Testimony on 2003 Foreign Assistance
 |
on behalf of
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
and
Catholic Relief Services
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
House Appropriations Committee
May 9, 2002 |
 |
- Introduction
- Foreign Aid and Human Development
- Millennium Challenge Initiative
- Specific Foreign Assistance Needs
- Global health
- Other critical development assistance
- International debt relief
- Funding for IDA
- U.S. Refugee and Admissions programs
- Decreased emphasis on population planning
- Clearing arrears
- Andean Regional Initiative
- East Timor
- Aid Effectiveness
- Detailed Recommendations for Improvements in U.S. Refugee and Admissions Programs
This testimony, by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and
Catholic Relief Services, shares the values of Catholic social teaching and discusses the
implications of those values for the development policies and programs of the United States. We
thank the Committee for its interest and its support for increasing our nation's funding in
response to the global health crisis and for meeting other critical needs.
Severe poverty assaults the human dignity of men, women, and children in many regions
and nations. Our world has a duty to launch a vigorous battle against poverty, in order to work
towards justice for everyone. This moral call is grounded in the values of solidarity, the
fundamental dignity of every human life, and the common good. These values are at the heart of
Catholic social teaching. These values tell us that a principal objective of U.S. foreign policy
should be sustainable human development, grounded in respect for human dignity, structured by
a commitment to human rights, and accepted by our nation as a sign of its leadership in the
international community.
Sustainable human development is also an essential requirement for a more just and
peaceful world. Among the multiple sources of conflict is an international order where the
benefits of science, technology and free markets are well known, but available only to a small
fraction of the globe. Existing inequities, especially the growing gap between rich and poor, are
threats not only to our human decency, but to our hopes for peace and security. After September
11, we have learned that hate and hopelessness can threaten us, no matter how powerful our
military, economic or political influence. Investing in building a world of greater justice,
opportunity, hope and dignity is not only the right thing to do; it is the wise thing to do. Nothing
can justify attacks on innocent civilians whatever the grievance. Nevertheless, Pope Paul VI's
admonition -- "If you want peace, work for justice"-- is still wise counsel.
Shaped by these values and convictions, our specific priorities for foreign operations
appropriations in fiscal year 2003 include:
- a significant increase -- i.e., an additional $2 billion in FY 2003, at least $1 billion of
which should be directed to Africa -- for responsibly designed global health programs
combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis;
- a significant and immediate increase -- i.e., $1 billion in FY 2003 -- for development
assistance to Africa, including substantial investments in primary and secondary
education;
- a continued investment in debt relief for the poorest countries, with special consideration
for countries suffering a severe health crisis, as proposed in H.R. 4524 and S. 2210;
- increased funding for the International Development Association (IDA), including
appropriate implementation and funding of the proposal to finance up to half of IDA's
assistance in the form of grants;
- increased funding for the Migration and Refugee Assistance and Emergency Refugee and
Migration Assistance accounts to $841 million and $50 million, respectively;
- a decreased emphasis on programs of population planning;
- funding of outstanding arrears for multilateral development banks and for the Global
Environment Facility, over the next three years;
- strong human rights conditions on all U.S. funds in the Andean Regional Initiative, and
an increased proportion of U.S. aid dedicated to the root causes of the conflict and to
assisting the victims; and
- increased assistance ($40 million) for East Timor.
Investments in development assistance, global health, debt relief, and migration and
refugee assistance are wise national priorities, matters of moral responsibility and a contribution
to a safer, and more just and peaceful world. Our nation can be more creative and more effective
in our aid programs but we can and should be more generous. Our religious faith and our
national values tell us that the moral measure of our efforts is how we respond to "the least
among us" and whether we seek "liberty and justice for all." Legislators' choices on foreign aid
will determine how we measure up to these standards.
The concept of development found in Catholic teaching, most recently in the encyclicals
of Pope John Paul II, emphasizes development's ethical dimensions. This perspective roots the
idea of development in its subject, the human person, possessed of rights and duties and in need
of a social system that protects rights and facilitates the fulfillment of duties in society. Placing
development policy within this moral framework helps situate the economic dimensions of
development policy as a means to a broader end, that of integral human development.
