ȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱ
ȱ¢ȱ
ȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱ
ȱǯȱ ȱ
¢ȱȱȱȱ
¢ȱŗŖǰȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱȱȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
ǯǯȱ
ŚŖŘŗřȱ
ȱȱȱ
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
¢ȱ
Foreign assistance is a fundamental component of the international affairs budget and is viewed
by many as an essential instrument of U.S. foreign policy. The focus of U.S. foreign aid policy
has been transformed since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This report provides an
overview of the U.S. foreign aid program, by answering frequently asked questions on the
subject.
There are five major categories of foreign assistance: bilateral development aid, economic
assistance supporting U.S. political and security goals, humanitarian aid, multilateral economic
contributions, and military aid. Due largely to the implementation of two new foreign aid
initiatives—the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the HIV/AIDS Initiative—bilateral
development assistance has become the largest category of U.S. aid.
In FY2008, the United States provided some form of foreign assistance to about 154 countries.
Israel and Egypt placed among the top recipients in FY2008, as they have since the late 1970s,
although on-going reconstruction activities in Iraq and Afghanistan now place those nations near
the top as well. The impact of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and the subsequent use
of foreign aid to support the war on terrorism are clearly seen in the estimated country-aid levels
for FY2008. Pakistan and Jordan are key partners in the war on terrorism and major beneficiaries
of U.S. assistance. Also among the leading recipients are some African countries that are the
focus of the multi-billion dollar HIV/AIDS initiative.
By nearly all measures, the amount of foreign aid provided by the United States declined for
several decades but has grown in the past few years. After hitting an all-time low in the mid-
1990s, foreign assistance levels since FY2004, in real terms, have been higher than any period
since the early 1950s, largely due to Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction and HIV/AIDS funding.
The 0.19% of U.S. gross national product represented by foreign aid obligations for FY2008 is
consistent with recent years, but quite low compared to the early decades of the foreign assistance
program. The United States is the largest international economic aid donor in absolute dollar
terms but is the smallest contributor among the major donor governments when calculated as a
percent of gross national income.
ȱȱȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Foreign Aid: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy............................................................ 1
Foreign Aid Purposes and Priorities ................................................................................................ 2
What Are the Rationales and Objectives of U.S. Foreign Assistance? ..................................... 2
Rationales for Foreign Aid.................................................................................................. 2
Objectives of Foreign Aid................................................................................................... 3
What Are the Different Types of Foreign Aid? ......................................................................... 6
Bilateral Development Assistance ...................................................................................... 7
Economic Aid Supporting U.S. Political and Security Objectives ..................................... 7
Humanitarian Assistance..................................................................................................... 8
Multilateral Assistance........................................................................................................ 9
Military Assistance.............................................................................................................. 9
What Are the Funding Priorities and Trends in U.S. Foreign Assistance?.............................. 10
Trends in Types of U.S. Aid.............................................................................................. 10
Trends in Programs and Sectors of Special Interest.......................................................... 12
Which Countries Receive U.S. Foreign Aid?.......................................................................... 13
Foreign Aid Spending.................................................................................................................... 16
How Large Is the U.S. Foreign Assistance Budget and What Have Been the Historical
Funding Trends?................................................................................................................... 16
How Does Foreign Aid Compare with Other Federal Programs?........................................... 19
How Much of Foreign Aid Dollars Are Spent on U.S. Goods? .............................................. 20
How Does the United States Rank as a Donor of Foreign Aid?.............................................. 21
Delivery of Foreign Assistance ..................................................................................................... 23
What Executive Branch Agencies Administer Foreign Aid Programs? .................................. 23
U.S. Agency for International Development..................................................................... 23
U.S. Department of State .................................................................................................. 24
U.S. Department of Defense ............................................................................................. 24
U.S. Department of the Treasury ...................................................................................... 25
Millennium Challenge Corporation .................................................................................. 25
Other Agencies.................................................................................................................. 25
What Are the Different Forms in Which Assistance Is Provided? .......................................... 26
Cash Transfers................................................................................................................... 26
Equipment and Commodities............................................................................................ 26
Economic Infrastructure.................................................................................................... 26
Training............................................................................................................................. 27
Expertise ........................................................................................................................... 27
Small Grants ..................................................................................................................... 27
How Much Aid Is Provided as Loans and How Much as Grants? What Are Some
Types of Loans? Have Loans Been Repaid? Why Is Repayment of Some Loans
Forgiven? ............................................................................................................................. 27
Loan/Grant Composition .................................................................................................. 27
Types of Loans.................................................................................................................. 28
Loan Repayment ............................................................................................................... 28
Debt Forgiveness .............................................................................................................. 28
What Are the Roles of Government and Private Sector in Development and
Humanitarian Aid Delivery? ................................................................................................ 29
Congress and Foreign Aid ............................................................................................................. 29
ȱȱȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
What Congressional Committees Oversee Foreign Aid Programs?........................................ 29
What Are the Major Foreign Aid Legislative Vehicles?.......................................................... 30
ȱ
Figure 1. Aid Program Composition, FY2008 ................................................................................ 8
Figure 2. Shifts in Program Emphasis (FY1998-2008) ..................................................................11
Figure 3. Top Foreign Aid Recipients, FY1998 ............................................................................ 14
Figure 4. Top Foreign Aid Recipients, FY2008 ............................................................................ 14
Figure 5. Regional Distribution of Aid, FY1998........................................................................... 15
Figure 6. Regional Distribution of Aid, FY2008........................................................................... 15
Figure 7. U.S. Foreign Aid: FY1946-FY2008............................................................................... 17
Figure 8. Foreign Aid as % of GDP .............................................................................................. 18
Figure 9. Foreign Aid Funding Trends, FY1977-FY2008............................................................. 19
Figure 10. U.S. Budget Outlays, FY2008 ..................................................................................... 20
Figure 11. Economic Aid From Major Donors, 2007.................................................................... 22
Figure 12. Economic Aid as % of GNI for Major Donors, 2007................................................... 23
ȱ
Table 1. Bilateral State/USAID Assistance by Objective: FY2006-FY2008 .................................. 5
Table 2. Foreign Operation Appropriations, FY1997-FY2008 ..................................................... 19
Table A-1. Aid Program Composition, FY2008 ............................................................................ 31
Table A-2. Program Composition, FY1995-FY2008 .................................................................... 31
Table A-3. Foreign Aid Funding Trends........................................................................................ 32
¡ȱ
Appendix A. Data Tables............................................................................................................... 31
Appendix B. Common Foreign Assistance Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................... 34
ȱ
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 35
ȱȱȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱ
ȱ¢ȱ
U.S. foreign aid is a fundamental component of the international affairs budget and is viewed by
many as an essential instrument of U.S. foreign policy.1 Each year, it is the subject of extensive
congressional debate and legislative and executive branch initiatives, proposing changes in the
size, composition, and purpose of the program. The focus of U.S. foreign aid policy has been
transformed since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In 2002, a National Security
Strategy for the first time established global development as a third pillar of U.S. national
security, along with defense and diplomacy.
This report addresses a number of the more frequently asked queries regarding the U.S. foreign
aid program, its objectives, costs, organization, the role of Congress, and how it compares to
those of other aid donors. In particular, the discussion attempts not only to present a current snap-
shot of American foreign assistance, but also to illustrate the extent to which this instrument of
U.S. foreign policy has changed from past practices, especially since the end of the Cold War and
the launching of the war on terror.
Data presented in the report are the most current, reliable figures available, usually covering the
period through FY2008. Dollar amounts are drawn from a variety of sources, including the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and
from annual State, Foreign Operations and other appropriations acts. As new data become
obtainable or additional issues and questions arise, the report will be modified and revised.
Foreign aid acronyms used in this report are listed in Appendix B.
1 Other tools of U.S. foreign policy are the U.S. defense establishment, the diplomatic corps, public diplomacy, and
trade policy. American defense capabilities, even if not employed, stand as a potential stick that can be wielded to
obtain specific objectives. The State Department diplomatic corps are the eyes, ears, and often the negotiating voice of
U.S. foreign policymakers. Public diplomacy programs, such as exchanges like the Fulbright program and Radio Free
Europe, project an image of the United States that may influence foreign views positively. U.S. trade policy—through
free trade agreements and Export-Import Bank credits, for example—may directly affect the economies of other
nations. Foreign aid is probably the most flexible tool—it can act as both carrot and stick, and is a means of influencing
events, solving specific problems, and projecting U.S. values.
ȱȱȱ
ŗȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
A Note on Numbers and Sources
The numeric measures of foreign assistance used in this report come from a variety of sources. Different sources are
necessary for comprehensive analysis, but can often lead to discrepancies from table to table or chart to chart.
One reason for such variation is the different definitions of foreign assistance used by different sources. The Budget of
the United States historical tables data on foreign assistance, for example, includes only those programs that fall under
the traditional 151 and 152 budget subfunction accounts. This excludes various programs run by federal agencies
outside of the traditional State/USAID framework. USAID’s U.S. Overseas Loans & Grants database (Greenbook), in
contrast, uses a broad and evolving definition of foreign aid which in past years has included mandatory retirement
accounts, Departments of Defense and Energy nonproliferation assistance, and other U.S. agency accounts that many
would not classify as foreign assistance. Official Development Assistance (ODA), reported by the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), differs from both U.S. Budget and Greenbook numbers because it
excludes all military assistance.
Apparent discrepancies also arise due to funding being recorded at different points in the process. U.S. Budget
historic tables represent budget authority, funds appropriated by fiscal year, whereas the Greenbook reports funds
obligated by fiscal year. The disparity this creates is apparent when comparing recent aid levels in Figures 7 and 9.
Figure 9 shows a sharp spike in appropriations in FY2004 for Iraq Reconstruction, but that appropriation was
obligated over multiple years, resulting in the much less dramatic rise in FY2004 and FY2005 obligations depicted in
Figure 7. The reporting calendar may result in discrepancies as well—ODA figures, unlike budget and Greenbook
numbers, are reported by calendar year rather than fiscal year.
The differences between sources make precise comparisons difficult. For this reason, CRS has attempted not to mix
sources within figures and tables, with the exception of Table A-3 (on which Figure 7 is based), which was
necessary because no single source exists for data from 1946 through to 2008. Though imperfect, this compilation of
data is useful for depicting long-term trends in U.S. foreign assistance levels.
ȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǯǯȱȱǵȱ
Foreign assistance is predicated on several rationales and supports a great many objectives. Both
rationales and objectives have changed over time.
ȱȱȱȱ
Since the start of modern U.S. foreign aid programs, the rationale for such assistance has been
posited in terms of national security. From a beginning in rebuilding Europe after World War II
under the Marshall Plan (1948-1951), U.S. aid programs reflected anti-communist Cold War
tensions that continued through the 1980s. U.S. development assistance programs to newly
independent states were viewed by policymakers as a way to prevent the incursion of Soviet
influence in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Africa. Military and economic assistance
programs were provided to allies offering U.S. base rights or other support in the anti-Soviet
struggle.
In the immediate aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, aid programs lost their
Cold War underpinnings. Foreign aid programs reflected less of a strategic focus on a global scale
and instead responded to regional issues, such as Middle East peace initiatives, the transition to
democracy of eastern Europe and republics of the former Soviet Union, and international illicit
drug production and trafficking in the Andes. Without an overarching theme, foreign aid budgets
decreased in the 1990s. However, since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United
States, policymakers frequently have cast foreign assistance as a tool in the global war on
ȱȱȱ
Řȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
terrorism. This has comprised an emphasis on aid to partner states in the terrorism war, including
the substantial reconstruction programs in Afghanistan and Iraq. As noted, global development is
now accepted, along with defense and diplomacy, as a key element of U.S. national security.2
Even during periods when aid programs were framed in the context of anti-communism, and
more recently in the context of anti-terrorism, foreign aid programs were justified for other
reasons as well, primarily commercial and humanitarian. Foreign assistance has long been
defended as a way to either promote U.S. exports by creating new customers for U.S. products or
by improving the global economic environment in which U.S. companies compete. At the same
time, a strong current has existed that explained U.S. assistance as a moral imperative to help
poverty-stricken countries and those trying to overcome disasters or conflict. Providing assistance
for humanitarian reasons or in response to natural disasters has generally been the least contested
purpose of aid by the American public and policymakers alike.
ȱȱȱȱ
The objectives of aid are thought to fit within these rationales. Aid objectives include promoting
economic growth and reducing poverty, improving governance, addressing population growth,
expanding access to basic education and health care, protecting the environment, promoting
stability in conflictive regions, protecting human rights, curbing weapons proliferation,
strengthening allies, and addressing drug production and trafficking. The expectation has been
that, by meeting these objectives, the United States will achieve its national security goals as well
as ensure a global economic environment for American products and demonstrate the
humanitarian nature of the U.S. people. Some observers have returned to the view that poverty
and lack of opportunity are the underlying causes of political instability and the rise of terrorist
organizations, much as poverty was viewed as creating a breeding ground for communist
insurgencies in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.
Generally speaking, different types of foreign aid support different objectives. Focusing on any
single element of the aid program would produce a different sense of the priority of any particular
U.S. objective. But there is also considerable overlap among categories of aid. Multilateral aid
serves many of the same objectives as bilateral development assistance, although through
different channels. Both military assistance and economic security assistance serve U.S.
objectives in the Middle East and South Asia. Drug interdiction activities, backed in some cases
with military assistance and alternative development programs, are integrated elements of
American counter-narcotics efforts in Latin America and elsewhere.
Depending on how they are designed, individual assistance projects on the ground can also serve
multiple purposes. A health project ostensibly directed at alleviating the effects of HIV/AIDS by
feeding orphan children may also mobilize local communities and stimulate grassroots
democracy and civil society while additionally meeting U.S. humanitarian objectives. Microcredit
programs may help develop local economies while at the same time providing food and education
to the children of entrepreneurs.
2 Development was again underscored in the Bush Administration’s re-statement of the National Security Strategy
released on March 16, 2006. Executive Office of the President, U.S. National Security Strategy 2002 and 2006,
available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006].
ȱȱȱ
řȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
In an effort to rationalize the assistance program more clearly, the Director of Foreign Assistance
(DFA) at the State Department developed a framework (Table 1) in 2006 that organizes U.S.
foreign aid—or at least that portion of it that is managed by the State Department and/or
USAID—around five strategic objectives, each of which includes a number of program elements,
also known as sectors.3 The five objectives are Peace and Security; Investing in People;
Governing Justly and Democratically; Economic Growth; and Humanitarian Assistance.
Generally, these objectives and sectors do not correspond to any one particular budget account in
appropriations bills.4
ȱȱ¢ȱ
The Peace and Security objective is composed of six program areas: counter-terrorism; combating
weapons of mass destruction; stabilization operations and security sector reform; counter-
narcotics; transnational crime; conflict mitigation and reconciliation. With an elevated level of
engagement in the aftermath of 9/11, these types of programs have been emphasized by the Bush
Administration as essential to the war on terrorism, and to promote stability in failing states that
may become permissive environments for terrorism. For FY2008, the Peace and Security
objective was funded at $7.5 billion. Major portions of these funds were allocated to Israel,
Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Jordan. Were the DFA framework to include all foreign
aid, regardless of source, the DOD training and equipping of Iraqi and Afghan security forces
would add $5.8 billion in FY2008 under this objective.
ȱȱȱ
The Investing in People objective is composed of three program areas: health; education; and
social services and protection for vulnerable people. For FY2008, the objective was funded at
$8.5 billion. Most of the funding falls in the health program area, particularly the President’s
Global AIDS Initiative.
Health programs also include funds for combating avian influenza, tuberculosis, and malaria. A
significant portion of health funds are provided for maternal and child health, and family planning
and reproductive health programs. The objective also includes education programs with the
majority of funds focusing on basic education needs, especially in Africa, but increasingly in
south and central Asia and the Middle East.
3 The framework, representing about 90% of the traditional foreign aid budget in FY2008 (including supplementals),
does not include the Millennium Challenge Corporation, Peace Corps, other independent agencies, and international
financial institutions. It also excludes non-traditional foreign aid programs, such as DOD-funded activities. While the
framework includes the State Department’s HIV/AIDS program, it is not under the direct management responsibility of
the DFA.
4 Most are funded through several accounts. For instance, the objective of Governing Justly and Democratically and
each of its individual sectoral elements (see Table 1) are funded through portions of the Development Assistance,
SEED, FSA, ESF, and INCLE accounts.
ȱȱȱ
Śȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
Table 1. Bilateral State/USAID Assistance by Objective: FY2006-FY2008
(in millions of current dollars)
Aid Objectives and Program Areas
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Peace and Security
$6,817.1
$8,684.6
$7,480.3
Counter-Terrorism
$157.0 $242.1 $178.5
Combating
WMD
$229.9 $228.0 $247.8
Stabilization/Security Sector Reform
$5,178.0
$6,668.6
$5,579.5
Counter-narcotics
$1,007.1 $1,148.1 $1,125.1
Transnational
Crime
$60.2 $51.2 $73.2
Conflict
Mitigation
$184.8 $346.6 $276.4
Investing in People
$4,957.4
$6,659.4
$8,522.7
Health
$2,595.2 $5,705.1 $7,277.2
Education
$689.8 $754.5 $928.4
Social Services/Protection of Vulnerable
$136.9
$199.7
$317.0
Governing Justly & Democratically
$1,233.2
$2,141.3
$2,260.4
Rule of Law & Human Rights
$301.1
$532.0
$606.1
Good
Governance
$354.2 $763.2 $818.9
Political
Competition
$197.3 $305.4 $288.7
Civil
Society
$380.6 $540.8 $546.8
Economic
Growth
$2,826.2 $3,212.2 $2,920.6
Macroeconomic
Growth
$409.1 $591.5 $330.5
Trade & Investment
$408.7
$331.6
$210.9
Financial
Sector
$277.2 $176.8 $190.8
Infrastructure
$414.9 $723.9 $850.4
Agriculture
$562.0 $538.1 $487.7
Private Sector Competitiveness
$350.5
$385.4
$358.3
Economic
Opportunity
$111.6 $127.0 $167.9
Environment
$292.1 $337.8 $324.0
Humanitarian
Assistance
$1,808.4 $3,097.4 $3,157.8
Protection, Assistance & Solutions
$1,664.1
$2,963.7
$3,025.5
Disaster
Readiness
$74.8 $78.2 $74.5
Migration
Management
$69.6 $55.5 $57.7
Source: USAID and Department of State budget documents.
Notes: Figures include Iraq funding and supplementals, with exception of FY2008 3rd supplemental appropriation
(P.L. 110-329) of $465 million in ESF.
ȱȱȱ
śȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
ȱ ¢ȱȱ¢ȱ
This objective includes a number of program areas related to promoting the rule of law and
human rights, good governance, political competition, and civil society. The two largest
components for FY2008 were the rule of law and good governance. Some aid experts believe that
development is more effective when the recipient government is democratic in nature and
respectful of citizens’ rights. Program goals include strengthening the performance and
accountability of government institutions, such as the judiciary and police, and combating
corruption. Funding levels have grown somewhat in recent years; the objective totaled $2.3
billion in FY2008.
ȱ ȱ
The Economic Growth objective, amounting to $2.9 billion in FY2008, includes a wide range of
program areas that are believed to contribute to economic growth in developing economies,
including agriculture, the environment, infrastructure, and trade. Agriculture programs focus on
science and technology advances that reduce poverty and hunger, trade-promotion opportunities
for farmers, and sound environmental management practices for sustainable agriculture. Private
sector development programs include support for business associations and microfinance
services. Programs for managing natural resources and protecting the global environment focus
on conserving biological diversity, improving the management of land, water, and forests,
promoting environmentally-sound urban development, encouraging clean and efficient energy
production and use, and reducing the threat of global climate change while strengthening
sustainable economic growth. Were the DFA framework to encompass all foreign aid, regardless
of funding source, the economic growth objective would likely include most of the Millennium
Challenge Account, adding perhaps another $1.5 billion in FY08, and much of the Commander’s
Emergency Response Program (CERP), the latter funded by DOD at $1.8 billion in FY08.
ȱȱ
Humanitarian assistance responds to both natural and man-made disasters as well as problems
resulting from conflict associated with failed or failing states. Responses include protection and
assistance to refugees and internally displaced persons and provision of emergency food aid.
