Order Code RL30511
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY2001: Foreign Operations,
Export Financing, and Related Programs
Updated September 2, 2000
Larry Nowels
Specialist in Foreign Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade 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
bound 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
Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittees. 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 FY2001:
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.
President Clinton has asked Congress to appropriate $15.1 billion for FY2001
Foreign Operations, an amount about $1.6 billion, or 12% higher than total FY2000
appropriations, after adjusting FY2000 to deduct the one-time, emergency $1.8 billion
aid package for Israel, Jordan, and Palestinians in support of the November 1998 Wye
River/Middle East peace accord. (Including Wye River assistance in the FY2000
totals, the FY2001 request is roughly $210 million, or 1.4%, less than total FY2000
enacted appropriations.) The largest increases at the account level are those for the
Export-Import Bank (+26%), USAID development assistance (+18%),
nonproliferation, terrorism, and demining (+44%), voluntary contributions to
international organizations (+45%), and multilateral development bank contributions
(+24%).
S. 2522, as approved by the Senate on June 22, provides $13.4 billion for
FY2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations. The measure is about $65million less
than FY2000 enacted (after subtracting from FY2000 the one-time, $1.8 billion
emergency Wye River aid package). The Senate bill falls about $1.7 billion, or 11%,
below the President’s FY2001 request. A major new initiative in S. 2522 is the
creation of a Global Health account ($691 million) with specific earmarks for
HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and for a U.S. contribution to the Global Fund for
Children’s Vaccines ($50 million). Population aid would increase by $110 million and
a new set of conditions on family planning programs would effectively eliminate the
current abortion-related restrictions that Congress enacted for FY2000.
H.R. 4811, as approved by the House on July 13, provides $13.1 billion, about
$350 million less than the FY2000 enacted, and 13% less than the President’s request.
The bill maintains the FY2000 funding level and abortion-related restrictions. At
$238 million, the bill provides most of the Administration’s FY2001 request for debt
relief, but still falls well short of the combined FY2000/2001 debt reduction request
of $472 million.
Four issues in the FY2001 Foreign Operations debate are receiving special
attention: 1) U.S. development aid policy and spending priorities; 2) population aid
and international family planning policy; 3) regional/country aid issues and allocations;
and 4) initiatives to reduce debt owed to the United States and other creditors by the
world’s poorest and most highly indebted nations.

Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
CRS Division
Tel.
Coordinator
Larry Nowels
FDT
7-7645
Africa Aid
Raymond Copson
FDT
7-7661
Agency for Intl Development
Larry Nowels
FDT
7-7645
Agency for Intl Development
Curt Tarnoff
FDT
7-7656
AIDS
Raymond Copson
FDT
7-7661
Bosnia
Julie Kim
FDT
7-3692
Central Asia
Jim Nichol
FDT
7-2289
Debt Relief
Larry Nowels
FDT
7-7645
Development Assistance
Larry Nowels
FDT
7-7645
Development Assistance
Curt Tarnoff
FDT
7-7656
Diseases
Lois McHugh
FDT
7-7627
Drug Control Programs
Raphael Perl
FDT
7-7664
Export-Import Bank
James Jackson
FDT
7-7751
Family Planning Programs
Larry Nowels
FDT
7-7645
International Affairs Budget
Larry Nowels
FDT
7-7645
International Monetary Fund
Jonathan Sanford
FDT
7-7682
Kosovo aid
Curt Tarnoff
FDT
7-7656
Middle East Assistance
Clyde Mark
FDT
7-7681
Military Aid/Arms Sales
Richard Grimmett
FDT
7-7675
Multilateral Development Banks
Jonathan Sanford
FDT
7-7682
Nagorno-Karabakh
Carol Migdalovitz
FDT
7-2667
Nonproliferation
Robert Shuey
FDT
7-7677
North Korea/KEDO
Larry Niksch
FDT
7-7680
Overseas Private Investment Corp
James Jackson
FDT
7-7751
Peace Corps
Curt Tarnoff
FDT
7-7656
Peacekeeping
Marjorie Browne
FDT
7-7695
Refugees & Humanitarian Aid
Lois McHugh
FDT
7-7627
Russia/East Europe Aid
Curt Tarnoff
FDT
7-7656
Terrorism
Raphael Perl
FDT
7-7664
Trade and Development Agency
Susan Epstein
FDT
7-6678
U.N. Voluntary Contributions
Lois McHugh
FDT
7-7627
CRS Division abbreviation: “FDT” = Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Foreign Operations Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Foreign Operations, the FY2000 Budget Resolution, and Section 302(b)
Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Foreign Operations Appropriations Request for FY2001 and Congressional
Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Major Changes to Current Funding Proposed for FY2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Congressional Debate on Foreign Operations Spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Summary of Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Major Policy and Spending Issues in the Foreign Operations Debate . . . . . . . . 12
Development Aid Policy Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
FY2001 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Congressional action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Population and Family Planning Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Family Planning and Abortion Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
UNFPA Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Coercive Family Planning Practices and Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Congressional action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Regional Allocations of U.S. Foreign Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Creation of the Development Fund for Africa Account . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Increased Funding for Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Modest Increases for Most Latin America Programs; Major
Counternarcotics Initiative for Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Middle East Aid Reduced Slightly for FY2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Flat Budget Request for Russia and Other Former Soviet States; Increase
for Kosovo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Congressional action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Debt Reduction Initiatives for Poor Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Appendix — Detailed Foreign Operations Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
List of Figures
Figure 1. International Affairs Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY1994 to FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 3. Summary of Foreign Operations Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 4. USAID Sustainable Development Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 5. Regional Allocations of U.S. Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 6. Leading Recipients of U.S. Foreign Aid: FY1999 - FY2001 . . . . . . . 27
Table 7. Foreign Operations Appropriations: Discretionary Budget Authority . 36

Appropriations for FY2001:
Foreign Operations, Export Financing,
and Related Programs
Most Recent Developments
On July13, the House approved (239-185) H.R. 4811, the FY2001 Foreign
Operations Appropriations, providing $13.1 billion, about $350 million less than the
FY2000 enacted (after adjusting for Wye River and Plan Colombia aid packages),
and $2 billion, or 13%, below the President’s $15.1 billion FY2001 request. The
House bill increases the President’s request for child survival and infectious disease
programs ($886 million) and international fund for Ireland ($25 million), and nearly
matches the FY2001 request for debt reduction ($238 million). The House bill
reduces the President’s proposed budget in many areas: aid to the former Soviet
Union ($740 million; -$90 million), Foreign Military Financing grants ($3.27
billion; -$228 million), the World Bank’s International Development Association
($566.6 million; -$270 million), and the Global Environment Facility ($35.8 million;
-$140 million). The House measure further continues current abortion restrictions
applied to USAID population aid.

On June 22, the Senate approved (95-4) S. 2522. (Subsequently, on July 18, the
Senate substituted the text of S. 2522 into H.R. 4811, and passed H.R. 4811.) The
$13.4 billion measure is about $70 million less than FY2000 enacted (after excluding
from FY2000 the one-time Wye River/Middle East Peace $1.8 billion aid package
and the Plan Colombia supplemental). S. 2522 falls $1.7 billion, or 11%, below the
President’s FY2001 request. Most accounts are funded below the Administration’s
proposal. S. 2522 creates a new Global Health account at $691 million, parallel
with executive branch initiatives to increase funding for HIV/AIDS and other
infectious diseases. Population aid would increase by $110 million to about $482
million, but fall below the request of $541 million. A new set of conditions on
family planning programs would eliminate the current abortion restrictions that
Congress enacted for FY2000. Funding for USAID operating expenses, counter
narcotics, poor country debt relief, peacekeeping, and contributions to several
multilateral development banks are set below both FY2000 enacted and FY2001
requested amounts.

Introduction
The annual Foreign Operations appropriations bill is the primary legislative
vehicle through which Congress reviews and votes on the U.S. foreign assistance

CRS-2
budget and influences executive branch foreign policy making generally.1 It contains
the largest share — about two-thirds — 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. Most humanitarian aid activities are funded within Foreign Operations,
including USAID’s disaster program and State Department’s refugee relief support.2
Foreign Operations includes separate accounts for aid programs in the former Soviet
Union (also referred to as the Independent States 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.
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 15 years. 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 developed by the appropriations committees 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.
1Although the Foreign Operations appropriations bill is often characterized as the “foreign
aid” spending measure, it does not include funding for all foreign assistance programs. Food
aid, administered under the P.L. 480 program and managed by USAID, is appropriated in the
Agriculture appropriations bill. Furthermore, 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 recent years, funding for food aid and the Eximbank have been about the same, so that the
Foreign Operations appropriation and the official “foreign aid” budget are nearly identical.
Throughout this report, references to Foreign Operations and foreign aid are used
interchangeably.
2 Another international humanitarian aid program – food assistance or P.L. 480 title II grants
– is funded under the Agriculture appropriations bill.

CRS-3
Status
Figure 1. International Affairs Budget
International Affairs Budget Request - FY2001
Discretionary Budget Authority by Appropriation Bills
Foreign Operations
$15.11 billion 66.4%
Agriculture-Food aid
$0.84 billion 3.7%
State Dept/Commerce
$6.82 billion 29.9%
An additional $14.5 million for the US Institute for Peace is in the Labor/H bill.
President Clinton submitted his FY2001 federal budget request to Congress on
February 7, 2000, including funding proposals for Foreign Operations Appropriations
programs. Subsequently, House and Senate Foreign Operations Subcommittees held
hearings, including testimony from Secretary of State Albright, Treasury Secretary
Summers, and USAID Administrator Anderson. The Senate Appropriations
Committee bypassed subcommittee markup, and ordered reported S. 2522 on May
9. Because of disputes over scheduling and the opportunity by the minority to offer
amendments to other legislation, the Senate delayed taking up S. 2522. Those
problems were settled and the Senate approved S. 2522 on June 22. The House
Foreign Operations Subcommittee marked up its companion bill, H.R. 4811, on June
20, followed by full Committee approval on June 27. The House approved H.R. 4811
on July 13.
Table 1. Status of Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2001
Subcommittee
Conf. Report
Markup
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Approval
Pres.
Report Passage Report Passage Report
Action
House Senate
House Senate
June
June 27
May 11