In this light, the fundamental criteria for evaluating development policy should be
whether it reflects a commitment to respect the fundamental dignity, basic rights and
responsibilities of the human person. Within a strategy directed toward the dignity, rights, and
duties of all, there should be a specific priority given to the basic needs of the poorest and most
vulnerable sectors of the human community. Consequently, the Catholic Church continues to
seek a greater focus in foreign assistance on initiatives that combat poverty and promote integral
human development.
Substantial increases in the amounts of U.S. foreign assistance dedicated to poverty
reduction are needed to achieve these goals. U.S. levels of foreign assistance are very low as a
percentage of the country's wealth, even taking into account not only poverty-focused assistance
but also foreign operations funding for national strategic interests. Our country's development
assistance as a percentage of gross national product (GNP) has been approximately one-tenth of
one percent of the GNP in each of the last several years. In terms of the absolute level of
assistance, the chart at left illustrates that the European Union, with a slightly lower combined
GNP than the United States, gives 2-1/2 times as much aid by volume, and Germany, France,
and Italy (G/F/I in the chart), with only half of U.S. GNP, together give about the same volume
of aid as the United States.
It is often asserted that Americans do not support development aid or increases in foreign
aid spending. A survey (1)
published some seven months before September 11, however, like
others before it, gives strong evidence to the contrary. The survey shows overwhelming support
(above 75%) for an aid program with a primary focus on hunger and poverty reduction, both out
of long-term self-interest and on moral grounds. Moreover, more than 70% of respondents
agreed that the United States should pay special attention to the problem of hunger in Africa, and
that a lack of U.S. vital interests does not warrant giving Africa lower priority than other regions
in the allocation of aid. These findings suggest that the trend of U.S. foreign assistance spending
has been running counter to the values of the American public.
We commend and welcome the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) recently
proposed by President Bush as an excellent step towards a refocusing of foreign assistance on
poverty reduction and sustainable human development. The proposal represents a new and much
needed commitment to the poor of the world. It would reverse a decade of decline in U.S.
foreign aid and of shifts in funding towards strategic interests and military spending, and away
from the poorest countries and economic development programs. We especially welcome the
commitment to direct the new funds entirely to the fight against global poverty. This is a
significant step forward and a sign of needed U.S. leadership.
Although this Subcommittee may not take up the MCA specifically until the fiscal year
2004 funding deliberations, a number of elements of that proposal may be relevant as the
Subcommittee considers development assistance for fiscal year 2003 and as the design of the
MCA is discussed. For the present, we emphasize the following points:
- While the MCA is being further refined, a substantial increase ($1 billion) in poverty-focused development assistance is needed for Africa immediately (FY 2003) given the
extreme urgency of addressing more adequately and more effectively the needs of poor
people in developing countries.
- Country eligibility and performance criteria should be developed through transparent
processes, with local participation, including civil society organizations that give voice to
the poor.
- The MCA should be combined with creative approaches to channel resources to the poor
who live in countries that do not meet MCA eligibility criteria. The many poor people
living under those regimes have the same claim to human dignity and the same right to
improved living conditions as people living under strong governments.
- The MCA should be in addition to, and not a substitute for, the significant increases
needed for global health and other important aid programs. The MCA should be
coordinated with other development aid, to avoid an inordinate concentration of aid
resources in countries already favored by existing programs.
The country eligibility criteria are an important concern at this stage, since they will be
relevant to the debate on how to make foreign assistance more effective. Under the MCA
proposal, a country would be eligible for funds only if it demonstrates good governance, invests
in its people, and has sound economic policies. We share these values and support a foreign
assistance program that advances them, while emphasizing at the same time that the
identification of eligible countries should begin with need. There is no question that
governments receiving U.S. foreign assistance should uphold internationally recognized human
rights norms and the rule of law. However, if aid is conditioned on standards set too high or too
early, they could have unintended consequences for the poorest people in the world. For
instance, a government may be capable of enforcing basic human rights policies, but the country
may be years away from the more difficult task of creating viable democratic institutions. At
least in the near term, we urge caution in disqualifying countries on governance grounds,
provided that basic human rights and the rule of law are upheld. Rather than conditioning
eligibility on higher standards of governance, a better approach would be to assist countries to
develop democratic institutions and improve other aspects of governance.
