[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED
PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2015
______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
KAY GRANGER, Texas, Chairwoman
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia NITA M. LOWEY, New York
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BARBARA LEE, California
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
KEVIN YODER, Kansas HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Anne Marie Chotvacs, Craig Higgins, Alice Hogans,
Susan Adams, Jamie Guinn, and Clelia Alvarado,
Staff Assistants
______
PART 5
Page
Department of State.............................................. 1
U.S. Agency for International Development........................ 431
United Nations and International Organizations
Budget.......................................................... 597
U.S. Assistance in Africa........................................ 691
U.S. Assistance to Promote Freedom and Democracy
in Countries with Repressive Environments...................... 785
U.S. Assistance to Combat Transnational Crime.................... 839
839
______
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
92-737 WASHINGTON : 2015
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia NITA M. LOWEY, New York
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
TOM LATHAM, Iowa JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
KAY GRANGER, Texas JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho ED PASTOR, Arizona
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas SAM FARR, California
KEN CALVERT, California CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
TOM COLE, Oklahoma SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida BARBARA LEE, California
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
TOM GRAVES, Georgia MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
KEVIN YODER, Kansas BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas TIM RYAN, Ohio
ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
DAVID G. VALADAO, California
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
William E. Smith, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2015
_______
Wednesday, March 12, 2014.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
WITNESS
HON. JOHN F. KERRY, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Opening Statement of Chairwoman Granger
Ms. Granger. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations,
and Related Programs will come to order.
Mr. Secretary, I want to welcome you back to the
subcommittee. We look forward to your testimony. During our
time with you today there are many new issues that members want
to address. In Ukraine, the situation continues with no
resolution in sight in spite of your personal engagement to try
to bring this crisis to an end. In Afghanistan, even after
intense negotiations, the government refuses to sign a
bilateral security agreement with the United States, putting
our troop presence and diplomatic footprint in doubt and
increasing the risk that extremists will return.
In Africa, new conflicts have broken out, deepening human
suffering in areas that have struggled for so many years. All
of these troubling developments must be addressed, yet most of
the topics we discussed last year are still relevant today.
The members of this subcommittee, like you, continue to
watch the situation in Egypt, even while the country is
tackling significant security and economic challenges. We know
Egypt is moving toward elections later this year. During this
critical time, the United States must continue to work with the
government of Egypt and support the Egyptian people.
The Syrian crisis continues, even though through your
intense efforts last year, there was hope that the regime would
give up its chemical weapons. In spite of all the work of the
U.S. Government and our international partners, the efforts to
remove chemical weapons have stalled, extremists are taking the
upper hand, and more lives are lost every day because of the
violence and blocking of humanitarian aid.
The Syrian crisis is affecting the whole region. Its
neighbors are now bearing the burden of 2-1/2 million refugees.
These neighboring countries continue to do all they can to help
the Syrians pouring over their borders, but we must do all we
can to help them. Because of the flow of refugees from Syria,
Jordan's population has increased by nearly 10 percent, and
Lebanon's population has increased by an estimated 20 percent.
Over the last year, you have worked with your international
partners to put in place an interim agreement with Iran that
allows for some sanctions relief if Iran takes steps to
dismantle its nuclear program. There is no doubt that sanctions
brought Iran to the table, and the United States must keep the
pressure on as a final deal is negotiated. We all know too well
that the security of the United States and the security of our
steadfast ally Israel is at stake here.
In addition to these policy issues, we have questions about
the administration's budget request. The base funding level
requested for State and USAID is roughly the same as last year,
but you sacrificed some of the priorities of the members of
this committee to make room for the administration's
initiatives. Many programs that we support in a bipartisan way
have been reduced below last year's level, such as global
health and democracy funding. We will be seeking additional
information so we understand your proposal.
Another difficult budget issue we need to address together
is embassy security. We need assurance that the proposed
funding level is adequate to address the recommendations in the
Benghazi Accountability Review Board report.
Next, I want to mention an issue that I know is a priority
for you, and that is Middle East peace. You have made countless
visits to the region to try to move the Israelis and
Palestinians toward peace, and I want to be clear, achieving
peace is our priority, too, and this Congress is unwavering in
our bipartisan support for Israel. You and the President have
recently made some strong statements about Israel's role in the
peace process. You raised the issue of boycotts if a peace
agreement is not reached, and the President has said that
Israel needs to articulate an alternative approach if an
agreement is not possible. I hope you will give us an update on
peace talks during your testimony today and explain those
comments to the committee.
I also want to mention an issue that is a priority for me
in my own backyard and ours. Mexico is our neighbor, and we
want our neighbor to be prosperous and also to be safe. This
can only be achieved if we have a true partnership. I hope you
will comment on the current relationship between our countries
so the subcommittee knows if the funding provided is making a
difference.
