CRS Report for Congress
Export Financing, and Related Programs
Updated December 10, 1999
Larry Nowels
Specialist in Foreign Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
bounded by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current program
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittees. It summarizes the current legislative
status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related legislative activity. The
report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with
active links is available to congressional staff at

Appropriations for FY2000:
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
The annual Foreign Operations appropriations bill is the primary legislative
vehicle through which Congress reviews the U.S. foreign aid budget and influences
executive branch foreign policy making generally. It contains the largest share —
over two-thirds — of total U.S. international affairs spending.
For FY2000, President Clinton requested $14.1 billion (later amended upward
to $14.4 billion), plus $1.9 billion over three years for the Wye River/Middle East
peace accord. The President’s proposal, excluding the Wye River funds, was about
$1.35 billion, or 9% less than FY1999 amounts.
Congressional action on the FY2000 budget resolution resulted in preliminary
funding allocations for Foreign Operations programs well below the requested
amount. H.Con.Res. 68, which cleared Congress on April 15, cut the $20.9 billion
overall foreign policy discretionary budget request to $17.7 billion, 15% less than the
President seeks. Because Foreign Operations funds represent over two-thirds of the
foreign policy budget, a reduction of this order would substantially limit amounts
available for Foreign Operations programs.
In addition to total funding levels, five issues were among those that received the
most attention during the FY2000 debate, and in some cases, resulted in the sharpest
split between House and Senate, and Congress-Executive branch positions: 1) U.S.
development aid policy and spending priorities; 2) population aid and international
family planning policy; 3) regional aid allocations; 4) U.S. funding for North Korea’s
heavy fuel oil and broad U.S.-North Korean policy; and 5) competing initiatives to
reduce debt owed to the United States and other creditors by the world’s poorest and
most highly indebted nations.
During the summer, the Senate (S. 1234) and House (H.R. 2606) approved
FY2000 Foreign Operations spending measures providing $12.69 billion and $12.62
billion, respectively. Because of the reduced funding levels and a House-passed
abortion restriction, the White House said the President would veto either bill. A
House-Senate conference committee, after deleting the House abortion restriction,
agreed to $12.69 billion for Foreign Operations. President Clinton vetoed the bill,
however, due to cuts totaling $1.92 billion to his budget request. Following weeks
of negotiations, Congress and the White House agreed to a revised Foreign
Operations bill (H.R. 3422, enacted by reference in H.R. 3194, P.L. 106-113) that
totals $15.3 billion, including $1.8 billion for the Wye River/Middle East peace
accord. The compromise package further funds $799 million of White House
spending priorities that Congress had rejected in the vetoed H.R. 2606.

Key Policy Staff
Area of ExpertiseNameCRS DivisionTel.
CoordinatorLarry NowelsFDT7-7645
Africa AidRaymond CopsonFDT7-7661
Agency for Intl DevelopmentLarry NowelsFDT7-7645
Agency for Intl DevelopmentCurt TarnoffFDT7-7656
BosniaJulie KimFDT7-3692
Central AsiaJim NicholFDT7-2289
Development AssistanceLarry NowelsFDT7-7645
Development AssistanceCurt TarnoffFDT7-7656
Drug Control ProgramsRaphael PerlFDT7-7664
Export-Import BankJames JacksonFDT7-7751
Family Planning ProgramsLarry NowelsFDT7-7645
International Affairs BudgetLarry NowelsFDT7-7645
International Monetary FundPatricia WertmanFDT7-7748
Kosovo Humanitarian AsstLois McHughFDT7-7627
Middle East AssistanceClyde MarkFDT7-7681
Military Aid/Arms SalesRichard GrimmettFDT7-7675
Multilateral Development BanksLarry NowelsFDT7-7645
Nagorno-KarabakhCarol MigdalovitzFDT7-2667
NIS/East Europe AidCurt TarnoffFDT7-7656
NonproliferationRobert ShueyFDT7-7677
North Korea/KEDOLarry NikschFDT7-7680
Overseas Private Investment CorpJames JacksonFDT7-7751
Peace CorpsCurt TarnoffFDT7-7656
PeacekeepingMarjorie BrowneFDT7-7695
Refugees & Humanitarian AidLois McHughFDT7-7627
TerrorismRaphael PerlFDT7-7664
Trade and Development AgencySusan EpsteinFDT7-6678
U.N. Voluntary ContributionsLois McHughFDT7-7627
CRS Division abbreviation: "FDT" = Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.

Most Recent Developments........................................1
Introduction ................................................... 2
Status ........................................................ 3
Foreign Operations Funding Trends..................................4
Foreign Operations, the FY2000 Budget Resolution, and
Section 302(b) Allocations.................................6
Foreign Operations Appropriations Request for FY2000 and
Congressional Consideration...................................8
Funding Issues for Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2000........8
Total Foreign Operations Funding Levels......................8
Funding for Selected Foreign Operations Accounts..............8
Funding for Country Aid Programs.........................10
Congressional Debate on Foreign Operations Spending..............11
Summary of Debate.....................................11
Senate Debate.........................................12
House Debate.........................................12
Conference Consideration, Veto of H.R. 2606, and a
Revised Foreign Operations Bill........................12
Major Policy and Spending Issues in the Foreign Operations Debate....18
Policy Priorities of U.S. Development Aid....................18
Population and Family Planning Assistance....................22
Regional Allocations of U.S. Foreign Aid and the Request for an
Africa-specific Account..............................26
Korean Energy Development Organization (KEDO) and U.S.
North Korea Policy..................................30
Debt Reduction Initiatives for Poor Countries.................32
FY1999 Supplemental Appropriations and Foreign Operations.........34
For Additional Reading..........................................35
Selected World Wide Web Sites...................................36
Appendix — Detailed Foreign Operations Accounts....................37
List of Figures
Figure 1--International Affairs Budget...............................3
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2000............4
Table 2. Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY1993 to FY1999...........5

Table 3. Summary of Foreign Operations Appropriations.................9
Table 4. Leading Recipients of U.S. Foreign Aid: FY1998 - FY2000.......10
Table 5. USAID Sustainable Development Programs...................20
Table 6. Regional Allocations of U.S. Aid............................26
Table 7. Foreign Operations Appropriations: Discretionary Budget Authority.37

Appropriations for FY2000:
Foreign Operations, Export Financing,
and Related Programs
Most Recent Developments
On November 29, 1999, President Clinton signed into law the Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2000 (H.R. 3194; P.L. 106-113), legislation that enacts
by reference H.R. 3422, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, FY2000. H.R.
3422 was the third Foreign Operations measure debated by Congress in 1999 and
represented the results of extensive negotiations between Congress and the White
House to resolve funding differences. President Clinton had vetoed the first Foreign
Operations measure (H.R. 2606) because it cut $1.92 billion from his request. H.R.
3422 provides $13.5 billion for regular foreign aid programs, plus $1.8 billion over
three years for the Wye River/Middle East peace accord, for a total package of $15.3
billion. H.R. 3422 remains about $900 million below the President’s amended
budget proposal.
In addition to including the Wye River money, the new Foreign Operations
measure adds $799 million for several accounts that Congress had reduced earlier,
including the World Bank’s International Development Association and funds for the
President’s counter-proliferation Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative in the former
Soviet Union. New funding is offset by delaying the transfer beyond FY2000 of $550
million of Israel’s military aid. This will not reduce Israel’s $1.92 billion military
aid, but because the funds would have been placed in an interest bearing account,
it will result in the loss to Israel of interest earned on the early disbursement.
The most significant Administration funding priority not included in the revised
Foreign Operations measure is multilateral debt relief for poor developing countries.
Congressional negotiators agreed to an additional $90 million for bilateral debt
relief — bringing the debt reduction total to $123 million — and they adopted a
modified authorization (in H.R. 3425, also enacted by reference in P.L. 106-113) for
the U.S. to support the IMF off-market sale of gold. Congress, however, would not
add another $250 million to forgive debt owed to multilateral institutions or $600
million requested for debt relief in FY2001-2003. On the most contentious issue, the
Administration further accepted abortion-related international family planning
policy restrictions in exchange for congressional approval of nearly $1 billion in
U.N. arrears payments. On November 30, President Clinton exercised his waiver
authority to exempt the abortion conditions from applying to $15 million of the $385
million population aid appropriation and said he would oppose inclusion of these
restrictions in future spending measures.

The annual Foreign Operations appropriations bill is the primary legislative
vehicle through which Congress reviews and votes on the U.S. foreign assistance
budget and influences executive branch foreign policy making generally.1 It contains
the largest share — about 70% — of total international affairs spending by the United
States (see Figure 1). The legislation funds all U.S. bilateral development assistance
programs, managed mostly by the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID), together with several smaller independent foreign aid agencies, such as the
Peace Corps and the Inter-American and African Development Foundations. Foreign
Operations includes separate accounts for aid programs in the former Soviet Union
(also referred to as the New Independent States (NIS) account) and Central/Eastern
Europe, activities that are jointly managed by USAID and the State Department.
Security assistance (economic and military aid) for Israel and Egypt is also part of the
Foreign Operations spending measure, as are smaller security aid programs
administered largely by the State Department, in conjunction with USAID and the
Pentagon. U.S. contributions to the World Bank and other regional multilateral
development banks, managed by the Treasury Department, and voluntary payments
to international organizations, handled by the State Department, are also funded in the
Foreign Operations bill. Finally, the legislation includes appropriations for three
export promotion agencies: the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC),
the Export-Import Bank, and the Trade and Development Agency.
From the perspective of congressional oversight and involvement in U.S. foreign
aid policy making, the Foreign Operations bill has taken on even greater significance
during the past decade. Congress has not enacted a foreign aid authorization bill since
1985, leaving most foreign assistance programs without regular authorizations
emanating from the legislative oversight committees. As a result, Foreign Operations
spending measures increasingly have expanded their scope beyond spending issues
and played a major role in shaping, authorizing, and guiding both executive and
congressional foreign aid and broader foreign policy initiatives. It has been largely
through Foreign Operations appropriations that the United States has modified aid
policy and resource allocation priorities since the end of the Cold War. The
legislation has also been a key tool used by Congress to apply restrictions and
conditions on Administration management of foreign assistance, actions that have
frequently resulted in executive-legislative clashes over presidential prerogatives in
foreign policy making.

1Although the Foreign Operations appropriations bill is often characterized as the “foreign
aid” spending measure, it does not include funding for all foreign assistance programs. Food
aid, administered under the P.L. 480 program and managed by USAID, is appropriated in the
Agriculture appropriations bill. Further, the Foreign Operations measure includes funds for
one activity—the Export-Import Bank—that is not regarded as “foreign assistance,” but
rather as a U.S. government activity promoting trade opportunities for American businesses.
In most years, this results in a Foreign Operations appropriation (including the EximBank)
that is slightly less (1.5% in FY1998) than the official “foreign aid” budget. Throughout this
report, references to Foreign Operations and foreign aid are used interchangeably.

Figure 1--International Affairs Budget
International Affairs Budget Request - FY2000
Discretionary Budget Authority by Appropriation Bills
Foreign Operations
$14.6 billion 69.9%
Agriculture-Food aid
$0.8 billion 3.8%
State Dept/Commerce
$5.5 billion 26.3%
An additional $13 million for the US Institute for Peace is in the Labor/H bill.
Figure excludes $0.4 billion for UN arrears in State/Commerce.
President Clinton submitted his FY2000 federal budget request to Congress on
February 1, 1999, including funding proposals for Foreign Operations Appropriations
programs. Subsequently, House and Senate Foreign Operations Subcommittees have
held a series of hearings, including testimony from Secretary of State Albright,
Treasury Secretary Rubin, and USAID Administrator Atwood. Skipping a formal
subcommittee markup, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported on June 17,
S. 1234. The full Senate approved the bill on June 30 by a vote of 97-2. The House
Foreign Operations Subcommittee marked up its bill on July 14, followed by full
Committee approval of H.R. 2606 on July 20. The House approved the legislation
on August 3. The following day, the Senate took up H.R. 2606, deleted all of the
House-passed text, substituted language in S. 1234, passed H.R. 2606, as amended,
and requested a conference with the House.
House and Senate conferees met on September 22, 1999, agreeing to all issues
in dispute except international family planning. Members resolved this final issue in
disagreement on September 27 and filed a conference report. With President Clinton
threatening to veto H.R. 2606 because of reductions to his budget request, the House
(214-211) and Senate (51-49) agreed on October 5 and 6, respectively, to the
conference report, clearing the measure for the White House. President Clinton
vetoed the legislation, however, on October 18, because of low funding levels and the
absence of appropriations for several initiatives, including the Wye River/Middle East
peace package and an expansion of the Heavily Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) debt
relief program.