With regard to the criteria of "investment in people" and sound economic policies, the
World Bank and IMF's Poverty Reduction Strategy approach, with improvement in a number of
respects, can be a useful vehicle in many cases to assess a country's qualification to receive
funds. The Poverty Reduction Strategy Approach is designed to support strategies prepared by
local governments and civil society, as well as to improve donor coordination. It could be
unduly burdensome for potential aid recipients if the MCA were to impose another set of criteria
to assess eligibility for aid.
We also emphasize that creative ways must be found to assist poor people in countries
that do not meet the MCA criteria. Some suggestions are provided in Section V. Poor people
should not be deprived of all help or hope as a result of weaknesses in governments that they
cannot control.
The USCCB and Catholic Relief Services, which has long experience with civil society
in developing nations, look forward to working with the Congress and the Administration on
realizing the promise of this Millennium Challenge.
Eight areas are identified below for specific attention in this year's foreign operations appropriations. In
addition to these areas, we note our continued support in particular for the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance,
transition initiatives, micro- and small-enterprise development and credit programs, and funding of independent
agencies such as the Inter-American Foundation, the African Development Foundation, and the Peace Corps. Also,
we emphasize the critical U.S. role in peacemaking, strengthening democracy, and good governance.
(a) Global Health
Communicable diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS are devastating the populations of the
poorest countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. The means and medicines are available to treat HIV/AIDS and
to prevent malaria and tuberculosis, but funds and health infrastructure are lacking.
There are varying estimates of the annual international investment needed to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria,
tuberculosis and other deadly communicable diseases. The HIV/AIDS component alone has been estimated to cost
between $7 billion and $15 billion per year. (2) Estimates for the cost of a comprehensive program addressing other
deadly diseases as well as HIV/AIDS are between $10 and $20 billion per year. (3) The U.S. share, based on GNP,
would be approximately 25% of this amount, or between $2.5 billion and $5 billion per year.
The Administration has proposed an increase of $200 million in funding for HIV/AIDS
programs for fiscal year 2003, about $100 million of which would come from the foreign
operations budget. This proposed increased is far short of the magnitude needed to address the
devastating consequences of these diseases for the poorest countries. Perhaps more importantly,
this increase is not new money, but is offset by reductions in other health programs, in particular
funding for fighting malaria and tuberculosis, as well as child health programs. The global
focus on HIV/AIDS must not lead to a neglect of other global health risks affecting millions of
people which can be prevented. In summary, we urge:
- a substantial increase in funding, on the order of at least $2 billion ($1 billion for Africa),
to address global health crises, including HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis;
- a limit on debt service payments to five percent of government revenues for countries
with severe health crises; and
- inclusion of key elements in the global health programs funded by this increased
investment, to provide for a comprehensive and morally appropriate approach to the
health crises in poor countries. This approach should include a well-defined strategy of
appropriate prevention and treatment that addresses the deeper causes of HIV/AIDS. The
following summarizes what we believe are the key elements of a responsibly designed
global health program:
- Funding for basic healthcare delivery systems, medicines, treatment, and research.
- Care for those living with communicable diseases and for children orphaned as a result
of those diseases.
- Programs to address not only HIV/AIDS but other life-threatening communicable
diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis.
- Morally responsible HIV/AIDS prevention programs providing accurate information
about HIV/AIDS transmission, promoting responsible and mutually respectful
relationships, and respect for cultural norms, religious values and other key
factors.
- Activities that strengthen the economic and social viability of affected communities.
- Priority consideration for countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
Funding for health initiatives should be made through grants in preference to bilateral or
multilateral loans, to prevent the international response to the global health crisis from adding to
Africa's already heavy debt burden.
(b) Other critical development assistance
The Catholic Church in the United States supports a significant increase in U.S. foreign
aid for sustainable development in FY 2003, on the order of at least $1 billion more per year for
Africa, in addition to the increases proposed for global health programs. Investments to address
health crises will not succeed if they are not part of a comprehensive development strategy that
addresses some of the root causes of disease.