And finally, I want to raise a concern I know I share with
you, Mr. Secretary. We must stop the international crisis of
wildlife poaching and trafficking. Criminal networks are
destroying species and using the funds for illegal activities
around the world. I thank you for what you have done in this
area since we talked about it last year, and I hope the funds
in the final year, the fiscal year 2014 bill will be used to
bring an end to this crisis. However, the budget materials that
the committee has received so far don't reflect fiscal year
2015 funding for wildlife poaching and trafficking, and the
committee expects that level of detail as soon as possible.
In closing, I want to thank you and the thousands of
diplomats, development officers, and implementing partners for
what you do every day to promote U.S. interests abroad. As you
have said, in an increasingly interconnected world, global
leadership is not a favor we do for other countries, it is a
strategic imperative for the United States of America. We all
agree with you on that point and want to continue to work with
you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Granger. I will now turn to my ranking member and
partner in this, Mrs. Lowey, for her opening remarks.
Opening Statement of Mrs. Lowery
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome, Secretary
Kerry. I join Chairwoman Granger in welcoming you back to our
subcommittee. Let me also say I know the chairwoman joins me in
congratulating you on the birth of your granddaughter.
Secretary Kerry. Thank you.
Mrs. Lowey. Our country is fortunate to have your
thoughtful, effective, and respected leadership, with so many
grave challenges around the world, from the crisis in Syria to
the Middle East peace process, from nuclear negotiations with
Iran, to human rights abuses and conflicts throughout the
world, and of course, urgent concerns in Ukraine. Today we
expect updates and insights into how your budget request will
address these and other threats to peace, stability, and
security.
Mr. Secretary, I have often hoped for Middle East peace in
my lifetime, and I strongly support your efforts to facilitate
a two-state agreement that ensures security for our ally
Israel, understanding there are very difficult issues yet to be
resolved. We look forward to your assessment of the Israeli-
Palestinian negotiations.
We all agree we must make it impossible for Iran to make a
nuclear bomb, but the clock is ticking on reaching a final
agreement. Do we have a set of hard requirements, a bottom line
that we need in order to get to an agreement? I remain
skeptical of Iran's intentions, especially given their
unyielding position against any dismantlement of their nuclear
infrastructure. Would any final agreement prohibit Iran from
having a heavy water reactor at Arak, or advanced centrifuges
that require Fordow to be closed?
Additionally, I hope you will address our relationships
with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two important allies in the Gulf.
While the United States cannot compromise our principles, we
must acknowledge the difficult and volatile circumstances in
the region and work to ensure our actions do not alienate our
long-standing strategic partners.
With regard to Syria, there seems to be a stalemate.
Destruction of chemical weapons has not occurred per the
agreed-upon schedule. The Assad regime continues to commit
despicable atrocities against innocent civilians. Jordan,
Lebanon, and Turkey are burdened under the strain of refugees.
Please tell us about contingency planning in light of the very
real potential of a completely destabilized region and renewed
sectarian violence in Iraq.
In Afghanistan, as the administration considers reducing
our military footprint, I hope you can reassure us about our
ability to sustain the gains in security, health, education,
and women and girls empowerment so that countless lives will
not have been lost in vain.
Last week, the House worked quickly to pass Chairman
Rogers' and my loan guarantee bill to support Ukraine. It
appears the markets are already punishing Russia, and actions
by the IMF and EU may soon exacerbate the repercussions. While
Russia's overarching foreign policy goals are not entirely
clear, I hope to hear details on the prospects for deescalating
this crisis, the future of the United States' relationship with
Russia, and the impact of these tensions on both negotiations
with Iran and the situation in Syria.
Mr. Secretary, it is clear that the administration's robust
diplomacy and development request is needed now more than ever
before to address these challenges and countless other global
priorities. Our investments in education, health, women's
political participation, climate change, food security, public
diplomacy, bilateral family planning assistance, and UNFPA
activities, to name just a few, improve lives, expand economic
opportunity, and inherently make us more secure. That is why I
urge you to rectify one critical shortfall in the budget
request--the failure to prioritize international basic
education. I will state the obvious. Education is fundamental
to all other development outcomes, and is the cornerstone of
strong, stable societies. No country has reached sustained
economic growth without achieving near universal primary
education. Health and child survival, poverty reduction, and
women's advancement all leap forward with a strong educational
foundation. With 57 million primary school-age children around
the world out of school, our job simply is not done.
With great respect for your wisdom, integrity, and hard
work, thank you again for joining us. We look forward to your
testimony.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Granger. I will now yield to the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Rogers, for his opening
statement.
Opening Statement of Chairman Rogers
Chairman Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr.
Secretary, thank you for being here. I am not sure you know
what time it is, given the schedule that you are under around
the world. Thank you for your service. It must be very tiring,
but challenging.