The House, on November 5, approved a revised Foreign Operations measure
(H.R. 3196) that was acceptable to the White House. Further negotiations yielded
a few additional changes to H.R. 3196, modifications that are reflected in a third
Foreign Operations appropriation measure, H.R. 3422. That bill is enacted by
reference as part of the H.R. 3194, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000
(P.L. 106-113), that includes five appropriation measures and other legislation.
Table 1. Status of Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2000
H.R. 2606
SubcommitteeConf. Report
Markup House House Senate Senate Conf. Approval Pres.
Report Passage Report Passage Report Action
House Senate House Senate
HR 26068/3/99S. 12346/30/999/27/9910/5/9910/6/99vetoed
7/14 NA (H.Rept. 385-35 (S.Rept. 97-2 (H.Rept. 214- 51-49 10/18
106-254) 106-81) 106-339) 211
H.R. 3196
SubcommitteeConf. Report
Markup House House Senate Senate Conf. Approval Public
Report Passage Report Passage Report Law
House Senate House Senate
N/A N/A N/A (316- --- --- --- --- --- ---


H.R. 3422*
SubcommitteeConf. Report
Markup House House Senate Senate Conf. Approval Public
Report Passage Report Passage Report Law
House Senate House Senate


N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A H.Rept.106-479 (296- (74-24) 106-113


*H.R. 3422 is enacted by reference in H.R. 3194, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000.
Conference report 106-479 pertains to H.R. 3194.
Foreign Operations Funding Trends
As the United States has adjusted its foreign and defense policy to a post-Cold
War environment, one of the major foreign assistance challenges for Congress and
executive branch policymakers has been to formulate the most effective foreign aid
program amidst a tightening resource base.

After peaking at $20.7 billion in FY1985, Foreign Operations appropriations
began a period of decline, falling to about $12.3 billion in FY1997. Foreign aid
spending cuts were especially sharp in FY1996 when Congress cut funding by $1.15
billion, nearly 9% from the previous year. Many government and non-government
experts argued that these budget reductions seriously undermined U.S. foreign policy
interests and limited the ability of American officials to influence overseas events.
After Foreign Operations funding levels fell again in FY1997 — although by much
smaller amounts — the State Department and other executive agencies launched an
aggressive campaign in to reverse the decade-long decline in the foreign policy
budget. This effort coincided with congressional approval of a near $1 billion increase
for FY1998, setting Foreign Operations appropriations at $13.15 billion. Foreign
Operations funds rose again to $13.8 billion in FY1999 when lawmakers, at the
urging of the White House, added nearly $900 million in the final days of the 105th
As shown in Table 2, the amount for FY1999 was the highest in five years,
bolstered especially by $2.1 billion supplemental funding for Central America
hurricane relief, Kosovo humanitarian aid, and several other foreign assistance
emergencies. For FY1999, Foreign Operations represented 0.87% of the entire
federal budget and 2.6% of total discretionary budget authority. By comparison,
these same figures in FY1985 were 2% and 4.6%, respectively.
Table 2. Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY1993 to FY1999
(discretionary budget authority in billions of current dollars)
FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999*
$13.901 $14.298 $13.611 $12.456 $12.267 $13.147 $15.423
* The amount for FY1999 includes the “base” Foreign Operations Appropriations (the regular
appropriation approved in P.L. 105-277) plus $2.1 billion in emergency supplementals enacted in
P.L. 105-277 and P.L. 106-31. It excludes, however, $17.861 billion for the IMF.
Over the past 20 years, Foreign Operations spending has experienced three
distinct trends when calculated in real terms, taking into account the effects of
inflation. The first period was marked by a steady growth in Foreign Operations
appropriations levels during the early 1980s when the United States rapidly expanded
security-related aid programs in Central America, Pakistan, and to countries providing
the U.S. with military bases. Funding peaked in FY1985 at $31.9 billion (in FY1999
dollars) followed by a sharp cut in FY1986 as the effects of the Gramm-Rudman
deficit reduction initiative took hold and limited federal spending in most areas. For
the next five years, during a second phase of Foreign Operations budget trends,
appropriations remained relatively stable at about $19.5 billion per year (real terms).
Towards the end of the Cold War, foreign aid spending in real terms began to
fall steadily — from about $16.7 billion in FY1992, to $15 billion in FY1995, to $13
billion in FY1997. Appropriations for FY1997 were the lowest since 1975 when
Congress slashed foreign assistance spending during the U.S. withdrawal from
Vietnam. FY1999 Foreign Operations spending is about 29% below the average

appropriation level approved by Congress during the late 1980s, 17% less than
FY1992, a year that might be considered the first post-Cold War foreign aid budget,
and 8% less than FY1995 when the majority in Congress changed.
Foreign Operations, the FY2000 Budget Resolution, and Section
302(b) Allocations
Data Notes
In most years,
Unless otherwise indicated, thisAppropriation Committees do
report expresses dollar amounts in termsnot begin markups of their
of discretionary budget authority. Thespending bills until Congress has
Foreign Operations Appropriations billadopted a budget resolution and
includes one mandatory program that isfunds have been distributed to
not included in figures and tables —the Appropriations panels under
USAID’s Foreign Service retirementwhat is referred to as the
fund. The retirement fund is scheduledSection 302(a) allocation
to receive $44.6 million for FY1999.process, a reference to the
In addition, funding levels andpertinent authority in the
trends discussed in this report excludeCongressional Budget Act.
U.S. contributions to the InternationalFollowing this, House and
Monetary Fund (IMF), proposals thatSenate Appropriations
are enacted periodically (about every fiveCommittees separately decide
years) in Foreign Operations bills. how to allot the total amount
Congress approved $17.9 billion for theavailable among their 13
IMF in FY1999, the first appropriationsubcommittees, staying within
since FY1993. Including these large,the functional guidelines set in
infrequent, and uniquely “scored” IMFthe budget resolution. This
appropriations tends to distort a generalsecond step is referred to as the
analysis of Foreign Operations fundingSection 302(b) allocation. As
trends. Although Congress provides newnoted above, foreign policy
budget authority through appropriations
for the full amount of U.S. participation,funds are appropriated within
the transaction is considered an exchangefour bills with Foreign
of assets between the United States andOperations having the largest
the IMF, and results in no outlays fromshare of around 68-70% in most
the U.S. treasury. In short, theyears.
appropriations are off-set by the creation
of a U.S. counterpart claim on the IMFHow much foreign policy
that is liquid and interest bearing. Formoney to allocate to each of the
four subcommittees, and how to
distribute the funds among the
numerous programs remain decisions exclusively reserved for the Appropriations
Committees. Nevertheless, overall ceilings set in the budget resolution can have
significant implications for the budget limitations within which the Foreign
Operations subcommittees will operate when they meet to mark up their annual
appropriation bills.
The FY2000 budget resolution that cleared Congress on April 15 (H.Con.Res.
68) strongly suggested that the Foreign Operations subcommittees would receive a
significantly reduced Section 302(b) allocation than assumed in the President’s

budget. H.Con.Res. 68 set a $17.7 billion target for total international affairs budget,
a figure 15% below the request.
In late May 1999, House and Senate Appropriations Committees approved
Section 302(b) funding allocations for each of their 13 appropriation bills, setting
amounts for Foreign Operations programs sharply below the President’s $14.6 billion
request and the $13.3 billion “base” appropriation for FY1999.2 The Senate
Committee initially provided $12.5 billion in budget authority but later raised the
amount to $12.7 billion. It is 12.8% less than the budget proposal and 4.8% below
the current Foreign Operations “base.” The House Appropriations panel originally
allocated $10.36 billion for Foreign Operations, 29% below the President’s request
and 22% under the “base.” After shifting funds among several subcommittee
accounts, the House panel subsequently increased the Foreign Operations amount by
over $2.2 billion, resulting in a $12.625 billion level.
Limitations on outlays under the Section 302(b) allocation were also
problematic.3 Congress can only influence “new” outlays — those that will spend-out
in FY2000 as a result of enactment of new budget authority. House and Senate
outlay allocations provide about the same amount in controllable, or “new” outlays
— $5.43 billion and $5.25 billion, respectively. These levels were about 11% less
than the request. Moreover, funding limits at these levels constrained the ability of
the Appropriations Committees to respond to new aid initiatives such as the Wye
River-Middle East peace package and expanded debt reduction for the world’s
poorest nations. Secretary of State Albright told the Senate Appropriations
Committee on May 20 that “cuts of this magnitude would gravely imperil immediate
and long-term American interests.”
A major reason that the Foreign Operations allocation, as well as the allocation
for several other spending measures, were so low, was the congressional and White
House desire to stay within discretionary spending “cap” limits agreed to in 1997.
The caps, which were negotiated at a time of budget deficits, were intended to
provide the means to balance the U.S. budget by FY2002. With the far earlier
emergence of a budget surplus, some lawmakers, including members of the
Appropriations Committees, called for revisions to the budget caps so that a portion
of the surplus could be used to ease the spending limitations posed by the current
ceilings. Other Members, however, argued that the surplus was largely made up of

2 The “base” appropriation refers to amounts funded in the regular Foreign Operations
Appropriations for FY1999, as included in Division A of the Omnibus Appropriations Act,
FY1999 (P.L. 105-277). Congress approved additional Foreign Operations funds in two
supplemental measures: about $411 million for Child Survival programs, aid to Russia,
victims of the Kenya/Tanzania embassy bombings, counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism, and
Y2K upgrades (Division B of P.L. 105-277); and about $1.633 billion for Central America
hurricane relief, Kosovo humanitarian assistance, counter-narcotics, and the administration
of three foreign affairs commissions. All but about $5 million of the supplementals were
declared “emergencies” and do not count against the Foreign Operations FY1999 allocation
3 Budget authority, or appropriation, is the legal authority to incur financial obligations. It
normally results in the “outlay” or actual expenditure of federal government funds.

social security resources; that Congress must not endanger the future of social
security by utilizing part of the surplus, nor should it abandon the spending discipline
established by the 1997 budget agreement.
Foreign Operations Appropriations Request for FY2000
and Congressional Consideration
Funding Issues for Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2000
Total Foreign Operations Funding Levels. President Clinton, in his initial
February 1999 request, asked Congress to appropriate $14.1 billion for Foreign
Operations programs in FY2000, plus $1.9 billion in support of the Wye River/Middle
East peace accord in FY1999-2001. The total proposal, with the Wye River money,
came to $16 billion. The request (excluding the Wye River agreement) was about
$700 million, or 5% higher than the “base” Foreign Operations spending level
Congress approved for FY1999 (see footnote 3). Congress further enacted an
additional $2 billion in two FY1999 emergency supplementals for Central American
hurricane relief, Kosovo humanitarian assistance, and a series of other foreign aid
accounts. Compared with the $15.4 billion total FY1999 Foreign Operations
spending — the “base” plus supplementals — the FY2000 request, without the Wye
River funds, was about $1.35 billion, or 9% less than FY1999 amounts. (See below
for discussion of the supplemental/advance appropriation requests.) Subsequently,
the President amended his request from $14.1 billion to $14.38 billion, primarily
through a September 1999 proposal that added $250 million for poor country debt
relief in FY2000 and $600 million more during FY2001-2003. Including the Wye
River funds, the total FY2000 request, as amended, came to $16.186 billion.
Funding for Selected Foreign Operations Accounts. For the most part,
portions of the $700 million increase above the “base” sought for FY2000 were
spread out over many Foreign Operations accounts, resulting in small boosts for these
aid activities. Development assistance would grow by about $175 million (9%) above
the “base,”4 non-proliferation and counter-terrorism programs would increase by $33
million (17%), military training funds would rise by $2 million (4%) and military aid
grants would move up by $100 million (3%). The military aid grant hike mainly
would provide additional support to Israel. The budget request also included a few
large increases from FY1999, representing special priorities of the Administration:
!Export promotion programs were slated for an increase of $92 million
(11.6%), mainly to provide the Export-Import Bank with the resources to meet
what it believed will be increased demands in FY2000.

4 See below for a detailed discussion of development assistance funding strategies, the
President’s request to re-establish a special account for Africa (Development Fund for
Africa), and the continuing controversy over population aid and international family planning
programs. Comparisons of development aid figures include a $45 million budget amendment
submitted on July 19 for additional HIV/AIDS funding.