Investment in primary and secondary education is an important part of the development
agenda. There are signs that inadequate education programs can contribute to hostility towards
Americans and increase the risk of terrorist attacks. The United States government has
recognized a linkage in some parts of the world, for example providing $100 million in
education reform to Pakistan as part of the supplemental aid package approved in late 2001. In
the USAID budget proposed this year, however, there is only a $15 million increase for
education programs in other parts of the world not included in the anti-terrorism effort. It is
short-sighted to focus only on the immediate crisis without looking ahead to areas where
potential seeds of future violence and misunderstanding are being sown, in part by lack of
adequate education.
(c) International debt relief
We have long supported and commended legislators for their action to provide major
funding for the U.S. commitment to international debt relief under the Cologne debt accord.
However, even with the progress that has been made through the enhanced Heavily Indebted
Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, a number of countries will continue to pay debt service that
will consume a substantial portion of government revenues. For these countries, the immediate
benefits are likely to be too small to have a significant impact on poverty.
We therefore strongly support the debt-relief provisions of H.R. 4524 and S. 2210, which
would adjust the enhanced HIPC program so as to reduce the external debt service obligation of
a qualifying HIPC country to a maximum of 10% of government revenues. In the case of
countries ravaged by severe health crises, including HIV/AIDS, these bills would limit debt
service to 5% of government revenues in order to maximize resources available to address this
crisis whose devastating effects are akin to a natural disaster. The cost associated with this
adjustment to multilateral and bilateral creditors should be relatively modest, and it could have
an enormous human impact.
(d) Funding for IDA
We support the Administration's proposal for increasing U.S. funding for the
International Development Association (IDA) to $2.85 billion for the next replenishment period
(IDA 13). We also support the proposal for IDA to provide financing in the form of grants for up
to half its assistance to low income countries. This initiative would go far toward preventing debt
crises in poor countries in the future. Nevertheless, it is important that the grants not be subject
to new conditions and that IDA's financing capacity not be undercut by the loss of loan
repayments resulting from the grants proposal. The IDA 13 funding proposed by the
Administration, therefore, should be increased in order to begin off-setting the loss of
repayments. According to a recent GAO report, the amount of the necessary increase would be
modest.
(e) U.S. Refugee and Admissions Programs
Through our Migration and Refugee Services (MRS), Catholic diocesan agencies resettle
close to one-quarter of the refugees who are admitted to the United States each year. MRS
works with more than 100 Catholic dioceses in 44 states to resettle refugees from all over the
globe.
Since the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, MRS, working with our government
and diocesan resettlement programs throughout the country, has resettled more than three-quarters of a million refugees. In fiscal year 2001, MRS helped to resettle 16,789 refugees in the
United States, representing 102 different ethnic groups and 55 different nationalities. We are
gravely concerned about the U.S. commitment to protecting adequate numbers of refugees in
fiscal years 2002, 2003 and beyond given the low number of 8,000 refugees who have been
admitted this fiscal year because of the State Department's chronic inability to identify and
admit the numbers of refugees authorized for admission by the President.
We would like to thank this Subcommittee for its work on refugee issues during the first
session of the 107th Congress. The House and Senate agreed to an appropriation of $705 million
for Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) in fiscal year 2002, a $5 million increase from the
appropriation of $700 million for fiscal year 2001. In addition, $100 million in supplemental
funding for MRA has already been provided to address refugee issues in Central Asia in the
aftermath of September 11th. For fiscal year 2002, a total of some $805 million was available for
the MRA account as of December 2001. As for ERMA, the House and Senate agreed to an
appropriation of $15 million. We hope that the total fiscal year 2002 appropriation for MRA of
$805 million continues a trend of funding increases in the years ahead so that we might be better
able to meet the global need for refugee protection.