July 13
June 22
20
106-720
106-291

CRS-4
Foreign Operations Funding Trends
As the United States has adjusted its foreign and defense policy to a post-Cold
War environment, one of the major foreign assistance challenges for Congress and
executive branch policymakers has been to formulate the most effective foreign aid
program amidst a tightening resource base. A dominant characteristic of Foreign
Operations funding trends in the most recent years has been the degree to which
foreign policy contingencies and international disasters have created demands for
additional resources beyond those originally requested by the President. Congress has
approved substantial amounts for FY1999 and FY2000 through “emergency” or
supplemental appropriation mechanisms, amounts that are over and above what is
enacted in “regular” Foreign Operations bills.
After peaking at $20.7 billion in FY1985, Foreign Operations appropriations
began a period of decline, 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, nearly 9% from the previous year. Many government and non-government
experts argued that these budget reductions seriously undermined 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 to reverse the decade-long decline in the foreign
policy budget. This effort coincided with congressional approval of a near $1 billion
increase for FY1998, setting Foreign Operations appropriations at $13.15 billion.
Foreign Operations funds rose again to $15.4 billion in FY1999 when lawmakers, at
the urging of the White House, added nearly $900 million in the final days of the 105th
Congress and another $2.1 billion for Central American hurricane relief and Kosovo
emergency assistance in supplemental funding.
Table 2. Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY1994 to FY2000
(discretionary budget authority in billions of current dollars)
FY1994
FY1995
FY1996
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999*
FY2000*
14.298
13.611
12.456
12.267
13.147
15.439
16.487
* FY1999 excludes $17.861 billion for the IMF; FY2000 includes $1.825 billion for the one-time,
Wye River/Middle East peace accord and $1.094 billion enacted in P.L. 106-246 for supplemental
Foreign Operation funds, mostly for Plan Colombia.
Amounts enacted for FY2000 – $16.5 billion – were also augmented by late-year
“emergency” add-ons recommended by the President, including $1.8 billion for the
Wye River/Middle East peace accord and $1.1 billion supplemental assistance, mostly
for a new counternarcotics initiative in Colombia. As shown in Table 2, the amount
for FY2000 is the highest in six years and the largest funding level, in nominal terms,
for Foreign Operations since FY1985. Nevertheless, when calculated using constant
dollars – taking into account the effects of inflation – current Foreign Operations
amounts are 47% less than the high point of FY1985, 15% less than the annual

CRS-5
average appropriation during the late 1980s, and 3% less than FY1992, a year that
might be considered the first post-Cold War foreign aid budget. FY2000 Foreign
Operations spending level represents 0.91% of the entire federal budget and 2.8% of
total discretionary budget authority. By comparison, these same figures in FY1985
were 2% and 4.6%, respectively.
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 approved $17.9 billion for the IMF
in FY1999, the first appropriation since FY1993. 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 96-279, U.S. Budgetary Treatment of the International
Monetary Fund
.
Foreign Operations, the FY2000 Budget Resolution, and Section
302(b) Allocations

Usually, Appropriation Committees begin markups of their spending bills only
after Congress has adopted a budget resolution and funds have been distributed to the
Appropriations panels under what is referred to as the Section 302(a) allocation
process, a reference to the pertinent authority in the Congressional Budget Act.
Following this, House and Senate Appropriations Committees separately decide how
to allot the total amount available among their 13 subcommittees, staying within the
functional guidelines set in the budget resolution. This second step is referred to as
the Section 302(b) allocation. As noted above, foreign policy funds are appropriated
within four bills with Foreign Operations having the largest share of around 67-70%
in most years.
How much foreign policy money to allocate to each of the four subcommittees,
and how to distribute the funds among the numerous programs remain decisions
exclusively reserved for the Appropriations Committees. Nevertheless, overall

CRS-6
ceilings set in the budget resolution can have significant implications for the budget
limitations within which the Foreign Operations subcommittees will operate when
they meet to mark up their annual appropriation bills.
The FY2001 budget resolution that cleared Congress on April 13 (H.Con.Res.
290) strongly indicated that the Foreign Operations subcommittees would receive a
significantly reduced Section 302(b) allocation from that assumed in the President’s
budget. H.Con.Res. 290 sets a $20 billion target for total international affairs
discretionary budget authority, a figure about 12% below the request.3
On May 4, House and Senate Appropriations Committees released Section
302(b) funding allocations for each of their 13 appropriation bills. In the House,
Foreign Operations programs received $13.28 billion, sharply below the President’s
$15.1 billion request ($14.8 billion if Plan Colombia funds were enacted, as they were,
in FY2000; see footnote 3). The allocation is over $3 billion less than total amounts
approved for FY2000 and $213 million below the “base” FY2000 appropriation, after
deducting the Wye River/Middle East peace money. The Senate panel approved a
slightly higher Foreign Operations level – $13.39 billion. But this would still be
insufficient to fund increases sought for FY2001, and at best, would result in an
overall total slightly below a “freeze” as compared to the FY2000 “base”amount.
Practices in the past few years suggest, however, that the initial 302(b) allocation
for Foreign Operations, as well as other spending bills, may change significantly,
especially at the latter stages of the appropriations debate. Last year, House and
Senate Foreign Operations Subcommittees received allocations of $12.6 billion and
$12.7 billion, respectively, levels which established the ceiling for House and Senate
passed bills (H.R. 2606 and S. 1234). Nevertheless, following a Presidential veto of
H.R. 2606 because of low funding levels and continued White House pressure to raise
foreign aid spending, during end-of-the session negotiations, Congress agreed to
$15.3 billion for Foreign Operations. Much of the additional funds were designated
as “emergency” appropriations, amounts that did not count against allocation limits.
While the early 302(b) allocation for Foreign Operations has resulted in House
and Senate bills of around $13.3 billion, the Administration is certain to press for
additional funding throughout the process. As they have the past two years, Foreign
Operations spending issues could be significant matters of debate in any final budget
“deal” negotiated at the end of the 106th Congress should lawmakers and the White
House reach an impasse on one or more of the 13 appropriation measures.
3 The FY2001 budget resolution assumed that Congress, would enact, as it did, funding for
the entire Plan Colombia counternarcotics initiative as an FY2000 budget item, including the
$256 million proposed for FY2001. Using this assumption, the $20 billion for International
Affairs is 11% less than the President’s request.

CRS-7
Foreign Operations Appropriations Request for FY2001
and Congressional Consideration
President Clinton has asked Congress to appropriate $15.1 billion for FY2001
Foreign Operations. There are two basic ways in which to compare this proposal with
current spending. The first is to make a straight comparison between enacted FY2000
Foreign Operations levels and the FY2001 request. Using these reference points, the
FY2001 budget recommendation is about $1.4 billion, or 8% less than total FY2000
appropriations. Another means of comparison, and one that is frequently used by
congressional Budget and Appropriations Committees, is to compare funding for
foreign aid programs continuing from year to year, that would deduct appropriations
provided under special circumstances, such as emergency requirements, one-time,
unique initiatives, or supplemental funding. For FY2000, Congress approved under
an emergency designation a one-time, $1.8 billion aid package for Israel, Jordan, and
Palestinians in support of the November 1998 Wye River/Middle East peace accord.
Congress further enacted in P.L. 106-246 an additional $1.1 billion in FY2000
Foreign Operations supplemental spending, mostly for counternarcotics in Colombia.
Under this second comparison approach, which adjusts the FY2000 appropriation
level from $16.5 billion to $13.5 billion, the FY2001 Foreign Operations request is
12% higher than current spending.
Major Changes to Current Funding Proposed for FY2001
The President’s budget plan would raise funding levels for nearly every Foreign
Operations account. Those receiving the largest increases or which represent special
Administration initiatives include:
! Export-Import Bank – The $214 million, or 26% funding increase for
Eximbank activities in FY2001 may actually support a smaller level of U.S.
exports than in FY2000, according to the Administration. OMB has issued a
new risk assessment methodology, effective for FY2001, which determines the
amount of appropriated funds necessary to back Bank lending and insurance
operations. Because of higher risk levels for some potential countries,
Eximbank estimates that the FY2001 appropriation will fall 14.5% below the
equivalent current appropriation.
! USAID development assistance – Overall bilateral development aid would
grow by nearly $350 million, or 18%. Most of the increase would support
Administration initiatives to bolster family planning programs (+45%),
HIV/AIDS funding (+39%), and democracy promotion (+24%), and to
launch two new environmental activities protecting tropical forests and
promoting cleaner energy sources. (See more below under special issues.)
! Debt reduction for poor developing nations – The FY2001 request includes
$262 million for debt reduction, most of which would support U.S.
participation in the Heavily Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) initiative. This is
more than double debt relief appropriations for FY2000, although Congress
rejected a $210 million supplemental request for a U.S. contribution to the
HIPC Trust Fund. (See more below under special issues.)

CRS-8
Table 3. Summary of Foreign Operations Appropriations
(Discretionary funds – in millions of dollars)
FY2000 FY2001 FY2001
FY2001
FY2001
Bill Title & Program
Enacted Request
Senate
House
Enacted
Title I - Export Assistance
599.0
845.0
636.0
606.5

Title II - Bilateral Economic Aid 9,595.6
9,017.9
7,947.3 8,106.0

Development aid
2,179.4
2,565.0
2,393.3 2,359.0

Africa aid
737.8
837.0



Israel/Egypt economic aid
1,676.4
1,535.0
1,535.0 1,535.0

Former Soviet Union
839.0
830.0
775.0
740.0

Debt reduction
123.0
262.0
75.0
238.0

Intl Narcotics control
305.0
587.0
220.0
305.0

Plan Colombia
1,018.5




Title III - Military Assistance
4,992.0
3,709.0
3,659.0 3,433.2

Israel/Egypt
3,160.0
3,220.0
3,220.0 3,280.0

Title IV - Multilateral Aid
1,302.0
1,550.0
1,205.9
996.2

Intl Organizations
183.0
206.0
178.0
188.0

Total Foreign Operations
16,488.6 15,121.9 13,424.2 13,141.9
Total, without FY00 Supp.
13,495.1 15,121.9 13,424.2 13,141.9

Source: H.R. 4811 and S. 2522.
Note: For comparative purposes and to conform to the account structure of the FY2000 enacted
Foreign Operations, some funding in the FY2001 request and Senate bill have been shifted:
UNICEF, GAVI, Inter-American Foundation, and African Development Foundation amounts
requested for FY2001 are included in development aid under title II. Senate funding for UNICEF,
approved in title IV, is also shifted to development aid in title II.
! Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs
account (NADR) – The Administration seeks a $136 million, or 63% increase
for an assortment of counterproliferation and anti-terrorism programs in
FY2001. Of special note is the doubling of resources for activities aimed at
fighting terrorists, including money to establish a new anti-terrorism training
facility for foreign officials. The account also projects a $20 million increase
– to $55 million – for payment of heavy fuel oil to North Korea as part of the
Korean Energy Development Organization (KEDO) designed to block North
Korea’s nuclear weapons development program. A June 5, 2000 budget
amendment added $41.2 million to the account for a contribution to the costs
of the trial in the Netherlands of the Lockerbie bombing suspects.
! Voluntary contributions to International Organizations – The FY2001
request increases U.S. contributions to about 20 organizations by $83 million,
or 45%. Nearly all of the additional resources would support the U.N.

