Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 5368 - Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, FY 1993

(House Rules)
(Sponsors: Whitten (D), Mississippi; Obey (D), Wisconsin)

The purpose of this statement of Administration Policy is to express the Administration's views on H.R. 5368, the FY 1993 Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill. Although the Committee bill would provide important assistance to the republics of the former Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe, it proposes a number of funding reductions, earmarks, and language provisions that would seriously undermine the Administration's ability to carry out foreign policy.

The Administration remains opposed to funding included in the bill for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). UNFPA supports a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in China. Because the UNFPA provision would weaken current law or regulation with respect to abortion-related activities, the President would veto the bill as reported by the Committee.

The Administration opposes H.R. 5368 in its current form because of the UNFPA provision and other serious objections outlined below. However, the Administration hopes that the bill will move forward through the legislative process so that necessary changes could be made to gain Administration support for its final passage.

Serious objections include:

• Reduction in overall funding requested by the Administration of $1.2 billion, which brings the total for the bill to $0.6 billion below the FY 1992 Continuing Resolution level, and $2 billion below the FY 1991 level. Cuts of this magnitude would seriously jeopardize our ability to support the transition to democracy and economic freedom around the world. The funding level provided in the bill is inadequate, and any further reductions will be strongly opposed by the Administration;
  
  
• Reductions of over $800 million to the request for Foreign Military Financing (FMF), which could seriously compromise U.S. national security interests. The combination of these reductions, along with the earmarking of over 95 percent of FMF for three countries, would leave the Administration with little flexibility to assist other key allies with legitimate defense needs. In particular, reductions and elimination of grant financing for Turkey, Greece, and Portugal could diminish our military readiness in the Persian Gulf, the Mediterranean, and the Balkans;
  
  
• Language provisions on aid to Jordan that would seriously constrain the Administration's ability to respond to positive changes in Jordanian behavior on sanctions. United States assistance promotes the stability necessary for Jordan to support U.S. policies, including those on sanctions and the peace process;
  
  
• Elimination of funding for debt reduction under the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative (EAI), a key foreign policy priority, as well as conditions placed on contributions to the Multilateral Investment Fund, which has also been reduced. These actions would undermine the Administration's ability to promote economic growth and environmental protection in Latin America. Lack of support for EAI could jeopardize recent dramatic increases in U.S. exports that have created thousands of U.S. jobs.
  
  
• Legislative constraints on assistance to Eastern Europe would seriously disrupt the U.S. assistance program and increase substantially the overhead cost of administering the program. The requirement to design and program assistance at traditional AID overseas missions could require hundreds of additional costly direct hires. The earmark on bilaterally programmed assistance would reduce needed flexibility to allocate resources in response to emerging opportunities and limit our ability to emphasize the private sector and promote economic growth, trade, and investment throughout the region.
  
  
• Continued restrictions on, and earmarking of aid to the republics of the former Soviet Union, which would reduce needed flexibility to respond to a rapidly changing political and economic environment. Earmarking limits the ability to tap the U.S. private sector as a catalyst for growth and change.
  
  
• Extensive earmarking and micromanagement of economic assistance programs, which would reduce their effectiveness and hinder promotion of broad-based economic growth, economic reform, and democratic practices;
  
  
• Reductions in contributions to the Multilateral Development Banks, which would diminish U.S. influence on banks' policies and create increased arrears in negotiated U.S. contributions;
  
  
• Elimination of the authority to provide excess defense articles to Senegal and Morocco under the Southern Region Amendment;
  
  
• Reductions that affect U.S. counternarcotics programs. These include reductions in International Narcotics Control and in FMF programs related to counternarcotics efforts, particularly in Latin America.

The extensive micromanagement throughout the Committee bill would thwart efforts to execute in a meaningful and rational manner the limited resources that would be provided by the bill. Over three-quarters of the major economic assistance accounts are earmarked. The vast array of country, program, project, and contractor earmarks, compounded by sizeable funding reductions, not only distorts the Administration's request but also would deny the Administration the flexibility to carry out U.S. foreign policy.