With respect to the United States refugee overseas assistance and refugee admissions
programs, which this Subcommittee's appropriations bill funds, we recommend that:
- Congress appropriate no less than $841 million for fiscal year 2003 for the Department of
State's MRA Account and no less than $50 million for the State Department's ERMA
account;
- The Department of State take immediate steps to ensure that it can identify and admit
enough refugees to meet the ceiling that is established each year by the President, in
consultation with Congress and non-governmental organizations, including 70,000 for
fiscal year 2002;
- The Department of State engage in long-term planning with regard to refugee protection,
including planning to admit 90,000 refugees in fiscal year 2003 and increasing this
number in the years immediately following in order to protect refugees who, for reasons
related to the aftermath of September 11, could not be admitted in fiscal year 2002;
- The Department of State undertake a number of steps to ensure that the United States is
offering admission to especially vulnerable populations of refugees, including
unaccompanied refugee children, unaccompanied elderly refugees, refugees with serious
medical conditions, at-risk women, refugees who have languished in camps in first
countries of asylum for years, certain urban refugees who do not have access to
assistance and cannot integrate into the country of asylum and certain categories of
refugees in Africa;
- Department of State collaborate with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with
direct ties to domestic constituencies for overseas refugee processing; and
The Department of State increase the Reception and Placement Grant (R&P Grant) that it
makes to its private sector partners so that the level of this grant more accurately reflects
the increased costs of the program. We believe, as well, that the R&P grant should be
adjusted annually so that it keeps up with increased costs and program requirements.
A detailed discussion of these recommendations is included in Section VI.
(f) Decreased emphasis on population planning
Appropriations for the current year show that the United States continues to give
excessive weight to population planning programs as a part of development assistance and global
health programs. The United States dedicates approximately 15 percent of the combined funds
identified for development assistance and child survival programs to population planning (nearly
three percent of the total international assistance budget). Most other donor countries, by
contrast, give less than one percent of their foreign aid budgets to population planning. While
appropriate population planning can be a positive part of a broader policy calculated to support
and strengthen family life, significant elements of U.S. population programs are inconsistent
with Catholic moral teaching. We support morally acceptable and appropriate education for
women so they may make responsible decisions about family size, free of government coercion.
We also emphasize the longstanding international consensus that rejects the use of
abortion as a method of family planning and the use of coercion in population programs. The
"Mexico City" policy reinstated by President Bush must be retained, so our foreign aid program
is not misused to subsidize organizations that perform and promote abortion in developing
nations under the guise of family planning. The Kemp-Kasten appropriations rider preventing
support of organizations involved in coercive population programs should also be retained.
Under this provision, the President has the obligation to determine whether the UN Population
Fund (UNFPA) is ineligible for U.S. funding due to its support of the coercive program in the
People's Republic of China. To enable the President to fulfill this obligation, Congress should
not earmark funds to this agency.
(g) Clearing arrears
We strongly support the Administration's proposal to provide funding to clear
outstanding arrears for multilateral development banks and for the Global Environment Facility
over the course of the next three years. Our nation has a responsibility in justice to pay our
legitimate debts, and this responsibility is particularly serious given the world leadership that the
United States exercises. There is also an urgent need to assist developing countries in protecting
their citizens from the consequences of environmental degradation, without sacrificing
opportunities for their economic growth.
(h) Andean Regional Initiative
The nearly four-decade long Colombian conflict is highly complex and is causing
widespread, growing suffering. In the midst of this crisis, support for a negotiated settlement to
the internal conflict is vital. All the armed actors have been cited for extensive human rights
abuses, and there are well-documented links between paramilitary organizations and Colombian
security forces, as acknowledged by both the U.S. and Colombian governments. In this context,
serious attention must be given to ensuring that all U.S. funds are conditioned on strong human
rights criteria that are applied and closely monitored. We again call for an increased proportion
of U.S. aid to be dedicated to addressing the root causes of the conflict and assisting the victims.
Much of the aid already earmarked for alternative development, judicial reform and other areas
has yet to reach its destination; it is essential that the provision of humanitarian and development
aid be expedited.
We are concerned that U.S. funding aimed at protecting the major oil pipeline may signal
a policy shift toward more direct U.S. involvement in the Colombian government's counter-insurgency efforts. With the Bishops of Colombia, we deplore the toxic effects of aerial
spraying of coca crops and urge a serious revision of both the policy and its method of
application. Important conditions on the U.S. funded fumigation program were included in last
year's legislation which would assess the health and environmental consequences of fumigation,
establish an effective mechanism for compensating farmers whose food crops are destroyed by
fumigation, and provide adequate alternative development assistance. These provisions are a
step forward; they need to be maintained as long as fumigation continues, and measures to
implement them taken.