CRS-9
Development Program (+$10 million) and a new Global Alliance for
Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI)
initiative ($50 million). The U.N.
Population Fund (UNFPA)
contribution would remain the same at $25
million.
! Multilateral Development Bank contributions – Overall, the budget
proposes a $235 million, or 24% increase for U.S. commitments to the World
Bank and regional multilateral development banks (MDBs). Most of the
additional funding ($140 million) would go to the Global Environment
Facility,
an organization for which the United States has fallen into significant
arrears due to congressional reductions in recent years.
Congressional Debate on Foreign Operations Spending
Summary of Debate. The first congressional action on the Foreign Operations
Appropriations for FY2001 occurred on May 9 when the Senate Appropriations
Committee marked up and reported S. 2522. The legislation also includes FY2000
supplemental funding for various Foreign Operations programs.4 The full Senate
approved the measure on June 22. The House Foreign Operations Subcommittee
marked up its companion bill, H.R. 4811, on June 20, followed by full Committee
endorsement on June 27. The full House approved the measure on July 13.
Subsequently, the Senate took up H.R. 4811 on July 18, deleted the House-passed
text, and inserted the text of S. 2522. Conference negotiations will be the next
legislative step.
Senate action. As approved by the Senate, S. 2522 provides $13.4 billion for
Foreign Operations programs in FY2001. The amount is about $110 million less than
FY2000 enacted, after subtracting from FY2000 the one-time, $1.8 billion emergency
aid package for Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinians in support of the Wye
River/Middle East Peace Accord, and the recently approved supplemental.5 The
Senate recommendation falls about $1.7 billion, or 11%, below the President’s $15.1
billion FY2001 request. Nearly every account is funded below the Administration’s
request, and several are reduced from FY2000 enacted amounts:
! USAID operating expenses ($510 million) is $10 million below enacted and
requested amounts. At this level, USAID would most likely face the choice
4 FY2000 supplemental funds will most likely be deleted from S. 2522 during subsequent
action. The House earlier had approved a separate supplemental funding measure – H.R.
3908 – but Senate leaders decided to attach all supplemental proposals to regular FY2001
appropriation bills, including Foreign Operations. On June 29, Congress cleared for the
White House H.R. 4425 (P.L. 106-246), the FY2001 Military Construction Appropriation,
including $1.094 billion in Foreign Operations supplemental money. The conference
negotiations on H.R. 4425 reflected Senate positions taken in S. 2522 regarding supplemental
funding, and presumably these matters will not be an issue for the regular FY2001 Foreign
Operations conference committee deliberations.
5 Without adjusting for the FY2000 Wye River aid and the supplemental amount, S. 2522 is
about $3 billion less than the current level.

CRS-10
of reducing plans for growth in either staff salaries and benefits, overseas
support costs, or information technology enhancements.
! former Soviet aid ($775 million) declines by about $65 million compared with
enacted and proposed levels. But because earmarks in S. 2522 for Ukraine
($175 million), Georgia ($94 million) and Armenia ($89 million) are slightly
higher than amounts requested, the overall account shortfall likely will fall
most heavily on aid to Russia, proposed at $162 million.
! Inter-American Foundation receives no funding in S. 2522 for FY2001. The
legislation further authorizes, but does not require, the President to abolish the
Foundation. Last year, Congress also authorized the President to terminate the
Inter-American Foundation, appropriating $5 million for the small, grassroots
development organization, an amount believed to be sufficient to cover
existing grants and contract obligations, and to conclude any other outstanding
operations of the Foundation. The President, however, did not exercise this
authority, and requested $20 million for FY2001 programs. The Senate
Appropriations Committee believes that there will be enough funds carried
forward into FY2001 that would cover Foundation termination costs.
! Peace Corps. As proposed by the Committee bill, Peace Corps funds ($220
million) would fall below FY2000 enacted ($245 million) and FY2001
requested ($275 million), and would undermine Administration efforts to
achieve a 10,000 Peace Corps volunteer target. During floor debate, an
amendment (Dodd) was approved, providing an additional $24 million to be
drawn from other parts of the bill and allowing Peace Corps levels to remain
at roughly the FY2000 level.
! Debt reduction resources to support the Heavily Indebted Poor Country
Initiative (HIPC) – $75 million – are significantly less than the combined $475
million FY2000 supplemental/FY2001 request. The most immediate effect
would be to delay final debt relief for Bolivia because of funding shortfalls in
the HIPC Trust Fund. (See below under Major Spending and Policy Issues.)
! International narcotics control appropriations ($220 million) are roughly $90
million below enacted and requested amounts. This would not affect Plan
Colombia, which is funded elsewhere, but would cut by nearly one-third
continued funding for other anti-drug initiatives.
! Peacekeeping operations funds ($85 million) are well below FY2000 ($153
million) and FY2001 proposed ($134 million) amounts. The Senate
Appropriations Committee assumes no funding for operations in Haiti ($4
million). Cuts recommended in S. 2522 might also jeopardize Administration
plans to support OSCE activities in Kosovo and train and equip an African
crisis peacekeeping force.
! World Bank, International Development Association (IDA) contribution
of $750 million would add about $85 million to arrears owed by the U.S. S.
2522 further cuts funding for the Global Environment Facility, Asian

CRS-11
Development Bank, African Development Fund, and other multilateral
organizations.
In a few areas, S. 2522
FY2000 Supplemental
increases Foreign Operations
spending over enacted amounts,
On June 29, Congress passed an $11.2
supporting in some cases
billion supplemental spending measure (P.L.
Administration priorities. The
106-246; H.R. 4425), including $1.094 billion
major Senate Committee
in Foreign Operations funds. Most of money –
initiative is the creation of a
$1.019 billion – supports the full FY2000/2001
Global Health account within
Administration request for a counternarcotics
d e v e l o p m e n t a s s i s t a n c e
initiative in Colombia. The legislation also
spending. This account, which
provides $50 million in additional economic aid
incorporates much, although not
to Kosovo, Croatia, and Montenegro ($251
all of the current Child Survival
million requested), and $25 million for southern
and Infectious Disease fund,
Africa flood relief ($200 million requested).
represents a comprehensive
H.R. 4425 further rejects the President’s
funding approach to protect
supplemental request for a $210 million
global health, attack poverty,
contribution to the HIPC Trust Fund, an
and shield Americans from
initiative to provide multilateral debt relief to
infectious diseases easily
the world’s poorest nations.
transmitted across borders. The
$691 million appropriated in S.
2522 (including a Senate floor amendment adding $40 million to the Committee
recommendation) provides earmarks for HIV/AIDS ($255 million), malaria ($65
million), tuberculosis ($51 million), and a U.S. contribution ($50 million) to the
Global Fund for Children’s Vaccines. For another key economic aid issue –
population assistance – S. 2522 earmarks $425 million within development program
funding which, when combined with resources from other accounts, would total about
$482 million. This is $110 million higher than current spending, but below the request
of $541 million. S. 2522 further replaces current abortion-related restrictions that
apply to FY2000 funds with language that would permit the White House to restore
previous family planning policy in which no U.S. funds can be used for performing or
promoting abortions, but no conditions are imposed on how foreign organizations
spend funds raised from non-U.S. Governments sources. (See below under Major
Funding and Policy issues for more discussion of development assistance population
aid.)
House action. As approved by the House on July 13, H.R. 4811 provides $13.1
billion, about $350 million less than the FY2000 Act (after subtracting from FY2000
the one-time, $1.8 billion Wye River/Middle East peace aid package and the recently
enacted supplemental), and $2 billion, or 13%, below the President’s $15.1 billion
FY2001 request.
As is the case with the Senate bill, many accounts fall below the Administration
request:
! USAID development assistance (other than Child Survival) ($1.258
billion) is roughly $250 million below the request.

CRS-12
! USAID operating expenses ($509 million) is $11 million below enacted and
requested amounts. As noted above, USAID would confront several options
to cut operations in order meet the reduced appropriation.
! former Soviet aid ($740 million) declines by about $95 million compared with
enacted and proposed levels. The House panel allocates a percentage (12.5%)
of the account total for Armenia and Georgia, resulting in similar amounts as
earmarked by the Senate. The House bill, however, does not earmark funds
for Ukraine, providing somewhat more flexibility for the State Department in
making its country allocations for Russia and other former Soviet states.
! Foreign Military Financing (FMF) was reduced during House debate by
$242 million to $3.268 billion, $270 million below the request. The cuts were
part of off-set packages that allowed for an increase in debt reduction and
HIV/AIDS funding. Not only would the House-passed amount squeeze FMF
requests for new members of NATO, Partnership-for-Peace nations, and
Jordan, but also falls $12 million below the combined $3.28 billion request for
Israel and Egypt.
! World Bank, International Development Association (IDA) contribution
of $566.6 million is about $270 million below the requested amount. The
House measure further reduces by significant levels proposed U.S.
contributions to the Global Environment Facility, Asian Development Bank,
African Development Fund, and other multilateral organizations. Overall, the
House measure includes $1 billion for multilateral assistance, one-third less
than requested and 25% below current amounts.
As has been the case in House Foreign Operations spending bills since 1995, the
legislation places priority on child survival and infectious disease activities. The
House bill approves $886 million, $74 million above the request and $117 million
higher than existing levels.
Initially, H.R. 4811, as reported, had provided $82.4 million in debt reduction
resources to support the Heavily Indebted Poor Country Initiative (HIPC), a level
that, like the Senate’s, was well below the combined $475 million FY2000
supplemental/FY2001 request. During floor debate, the House adopted an
amendment (Waters, 216-211) that raised this amount to $238 million, $24 million
below the FY2001 request, but still far less than the combined request.
Major Policy and Spending 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 Congress has not enacted
foreign aid authorization bills for over a decade, the Foreign Operations
appropriations legislation often becomes the vehicle for debate on the conduct of U.S.

CRS-13
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 its ability to manage American foreign policy. The legislative-
executive policy differences have in the past delayed the enactment of the Foreign
Operations bill or have prompted a presidential veto.
Among the most significant funding and policy issues raised during congressional
debate this year on the Foreign Operations appropriation measure are conflicting
executive-legislative branch development assistance strategy priorities and new
Administration initiatives, restrictions on international family planning programs,
regional and country aid allocations, and efforts by the Administration to secure
funding to reduce debt burdens of the poorest developing countries.
Development Aid Policy Priorities
Since the end of the Cold War, a recurring debate has focused on 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. Many of these critics argue that aid can be transformed into a smaller, more
targeted, and often privatized instrument to support only the highest priority U.S.
foreign policy interests.
Although there has been no definitive consensus on priorities, 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 added a fifth strategy
aimed at developing human capacity through education.
Since adopting these strategies in 1994, USAID has maintained that they operate
as inter-linked, mutually reinforcing elements of an overall U.S. effort to promote the
advancement of market economies and democratic transitions in developing nations.
Officials argue that U.S. aid is justified 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 reinforcing rationale can be maintained. Congress, for example,
limited development aid for population programs in FYs1996-2000 to roughly two-
thirds of the amount provided in FY1995. (See below for more discussion on family
planning restrictions.) Further, the State Department’s Bureau of Global Affairs has
in the past placed a high priority on environment programs and pressed USAID to
allocate the maximum amount possible to such activities. As a result, the environment
sector of sustainable development has not declined as much as it might have
otherwise.

