[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 27 (Friday, February 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2439-S2440]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              U.S. FOREIGN ASSISTANCE PRIORITIES IN AFRICA

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I recently received a copy of a speech 
delivered February 3 by Brian Atwood, Director of the Agency for 
International Development. He outlines several thoughts on directions 
for U.S. assistance in Africa.
  In light of the current debate over U.S. foreign assistance programs 
in general, and particularly in Africa, I thought my colleagues would 
find Mr. Atwood's comments useful. I ask that the text of Mr. Atwood's 
remarks be included in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the remarks were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            Remarks of J. Brian Atwood, Summit on Africa Aid

       I am pleased to be with you today as President Clinton's 
     representative. I understand that the President has issued a 
     statement that was shared with you. As you heard, it 
     underscores the abiding commitment of this Administration to 
     Africa.
       From time to time American ballot boxes produce what are 
     called revolutions. We know about the revolution sparked by 
     the Voting Rights Act. Franklin Roosevelt's election created 
     a revolution. So did Ronald Reagan's.
       We are in the early stages of a revolution in Washington 
     today. And, as in every other time in our history, good can 
     emerge from the changes this revolution brings.
       Congressional reform--the streamlining of the institution, 
     the increased transparency, open rules--this is all long 
     overdue. A Gore-Gingrich collaboration to reinvent government 
     is something the American people welcome. This is not 
     politics-as-usual, and it can produce positive change.
       But in the fervor that accompanies the early stages of a 
     revolution, incautious positions are often asserted. At the 
     least, before such positions become the accepted wisdom, 
     someone must challenge them, civilly, but forcefully. That is 
     the only way we can keep revolution on a healthy course. 
     Indeed, that is the way mandates for change are interpreted 
     and given real meaning.
       A case in point is the assertion that we have no national 
     interests in Africa. That we must reduce or eliminate 
     development assistance to that continent. That Africa has 
     neither geopolitical importance for the United States nor 
     economic value.
       With all the force we can muster, we say: That is just 
     plain wrong.
       Let's examine the question objectively. For just a moment, 
     let's leave out America's humanitarian values. Let's put 
     aside our historic ties to Africa. Let's
      forget sentimentality. Instead, let's talk about hard 
     economic facts and markets and sales. Let's ask ourselves: 
     is Africa worth the investment? Is a continent of half a 
     billion people worth one-half of one-tenth of one percent 
     of the federal budget, which is what we now spend on it? 
     Is the three dollars and change that each American family 
     pays each year to help several dozen sub-Saharan nations a 
     burden worth the price?
       Of course it is. It is not welfare, nor is it charity. It 
     is an investment we make in other people for our own self-
     interest.
       How do we build markets? The answer is simple: we do it by 
     making investments for the future. That is what vision is all 
     about. That is what practical reality teaches us, too. If we 
     want to talk economic rationales, then we must look at Africa 
     as the last great developing market. We must look at it the 
     way we looked at Latin America and Asia a generation ago.
       Consider Latin America; today it is the fastest growing 
     market for American goods. This is a huge new middle class 
     market of 350 million people. It got that way because of 
     investments made during the last forty years--$30.7 billion 
     in economic assistance from the United States between 1949 
     and 1993. Yet our exports to all of Latin America in 1993 
     alone were more than two-and-a-half times that amount--$78 
     billion. Quite a payoff in jobs and income, and that was just 
     one year. And the Latin American market is likely to grow 
     three times larger in the next decade.
       Where would we be if John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and 
     Richard Nixon had not committed themselves to the Alliance 
     for Progress and the education programs that helped create a 
     generation of economists and technicians who now lead South 
     America's impressive growth? What kind of customers would we 
     have if we had not supported health and education programs 
     that invested in the human capital of Latin America, an 
     investment that now is producing an educated, healthy 
     workforce that can afford to buy our goods and services? What 
     kind of stability would we have in this market if we had not 
     supported democracy-building programs that have made military 
     juntas and coups a thing of the past?