Programs generally address unanticipated situations and are not integrated into long-term
development strategies. In FY2008, humanitarian programs were funded at $3.2 billion.
ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱǵȱ
The framework introduced by the DFA organizes assistance by foreign policy objective. But there
are many other ways to categorize foreign aid. More commonly, Congress and others group
traditional foreign aid by five major types of assistance, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. Each
category of assistance is funded by discrete aid accounts in the U.S. budget. There are many such
accounts, supporting different aid agencies, offices, and programs. This methodology
encompasses all traditional aid, a larger universe than that in the DFA framework.5 However, as
5 In the U.S. federal budget, all commonly accepted, traditional foreign aid accounts are subsumed under the 150,
international affairs, budget function. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has designated development and
humanitarian assistance as subfunction 151 and security assistance as subfunction 152. Currently, all traditional foreign
(continued...)
ȱȱȱ
Ŝȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
noted, the Department of Defense and some other government agencies undertake assistance
programs with funding outside traditional foreign aid budget accounts. These non-traditional
programs are not captured in this discussion.
Iraq and Afghanistan Reconstruction Funding
In recent years, reconstruction assistance to Iraq and Afghanistan has accounted for billions of dollars and has,
perhaps, disproportionately shaped the portrait of the U.S. foreign aid program. Aid efforts in both countries have
been mostly directed at improving the security capabilities of police and armed forces, at building and rehabilitating
infrastructure, promoting governance, and stimulating economic growth.
Reaching a total of $49 billion in appropriations from all sources in the years FY2003 to FY2009, the U.S. assistance
program to Iraq is the largest aid initiative since the 1948-1951 Marshall Plan. Nearly $21 billion of the total was
funneled through an Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund in just two fiscal years, FY2003 and FY2004. About $22
billion has been provided under the DOD budget, not traditionally included in foreign aid totals, and, therefore, unless
otherwise noted, not captured in the context of this report. The Afghanistan program to date accounts for about $11
billion in traditional foreign aid and another $15 billion in DOD-funded aid.
While traditional foreign aid amounts noted in this report include figures for Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction, it is
important to keep in mind that these aid efforts—running currently at $2-$3 billion a year—might overshadow and
obscure key trends in changing aid budget and policy priorities for the period FY2002-2009. Therefore, at various
points throughout the text, a notation may be made stating what a particular amount would equal if Iraq and/or
Afghanistan assistance was excluded.
ȱȱȱ
Development assistance programs are designed chiefly to foster sustainable broad-based
economic progress and social stability in developing countries. For FY2008, Congress
appropriated $10.3 billion in such assistance, an amount accounting for nearly 37% of total
foreign aid appropriations. A significant proportion of these funds—largely encompassed by the
Development Assistance and the Child Survival & Health accounts—is managed by the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) and is used for long-term projects in the areas of
economic reform and private sector development, democracy promotion, environmental
protection, population control, and improvement of human health. Development activities that
have gained more prominence in recent years include basic education, water and sanitation, and
support for treatment of HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases. Other bilateral development
assistance goes to distinct institutions, such as the Peace Corps, Inter-American Development
Foundation, African Development Foundation, Trade and Development Agency, and Millennium
Challenge Corporation.
ȱȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ
For FY2008, Congress appropriated $7.8 billion, 27% of total assistance, for five major programs
whose primary purpose is to meet special U.S. economic, political, or security interests. The bulk
of these funds—$5.3 billion—was provided through the Economic Support Fund (ESF), designed
to advance American strategic goals with economic assistance. ESF funds can be used for
development projects, or in other ways, such as cash transfers, to help a recipient country stabilize
its economy and service foreign debt. For many years, following the 1979 Camp David accords,
most ESF funds went to support the Middle East Peace Process. Since 9/11, ESF has largely
(...continued)
aid accounts fall under one of these two subfunctions.
ȱȱȱ
ŝȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
supported countries of importance in the war on terrorism. In FY2008, for example, about $1.8
billion in ESF was directed at Iraq and Afghanistan alone.
Figure 1. Aid Program Composition, FY2008
Bilateral Development 35.5%
Economic Political Security 27.1%
Humanitarian 14.4%
Military 17.5%
Multilateral 5.5%
Source: U.S. Department of State, Summary and Highlights, International Affairs, Function 150, FY2009, House
and Senate Appropriations Committees, and CRS calculations.
With the demise of the Soviet empire, the United States established two new aid programs to
meet particular strategic political interests. The SEED (Support for East European Democracy
Act of 1989) and the FREEDOM Support Act (Freedom for Russia and Emerging Eurasian
Democracies and Open Markets Support Act of 1992) programs were designed to help Central
Europe and the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union (FSA) achieve democratic
systems and free market economies. In FY2008, SEED countries were allocated about $294
million while the FSA countries received $397 million in appropriated funds (not counting an
emergency appropriation at the end of the fiscal year of $365 million specifically for Georgia).
Both accounts have seen decreases as countries graduate from U.S. assistance, from a ten-year
high of $676 million in 2001 for SEED and $958 million in 2002 for FSA countries.
Especially since 2001, policymakers have given greater weight to several global concerns that are
considered threats to U.S. security and well-being—terrorism, illicit narcotics, crime, and
weapons proliferation. They have addressed each concern with aid programs that provide a range
of law enforcement activities, training, and equipment. In FY2008, the anti-narcotics and crime
program accounted for about $1.3 billion in foreign aid appropriations—about a quarter of which
was for an Andean anti-narcotics initiative. Anti-terrorism programs added another $150 million,
and weapons proliferation-related activities, including humanitarian demining, were funded at
$347 million.
ȱȱ
For FY2008, Congress appropriated $4.2 billion, 14.4% of assistance, for humanitarian aid
programs.6 Unlike development assistance programs, which are often viewed as long-term efforts
6 Because of the unanticipated nature of many disasters, humanitarian aid budget allocations often increase throughout
the year as demands arise. Figures listed here include supplemental funds provided at various stages throughout the
year as of the end of FY2008.
ȱȱȱ
Şȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
that may have the effect of preventing future crises from developing, humanitarian aid programs
are devoted largely to the immediate alleviation of humanitarian emergencies. A large proportion
of humanitarian assistance goes to programs aimed at refugees and internally displaced persons
administered by the State Department and funded under the Migration and Refugee Assistance
(MRA) and the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) accounts. These accounts
support, with about $1.4 billion in FY2008, a number of refugee relief organizations, including
the U.N. High Commission for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The
International Disaster Assistance (IDA) and Transition Initiatives (TI) accounts managed by
USAID provide relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction assistance to victims of man-made and
natural disasters, activities totaling $694 million in FY2008.7
Food assistance supplements both programs (about $2.1 billion in FY2008). The food aid
program, generically referred to as P.L. 480 (after the law that authorizes it) or the Food for Peace
program, provides U.S. agricultural commodities to developing countries. USAID-administered
Title II (of the public law) grant food aid is mostly provided for humanitarian relief, but may also
be used for development-oriented purposes by private voluntary organizations (PVOs) or through
multilateral organizations, such as the World Food Program. Title II funds are also used to support
the “farmer-to-farmer” program which sends hundreds of U.S. volunteers as technical advisors to
train farm and food-related groups throughout the world. A new program begun in 2002, the
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program, provides
commodities, technical assistance, and financing for school feeding and child nutrition programs
($100 million in FY2008).8
ȱȱ
A relatively small share of U.S. foreign assistance—5.5% in FY2008—is combined with
contributions from other donor nations to finance multilateral development projects. For FY2008,
Congress appropriated $1.6 billion for such activities implemented by international organizations,
like the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations Development
Program (UNDP), and by multilateral development banks (MDBs), such as the World Bank. On
average, U.S. contributions represent about 23% of total donor transfers to the MDBs.
¢ȱȱ
The United States provides military assistance to U.S. friends and allies to help them acquire U.S.
military equipment and training. Congress appropriated $5.1 billion for military assistance in
FY2008, 17.5% of total U.S. foreign aid. There are three main programs, administered by the
Department of State, but implemented by DOD. Foreign Military Financing (FMF), $4.7 billion
in FY2008, is a grant program that enables governments to receive equipment from the U.S.
government or to access equipment directly through U.S. commercial channels. Most FMF grants
support the security needs of Israel and Egypt. The International Military Education and Training
program (IMET), $85 million, offers military training on a grant basis to foreign military officers
and personnel. Peacekeeping funds, $261 million in FY2008, are used to support voluntary non-
U.N. operations as well as training for an African crisis response force. As noted earlier, since
7 The IDA account was previously known as the International Disaster and Famine Assistance account (IDFA).
8 Until FY1998, food provided commercially under long-term, low interest loan terms (Title I of P.L. 480) was also
included in the foreign assistance account. Because of its increasing export focus, it is no longer considered foreign aid.
ȱȱȱ
şȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
2002, DOD appropriations, not included in counts of traditional foreign aid, have supported FMF
and IMET-like programs in Afghanistan and Iraq at a level of nearly $6 billion in FY2008.
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǯǯȱȱ
ǵȱ
Tracking changes in the amount of funds distributed to each objective, sector, type of assistance,
or funding account is one means of measuring the relative priority placed by the executive branch
on any of the aid activities represented by that category of assistance. Because Congress closely
examines the executive’s distribution of bilateral economic resources and in a number of cases
modifies the President’s proposed budget plan, funding trends also characterize congressional aid
priorities and areas of special concern.9
ȱȱ¢ȱȱǯǯȱȱ
As shown in Figure 2 (and Table A-2), there have been shifts in the use of different types of U.S.
assistance in response to world events and changing priorities. Funding a Middle East peace
supplemental, the Andean Counter-narcotics Initiative and economic support for countries
assisting U.S. efforts in the war on terrorism pushed strategic-oriented economic aid from a 26%
share in FY1995 to an average 33% share from FY1997 through FY2002. The injection of
significant assistance to Iraq raised political-strategic assistance to 50% in FY2004.10 Excluding
the anomaly of Iraq, however, would lower the proportion of political-strategic aid to 29% in
FY2004. Even with Iraq funding included in the following years, this grouping of aid drops to
about 29% in the period FY2005 through FY2007, reflecting somewhat the impact of a
continuing ten-year plan to reduce economic aid to Israel and Egypt, and, except in the case of
Afghanistan, less robust aid for partner states in the war on terrorism. The growth of
development-related aid in this period also diminished the relative proportion of other forms of
assistance. The proportion of total aid represented by political-strategic assistance in FY2008 was
27%.
