuts in the former Soviet aid account, would increase significantly — from
$134 million allocated from FY1998 appropriations to $230 million for FY1999. U.S.
assistance to Haiti would roughly double in FY1999 ($142 million) as the
Administration sought to shift its program there from one focused on emergency and
short-term requirements, to implementation of a six year strategy focused on reducing
long-term poverty. Assistance for Peru and Bolivia, aimed at combating drug
production and trafficking, was also scheduled to rise significantly, especially for
Bolivia where the Administration reduced FY1998 assistance in order to fund the
congressionally-mandated transfer of Blackhawk helicopters to Columbia.
Notably absent from the list of leading U.S. aid recipients proposed for FY1999
were several countries. Turkey and Greece, whose aid levels have been linked by a
congressional formula that placed them among the five largest recipients in most years
during the past two decades, would receive only nominal amounts of assistance in
FY1999. The Administration had raised the prospect several years ago of ending
military aid to Turkey and Greece. The first steps came for FY1998 when the State
Department converted to military grant aid about $35 million in Foreign Military
Financing loan subsidies appropriated by Congress that would have funded nearly
$300 million in market rate loans for Turkey and Greece to procure U.S. defense
equipment. U.S. assistance to South Africa was also scheduled to decline in FY1999
In its report on the FY1999 budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 86), the Senate Budget2
Committee took issue with the Administration’s recalculation of the MDB arrears plan,
reporting a resolution that assumes an exemption of only $367 million. The Senate
Appropriations took a similar approach, stating that S. 2334 completes total arrears payments
for the Inter-American Development Bank's Fund for Special Operations, the Asian
Development Fund, and the African Development Fund, "consistent with the special treatment
provided by the Committee on the Budget." The amounts in the Senate bill do not exactly
match those proposed by the Administration or considered by the House.
— from $73 million in FY1998 to $53 million. FY1998 marked the end of the
Administration’s initial five-year aid package launched in 1994 to assist the post-
apartheid government, and the beginning of a smaller program concentrated on
strengthening democratic institutions, primary health care services, and education that
USAID plans to phase out entirely by 2005.
In most years during the Foreign Operations debate, Congress earmarks in the
enacted legislation specific amounts for a only few countries or regions that reflect
congressional spending priorities. For the vast majority of recipients, Administration
officials retain flexibility to allocate the remaining funds within the limits of overall
appropriations. The State Department and USAID usually notify Congress about 60-
90 days after passage of the Foreign Operations measure exactly how the funds will
be distributed among countries and regions. Table 4 illustrates the country allocations
for FY1997 and FY1998, and lists estimates for FY1999 based on the President's
request or on congressional earmarks in H.R. 4328. Figures will be revised when the
Administration releases its initial allocation in late 1998 or early 1999. As passed on
October 21, the Omnibus Appropriations includes several earmarks and limitations
that will affect the extent to which the President will be able to distribute foreign aid
funds according to his proposed country and regional plan.
Table 4. Leading Recipients of U.S. Foreign Aid:
FY1997 — FY1999
(appropriation allocations — $s in millions)
FY1997 FY1998 FY1999
Actual Allocation Estimate
Israel $3,000.0* $3,000.0* $2,920.0*
Egypt $2,107.9* $2,116.0* $2,076.0*
Russia $100.8 $134.0 $230.2**
Bosnia $218.0 $215.6* $200.6*
Ukraine $228.8* $229.1* $199.1*
Jordan $156.0* $192.8* $198.1*
Haiti $66.8 $71.4 $141.5**
West Bank/Gaza$75.0$85.0$100.0**
Georgia $27.2 $92.9* $86.1*
Peru $50.8 $62.2 $84.8**
Bolivia $76.5 $50.6 $81.9**
Armenia $96.1* $88.6* $81.1*
Bangladesh $47.3 $55.9 $66.8**
Guatemala $43.9 $55.8 $56.9**
* Total or partial earmarks enacted in FY1997, FY1998, and FY1999 Foreign Operations bills.
** Requested amounts for FY1999 that may change significantly when allocations are announced.
Note: Data exclude food aid, a program not appropriated in the Foreign Operations bill. With food
aid included, the rank order above would change somewhat. Food aid projected for FY1999
includes: Peru—$49.7 million; Haiti—$30 million; Bangladesh—$19.4 million; and
Guatemala—$10.5 million. Moreover, because of a large food aid program, Ethiopia, India and
North Korea would also rank among the lower half of the top 15 U.S. recipients.
Israel and Egypt assistance. Both House and Senate bills proposed the
initiation of a ten year process to phase out economic aid to Israel and to reduce
Egypt's aid by half, cutting total assistance to the two countries for FY1999 by $100
million to just over $5 billion. H.R. 4328 includes this new initiative, earmarking
$2.92 billion for Israel and $2.075 billion for Egypt (see more below).
Indonesia aid. In light of the economic collapse in Indonesia and the
devastating social impact on the population, the Senate earmarked $100 million to
support a new U.S. economic aid strategy for the country. The initiative, which
roughly doubled planned American assistance for FY1999, would focus on programs
aimed at local organizations and community leaders, instead of central government
ministries, and be largely administered by non-governmental organizations. S. 2334
further removed previous restrictions on military training for Indonesia. The House
bill contained no similar initiative. The enacted Omnibus Appropriations earmarks
$75 million in economic aid for Indonesia along the policy guidelines proposed by the
Senate, and permits training grants for the Indonesian military, limited to Expanded-
IMET programs that focus on civilian-military relations and human rights observance
courses.
Azerbaijan aid ban. Senate and House bills each retained the six-year
prohibition on U.S. aid for Azerbaijan (section 907 of the Freedom Support Act), a
provision the Administration had sought to repeal. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended repealing section 907, but an amendment sponsored by
Representative Porter reinstated section 907 during floor debate (passed 231-182).
While the Senate bill did not repeal section 907, it broadened the exemptions to the
aid ban by allowing the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation to extend loans and guarantees to American businesses investing in
Azerbaijan, particularly for those involved in Caspian basin oil activities. The enacted
omnibus measure retains section 907 and adopts the Senate text exempting OPIC and
Eximbank from the aid prohibitions. (See below for more discussion.)
