[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 15349-15350]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   U.S. FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO AFRICA--EXAMINING THE ADMINISTRATION'S 
                                 CLAIMS

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 30, 2005

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, with the G-8 Summit and its Africa-centered 
agenda approaching, there has been much discussion in recent weeks 
about the scale of U.S. development assistance to Africa, I find it 
appropriate to bring to the attention of this body a June 27th report 
authored by Susan E. Rice of the Brookings Institution. The report 
entitled ``U.S. Foreign Assistance to Africa: Claims vs. Reality'', 
gives a fresh analysis of U.S. aid to Africa, and puts into question 
many of the assertions put forward by the administration. ``
  In response to calls for increased Africa assistance, Bush has 
frequently stated that U.S. assistance to Africa has ``tripled'' under 
his administration to $3.2 billion. However, according to the Brookings 
report, U.S.-Africa assistance has increased only 67 percent in nominal 
dollars, or 56 percent in real--inflation adjusted--dollar terms from 
the period 2000-2004 of which President Bush speaks. The report further 
points out that 53 percent of the 4 year assistance increase to Africa 
was in the form of emergency food aid rather than actual development 
assistance. When looking at development assistance exclusively--which 
excludes emergency food aid and security assistance--the 4-year 
increase is only 33 percent in real dollar terms.
  It must be said that the Bush administration should be commended for 
its work to increase overall Africa assistance. In particular, HIV/AIDS 
programs in Africa have benefited from the administration's efforts. 
However, the closer examination given by the Brookings Institution 
shows that the scope and composition of U.S. assistance to Africa is 
somewhat overstated.
  Emergency food aid--which has been given in large quantities by the 
Bush administration, and is a large portion of the administration's 
Africa assistance package--is extremely vital and saves lives during a 
short term crisis, but it does not really help a country to 
``develop''. Real development relates to the areas of health, 
education, infrastructure, and trade and business promotion. In these 
areas, the report points out, the overall aid increase is fair, but not 
overly substantial.
  This is important, because as the leaders of the G-8 have tried in 
recent months to find agreement on increased assistance to Africa, the 
Bush Administration has touted its Africa assistance track record and 
the existence of its Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) as reasons why 
it does not need to subscribe to Prime Minister Blair's development 
assistance recommendation.
  The MCA in particular does not help President Bush's argument that 
the U.S. is doing enough for Africa. The MCA, which Bush introduced in 
2002, was supposed to have provided $10 billion in additional 
assistance to developing countries from 2003-2005 and five billion 
dollars a year starting in 2006.
  However, the Republican-led Congress has only appropriated $2.5 
billion total for the MCA over the past 2 years, and just 2 countries 
in Africa have received funding--Cape Verde and Madagascar at $110 
million each. Indeed, the majority of the MCA's expenditures so far 
have gone to simple administrative costs.
  On a recent trip to the White House in early June, several African 
leaders lamented the slow pace of aid through the Millennium Challenge 
Account mechanism, and urged the President to do more to bring aid to 
African nations. So bad is the situation at the MCA,

[[Page 15350]]