CRS-14
Table 4. USAID Sustainable Development Programs
(in millions of dollars)
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
Goals/Targets
Estimate
Estimate
Request
$s
% of total
$s
% of total
$s
% of total
Economic Growth*
416
23.3%
411
22.9%
445
20.8%
Micro enterprise*
70
3.9%
83
4.6%
73
3.4%
Agriculture
134
7.5%
152
8.5%
153
7.1%
Private markets
214
12.0%
259
14.4%
292
13.6%
Population/Health
846
47.3%
856
47.7%
1,053
49.2%
Child Survival
276
15.4%
248
13.8%
236
11.0%
HIV/AIDS
135
7.5%
175
9.7%
244
11.4%
Family Planning
339
18.9%
328
18.3%
484
22.6%
Infectious Diseases
50
2.8%
62
3.5%
54
2.5%
Human Capacity/Basic
131
7.3%
143
8.0%
146
6.8%
Environment
248
13.9%
253
14.1%
333
15.6%
Global Climate Change
88
4.9%
106
5.9%
109
5.1%
Biodiversity/Trop.
62
3.5%
62
3.5%
100
4.7%
Clean Energy initiative
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
30
1.4%
Democracy
148
8.3%
132
7.4%
164
7.7%
Total Sustainable
1,789
100.0%
1,795
100.0%
2,141
100.0%
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 Economic Support Fund (ESF), East Europe and former Soviet aid programs. For
example, USAID estimates that it will spend in FY2000 $372.5 million across all accounts for family
planning programs, about $200 million across all accounts for HIV/AIDS, and $299 million for
agriculture.
*Although most funding for Micro enterprise programs is drawn from the Economic Growth sector,
small amounts are derived from the other sustainable development programs. Consequently, totals
for the Economic Growth goal exceed the sum of the three components of micro enterprise,
agriculture, and private markets for FY2000 and FY2001.
A central theme for the past five years has been differences between Congress
and the executive branch regarding funding levels for programs supporting child
survival, basic education, and efforts against HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases.
Despite cutting overall development aid in FYs1996-1997 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%. Congress reduced the President’s
FY2000 development aid request by $80 million overall, but lawmakers set funding
targets for child survival and infectious disease activities $18 million higher than

CRS-15
proposed. As a result, USAID cut funding for economic growth programs by $49
million, environment projects by $37 million, and democracy promotion activities by
$18 million below what the agency had planned for FY2000.6
Congressional proponents of the child survival priority 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.
Although 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, that the “squeeze” that these
targets place on other areas of sustainable development partially undermines the
success of other programs that benefit children.
FY2001 Request. As has been the pattern the past few years, USAID’s
sustainable development request for FY2001 reduces or maintains at current levels
funding for several congressional priorities while increasing development aid overall
by $335 million, or 18.5%. The $2.14 billion request would cut funds for child
survival programs by $12 million and infectious diseases, other than HIV/AIDS, by
$8 million from FY2000 appropriations.7 The proposed budget further reduces
development aid funds supporting micro enterprise assistance by $10 million and
holds spending steady for agriculture and food security programs.8 Both of these
latter activities are targets of special congressional interest.
6 Selected elements of economic growth programs that have broad congressional support, such
as microenterprise and agriculture activities, were unaffected by reductions elsewhere in this
sector.
7 USAID’s child survival budget, however, when combined with appropriations for UNICEF
and a planned $50 million U.S. contribution to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and
Immunization (GAVI) initiative that is funded under the multilateral assistance title, boosts
overall U.S. funding for child health and survival efforts by about 10%.
8 Although microenterprise funds under the development aid account decline, USAID says that
it will maintain the current year overall target of $135 million for FY2001, drawing on funds
from ESF and other accounts, and local currencies that are generated from certain types of
USAID programs. For agriculture and food security programs, however, overall USAID
spending, across all accounts, will decline from about $299 million this year to $272 million.
This is largely due to a shift in program emphasis in Egypt, where less ESF funding in
agriculture is projected. Congress has recommended a $305 million target for agriculture
resources across all accounts the past two years.

CRS-16
USAID requests significant increases for several other sustainable activities, plus
funding to launch a few new initiatives:
! Efforts to strengthen private markets, including developing the private sector,
promoting trade, assisting privatization activities, and advancing fiscal policy
and financial sector reforms would receive $292 million, a $33 million increase
over current spending;
! Programs combating the spread of HIV/AIDS, especially in Africa, are a major
priority of the Administration, both within USAID and across other Federal
agency budgets, including Health and Human Services, Center for Disease
Control, and DOD. Vice President Gore announced in January 2000 that the
United States would increase spending to $325 million in FY2001, up $100
million from existing levels, for AIDS education, prevention, and treatment in
Africa, India, and other areas. HIV/AIDS funding from USAID development
aid accounts would grow by nearly $50 million, or 28% in FY2001. Congress
has also made AIDS funding a priority in recent years. Numerous bills have
been introduced in 2000 supporting and/or expanding the Administration’s
initiative.9
! Population assistance represents the largest single funding increase for
FY2001, rising by $156 million, or 48% from current amounts. (Across all
USAID accounts, population aid would grow from $372.5 million to $541.6
million.) Last year, the White House reluctantly accepted new congressional
restrictions on abortion and eligibility of foreign family planning organizations
implementing USAID population programs. The Administration wants to
restore family planning assistance funding to levels enacted for FY1995, the
year before Congress and the President began to engage in contentious debates
over abortion and international family planning. (See next section for further
discussion on this issue.)
! Environmental funding would grow significantly under the Administration’s
request — up $80 million (32%) from existing amounts. Most of the additional
resources would target two initiatives. Last year, Congress directed USAID
to restore biodiversity funding to the same proportion of development
assistance funds it received in FY1995. Although it appears that USAID’s $62
million allocation for FY2000 falls well short of the roughly $99 million target
under the proportional requirement, biodiversity funds, combined with the new
tropical forestry initiative, would grow to $100 million in FY2001. This would
be roughly the same dollar amount of funds programmed for biodiversity in
FY1995. Nevertheless, it represents only about 4.6% of total development aid
resources, falling short of the 5% allocation six years ago. USAID is also
launching a new, $30 million clean energy initiative.
9 See, for example, H.R. 3826/S. 2387, H.R. 4039/S. 2030, H.R. 4038/S. 2032, S. 2026,
H.R. 4140, and subtitle D, title 2 of S. 2382. For more information regarding these
initiatives, see CRS Issue Brief IB10050, AIDS in Africa, by Raymond Copson.

CRS-17
Congressional action. The Senate approved bill, S. 2522, sets sustainable
development assistance funding roughly mid-way between FY2000 enacted and
FY2001 requested levels. The $2.17 billion appropriation (an amount that for
comparative purposes includes UNICEF contributions), is nearly $230 million, or
12%, higher than current spending. The centerpiece of the Senate proposal is the
creation of a new $691 million account for Global Health. The Global Health account
replaces the Child Survival and Infectious Disease line-item in the FY2000 measure,
incorporating most, although not all, child-related programs.10 In several respects,
the new account supports many of the funding initiatives proposed in other legislation
(see footnote 9) and in the Administration’s request. Committee earmarks and report
recommendations allocate resources for several priorities:
! HIV/AIDS – $255 million, up from $175 million this year, and higher than the
FY2001 request of $244 million.
! Tuberculosis – $51 million, more than three times the current $15 million
allocation.
! Malaria – $65 million, over four times the FY2000 $15.6 million amount.
! GAVI contribution – $50 million, as requested.
! Polio – $30 million, slightly higher than the amount currently spent.
! Maternal health – $50 million, plus additional resources to reduce pregnancy-
related deaths.
For other non-health development activities, S. 2522 directs that USAID allocate at
least $310 million (across all accounts) for agriculture programs, a level slightly higher
than current and requested amounts. Population assistance would also increase under
S. 2522, although not to the level proposed by the Administration (see below for
more details).
Although earmarks and directives in S. 2522 protect and increase resources for
Senate priorities, especially in the health area, the overall funding level for USAID
sustainable development programs will result in cuts for other, non-earmarked
activities, such as those for private markets and democracy promotion. USAID
calculates that development programs not earmarked in S. 2522 would be cut by
about 21% from FY2000 allocations and by nearly one-third from the FY2001
request.
H.R. 4811 would provide $2.1 billion for sustainable development activities,
about $25 million less than the Senate. The House measure maintains the Child
Survival/Disease account at $886 million, an increase of $159 million over amounts
enacted in FY2000. Program recommendations in the House measure include:
! Child survival and maternal health – $290 million.
! Vulnerable children – $30 million.
! HIV/AIDS – $254 million.
! Polio – $25 million.
! Malaria – $27 million.
10 Basic education, for example, is not included in the Global Health account, but is funded
at $100 million ($98 million enacted and requested) within regular development aid resources.

CRS-18
! Tuberculosis – $55.1 million.
! Basic education – $103 million (plus $15 million in other accounts).
! UNICEF contribution – $110 million.
Although the House continues its practice of recent years of providing higher funding
for children activities and cutting requests for other development objectives, the
Committee’s report acknowledges the need for broader social and economic
development. The Committee encourages USAID to increase spending on economic
growth and private sector programs aimed at increasing the number of jobs, educating
the population, and providing better health care in developing nations. The House
panel further encourages increased funding for agriculture activities and a
microenterprise program of $152 million. Nevertheless, with the number of earmarks
and priorities in the children and health sectors endorsed by the House panel, USAID
would most likely need to make substantial reductions in a variety of non-health
program areas.
Population and Family Planning Assistance
Another aspect of the discussion regarding policy priorities of U.S. development
aid is the continuing controversy regarding international family planning restrictions.
For FY2001, the President seeks $541.6 million for USAID population programs, a
$169 million, or 45% increase over FY2000 levels. The White House further
proposes a $25 million U.S. contribution to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), the
same as appropriated for this year. U.S. international family planning programs had
been one of the largest growth areas of the foreign aid budget in the early 1990s.
From an average of about $250 million in the late 1980s, FY1995 spending across all
Foreign Operations accounts totaled approximately $541 million. In the following
years, when Congress deadlocked over abortion-related restrictions and U.S.
population aid policy, a situation that blocked movement of the entire Foreign
Operations bill, lawmakers adopted interim provisions that, among other things,
strictly limited the amount of funding for USAID family planning programs. The
appropriation cap of $385 million enacted in each of FY1997-2000 is roughly two-
thirds the amount provided in FY1995.
The principal dispute over population assistance, however, goes well beyond
funding issues, centering more directly on abortion-related activities of foreign
recipients of USAID grants. For over 15 years, Congress has engaged in contentious
debates over U.S. international family planning policy, often as part of the Foreign
Operations Appropriations.
Family Planning and Abortion Restrictions. The debate over international
family planning policy and abortion began nearly three decades ago when Congress
added a provision to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 prohibiting the use of U.S.
appropriated funds
for abortion-related activities and coercive family planning
programs. During the mid-1980s, in what has become known as the “Mexico City”
policy (because it was first announced at the 1984 Mexico City Population
Conference), the Reagan, and later the Bush, Administrations restricted funds for
foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) 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

CRS-19
Parenthood Federation-London (IPPF-London), 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 no U.S. money was
used by those involved in abortion-related work.
During the past five 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.) and others, 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 hand, has rejected in most cases House provisions dealing with Mexico City
policy, favoring a position that leaves these decisions in the hands of the
Administration. Moreover, Administration officials routinely said that President
Clinton would veto any bills that included the House-passed Mexico City restrictions,
a threat he carried out in October 1998 when he rejected legislation authorizing family
planning programs that included Mexico City policy (H.R. 1757).
Unable to reach an agreement satisfactory to both sides, Congress adopted
interim arrangements for FY1996-1999 that did not resolve the broad population
program controversy, but permitted the stalled Foreign Operations measure to move
forward. The annual “compromise” removed House-added Mexico City restrictions,
but reduced population assistance to $385 million, and in several years, “metered” the
availability of the funds at a rate of one-twelfth of the $385 million per month.
The FY2000 debate, however, concluded far differently than the previous four
years. As Congress and the White House searched in November 1999 for a final
FY2000 budget agreement, international family planning and population aid issues
became one of the last and most contentious aspects of the negotiations.
Congressional leaders insisted that if the President wanted Congress to approve
legislation authorizing the payment of nearly $1 billion of U.S. arrears owed to the
United Nations, the White House must also accept revised Mexico City language
adding abortion restrictions to U.S. population assistance policy. In order to remove
the obstacles to U.N. arrears payments, a reluctant President Clinton agreed to the
abortion restrictions, marking the first time that Mexico City conditions had been
included in legislation signed by the President. (Enacted in the Foreign Operations
Act for FY2000, H.R. 3422, incorporated into H.R. 3194, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2000, P.L. 106-113).
Under the terms of Section 599D of H.R. 3422, private foreign non-
governmental and multilateral organizations must certify that they neither perform
abortions or lobby to change abortion laws in foreign countries in order to receive
USAID population aid grants in FY2000. Section 599D allows the President to
waive the certification requirement for up to $15 million in grants to groups that
would otherwise be ineligible, but with the penalty that $12.5 million of the $385
million population aid appropriation would be transferred to child health programs.
The restrictions apply only to FY2000 and will expire on September 30, 2000.