North Korea and the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization
(KEDO). A series of recent actions by the North Korean government — missile sales
to Iran, possible new nuclear construction activities, and the launch of a rocket that
traveled over Japanese airspace — made the Administration's policy towards North
Korea and its request for $35 million for heavy fuel oil especially controversial during
congressional debate this year. During House Committee markup, the panel adopted
an amendment by Chairman Livingston prohibiting, without Presidential waiver, the
$35 million request. Although S. 2334 provided the full $35 million request for this
high Administration priority, it required a Presidential certification regarding several
compliance issues related to the 1994 Agreed Framework and other nuclear matters,
including two additional conditions added on the Senate floor.
In the Omnibus Appropriation, the President will get the requested $35 million
for KEDO in FY1999, but on a delayed basis. The first $15 million will be available
after March 1, 1999, if the President certifies that progress is occurring on
implementing several agreements with North Korea, that the DPRK is cooperating
fully in the canning and storage of all spent fuel from its graphite-moderated nuclear
reactors, that North Korea has not diverted any assistance, and that the U.S. is
moving ahead with efforts to block DPRK's development and export of ballistic
missiles. The remaining $20 million is available after June 1 if the President certifies
that progress has been made on the nuclear and ballistic missile issues, and that the
U.S. and North Korea have agreed on the means to satisfy U.S. concerns about the
DPRK's suspect underground construction. These restrictions, however, can be
waived for "vital national security" reasons. H.R. 4328 further limits the President's
"special" waiver authority (section 614 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961),
blocking its use to provide more than $35 million to KEDO in FY1999.
Russia, Ukraine, and other former Soviet states. House and Senate
recommendations were far apart on aid to Russia, Ukraine, and other former Soviet
states, although both were well below the President's overall request. The Senate
provided $740 million to the entire region while the House limited spending to $590
million. The final Omnibus Appropriations provides $801 million, plus another $46
million in "emergency" supplemental funds, significantly higher than either House or
Senate measures. There were also substantial differences between country aid targets
recommended in the two bills, with the Senate measure providing higher amounts for
Ukraine ($210 million vs. a maximum of $147 million), Armenia ($90 million vs. not
less than $49 million), and Georgia ($95 million vs. at least $49 million). H.R. 4328
sets final earmarks at levels somewhat below the Senate targets: Ukraine--$195
million, Armenia--$79.9 million; and Georgia--$84.4 million. The higher overall
account level and the reduced Senate earmarks is likely to allow the Administration
to allocate resources for Russia closer to the $225 million request than it has been
able in recent years. (Congress did not earmark assistance to these countries from
other foreign aid accounts, such as the Peace Corps; these amounts are not included
in the figures listed above.)
Africa assistance. As a subset of worldwide development aid, the President
asked Congress to appropriate $730 million for African development programs in
FY1999, an increase from the $700 million allocated in FY1998. Beyond this, the
President’s budget included $67 million under the Economic Support Fund (ESF) to
finance democracy and other new initiatives for Africa, and $35 million for debt3
reduction. These proposals came within the context of the President’s 1998 visit to
the region and the Administration’s Africa trade and investment initiative launched
last year. USAID planned to use the $30 million increase in African development aid
for technical assistance in support of the trade and investment plan. In addition, the
Administration expected to begin a Great Lakes Initiative ($25 million from the ESF
account) that would help strengthen judicial systems in the region, and an Education
Africa, like other regions, receives funds from many Foreign Operations accounts, including3
Peace Corps, refugee aid, Export-Import Bank, Trade and Development Agency, the African
Development Foundation, peacekeeping, IMET, and Foreign Military Financing. The
Administration estimates that total Foreign Operations funds for Africa included in its
FY1999 request is $1.23 billion, up nearly $100 million from the $1.134 billion allocated for
FY1998. For more information on U.S. aid to Africa, see CRS Issue Brief 95052, Africa:
U.S. Foreign Assistance Issues, by Raymond Copson; and CRS Issue Brief 98015, African
Growth and Opportunity Act, by Theodros Dagne.
for Development and Democracy program ($36 million drawn from ESF and
development aid).
Neither House or Senate foreign aid bills for FY1999 earmarked specific
amounts for Africa, nor did the enacted appropriations in H.R. 4328 recommend a
target or proportional allocation for the region. Nevertheless, given the additional
development aid funds appropriated by Congress, USAID will likely be able to
allocate resources at or near the $730 million proposed level. With the congressional
add-ons for child survival and disease activities, however, aid managers may be forced
to program more of these funds in Africa than had been recommended, with
equivalent reductions in some of the trade and investment activities.
Policy Issues in the Foreign Operations Debate
In addition to funding decisions made by Congress in the Foreign Operations
appropriation bill, the annual spending measure also includes a wide range of policy
provisions that frequently raise contentious foreign policy disagreements between the
President and Congress. As mentioned above, because of Congress’ inability to enact
foreign aid authorization bills for over a decade, the Foreign Operations legislation
often becomes the vehicle for debate on the conduct of U.S. foreign policy more
generally. Many of these policy provisions take the form of conditions or restrictions
on how the President can use money included in the spending bill. Many of these
provisions are opposed by the Administration as excessively limiting his ability to
manage American foreign policy. The most serious of these legislative-executive
policy differences can ultimately result in delaying the enactment of the Foreign
Operations bill or prompting a Presidential veto. Among the most significant policy
issues raised during congressional debate this year on the Foreign Operations
appropriation measure concerned conflicting executive-legislative branch development
assistance strategy priorities, restrictions on international family planning programs,
proposals to limit Middle East assistance and reduce economic aid to Israel,
conditions on aid to Russia and Ukraine, and aid policy related to the dispute over
Nagorno-Karabakh.
Policy priorities of U.S. development aid. Since the end of the Cold War, a
common theme of many Administration discussions and congressional debates has
been what should replace the anti-communist foreign aid rationale of the past 50
years. A more fundamental question raised by some, especially critics of development
assistance, is whether the United States needs to maintain an active, globally focused
economic aid program, or can it be transformed as a smaller, more targeted
instrument, with some elements being “privatized,” that would support only the
highest U.S. foreign policy interests.
