[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
____________________