CRS-20
One day after signing the legislation, the President exercised his waiver authority
(November 30, 1999), thereby reducing FY2000 population aid funds to $372.5
million. He further instructed USAID to implement Section 599D in a way that will
minimize the impact on U.S. funded family planning programs. Under agency
guidelines, all non-U.S. NGOs (whether non-profit or for-profit) and multilateral
organizations that are prime contractors, grantees, and cooperative agreement
recipients must certify (and collect the same certification from their sub-contractors)
that they will not engage in three types of activities with either USAID or non-USAID
funds from the date they sign an agreement to receive FY2000 USAID population
funds through September 30, 2001:
! perform abortions in a foreign country, except where the life of the mother
would be endangered, or in cases of forcible rape or incest;
! violate the laws of a foreign country concerning the circumstances under which
abortion is permitted, regulated, or restricted; or
! attempt to alter the laws or governmental policies concerning circumstances
under which abortion is permitted, regulated, or restricted.
If an organization declines to certify, or does not return the certification form, it will
be ineligible to receive FY2000 USAID population funds.
It is likely to be several more months before the full implications of the new
population aid provisions can be evaluated. A key issue will be whether the $15
million in total grants allowed under the waiver authority will be sufficient to cover
all foreign organizations that decline to certify regarding their involvement in
abortion-related activities. Although there is great uncertainty about how many
groups have not responded because they disagree with the certification terms, IPPF-
London and the World Health Organization have refused. At some point, USAID will
review the cases of all foreign organizations that have not responded or declined to
certify, and decide how to allocate the $15 million available to such groups. At
present, agency officials believe that they will not exceed the $15 million cap.
Critics of the certification requirement oppose it on several grounds. From an
administrative standpoint, they say it will increase USAID costs to manage family
planning programs because of the additional paperwork and delay implementation of
projects. (USAID has contracted with John Snow, Inc. to track the certification
process.) They further believe that family planning organizations will cut back on
services because they are unsure of the full implications of the restrictions and do not
want to risk losing eligibility for USAID funding. Opponents also believe the new
conditions will undermine relations between the U.S. Government and foreign NGOs
and multilateral groups, creating a situation where the United States challenges their
sovereignty on how to spend their own money and imposes a so-called “gag” order
on their ability to promote changes to abortion laws and regulations in developing
nations. The latter, these critics note, would be unconstitutional if applied to
American groups working in the United States. Supporters of the certification
requirement argue that even though permanent law bans USAID funds from being
used to perform or promote abortions, money is fungible; that organizations receiving
American-taxpayer funding can simply use USAID resources for permitted activities

CRS-21
while diverting money raised from other sources to perform abortions or lobby to
change abortion laws and regulations. The certification process, they contend, stops
the fungibility “loophole.”
President Clinton says he will oppose any attempt to extend the abortion
restrictions beyond September 30, 2000. Supporters of his position have introduced
several bills that would effectively reverse the Mexico City language, by either:
! making the eligibility requirements for NGOs and multilateral organizations no
more restrictive than those that apply to foreign governments (H.R. 3634 and
S. 2380);
! subjecting foreign groups (concerning the use of non-USAID funding for
advocacy and lobbying activities) to the same restrictions imposed on U.S.
NGOs, and maintaining their eligibility so long as these groups do not engage
in health or medical services in violation of the laws of the country in which
they operate or which would violate U.S. law if provided here (H.R. 4211).
Supporters of the certification process are pressing for continuation of the restrictions
in the FY2001 funding bill in order to further institutionalize them.
UNFPA Issues. Congress further enacted for FY2000 restrictions on U.S.
contributions to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA). During the Reagan and Bush
Administrations the United States did not support UNFPA, a policy reversed by
President Clinton in 1993. At issue are UNFPA programs in China, a country where
there have been continuing reports for many years of coercive family planning
practices. During the mid-1990s, Congress reduced UNFPA contributions by the
amount the organization spent in China, but when UNFPA ended its China program
in 1997, the controversy subsided. UNFPA, however, reinstituted activities in China
soon thereafter, resulting in the withholding in FY1998 of $5 million for UNFPA and
the enactment for FY1999 of a total prohibition on the U.S. $25 million contribution,
so long as the organization remained active in China. Congress restored the $25
million earmark for UNFPA in FY2000, but under terms that required a deduction of
$3.5 million (the cost of UNFPA’s program this year in China).
Coercive Family Planning Practices and Peru. A new element in the family
planning issue added during the FY1999 debate emerged following reports that Peru,
where USAID has population aid programs, had established national targets for tubal
ligations and vasectomies There were also allegations that some Peruvian health
workers may have conditioned the receipt of food and medical care on the acceptance
of sterilizations. USAID maintains a policy of strict voluntarism for family planning
programs it supports, and opposes the use of performance-based quota systems. The
Agency says that Peru’s government has instituted significant reforms in its family
planning programs, including criteria that ensure voluntary informed consent. To
reinforce U.S. policies opposing programs based on coercive practices or quota
systems, Congress adopted for FY1999 an amendment by Representative Tiahrt that
more precisely defines the term, voluntary family planning programs, and establishes

CRS-22
criteria for USAID to apply regarding the voluntary nature of its population projects.
These same provisions were continued in the FY2000 appropriation.11
Congressional action. S. 2522 earmarks $425 million for population assistance
out of development assistance funding, a level, when combined with resources from
other accounts, would provide about $482 million for family planning activities. This
is significantly higher than for FY2000, but below the Administration’s $541 million
request.
On the issue of abortion conditions, section 590 of S. 2522 deletes restrictions
applying to FY2000 funds, substituting language that would have the effect of
restoring previous Clinton Administration policy on foreign NGOs and multilateral
organization eligibility for USAID population aid grants. Specifically, the conditions
stipulate that such organizations:
! shall not be subject to requirements regarding how they use non-U.S.
Government funds for advocacy or lobbying activities that are more restrictive
that those that apply to U.S. NGOs which receive economic aid grants; and
! shall not be ineligible for USAID grants solely on the basis of health or medical
services provided with non-U.S. Government funds so long as such services
do not violate the laws of the country in which they are provided or would not
violate U.S. Federal law if provided in this country.
It is generally held that under the Constitution, U.S. NGOs cannot be restricted from
using their own funds to advocate policy positions they support. The first new
condition would essentially extend that protection to foreign NGOs and multilateral
organizations. The second condition would not disqualify an organization from
receiving USAID grants for performing abortions with its own money if abortion or
whatever medical service it provided was legal in the country in which it operated,
and that the service would be legal in the United States if performed here.
H.R. 4811 would make no change in current law, allowing the restrictions
established in the FY2000 appropriations to continue. During subcommittee markup,
the Foreign Operations panel rejected (7-8) an amendment by Representative Lowey
to remove the abortion restrictions from the bill. A similar amendment during full
Committee mark-up also failed 26-34, and, on the House floor, another amendment
was rejected (Greenwood, 206-221) that would have removed the restrictions. H.R.
4811 further continues current conditions on UNFPA contributions. The bill provides
$385 million for population assistance, far below the President’s $542 million request.
Based on reports of continuing coercive family planning practices in Peru, the House
measure requires a series of new investigations and reports by USAID and its
Inspector General in an effort to strengthen application of the Tiahrt amendment, not
only in Peru, but in all countries where USAID maintains family planning programs.
11 For more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB96026, U.S. International Population
Assistance, Issues for Congress,
by Larry Nowels.

CRS-23
Regional Allocations of U.S. Foreign Aid
Although the Middle East has received by far the largest proportion of U.S.
assistance over the past three decades — 55-60% of bilateral aid appropriated in
Foreign Operations spending measures in most years— allocations to other regions
have fluctuated considerably, especially since the end of the Cold War. Asia, which
received substantial assistance in the 1980s associated with the presence of U.S.
military bases in the Philippines, had its share drop from 16% to 4% by the late 1990s.
Latin America, had its share fall from 16% to 6% following the end of conflict in
Central America in the early 1990s. Africa’s proportion has remained about the same
— 7-9% — a development that disappointed those who argued that the world’s
poorest region should receive higher priority, especially with the reduction in
emphasis on security assistance. U.S. aid to the emerging democracies and market-
oriented economies in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, where the United
States had no programs prior to 1990, grew to represent over 16% of American
bilateral assistance funded in the Foreign Operations bill by the end of the decade.
A number of observers, including some Members and congressional committees,
believed these shifts in regional aid allocations had swung too far. This was
particularly true in the cases of Asia and Latin America, given the Asian financial
crises and significant U.S. interests in promoting economic development in Latin
America in order to counter the trend of rising illegal immigration to the United
States. Foreign Operations appropriation measures in recent years have emphasized
the need to maintain or increase assistance especially to Latin America, and more
recently, to the Philippines, Thailand, and Indonesia which were most directly affected
by the regional economic downturn. Others argued that not enough has been
reallocated to Africa to meet the region’s unmet needs and to promote future U.S.-
African trade opportunities.
Table 5. Regional Allocations of U.S. Aid
(In millions of dollars; % of bilateral total in Foreign Operations)
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
Actual*
Estimate**
Request
$s
% of total
$s
% of total
$s
% of total
Africa
884
8.9%
899
7.6%
1,018
11.1%
Asia
367
3.7%
431
3.7%
568
6.2%
E. Europe/former Soviet
1,653
16.7%
1,586
13.4%
1,643
17.9%
Latin America
1,535
15.5%
1,786
15.1%
754
8.2%
Middle East
5,463
55.2%
7,103
60.2%
5,216
56.7%
Total, Bilateral Aid
9,902
100.0%
11,805
100.0%
9,199
100.0%
Source: USAID. Amounts in the this table exclude food aid funded in the Agriculture
Appropriations measure.
* FY1999 includes Central America hurricane reconstruction ($613 million).
** FY2000 includes supplemental funding for Plan Colombia ($1.1 billion), Balkan aid ($50
million), and southern Africa flood relief ($25 million).