Although there has been no definitive consensus reached on these questions
between the executive and legislative branches, the Clinton Administration has
strongly supported the retention of an activist foreign aid policy which can be used
to bolster a variety of U.S. foreign policy initiatives around the world. In early 1994,
USAID released its blueprint for a post-Cold War development aid policy, based
around the goal of “sustainable development,” and its four strategies of promoting
economic growth, stabilizing global population, protecting the environment, and
advancing democracy. More recently, USAID has added a fifth strategy aimed at
developing human capacity through education.
Table 5. USAID Sustainable Development Programs
(in millions of dollars)
Goals/Targets FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 EstimateEstimateRequest
$s% of total$s% of total$s% of total
Economic Growth$42626.1%$42524.7%$46326.2%
Of which:
Microenterprise $62 3.8% $48 2.8% $52 2.9%
Agriculture $116 7.1% $121 7.0% $127 7.2%
Other Econ. Growth$24815.2%$25614.9%$28416.1%
Population/Health $762 46.7% $795 46.2% $780 44%
Of which:
Child Survival$24815.2%$24514.2%$22712.8%
HIV/AIDs $118 7.2% $121 7.0% $121 6.8%
Family Planning$35321.6%$34319.9%$37521.2%
Infectious Diseases——$502.9%$301.5%
Other health$432.7%$362.1%$271.7%
Human Capacity/Basic Ed.$955.8%$985.7%$985.6%
Environment $223 13.6% $244 14.2% $290 16.4%
Democracy $124 7.6% $142 8.3% $138 7.8%
Undistributable — — $17 1.0% — —
Total Sustainable Develop.$1,630100%$1,721100%$1,769100%
Source: USAID. Amounts in this table only apply to USAID “development aid” programs and do
not include funds used for the same purposes, although to a lesser extent, in other accounts,
including ESF, East Europe and former Soviet aid programs. For example, USAID estimates that
it will spend in FY1998 and FY1999 $385 million and $400 million, respectively, across all accounts
for family planning programs; $300 million for agriculture in FY1999; and $135 million for
microenterprise, including local currencies.
USAID has maintained since adopting these strategies in 1994 that they must
operate as inter-linked, mutually re-enforcing elements of an overall U.S. effort to
promote the advancement of market economies and democratic transitions in the
developing world until countries reach a point of sustainability that no longer requires
external aid. Funding reductions, congressional restrictions, and fluctuating
Administration priorities, however, have required USAID to alter the mix of resources
devoted to each of the strategies, raising questions over whether the integrative,
mutually re-enforcing principles can be maintained. Congress, for example, limited
development aid for population programs in FYs1996-98 to roughly two-thirds the
amount provided in FY1995. (See below for more discussion on family planning
restrictions.) Further, the State Department’s Bureau of Global Affairs places a high
priority on environment programs and presses USAID to allocate the maximum
amount possible to such activities. As a result, the environment sector of sustainable
development probably has not declined as much as it might have otherwise.
But at the center of this issue for the past three years has been differences
between Congress and the executive branch regarding funding levels for programs
supporting child survival, basic education, and HIV/AIDs and other infectious
diseases. Despite cutting overall development aid in FYs1996-97 by about 23% from
FY1995 levels, Congress earmarked children and disease programs at amounts equal
to or somewhat greater than those allocated in FY1995, making the cuts on all other
elements of sustainable development closer to 30%. Although Congress boosted
development aid appropriations for FY1998 by $100 million over the previous year,
lawmakers earmarked half of the additional funds for the child survival and disease
account. Congressional proponents of the child survival earmark argue that even
though budget pressures require the United States to reduce or hold the line on
foreign aid spending, the protection of children remains a core American value
demanding that cuts should be implemented without putting at risk the lives and well-
being of small children in developing nations. They further point out that the spread
of infectious diseases poses a direct threat to U.S. citizens, and that American national
interests require continued support for global efforts to reduce or eliminate such
illnesses.
While agreeing with the importance of child survival and infectious disease
programs, USAID officials apply a broader definition to the terms, arguing, for
example, that efforts to protect small children go well beyond immunizations and
access to other health services. The quality of a child’s life, they assert, also is
determined by an array of other factors, including the degree of relative stability in
society, protection of the surrounding environment, access to adequate shelter, and
implementation of sound economic policies that will ensure jobs and economic
opportunities in the future. Consequently, they contend, the “squeeze” that earmarks
place on other areas of sustainable development undermines, to some extent, the
success of programs that also benefit children.
For FY1999, although USAID proposed to alter only slightly its resource
allocation for sustainable development objectives, the few changes recommended
drew sharp criticism in some quarters of Congress. The $42 million reduction in child
survival and infectious disease programs planned for FY1999 ran counter to the
emphasis and increased funding mandated by Congress for these activities the past
three years. The request for additional family planning funds, although at levels well
below the $548 million appropriated in FY1995, focused even greater attention on the
most controversial element of USAID’s sustainable development agenda. The largest
increase recommended for FY1999 ($46 million) was for environmental programs,
a portion of which would support the Administration’s stated commitment for USAID
to provide at least $150 million annually for the next five years for global climate
change activities. Some also challenged the absence of increased funding for certain
USAID activities, especially for agriculture programs that agency officials
acknowledge have been cut too deeply over the past decade. Although USAID said
it was increasing emphasis on agriculture by strengthening links with economic
growth and food security strategies, the request for FY1999 was $127 million, the
same as for FY1998.
Congressional action. The House restored to FY1998 levels ($650 million) the
amounts for Child Survival and disease programs, including basic education for
children and set a higher earmark ($105 million) for UNICEF. H.R. 4569 further
recommended $135 million, plus local currencies, for micro-credit. The President had
set $135 million, including local currencies, as an FY1999 target. For other
development activities, House spending levels were nearly identical to FY1998
appropriations, although about $100 million less than the request. As in previous
years, this would have most likely resulted in reductions to economic growth and
environment programs from amounts planned by USAID. Moreover, if funds were
transferred out of the development assistance account to shore up funding shortfalls
for disaster aid or USAID operating expenses — authority granted by the Committee
— larger cuts in economic growth and environment activities might be expected.
The Senate provided in S. 2334 funds for development assistance at a level
slightly more than the President's requested, but did not continue a separate account
for Child Survival and Diseases. S. 2334, however, required the Administration to
continue spending for infectious diseases at FY1998 levels and set basic education aid
at $100 million. The Senate measure also included $305 million agriculture programs
and required micro-credit to receive $145 million, half of which must be for loans of
less than $300.
