[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 70 (Monday, May 1, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S5920]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          RICH NATIONS CRITICIZE UNITED STATES ON FOREIGN AID

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, recently, I read a New York Times 
article titled ``Rich Nations Criticize U.S. On Foreign Aid,'' by 
Steven Greenhouse. It referred to a report of the Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], and I ask that the article 
be printed in the Record at this point.
  The article follows:

          Rich Nations Criticize United States on Foreign Aid

                         (By Steven Greenhouse)

       Washington, April 7--An organization of wealthy industrial 
     nations issued a stinging report today criticizing the United 
     States for moving to cut foreign aid when it already gives a 
     smaller share of its economic output to such assistance than 
     any other industrial nation.
       The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 
     a Paris-based group of 25 nations, said the United States, 
     once far and away the world's leading donor, was setting a 
     poor example by cutting its aid budget and warned that the 
     move might prompt other countries to follow suit.
       Using unusually blunt language, the report said that ``this 
     seeming withdrawal from traditional leadership is so grave 
     that it poses a risk of undermining political support for 
     development cooperation'' by other donor countries.
       The report said the United States had slipped to No. 2, 
     well behind Japan, in the amount of foreign aid provided 
     excluding military assistance. The United States provided 
     $9.72 billion in 1993, compared with $11.3 billion for Japan.
       It said the United States contributed 15-hundredths of one 
     percent of its gross domestic product for economic aid, 
     putting it last among the 25 industrial nations. The average 
     among these nations was 30-hundredths of one percent, while 
     Sweden, Denmark and Norway all give 1 percent of their 
     overall output to foreign aid.
       J. Brian Atwood, Administrator of the Agency for 
     International Development, the Government's principal aid 
     arm, welcomed the report, making clear that he intends to use 
     it as ammunition in the Clinton Administration's fight to 
     persuade Congress not to cut foreign aid. At a news briefing 
     today, Mr. Atwood criticized Congressional committees for 
     proposing to cut $3 billion from the $21 billion 
     international affairs budget, which includes State Department 
     spending as well as foreign aid.
       The report was written by the O.E.C.D. Secretariat and was 
     overseen by James H. Michel, the chairman of its development 
     assistance committee. Mr. Michel was an assistant 
     administrator of A.I.D. in the Bush Administration.

  Mr. SIMON. After reading the article, I asked for a copy of the OECD 
report, and it is a somewhat technical but important insight into our 
deficiencies.
  Let me give a few quotes from the report:

       A perplexing feature of the US development assistance 
     effort is that while public opinion responds readily to 
     situations of acute needs in developing countries 
     (contributions to private voluntary agencies are among the 
     highest per capita among DAC Members), there is no strong 
     public support for the Federal aid budget. This may be 
     explained in part by the fact that the public greatly 
     overestimates the share of foreign assistance in the US 
     Federal budget. According to a recent poll, the majority of 
     respondents believe it to be around 20 percent of total US 
     Government spending. In fact, USAID spending represents only 
     0.5 percent of the Federal budget and the US has the lowest 
     ODA/GNP ratio among DAC Members.

  Two other important points are made:

       There is considerable apprehension in the donor community 
     that some proposals may be given voice in the new Congress 
     which raise the possibility of major cut-backs in US aid and 
     even a turning away by the US from the common effort for 
     development which it inspired over 30 years ago.

  The second important point:

       The US has accumulated substantial arrears both to the U.N. 
     system and to be the multilateral concessional financing 
     facilities, due to Congressional reluctance to approve the 
     necessary appropriations. Plans discussed with Congress in 
     1994 to eliminate these arrears over the next few years are 
     welcome. At the same time these plans appear to imply a 
     reduction in US contributions to future financing of these 
     agencies and facilities. This would represent a shift in 
     burden-sharing to other DAC Members, and might have serious 
     consequences for upcoming replenishments of the International 
     Development Association (IDA) and the soft windows of the 
     regional development banks.

  But perhaps more telling than anything else is the percentage of 
gross national product [GNP] that is used for foreign aid among the 21 
wealthy nations.
  I ask my colleagues to look at this table, and I do not believe we 
can look at it with pride.
  Mr. President, we are shortly going to be making decisions on our 
budget, and one of the questions is: Are we going to be less sensitive 
to the needs of the poor, both within our country and beyond the 
borders of our country?
  I hope we will provide a sensible and humanitarian answer, that 
suggests we should be helpful to those in need.
  The table follows:
                   Net ODA from DAC countries in 1993

                          [As percent of GNP]

Denmark............................................................1.03
Norway.............................................................1.01
Sweden.............................................................0.98
Netherlands........................................................0.82
France.............................................................0.63
Canada.............................................................0.45
Finland............................................................0.45
Belgium............................................................0.39
Germany............................................................0.37
Australia..........................................................0.35
Luxembourg.........................................................0.35
Switzerland........................................................0.33
Italy..............................................................0.31
United Kingdom.....................................................0.31
Austria............................................................0.30
Portugal...........................................................0.29
Japan..............................................................0.26
New Zealand........................................................0.25
Spain..............................................................0.25
Ireland............................................................0.20
United States......................................................0.15
                                                               ________

      Total DAC............................................0.30


                          ____________________