9 It is important to note that the amount of resources allocated to any single development sector relative to other sectors
in any given year is not necessarily a good measure of the priority assigned to that sector. Different types of
development activities require varying amounts of funding to have impact and achieve the desired goals. Democracy
and governance programs, for example, are generally low-cost interventions that include extensive training sessions for
government officials, the media, and other elements of civil society. Economic growth programs, on the other hand,
might include infrastructure development, government budget support, or commodity import financing, activities that
require significantly higher resources. What may be a better indicator of changing priorities is to compare funding
allocations over time to the same objective or sector.
10 Of the $18.4 billion provided in FY04 for Iraq from the IRRF, $5 billion was utilized in the same way as military
assistance and delegated to DOD for implementation. The remainder was used in ways similar to ESF and, therefore, is
considered political-strategic assistance for purposes of this analysis.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŖȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
Figure 2. Shifts in Program Emphasis (FY1998-2008)
(as % of total U.S. foreign assistance)
100
80
60
40
20
0
99
'01
'03
'04 w/o Iraq
'06
'08
98
'00
'02
'04
'05
'07
Military Aid
Economic Political/Strategic Aid
Bilateral/Multilateral/Humanitarian Aid
Source: U.S. Department of State and CRS calculations.
Notes: To illustrate the impact of Iraq funding on the aid program, the column “FY04 without Iraq” excludes
$18.4 billion in Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund (IRRF) aid.
For more than two decades, military assistance as a share of total aid obligations has declined, a
trend that began after military aid peaked at 42% in FY1984. Despite increases in other forms of
assistance in the period from 1998 through FY2004, military aid hovered in the 25% range as the
United States provided additional security support to many of the partner states in the war on
terrorism and other countries that might face new external threats due to the pending conflict in
Iraq. From FY2005, however, its share continued to fall, largely due to the rise in prominence of
the development assistance category. In FY2008, military assistance represented less than 18% of
total aid. However, as discussed in a later section, foreign assistance provided by the Department
of Defense, and not counted in estimates of traditional foreign aid, has been increasing with
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, with new authority to train and equip foreign militaries, and
with anti-narcotics activities in Latin America and Afghanistan.
Perhaps the most striking trend in this period has been the growth in development-related
assistance, including humanitarian aid, food aid, and contributions to multilateral institutions.
Development-related aid rose steadily from a 38% share in FY1990 to nearly 48% by FY1995.
The growth of more politically driven economic programs in central Europe and the former
Soviet Union, plus sizable cuts to development aid in FY1996/1997 and increased emphasis on
security assistance following the September 11 terrorist attacks, drove the share down to an
average of 41% during the late 1990s through FY2002. If Iraq funding were excluded in FY2004,
the proportion of development aid would jump to 47%, rather than the deep decline to 25% if Iraq
is included. With the approval of significant amounts of funding for two new presidential aid
priorities, the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the HIV/AIDS Initiative, development
assistance grew to represent over half of total U.S. foreign aid by FY2005, the highest proportion
in more than twenty years. This share has since continued to increase, reaching 55% in FY2008.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŗȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ
There are multiple ways to define and categorize U.S. foreign assistance programs. At various
times, congressional and public attention centers on one or another slice of the aid effort. For
instance, the large community of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working on
international sustainable development activities most often concerns itself with what it calls “core
development accounts,” usually defined as including the USAID Child Survival and Health,
USAID Development Assistance, Millennium Challenge, and HIV/AIDS accounts. Collectively,
these have grown exponentially over the ten year period from 1998 to 2008, from $1.9 billion to
$9.6 billion, largely due to the launching of the HIV/AIDS and MCA programs.
One of the most striking changes in the distribution of economic aid resources in recent years has
been the sharp growth in funding for health programs, especially in the area of HIV/AIDS and
other infectious diseases (see Table 1). In 2004, the Bush Administration launched a five-year
Global AIDS Initiative, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), with the goal
of treating two million HIV-infected individuals, and caring for ten million infected people and
AIDS orphans that eventually provided over $18 billion. The program was re-authorized in 2008
(P.L. 110-293) at $48 billion for FY2009 through FY2013 to support prevention and treatment of
HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. Spending on non-AIDS infectious diseases has increased
by 400% since FY2001. Funding has also risen notably for Child Survival and Maternal Health
projects that aim to reduce infant mortality, combat malnutrition, improve the quality of child
delivery facilities, and raise nutritional levels of mothers. Funding for these activities has grown
by 45% in the past seven years.
Public support and congressional and Administration action often raise the priority given to
specific sectors or programs. In recent years, high profile programs include support for
microenterprise, basic education, clean water and sanitation. For each of these specific interests,
funding has been boosted by Congress in the form of legislative directives or earmarks in the
annual foreign aid appropriations legislation. Funding for microenterprise, for instance, went
from $58 million in FY1988 to $111 million in FY1996 and $216 million in FY2006. Congress
mandated a level of $245 million for microenterprise assistance in FY2008. Basic education
programs were funded at about $95 million in FY1997; they were set at $700 million in FY2008.
Funding for water and sanitation projects was not closely tracked ten years ago; the directed level
for FY2008 was $300 million.
Some sectors once strongly favored by Congress and the executive branch have lost out in the
funding competition in recent decades. Agriculture programs have seen significant decreases
since the 1970s and 1980s when they represented the bulk of U.S. development assistance. In
FY1984, for instance, agriculture and rural development received an appropriation of $725
million from the development assistance account, compared to $315 million in FY1998 and $413
million in FY2008 from all USAID/State accounts. Programs managing natural resources and
protecting the global environment fell from $504 million in FY2002 to $324 million in FY2008.
The rapid rise in HIV/AIDS funding overshadows to some extent reductions for other health
sectors. Spending on family planning and reproductive health programs has been flat during the
past 15 years, with the FY2008 level of $457 million only slightly higher than the 15-year
average of $444 million.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŘȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱǯǯȱȱǵȱ
In FY2008, the United States is providing some form of foreign assistance to about 154 countries.
Figure 3 and Figure 4 identify the top 15 recipients of U.S. foreign assistance for FY1998 and
FY2008, respectively.11 Assistance, although provided to many nations, is concentrated heavily in
certain countries, reflecting the priorities and interests of United States foreign policy at the time.
As shown in the figures below, there are both similarities and sharp differences among country
aid recipients for the two periods. The most consistent thread connecting the top aid recipients
over the past decade has been continuing U.S. support for peace in the Middle East, with large
programs maintained for Israel and Egypt and a relatively smaller program for West Bank/Gaza.
The commitment to Latin America counter-narcotics efforts is also evident in both periods, with
Peru and Bolivia appearing in FY1998 and Colombia and Mexico among the top U.S. aid
recipients a decade later. Assisting countries emerging from conflict, usually under more
temporary circumstances, is another constant aspect of U.S. foreign aid. Haiti and Bosnia, leading
recipients in FY1998, have been replaced currently by Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
But there are also significant contrasts in the leading aid recipients since FY1998. The impact of
the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and the subsequent use of foreign aid to support other
nations threatened by terrorism or helping the U.S. combat the global threat is clearly seen in the
country aid allocations for FY2008. Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Jordan, none of which was a top
recipient in FY1998, are key partners in the war on terrorism.
Another relatively new feature of American assistance—the emphasis on HIV/AIDS programs—
is evident in FY2008 aid figures with Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa among the top
recipients, largely due to their selection as focus countries for the Bush Administration’s
HIV/AIDS Initiative. A further shift concerns the former Soviet states in which the United States
invested large sums to assist in their transitions to democratic societies and market-oriented
economies. In FY1998, Ukraine, Armenia, Georgia, and Russia were among the top fifteen U.S.
aid recipients. By FY2008, only Georgia remains because of a U.S. reconstruction initiative
following Georgia’s recent conflict with Russia.
11 FY2008 is the latest year for which reliable data is available, and includes supplemental funds that largely went for
activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Georgia. Figures do not include Millennium Challenge Corporation Compacts as
MCC appropriations are not broken out by recipient country until they are obligated, a one-time event for each country
and on a scale that would distort the aid picture in any given year.
ȱȱȱ
ŗřȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
Figure 3. Top Foreign Aid Recipients, FY1998
(appropriations in millions, US$)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Israel
3,000
Egypt
2,117
Bosnia
240
Ukraine
233
Russia
139
India
138
Peru
120
Ethiopia
117
Haiti
106
Indonesia
100
Georgia
98
Bangladesh
93
Bolivia
91
Armenia
89
West Bank/Gaza
85
Source: USAID and Department of State.
Figure 4. Top Foreign Aid Recipients, FY2008
(appropriations in millions, US$)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Israel
2,380
Afghanistan
1,957
Egypt
1,706
Jordan
938
Pakistan
738
Iraq
605
Kenya
599
South Africa
574
Colombia
541
Nigeria
486
Ethiopia
455
Georgia
429
West Bank/Gaza
407
Mexico
403
Sudan
392
Source: USAID and State Department.
Finally, a striking feature of the more recent aid recipients is the robust level of assistance
provided to those below the top-ranked two or three countries. Ten years previously, the gap
between the second and third recipients, Egypt and Bosnia, was nearly $2 billion. In FY2008, the
gap between the second and fourth recipients, Afghanistan and Jordan, was less than $1 billion,
and, on average, the bottom dozen recipients received more than four times what their
counterparts received in FY1998.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŚȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
Figure 5. Regional Distribution of Aid, FY1998
Europe/
Eurasia
14.9%
East Asia
2.9%
Africa
13.3%
Middle East
Latin America
56.5%
8.2%
South Asia
4.3%
Source: USAID and Department of State.
Note: Based on appropriated levels. Figures include supplemental appropriations and Iraq.