!Debt reduction funds would grow from $33 million to $120 million in order to
launch two new debt relief initiatives for FY2000. In September, this request
was amended to $370 million in FY2000 and a total of $970 million over four
years (FY2000-2003). (See below for more discussion of this issue.)
!Peace Corps funding would rise by $30 million (12.5%) to maintain the plan
to increase the number of Peace Corps volunteers from 6,700 to 10,000 within
the next few years. (See CRS Report RS20082, Peace Corps: 10,000
Volunteer Goal, by Curt Tarnoff.)
Table 3. Summary of Foreign Operations Appropriations
(Discretionary funds -- in millions of dollars)
Bill Title & ProgramFY1999EnactedFY2000RequestHouseH.R. 2606SenateS. 12342606 P.L.
Title I - Export Assistance660.7685.0595.5620.5599.0599.0
Title II - Bilateral Economic Aid9,616.2*8,957.27,374.37,425.57,487.68,427.1
Development aid2,321.5*2,259.72,093.92,111.02,127.42,154.4
Africa aid730.0740.0735.0------
Israel/Egypt economic aid1,855.01,645.01,695.01,695.01,695.01,695.0
Wye River Peace Accord50.0450.
Former Soviet Union847.0*1,032.0725.0780.0735.0839.0
Debt reduction33.0370.
Title III - Military Assistance3,507.5*4,956.03,585.53,534.03,542.04,992.0
Israel/Egypt 3,160.0 3,220.0 3,220.0 3,220.0 3,220.0 3,220.0
Wye River Peace Accord50.01,350.,375.0
Title IV - Multilateral Aid1,638.31,587.41,068.71,111.81,064.91,298.0
MDB arrears514.0168.
Total/“Base” Appropriation13,401.016,185.612,624.012,691.812,693.515,316.1
Total/with FY99 Supplemental15,422.716,185.612,624.012,691.812,693.515,316.1
Source: House and Senate Appropriations Committees. FY1999 excludes a one-time IMF appropriation of
$17.861 billion. H.R. 3196 represents levels approved by the House on Nov. 5.
* Includes “base” appropriations plus emergency supplementals enacted in P.L. 105-277 and P.L. 106-31.
!U.S. assistance to Russia and the former Soviet states would grow by $179
million (21%), the result of a new Administration program — the Expanded
Threat Reduction Assistance Initiative — addressing the security implications
of the economic crisis in Russia and other NIS states. (See below under
regional aid priorities for more discussion.)
!Peacekeeping for non-U.N. missions would increase by $54 million (71%),
mainly due to recommendations to boost funding from $10 million to $43

million for the OSCE Kosovo operation, and for smaller increases in Africa
and OSCE Bosnia/Croatia peacekeeping activities.
!For the first time in several years, the Administrations sought funding ($5.1
million) for the African Development Bank, an institution that has had its
operations suspended until recently due to administrative and economic
problems in the region.
In one area, the FY2000 Foreign Operations request proposed a small program
reduction — U.S. assistance to Eastern Europe would drop by $37 million (-8.6%)
with most of the cuts coming in aid to Bosnia.
Table 4. Leading Recipients of U.S. Foreign Aid: FY1998 - FY2000
(Appropriation Allocations; $s in millions)
FY1998 FY1999 FY2000
Actual Allocation Estimate
Israel 3,000 2,940 3,150**
Egypt 2,117 2,076 2,016
Jordan 78 298* 328**
Ukraine 233 203 227
West Bank/Gaza8575200**
Bangladesh 56 45 59
Kazakhstan 20 49 58
*Includes $100 million supplemental appropriation in P.L. 106-31.
** Includes regular request for Israel, Jordan, the Palestinians, plus amounts for Wye peace accord:
Israel--$300 million; Jordan--$100 million; Palestinians--$100 million.
Note: Data exclude food aid, a program not appropriated in the Foreign Operations bill. With food
aid included, the rank order above would change somewhat. Food aid projected for FY2000 includes
Peru—$50 million; Haiti—$26 million; Bangladesh—$25 million; and Guatemala—$17 million.
Moreover, because of a large food aid program, Ethiopia, India and North Korea (FY1998/99) would
also rank among the lower 10 of this top 15 list.
Funding for Country Aid Programs. At the country level, the FY2000
proposal recommended generally the same roster of major recipients as for FY1999.
The proposal reflected continuing U.S. policy emphasis on Middle East peace,
democratic transition in the former Soviet Union, implementation of the Dayton Peace

accords in Bosnia, and to a somewhat lesser extent, efforts to counter the drug trade
in Latin America. Israel ($2.85 billion) and Egypt ($2 billion) would continue to be
the largest recipients, although levels would decline as the United States continues to5
implement a reduction in economic assistance to both countries. Russia, and to a
lesser extent Ukraine, were scheduled for increases in FY2000, mainly due to the
Expanded Threat Reduction Assistance Initiative. U.S. assistance to Israel, Jordan,
and the Palestinians (West Bank/Gaza) would rise significantly in FY2000 if Congress
agrees to a request of $500 million to back the Wye Memorandum peace accord.
Congressional Debate on Foreign Operations Spending
Summary of Debate. In separate actions during the summer, the House and
Senate approved bills spending roughly the same amount of money overall — $12.624
billion and $12.691 billion, respectively — but at levels less than appropriated in
FY1999 and well below the President’s request. The legislation, however, included
some significant differences in how to allocate funds among the various foreign aid
accounts. Conferees approved $12.693 billion, nearly identical to the Senate’s level,
but still below amounts for FY1999 and the President’s request. On very close votes
largely along party lines, the House (214-211) and Senate (51-49) agreed on October
5 and 6, respectively, to the $12.693 billion spending measure. Most democrats
supported the President’s opposition to the measure because of the sizable cuts made
to his foreign aid request. Other Members voted against the bill because the
conference agreement removed House-passed abortion restrictions related to
international family planning programs and included funding for the U.N. Population
Fund which maintains activities in China. Keeping to an earlier pledge, President
Clinton vetoed H.R. 2606 on October 18 because of inadequate funding levels. As
primary reasons for his veto, the President specifically cited cuts to his request for
voluntary peacekeeping activities, the Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative designed
to safeguard weapons of mass destruction in Russia and other former Soviet states,
contributions to multilateral development banks, and support for the Heavily Indebted
Poor Country (HIPC) debt relief program, as well as the absence of funding for the
Wye River Accord supporting the Middle East peace process.
Following the mid-October veto of H.R. 2606, the White House and
congressional leaders negotiated the terms of a compromise package that narrowed
the gap between executive-legislative funding differences. On November 5, the
House approved a revised Foreign Operations measure (H.R. 3196) that added $799
million for White House priorities, plus $1.8 billion for the Wye River agreement.
Although acceptable to the President, the bill fell about $900 million short of the
Administration’s amended request, including denial of $247 million for the
cancellation of poor country debt owed to multilateral development banks.
Subsequent negotiations followed as Congress and the President attempted to
complete an omnibus spending package for the five remaining appropriation bills. The
most important changes for Foreign Operations — reflected in the introduction of a
third measure, H.R. 3422 and a separate authorization bill, H.R. 3425 — regarded

5In FY1999, the United States began a 10-year initiative to reduce U.S. assistance to Israel
and Egypt. For further information, see discussion below in section on Middle East Aid.

congressional authorization for the IMF to make an off-market sale of gold to finance
the HIPC debt relief initiative (H.R. 3425) and the attachment of abortion restrictions
to international family planning funds that Republican leaders had demanded in
exchange for approval of money to pay U.S. arrears to the United Nations (H.R.
3422). H.R. 3194, a consolidated spending bill passed by the House on November

18 and by the Senate on November 19, enacted by reference H.R. 3422 and H.R.

3425. President Clinton signed into law H.R. 3194 on November 29, 1999.

Senate Debate. The Senate approved its version of the Foreign Operations
request for FY2000 on June 30, 1999 (S. 1234). The $12.691 billion was about $1.9
billion, or 13%, less than the President’s request. Compared to FY1999 levels, the
recommendation was about $700 million, or 5%, below the “base” foreign aid
appropriation (regular Foreign Operations funding approved in the FY1999 Omnibus
spending bill (P.L. 105-277), and over $2.7 billion, or 17.7%, under total Foreign
Operations appropriations for FY1999 that includes large Central America and
Kosovo emergency relief supplementals.
House Debate. It had been expected that the House Appropriations bill would
fall far below the Senate measure due to an initial $10.4 billion budget authority
allocation to the Subcommittee (see discussion above under the section on 302(b)
allocations and Foreign Operations). Immediately prior to the House Committee
markup on July 20, however, the panel revised the Foreign Operations figure upwards
to $12.6, making available roughly the same amount of money as passed the Senate.
As adopted in the House on August 3, H.R. 2606 appropriated $12.624 billion in
discretionary funds, $1.99 billion, or 13.6 % less than the FY2000 request. It was
$777 million below the “base” FY1999 appropriation, and $2.8 billion (18%) under
the total Foreign Operations enacted amounts for this year, including both “base”
funding and emergency supplementals.
Conference Consideration, Veto of H.R. 2606, and a Revised Foreign
Operations Bill. On September 22, House-Senate conferees resolved all differences
except one in their respective versions of H.R. 2606. Subsequently, Members worked
out their disagreement on international family planning and contributions to the U.N.
Population Fund, and approved on September 27 a $12.93 billion measure. Like the
Senate-passed bill, the conference fell about $700 million, or 5%, below the “base”
spending level for FY1999 and $1.9 billion, 13% less than the President’s request.
President Clinton and his senior foreign policy advisors argued that the conference
agreement shirked a number of U.S. financial responsibilities and jeopardized
American interests in promoting Middle East peace, safeguarding nuclear weapons
and scientist expertise in the former Soviet Union, and stabilizing several global “hot
spots.” Following the veto of H.R. 2606 and several weeks of negotiations,
congressional leaders and White House officials agreed to a compromise package
which the President says he supports. The agreement, approved by the House on
November 5 in a second Foreign Operations measure, H.R. 3196, added $1.825
billion for the Wye River peace accord and $799 million for a range of foreign aid
programs the White House charged were under-funded in the earlier H.R. 2606. The
total package in H.R. 3196 represented full funding for the Wye River agreement and
roughly half of Administration’s request that had been cut in H.R. 2606.

As negotiations to resolve all budget issues continued after House passage of
H.R. 3196, a third Foreign Operations spending measure — H.R. 3422 — was
introduced on November 17, legislation representing the final agreement over foreign
aid spending. The major difference between H.R. 3196 and H.R. 3422 is the addition
in H.R. 3422 of abortion restrictions that apply to international family planning
programs. Congressional negotiators had been insisting that the White House accept
such conditions on population assistance in exchange for congressional approval of
nearly $1 billion to pay off U.S. arrears at the United Nations. In virtually all other
respects, the two bills are the same. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for
FY2000 (H.R. 3194; P.L. 106-113) enacts H.R. 3422 and several other spending and
authorization measures by reference. The House approved H.R. 3194, and therefore
H.R. 3422, on November 18 and the Senate approved the bill on November 19.
With the exception of over $2.6 billion in additional funding for selected
accounts and the inclusion of abortion restrictions for international family planning
programs, H.R. 3422 is virtually identical to the conference agreement on H.R. 2606,
a bill vetoed by the President. Three major congressional priorities funded in the
vetoed measure and continued in H.R. 3422 include:
!Kosovo and Balkan assistance — H.R. 3422 includes about $535 million for
Balkan reconstruction and regional economic stabilization, with a $150 million
recommendation specifically for Kosovo. This follows closely what the Senate
had passed in S. 1234. The President’s budget, prepared before the outbreak
of hostilities, included only $393 million for the region. The House measure
did not include earmarked funds for a Kosovo and a regional reconstruction
initiative. H.R. 3422 stipulates, however, that none of the funds for Kosovo are
to be used for large scale infrastructure projects or be available until the
President certifies that the U.S. commitment at a late-1999 Kosovo donor
pledging conference does not exceed 15% of total pledges.
!Child Survival and Disease programs — H.R. 3422 provides a separate
account, as proposed by the House, at $715 million for children and infectious
disease activities. Overall, the revised Foreign Operations bill increases the
account from the “base” FY1999 appropriation of $650 million and the
amended $700 million FY2000 request.6 In addition, if the President exercises
his authority to waive abortion-related family planning restrictions, $12.5
million will be transferred from population aid programs to child survival and
disease activities.
!Aid to Israel, Egypt, and Jordan — Following the lead of Senate and
House-passed levels, H.R. 3422 increases aid to Israel and Egypt beyond the
Administration’s regular funding request. The President’s budget had
proposed accelerating to $150 million the ten-year, $100 million per year pace
for reducing U.S. assistance to the two countries that Congress began last
year. The bill increases the request by $50 million, restoring the ten-year,
$100 million per year reduction. Under the H.R. 3422, Israel will receive

6 On July 19, the White House amended its FY2000 Child Survival request by seeking an
additional $45 million to support a presidential AIDS initiative aimed primarily on Africa.