CRS-24
When the share of bilateral Foreign Operations funding for the Middle East
exceeded 60%, some in Congress began promoting the view that there should be
some limits to the amount provided. If the Administration wanted to pursue new
Middle East peace initiatives using foreign aid as an implementing tool, they argued,
resources should be found either within existing Middle East programs or provided
on top of overall aid appropriations, rather than being taken from other regions.
Accordingly, for FY1998 Congress took steps to legislate a cap on Foreign
Operations resources for the Middle East. 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. For FY2000, the Middle East aid cap was lowered to $5.3
billion. Shortly after Congress initiated a Middle East aid ceiling, Israel put forth in
January 1998 a plan to cut aid received from the United States over the next ten to
twelve years. Under the Israeli plan, the United States would reduce 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 receiving any economic
assistance. If done over a ten-year period, U.S. aid to Israel would fall $60 million
each year in net terms, with a total savings of $600 million by 2009. Since FY1999,
Congress has supported the $60 million net reduction of aid to Israel, also adding a
similar $40 million economic aid cut for Egypt.
The President’s FY2001 Foreign Operations request reflects several of these
regional allocation views expressed by Congress in recent years. Highlights of the
Administration’s recommendations include the following.
Creation of the Development Fund for Africa Account.12 After a 5-year
absence, the President proposes to re-establish a separate Foreign Operations account
for African aid and to increase bilateral funding (including economic and military
assistance) by 16% over FY2000 levels. In the late 1980s, Congress and the
Administration launched a joint initiative to create special legislative authority for U.S.
economic aid to Africa. The Development Fund for Africa (DFA — authorized in
Chapter 10 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) was intended to extend more
flexibility to USAID program managers and to protect aid resources for Africa from
being transferred to other regions as new foreign policy crises unfolded. At its peak,
the United States channeled about $800 million annually through the DFA.
Although the DFA authorization law remained in force, Congress ended the
practice of a direct DFA appropriation in FY1996, funding Africa’s assistance out of
worldwide development aid and child survival accounts. Following President
Clinton’s visit to Africa in 1998, during which he pledged to restore U.S. aid to higher
levels provided in previous years, the Administration proposed a direct DFA
appropriation account for FY2000. Congress rejected the DFA recommendation but
12 For more details on U.S. assistance to Africa, see CRS Issue Brief IB95052, Africa: U.S.
Foreign Assistance Issues,
by Raymond Copson.

CRS-25
approved sufficient development funds so that Africa’s level grew from $703 million
in FY1999 to $737 million estimated for FY2000.
The FY2001 request once again seeks the restoration of the DFA account, that
when combined with child survival funds, would allocate $836 million to Africa, an
increase of $99 million. While some of the additional assistance would support the
HIV/AIDS initiative, family planning and other health activities would receive
substantial increases. The request for activities financed under the Economic Support
Fund, an aid account used for political and security purposes, rises by one-third over
FY2000, largely for democracy and economic growth initiatives for countries in
transition. Military aid would grow from about $20 million this year to $27 million,
with the largest increase for stabilizing regional security situations through the
promotion of democratic transition within the militaries of countries such as Nigeria,
and to assist African forces participate in regional peacekeeping operations. Nigeria,
which is one of the State Department’s four worldwide aid “focus” countries for
FY2001 (along with Ukraine, Indonesia, and Colombia) would be the largest ($81
million) African recipient of economic and military assistance (excluding food aid),
followed by Uganda ($54 million), Mozambique ($47 million), and Ethiopia ($41
million).
Increased Funding for Asia. The FY2001 foreign aid budget proposes
significant increases in assistance programs throughout the Asian region. The $568
million requested is nearly $137million, or 32% higher than allocations for FY2000.
This follows a 17% increase this year for Asia compared with FY1999. The higher
amounts would be drawn in roughly equal levels between development and ESF
accounts. Of particular priority are economic growth programs aimed at helping
economic recovery in southeast Asia. Indonesia, another of the Administration’s four
aid “focus” countries, would be by far the largest recipient of U.S. economic
assistance ($130 million). Another $10 million is scheduled for East Timor. India
($72 million), Bangladesh ($69 million), and the Philippines ($45 million) follow as
other leading economic aid recipients in the region. For each of these three, the
FY2001 proposed allocations are roughly 50% higher than those for FY2000.
Modest Increases for Most Latin America Programs; Major
Counternarcotics Initiative for Colombia. Aid allocations for Latin America
surged in FY1999, largely due to the $613 million emergency relief package approved
to aid the victims of Hurricane Mitch that struck Central America in late 1998.
Assistance to the region increased again for FY2000 due to a $1.1 billion add-on for
counternarcotics in Colombia. For FY2001, regular economic, anti-drug, and military
assistance for Latin America would total $754 million. Counternarcotics aid
continues to be a primary focus of assistance to Latin America, accounting for 29%
of total resources in the FY2001 request.
Overshadowing continuing Latin American aid programs has been the
FY2000/2001 $1.1 billion counternarcotics initiative for Colombia and other drug
producing nations in the region. (Including resources requested from Defense and
Justice Department budgets, “Plan Colombia,” as the initiative has been labeled, totals
$1.272 billion over two years.) The major, and arguably most controversial
component ($600 million) of the initiative is “Push into Southern Colombia,” designed
to help the Colombian government extend anti-drug efforts throughout southern

CRS-26
Colombia where coca cultivation is expanding and where Colombian guerrillas
operate. This would include training and equipping two new army counternarcotics
battalions and purchasing Black Hawk and Huey helicopters to transport them. On
June 29, Congress cleared for the White House (P.L. 106-246) a $1.3 billion
supplemental for Colombia ($1.1 billion in Foreign Operations funds) that closely
matches the President’s funding request but imposes a number of policy changes and
conditions on the assistance.13
Peru and Bolivia, each scheduled to receive $98 million in FY2001, top the list
of Latin American aid recipients projected for next year. Haiti ($51 million) and
Guatemala ($50 million) are also prominent aid recipients planned for FY2001.
Colombia, however, has emerged in recent years as one of the main benefactors of
U.S. assistance worldwide, representing the fifth largest recipient in FY1999 behind
Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Ukraine. With passage of the counternarcotics initiative,
Colombia has become the third top aid recipient worldwide for FY2000.
Middle East Aid Reduced Slightly for FY2001. The President’s FY2001
foreign aid request for the Middle East reduces slightly – from $5.278 billion to
$5.216 billion – U.S. assistance to the region when compared with regular programs
for FY2000 (excluding Wye River accord funding). This is largely the result of
continuing for the third year the ten-year plan to downsize aid to Israel and Egypt.
The $2.82 billion for Israel would be $60 million less than earmarked for this year,
and the $1.996 billion for Egypt is $40 million below current levels.14 Enactment for
FY2000 of a one-time, $1.8 billion Wye River/Middle East peace accord aid package
supporting Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinians, pushed total Middle East aid levels far
higher this year. No equivalent initiative is proposed for FY2001. Palestinian
assistance for next year is scheduled for $100 million, up from the FY2000 $85
million regular program.
Another element of the FY2001 Middle East recommendation concerns Egypt’s
request to receive part of its military assistance early in the fiscal year rather than over
a much longer period of time as payments become due for defense purchases. For a
number of years, Congress has directed that economic and military aid for Israel be
disbursed within the first month of a new fiscal year, allowing Israel to invest the
funds and earn interest prior to using the money to service debt owed to the United
States and make payments on military procurements. Last year, the Administration
asked Congress to allow Egypt to receive $475 million in “early disbursements,” an
action that would have increased Foreign Operations outlays by an equivalent amount.
With extremely tight limits on outlays for FY2000, the Appropriation Committees
could not accommodate the request. Instead, however, Congress added $25 million
for Egypt under the Wye River aid package, an amount roughly equal to the interest
Egypt would have gained from an early disbursement. For FY2001, the
13 For more on Plan Colombia, see CRS Report RS20451, Colombia: Fact Sheet on U.S.
Assistance and Legislation,
by Nina Serafino.
14 Because of a 0.38% across-the-board rescission for FY2000, aid to Israel and Egypt was
reduced slightly below what was earmarked in the Foreign Operations Appropriations, 2000.
The cuts in aid proposed for FY2001 are actually somewhat less after deducting the FY2000
rescission amounts.

CRS-27
Administration is proposing a somewhat different mechanism to achieve the same
purpose: that Egypt receive by October 31, 2000 (or within 30 days of enactment of
the appropriation, whichever is later) the amount of military aid that OMB estimates
will be disbursed to Egypt throughout FY2001. Egypt will place the funds in an
interest-bearing account at the Federal Reserve, and earn about $25 to $30 million
during the course of the year. The advantage of this plan from a budget standpoint
is that it would not increase outlays over what is currently projected.
Table 6. Leading Recipients of U.S. Foreign Aid: FY1999 - FY2001
(Appropriation Allocations; $s in millions)
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
Actual
Allocation
Estimate
Israel
2,940
4,069*
2,820
Egypt
2,076
2,054*
1,996
Colombia
210
55**
296
Jordan
298
428*
229
Ukraine
212
167
180
Kosovo
80
160**
175
Russia
165
184
168
Indonesia
58
95
130
West Bank/Gaza
75
485*
100
Bolivia
91
84
99
Peru
109
83
98
Bosnia
197
101
94
Georgia
93
112
91
Nigeria
24
58
81
Armenia
81
104
76
India
45
49
73
Bangladesh
48
49
71
*Includes regular amounts for Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinians, plus the Wye River
peace accord: Israel–$1.2 billion; Egypt–$25 million; Jordan–$200 million; Palestinians–$400
million.
** Once allocated, FY2000 supplemental funds will increase amounts for these countries.
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 for FY2001
includes Peru–$30 million; India–$92 million; Bangladesh–$43 million; and Bolivia–$22
million. Moreover, because of a large food aid programs, Ethiopia and Haiti would also rank
among the lower 5 of this top 17 list.