       It is an interesting exercise to compare sub-Saharan Africa 
     today to three of the newest ``Asian Tigers''--Malaysia, 
     Indonesia, and Thailand--as they were in 1960: African per 
     capita income is today 80% of what it was in Malaysia, 
     Indonesia, and Thailand 35 years ago. But Africa today has 
     four times the number of people Malaysia, Indonesia, and 
     Thailand had in 1960. Think of the potential of this African 
     market, even at its current stage of development.
       The bottom line is that Africa today is not significantly 
     behind where the ``Asian Tigers'' were in 1960. In the three 
     decades since, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand 
     substantially reduced poverty, their rates of population 
     growth, infant mortality, and illiteracy. These countries are 
     now major players in the world economy. We believe Africa can 
     do as well.
       The doubters should not just look at Africa's potential; 
     the market is already significant, and like other developing 
     markets, it is growing far faster than our markets in Europe. 
     In 1992, sub-Saharan Africa imported $63 billion worth of 
     merchandise from the world. African imports have risen by 
     around 7.0% per year for the past decade. At this rate, the 
     African market would amount to $480 billion by the year 2025. 
     That is approximately $267 billion in today's dollars.
       The U.S. currently accounts for nearly 10% of the African 
     market. Do the arithmetic. Each American family now spends 
     about $3 annually on aid to Africa. At current growth rates, 
     that will produce something like $50 billion worth of 
     American exports to Africa each year in 30 years. In 2025, 
     the U.S. is projected to have a population of 320 million. 
     Again, do the arithmetic. $50 billion worth of exports would 
     work out to about $600 worth of exports per family, annually, 
     in 2025. And that is if Africa's growth remains at its 
     current level; if we make the investments Africa needs, and 
     if African nations implement the kind of policies that have 
     benefitted Asia and Latin America, the return for each 
     American family in thirty years could be as much as $2000 per 
     year.
       These are not trivial amounts. They represent millions of 
     jobs for our children financial health for our nation.
       Isn't Africa worth the investments now that we made in Asia 
     and Latin America? Those who argue against such investments 
     [[Page S2440]] are shortchanging the next generation of 
     Americans. There is, of course, no guarantee that our 
     investment will pay dividends, but it is as good a bet as 
     most mutual funds. Moreover, the cost of not acting could 
     overwhelm our treasury, and, I fear, our consciences.
       Those who say we have no strategic interest in Africa 
     should understand that if African nations fail to make 
     progress, if they descend into chaos and decay, the tragedy 
     will not take place in a vacuum. Chaos there will affect our 
     interests here. As long as we remain true to our values--and 
     there is a strong bipartisan consensus that suggests we will 
     (even Pat Buchanan supports disaster relief)--the costs of 
     humanitarian operations will continue to be borne in part by 
     the United States. If more African nations fail, we will 
     share the costs of caring for the millions of refugees. We 
     will shoulder the burdens of dealing with endless famine. And 
     we will
      have to confront the spreading political disorder, the 
     environmental damage, and the consequent loss of markets 
     for our goods.
       Parts of Africa are living on the edge. Many African 
     nations face adverse climatic and soil conditions. Each day, 
     people in these countries face problems of poor health and 
     malnutrition and illiteracy that few other people confront.
       Yet lost in the apocalyptic descriptions of an Africa 
     seemingly falling apart is genuine reason for encouragement. 
     The headlines rarely report the many positive developments 
     and success stories in Africa. Yet in a number of African 
     nations, democratically-elected, enlightened leaders, 
     committed to broadening participation and undertaking reforms 
     necessary for development, are creating an environment for 
     success. This, too, is the reality of Africa:
       USAID today is working in 35 African nations that, in our 
     judgment, are in various phases of consolidating their 
     democracies, creating free markets, and implementing serious 
     economic reforms. Conversely, we have ended our involvement 
     in several nations where the governments refuse to commit 
     themselves to reform or to a development partnership with 
     their own citizens.