The Omnibus Appropriations funds USAID development aid programs at
$1.79 billion, $65 million above FY1998 levels and $20 million more than the
President's request. The bill includes a separate Child Survival account at $650
million, plus a $50 million Child Survival "emergency" supplemental, bringing
resources for child and disease initiatives to $700 million. Although USAID will
receive more development aid resources than it requested, the mix of program funds
will be different. Children programs will receive over $100 million more than the
FY1999 proposal, while a $385 million cap population aid will limit resources for that
development sector. Conferees did not include the Senate earmark for agriculture
programs, but "recommended" USAID allocate $305 million for these activities in
FY1999. The final bill does not earmark a specific amount for micro-credit, but
requires that half of the loans be less than $300.
Population and family planning assistance. For FY1999, the President
sought $400 million for USAID family planning programs, a $15 million increase over
FY1998 levels. But the principal executive-legislative dispute over population
assistance goes well beyond funding issues, centering more directly on abortion-
related activities of foreign recipients of USAID grants. For over a decade, Congress
has engaged in contentious debates over U.S. international family planning policy,
often as part of the Foreign Operations Appropriations. Twice, congressional
positions on this issue have been one of the major reasons prompting a presidential
veto.
U.S. international family planning programs had been one of the largest growth
areas of the foreign aid budget in the 1990s. From an average of about $250 million
in the late 1980s, FY1995 spending across all Foreign Operations accounts totaled
approximately $548 million. When Congress deadlocked over abortion-related
restrictions and U.S. population aid policy, a situation that blocked movement of the
entire Foreign Operations bill each of the last 3 years, lawmakers adopted interim
provisions that, among other things, strictly limited the amount of funding for USAID
family planning programs. The FY1997 and FY1998 appropriation cap of $385
million is roughly two-thirds the amount provided in FY1995. As a result of the
impasse over abortion restrictions, Congress established a delayed timetable for
making these funds available, a schedule that included monthly apportionments or
“metering” of the appropriation.
A second issue in the population aid debate, and one directly connected to
funding reductions and metering of the past three years, deals with abortion
restrictions and the eligibility requirements for foreign organizations receiving funds
to implement U.S.-sponsored family planning programs. During the mid-1980s, in
what has become known as the “Mexico City” policy, the Reagan, and later the Bush
Administrations, restricted funds for foreign non-governmental organizations that
were involved in performing or promoting abortions in countries where they worked,
even if such activities were undertaken with non-U.S. funds. Several groups,
including International Planned Parenthood Federation-London (IPPF), became
ineligible for U.S. financial support. In some years, Congress narrowly approved
measures to overturn this prohibition, but White House vetoes kept the policy in
place. President Clinton in 1993 reversed the position of his two predecessors,
allowing the United States to resume funding for all family planning organizations so
long as U.S. money was not used in abortion-related work.
During the past three years, the House and Senate have taken opposing positions
on the Mexico City issue that in each case held up enactment of the final Foreign
Operations spending measure. The House position, sponsored by Representative
Smith (N.J.), supported reinstatement of the Mexico City policy restricting U.S. aid
funds to foreign organizations involved in performing abortions or in lobbying to
change abortion laws or policies in foreign countries. The Senate, on the other side,
has rejected House provisions dealing with Mexico City policy, favoring a policy that
leaves these decisions in the hands of the Administration. Moreover, Administration
officials have stated that President Clinton would veto any bills that include the
House-passed Mexico City restrictions.
Unable to reach an agreement satisfactory to both sides, Congress adopted
interim arrangements for FY1996-98 that did not resolve the broad population
program controversy for Congress, but did permit the stalled Foreign Operations
measure to move forward. It was hoped that the arrangement, which neither side
liked, would provide incentives for those involved in the debate to find a middle
ground. Under the terms of the FY1998 temporary arrangement, as included in P.L.
105-118, Congress deleted the House-supported Mexico City restrictions, limited
population aid funding to $385 million, down from $435 million passed by the
Senate, and delayed, or “metered” the availability of the funds at a rate of one-twelfth
of the $385 million per month.
Although not referenced in the enacted legislation, the inability to resolve the
dispute over family planning and abortion has blocked congressional approval of
funding for other Administration high priority foreign policy initiatives. At the end
of 1997, when conferees removed the House-passed Mexico City restrictions from
the FY1998 Foreign Operations measure, House leaders withdrew support for
pending legislation providing funds for U.S. participation in the International
Monetary Fund’s New Arrangements to Borrow and to pay American arrears at the
U.N. and other international organizations. Without White House willingness to
compromise on the family planning issue, they said, IMF and U.N. funding would
remain linked to Mexico City restrictions. Congress recessed for 1997 without
resolving the issue. In early 1998 Congress approved modified Mexico City4
restrictions to an omnibus foreign policy authorization bill (H.R. 1757), that among
other things, authorized U.S. payment of U.N. arrears and reorganized U.S. foreign
policy agencies. The President said, however, that he would veto the bill.
Congressional delayed submitting H.R. 1757 to the President until October 21, at
which time he vetoed the legislation. (For more information, see CRS Issue Brief
96026, U.S. International Population Assistance, Issues for Congress, by Kerry
Dumbaugh and Larry Nowels.)
Congressional action. As in each of the past two years, the House bill (H.R.
4569) capped family planning assistance at $385 million for FY1999 and continued
most of the non-controversial restrictions on population aid, including that no U.S.
funds may pay for abortions. During Appropriations Committee markup, the House
panel, further adopted an amendment by Representative Wicker that inserted the same
revised Mexico City abortion restrictions that Congress adopted earlier this year in
H.R. 1757; that is, a prohibition on U.S. funds to foreign non-governmental groups
and multilateral organizations which (1) perform abortions with their own money, or
(2) violate abortion laws or lobby to change abortion laws in foreign countries. It
would allow the President to waive the prohibition on performing abortions, but
would not permit a waiver for lobbying. Exercising the waiver, however, would
result in a reduction of family planning funds from $385 million to $356 million. The
bill also banned the $25 million requested U.S. contribution to UNFPA because of the
organization's newly initiated program in China. The Wicker amendment further
would have placed into permanent law an annual prohibition on UNFPA funding
unless the President could certify that UNFPA had terminated its China program or
that China no longer engaged in coercive family planning practices. Finally, the
House also adopted an amendment by Representative Tiahrt that precisely defined the
term, voluntary family planning programs, and established criteria for USAID to apply
regarding the voluntary nature of its population projects.