$2.88 billion and Egypt $2.035 billion. In addition, the bill earmarks $225
million for Jordan, as requested.
In many other areas, the revised Foreign Operations bill increases spending levels
that had led to the President’s veto of H.R. 2606:
!Wye River accord. H.R. 3422 provides full funding of $1.8 billion through
FY2002 for the Middle East peace pledge made by President Clinton in late
1998. At the time, the U.S. committed $900 million for FY1999, $500 million
for FY2000, and $500 million for FY2001 in additional assistance to Israel
Jordan, and the Palestinians. During a period when little progress was made by
the parties in implementing the Wye accord, Congress approved in May 1999
only $100 million for Jordan in the FY1999 Supplemental Appropriations.
With the more recent meetings between President Clinton and newly elected
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, the Administration once again pressed
Congress to approve expeditiously the remaining Wye accord aid pledges.
H.R. 3422 further adds an additional $25 million in military aid for Egypt.
Although not linked with the Wye accords, the Administration had requested
for FY2000 that Congress approve early disbursement of some of Egypt’s
military aid that could be deposited into an interest bearing account that would
enhance Egypt’s aid package. This would be similar to an arrangement
extended for several years to Israel. Because of budget limitations and the
outlay impact of early disbursement of funds, Congress rejected the proposal
in H.R. 2606. The $25 million included in H.R. 3422 represents roughly the
amount of interest Egypt would have earned under the early disbursement plan.
!Aid to Russia and nuclear weapons safeguards. A top Administration
priority has been $241 million for its Expanded Threat Reduction program, a
counter-proliferation initiative in the former states of the Soviet Union. The
amounts approved in H.R. 2606 for Russia and other independent states --
$735 million -- would have jeopardized funding for the threat reduction
project, plus squeezed aid for Russia and some of the other countries in the
region. H.R. 3422 adds $104 million for the account, bringing the total to
$839 million, and specifically earmarks $241 million for the counter-
proliferation initiative. The new bill continues other provisions from H.R.
2606 by setting aid targets of $180 million for Ukraine, $95 million for
Georgia, and $90 million for Armenia. Even with the additional funding,
bilateral economic aid for Russia and several other countries in the region are
likely to fall below requested levels, and perhaps below FY1999 amounts.
!Multilateral development bank funding. Multilateral assistance, funded
within title IV of the Foreign Operations appropriation received one of the
deepest cuts under the terms of H.R. 2606 -- over $500 million, or one-third
less than requested. H.R. 3422, restores $233 million to title IV, including
$150 million for the World Bank’s International Development Association
(IDA). Congress initially cut the $803 million request to $625 million,
primarily due to disagreement with Bank policy over extending a loan to China
that would involve the resettlement of poor Chinese farmers into a traditionally
Tibetan area. The new Foreign Operations measure also fully funds ($128
million) the African Development Fund and increases from $1 million to $4.1

million resources for the U.S. to subscribe to a new African Development
Bank replenishment. H.R. 3422 also adds $16 million for the Inter-American
Investment Corporation, funding that was not provided in H.R. 2606. U.S.
voluntary contributions to international organizations received an additional
$13 million, funds that most likely will be used to increase payments to the
U.N. Development Program. The amount and terms of a $25 million
American contribution to the U.N. Population Fund did not change under the
revised Foreign Operations bill. The major remaining resource shortfall for
multilateral programs in H.R. 3422 is for the Global Environment Facility for
which the appropriation remains at $35.8 million, or one-fourth of the request.
!Economic Support Fund (ESF) assistance. ESF, a bilateral economic aid
channel through which the United States extends support largely for political
and security purposes, had been cut significantly under H.R. 2606, except for
Middle East recipients. After subtracting earmarks for Israel, Egypt, Jordan,
and Lebanon, the vetoed Foreign Operations measure had reduced the
President’s request for all other ESF activities by roughly 45%. Most
vulnerable would have been aid programs in Haiti, Guatemala, Cambodia, and
Indonesia, as well as a series of regional human rights, democracy building,
environment, and other global issue initiatives. H.R. 3422 restores $168.5
million to the ESF account, leaving a more modest $95 million, or 17%
!USAID operating expenses. Under H.R. 2606, Congress approved the
Senate-passed level of $495 million for the costs of staff salaries and living
expenses overseas for the primary U.S. bilateral aid agency. Agency officials
argued that without higher funding, they would be forced to initiate a
reduction-in-force as had occurred in 1997. Moreover, USAID continues to
be plagued by ineffective financial management systems and failed attempts to
replace them. H.R. 3422 provides an additional $25 million that should allow
USAID to cover its operating costs as well as complete plans for a new
financial management initiative.
!Peacekeeping operations. Voluntary contributions to non-U.N. sponsored
peacekeeping activities had been reduced in H.R. 2606 to $78 million, $52
million less than the request. H.R. 3422 adds back $75 million, for a total of
$153 million, that will cover American payments to peacekeeping operations
included in the original requests, plus those, such as in Sierra Leone and East
Timor, that have developed since early 1999.
!Peace Corps. Under the terms of the conference agreement of H.R. 2606,
Peace Corps funding was cut to $235 million, $35 million less than the request
and $5 million under FY1999 levels. H.R. 3422 restores some of the reduction
by adding $10 million. The $245 million FY2000 appropriation, however, will
still fall short of the Administration’s goal of achieving a 10,000 volunteer
Peace Corps.
In a few areas, the third Foreign Operations bill does not substantially alter
funding shortfalls that had been approved in the vetoed H.R. 2606. The most
significant, from the Administration’s perspective, is debt relief for the world’s

poorest nations. In the original budget request submitted in early 1999, the President
sought $120 million for debt reduction, including funds for U.S. participation in the
World Bank/IMF managed Heavily Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) initiative designed
to provide extensive reduction of debts owed to both bilateral governments and
multilateral institutions.
Following a G-7 agreement in June and World Bank/IMF endorsement in
September to significantly expand HIPC, the President asked Congress on September
21 to increase debt relief funding to $370 million in FY2000, plus $600 million for
FY2001-2003. The conference agreement on H.R. 2606 included only $33 million
for debt cancellation, none of which could be used for helping reduce multilateral
debt. The revised H.R. 3422 increases debt relief funding by $90 million, all of which
must be used for bilateral reduction. HIPC proponents fear that if the United States
does not contribute to the multilateral portion of the HIPC initiative, other bilateral
donors will follow, leaving a large funding shortfall for HIPC implementation.
Although the White House did not achieve full funding for debt relief, Congress
agreed in a separate bill, H.R. 3425 (that is also enacted by reference to the
Consolidated Appropriations Act), to authorize U.S. support for an IMF off-market
sale of gold that would finance the Fund’s ability to write-down poor country debts.
In perhaps the most controversial provision included in H.R. 3422, the White
House agreed to accept restrictions on international family planning policy that
prohibit U.S. grants to private foreign non-governmental and multilateral
organizations that either perform abortions or lobby to change abortion laws in
foreign countries. The President can waive the restrictions for up to $15 million in
grants, but if he does, population aid funding declines from $385 million to $372.5
million. The restrictions apply only to FY2000 and will expire on September 30,

2000. Although the President exercised his waiver authority on November 30, 1999,

and instructed USAID to minimize any adverse impact the provision might have on
U.S.-funded family planning programs, the legislation represents the first time in 15
years of heated congressional debate that such restrictions have been enacted into law.
Critics of abortion restrictions are concerned primarily about the precedent that this
sets and the effect it will have on another contentious debate in Congress next year
when the current restrictions expire. The White House reluctantly agreed to the
abortion conditions when congressional leaders refused to approve funds to pay off
U.S. arrears to the United Nations unless the restrictions were also added.
Another funding reduction in H.R. 2606 not addressed in H.R. 3422 is for the
Inter-American Foundation. The IAF is a small, independent grass-roots aid
organization supporting projects in Latin America since 1969. Under both H.R. 2606
and H.R. 3196, the IAF will receive $5 million in FY2000, less than a quarter of the
Administration’s $22.3 million request. Further, the bills authorize the President to
abolish the IAF next year. The Foundation had been heavily criticized for recent
management irregularities and for the continuation of funding for certain NGOs that
had been involved in the kidnaping of Americans in 1997.
The third Foreign Operations bill further does not include funding for two
emerging foreign aid initiatives that the Administration had announced earlier it would
pursue during the final budget negotiations. Although the executive branch never
submitted formal requests, it had consulted extensively with congressional committees

for additional funds for Balkan reconstruction and stabilization efforts and counter-
narcotics programs in Colombia. As noted above, both H.R. 2606 and H.R. 3422
provide more for Balkan and Kosovo assistance than requested by the Administration
earlier in 1999. But there remains about a $300-$400 million gap between amounts
provided in H.R. 3422 and what the executive wants to pledge for reconstruction
needs. Presumably, the Balkan aid package will come before Congress in 2000 as
part of a supplemental to provide additional DOD costs of peacekeeping operations
in the region. For counter-narcotics, an initiative with strong congressional support,
H.R. 3422 increases spending by $20 million for FY2000. Nevertheless, this remains
far short of preliminary proposals recommending $1 billion-$1.5 billion for Colombia
and the Andean region over three years.
Two non-funding, but controversial policy issues that had been narrowly
approved during House and Senate floor debate and settled by conferees in H.R.

2606, are continued unchanged in H.R. 3422:

!School of the Americas. H.R. 3422 drops a House provision that would have
denied International Military Education and Training Funds (IMET) for the
Army’s School of the America’s, located at Fort Benning, Georgia. The
School trains Latin American military officers, drawing on IMET for some of
its operating costs, although most of its funding comes from Defense
Department money. Critics of the school contend that it has trained some of
the most ruthless human rights violators among Latin American militaries,
especially during the 1970s and 1980s. The Administration, which argues that
the School’s curriculum has been overhauled during the 1990s and is designed
to promote the observance of human rights principles by its graduates, strongly
opposed the House amendment. Prior to releasing funds to the School,
however, H.R. 3422 requires the President to issue certain certifications
regarding the curriculum at the School of the Americas.
!Silk Road Strategy Act. The new Foreign Operations bill includes the
Senate-passed text authorizing aid programs for the South Caucuses and
Central Asia — the so-called Silk Road Strategy Act. As originally offered
during Senate debate by Senator Brownback, the text would have allowed the
President to waive the ban of non-humanitarian aid to Azerbaijan found in
Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. An amendment by Senator
McConnell and others, however, struck the waiver provision (53-45), thereby
maintaining the Section 907 restriction. The House had approved similar
legislation, including retention of Section 907, in a separate bill, H.R. 1152.
Offsets for Higher Foreign Operations Spending. A congressional and White
House priority for additional FY2000 funding in any spending measure has been to
package them in such a way that the total amount does not exceed discretionary
spending caps or draw on budget surpluses derived from Social Security payments.
The $2.624 billion add-on for Foreign Operations is offset in two ways. First, the
Wye River/Middle East Peace package is designated as an emergency which means
none of the $1.825 billion will count against the discretionary caps. To offset the
outlay impact of the additional spending, something that could potentially dip into the
Social Security surplus, H.R. 3422 limits to $1.37 billion the amount that Israel can
receive earlier than it would otherwise of its total $1.92 billion military aid transfers.

For many years, Congress has approved the immediate transfer of economic
assistance to Israel that could then be invested in interest-bearing accounts before
Israel needed the funds to service debts owed the United States. Several years ago,
Congress extended this benefit by allowing the early disbursement — and the outlay
— of $1.8 billion in annual U.S. military aid. Normally, for other countries little or
no military assistance would be drawn upon in the year it was appropriated, and
therefore, would not result in any outlays. Consequently, the lower outlays estimated
under H.R. 3422 because Israel will not receive $550 million in early disbursement of
military aid fully offsets the outlay impact of funding for the Wye River accord and
other foreign aid spending. Although this does not cut the $1.92 billion military aid
package for Israel, it will result in the loss to Israel of whatever interest would have
Major Policy and Spending Issues in the Foreign Operations Debate
In addition to funding decisions made by Congress in the Foreign Operations
appropriation bill, the annual spending measure also includes a wide range of policy
provisions that frequently raise contentious foreign policy disagreements between the
President and Congress. As mentioned above, because Congress has not enacted
foreign aid authorization bills for over a decade, the Foreign Operations legislation
often becomes the vehicle for debate on the conduct of U.S. foreign policy more
generally. Many of these policy provisions take the form of conditions or restrictions
on how the President can use money included in the spending bill. Many of these
provisions are opposed by the Administration as excessively limiting his ability to
manage American foreign policy. The legislative-executive policy differences have
in the past delayed the enactment of the Foreign Operations bill or have prompted a
presidential veto.
Among the most significant funding and policy issues raised during congressional
debate this year on the Foreign Operations appropriation measure concern conflicting
executive-legislative branch development assistance strategy priorities, restrictions on
international family planning programs, regional aid allocations, competing initiatives
to reduce debt burdens of the poorest developing countries, and the terms and
conditions under which the United States provides heavy fuel oil to North Korea.
Policy Priorities of U.S. Development Aid. Since the end of the Cold War, a
recurring debate has focused on what should replace the anti-communist foreign aid
rationale of the past 50 years. A more fundamental question raised by some,
especially critics of development assistance, is whether the United States needs to
maintain an active, globally focused economic aid program. Many of these critics
argue that aid can be transformed into a smaller, more targeted, and often privatized
instrument to support only the highest priority U.S. foreign policy interests.
Although there has been no definitive consensus on priorities, the Clinton
Administration has strongly supported the retention of an activist foreign aid policy
which can be used to bolster a variety of U.S. foreign policy initiatives around the
world. In early 1994, USAID released its blueprint for a post-Cold War development
aid policy, based around the goal of “sustainable development,” and its four strategies
of promoting economic growth, stabilizing global population, protecting the