the agency's director suddenly resigned earlier this month.
  With all that said, the Bush Administration must be more aggressive 
in bringing increased aid to the continent--just as vigorous as it was 
in spearheading the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, which has 
cost America over $200 billion and counting.
  In the report, Ms. Rice argues that the U.S. should commit to 
increasing their oversees development assistance to 0.7 percent of GNP 
by 2015, as called for by Prime Minister Blair, and several 
longstanding United Nation agreements. The EU has recently agreed to 
meet the 0.7 percent assistance benchmark, with half of the increase 
going to Africa. Canada is also currently considering ways in which it 
can meet the goal, with its Parliament urging action on the matter.
  Not only has the United States not committed to the 0.7 percent goal, 
but at 0.17 percent, it is currently second to last among 
industrialized nations in the percentage of GNP dedicated to 
development assistance. Some countries, such as Sweden and Holland, 
have long achieved the goal, and even surpassed it.
  The United States now has the opportunity to rise to the challenge 
and rewrite history. We dedicated 2.5 percent of our GNP to fund the 
Marshall Plan, which helped to reconstruct Western Europe. Why then, 
can we not now dedicate 0.7 percent to help development the entire 
world, especially when we would have 10 years to meet the objective? In 
the short-term, the doubling of assistance to Africa that Blair is 
advocating would require only $6 billion dollars a year on the part of 
the United States--or $1 billion dollars more than what President Bush 
had planned under the Millennium Challenge Account after 2005.
  I thank Ms. Rice and the Brookings Institution for their insightful 
report. It contributes to an increasing body of evidence that the 
Administration can do more to help Africa, and it will undoubtedly 
serve to embolden the chorus of individuals, organizations, and nations 
challenging the Administration to do its part to end the evil of global 
poverty.
     The Bush Administration Record
       The Bush Administration has significantly increased aid to 
     Africa, but that increase falls far short of what the 
     President has claimed. U.S. aid to Africa from FY 2000 (the 
     last full budget year of the Clinton Administration) to 
     FY2004 (the last completed fiscal year of the Bush 
     Administration) has not ``tripled'' or even doubled. Rather, 
     in real dollars, it has increased 56 percent (or 67 percent 
     in nominal dollar terms). The majority of that increase 
     consists of emergency food aid, rather than assistance for 
     sustainable development of the sort Africa needs to achieve 
     lasting poverty reduction.
       President Bush has thus far rejected Blair's call to double 
     aid to Africa, as well as the benchmark set by the OECD and 
     signatories to the Monterey Consensus, which called on 
     developed countries to devote 0.7 percent of their gross 
     national income to overseas development assistance by 2015. 
     In declining to commit to either of these targets, President 
     Bush frequently states that his Administration has 
     ``tripled'' U.S. assistance to Africa over the past four 
     years to $3.2 billion. On June 7, 2005, the President also 
     announced that the U.S. will spend an additional $674 
     million, which consists of previously appropriated emergency 
     humanitarian food aid. The U.S. recently agreed with G-8 
     partners to cancel the multilateral debt owed by 18 Heavily 
     Indebted Poor Countries, a positive step forward.
     The Challenge
       As G-8 member states prepare to meet from July 6th to 8th 
     in Gleneagles, Scotland, they will have to confront the 
     challenge posed by their host, British Prime Minister Tony 
     Blair, to double aid to Africa to $25 billion by 2015, 
     preferably through the creation of an International Finance 
     Facility. Part of a sweeping agenda set forth by Blair and 
     his Commission for Africa to alleviate poverty and improve 
     prospects for African security, democracy and sustainable 
     development, this proposal includes scaled-up commitments by 
     the G-8 to assist Africa with increased aid, trade 
     opportunities, investment, debt relief as well as conflict 
     prevention, conflict resolution and peacekeeping capacity.
     What the U.S. Should Do and Why
       The Gleneagles Summit poses an historic opportunity for the 
     United States to lead the international community in 
     providing increased development and other assistance to 
     Africa. The Bush Administration should join the UK, France, 
     Italy and Germany and twelve other developed nations and 
     commit to devote up to 0.7 percent of U.S. gross national 
     income to overseas development assistance by 2015. This 
     commitment would place the U.S. in the forefront of 
     international efforts to alleviate global poverty.
       Global poverty undermines U.S. national security by 
     facilitating the emergence and spread of transnational 
     security threats, including disease, environmental 
     degradation, crime, narcotics flows, proliferation and 
     terrorism. First, poverty substantially increases the risk of 
     conflict, which in turn creates especially fertile breeding 
     grounds for such threats. Second, poverty erodes weak states' 
     capacity to prevent or contain transnational threats.
     Key Findings
       U.S. aid to Africa from FY 2000 to FY 2004, the period to 
     which the President referred, has not ``tripled'' or even 
     doubled. Rather, in real dollars, it has increased 56 percent 
     (or 67 percent in nominal dollar terms).
       An analysis of actual U.S. appropriations from FY 2000 (the 
     last full budget year of the Clinton Administration) to FY 
     2004 (the last completed fiscal year of the Bush 
     Administration) reveals a different reality about U.S. aid to 
     Africa than President Bush has maintained.
       In nominal dollars, total United States aid to Sub-Saharan 
     Africa increased from $2.034 billion in FY 2000 to $3.399 
     billion in FY 2004.
       In nominal dollars, of the $1.365 billion overall increase, 
     $728.9 million, or 53 percent, consists of emergency food aid 
     rather than overseas development assistance, which 
     contributes to sustainable development. The remainder of the 
     increase is comprised primarily of funding for the 
     President's HIV/AIDS initiative (distributed between two 
     accounts, Child Survival and Global Health) as well as 
     emergency and post-conflict assistance to Liberia and Sudan.
       Actual development assistance, excluding food aid and 
     security assistance, increased only 33 percent from FY 2000 
     to FY 2004 in real dollar terms, or 43 percent in nominal 
     dollars.
       In nominal dollars, less than $450 million of the increased 
     foreign aid to Africa is official development assistance.
       Official Development Assistance to Africa (aid programs 
     directed at sustainable development) increased by 43 percent 
     from FY 2000 to FY 2004. Of these programs (in nominal 
     dollars):
       Funding for the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund 
     increased by 70 percent, primarily for HIV/AIDS.
       Development Assistance funding increased 1 percent over FY 
     2000.
       Global Health and HIV/AIDS Initiative, which did not exist 
     as a separate program in FY 2000, received $263.8 million for 
     Africa in FY 2004.
       Peace Corps funding increased by 19 percent.
       African Development Bank funding increased by 24 percent.
       African Development Foundation funding increased by 31 
     percent.
       African Development Fund decreased by 12 percent.
       The newly-created Millennium Challenge Account did not 
     exist in FY 2000, and its entire FY 2004 budget went towards 
     administrative expenses rather than country programs.
       The Heavily Indebted Poor Countries debt relief funding 
     decreased by 32 percent.
       The only programs that both existed in FY 2000 and more 
     than doubled by FY 2004 were Foreign Military Financing, 
     which increased by 109 percent, and emergency food aid (PL 
     480 Title II), which increased by 159 percent.
       From FY 2000 to FY 2005 (estimated), U.S. aid to Africa 
     will have increased by 78 percent in real dollar terms or 93 
     percent in nominal dollars--not quite a doubling, much less a 
     ``tripling'' of aid. Of this increase, 50 percent consists of 
     emergency food aid (PL 480 Title II).
       Actual development assistance, excluding food aid and 
     security assistance, will have increased an estimated 74 
     percent from FY 2000 to FY 2005 in real dollar terms, or 89 
     percent in nominal dollars.

                          ____________________