The Senate, in S. 2334, took a supportive and less restrictive position on family
planning issues, earmarking $435 million for population assistance, a level higher than
the Administration's request. The legislation continued long-standing, non-
controversial restrictions on the use of U.S. government funds for abortions, but did
not include the Mexico City conditions or limitations on contributions to UNFPA.
The Omnibus Appropriation caps population aid at $385 million and "meters"
the funds on a monthly basis of about 8%, but deletes the House-passed modified
"Mexico City" restrictions. It further denies the $25 million request for UNFPA
This revised amendment would ban U.S. funds to foreign non-governmental groups and4
international organizations which (1) perform abortions with their own money, or (2) lobby
to change abortion laws in foreign countries. It allowed, however, the President to waive the
prohibition on performing abortions, but did not allow a waiver for lobbying. If the President
exercised the waiver, family planning funds would drop from $385 million appropriated to
$356 million.
because of the China program and adds a modified version of House-passed Tiahrt
amendment regarding the voluntary nature of U.S. family planning activities.
Middle East aid and Israel’s plan to phase-out economic assistance. Since
the late 1970s, by far the largest portion of U.S. foreign aid has supported American
friends and allies in the Middle East, especially Israel and Egypt. Combined, these
two countries have received over $100 billion during the past 20 years. For a decade,
foreign aid bills annually have earmarked $3 billion for Israel and $2.115 billion for
Egypt in economic and military assistance. The FY1999 request matched these
traditional levels.
Although annual aid allocations for Israel and Egypt have not grown in dollar
terms, the decline in overall Foreign Operations funding the past several years has
meant that the proportion of worldwide foreign aid going to the Middle East climbed
to 44% in FY1997. Some in Congress and in the Executive branch suggested that,
at a time of overall budget cuts, all aid activities, including those for Israel and Egypt,
should be examined for possible reductions in order to fund other emerging initiatives
for which new money is not available. In a similar vein, others have argued that if the
Administration wants to launch new regional initiatives to advance the peace process,
it should finance them through the reallocation of existing Middle East aid resources
so funds are not drawn from other foreign aid activities. Following this suggestion,
the Administration has financed about $100 million in additional assistance to Jordan
in each of the past two years by transferring $50 million from Israel and Egypt’s
economic aid packages.
Last year, Congress took steps to legislate a cap on Foreign Operations
resources for the Middle East. Largely at the initiative of Representative Callahan,
Chairman of the House Foreign Operations Subcommittee, lawmakers stipulated in
the FY1998 funding measure (section 586 of P.L. 105-118) that selected Middle East
nations and regional programs could not receive more than $5.4 billion of the total
appropriation, a level representing 41% of all Foreign Operations funds. Israel ($3
billion), Egypt ($2.115 billion), and Jordan ($225 million) accounted for all but $60
million of the regional total, although it was assumed that Israel would contribute $50
million for Jordan and prior-year appropriations for Egypt would be tapped for
another $50 million. The Administration’s FY1999 proposal exceeded the $5.4 billion
cap for FY1998 by about $200 million, but State Department budget justification
documents pledged to “work with Congress on an appropriate formula” in order to
keep spending within the maximum permitted for FY1998
As Congress and the Administration have searched the past two years for ways
to finance new Middle East peace initiatives while straight-lining or reducing aid to
the region, Israel put forth in January 1998 a plan to cut its aid over the next ten-to-
twelve years. The concept behind an Israeli initiative to decrease assistance from the
United States was first raised by Prime Minister Netanyahu during a speech before a
joint session of Congress on July 10, 1996. As outlined to congressional and
Administration officials by Israeli Finance Minister Neeman in late January 1998, the
United States would cut economic aid by $120 million each year for about ten years,
while increasing military assistance by $60 million annually. At the end of the period,
Israel would be receiving an annual appropriation of $2.4 billion in military aid but no
longer receive any economic assistance. If done over a ten-year period, in net terms,
U.S. aid to Israel would fall $60 million each year, with a total savings of $600 million
by 2009.
Congressional reaction to the Israeli proposal generally was positive. Some
cautioned, however, that perhaps the plan could be implemented over a shorter period
of time, and that further study was needed to assess if Israel needed additional military
aid. Because many in Congress have viewed Egypt’s aid as linked to Israel’s through
the Camp David peace process, a reduction in assistance to Israel has also affected
Egypt’s aid funding level. (For more information, see CRS Report 98-104, Israel:
Proposed Changes in U.S. Foreign Assistance, FY1999, by Clyde Mark.)
Congressional action. Both H.R. 4569 and S. 2334 reduced aid to Israel and
Egypt in a generally proportional manner and along the lines set out by Israeli officials
earlier this year. For Israel, economic aid was cut by $120 million ($1.08 billion) and
military assistance increased by $60 million ($1.86 billion) for a net reduction of $60
million. In addition, the House measure allowed Israel to use $490 million of its
$1.86 billion military funding for procurement outside the United States, up $15
million from the existing allowance. S. 2334 permitted $492.9 million for these
purposes. Egypt would receive $40 million less in economic aid ($775 million) and
the same $1.3 billion military package in both measures.
The Omnibus Appropriation, H.R. 4328, includes this Israel/Egypt aid
reduction initiative basically along the lines included in both House and Senate bills.
Israel may spend $490 million in military aid outside the United States, as the House
proposed. The legislation further continues the $5.4 billion cap on Middle East
bilateral assistance, permitting a Presidential waiver to exceed this amount if its
important to U.S. national security.
Aid Restrictions for Russia and Ukraine. Since the collapse of the Soviet
Union, the Administration, with relatively steady support from Congress, has utilized
U.S. economic assistance to facilitate the transition of Russia, Ukraine, and the other
successor states (referred to as the New Independent States or NIS) to democracy
and free market economies. Past Foreign Operations debates have focused on both
the size of assistance for the NIS account, as well as conditions attached to providing
the aid, especially to Russia. Conditions have dealt with a wide range of policy
concerns including the initiation of economic policy and political reforms, non-
aggression against neighbors, Russian troop withdrawal from the Baltics, among
others. Despite congressional aid restrictions, in the past the President has been able
to make the necessary certifications that permitted the transfer of U.S. assistance.