environment, and advancing democracy. More recently, USAID added a fifth strategy
aimed at developing human capacity through education.
Since adopting these strategies in 1994, USAID has maintained that they operate
as inter-linked, mutually reinforcing elements of an overall U.S. effort to promote the
advancement of market economies and democratic transitions in developing nations.
Officials argue that U.S. aid is justified until countries reach a point of sustainability
that no longer requires external aid. Funding reductions, congressional restrictions,
and fluctuating Administration priorities, however, have required USAID to alter the
mix of resources devoted to each of the strategies, raising questions over whether the
integrative, mutually reinforcing principles can be maintained. Congress, for example,
limited development aid for population programs in FYs1996-99 to roughly two-
thirds of the amount provided in FY1995. (See below for more discussion on family
planning restrictions.) Further, the State Department’s Bureau of Global Affairs
places a high priority on environment programs and presses USAID to allocate the
maximum amount possible to such activities. As a result, the environment sector of
sustainable development likely has not declined as much as it might have otherwise.
At the center of this issue for the past four years has been differences between
Congress and the executive branch regarding funding levels for programs supporting
child survival, basic education, and efforts against HIV/AIDs and other infectious
diseases. Despite cutting overall development aid in FYs1996-97 by about 23% from
FY1995 levels, Congress earmarked children and disease programs at amounts equal
to or somewhat greater than those allocated in FY1995, making the cuts on all other
elements of sustainable development closer to 30%. Congress boosted development
aid appropriations for FY1999 by about $20 million beyond the President’s request,
but lawmakers set funding targets for child survival and infectious disease activities
at about $460 million, $85 million more than the Administration proposed. As a
result, USAID cut funding for economic growth programs by $47 million and
environment projects by $42 million below what the agency had planned for FY1999.7
Congressional proponents of the child survival priority argue that even though
budget pressures require the United States to reduce or hold the line on foreign aid
spending, the protection of children remains a core American value demanding that
cuts should be implemented without putting at risk the lives and well-being of small
children in developing nations. They further point out that the spread of infectious
diseases poses a direct threat to U.S. citizens, and that American national interests
require continued support for global efforts to reduce or eliminate such illnesses.

7 Selected elements of economic growth programs that have broad congressional support, such
as microenterprise and agriculture activities, were unaffected by reductions elsewhere in this

Table 5. USAID Sustainable Development Programs
(in millions of dollars)
FY1998 FY1999 FY2000
Goals/Targets EstimateEstimateRequest**
$s% of total$s% of total$s% of total
Economic Growth41524.1%41623.3%46024.3%
Microenterprise 49 2.8% 67 3.7% 75 4.0%
Agriculture 149 8.6% 134 7.5% 148 7.8%
Other Economic Growth21712.6%21412.0%23712.5%
Population/Health 799 46.3% 846* 47.3% 845 44.6%
Child Survival24514.2%276*15.4%23612.5%
HIV/AIDs 121 7.0% 135* 7.5% 172** 9.1%
Family Planning34319.9%33918.9%35518.8%
Infectious Diseases543.1%502.8%502.6%
Other health362.1%462.6%321.7%
Human Capacity/Basic Ed.1257.3%1317.3%1487.8%
Environment 244 14.2% 248 13.9% 290 15.3%
Global Climate Change925.3%884.9%1125.9%
Democracy 142 8.2% 148 8.3% 150 7.9%
Total Sustainable Develop.1,724100%1,789100%1,893100%
Source: USAID. Amounts in this table only apply to USAID “development aid” programs and do
not include funds used for the same purposes, although to a lesser extent, in other accounts,
including Economic Support Fund (ESF), East Europe and former Soviet aid programs. For
example, USAID estimates that it will spend in FY1999 $385 million across all accounts for family
planning programs and about $331 million across all accounts for Child Survival activities.
* Includes $40 million for Child Survival and $10 million for HIV/AIDs provided in supplemental
** Includes a July 19 budget amendment seeking $45 million more to support a presidential AIDS
initiative aimed primarily at sub-Saharan Africa.
Although agreeing with the importance of child survival and infectious disease
programs, USAID officials apply a broader definition to the terms, arguing, for
example, that efforts to protect small children go well beyond immunizations and
access to other health services. The quality of a child’s life, they assert, also is
determined by an array of other factors, including the degree of relative stability in
society, protection of the surrounding environment, access to adequate shelter, and
implementation of sound economic policies that will ensure jobs and economic
opportunities in the future. Consequently, they contend, that the “squeeze” that these
targets place on other areas of sustainable development partially undermines the
success of programs that also benefit children.

As has been the pattern the past few years, USAID’s sustainable development
request for FY2000 reduced or maintained at current levels funding for several
congressional priorities while increasing development aid overall by $59 million, or
about 3%. The $1.89 billion original request would have cut funds for child survival
programs by $40 million from FY1999 appropriations, and hold spending for other
infectious diseases activities at the current allocation of $50 million.8 Environmental
funds, especially those for global climate change programs, would grow the most
under the Administration’s request — up $42 million (17%) from existing amounts.
Family planning spending would also increase slightly, rising by $16 million (5 %)
from FY1999 levels. Other congressional development aid priorities would also
receive higher funding under the President’s budget for FY2000. For example,
microenterprise, agriculture, and basic education programs each would grow by 10-

12% for FY2000.

Congressional Action. H.R. 2606, as approved by the conferees and continued
largely unchanged in the revised H.R. 3422, reduces the amended USAID
development aid account by $87 million, while at the same time increases funds for
selected activities. Some of the largest development assistance and child survival
earmarks and recommendations, including those mentioned in House and Senate
committee reports on the legislation, are:
!international population aid — $385 million, as passed by the House. The
President requested $400 million, while the Senate had earmarked $425
million within development assistance and as much as $45 million under other
!HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases — $180 million for HIV/AIDS,
including $35 million specifically for Africa. Conferees did not earmark funds
for other disease programs. The Senate had recommended $225 million, of
which $150 million was for HIV/AIDS; the House had included $227 million,
including $127 million HIV/AIDS.
!maternal health — $50 million in the Senate bill; no mention in the conference
!tuberculosis — $30 million recommended in the House bill and an expectation
in the Senate bill to increase funding in FY2000. Conferees did not set a
specific amount, although they support USAID’s $3 million tuberculosis
programs in Mexico.
!polio eradication — $25 million in both House and Senate bills. Conferees did
not set a specific level.
!basic education — $98 million earmarked in H.R. 3422. Senate and House
bills had recommended $110 million and $98 million, respectively.

8USAID contended, however, that the request for child survival and HIV/AIDs was the same
as the FY1999 “base” appropriation enacted by Congress in the regular Foreign Operations
bill that was incorporated into the Omnibus Appropriations (P.L. 105-277). Under the
Emergency Supplemental division of P.L. 105-277, Congress added $50 million for child
survival and HIV/AIDs programs that USAID did not include in its “base.” In any case, the
White House amended its Child Survival request in July, adding $45 million for an HIV/AIDS
in Africa initiative. This brought the amended proposal for children and disease programs to
$700 million, the same as for FY1999, including the supplemental.

!displaced children and orphans — $30 million in the House bill. Conferees
did not set a specific level.
!agriculture — $305 million recommended in the conference agreement. The
Senate bill had earmarked $305 million.
!microenterprise — $152 million in the House measure, while the Senate bill
directed USAID to increase microenterprise funding above FY1999 levels.
H.R. 3422 does not specify an amount for microenterprise other than to
require that at least 50% of the loans made be less than $300.
!biodiversity — The conference committee, following a Senate amendment,
directs USAID to restore biodiversity funding to the same proportion of
development assistance funds it received in FY1995. This would result in
about $99 million for biodiversity activities in FY2000. Funding had fallen by
nearly half in recent years — from about $100 million in FY1995 to $55
million in FY1998. With the support of Congress, USAID increased the
FY1999 program level to $68 million.
The net result of the overall reduction to development assistance, plus increases for
selected Senate and House priorities, would likely be lower funding levels for other
sustainable development activities. Economic growth and private sector programs,
environmental activities other than biodiversity, and democracy promotion programs
are the most likely areas to face modest funding cuts under H.R. 3422.
Population and Family Planning Assistance. Another aspect of the discussion
regarding policy priorities of U.S. development aid is the continuing controversy
regarding international family planning restrictions. For FY2000, the President sought
$400 million for USAID population programs, a $15 million increase over FY1999
levels. The principal dispute over population assistance, however, goes well beyond
funding issues, centering more directly on abortion-related activities of foreign
recipients of USAID grants. For over a decade, Congress has engaged in contentious
debates over U.S. international family planning policy, often as part of the Foreign
Operations Appropriations. Twice, congressional positions on this issue have been
one of the major reasons prompting a presidential veto.
U.S. international family planning programs had been one of the largest growth
areas of the foreign aid budget in the 1990s. From an average of about $250 million
in the late 1980s, FY1995 spending across all Foreign Operations accounts totaled
approximately $548 million. In the following years, when Congress deadlocked over
abortion-related restrictions and U.S. population aid policy, a situation that blocked
movement of the entire Foreign Operations bill, lawmakers adopted interim provisions
that, among other things, strictly limited the amount of funding for USAID family
planning programs. The appropriation cap of $385 million enacted in each of FY1997-
1999 is roughly two-thirds the amount provided in FY1995. As a result of the
impasse over abortion restrictions, Congress established a delayed timetable for
making these funds available, a schedule that included monthly apportionments or
“metering” of the appropriation.
A second issue in the population aid debate, and one directly connected to
funding reductions and metering of the past four years, deals with abortion restrictions
and the eligibility requirements for foreign organizations receiving funds to implement
U.S.-sponsored family planning programs. During the mid-1980s, in what has

become known as the “Mexico City” policy, the Reagan, and later the Bush,
Administration, restricted funds for foreign non-governmental organizations that were
involved in performing or promoting abortions in countries where they worked, even
if such activities were undertaken with non-U.S. funds. Several groups, including
International Planned Parenthood Federation-London (IPPF), became ineligible for
U.S. financial support. In some years, Congress narrowly approved measures to
overturn this prohibition, but White House vetoes kept the policy in place. President
Clinton in 1993 reversed the position of his two predecessors, allowing the United
States to resume funding for all family planning organizations so long as U.S. money
was not used in abortion-related work.
During the past four years, the House and Senate have taken opposing positions
on the Mexico City issue that in each case held up enactment of the final Foreign
Operations spending measure. The House position, sponsored by Representative
Smith (N.J.) and others, supported reinstatement of the Mexico City policy restricting
U.S. aid funds to foreign organizations involved in performing abortions or in
lobbying to change abortion laws or policies in foreign countries. The Senate, on the
other side, has rejected House provisions dealing with Mexico City policy, favoring
a policy that leaves these decisions in the hands of the Administration. Moreover,
Administration officials have stated that President Clinton would veto any bills that
include the House-passed Mexico City restrictions, a threat he carried out in October
1998 when he rejected legislation authorizing family planning programs that included
Mexico City policy (H.R. 1757).
Unable to reach an agreement satisfactory to both sides, Congress has adopted
interim arrangements for FY1996-1999 that do not resolve the broad population
program controversy, but has permitted the stalled Foreign Operations measure to
move forward. It was hoped that the arrangement, which neither side liked, would
provide incentives for those involved in the debate to find a middle ground. Under
the terms of the FY1999 temporary arrangement, as included in P.L. 105-277,
Congress deleted the House-supported Mexico City restrictions, limited population
aid funding to $385 million, down from $435 million passed by the Senate, and
delayed, or “metered” the availability of the funds at a rate of one-twelfth of the $385
million per month.
Congress further enacted for FY1999 a ban on U.S. contributions to the U.N.
Population Fund (UNFPA), a prohibition that had been in place during the Reagan
and Bush Administrations but which was lifted by President Clinton in 1993. At issue
are UNFPA programs in China, a country where there have been continuing reports
for many years of coercive family planning practices. During the mid-1990s,
Congress reduced UNFPA contributions by an amount the organization spent in
China, but when UNFPA ended its China program in 1997, the controversy subsided.
UNFPA, however, reinstituted activities in China soon thereafter, resulting in the
withholding in FY1998 of $5 million for UNFPA and the enactment for FY1999 of
a total prohibition on the U.S. $25 million contribution, so long as the organization

remained active in China. Nevertheless, the Clinton Administration sought $25
million for the UNFPA in FY2000.9
A new element in the family planning issue added during the FY1999 debate
emerged following reports that Peru, where USAID has population aid programs, had
established national targets for tubal ligations and vasectomies There were also
allegations that some Peruvian health workers may have conditioned the receipt of
food and medical care on the acceptance of sterilizations. USAID maintains a policy
of strict voluntarism for family planning programs it supports, and opposes the use of
performance-based quota systems. The Agency says that Peru’s government has
instituted significant reforms in its family planning programs, including criteria that
ensure voluntary informed consent. To reinforce U.S. policies opposing programs
based on coercive practices or quota systems, Congress adopted for FY1999 an
amendment by Representative Tiahrt that more precisely defines the term, voluntary
family planning programs, and establishes criteria for USAID to apply regarding the10
voluntary nature of its population projects. (For more information, see CRS Issue
Brief 96026, U.S. International Population Assistance, Issues for Congress, by Larry
Congressional Action. S. 1234, as approved by the Senate, increased family
planning funds within the development aid account from the $355 million request to
$425 million. Across all accounts, including ESF, NIS, and SEED programs, the
Senate recommendation would set population aid at about $470 million, a $70 million
increase above the Administration’s overall $400 million recommendation. The bill
further earmarked UNFPA funding at $25 million, as requested.
The House measure, like previous bills, capped family planning assistance at
$385 million. But unlike enacted Foreign Operations laws the past few years, the