(i) East Timor
As East Timor becomes the first new nation of this century, its hard-won political
independence is overshadowed by the prospect of beginning its nationhood with a debilitating
debt that can only impede its recovery and development. We have long supported the rights of
the East Timorese people to live in peace and freedom, but after the terror and destruction of
1999 that uprooted thousands and destroyed much of the country"s infrastructure, East Timor
can recover only with significant international aid. The Administration"s budgetary request of
$19 million for fiscal year 2003 (down from $25 million for fiscal year 2002) is clearly
inadequate and should be increased to $40 million, which would add to last year"s level of
support the appropriate U.S. share of the amount estimated as needed to prevent East Timor from
falling into debt.
The Administration has rightly called for increasing the effectiveness of its foreign aid
program. As the Committee considers funding the fiscal year 2003 foreign aid program, our
everyday experience around the world shapes the following recommendations, which call for a
primary role for recipient countries in the design of aid programs and for greater donor country
flexibility.
- Primary role of recipient countries in designing aid programs. Recipient countries are
best positioned to identify their needs and to explain the complexities affecting economic
growth and development in their context, particularly if they employ a participatory
process involving civil society. Aid will be more effective if recipient countries that
undertake a participatory process are given a primary role in the design of aid programs.
- Improve coordination among donors. Recipient countries can be overburdened by the
variety of procedural and reporting requirements as well as policies and program
conditions that individual donor countries require. Also, uncoordinated assistance from
donors can lead to a scattering of already limited resources in the negotiation and
implementation of myriad development projects. Aid effectiveness would be greatly
enhanced if major donor countries would coordinate their efforts to overcome poverty.
- Flexibility to fund budgetary expenses that support development. Presently, donors
tend to fund projects that are capital in nature and are usually reluctant to fund the
recurring costs of sustaining the investments. For example, development assistance to
fund the construction of hospitals, and the purchase of medical equipment, will not help
the local government pay salaries for doctors, nurses, and technicians to operate the
equipment. In such cases, aid could be more effective if donors were more open to
funding not just capital costs but also recurrent costs of development, to the extent
necessary and appropriate to supplement government efforts to build the long-term
capacity to sustain development projects.
- Provide longer time frames and fewer earmarks. Current U.S. development programs
are too often burdened with unrealistic short-term funding cycles and overly prescriptive
earmarks. Complex development problems require flexible, multi-year and multi-country programs, designed and implemented with substantial participation from the
community being assisted. This approach requires that programs be developed less by
congressional earmarking and more by recipient communities and civil society
responding to the felt needs for overcoming poverty and building on the capacities of
local communities.
- Decrease in requirement of tied aid. Last year the Development Assistance Committee
of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recommended
that donor countries procure specified goods and services used in foreign assistance from
worldwide sources, rather than limiting or "tying" procurement to domestic sources. The
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is implementing this
recommendation and eliminating tied aid for procurement of capital goods. However,
technical assistance continues to be tied to domestic sources. This practice has the
potential to increase costs substantially and create an artificial market for U.S. services in
particular. This policy should be reviewed to assess its impact on the effectiveness of aid
delivery.
For countries where conflict or other governance problems are so serious that aid to the
government would be ineffective or lead to unjust results, creative use of development assistance
funds is necessary to assist civilians who have an equal claim to full human dignity irrespective
of the quality of their government. To make effective use of development assistance in such
countries, the following approaches could be used:
- Channel funding through established non-governmental organizations. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can be effective vehicles for bringing essential aid,
humanitarian aid and sustainable development assistance to unstable regions. U.S.
development assistance funding should allow aid that otherwise would be destined for
governments to be channeled instead through established NGOs.
- Provide assistance to strengthen civil society in the affected nation or region. Non-governmental institutions can be an effective voice for change in a country or region that
is suffering from poor governance. Technical assistance and other aid programs directed
towards building capacity in civil organizations and institutions can, in the long term,
lead to improvements in governance.