Figure 6. Regional Distribution of Aid, FY2008
Europe/
Eurasia
6.2%
East Asia
4.0%
Middle East
33.8%
Africa
28.6%
South Asia
16.6%
Latin America
10.8%
Source: USAID and Department of State.
Note: Based on appropriated levels. Figures include supplemental appropriations and Iraq.
On a regional basis (Figure 5 and Figure 6), the Middle East has for many years received the
bulk of U.S. foreign assistance. With economic aid to the region’s top two recipients, Israel and
Egypt, declining since the late 1990s and overall increases in other areas, however, the share of
bilateral U.S. assistance consumed by the Middle East fell from nearly 57% in FY1998 to nearly
34% by FY2008.
ȱȱȱ
ŗśȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
Since September 11, 2001, South Asia has emerged as a significant recipient of U.S. assistance,
rising from a 4% share ten years ago to about 17% in FY2008, largely because of aid to
Afghanistan and Pakistan. Similarly, the share represented by African nations has increased from
a little more than 13% to nearly 29% in 2008, largely due to the HIV/AIDS Initiative, that funnels
resources mostly to African countries. Latin America, despite a renewed effort to deter illicit
narcotics production and trafficking with large aid programs, is a region where the proportion of
total U.S. assistance has remained level. With the graduation of several East European aid
recipients in recent years and the phasing down of programs in Russia, Ukraine, and other former
Soviet states, the Europe/Eurasia regional share has fallen significantly. The proportion of
assistance provided to East Asia grew in the past decade, but the region remains the smallest area
of concentration, accounting for 4% of U.S. foreign aid in FY2008.
ȱȱȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱ
ȱȱǵȱ
There are several methods commonly used for measuring the amount of federal spending on
foreign assistance. Amounts can be expressed in terms of budget authority (funds appropriated by
Congress), outlays (money actually spent), as a percent of the total federal budget, as a percent of
total discretionary budget authority (funds that Congress directly controls, excluding mandatory
and entitlement programs), or as a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) (for an
indication of the national wealth allocated to foreign aid).
By nearly all of these measures, some of which are illustrated in Figure 7 and Figure 8, foreign
aid resources fell steadily over several decades since the historical high levels of the late 1940s
and early 1950s. This downward trend was sporadically interrupted, with spikes in the 1960s and
early 1970s, 1979, and the mid-1980s, largely due to major foreign policy initiatives such as the
Alliance for Progress for Latin America in 1961 and the infusion of funds to implement the Camp
David Middle East Peace Accords in 1979. The lowest point in U.S. foreign aid spending came in
1997 when foreign operations appropriations fell near $18 billion (in constant dollar terms) and
represented roughly 29% of the peak foreign aid committed during the Marshall Plan period.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŜȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
Figure 7. U.S. Foreign Aid: FY1946-FY2008
(obligations, in millions of constant 2008 US$)
60,000
50,000
40,000
tions
a
ig 30,000
obl
20,000
10,000
0
9
2
8
1
0
3
79
2
1
4
0
3
1946 194 195 1955 195 196 1964 1967 197 197 1976 19
198 1985 1988 199 199 1997 200 200 2006
Source: U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants (Greenbook) July 1,1945-September 30, 2006; House and Senate
appropriations legislation; CRS calculations.
Notes: This figure is based in the data from Table A-3. See the notes following Table A-3 for an explanation
of the methodology used.
Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, foreign aid became a key instrument in fighting the
global war on terrorism and contributing to the reconstruction of Afghanistan and Iraq. See
Figure 9 at the end of this section for a more detailed snapshot of foreign aid funding trends and
related foreign policy events.
As a percent of gross domestic product, prior to the mid-1960s, in most years foreign aid
represented over 1%. Following the Vietnam War, foreign assistance as a percent of GDP ranged
between 0.5% and 0.25% for the next 20 years. The program’s share of GDP dropped to its lowest
level ever in FY2001 (0.15%), but has risen somewhat in recent years, averaging about 0.20%
between FY2006 and FY2008 (Figure 8).
ȱȱȱ
ŗŝȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
Figure 8. Foreign Aid as % of GDP
Source: Greenbook, U.S. Department of Commerce, CRS calculations.
Congress appropriates most foreign aid money through annual State-Foreign Operations
appropriations bill. That legislation represents the most direct congressional action on foreign
assistance spending decisions, although small but growing amounts of foreign aid are funded in
other legislation.12 Like other measures of foreign assistance programs, State-Foreign Operations
appropriations declined in the mid-1990s to near $16 billion in 2008 dollars, the lowest level
during the past decade in real terms (Table 2). Appropriated amounts rose beginning in FY1998
and averaged about $19 billion in constant dollars through the next four years. The combination
of additional funding for the war on terrorism, Afghanistan reconstruction, and new foreign aid
initiatives focused on HIV/AIDS and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, have pushed
average annual Foreign Operations appropriations well above $20 billion consistently since
FY2003. Including Iraq funding, FY2004 was the largest Foreign Operations appropriations level,
in real terms, in at least 30 years.13
12 Most notably, food aid and certain Department of Defense aid programs are not appropriated in the Foreign
Operations measure, while the Export-Import Bank, an activity not considered “foreign aid,” is funded in the Foreign
Operations annual bill.
13 Due to changes over time in appropriation “scoring,” calculating historic Foreign Operations appropriations that are
precisely equivalent to the methodology used currently is virtually impossible. This is especially true since Congress
altered, beginning in FY1992, the methodology for “scoring” credit programs. The 30-year estimate noted here
compares the FY2004 appropriation level of $44.0 billion ( in FY2008 dollars) with total foreign aid obligations of
about $40 billion (real terms) in the early 1970s.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŞȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
Table 2. Foreign Operation Appropriations, FY1997-FY2008
(in billions of dollars)
FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08
$
Current
12.3 13.2 15.4 16.4 14.9 16.5 23.7 39.0
(20.6) 22.3 23.2 26.08 27.7
$
Constant
2008 16.3 17.3 19.7 20.3 17.9 19.5 27.4 44.0
(23.2) 24.3 24.5 26.81 27.7
Source: Annual appropriations acts; CRS calculations.
Notes: FY1999 excludes $17.861 billion for the IMF because it is offset by a U.S. claim on the IMF that is liquid
and interest bearing, resulting in no outlays from the U.S. treasury. The FY2004 figure in parenthesis shows the
total without Iraq reconstruction funds to illustrate the significant but anomalous impact of those funds on total
foreign assistance spending.
Figure 9. Foreign Aid Funding Trends, FY1977-FY2008
(budget authority, in millions of constant 2008 US$)
45,000
Middle East supplemental;
military aid peaks
Iraq Reconstruction
40,000
35,000
Deficit reduction measure
enacted
30,000
Cold War ends
s
n
o
25,000
September 11
milli
terrorist attacks
n
MCC;
, i
$
20,000
HIV/AIDS
Camp David Peace
US
First Gulf War
Accords
15,000
Wye River Peace Aid;
Colombia Counternarcotics
10,000
5,000
0
7
79
81
3
85
7
9
91
3
5
97
9
1
03
5
7
197
19
19
198
19
198
198
19
199
199
19
199
200
20
200
200
Source: Budget of the United States Government: Historic Tables Fiscal Year 2009, Table 5.1: Budget Authority
by Function and Subfunction, 1976-2013; appropriations acts for FY2008.
ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱǵȱ
Foreign aid spending is a relatively small component of the U.S. federal budget. As part of the
estimated total amount spent in FY2008 on all discretionary programs (those controlled by
Congress through appropriations), entitlements, and other mandatory activities, foreign aid
outlays represent an estimated 1%. This figure is in line with typical foreign aid outlay amounts,
which have generally equaled slightly less than 1% of total U.S. spending. Figure 10 compares
foreign aid outlays for FY2008 with those of other major U.S. government spending categories.
ȱȱȱ
ŗşȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
Figure 10. U.S. Budget Outlays, FY2008
Other
Social Security
10%
20%
Health
10%
Education
3%
Income Security
Medicare
13%
14%
Interest on Debt
8%
Defense
Foreign Aid
21%
1%
Source: Budget of the United States Government: Historic Tables Fiscal Year 2009, Table 3.2: Outlays by
Function and Subfunction, FY2008 Estimates.
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǯǯȱ ǵȱ
Most U.S. foreign aid is used to procure U.S. goods and services, although amounts of aid
coming back to the United States differ by program. No exact figure is available due to
difficulties in tracking procurement item by item, but some general estimates are possible for
individual programs, though these may vary from year to year.
In FY2008, roughly 87%, or $4.1 billion, of military aid financing was used to procure U.S.
military equipment and training. The remaining 13%, $614 million, was allocated to Israel for
procurement within that country.
Food assistance commodities are purchased wholly in the United States, and most expenditures
for shipping those commodities to recipient countries go entirely to U.S. freight companies.
Under current law,14 three-fourths of all food aid must be shipped by U.S. carriers. On this basis,
a rough estimate suggests that more than 90%—or nearly $1.85 billion in FY2008—of food aid
expenditures were spent in the United States.
Because U.S. contributions to multilateral institutions are mixed with funds from other nations
and the bulk of the program is financed with borrowed funds rather than direct government
contributions, the U.S. share of procurement financed by MDBs may even exceed the amount of
the U.S. contribution, as occurred in 2003. However, no recent figures showing procurement on a
nation-by-nation basis are available.
14 The Cargo Preference Act, P.L. 83-644, August 26,1954.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŖȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
Although a small proportion of funding for bilateral development and political/strategic
assistance programs results in transfers of U.S. dollars, the services of experts and project
management personnel and much of the required equipment is procured from the United States.
Section 604 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195; 22 U.S.C. §2151)—often
referred to as the “Buy America” provision—limits the expenditure of foreign assistance funds
outside the United States, though subsequent amending legislation has loosened the restriction to
allow for more expenditures within poor countries receiving assistance. Countries receiving MCC
Compact grants are required to follow a modified version of World Bank procurement guidelines
that call for open competition, excepting only specific countries subject to sanctions under U.S.
law.
In addition to the direct benefits derived from aid dollars used for American goods and services,
many argue that the foreign aid program brings significant indirect financial benefits to the
United States. First, it is argued that provision of military equipment through the military
assistance program and food commodities through P.L.480, the Food For Peace program, helps to
develop future, strictly commercial, markets for those products. Second, as countries develop
economically, they are in a position to purchase more goods from abroad and the United States
benefits as a trade partner.