For FY1999, President Clinton requested $925 million for the NIS account,
$155 million or 20% more than FY1998 appropriations. Nearly two-thirds ($95
million) of the additional funds were slated for Russia. Congress not only scrutinized
closely the size of the NIS request, but lawmakers also re-examined policy conditions
attached to previous appropriation measures concerning Russian support for Iran’s
nuclear program, implementation of a Russian law that could discriminate against
religious minorities, and Ukrainian practices that undermine efforts by American
businesses to invest in Ukraine.5
Under conditions enacted in the FY1998 Foreign Operations spending measure
(Title II of P.L. 105-118), the President must withhold 50% of assistance scheduled
to be allocated to the Government of Russia until he certifies to Congress that Russia
“has terminated implementation of arrangements to provide Iran with technical
expertise, training, technology, or equipment necessary to develop a nuclear reactor,
related nuclear research facilities or programs, or ballistic missile capability.” (Aid
transferred directly to the Russian private sector or non-governmental organizations
would not affected by these conditions.) The President could waive the provision if
instead he determines that the assistance is “vital” to U.S. national security interests
and Russia is taking “meaningful steps” to reduce nuclear support for Iran.
Also serving as a potential limitation for U.S. assistance to the Russian
government in FY1998 was a provision (section 577 of P.L. 105-118) that became
effective about April 26, 1998. Under section 577, the Russian government could not
receive any further U.S. aid in FY1998 unless the President certified to Congress by
late May 1998 that the government had not implemented laws, executive orders, or
other regulations that would discriminate against religious groups or communities in
Russia. The law provided no waiver authority. President Clinton issued the necessary
determination on May 26, stating that "Russia has applied the new Russian law on
Religion in a manner that is not in conflict with its international obligations on
religious freedom."
A further restriction attached by Congress to NIS assistance for FY1998
concerned complaints lodged by American businesses investing in Ukraine that they
have been the subject of corruption and harassment by Ukrainian officials. Ukraine
has enjoyed strong congressional support for several years, becoming the third highest
($225 million) recipient of U.S. economic aid. Nevertheless, the FY1998 Foreign
Operations measure required the Secretary of State to withhold one-half of Ukraine’s
assistance (about $100 million, excluding election support and nuclear reactor safety
programs) until she certified to Congress by April 30, 1998, that the Ukrainian
government had made significant progress in resolving complaints made by American
investors. Secretary Albright issued such a notice on April 29, although she
acknowledged that she remained “extremely concerned about the overall investment
climate in Ukraine” and investor problems that have yet to be resolved. Due to these
concerns, she said, the U.S. will continue to withhold about $25 million from
government assistance in sectors where economic reforms have stalled. If progress
is not forthcoming and the funds cannot be used effectively, the aid would be shifted
to private sector and non-governmental programs.
Congressional action. The House bill continued restrictions related to Russian-
Iranian nuclear cooperation but dropped conditions on Ukraine's assistance. The
Senate incorporated existing restrictions on Russia and Ukraine for FY1999, after
making some significant changes. In the case of Russia's cooperation with Iran on
For more information on NIS aid issues, see CRS Issue Brief 95077, The Former Soviet5
Union and U.S. Foreign Assistance, by Curt Tarnoff; and CRS Report 97-696, Russia’s
Religious Law: Assessments and Implications, by James Nichol, October 27, 1997.
nuclear and missile programs, S. 2334 made all U.S. assistance to Russia — not just
50% of aid designated for the Russian government — subject to a certification that
Moscow had terminated such arrangements with Iran. There was no waiver included.
On the issue of minority religious persecution, S. 2334 required that no funds could
be provided for Russian government aid programs for six months unless the President
certified that no law or other government action had been implemented that would
discriminate against religious groups. The Senate measure added a new restriction
blocking any aid to Russia until the Secretary of State certified that the U.S. and
Russian governments had reached an agreement that American aid would not be
taxed. For Ukraine, the S. 2334 withheld half of the assistance (exclusive of funds for
nuclear safety, law enforcement, and the Free Market Democracy Fund) until the
Secretary of State notified Congress that Ukraine had undertaken significant
economic reforms beyond those achieved this year.
H.R. 4328, as enacted, appropriates $801 million for the NIS, plus an additional
$46 million in "emergency" supplemental funds. Combined, the $847 million provides
the President with a $77 million increase over FY1998. With earmarks for Ukraine,
Armenia, and Georgia at or below requested levels, it is likely that the Administration
will be able to allocate to Russia resources closer to proposed amounts ($225 million
in FY1999) than has been the case in recent years. Nevertheless, conditions on aid
to both Russia and Ukraine will continue for this year and could limit final amounts
provided. For Russia, the State Department must withhold 50% of U.S. aid to the
government unless Moscow ends its nuclear and ballistic missile cooperation with
Iran. The restriction, however, can be waived by the President. Further, no
assistance to the Russian government can be provided after April 21, 1999, unless the
President certifies that the Russian Federation has not implemented laws or
regulations that discriminate against religious groups. Finally, the omnibus bill
includes a modified condition added by the Senate blocking further U.S. aid to the
Russian government after April 21, 1999, unless the Secretary of State has certified
that American aid will not be taxed, or that significant progress has been made on
reaching an agreement that exempts U.S. assistance from customs duties. For
Ukraine, Congress requires that the President withhold half of the funds for six
months until the Secretary of State has certified that Ukraine has undertaken
significant economic reforms, including efforts to resolve complaints by American
investors.
U.S. aid to the Caucasus and the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. In another
part of the former Soviet Union, Congress has also used foreign assistance as a key
tool — both as a reward and as a sanction — in influencing American foreign policy
in the Southern Caucasus, often at odds with the Administration. The longest
interethnic dispute in the former Soviet Union between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and
the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, especially have been a growing focus of
congressional debate in Foreign Operations appropriation bills during the last several
years. Nagorno-Karabakh is a predominately Armenian-populated enclave in
Azerbaijan. Armenia argues for the right of self-determination for the people of
Nagorno-Karabakh, while Azerbaijan insists on the territorial integrity of its borders.