CRS-28
Flat Budget Request for Russia and Other Former Soviet States; Increase
for Kosovo. After several years of disputes between Congress and the President over
proposals to sharply increase assistance to Russia and the other nations comprising
the former Soviet region, the Administration’s FY2001 request of $830 million for
economic assistance is nearly identical to amounts allocated for this year. Distribution
among recipients, however, changes somewhat from FY2000. Russia’s bilateral aid
would fall from $178 million to $162 million, while Ukraine, another Administration
aid “focus” country, would see its assistance rise from $160 million to $171 million.
U.S. assistance to Armenia and Georgia, countries which have received higher levels
in the past because of congressional earmarks, would be cut in FY2001, to $75
million and $86 million, respectively. These reductions, as well as those for Russia and
Moldova, would be offset by increases for most other former Soviet states, with
Azerbaijan growing from $31 million to $55 million.15
For other former eastern bloc and European countries, the FY2001 request
proposes an increase of $57 million, or 10% in economic aid, primarily to extend
additional support to Kosovo, Croatia, and Montenegro. Foreign Military Financing
grants would nearly double to $95 million, with levels for new NATO members
Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic rising by 50%. Partnership for Peace countries
are scheduled to receive $62 million in FMF grants for FY2001, up from $33 million
this year. 16
Congressional action. S. 2522 and H.R. 4811 make several changes to the
Administration’s regional and country aid proposals.
Africa. Neither bill re-instates the Development Fund for Africa, as requested,
but funds development programs for sub-Saharan Africa out of the worldwide
development assistance and global health/child survival accounts. Because of the
overall development aid funding levels, it might be expected that the Senate bill would
result in Africa development aid allocations somewhere between the current $738
million level and the proposed $837 million for FY2001. The emphasis in S. 2522 on
health and family planning programs, however, might lead USAID officials to allocate
amounts approaching the $837 million request since some of the world’s most severe
health problems occur in Africa. H.R. 4811 requires that USAID allocate the same
proportion of development aid to Africa that it did for FY2000, a provision that
would result in somewhat higher spending for Africa in FY2001.
Asia. While it is unclear how much of the funds in S. 2522 and H.R. 4811 might
be allocated for Asia, both measures include directives for specific countries and
activities. Senate Appropriations Committee specified in its report and bill:
! Burma – directs that $6.5 million, as requested, be provided to Burmese exiles
and refugees for education, health care, and political initiatives.
15 For more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB95077, The Former Soviet Union and U.S.
Foreign Assistance
, by Curt Tarnoff.
16 For more information, see CRS Report RL30453, Kosovo: Reconstruction and
Development Assistance,
by Curt Tarnoff.

CRS-29
! Cambodia – recommends $20 million (up from $16.8 million requested)
addressing HIV/AIDS, education, and environmental needs, but avoiding
direct assistance to the central government.
! Indonesia – encourages the policies of Indonesian President Wahid, but does
not propose a specific amount of assistance.
! East Timor – earmarks $25 million for reconstruction and income-generating
projects, higher than the $10 million request.
The House Appropriation Committee directs USAID to place emphasis on trade and
investment programs for Asia and to allocate $60 million, as requested, for such
purposes in the region for FY2001.
Latin America. S. 2522 prohibits any additional assistance to the Government
of Haiti included in this or any previous appropriations act, until the Secretary of State
reports that Haiti has held free and fair elections to seat a new parliament. H.R. 4811
places high priority on Latin American funding levels, directing that the
Administration allocate at least the same amounts in FY2001 for the region as it did
for this year. The House measure also places conditions on aid to Haiti.
Middle East. Both House and Senate bills continue the 10-year phased
reduction in aid to Israel and Egypt, as proposed in the FY2001 request, and support
the Administration’s request to allow Egypt to receive some military assistance early
in the fiscal year. S. 2522 also directs that $25 million be provided for programs
benefitting the Iraqi people, $15 million of which must go for food, medicine, and
other humanitarian purposes.
Israel’s possible $250 million sale to China of an airborne early warning aircraft
became a significant issue during House Committee consideration of the
appropriations measure. Because of the proposed transfer of the Phalcon airborne
radar system, delivery of which was expected in October 2001, Chairman Callahan
offered a provision withholding $250 million in FY2001 aid to Israel, until the
Secretary of State certified that the sale was terminated or it did not pose a national
security threat. The amendment was defeated (6-9). Chairman Callahan proposed the
same amendment at full Committee markup, but the House panel approved a
substitute amendment expressing the “sense” of Congress that the China sale could
threaten both Taiwan and the United States and urged Israel to terminate the sale.17
On July 12, Israel announced it had cancelled the sale.
Independent States of the Former Soviet Union and East Europe. S. 2522
reduces funding for the former Soviet aid account to $775 million while increasing
amounts for Eastern Europe to $635 million. The likely effect of these actions will
be to reduce allocations for Russia and increase amounts for Montenegro and Croatia.
The Senate bill includes several country earmarks that would set funding at or above
amounts proposed by the President:
17 For more discussion of this issue, see CRS Report RS20583, Israel’s Sale of Airborne
Early Warning Aircraft System to China,
by Clyde Mark.

CRS-30
! Ukraine – $175 million earmark, up from the $173.5 million request.
! Armenia – $89 million earmark, up from the $75 million proposal.
! Georgia – $94 million earmark, higher than the $85.8 million request.
! Montenegro – $89 million, as proposed for FY2000/2001.
! Croatia – $60 million, nearly equal to the combined FY2000/2001 request.
For other countries, S. 2522 limits aid allocations or attaches conditions that must be
met prior to distributing the funds:
! Russia – half of aid allocated to the Russian central government must be
withheld until the President certifies that Russia has ended its nuclear training
and technical assistance programs with Iran; further, no funds can be allocated
to the Russian central government until the Secretary of State certifies that the
Russian government is cooperating with international investigations of alleged
war crimes in Chechnya and is permitting aid organizations full access to
refugees and displaced persons in Chechnya. A floor amendment (Helms),
waivable on national security grounds, would reduce aid to the central
government by the amount of loans it provides to Serbia, and another (Smith,
NH) expresses the “sense” of Congress that the President instruct U.S.
representatives to the international financial institutions to oppose future loans
if Russia delivers SS-N-22 missiles to China. S. 2522 further earmarks $10
million for NGOs providing humanitarian aid in Chechnya and Ingushetia.
! Kosovo – no assistance can be made available for Kosovo until the Secretary
of State certifies that U.S. obligations and expenditures of funds do not exceed
15% of total amounts from all donors.
! Bosnia – limits to $75 million ($90 million requested) FY2001 assistance.
H.R. 4811 would provide $740 million for the former Soviet Union and $535
million for East Europe. The bill would allow an additional $50 million in foreign
currency to be used for assistance programs. No former Soviet country could receive
more than 25% of the account, and Georgia and Armenia would each receive $92.5
million. Aid to the central government of Russia would be subject to a number of
conditions, including the FY2000 language on the transfer of nuclear technology to
Iran. Aid to Kosovo, as was the case in FY2000, would be limited to 15% of pledges
and $150 million.
Debt Reduction Initiatives for Poor Countries18
Providing debt relief to poor developing nations that borrowed in the past from
the United States, other creditor governments, and international financial institutions
emerged as one of the key foreign aid issues in 1999 and continues as a White House
priority this year. At the Cologne Summit in June 1999, G-7 leaders endorsed a
18 For more extensive analysis of debt relief issues, see CRS Report RL30214, Debt
Reduction: Initiatives for the Most Heavily Indebted Poor Countries,
by Larry Nowels; and
CRS Report RL30449, Debt and Developing in Poor Countries: Rethinking Policy
Responses,
by J. F. Hornbeck.

CRS-31
substantial expansion of the Heavily Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) Initiative largely
along the lines of policy changes recommended by the United States and Britain. The
World Bank and IMF, institutions that manage HIPC debt relief, adopted these
enhancements in September. In late 1999, Congress approved some of the legislation
requested by the Administration for full U.S. participation in HIPC, but left several
matters incomplete, primarily those associated with the cancellation of multilateral
debts. This year, the White House seeks congressional approval for authorizing and
appropriating issues left over from 1999.
For the past decade, the United States has engaged in various forms of debt relief
for developing nations, resulting in the cancellation of about $14.7 billion of foreign
debt. Much of it — $10.1 billion — resulted from special cases involving key U.S.
national interests: for Egypt in 1990 ($7 billion), for Poland in 1991 ($2.5 billion), and
for Jordan in 1995 ($635 million). U.S. debt reduction policy for other nations based
strictly on need has been guided by the principle that eligible countries must have
demonstrated a strong and sustained commitment to economic policy reforms prior
to receiving debt relief. Under budget rules instituted in 1992, Congress has had to
appropriate funds in advance representing the costs of canceling debt. The cost
determination methodology is based on a complicated formula that takes into account
among other things, the loan’s net present value, its interest rate, and the likelihood
the loan will be repaid. For especially poor countries with particularly large debt
overhangs, the appropriation requirement may be quite small relative to the loan’s
face value — perhaps 10% or less.
When it was introduced in 1996, HIPC was hailed as the first arrangement that
included relief from debts owed to the World Bank, the IMF, and other international
institutions, organizations that hold over 25% of debt owed by the most heavily
indebted nations. Previously, multilateral organizations had declined to participate in
debt cancellation, arguing that it would increase their costs of raising new money to
lend, expenses that would have to be passed on to borrowers. Forty-one countries
— mostly in Africa — are eligible for HIPC, although only those determined to have
“unsustainable” debt would qualify for HIPC terms.
The initial HIPC framework came under heavy criticism in early 1999, especially
among non-governmental organizations and religious groups working in developing
countries. They charged that HIPC terms were not deep enough — that 90% or
100% of bilateral debt owed should be canceled, and that six years was a far too long
qualification period for full HIPC relief. They further believed that the non-
sustainable debt criteria, based largely on a ratio of a country’s debt-to-exports, was
too high and therefore excluded many countries that were also in need of debt relief.
Some critics opposed the economic reform requirements and argued for
unconditional debt reduction. A number of organizations further advocated instituting
mechanisms that would ensure that savings realized by debtor governments would be
channeled into spending on basic services, such as health and education, that would
improve the quality of life of the very poor. Many of these arguments were reflected
in legislative initiatives launched in 1999, including H.R. 1095 (Debt Relief Poverty
Reduction Act of 1999), H.R. 772 (Hope for Africa Act), H.R. 2232 (Debt Relief and
Development in Africa Act of 1999), and S. 1690 (Debt Relief for Poor Countries Act
of 1999). Complicating the expansion of HIPC and enactment of these bills, however,

CRS-32
was the large additional costs that would be associated with efforts to broaden,
deepen, and accelerate HIPC or U.S. bilateral debt reduction policies.
Following agreement to expand HIPC and insert a strong poverty reduction
requirement, President Clinton amended in September 1999 his pending FY2000
foreign aid request, increasing debt relief from $120 million to nearly $1 billion over
four years. Congress agreed to $123 million for bilateral debt cancellation at the Paris
Club in 2000 but rejected the $600 million proposed for HIPC Trust Fund
contributions, FY2000-FY2003 (H.R. 3422, as incorporated into P.L. 106-113).19
The President had also asked Congress to allow the United States to support an IMF
plan to draw on resources in a contingency fund and to re-value some of its gold
holdings at current prices through an off-market gold sale that would allow the IMF
to cancel HIPC debts owed to the Fund.20 Congress authorized the use of the
contingency fund but placed a restriction that the IMF could only use 9/14ths of the
gold transaction “profits” for HIPC debt relief (H.R. 3425, as incorporated into P.L.
106-113).
Legislative Issues in 2000. The Administration is asking Congress this year to
approve items carried over from last year:
! HIPC Trust Fund $210 million contribution as an FY2000 supplemental
appropriation;
! HIPC bilateral and multilateral debt relief request of $262 million for FY2001;
! HIPC bilateral and multilateral debt relief advance appropriation
(FY2002/2003) of $375 million;
! Authorization for the U.S. to participate in the HIPC Trust Fund; and
! Authorization permitting the U.S. to support the full use of the IMF of gold
transaction profits for debt relief.
Administration officials are especially concerned about appropriations for the HIPC
Trust Fund contribution. They argue that the absence of a U.S. payment has
convinced other creditor governments to hold back their own pledges until the U.S.
19 The HIPC Initiative has two major components: cancellation of bilateral debt owed to the
United States and other creditor governments, and reduction of debt owed to the World Bank,
the IMF, and other regional IFIs. Creditor governments cover their own expenses individually
for the forgiveness of bilateral debt at the Paris Club, an informal arena for negotiating debt
reschedulings and reduction of publically held loans. To finance the cancellation of
multilateral debts, the World Bank and IMF created the HIPC Trust Fund into which IFIs and
aid donor governments would deposit contributions. The Bank and the Fund will cover their
own costs, but other IFIs – especially the African Development Bank – do not have enough
resources to cover the losses of cancelled loan repayments. Donor governments have agreed
to to make up the gap for those IFIs with insufficient funds.
20 The actual process by which the gold is re-valued involves several steps. First, the gold,
which is carried on the IMF books at the original price of $48 per ounce, would be purchased
at current market value (over $270 per ounce) by a member country about to make a large
payment on an IMF loan. After buying the gold, the country immediately makes its loan
payment to the IMF, but in gold that it just purchased, rather than hard currency. The IMF
invests the “profits” of its gold transaction in a security instrument and uses the earned interest
to pay for the costs of canceling HIPC debt over a 20 year period.