The use of “tied” aid—which is conditional on procurement of goods and services from the
donor-country or a limited group of designated countries—has become increasingly disfavored in
the international community. Critics of such conditional aid argue that it inhibits a sense of
responsibility and support on the part of recipient governments for development projects and
impedes the integration of the host country into the global economy.15 Studies have shown that
tying aid increases the costs of goods and services by 15%-30% on average, and up to 40% for
food aid, reducing the overall effectiveness of aid flows.16 Reflecting donor concerns about these
findings, the average percent of official bilateral development assistance from donor countries
that was tied fell from 70% in 1985 to 15% in 2007. Meanwhile, 31% of U.S. bilateral
development assistance in 2007 was tied, down sharply from 55% in 2006.17 This is the highest
level of tied aid among donor countries, and widely believed to reflect policy makers’ perception
that maintaining public and political support for foreign aid programs requires ensuring direct
economic benefit to the United States. The United States joined other donor nations in
committing to reduce tied aid in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness in March 2005, but
the Declaration did not set target goals on tied aid as it did for the other indicators of progress
identified in the document.18
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǵȱ
For decades, the United States ranked first among the developed countries in net disbursements of
economic aid, or “Official Development Assistance (ODA)” as defined by the international donor
15 OECD Report on The Developmental Effectiveness of Untied Aid, p.1, available at
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/22/41537529.pdf.
16 Id., p.1
17 see http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=TABLE1; 2008 DAC Reporting Documents, Table 7B,
provided by Bill McCormick at USAID.
18 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness: Ownership, Harmonization, Alignment, Results and Mutual Accountability,
a product of the High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness; Paris, France (March 2, 2005).
ȱȱȱ
Řŗȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
community.19 In 1989, for the first time, Japan supplanted the United States as the largest donor.
The United States was again the leading donor from 1990 to 1992, and fluctuated between a
second and third position from 1993 to 2000. In 2001, it again became the largest contributor and
remained in that position in 2007, the most recent year for which data is available, with a
commitment of $21.75 billion. Germany followed at $12.3 billion, the European Community at
$11.8 billion, and both France and the United Kingdom at $9.9 billion. Japan, which has
significantly scaled back its foreign aid program in recent years, gave $7.7 billion in 2007. As a
group, the 22 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD)’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC), representing the world’s leading providers
of economic aid, transferred $103.6 billion in 2007, down slightly in current dollars from $104.4
billion in 2006.
Figure 11. Economic Aid From Major Donors, 2007
(in millions, US$)
Source: OECD/DAC.
Even as it leads in dollar amounts of aid flows to developing countries, the United States is often
among the last when aid transfers by developed country donors are calculated as a percent of
gross national income (GNI).20 In 2007, as has been the case since 1993, the United States ranked
last among major donors at 0.18% of GNI. Sweden ranked first at 1.02% of GNI, while the
United Kingdom dispensed 0.51%, France 0.47%, and Germany 0.26%. The average for all DAC
members in 2007 was 0.48%, up from .25% in 2003.
19 The OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms defines ODA as “flows of official financing administered with the
promotion of economic development and welfare of developing countries as the main objective, and which are
concessional in character with a grant element of at least 25%. By convention, ODA flows comprise contributions of
donor government agencies, at all levels, to developing countries and to multilateral institutions.” ODA does not
include military assistance.
20 Gross National Income (GNI) comprises GDP together with income received from other countries (notably interest
and dividends), less similar payments made to other countries.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŘȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
Figure 12. Economic Aid as % of GNI for Major Donors, 2007
Source: OECD/DAC.
¢ȱȱȱȱ
How and in what form assistance reaches an aid recipient can vary widely, depending on the type
of aid program, the objective of the assistance, and the agency responsible for providing the aid.
ȱ¡ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ǵȱ
ǯǯȱ¢ȱȱ ȱȱ
For over 40 years, the bulk of the U.S. bilateral economic aid program has been administered by
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Created by an executive branch
reorganization in 1961, USAID became an independent agency in 1999, although its
Administrator reports to and serves under the “direct authority and foreign policy guidance” of
the Secretary of State. USAID is directly responsible for most bilateral development assistance
and disaster relief programs, including economic growth, global health, many democracy
programs, and Title II of P.L. 480 (Food for Peace program) food assistance. These programs
amounted to $5.138 billion in FY2008. In conjunction with the State Department, USAID
manages the ESF, SEED, and FSA programs, amounting to $6.05 billion in FY2008.21 USAID’s
staff in late 2008 totaled 7,291, of which only about 2,692 were U.S. citizen “direct hire”
21 The State Department generally determines the policy on distribution of funds from these accounts, but the funds are
appropriated and attributed to USAID when foreign assistance is reported by obligations.
ȱȱȱ
Řřȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
employees. Almost three quarters of USAID staff—about 5,273—are U.S. citizen foreign service
employees and foreign nationals working overseas in one of the 84 country missions, six regional
offices, and three representational offices to oversee the implementation of hundreds of projects
undertaken by thousands of private sector contractors, consultants, and non-governmental
organizations.22
ǯǯȱȱȱȱ
In addition to those programs jointly managed with USAID, the Department of State administers
several aid programs directly. Individual offices at State oversee activities dealing with
international narcotics control and law enforcement, terrorism, weapons proliferation, non-U.N.
peacekeeping operations, refugee relief, and voluntary support for a range of international
organizations such as UNICEF. In FY2008, appropriations for these State Department-
administered bilateral aid programs totaled about $2.4 billion. State is also home to the Office of
the Global AIDS Coordinator, created to manage President Bush’s Global AIDS Initiative, which
administered $4.6 billion in FY2008 for international HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria
programs. The funds are channeled through USAID, the Department of Health and Human
Services, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes for Health, and other
implementing agencies. In addition, State has policy authority, together with the Department of
Defense, over the FMF and IMET programs, which are implemented by the DOD’s Defense
Security Cooperation Agency.
The Director of Foreign Assistance (DFA), a State Department position created in 2006, is
charged with coordinating U.S. assistance programs. Until January 2009 when a separate acting
DFA was appointed, the DFA served concurrently as the Administrator of USAID. The DFA has
authority over most State Department and USAID programs. Though the DFA is also tasked with
providing “guidance” to other agencies that manage foreign aid activities, major foreign aid
programs, such as the Millennium Challenge Account and the Office of the Global AIDS
Coordinator, have remained outside of the DFA’s authority.
ǯǯȱȱȱȱ
Most military assistance, including Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and International Military
Education and Training (IMET), is administered by the Department of Defense in conjunction
with the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs in the State Department. The Defense Security
Cooperation Agency is the primary DOD body responsible for Foreign Military Financing and
related training programs. DOD has also been involved in an expanded range of foreign
assistance activities in recent years, providing development assistance to Iraq and Afghanistan
through the Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP) and the Iraq Relief and
Reconstruction Fund, and elsewhere through the Defense Health Program, counter-drug
activities, and humanitarian and disaster relief activities. While DOD managed about $4.9 billion
in traditional military aid in FY2008, other funds appropriated through defense appropriations
legislation, and not counted as foreign assistance for the purposes of this report, have been used to
carry out state-building development activities, usually in the context of training exercises and
military operations, that were once the exclusive jurisdiction of civilian aid agencies.
22 Semi-Annual USAID Worldwide Staffing Pattern Report, data as of November 30, 2008, Table 1.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŚȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
ǯǯȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ
The Treasury Department administers three foreign aid programs. U.S. contributions to and
participation in the World Bank and other multilateral development institutions are managed by
Treasury’s Under Secretary for International Affairs. Presidentially appointed U.S. executive
directors at each of the banks represent the United States’ point of view. Treasury also deals with
foreign debt reduction issues and programs, including U.S. participation in the Highly Indebted
Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative. The Treasury Department further manages a technical
assistance program, offering temporary financial advisors to countries implementing major
economic reforms and combating terrorist finance activity. For FY2008, funding for activities
falling under the Treasury Department’s jurisdiction totaled about $1.3 billion.
ȱȱȱ
A new foreign aid agency was created in February 2004 to administer the Millennium Challenge
Account (MCA) initiative. The account is intended to concentrate significantly higher amounts of
U.S. resources in a few low- and low-middle income countries that have demonstrated a strong
commitment to political, economic, and social reforms. A significant feature of the MCA program
is that recipient countries formulate, propose and implement mutually-agreed multi-year U.S.-
funded projects known as Compacts. Compacts in the 18 recipient countries selected to date have
emphasized construction of infrastructure. The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is
charged with managing this results-oriented, competitive foreign aid delivery mechanism. The
MCC is a U.S. government corporation, headed by a Chief Executive Officer who reports to a
Board of Directors chaired by the Secretary of State. The Corporation maintains a relatively small
staff of about 300. The MCC managed a budget of $1.5 billion in FY2008.
ȱȱ
Other government agencies that play a role in implementing foreign aid programs include the
Peace Corps, the Trade and Development Agency (TDA), and the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation (OPIC). The Peace Corps, an autonomous agency with an FY2008 budget of $331
million, supports nearly 8,000 volunteers in 76 countries. Peace Corps volunteers work in a wide
range of educational, health, and community development projects. TDA finances trade missions
and feasibility studies for private sector projects likely to generate U.S. exports. Its budget in
FY2008 was $50 million. OPIC provides political risk insurance to U.S. companies investing in
developing countries and the new democracies and finances projects through loans and
guarantees. It also supports investment missions and provides other pre-investment information
services. Its insurance activities have been self-sustaining, but credit reform rules require a
relatively small appropriation to back up U.S. guarantees and for administrative expenses. For
FY2008, Congress appropriated $71 million to OPIC.
Two independent agencies, the Inter-American Foundation and the African Development
Foundation, also administer U.S. foreign aid. Both organizations emphasize grassroots
development by providing financial support to local private organizations in developing
countries. For FY2008, Congress appropriated $21 million and $29 million, respectively, to the
Inter-American Foundation and the African Development Foundation.
ȱȱȱ
Řśȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱǵȱ
Most U.S. assistance is now provided as a grant (gift) rather than a loan, but the forms a grant
may take are diverse.