- Continue and strengthen investments in peace-building. In war-torn regions and
countries, peace-building assistance is essential. Until there is peace, there can be no
stability, and without stability, development assistance has no real chance to succeed.
The United States can continue to exercise leadership in supporting peace efforts in areas
of conflict in sub-Saharan Africa. Recent progress in Sierra Leone, Mano River, and
Angola provide testimony to the effectiveness of a concerted, well-coordinated, and
sustained commitment to peace-building. Progress towards peace in the Democratic
Republic of Congo and the Great Lakes region has not yet produced the desired outcome
and will require additional support. In Sudan, humanitarian assistance must be linked to
broader political strategies providing for conflict resolution to deal with the root causes
of the conflict. In Burundi and Congo-Brazzaville, successful peace-building efforts also
will require support for programs of national reconciliation and greater attention to
sustainable development.
(a) Level of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003
We recommend that the Subcommittee appropriate no less than $841 million for fiscal
year 2003 for the Department of State's MRA Account and no less than $50 million for the State
Department's ERMA account. While the fiscal year 2002 appropriation of $705 million and the
supplemental of $100 million for MRA were welcomed, the total appropriation still falls short of
meeting the needs of refugees around the globe.
While resettlement in the United States has historically proven to be a highly successful
option for many thousands of refugees and a boon to our country, the number of refugees
resettled in the United States has declined from over 130,000 per year during the early 1990's to
under 70,000 last year. An appropriation of at least $841 million for the MRA would reverse that
harmful trend, enabling the United States to resettle 90,000 refugees during fiscal year 2003. An
appropriation of no less than $841 million would protect and provide life-sustaining food,
medicine and other assistance to a greater number of the over fourteen million refugees in the
world today. (4)
In addition to the MRA account, the ERMA account, which is replenished yearly,
supplies funds for urgent and unforeseen migration needs. Since $107 million in 13 draw downs
was allocated from ERMA during fiscal year 2001, at least $50 million is needed to assist the
United States in responding to unexpected refugee crises.
(b) Fiscal Year 2002 Refugee Admissions
We are disappointed in the number of refugees resettled in the United States in recent
years. In 1980, the United States admitted more than 200,000 refugees and for a five-year
period ending in 1994, the U.S. consistently admitted over 100,000 refugees each of those years.
Since 1993, refugee admissions have continued to fall, with the latest example being the most
recent low of 70,000 in the Administration's proposal for fiscal year 2002. The Administration
should implement a four-year plan to raise admissions numbers to meet levels of need.
Millions of Africans have become new refugees or newly displaced persons within their
own countries after years of war, repression, and civil unrest. Many peace negotiations have
faltered, producing more military offensives and atrocities, forcing African refugees to seek
protection in countries that are already suffering from armed conflict.
A compelling example is the fragile asylum being granted to the hundreds of thousands
of Liberians and Sierra Leoneans in the small West African country of Guinea. We urge that one
area of U.S. government focus be West Africa, which a group of NGOs visited in August 2001.
The clear need for resettlement from such countries as Guinea, UNHCR's strong support for
such resettlement, and the strengthened U.S. government and Overseas Processing Entity
presence in nearby Ghana all argue that this area must be made a high priority.
West Africa is of course not the only region where refugees have difficulties accessing
protection. We must deal with the populations of Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran who
cannot return to Afghanistan, and also address continually deteriorating situations in other areas
of the world. Thousands of Burmese political dissidents and ethnic and religious minorities are
particularly vulnerable in India and languish without effective solutions in Thailand. Large
numbers of uprooted people from the Sudan and the Balkans still lack a durable solution. These
are a few examples of the grim future faced by refugees worldwide.
(c) Capacity-Building for Fiscal Year 2003 and Beyond
In each of the last ten years, the number of refugees admitted to the United States was
below the authorized and budgeted admissions levels. Actual admissions of refugees during this
period ranged between seven and sixteen percent below the levels authorized by the President in
consultation with Congress. Had the U.S. government fully utilized its admissions authority,
more than 100,000 additional refugees could have been resettled over the past decade.