       A new generation of African leaders is pursuing extensive 
     economic restructuring programs, including privatization of 
     state-owned enterprises, reducing government functions and 
     budgets, stabilizing the economy, and implementing policy 
     changes that help the private sector expand.
       New crops and market liberalization are expanding food 
     production, raising farmer income and reducing food prices 
     for consumers.
       More children, especially girls, are attending school so 
     that they can become more productive members of society. And 
     we know from our own experience that more than any other 
     factor, improving the education of girls and the status of 
     women enhances the economy, the environment, and the 
     prospects of democracy.
       Programs to expand immunization and use of oral rehydration 
     therapy are saving an estimated 800,000 African children each 
     year.
       Fertility is starting to fall as more and more parents use 
     family planning services.
       I am proud that USAID has played a role in every one of 
     these achievements.
       For every Rwanda there is a Ghana--a nation that has begun 
     revitalizing its economy and is intent on being part of the 
     worldwide economic expansion.
       For every Somalia, there is a South Africa or a Namibia--
     nations that have successfully implemented democracy and 
     peaceful change.
       For every Angola, there is a Mozambique, emerging now from 
     civil conflict.
       For every tragedy, there are a half dozen islands of hope. 
     Progress is still tentative, often fragile. Which is 
     precisely why we must not hesitate now. But this continent is 
     no write-off. It is a good investment.
       We have learned from the mistakes we made during the Cold 
     War. We now are concentrating our aid in countries that are 
     implementing sound economic policies, promoting an open and 
     democratic society, and investing their own resources in 
     broad-based development. That is exactly what the Congress 
     wanted to accomplish with the Development Fund for Africa. 
     And that is why this Administration strongly supports the 
     Development Fund for Africa. Under this fund, we have taken a 
     longer-term approach to Africa's development, systematically 
     addressing the root causes--economic, social, and political--
     of underdevelopment.
       In those countries stricken with disaster or famine, we are 
     treating emergency relief as more than an end in itself. 
     Rather, we are structuring it to help nations make the 
     difficult transition from crisis to the path of sustainable 
     development.
       President Clinton's Initiative for the Greater Horn of 
     Africa is designed to apply the lessons we learned in the 
     Sahel and Southern Africa is a troubled region that now 
     consumes nearly half of all African relief. By emphasizing 
     regional cooperation and planning, by helping nations acquire 
     the ability to respond to food crises early on, we can 
     prevent droughts from becoming famines. This Initiative, we 
     believe, will save lives and resources. The partnerships it 
     builds will enable the donor community to save billions of 
     dollars in relief assistance over the next fifteen years and 
     focus resources instead on recovery efforts and long-term 
     development.
       To prevent more failed nations, the United States must 
     strengthen our efforts to prevent crisis and to encourage 
     others to do so as well. While we only provide five percent 
     of the development assistance that Africa receives, we 
     provide 30 percent of the relief assistance directed at the 
     continent's emergencies. It is a lot less expensive to lead 
     the way on prevention than it is to pay the costs of failure.
       I am able to make the case for assistance to Africa today 
     because USAID has reorganized itself to be an effective 
     instrument of development. Many of our reforms were pioneered 
     by the Development Fund for Africa. The DEA forced us to 
     measure results and now we are going to do this everywhere. 
     Our work in Africa has been an essential part of our 
     identity, and must remain so.
       So, now we have a fight on our hands. We welcome it. If the 
     revolution has indeed begun, then each of us must do 
     everything we can to ensure that the well-being of our 
     children--and the children of Africa--is advanced by the 
     vision today's revolution produces. We cannot be silent. We 
     cannot wring our hands. The case for Africa gives us the 
     opportunity to be the champions of common sense. This is a 
     battle well worth waging. Not for African Americans, not for 
     historical reasons, not even for our humanitarian values, 
     though we must never forget them. This is a battle worth 
     waging for America's national interests and the future of our 
     children. We will wage it. And I am confident that, in the 
     end, common sense will prevail.
     

                          ____________________