Fighting over the territory claimed thousands of lives and created approximately
350,000 Armenian and 1.1 million Azeri refugees. Since 1992, efforts to mediate the
conflict, overseen largely by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe’s (OSCE) Minsk Group, but also with extensive Russian participation, gained
a cease-fire in 1994, but no permanent resolution.6
Congress has tended to favor Armenia in the dispute by earmarking high
amounts of economic aid to Armenia and designating Nagorno-Karabakh as a
recipient of humanitarian aid, distinct from Azerbaijan, and enacting in 1992 a ban on
all U.S. assistance to Azerbaijan (section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, P.L. 102-
511). Concern over the situation of Azeri refugees and the growing importance of
potential American investment in the large Azerbaijan oil sector has led Congress to
soften the out-right ban on aid to Azerbaijan and to construct for FY1998 a regional
assistance package aimed in part at supporting the Minsk Group peace efforts.
Previous Foreign Operations bills have permitted humanitarian aid for Armenian
and Azeri refugees in the region, as well as assistance to the government of
Azerbaijan for disarmament programs. For FY1998, Congress also exempted
democracy projects from the section 907 prohibition as well as export promotion aid
provided by the Trade and Development Agency and activities performed by U.S.
Foreign Commercial Officers in Azerbaijan. The Foreign Operations spending
measure for FY1998 also included $250 million for the Southern Caucasus region
with the intent, in part, to encourage the regional parties to cooperate with Minsk
Group peace efforts. Out of this total, Armenia was allocated $87.5 million, Georgia
$92.5 million, and up to $70 million could assist refugees and internally displaced
persons as well as reconstruction efforts throughout the region, including those in
Nagorno-Karabakh. Although the section 907 aid restrictions continued to apply to
Azerbaijan in FY1998 (with modifications noted above), Congress assumed that with
an interim settlement brokered by the Minsk Group, the President would be able to
meet the requirements stated in section 907 for fully lifting the aid ban and permit
Azerbaijan to receive portions of reconstruction assistance. If an interim agreement
was not reached by May 30, 1998, however, the President could reallocate up to
$43.75 million of the $70 million total for other NIS states, including those in Central
Asia or Russia.
For FY1999, the Administration sought $80 million for Armenia and $80.7
million for Georgia, down somewhat from the FY1998 earmarks, and $31.5 million
for Azerbaijan, up from an allocation of $21.4 million for FY1998. The program in
Azerbaijan would continue humanitarian and democracy-related activities, plus initiate
new programs aimed at the private sector and demining activities, all consistent,
according to USAID, with the terms of section 907. Moreover, the Administration
asked Congress to repeal section 907, saying that it continued to act as a “handicap”
for U.S. negotiators who need to be perceived as fair and honest brokers to all sides
in the dispute. In addition, Executive branch officials argued that section 907
restrictions block U.S. efforts to promote economic, legal, and regulatory reforms that
will be important to protecting American firms and their large investments in Caspian
For further information on the dispute, see CRS Issue Brief 92109, Armenia-Azerbaijan6
Conflict, by Carol Migdalovitz.
basin oil opportunities, including pipeline projects that would bring the oil to market
without having to pass through Iran.7
Congressional action. Following the general framework of the FY1998
program, the House bill (H.R. 4569) funded the Southern Caucasus account at not
less than $197 million, of which roughly $79 million must be reserved for post-conflict
reconstruction. Armenia and Georgia would receive at least $49 million each of the
Southern Caucus account. During Committee markup, the House Appropriations
Committee adopted an amendment by Chairman Livingston repealing the Sec. 907 aid
ban on Azerbaijan. During floor consideration, however, the full House approved
(231-182) an amendment by Representative Porter reversing the Committee action
and restoring section 907. In S. 2334, the Senate earmarked $90 million for Armenia
and $95 million for Georgia. While the bill did not repeal Sec. 907, it expanded the
list of programs explicitly exempted from the prohibition by adding OPIC and the
Export-Import Bank to current waivers for humanitarian aid, democracy programs,
and TDA. The Senate Appropriations Committee further urged in its report that
these U.S. export promotion agencies "aggressively pursue" funding for an east-west
oil pipeline that would cross Turkey.
H.R. 4328, as enacted, provides $228 million for the Southern Caucus region,
of which $40 million is designated for the U.S. share of an international peace
restoration effort. It earmarks aid to Georgia at $84.4 million and $79.9 million for
Armenia. While section 907 restrictions will remain, the omnibus spending measure
broadens the programs exempted, like the Senate proposed, to include OPIC and the
Export-Import Bank.
For Additional Reading
Foreign Operations Programs:
CRS Issue Brief 88093. Drug Control: International Policy, by Raphael Perl.
CRS Issue Brief 96008. Multilateral Development Banks, by Jonathan Sanford.
CRS Issue Brief 89150. Refugee Assistance in the Foreign Aid Bill, by Lois
McHugh.
CRS Issue Brief 86116. U.N. System Funding, by Vita Bite.
CRS Issue Brief 96026. U.S. International Population Assistance: Issues for
Congress, by Kerry Dumbaugh and Larry Nowels.
See, for example, statements made by Ambassador Richard Morningstar, NIS Special7
Advisor, to the House International Relations Committee on March 26, and by Deputy
Secretary of State Strobe Talbott to the Senate Foreign Operations Subcommittee on April
Foreign Operations Country/Regional Issues:
CRS Issue Brief 95052. Africa: U.S. Foreign Assistance Issues, by Raymond
Copson.
CRS Issue Brief 95077. The Former Soviet Union and U.S. Foreign Assistance, by
Curt Tarnoff.
CRS Issue Brief 85066. Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance, by Clyde Mark.
CRS Issue Brief 91141. North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program, by Larry Niksch.