9In related legislative action, the House International Relations Committee on April 29, 1999,
reported an omnibus State Department authorization bill, H.R. 1211, that earmarks $25
million for UNFPA in FY2000. U.S. contributions, however, would be conditioned on how
UNFPA operates in China; namely, that UNFPA programs focus on improving the delivery
of voluntary family planning information and services, and that UNFPA works only in
counties where participant quotas and targets have been abolished and coercive practices
terminated. The full Committee overturned a subcommittee recommendation to prohibit U.S.
contributions to UNFPA, unless the President certified that UNFPA had withdrawn from
China or that China no longer engaged in coercive family planning practices. In subsequent
debate on a revised, substitute bill (H.R. 2415), the House rejected an amendment by
Representative Smith that would have restored the subcommittee prohibition and instead
adopted a Campbell amendment authorizing $25 million for the UNFPA, but making it subject
to a dollar-for-dollar reduction by however much UNFPA spends in China.
10Following adoption of the Tiahrt amendment in the 105th Congress, the House, on March 23,
1999, passed a non-binding resolution (H.Res. 118) re-emphasizing the voluntary nature of
international family planning programs. The resolution was aimed at a meeting of the U.N.
General Assembly in late June that reviewed and appraised the implementation of the program
of action of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development. Sponsors of
H.Res. 118 reportedly wanted to signal the conference that Congress believes that all family
planning programs should be completely voluntary, avoid numerical targets, and provide
recipients complete information on methods.

House bill would not “meter” the availability of these funds. An amendment offered
by Representative Pelosi at the House Committee’s markup restored the $25 million
request for the U.N. Population Fund, but made it subject to a reduction by whatever
amount UNFPA spends in China in 2000.
During floor debate, the House adopted two competing and apparently
conflicting amendments affecting U.S. international family planning policy. On a 228-
200 vote, the House approved a modified Mexico City policy amendment by
Representative Smith (NJ) prohibiting U.S. funds to foreign NGOs that perform
abortions or lobby to change abortion laws in foreign countries, regardless of whether
such activities are financed with U.S. funds. The House also adopted (221-208) a
counter amendment by Representative Greenwood permitting U.S. grants to foreign
NGOs as long as they do not use U.S.-provided money to perform abortions or
violate abortion laws in foreign nations. The Greenwood amendment further requires
such organizations to support programs that reduce the incidence of abortion as a
method of family planning. Because the Smith language is more restrictive
concerning foreign NGO eligibility for receiving USAID grants, it would be the
operative text if both amendments are enacted. Requirements in the Greenwood
provision that NGOs support programs reducing abortions as a method of family
planning and adhere to abortion laws in foreign countries, nevertheless, would also
apply should conferees adopt both positions. Theoretically, however, some foreign
NGOs that would be eligible recipients of USAID grants under the Greenwood
amendment would be barred from receiving U.S. population aid under the Smith
restrictions. The White House said the President would veto any bill that included the
Smith language.
As has been the case in the past, the Foreign Operations conference committee
meeting could not resolve the House-Senate differences on the family planning issue.
Senate conferees insisted that UNFPA funding remain in the bill, while their House
counterparts agreed to drop the modified Mexico City abortion restrictions contained
in the Smith amendment if the UNFPA contribution was also removed. Following
further negotiations, conferees agreed to continue current law regarding population
aid funding levels and abortion restrictions — that is, $385 million, metered on a
monthly basis, but the deletion of both the Smith and Greenwood amendments. They
also added the $25 million UNFPA earmark, with conditions that passed the House
and Senate.
The revised Foreign Operations bill (H.R. 3422) makes no changes to the
conference agreement of H.R. 2606 regarding UNFPA funding and conditions, but
the issue of abortion restrictions became one of the last and most contentious issues
resolved in the final budget package. When congressional leaders refused to include
U.N. arrearage payments without revised Mexico City language, the White House
reluctantly agreed to the abortion restrictions. This is the first time that Mexico City
restrictions are included in legislation. Under the terms of H.R. 3422, private foreign
non-governmental and multilateral organizations that either perform abortions or
lobby to change abortion laws in foreign countries are prohibited from receiving
USAID population aid grants. The President can waive the restrictions for up to $15
million in grants, but if he does, population aid funding declines from $385 million to
$372.5 million. The restrictions apply only to FY2000 and will expire on September

30, 2000. Although the President used his waiver authority on November 30 and the

impact on U.S.-funded family planning programs is expected to be minimal, critics of
abortion restrictions are concerned primarily about the precedent that is set and the
effect it will have on another contentious debate in Congress next year when the
current restrictions expire.
Regional Allocations of U.S. Foreign Aid and the Request for an Africa-
specific Account. Although the Middle East has received by far the largest
proportion of U.S. assistance over the past three decades — 55-63% of bilateral aid
appropriated in Foreign Operations spending measures in most years— allocations to
other regions have fluctuated considerably, especially since the end of the Cold War.
Asia, which received substantial assistance in the 1980s associated with the presence
of U.S. military bases in the Philippines, had its share drop to 16% to 4% by FY1997.
Latin America, where Central American governments were confronted with internal
conflict, had its share drop from 16% to 6%. Africa’s proportion remained about the
same — 7-8% — a development that disappointed those who argued that the world’s
poorest region should receive higher priority, especially with the reduction in
emphasis on security assistance. U.S. aid to the emerging democracies and market-
oriented economies in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, where the United
States had no programs prior to 1990, grew to represent 14% of American bilateral
assistance funded in the Foreign Operations bill for FY1997.
Table 6. Regional Allocations of U.S. Aid
(in millions of dollars; % of bilateral total in Foreign Operations)
FY1998 FY1999 FY2000
Estimate Estimate* Request
$s% of total$s% of total$s% of total
Africa 804 9.4% 883 9.0% 893 10.0%
Asia 338 3.9% 325 3.6% 424 4.8%
E. Europe/former Soviet1,49217.4%1,64216.7%1,60018.0%
Latin America6357.4%1,53515.6%7358.3%
Middle East5,32462.0%5,47155.5%5,24158.9%
Total, Bilateral Aid8,593100%9,856100%8,893100%
Source: USAID. Amounts in the this table exclude food aid funded in the Agriculture
Appropriations measure.
*FY1999 estimates include supplemental appropriations for Central America hurricane
reconstruction ($621 million), economic aid for countries surrounding Kosovo ($225 million),
and assistance to Jordan ($100 million).

A number of observers, including some Members and congressional committees,
believed these shifts in regional aid allocations had swung too far. This was
particularly true in the cases of Asia and Latin America, given the Asian financial
crises and significant U.S. interests to promote economic development in Latin
America in order to counter the trend of rising illegal immigration to the United
States. Foreign Operations appropriations measures the past two years have
emphasized the need to maintain or increase assistance especially to Latin America.
In the case of Africa, others argued that not enough has been reallocated to offer
sufficient help to meet the region’s unmet needs and to promote future U.S.-African
trade opportunities.
As the share of bilateral Foreign Operations funding for the Middle East
exceeded 60%, some in Congress began promoting the view that there should be
some limits to the amount provided and that if the Administration wanted to pursue
new Middle East peace initiatives using foreign aid as an implementing tool, resources
should be found within existing Middle East programs and not be taken from other
Accordingly, for FY1998 Congress took steps to legislate a cap on Foreign
Operations resources for the Middle East. At the initiative of Representative
Callahan, Chairman of the House Foreign Operations Subcommittee, lawmakers
stipulated in the FY1998 funding measure (Section 586 of P.L. 105-118) that selected
Middle East nations and regional programs could not receive more than $5.4 billion
of the total appropriation. Following this, Israel put forth in January 1998 a plan to
cut its aid over the next ten to twelve years. The concept behind the Israeli initiative
to decrease assistance from the United States was first raised by Prime Minister
Netanyahu in a speech before a joint session of Congress on July 10, 1996. As
outlined to congressional and Administration officials by Israeli Finance Minister
Neeman in late January 1998, the United States would cut economic aid by $120
million each year for about ten years, while increasing military assistance by $60
million annually. At the end of the period, Israel would be receiving an annual
appropriation of $2.4 billion in military aid but no longer receiving any economic
assistance. If done over a ten-year period, U.S. aid to Israel would fall $60 million
each year in net terms, with a total savings of $600 million by 2009. For FY1999,
Congress supported the $60 million net reduction of aid to Israel, also adding a similar
$40 economic aid cut for Egypt.
The President’s FY2000 Foreign Operations request reflected several of these
regional allocation views expressed by Congress in recent years. Highlights of the
Administration’s recommendations include the following.
Creation of the Development Fund for Africa Account. After a three-year
absence, the President asked Congress to re-establish a separate Foreign Operations
account for African aid and to increase funding slightly over FY1999 levels. Ten
years ago, Congress and the Administration launched a joint initiative to create special
legislative authority for U.S. economic aid to Africa. The Development Fund for
Africa (DFA — authorized in Chapter 10 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) was
intended to extend more flexibility to USAID program managers and to protect aid
resources for Africa from being transferred to other regions as new foreign policy

crises unfolded. At its peak, the United States channeled about $800 million annually
through the DFA.
Although the DFA authorization law remained in force, Congress ended the
practice of a direct DFA appropriation in FY1996, funding Africa’s assistance out of
worldwide development aid and child survival accounts. Following President
Clinton’s visit to Africa in 1998, during which he pledged to restore U.S. aid to higher
levels provided in previous years, the Administration has proposed a direct DFA
appropriation account for FY2000. The budget includes $745 million for African
development aid, including funds from both the DFA and Child Survival accounts.
Combined with funds requested under the Economic Support Fund, largely for
democracy and economic growth initiatives, and smaller amounts of military
assistance, the FY2000 budget includes $893 million for Africa. This compares to
FY1999 allocations of $883 million.
Increased Funding for Asia. The FY2000 foreign aid budget proposed
significant increases in assistance programs throughout the Asian region. The $424
million requested is nearly $100 million, or 30% higher than allocations for FY1999.
This represents the largest percentage increase sought in the FY2000 foreign aid
request for any of the five major regions under USAID’s portfolio. Much of the
increased funding is for a new East Asian economic recovery initiative. This multi-
year plan, administered by USAID, would support job creation opportunities, social
safety net programs, transparency and anti-corruption activities, and regional
economic recovery programs. The Administration plans to spend about $53 million
for the initiative out of both development aid and ESF accounts. The Administration
is also proposing an expansion of various East and South Asian regional programs
aimed at meeting global climate change goals and deterring forest and marine/coastal
zone degradation, and promoting democratization and governance initiatives in South
Asia. The FY2000 budget request further includes a new item: a $5 million program
to counter violence against women and to promote increased participation by women
in the political process.
Modest Increases for Most Latin America Programs; Central America
Reconstruction Supplemental. Excluding counter-narcotics assistance and
emergency Central American hurricane relief, Latin America would receive a modest
increase in U.S. assistance for FY2000. (The FY1999 Omnibus Appropriation Act
included a separate emergency supplemental for drug control programs — most of
which was earmarked for Colombia — that doubled the regular counter-narcotics
budget.) The $735 million proposed level for the region is roughly 8% higher than
the “base” allocations for FY1999, after adjusting for the supplemental drug and
Central America disaster funds. The most significant regional initiative Congress
addressed in 1999 was a supplemental for reconstruction and other assistance for the
victims of Hurricanes Mitch and Georges, which struck Central America and the
Caribbean in 1998, and the more recent earthquake in Colombia. Of the $1 billion
appropriated for hurricane relief and reconstruction (enacted in P.L. 106-31), $621
million will finance a Central America and Caribbean Recovery Fund to assist
Nicaragua, Honduras, and other states to re-build their countries.
Middle East Aid Reduced for FY2000, but Large Supplemental Package
Sought for Wye Peace Accord. The President’s FY2000 foreign aid request for the