ȱȱ
Although it is the exception rather than the rule, some countries receive aid in the form of a cash
grant to the government. Dollars provided in this way support a government’s balance-of-
payments situation, enabling it to purchase more U.S. goods, service its debt, or devote more
domestic revenues to developmental or other purposes. Cash transfers have been made as a
reward to countries that have supported the United States in its war on terrorism (Turkey and
Jordan in FY2004), to provide political and strategic support (both Egypt and Israel annually for
decades after the 1979 Camp David Peace Accord), and in exchange for undertaking difficult
political and economic reforms. Countries receiving cash transfers in 2007 were Pakistan ($200
million), Egypt ($284 million), Jordan ($116 million), and Lebanon ($250 million).
ȱȱȱ
Assistance may be provided in the form of food commodities, weapons systems, or equipment
such as generators or computers. Food aid may be provided directly to meet humanitarian needs
or to encourage attendance at a maternal/child health care program. Weapons supplied under the
military assistance program may include training in their use. Equipment and commodities
provided under development assistance are usually integrated with other forms of aid to meet
objectives in a particular social or economic sector. For instance, textbooks have been provided in
both Afghanistan and Iraq as part of a broader effort to reform the educational sector and train
teachers. Computers may be offered in conjunction with training and expertise to fledgling
microcredit institutions. In recent years, antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) provided through PEPFAR
programs to individuals living with HIV/AIDS have been a significant component of commodity-
based assistance.
ȱ ȱ
Although once a significant portion of U.S. assistance programs, construction of economic
infrastructure—roads, irrigation systems, electric power facilities, etc.—was rarely provided after
the 1970s. Because of the substantial expense of these projects, they were to be found only in
large assistance programs, such as that for Egypt in the 1980s and 1990s, where the United States
constructed major urban water and sanitation systems. In the past decade, however, the aid
programs in Iraq and Afghanistan have supported the building of schools, health clinics, roads,
power plants and irrigation systems. In Iraq alone, more than $10 billion has gone to economic
infrastructure. Economic infrastructure is now also supported by U.S. assistance in a wider range
of developing countries through the Millennium Challenge Account. In this case, recipient
countries design their own assistance programs, most of which, to date, include an infrastructure
component.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŜȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Transfer of know-how is a significant part of most assistance programs. The International
Military and Educational Training Program (IMET) provides training to officers of the military
forces of allied and friendly nations. Tens of thousands of citizens of aid recipient countries
receive short-term technical training or longer term degree training annually under USAID’s
participant training program. More than one-third of Peace Corps volunteers are English, math,
and science teachers. Other programs provide law enforcement personnel with anti-narcotics or
anti-terrorism training.
¡ȱ
Many assistance programs provide expert advice to government and private sector organizations.
The Treasury Department, USAID, and U.S.-funded multilateral banks all place specialists in host
government ministries to make recommendations on policy reforms in a wide variety of sectors.
USAID has often placed experts in private sector business and civic organizations to help
strengthen them in their formative years or while indigenous staff are being trained. While most
of these experts are U.S. nationals, in Russia, USAID has funded the development of locally-
staffed political and economic think tanks to offer policy options to that government.
ȱ ȱ
USAID, the Inter-American Foundation, and the African Development Foundation often provide
aid in the form of grants that may then be used by U.S. or indigenous organizations to further
their varied developmental purposes. For instance, grants are sometimes provided to microcredit
organizations which in turn provide loans to microentrepreneurs. Through the USAID-funded
Eurasia Foundation, grants are provided to help strengthen the role of former Soviet Union non-
governmental organizations in democratization and private enterprise development.
ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱ ǵȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǵȱ
ȱȱȱǵȱ¢ȱ ȱ
¢ȱȱȱȱǵȱ
Under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the President may determine the terms and conditions
under which most forms of assistance are provided. In general, the financial condition of a
country—its ability to meet repayment obligations—has been an important criterion of the
decision to provide a loan or grant. Some programs—such as humanitarian and disaster relief
programs—were designed from the beginning to be entirely grant activities.
Ȧ ȱȱ
During the past two decades, nearly all foreign aid—military as well as economic—has been
provided in grant form. Between 1962 and 1988, loans represented 32% of total military and
economic assistance. This figure declined substantially beginning in the mid-1980s, until by
FY2001, loans represented less than 1% of total aid appropriations. The de-emphasis on loan
programs came largely in response to the debt problems of developing countries. Both Congress
ȱȱȱ
Řŝȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
and the executive branch supported the view that foreign aid should not add to the already
existing debt burden carried by these countries.
¢ȱȱȱ
Although a small proportion of total aid, there are several significant USAID-managed programs
that provide direct loans or guarantee loans. Under the Israeli Loan Guarantee Program, the
United States has guaranteed repayment of loans made by commercial sources to support the
costs of immigrants settling in Israel from other countries. Other guarantee programs support low-
income housing and community development programs of developing countries and
microenterprise and small business credit programs. A Development Credit Authority in which
risk is shared with a private sector bank can be used to support any development sector.
ȱ¢ȱ
Between 1946 and 2006, the United States loaned more than $108 billion in foreign aid, and
while most foreign aid is now provided through grants, $22.6 billion in loans to foreign
governments remained outstanding in 2007.23 Most recipients of U.S. loans remain current or
only slightly in arrears on debt payments. For nearly three decades, Section 620q of the Foreign
Assistance Act (the Brooke amendment) has prohibited new assistance to any country that falls
more than one year past due in servicing its debt obligations to the United States. Argentina,
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Zimbabwe are countries to which
the provision applies as of October 2008.24 The President may waive application of this
prohibition if he determines it is in the national interest.
ȱȱ
The United States has also forgiven debts owed by foreign governments and encouraged, with
mixed success, other foreign aid donors and international financial institutions to do likewise. In
total, the United States forgave or reduced about $24.3 billion owed by foreign governments
between 1990 and 2007.25
In some cases, the decision to forgive foreign aid debts has been based largely on economic
grounds as another means to support development efforts by heavily indebted, but reform-
minded, countries. The United States has been one of the strongest supporters of the Heavily
Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) Initiative. This initiative, which began in the late 1990s and
continues in 2008, includes for the first time participation of the World Bank, the International
Monetary Fund, and other international financial institutions in a comprehensive debt workout
framework for the world’s poorest and most debt-strapped nations.
The largest and most hotly debated debt forgiveness actions have been implemented for much
broader foreign policy reasons with a more strategic purpose. Poland, during its transition from a
23 U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants (Greenbook) 2006; U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Office of Management
and Budget. U.S. Government Foreign Credit Exposure as of December 31, 2006, part 1, p. 20.
24 Information provided by Department of State, F Bureau, 1/6/2009.
25 U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget. U.S. Government Foreign Credit
Exposure as of December 31, 2006, part 1, p. 9.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŞȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
communist system and centrally-planned economy (1990—$2.46 billion), Egypt, for making
peace with Israel and helping maintain the Arab coalition during the Persian Gulf War (1990—$7
billion), and Jordan, after signing a peace accord with Israel (1994—$700 million), are examples.
Similarly, the United States forgave about $4.1 billion in outstanding Saddam-era Iraqi debt in
November 2004, and helped negotiate an 80% reduction in Iraq’s debt to Paris Club members
later that month.26
ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱ
ȱȱ¢ǵȱ
Most development and humanitarian assistance activities are not directly implemented by U.S.
government personnel but by private sector entities. Generally speaking, government foreign
service and civil servants determine the direction and priorities of the aid program, allocate funds
while keeping within legislative requirements, ensure that appropriate projects are in place to
meet aid objectives, select implementors, and monitor the implementation of those projects for
effectiveness and financial accountability. At one time, USAID professionals played a larger role
in implementing aid programs, but the affect of budget cuts on personnel and the emergence of
private sector alternatives over the past thirty years has led to a shift in responsibilities.27
Private sector aid implementors, usually employed as contractors or grantees, may be individual
personal service contractors, consulting firms, non-profit non-government organizations (NGOs),
universities, or charitable private voluntary organizations (PVOs). These carry out the vast array
of aid projects in all sectors.
ȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱǵȱ
Numerous congressional authorizing committees and appropriations subcommittees maintain
responsibility for U.S. foreign assistance. Several committees have responsibility for authorizing
legislation establishing programs and policy and for conducting oversight of foreign aid
programs. In the Senate, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and in the House, the Committee
on Foreign Affairs, have primary jurisdiction over bilateral development assistance, ESF and
other economic security assistance, military assistance, and international organizations. Food aid,
primarily the responsibility of the Agriculture Committees in both bodies, is shared with the
Foreign Affairs Committee in the House. U.S. contributions to multilateral development banks
are within the jurisdiction of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Financial
Services Committee.
Traditionally, foreign aid appropriations are provided entirely through subcommittees of the
Appropriations panels in both the House and Senate. Most foreign aid funds fall under the
jurisdiction of the State-Foreign Operations Subcommittees, with food assistance appropriated by
26 For more on debt relief for Iraq, see CRS Report RL33376, Iraq’s Debt Relief: Procedure and Potential Implications
for International Debt Relief, by Martin A. Weiss.
27 Currently there are about 2,400 U.S. direct hire personnel at USAID, down from 3,406 in 1992 and 8,600 in 1962.
ȱȱȱ
Řşȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
the Agriculture Subcommittees. As noted earlier, however, a growing segment of military
activities that could be categorized as foreign aid have been appropriated through the Defense
Subcommittees in recent years.
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǵȱ
The most significant permanent foreign aid authorization laws are the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, covering most bilateral economic and security assistance programs (P.L. 87-195; 22 U.S.C.