CRS-33
acts. They further contend that while most of the existing Trust Fund pledges are
earmarked for African nations that will be among the earliest qualifiers, resources for
Latin American debt relief – for Bolivia and Honduras – are not available. Without
a U.S. contribution, they say, a debt workout for Bolivia has been delayed because
of inadequate resources. Critics of multilateral debt relief, including some in
Congress, argue, however, that before the U.S. contributes to the Trust Fund,
multilateral institutions should agree to suspend for a period of time new lending to
HIPC countries once they receive debt relief so that they do not return to a severely
indebted state.
Congressional Action. Prior to consideration of the FY2001 Foreign
Operations spending measure, lawmakers dealt with other aspects of the HIPC
requests. In the FY2000 supplemental appropriation (H.R. 4425), Congress rejected
the President’s request for the HIPC Trust Fund. Supporting other Administration
requests, however, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported on April 7
legislation (S. 2382) authorizing U.S. participation in the HIPC Trust Fund and U.S.
approval of the entire IMF off-market gold same mechanism. That bill, which was
subsequently referred to the Senate Banking Committee, has not received full Senate
consideration.
S. 2522 provides $75 million in debt reduction for FY2001, far below the
combined FY2000/2001 requests for $472 million. The legislation permits the
Administration to use the resources for either bilateral debt relief or contributions to
the HIPC Trust Fund. Because several HIPC countries are nearing consideration for
HIPC eligibility, it is possible that reduced funding for debt relief in S. 2522 would
result in delays for debt workout negotiations.
H.R. 4811 provides $238 million for debt reduction. The House Appropriations
Committee bill had provided $82.4 million for debt reduction, well under the
Administration’s request. During floor debate, however, the House adopted an
amendment (Waters, 216-211) that increases the debt relief allocation by $155.6
million. As reported by the Committee, however, H.R. 4811 requires that before any
U.S. contribution to the HIPC Trust Fund, the Administration must report to
Congress that the HIPC beneficiary country will not receive any new market-rate
loans from international financial institutions for 30 months or concessional loans for
9 months. The Administration opposes these limitations. The House Committee
expressed support for economic reforms undertaken by Bolivia and Mozambique, and
its expectation that all of the debt reduction funds for HIPC would go to these two
countries. The House measure further indicates that $13 million of the debt reduction
appropriation is reserved for the Tropical Forestry debt initiative.

CRS-34
For Additional Reading
Foreign Operations Programs
CRS Issue Brief IB88093. Drug Control: International Policy, by Raphael Perl.
CRS Issue Brief IB96008. Multilateral Development Banks: Issues for the 106th
Congress, by Jonathan Sanford.
CRS Issue Brief IB86116. U.N. System Funding, by Vita Bite.
CRS Issue Brief IB96026. U.S. International Population Assistance: Issues for
Congress, by Larry Nowels.
Foreign Operations Country/Regional Issues
CRS Issue Brief IB95052. Africa: U.S. Foreign Assistance Issues, by Raymond
Copson.
CRS Issue Brief IB95077. The Former Soviet Union and U.S. Foreign Assistance,
by Curt Tarnoff.
CRS Issue Brief IB85066. Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance, by Clyde Mark.
CRS Issue Brief IB91141. North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program, by Larry
Niksch.

CRS-35
Selected World Wide Web Sites
Asian Development Bank
[http://www.asiandevbank.org/]
CRS Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade 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/]
United National Population Fund (UNFPA)
[http://www.unfpa.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/]
World Bank HIPC website
[http://www.worldbank.org/hipc/]

CRS-36
Appendix — Detailed Foreign Operations Accounts
Table 7. Foreign Operations Appropriations:
Discretionary Budget Authority
(millions of dollars)
FY2000
FY2001
Senate
House
FY2001
Program
Enacteda
Request
FY2001
FY2001
Enacted
Title I - Export and Investment Assistance:
Export-Import Bank
799.00
1,011.0
811.0
782.5

Overseas Private Investment Corp.
(244.0)
(220.0)
(221.0)
(222.0)

Trade & Development Agency
44.0
54.0
46.0
46.0

Total, Title I - Export Aid
599.0
845.0
636.0
606.5

Title II - Bilateral Economic:
Development Assistance:b
Child Survival/Disease/UNICEF
727.5
769.3

886.0

Development Asst Fund
1,215.5
984.8
1,478.3
1,258.0

Development Fund for Africa
[512.5]d
532.9d



Global Health


691.0


Subtotal
1,943.0
2,337.0
2,169.3
2,144.0

Of which:
UNICEF

[110.0]
[110.0]
[110.0]
[110.0]

Population aid
[372.5]
[484.0]
[425.0]
[385.0]

HIV/AIDS
[175.0]
[244.0]
[255.0]
[254.0]

GAVI contribution

[50.0]
[50.0]
[37.5]

Inter-American Foundation
[5.0]
[20.0]

[10.0]

African Development Foundation
[14.4]
[16.0]
[14.4]
[16.0]

International Disaster Aid
202.9
220.0
220.0
165.0

Southern Africa floods supplemental
25.0




Transition Initiatives
[40.5]e
[55.0]e
–e
40.0

Development Credit Programs
8.5
8.0
4.0
10.0

Subtotal, Development Aid
2,179.4
2,565.0
2,393.3
2,359.0

USAID Operating Expenses
520.0
520.0
510.0
509.0

USAID Inspector General
25.0
27.0
25.0
27.0

Economic Support Fund (ESF)
2,345.5
2,313.0
2,220.0
2,208.9

ESF-Wye River Accordd
450.0




International Fund for Ireland
19.6
[19.6]f
–f
25.0

East Europe
535.0a
610.0
635.0
535.0

Kosovo/Balkans supplemental aid
50.0




Former Soviet Union (IS/FSU)
839.0
830.0
775.0
740.0

Debt reduction
123.0
262.0
75.0
238.0

Treasury Dept. technical asst
1.5
7.0
5.0
2.0

U.S. Community Adjustment Credits
10.0
10.0
0.0
0.0

Peace Corps
245.0
275.0
244.0
258.0

International Narcotics
305.0
312.0
220.0
305.0


CRS-37
FY2000
FY2001
Senate
House
FY2001
Program
Enacteda
Request
FY2001
FY2001
Enacted
Intl Narcotics – Plan Colombia
1,093.5a
256.0
—a
0.0a

Migration & refugee asst
625.0
658.2
615.0
645.0

Emergency Refugee Fund (ERMA)
12.5
20.0
15.0
12.5

Non-Proliferation/anti-terrorism
216.6
352.7
215.0
241.6

Total, Title II- Bilateral Economic
9,595.6
9,017.9
7,947.3
8,106.0

Title III - Military Assistance:
Intl Military Education & Training
50.0
55.0
55.0
47.3

Foreign Mil Financing (FMF) grants
3,420.0
3,538.2
3,519.0
3,268.0

FMF-Wye River Accord d
1,375.0




Special Defense Acquisition Fund
(6.0)




Peacekeeping Operations
153.0
134.0
85.0
117.9

FMF loans rescission

(18.2)


Total, Title III-Military Aid
4,992.0
3,709.0
3,659.0
3,433.2

Title IV - Multilateral Economic Aid:
World Bank-Intl Development Assn
775.0
835.6
750.0
566.6

World Bank-Environment Facility
35.8
175.6
50.0
35.8

World Bank-Mult Invst Guaranty Ag
4.0
16.0
4.0
4.9

Inter-American Development Bank
41.6
59.9
10.0
18.0

Asian Development Bank
90.7
125.0
100.0
72.0

African Development Fund
128.0
100.0
72.0
72.0

African Development Bank
4.1
6.1
6.1
3.1

European Bank for R & D
35.8
35.8
35.8
35.8

Intl Organizations & Programs
183.0
196.0g
178.0g
188.0h

Total, Title IV - Multilateral
1,302.0
1,550.0
1,205.9
996.2

Title VI - Southern Africa Rehab

200.0j

160.0j
TOTAL, Foreign Operations Appi
16,488.6
15,121.9
13,424.2
13,141.9

TOTAL, without FY00 Supps.
13,495.1
15,121.9
13,424.2
13,141.9

a. FY2000 enacted includes $1.1 billion in supplemental FY2000 Foreign Operations funds enacted in P.L. 106-246
(H.R. 4425).
b. The account structure for development aid differs among versions of the bill. This table shows a consistent and
comparable account structure based on the conference agreement for development aid, FY2000. For the
Administration’s request, this means adding amounts to development aid for the Inter-American and African
Development Foundations, GAVI, and UNICEF, which are requested in other accounts. For the Senate it means
the addition of $110 million for UNICEF which S. 2522 funds under the Int’l Organizations account in title IV.
c. For FY2001, the Administration requests a separate account under development aid for Africa (the Development
Fund for Africa, or DFA). Africa aid is also proposed within the Child Survival account. The total amount
requested for Africa — DFA plus Africa/Child Survival — is $837 million. This compares to $738 million
appropriated for Africa in FY2000 within the Child Survival and Development Assistance Fund accounts.
d. Congress approved for FY2000 a one-time supplemental ESF ($450 million) and FMF ($1.375 billion) package
supporting the Wye River/Middle East peace accord with aid for Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinians.
e. Transition Initiative funds included in Disaster Assistance account for FY2000 and Senate FY2001 bill.

CRS-38
f. The Administration request and S. 2522 includes the Ireland Fund as part of the Economic Support Fund.
g
. For comparative purposes and to conform to the account structure enacted for FY2000, UNICEF funds ($110
million) have been deducted here and added in the development aid subtotal in title II. The Administration’s
$50 million FY2001 request for GAVI has also been shifted from here to title II, as proposed by the Senate.
h. Includes $5 million provided to IFAD. The House bill establishes IFAD as a separate account.
i. Pursuant to sequestration requirements in P.L. 106-113, the amounts for FY2000 are reduced by $19 million.
j. Southern Africa rehabilitation and reconstruction is requested, and approved in the House bill, as an FY2000
emergency supplemental appropriation. It is not included in the totals for FY2001.