Selected World Wide Web Sites
Asian Development Bank
[http://www.asiandevbank.org/]
CRS Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division
[http://www.loc.gov/crs/foreign/fandpage.html]
Export-Import Bank
[http://www.exim.gov/]
Inter-American Development Bank
[http://www.iadb.org/]
International Monetary Fund
[http://www.imf.org/]
Peace Corps
[http://www.peacecorps.gov/]
Trade and Development Agency
[http://www.tda.gov/]
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
[http://www.unicef.org/]
United Nations Development Program (UNDP)
[http://www.undp.org/]
U.S. Agency for International Development
[http://www.info.usaid.gov/]
U.S. Department of State
[http://www.state.gov/]
World Bank
[http://www.worldbank.org/]
Appendix — Detailed Foreign Operations Accounts
Table 6. Foreign Operations Appropriations — Discretionary Budget Authority
(millions of dollars)
ProgramHR 4569S. 2334FY1998FY1999FY1999EnactedRequestEnacted
Title I - Export and Investment Assistance:
Export-Import Bank680.6834.9770.8809.0790.0
Overseas Private Investment Corp.-159.0-176.0-177.0-178.0-177.5
Trade & Development Agency41.550.041.543.044.0
Total, Title I - Export Aid563.1708.9635.3674.0656.5
Title II - Bilateral Economic:
Development Assistance:a
Child Survival/Disease/UNICEF 650.0602.8650.0NA650.0b
Development Asst Fund1,210.01,301.81,207.91,904.01,225.0
Subtotal 1,860.0 1,904.6 1,857.9 1,904.0 1,875.0
of which UNICEF[100.0][100.0][105.0][100.0][105.0]
of which Population aid[385.0][400.0][385.0][435.0][385.0]
of which Africa aid[700.0][730.0][700.0][NA.][NA.]
of which Inter-American Fdation[22.0][22.0][20.7][20.0][20.0]
of which Africa Develop Fdation[14.0][14.0][13.2][8.0][11.0]
International Disaster Aid190.0205.0150.0200.0200.0
Micro/Small Enterprise programs2.02.02.02.02.0
Urban/Environment credit program9.012.15.57.06.5
Subtotal, Development Aid2,061.02,123.72,015.42,113.02,083.5
USAID Operating Expenses473.0483.9460.0475.0480.0
USAID Inspector General29.033.031.530.030.8
Economic Support Fund2,400.02,513.62,326.02,305.62,367.0cb
International Fund for Ireland19.6[19.6]19.6[19.6]19.6cc
Eastern Europe485.0464.5450.0432.5430.0
Former Soviet Union (NIS)770.0925.0590.0740.0801.0b
Debt restructuring (Treasury)27.072.036.025.033.0
Treasury Dept. technical asst-.-5.0.03.01.5
U.S. Community Adjustment Credits-.-37.0.0.010.0
Peace Corps222.0270.3230.0221.0240.0
International narcotics control230.0275.0275.0222.0261.0b
Migration & refugee asst650.0650.0640.0650.0640.0
Refugee resettlement asst5.0.0.0.0.0
Emergency Refugee Asst Fund50.020.030.020.030.0
Non-Proliferation/anti-terrorism 133.0 215.9 152.0 170.0 198.0 b
Total, Title II- Bilateral Economic7,554.68,088.97,255.57,407.17,625.4
ProgramHR 4569S. 2334FY1998FY1999FY1999EnactedRequestEnacted
Title III - Military Assistance:
Intl Military Education & Training50.050.050.050.050.0
Foreign Military Financing grants3,296.63,275.93,335.93,322.93,330.0
Foreign Mil Financing loan subsidy60.020.020.020.020.0
Special Defense Acquisition Fund-106.0-19.0-19.0-19.0-56.0
Peacekeeping Operations77.583.062.375.076.5
Total, Title III-Military Aid3,378.13,409.93,449.23,448.93,420.5
Title IV - Multilateral Economic Aid:
World Bank-Intl Development Assc1,034.5800.0800.0800.0800.0d
of which arrears[234.5][.0][.0][.0][.0]
World Bank-Environment Facility47.5300.042.547.5192.5
of which arrears[.0][192.5][42.5][47.5][192.5]d
Inter-American Development Bank76.496.896.896.896.8d
of which arrears[30.0][71.2][71.2][71.2][71.2]
Asian Development Bank163.2263.2223.2200.2223.2d
of which arrears[50.0][150.0][150.0][187.0][187.0]
African Development Fund45.0155.0128.05.0128.0d
of which arrears[45.0][88.3][88.3][5.0][88.3]
European Bank for R & D35.835.835.835.835.8
North American Development Bank56.5-.--.--.--.-
IMF-Enhanced Struc Adjustment Fd.07.0.0.0.0
Intl Organizations & Programs192.0214.0157.3170.0187.0
Total, Title IV - Multilateral1,650.91,871.81,483.61,355.31,663.3
of which Mult. Dev. Bank arrears[359.5][502.0][352.0][310.7][539.0]d
Title VI - IMF:
IMF New Arrangement to Borrow3,361.03,361.03,361.03,361.0d-.-
IMF Quota Increase14,500.0.014,500.014,500.0d-.-
TOTAL, no MDB arrears & IMF12,787.213,577.012,471.412,574.612,826.6d
TOTAL, MDB arrears, no IMF13,146.714,079.512,823.612,885.313,365.6d
TOTAL, MDB arrears & IMF13,146.731,940.516,184.630,746.331,226.6d
a. The account structure for development aid differs among various versions of the bills. This table shows a
consistent and comparable account structure based on enacted development aid for FY1998 and FY1999.
b. In addition, Division B, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, of H.R. 4328 includes $50 million for Child
Survival programs, $46 million for the former Soviet aid, $20 million for anti-terrorism, $233 million for counter-
narcotics, and $50 million in ESF for Africa embassy bombing-related aid. Because they are designated as
"emergency" requirements, these funds do not score against the Foreign Operations totals.
c. The Administration request and Senate bill included the Ireland Fund as part of the Economic Support Fund.
d. Under the terms of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, appropriations for multilateral development bank (MDB)
arrearage payments and the IMF do not score against budget allocations for Foreign Operations programs in
FY1999. The TOTAL lines in this table show three different amounts from which common comparisons are
made: 1) excluding MDB arrears and IMF funds, amounts that reflect Foreign Operations allocations; 2)
including MDB arrears, but excluding the IMF, a figure useful for comparing FY1998 and FY1999; and 3)
including all funds in the bill. None of these totals include the $399 million emergency supplementals.