2151), the Arms Export Control Act (1976), authorizing military sales and financing (P.L. 90-629;
22 U.S.C. 2751), the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (P.L. 480),
covering food aid (P.L. 83-480; 7 U.S.C. 1691), and the Bretton Woods Agreement Act (1945)
authorizing U.S. participation in multilateral development banks (P.L. 79-171; 22 U.S.C. 286).28
In the past, Congress usually scheduled debates every two years on omnibus foreign aid bills that
amended these permanent authorization measures. Although foreign aid authorizing bills have
passed the House or Senate, or both, on numerous occasions, Congress has not enacted into law a
comprehensive foreign assistance authorization measure since 1985. Instead, foreign aid bills
have frequently stalled at some point in the debate because of controversial issues, a tight
legislative calendar, or executive-legislative foreign policy disputes.29
In lieu of approving a broad authorization bill, Congress has on occasion authorized major
foreign assistance initiatives for specific regions, countries, or aid sectors in stand-alone
legislation or within an appropriation bill. Among these are the SEED Act of 1989 ( P.L. 101-179;
22 U.S.C. 5401), the FREEDOM Support Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-511; 22 U.S.C. 5801), the United
States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-25; 22
U.S.C. 7601), the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against
HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-293), and the
Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (Division D, Title VI of P.L. 108-199).
In the absence of regular enactment of foreign aid authorization bills, appropriation measures
considered annually within the State-Foreign Operations spending bill have assumed greater
significance for Congress in influencing U.S. foreign aid policy. Not only do appropriations bills
set spending levels each year for nearly every foreign assistance account, State-Foreign
Operations appropriations also incorporate new policy initiatives that would otherwise be debated
and enacted as part of authorizing legislation.
28 Separate permanent authorizations exist for other specific foreign aid programs such as the Peace Corps, the Inter-
American Foundation, and the African Development Foundation.
29 A few foreign aid programs that are authorized in other legislation have received more regular legislative review.
Authorizing legislation for voluntary contributions to international organizations and refugee programs, for example,
are usually contained in omnibus Foreign Relations Authorization measures that also address State Department and
U.S. Information Agency issues. Food aid and amendments to P.L.480 are usually considered in the omnibus “farm
bill” that Congress re-authorizes every five years.
ȱȱȱ
řŖȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
¡ȱǯ ȱȱ
Table A-1. Aid Program Composition, FY2008
Aid Program
$s (billions)
% of total aid
Bilateral Development
$10.298
35.5%
Humanitarian $4.169
14.4%
Multilateral Development
$1.594
5.5%
Economic Political/Security
$7.840
27.1%
Military $5.068
17.5%
TOTAL $28.969
100.0%
Source: House and Senate Appropriations Committees and CRS calculations.
Note: Based on appropriated levels in the 151 and 152 subfunction accounts. Table omits operational expense
accounts.
Table A-2. Program Composition, FY1995-FY2008
(current $ in billions, and as % of total aid)
Development/
Economic
Fiscal Year
Humanitarian
Political/Security
Military
Total
1995
$6.539 47.6% $3.636 26.4% $3.572 26.0% $13.747
1996
$5.096 41.4% $3.689 29.9% $3.536 28.7% $12.321
1997
$4.969 41.0% $3.827 31.6% $3.333 27.5% $12.129
1998
$5.575 42.8% $4.038 31.0% $3.425 26.3% $13.038
1999
$6.433 42.1% $5.352 35.0% $3.507 22.9% $15.292
2000
$5.331 33.1% $5.780 35.9% $4.998 31.0% $16.109
2001
$6.365 43.8% $4.430 30.5% $3.753 25.8% $14.548
2002
$6.649 41.3% $5.557 34.6% $3.875 24.1% $16.081
2003
$8.361 34.1% $9.737 39.7% $6.399 26.1% $24.497
2004
$9.520 24.6% $19.310 49.9% $9.849 25.5% $38.679
2004 (w/o
$9.520 47.0% $5.873 29.0% $4.849 24.0% $20.242
Iraq)
2005
$11.531 47.9% $7.027 29.2% $5.502 22.9% $24.060
2006
$12.087 50.6% $6.891 28.9% $4.902 20.5% $23.880
2007
$13.784 50.9% $7.957 29.4% $5.365 19.8% $27.106
2008
$16.061 55.4% $7.840 27.1% $5.068 17.5% $28.969
Source: USAID, House and Senate Appropriations Committees, and CRS calculations.
Notes: Based on appropriated levels in the 151 and 152 subfunction accounts. FY2004 without Iraq subtracts
$18.4 billion in Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Funds from political-strategic aid—$5 billion from military aid and
the rest from political-strategic aid. Table omits operational expense accounts.
ȱȱȱ
řŗȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
Table A-3. Foreign Aid Funding Trends
As % of total
Fiscal
Billions of current
Billions of
As % of
discretionary
Year
US&
constant 2008 $s
GDP
budget authority
1946 $3.08 $28.38
1.38%
—
1947 $6.71 $56.07
2.75%
—
1948 $3.18 $24.26
1.18%
—
1949 $8.30 $61.27
3.10%
—
1950 $5.97 $48.72
2.03%
__
1951 $7.61 $57.12
2.24%
—
1952 $6.81 $50.39
1.90%
—
1953 $4.98 $35.57
1.31%
—
1954 $4.77 $34.76
1.25%
—
1955 $4.10 $30.09
0.99%
—
1956 $4.85 $33.90
1.11%
—
1957 $4.87 $34.07
1.06%
—
1958 $4.01 $27.33
0.86%
—
1959 $5.07 $34.32
1.00%
—
1960 $5.22 $34.61
0.99%
—
1961 $5.48 $35.89
1.01%
—
1962 $6.53 $42.50
1.12%
—
1963 $6.38 $40.77
1.03%
—
1964 $5.27 $33.21
0.79%
—
1965 $5.42 $33.77
0.75%
—
1966 $6.90 $41.75
0.88%
—
1967 $6.34 $37.24
0.76%
—
1968 $6.76 $38.17
0.74%
—
1969 $6.64 $35.92
0.67%
—
1970 $6.57 $33.93
0.63%
—
1971 $7.84 $38.72
0.70%
—
1972 $9.02 $43.32
0.73%
—
1973 $9.45 $42.62
0.68%
—
1974 $8.50 $34.97
0.57%
—
1975 $6.91 $26.20
0.42%
—
1976a $9.11 $32.65
0.47%
—
1977 $7.78 $26.24
0.34%
3.15%
1978 $9.01 $28.42
0.35%
3.47%
1979 $13.85 $39.87
0.50%
5.02%
1980 $9.69 $25.10
0.31%
3.11%
1981 $10.54 $24.91
0.32%
3.09%
1982 $12.32 $27.46
0.35%
3.46%
1983 $14.20 $30.41
0.36%
3.66%
1984 $15.52 $31.85
0.37%
3.66%
1985 $18.13 $35.91
0.41%
3.97%
1986 $16.62 $32.30
0.35%
3.79%
1987 $14.80 $27.76
0.29%
3.32%
1988 $13.97 $22.85
0.28%
3.08%
ȱȱȱ
řŘȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
As % of total
Fiscal
Billions of current
Billions of
As % of
discretionary
Year
US&
constant 2008 $s
GDP
budget authority
1989 $14.85 $25.52
0.26%
3.15%
1990 $16.02 $26.13
0.27%
3.22%
1991 $17.05 $26.67
0.27%
3.12%
1992 $16.43 $24.95
0.25%
3.09%
1993 $17.91 $26.41
0.25%
3.42%
1994 $17.04 $24.50
0.23%
3.32%
1995 $16.14 $22.58
0.21%
3.22%
1996 $14.68 $19.94
0.18%
2.93%
1997 $13.66 $18.15
0.16%
2.67%
1998
$14.69
$19.21
0.16%
2.77%
1999 $17.55 $22.44
0.18%
3.02%
2000 $16.39 $20.27
0.16%
2.80%
2001 $15.33 $18.46
0.15%
2.31%
2002 $17.93 $21.24
0.16%
2.44%
2003 $22.40 $25.93
0.19%
2.64%
2004 $29.69 $33.50
0.24%
3.27%
2005 $30.17 $32.92
0.23%
3.06%
2006 $27.26 $28.80
0.20%
2.73%
2007 $26.08 $26.81
0.20%
2.59%
2008 $27.68 $27.68
0.19%
2.40%
Source: USAID, Office of Management and Budget, annual appropriations legislation and CRS calculations.
Notes: The data in this table represent obligated funds reported in the USAID Greenbook up through FY2006
(FY2007-FY2008 are appropriations), but the Greenbook accounts included in the total have been adjusted by
CRS to allow for accurate comparison over time. CRS has attempted to include only programs that correlate
with the traditional foreign assistance budget accounts, excluding, for example, such Greenbook additions as
State Department accounts for embassy security and Foreign Service retirement , Cooperative Threat Reduction
funds to the former Soviet Union, and certain funds administered by the Department of Defense in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
FY2008 % of GDP based on 3rd Quarter reports.
a. FY1976 includes both regular FY76 and transition quarter (TQ)funding, and the GDP calculation is based on
the average FY76 and TQ GDP.
ȱȱȱ
řřȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
¡ȱǯ ȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱȱ
DA Development
Assistance
DOD
Department of Defense
ERMA
Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance
ESF
Economic Support Fund
FMF
Foreign Military Financing
FSA
FREEDOM (Freedom for Russia and Emerging Eurasian Democracies and Open Markets) Support
Act of 1992
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GNI
Gross National Income
HIPC
Heavily Indebted Poor Country
IBRD
World Bank, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
IDA
World Bank, International Development Association
IDA
International Disaster Assistance
IMET
International Military Education and Training
IMF
International Monetary Fund
INCLE
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
MCC
Millennium Challenge Corporation
MDBs
Multilateral Development Banks
MRA
Migration and Refugees Assistance
NADR
Non-Proliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs
NGO Non-Governmental
Organization
ODA
Official Development Assistance
OECD
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
OFDA
Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance
OPIC
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
OTI
Office of Transition Initiatives
PEPFAR
President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
P.L. 480
Food for Peace/Food Aid
PVO
Private Voluntary Organization
SEED
Support for East European Democracy Act of 1989
TDA
U.S. Trade and Development Agency
UNDP
United Nations Development Program
UNICEF
United Nations Children’s Fund
USAID
U.S. Agency for International Development
ȱȱȱ
řŚȱ
ȱDZȱȱ ȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ
ȱȱ ȱ
Curt Tarnoff
Marian L. Lawson
Specialist in Foreign Affairs
Analyst in Foreign Assistance
ctarnoff@crs.loc.gov, 7-7656
mlawson@crs.loc.gov, 7-4475
ȱȱȱ
řśȱ