Middle East reduced slightly U.S. assistance to the region — from $5.47 billion
enacted for FY1999 to $5.24 billion proposed for next year. The $230 million
reduction stemmed largely from larger-than-expected cuts in assistance for Israel and
Egypt. Many assumed when Congress first began this downsizing in FY1999, that
phased cuts would continue at a steady pace of $100 million per year for ten years.
The FY2000 proposal, however, recommends a cut of $150 million: $60 million for
Egypt and $90 million (net) for Israel. Administration officials say that they still
intend to follow the ten-year time period, but that they have not established a firm
pace at which amounts would be reduced. The budget also included a $1.9 billion
supplemental/advance appropriation proposal — to be allocated over three years —
in support of the Wye Memorandum and the next phase in the Middle East peace
process. The $1.9 billion Wye Memorandum proposal would provide $900 million
in FY1999 and an advance appropriation of $500 million in both of FY2000 and
FY2001. Israel would receive $1.2 billion, the Palestinians and Jordan, $400 million
and $300 million, respectively.
Although the President had hoped that Congress would dispense with this
proposal as part of an FY1999 supplemental (P.L. 106-31), Congress only considered
$100 million requested for Jordan in FY1999, deferring the balance to subsequent
legislation, including the Foreign Operations measure for FY2000.
Sharp Increase in Aid to Russia and Other Former Soviet States. In dollar
terms, U.S. assistance to Russia and the other Newly Independent States (NIS) of the
former Soviet Union would grow more than for any other region. The $1.032 billion
FY2000 request for the NIS account is $185 million, or 22% higher than for this year;
aid to Russia would rise from $172 million in FY1999 to $295 million. The increase
sought for FY2000, however, is totally the result of a $241 million Expanded Threat
Reduction Assistance Initiative planned to be launched in Russia and other NIS
countries next year. The ETR initiative is aimed at reducing the risks of weapons
proliferation, weapons delivery systems, materials, and technology, and the transfer
of scientific and technical expertise. The $241 million requested in Foreign Operations
spending is part of a larger $1 billion Administration proposal for increasing amounts
dedicated to proliferation issues in the NIS, with the remaining funds coming from the
Departments of Defense ($486 million) and Energy ($265 million). (For more
information, see CRS Report RS20203, The Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative
for the Former Soviet Union: Administration Proposals for FY2000, by Amy Woolf
and Curt Tarnoff, and CRS Issue Brief 95077, The Former Soviet Union and U.S.
Foreign Assistance, by Curt Tarnoff.)
Congressional Action. The conference agreement on H.R. 2606 made a number
of changes to the President’s regional and country aid proposals, some of which were
significant factors in the President’s decision to veto the bill. The second Foreign
Operations measure (H.R. 3422) makes several adjustments that accommodate a
number of executive concerns:
!Kosovo and other Balkan reconstruction assistance would grow considerably
under the bill’s $535 million earmark for East European assistance. This
represents no change from the vetoed H.R. 2606.

!Funding levels for former Soviet states received a major boost in the revised
Foreign Operations bill from amounts approved in H.R. 2606. The new bill
sets spending at $839 million — up $104 million from H.R. 2606 — a level
$38 million higher than FY1999, but $193 million less than requested for
FY2000. H.R. 3422 earmarks $241 million for the one of the President’s top
priorities, the counter-proliferation Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative.
Other earmarks for Ukraine, Armenia, and Georgia protect funding for these
countries, while allocations for Russia and several other former Soviet states
might be reduced because of overall account reductions and the earmarks.
!Middle East assistance, especially for Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, would be
funded at or above requested levels for regular aid programs. Moreover, the
new Foreign Operations measure fully funds the Wye River accord, the
absence of which in H.R. 2606 had been a primary reason for the veto.
!Given the worldwide reductions in H.R. 2606 under both the development
assistance and ESF accounts, it was likely that spending in Africa, Latin
America, and Asia would fall below the President’s request. An additional
$168.5 million in ESF aid added in H.R. 3422 will reduce this impact
somewhat, although the decisions of how to allocate the specific cuts will be
up to the Administration. H.R. 3422 further does not re-establish a separate
Development Fund for Africa, as proposed.
Korean Energy Development Organization (KEDO) and U.S. North Korea
Policy. At the heart of the Clinton Administration’s North Korea policy is the 1994
U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework, an arrangement under which the United States
provides the DPRK with a package of nuclear, energy, economic, and diplomatic
benefits, in exchange for suspension by North Korea in the operations and
infrastructure development of its nuclear program. As part of the accord, two new
light water nuclear reactors will be constructed — financed largely by South Korea
and Japan — to replace the nuclear facilities shut down under the Agreed Framework
that have the potential to produce nuclear weapons grade material. While the new
reactors are being built, the United States and other nations have been contributing
funds to the Korean Energy Development Organization (KEDO) for the purchase of
heavy fuel oil to supplement North Korea’s power and electricity production.
Administration officials previously estimated that annual KEDO contributions,
appropriated in the Foreign Operations bill, would total about $20-$30 million.
The Administration’s policy of engagement with North Korea and the approach
outlined in the Agreed Framework have been a frequent source of controversy in
congressional debates in recent years. But a series of actions in 1998 by the North
Korean government — missile sales to Iran, suspected construction of a new nuclear
site, and the launch of a rocket that traveled over Japanese airspace — prompted a
sharp reaction from congressional critics, during which the House voted to prohibit
the President’s FY1999 $35 million request for KEDO.
Although lawmakers ultimately agreed to provide the $35 million payment of
heavy fuel oil, Congress attached stiff conditions that had to be met in 1999 prior to
the full transfer of funds. Under terms provided in P.L. 105-277, the first $15 million
became available only after March 4, 1999, when the President certified that progress

was occurring on implementing several nuclear-related agreements with North Korea,
that the DPRK was cooperating fully in the canning and storage of all spent fuel from
its graphite-moderated nuclear reactors, that North Korea had not diverted any
assistance, and that the U.S. was moving ahead with efforts to block DPRK's
development and export of ballistic missiles.
The remaining $20 million became available June 1 following a second
presidential certification that progress has been made on the nuclear and ballistic
missile issues, and that the U.S. and North Korea had agreed on the means to satisfy
U.S. concerns about the DPRK's suspect underground construction. P.L. 105-277
further limited the President's "special" waiver authority (Section 614 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961), blocking its use to provide more than $35 million to KEDO
in FY1999. In addition, Congress required the President to appoint a senior North
Korea Policy Coordinator by January 1, 1999, to review U.S.-DPRK policy and to
direct negotiations with North Korea. The President named former Secretary of
Defense William Perry to the position in late 1998.
The review of North Korean policy was delayed until after a visit by Secretary
Perry to North Korea in May and a separate visit by U.S. inspectors to the suspected
underground nuclear site. In a preliminary report, the inspectors said, that although
they found an extensive underground tunnel complex, work had ceased, the tunnels
were empty, and there was not evidence that North Korea was in violation of the
Agreed Framework. Reportedly, North Korea had been demanding payment for a
U.S. inspection, something the United States rejected. Nevertheless, shortly
following the mid-March announcement by the State Department that North Korea
had agreed to multiple site visits, officials said that the United States would proceed
with a bilateral pilot agricultural project designed to improve potato production in
North Korea and contribute an additional 200,000 metric tons of food aid to help
North Korea deal with its continuing food shortage and widespread starvation and
malnutrition. This was followed by an another 400,000 food pledge on May 17.
While officials argue that food assistance is based solely on humanitarian
considerations and need, some observers contend there is a connection between
arrangements to visit the suspected nuclear site and the food decision.
Beyond issues related to conditions in last year’s Foreign Operations measure
and the release of FY1999 funds for KEDO, Congress considered this year the
Administration’s $55 million request for KEDO payments in FY2000. The proposal
is the highest since the U.S. first began financing heavy fuel oil in FY1995, largely due
to past shortfalls in U.S. funding and lower-than-anticipated contributions from other
nations. (For further information, see CRS Issue Brief 91141, North Korea’s Nuclear
Weapons Program, by Larry Niksch.)
Congressional Action. H.R. 3422, drawing on the same language in H.R. 2606,
reduces the President’s $55 million KEDO request to $35 million and, like for
FY1999, makes available the first $15 million before June 1, 2000, and $20 million
after June 1, subject to certain Presidential certifications regarding North Korea’s
nuclear program, ballistic missile threat, and several other items. The President may
waive the certification requirements for vital national security interests. The bill
further drops a House-passed provision that would have blocked the President from

reprogramming funds to increase the $35 million appropriation if he chose to do so
at a later date.
Debt Reduction Initiatives for Poor Countries. Providing debt relief to poor
developing nations that borrowed in the past from the United States, other creditor
governments, and international financial institutions has emerged as one of the key
issues in the Foreign Operations debate for FY2000, the result of several factors.
First, the Administration’s initial request of $120 million was nearly four times the
amount appropriated for FY1999 in support of continuing debt reduction programs
and two new activities for FY2000. Secondly, encouraged by various international
campaigns promoting more expansive debt relief that will target poverty reduction,
including the Jubilee 2000 movement,11 several congressional initiatives have been
introduced in 1999 that go beyond the President’s FY2000 request. Further, on
March 16, 1999, the White House announced more ambitious U.S. debt reduction
policies for the world’s most heavily indebted poor nations. At the G-7 Summit in
June, the President's new policy was largely endorsed by the other major creditor
governments. Finally, during World Bank/IMF meetings in September the institutions
endorsed the G-7 proposals for reforming the Heavily Indebted Poor Country (HIPC)
For the past decade, the United States has engaged in various forms of debt relief
for developing nations, resulting in the cancellation of about $14.4 billion of foreign
debt. Much of it — $10.1 billion — resulted from special cases involving key U.S.
national interests: for Egypt in 1990 ($7 billion), for Poland in 1991 ($2.5 billion), and
for Jordan in 1995 ($635 million). U.S. debt reduction policy for other nations based
strictly on need has been guided by the principle that eligible countries must have
demonstrated a strong and sustained commitment to economic policy reforms prior
to receiving debt relief. Under budget rules instituted in 1992, Congress has had to
appropriate funds in advance representing the costs of canceling debt. The cost
determination methodology is based on a complicated formula that takes into account
among other things, the loan’s net present value, its interest rate, and the likelihood
the loan will be repaid. For especially poor countries with particularly large debt
overhangs, the appropriation requirement may be quite small relative to the loan’s
face value — perhaps 10% or less.
When it was first introduced in 1996, HIPC was hailed as the first arrangement
that included relief from debts owed to the World Bank, the IMF, and other
international institutions, organizations that hold over 25% of debt held by the most
heavily indebted nations. Previously, multilateral organizations had declined to
participate in debt cancellation, arguing that it would increase their costs of raising
new money to lend, expenses that would have to be passed on to borrowers. Forty-
one countries — mostly in Africa — are eligible for HIPC, although only 29 likely
have “unsustainable” debt, a further criterion for being a HIPC participant. Countries

11 Launched at the June 1997 G-8 Denver Summit, the Jubilee 2000 campaign is spearheaded
primarily by Catholic and Protestant organizations from over 60 countries, together with other
religious and non-governmental organizations. The principal aim of Jubilee 2000 is to achieve
unconditional debt forgiveness for the most heavily indebted poor countries by the year 2000
on terms that will maximize the benefits for the poorest segments of the population.

