Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1868 - Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, FY 1996

(Senate Floor)
(Sponsors: Hatfield (R), Oregon; McConnell (R), Kentucky)

This Statement of Administration Policy provides the Administration's views on H.R. 1868, the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, FY 1996, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The Administration is committed to balancing the Federal budget by FY 2005. The President's budget proposes to reduce discretionary spending for FY 1996 by $5 billion in outlays below the FY 1995 enacted level. While the Administration supports reducing spending, the amount provided by the Committee falls short of what the Administration believes is needed to implement an effective foreign policy, one that advances the interests of the American people and protects U.S. economic and strategic interests abroad. In addition, the Administration does not share all of the priorities reflected in the Committee bill.

The Administration welcomes a number of actions taken by the Committee, including an increase in the overall funding level above the House level and increases in a number of individual programs that are of high priority to the Administration. The Administration also strongly supports the Committee's removal of some restrictions on funds for non-governmental organizations providing family planning services abroad, the inclusion of authority for the drawdown of military goods and services for Jordan, and the inclusion of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act.

However, the Administration is deeply concerned about several language provisions contained in the Committee bill. The Committee's constraints on support for the Korea Energy Development Organization (KEDO) would frustrate major gains being made to support non-proliferation efforts in North Korea. If the U.S. were to fail to provide funds to support implementation of the agreed framework, the North Koreans would be able to blame the U.S. for not abiding by its commitments. A resumption of the North Korean nuclear weapons program would ultimately cost hundreds of millions of dollars — even billions of dollars — more than the $22 million U.S. contribution to the KEDO.

Provisions of the Committee bill that would deny assistance to Russia because of its relationship with Iran and remove the waiver relating to the maintenance of territorial integrity would threaten a number of major U.S. objectives in Russia. The assistance to Russia, Ukraine, and the rest of the New Independent States is in the interest of the United States. These provisions are not appropriate levers to influence Russian actions. By conditioning or cutting off aid, these provisions would harm the very elements of reform that will bring about essential economic and democratic changes.

The Administration has a number of serious concerns about other provisions of the bill. With regard to resources, additional funding is particularly needed for such programs as the Economic Support Fund, contributions to the International Development Association, foreign military financing, Agency for International Development operating expenses and contributions to international organizations and programs and to voluntary peacekeeping operations. Further, the Committee has made reductions to several programs, including the North American Development Bank, International Disaster Assistance, International Military Education and Training, and the International Fund for Ireland, that the Administration believes should be restored. These adjustments, and others, are feasible within the framework of the funding plan that the Administration has provided to the Subcommittee.

The Administration is concerned that, unlike the House- passed bill, the Senate Committee bill provides a number of funding earmarks, including those on assistance to the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union, on international anti-crime programs, and on population funding. Given the severe constraints on the amount of funds available, these earmarks would be particularly burdensome and would vitiate some of the benefit of the funds that are provided.

The Committee bill would create an omnibus economic assistance account combining a number of currently separate accounts. The Administration has proposed account consolidation for certain bilateral development assistance programs but does not support this proposal. The most troublesome aspect of this proposal is that FY 1996 funding for the components of the account would be set according to a rigid formula that would not provide flexibility to respond to changing needs. A similar formula would be applied to the majority of the funds for voluntary contributions to international organizations and programs. The Administration is willing to work further with the Congress on account structure but urges the Senate not to adopt the Committee's approach.

Finally, Committee language requiring notifications for voluntary peacekeeping expenditures and language making it more difficult to waive the current prohibition on indirect aid to certain countries would further impair the Administration's ability to respond to rapidly developing events. The bill's restriction on counter-narcotics programs in Burma would seriously undermine U.S. efforts to attack the heart of the heroin production problem at a time when heroin addiction is of growing concern here at home. The Administration urges the Senate to remove this language from the bill.

The Administration would oppose any Floor amendments that would attempt to limit the President's ability to carry out foreign policy.

The Administration believes that it is possible to produce a mutually acceptable bill that will meet the most important foreign policy objectives, particularly if the Senate gives favorable consideration to the Administration's concerns discussed above.