Considering that the population of refugees in need of resettlement far exceeds the number of
resettlement offers from the international community, this under-utilization of U.S. capacity is
unacceptable.
There is a multitude of reasons for this under-utilization. First, the political will and
commitment to take full advantage of the U.S. government's admissions authority has not been
evident. If there had been political commitment to taking full advantage of its admissions
authority, the governmental agents responsible for administering the admissions program would
have been held more accountable for the chronic under-usage in admissions each year.
Second, inadequacies in the management of refugee admissions have also contributed to
annual admissions shortfalls.
Third, a significant impediment to the U.S. government's taking full advantage of its
admissions authority has been the inadequacy of the worldwide infrastructures designed to
identify and process refugees in need of resettlement. The appropriations levels for MRA and
ERMA of $841 million and $50 million respectively would begin to address these capacity-building issues.
(d) Vulnerable Populations of Refugees
Efforts should be made to identify and resettle particularly vulnerable refugee groups,
including unaccompanied refugee minors, unaccompanied elderly refugees, refugees with
serious medical problems, at-risk women, including female heads of households, refugees who
have languished in camps for a long period of time, certain urban refugees who do not have
access to assistance and cannot integrate in the country of asylum, and certain categories of
refugees in Africa. This effort complements the program's capacity to rescue those in imminent
danger of return.
(e) U.S. Government Collaboration with Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs)
In the past, private sector Joint Voluntary Agencies (JVAs) have been successfully used
by the Department of State to help identify and process refugees in the field. This collaboration
with NGOs could be expanded so that NGO expertise can be utilized in making resettlement
determinations.
Although the State Department has been creating more outreach capacity through the
creation of additional Overseas Processing Entities (OPES), more can and should be done. The
government should develop partnerships with NGOs to assist in the identification and referral of
prospective U.S.-eligible refugees in need of resettlement and create formal mechanisms through
which NGO-referred refugees receive consideration from U.S. authorities. This concept is
different from the "Joint Voluntary Agency" arrangements currently in place in at least one
significant way. Under these arrangements the NGO partners would identify and refer
prospective refugees, but would not be involved in the processing typically done by JVAs and
OPES.
Another dimension of this needed expansion could be the strengthening of the so-called
"deployment" program, through which NGO personnel are seconded on temporary assignments
to augment United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) personnel in various
resettlement processing regions of the world. With more resources and program management
enhancements applied to this effort, a greater number of NGO personnel can be added to expand
the international capacity to identify and process refugees for resettlement.
(f) The Reception and Placement Grant
The United States refugee admissions and resettlement programs represent an excellent
example of collaboration between the federal government and non-governmental organizations.
One of the ways in which non-governmental organizations assist in these programs is by
contracting with the Department of State to provide initial reception and placement services for
refugees who are admitted into the United States. This grant enables faith-based and other
organizations involved in resettlement to leverage other resources in their communities,
churches, and organizations to provide a broad array of services to refugees.
We appreciate the State Department's decision to significantly increase the funds
available in the R&P program, which was possible because of adequate appropriations. The
Department should take steps in succeeding fiscal years, beginning in fiscal year 2003, to ensure
that the amount of the R&P Grant is adjusted annually to keep up with increased costs and
program requirements.
1. American Attitudes on Foreign Aid and World Hunger: A Study of U.S. Public Attitudes, Program on International
Policy Attitudes (University of Maryland), February 2, 2001.
2. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan provided an estimate of $7 billion to $10 billion to fight HIV/AIDS during a
speech to African leaders on April 26, 2001 (see www.unaids.org/SGabuja.doc). Eric Friedman of Yale Law School
and Paul Zeitz of the Global AIDS Alliance estimated the cost of a comprehensive HIV/AIDS program (including
funding for food security and education infrastructure) at $15 billion per year (Discussion Memorandum, May 6,
2001, at http://www.globalaidsalliance.org/estimating_costs.doc).
3. See Jeffrey Sachs, "The Best Possible Investment in Africa", New York Times (Feb. 10, 2001).
4. See U.S. Committee for Refugees, World Refugee Survey 2001 at 3; See also Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees, Global Appeal 2002 at 13