deemed eligible for HIPC terms may have their bilateral public debt reduced by 80%
after they have maintained a record of strong economic performance for as much as
six years. At present, Uganda, Bolivia, and Mozambique are the only nations that
enjoy full HIPC benefits.
Strong critics of HIPC emerged, especially among non-governmental
organizations and religious groups working in developing countries. They charge that
HIPC terms are not deep enough — that 90% or 100% of bilateral debt owed should
be canceled and multilateral debt write-offs should go further — and that six years is
far too long a period for countries to qualify. They further believe that the non-
sustainable debt criteria, based largely on a ratio of a country’s debt-to-exports, is too
high and therefore excludes many countries that are also in need of debt relief. Some
critics oppose the economic reform requirements and argue for unconditional debt
reduction. A number of organizations further advocate instituting mechanisms that
would ensure that savings realized by debtor governments would be channeled into
spending on basic services, such as health and education, that would improve the
quality of life of the very poor. Many of these arguments are reflected in legislative
initiatives launched in 1999, including H.R. 1095 (Debt Relief Poverty Reduction Act
of 1999), H.R. 772 (Hope for Africa Act), and H.R. 2232 (Debt Relief and
Development in Africa Act of 1999). Complicating enactment of such bills, however,
is the large additional costs that would be associated with efforts to broaden, deepen,
and accelerate HIPC or U.S. bilateral debt reduction policies.
For FY2000, the President sought in February 1999 $120 million for three debt
reduction activities funded under the Foreign Operations legislation. But between
March and June the White House expanded U.S. debt reduction policy addressing
many of the concerns expressed by HIPC critics. The President’s new initiative, much
of which was endorsed by other leaders at the June G-7 economic summit in Cologne,
would provide deeper debt relief to more poor developing countries. Some of these
steps are similar to those proposed in pending legislation — especially H.R. 1095 —
although all congressional initiatives would expand HIPC beyond the Administration’s
revised policy. Reflecting the higher costs of an enhanced HIPC initiative, the White
House sent to Congress on September 21 an $850 million budget amendment to cover
the anticipated U.S. costs. The revised $970 million total request over three years
have the following major components:
!$110 million (plus $210 million more in FY2001-2003) to continue U.S.
bilateral debt relief agreements for reforming poor countries.
!$210 million (plus $390 million more in FY2001-2003) for U.S. contributions
to the HIPC Trust Fund. While the World Bank and the IMF will finance their
own participation in HIPC, some multilateral organizations, such as the African
Development Bank, do not have the necessary resources to extend debt relief
to their debtors. The Trust Fund, which has received contributions of over
$450 million from about 19 countries, is designed to assist these international
agencies to reduce debt owed by eligible HIPC nations.
!$50 million for debt relief to countries that are committed to protecting their
tropical forests. Congress enacted last year the Tropical Forest Conservation
Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-214), authorizing the President to buy back, swap, or

cancel concessional U.S. economic and food aid loans in order to generate
local currencies that will be used to support tropical forest conservation
Congressional Action. The $33 million appropriation for debt reduction, limited
entirely for bilateral relief, was a major factor in the President’s decision to veto H.R.
2606. While the revised Foreign Operations bill adds $90 million for bilateral debt
cancellation, no U.S. contributions can be made to the HIPC Trust Fund and funding
for FY2001-2003 must be dealt with in the future. Nevertheless, in separate
legislation (H.R. 3425) that is also enacted by reference in the Consolidated
Appropriations measure, the White House gained congressional approval an
authorization that would allow the United States to vote in favor of an IMF off-
market gold sale that will finance the Fund’s costs of HIPC participation.
FY1999 Supplemental Appropriations and Foreign Operations
Congress considered several major FY1999 supplemental appropriation requests
as part of S. 544 and H.R. 1141, and a separate emergency Kosovo military and
humanitarian initiative. H.R. 1141, which cleared Congress and was signed by the
President on May 21 (P.L. 106-31), includes $1 billion for Central American and
Caribbean reconstruction aid in the wake of hurricanes that struck the region in late

1998; $100 million for Jordan, the most urgently sought portion of a $1.9 billion,

three-year aid package for Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinians to help implement the
terms of the Wye Memorandum negotiated in October 1998; and $819 million in
humanitarian and refugee aid to Kosovo and surrounding countries. All of the Middle
East and Kosovo assistance, and nearly $700 million of the Central American relief
package fall under the jurisdiction of the Foreign Operations measure.
Because of congressional decisions to offset the costs of the new spending,
however, the President threatened to veto preliminary House and Senate bills.
Proposed offsets — cuts to existing appropriations — affected Foreign Operations
programs especially in H.R. 1141. Among the most controversial offsets in the House
bill was the rescission of $648 million in callable capital appropriated prior to 1980
that is used by multilateral development banks to leverage borrowing in global
markets and to maintain their high credit ratings. Administration officials claimed this
might lead to higher borrowing costs by the World Bank and others, and thereby,
recommend that the President veto the legislation. H.R. 1141 would have further cut
existing funds for the Export-Import Bank and USAID development assistance
programs. As enacted, most of the Foreign Operations offsets were dropped, except
for a $25 million rescission of prior appropriations for U.S. contributions to the
Global Environment Facility, and $5 million in ESF funding. (For further information,
see CRS Report RL30083, Supplemental Appropriations for FY1999: Central
America Disaster Aid, Middle East Peace, and Other Initiatives, by Larry Nowels.)

For Additional Reading
Foreign Operations Programs
CRS Issue Brief 88093. Drug Control: International Policy, by Raphael Perl.
CRS Issue Brief 96008. Multilateral Development Banks: Issues for the 106th
Congress, by Jonathan Sanford.
CRS Issue Brief 86116. U.N. System Funding, by Vita Bite.
CRS Issue Brief 96026. U.S. International Population Assistance: Issues for
Congress, by Larry Nowels.
Foreign Operations Country/Regional Issues
CRS Issue Brief 95052. Africa: U.S. Foreign Assistance Issues, by Raymond
CRS Issue Brief 95077. The Former Soviet Union and U.S. Foreign Assistance, by
Curt Tarnoff.
CRS Issue Brief 85066. Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance, by Clyde Mark.
CRS Issue Brief 91141. North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program, by Larry Niksch.

Selected World Wide Web Sites
Asian Development Bank
CRS Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division
Export-Import Bank
Inter-American Development Bank
International Monetary Fund
Peace Corps
Trade and Development Agency
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
United Nations Development Program (UNDP)
U.S. Agency for International Development
U.S. Department of State
World Bank

Appendix — Detailed Foreign Operations Accounts
Table 7. Foreign Operations Appropriations:
Discretionary Budget Authority
(millions of dollars)
ProgramFY1999EnactedFY2000RequestaHouseHR 2606SenateS 1234HR 2606Conf.FY2000Enacted
Title I - Export and Investment Assistance:
Export-Import Bank790.00881.0799.0825.0799.0799.0
Overseas Private Investment Corp.(175.4)(244.0)(247.5)(247.5)(244.0)(244.0)
OPIC-Emergency Y2K2.1----------
Trade & Development Agency44.
Total, Title I - Export Aid660.7685.0595.5620.5599.0599.0
Title II - Bilateral Economic:
Development Assistance:b
Child Survival/Disease/UNICEF 650.0700.0685.0--715.0727.5c
Child Survival-Emergency Supp50.0----------
Development Asst Fund1,225.0817.11,201.01,928.51,228.01,215.5c
Development Fund for Africa-.-d512.6d—--——
Subtotal 1,925.0 2,029.7 1,886.0 1,928.5 1,943.0 1,943.0
Of which:
UNICEF [100.0] [100.0] [110.0] [105.0] [110.0] [110.0] c
Population aid[385.0][400.0][385.0][425.0][385.0][372.5]
Africa aid[730.0][745.0][735.0]------
Inter-American Foundation[20.0][22.3][5.0]--[5.0][5.0]
African Development Foundation[11.0][14.4][14.4][12.5][14.4][14.4]
International Disaster Aid200.0220.0200.9175.0175.9202.9
Central Amer Disaster-Emerg Supp25.0----------
Kosovo Disaster-Emergency Supp163.0----------
Micro/Small Enterprise programs2.
Urban/Environment credit program6.
Subtotal, Development Aid2,321.52,259.72,093.92,111.02,127.42,154.4
USAID Operating Expenses480.0522.7479.7495.0495.0520.0
USAID-Emergency Y2K10.2----------
USAID Inspector General30.825.325.
Economic Support Fund (ESF)2,367.02,393.02,177.02,195.02,177.02,345.5
ESF-Emergency Supp.-Kenya/Tanz.50.0----------
ESF-Wye River Accorde50.0450.
ESF-Balkans Emergency Supp105.0----------
ESF-E. Timor Elections Supp6.5----------
ESF rescission(5.0)----------
International Fund for Ireland19.6[19.6]f19.6--19.619.6
East Europe430.0393.0393.0535.0535.0535.0

ProgramFY1999EnactedFY2000RequestaHouseHR 2606SenateS 1234HR 2606Conf.FY2000Enacted
E. Europe-Balkans Emergency Supp120.0----------
Former Soviet Union (IS/FSU)801.01,032.0725.0780.0735.0839.0
FSU Emergency Supplemental46.0----------
Central America-Emergency Supp621.0----------
Debt reduction, FY2000g33.0370.
Debt reduction, FY2001-2003g—[600.0][0.0][0.0][0.0][0.0]
Debt reduction-Emergency Supp41.0----------
Treasury Dept. technical asst1.
Treasury-IFI&IMF Comm Supp1.5----------
U.S. Community Adjustment Credits10.017.00.0----10.0
Peace Corps240.0270.0240.0220.0235.0245.0
Intl Narcotics261.0295.0285.0215.0285.0h305.0h
Intl Narcotics-Emergency Supp232.6----------
Intl Narcotics-Emergency Supp23.0----------
Migration & refugee asst640.0660.0640.0610.0625.0h625.0h
Kosovo Refugees-Emergency Supp266.0--------
Emergency Refugee Fund (ERMA)
ERMA-Kosovo Emergency Supp165.0----------
Non-Proliferation/anti-terrorism 198.0 231.0 181.6 175.0 181.6 216.6
Terrorism-Emergency Supp20.0----------
Terrorism Commission-Supp0.8----------
Religious Freedom Comm.-Supp3.0----------
Total, Title II- Bilateral Economic9,616.28,957.27,374.37,425.57,487.68,427.1
Title III - Military Assistance:
Intl Military Education & Training50.
Foreign Mil Financing (FMF) grants3,330.03,430.03,420.03,410.03,420.03,420.0
FMF-Wye River Accord e50.0b1,350.,375.0
Foreign Mil Financing loan subsidy20.
Special Defense Acquisition Fund(19.0)(6.0)(6.0)(6.0)(6.0)(6.0)
Peacekeeping Operations76.5130.076.580.078.0153.0
Total, Title III-Military Aid3,507.54,956.03,585.53,534.03,542.04,992.0
Title IV - Multilateral Economic Aid:
World Bank-Intl Development Assc800.0803.4568.6776.6625.0775.0
World Bank-Environment Facility192.5143.350.025.035.835.8
of which arrears[192.5][35.8][0.0][25.0][0.0][0.0]
WB Environment Fac.-rescission(25.0)----------
of which arrears[-25.0]----------
World Bank-Mult Invst Guaranty Ag-.-
Inter-American Development Bank96.879.125.625.625.641.6

ProgramFY1999EnactedFY2000RequestaHouseHR 2606SenateS 1234HR 2606Conf.FY2000Enacted
of which arrears[71.2][28.5][0.0][0.0]--[0.0]
Asian Development Bank223.2190.7113.763.790.790.7
of which arrears[187.0][77.0][0.0][50.0][77.0][77.0]
African Development Fund128.0127.0108.00.077.0128.0
of which arrears[88.3][27.0][0.0][0.0][0.0][0.0]
African Development Bank-.-
European Bank for R & D35.835.835.835.835.835.8
Intl Organizations & Programs187.0193.0167.0170.0170.0183.0
Total, Title IV - Multilateral1,638.31,587.41,068.71,111.81,064.91,298.0
of which Mult. Dev. Bank arrears[514.0][168.3][0.0][75.0][77.0][77.0]
Title VI - IMF:
IMF New Arrangements to Borrowi3,361.0-.---------
IMF Quota Increaseh14,500.0-.---------
TOTAL, “Base” Appropriationj13,401.016,185.612,624.012,691.812,693.515,316.1
TOTAL, with FY99 Supplementals15,422.716,185.612,624.012,691.812,693.515,316.1
TOTAL, with FY99 Supp. & IMF33,283.716,185.612,624.012,691.812,693.515,316.1
a. The FY2000 request includes amendments made since the initial submission on Feb. 1, 1999, as well as the
complete three year request for the Wye River/Middle East peace accord.
b. The account structure for development aid differs among various versions of the bills. This table shows a consistent
and comparable account structure based on the conference agreement for development aid, FY2000.
c. Amounts reflect the transfer of $12.5 million from development assistance/population aid to child survival due to
the President’s exercise of his waiver authority to exempt abortion restrictions from applying certain population
d. For FY2000, the Administration requested a separate account under development assistance for Africa (the
Development Fund for Africa, or DFA). African aid was also proposed within the Child Survival account. The
total amount requested for Africa — DFA plus Africa Child Survival — was $745 million. This compares to
an FY1999 level of $730 million appropriated within the Child Survival and Development Assistance Fund
e. The Administration requested $1.9 billion in ESF and FMF funds to support the Wye River Accord over the period
FY1999-2001. Congress approved $100 million of the total for FY1999 and an additional $1.825 billion that
is available through FY2002.
f. The Administration request included the Ireland Fund as part of the Economic Support Fund.
g. On September 21, 1999, the Administration amended its pending budget request for debt reduction, seeking $250
million more for debt reduction in FY2000, and $600 million for FY2001-2003.
h. Of this amount, however, $21 million is not available until September 30, 2000.
i. IMF funding occurs only occasionally — about every five years. There was no request for FY2000.
j. The “Base” Appropriation refers to amounts funded in the regular Foreign Operations Appropriations for FY1999,
as included in Division A of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, FY1999 (P.L. 105-277). Congress approved
additional Foreign Operations funds in two supplemental measures: $411 million for Child Survival programs,
aid to Russia, victims of the Kenya/Tanzania embassy bombings, counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism, and Y2K
upgrades (Division B of P.L. 105-277); and $1.641 billion for Central America hurricane relief, Kosovo
humanitarian assistance, counter-narcotics, and the administration of three foreign affairs commissions. All but
about $5 million of the supplementals were declared “emergencies” and do not count against the Foreign
Operations FY1999 allocation limits. Under special allowances provided in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997,
Foreign Operations Appropriations for multilateral development bank arrearage payments and IMF funds also
do not count against the FY1999 allocation limits