Mrs. Lowey and I are determined as chairman and ranking
member of the full committee to pass all 12 individual bills
this year, to save you the tyranny of these continuing
resolutions, which are herky-jerky, and your staff can't make
proper plans on how to spend the money and the like. So we are
determined to pass those 12 bills through both bodies and have
them signed by the President to allow contemporary needs to be
addressed rather than putting spending on automatic pilot based
on last year's needs, whatever they were at that time. So it
will be a challenge, but we are determined to work with Ms.
Granger and all the other subcommittee chairs to get these
bills out of here.
Unquestionably, the time that you are serving in in the
world has got to be one of the most difficult periods we have
been through, with problems seemingly on every corner, in Syria
and the neighboring countries, in Iran, regional instability,
challenges with the transition in Afghanistan, the need for a
peace agreement in the Middle East that has eluded so many
Secretaries before you, and continued drug trafficking, and
violence in South and Central America. There are no easy
answers to these complex international challenges. Certainly,
each of these unique situations calls for strong U.S.
leadership, and in particular, we are all concerned these days,
of course, about Ukraine and its territorial integrity.
As Ms. Lowey has said last week, the House passed $1
billion loan guarantee for Ukraine, and we are waiting now on
the Senate, and I would hope and trust that the Senate would
send back an unencumbered loan guarantee bill, as clean as we
sent it to them. This is no time to try to attach riders to
something of this importance, and I would hope that the
Secretary would talk to his colleagues in the Senate and speak
to them of the wisdom of sending a clean bill back over to us.
We will be working hard to try to figure out with you the
proposed spending of the $48.5 billion in discretionary funds
in this subcommittee's jurisdiction to help you achieve these
disparate goals around the world this year. We look forward to
working with you to prioritize your most important needs, and
we would hope that you would communicate to us that
information. All of us know that this is a difficult period of
time financially for our country, not to mention the
difficulties you face internationally.
On a more personal note, let me take a moment to thank you
and those under your charge for assisting a constituent of mine
whose young daughter is a victim of international parental
child abduction. This incredibly strong mother testified last
week before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about how
this growing challenge has impacted her family and so many
others similarly situated. Last year over a thousand children
were reported abducted from or retained outside the U.S., so I
appreciate both your attention and efforts by the Department to
engage bilaterally and multilaterally with foreign governments
to encourage the safe and timely return of American children to
their homes.
We have some difficult choices ahead on our side of the
bench, as do you on that side. We hope that we can move in
parallel to help solve the difficulties that you face. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Granger. Secretary Kerry, please proceed with your
opening remarks. Your full written statement will be placed in
the record, so feel free to summarize your statement.
Opening Statement of Secretary Kerry
Secretary Kerry. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Granger
and Ranking Member Lowey, Mr. Chairman Rogers of the full
committee. Let me just thank all of you, first of all, for your
very generous comments of understanding of the complications of
the world we are living in today, but also I just want to thank
you for your thoughtful and substantive consideration of all of
these issues that face us. We are deeply appreciative for the
leadership that this committee brings to the country.
I, as you all know, have spent a lot of time up here, 29-
plus years, and in that time, I have learned that choosing to
be on the Foreign Relations Committee or the Foreign
Appropriations Committee, et cetera, is not necessarily
automatically the easiest thing to explain at home, and it
doesn't always result in some of the direct claims that you can
make about ways in which you have assisted your district, but
on the other hand, I think it does because you assist them by
advancing the values and the interests of the country and by
helping us to increase American security and stability in the
world, all of which comes home to roost one way or the other,
either in jobs for districts, States, for the country, but also
in the safety and security that we are able to achieve as a
result of that.
Let me just say that I am privileged to lead a remarkable
department with men and women all over the world. We have just
held our several days' conference of all of our chiefs of
mission called back to Washington. Susan Rice spoke to them
yesterday. I spent a fair period of time doing a sort of open
meeting with them as well as other meetings we have had, and it
is really intriguing to see the energy and interest and passion
that they all bring to the effort to represent our country
abroad, and some remarkable 70,000 people in total in various
ways, civil service, foreign service, local employees,
particularly local employees make a huge difference to our
ability to do our job, and I want to salute all of them.
You have each, in your opening comments, focused on the
complications of the world we are living in today, different
from anything any of us might have imagined. Vastly different
from the world as bipolar East-West, Cold War, and even
different from the early years of exuberance in the fall of the
Berlin Wall. Now there are sectarian, religious extremists,
terrorists and other challenges released as a consequence of
the fall of those countries and the changes in those countries,
and so we are challenged, and I believe it is important for us
to get caught trying to change things.
That is who we are in the United States. And I cannot tell
you how much it has been impressed on me in all of the journeys
I have made on behalf of the President and our country how much
people do look to the United States of America. I hear it again
and again and again everywhere. It is our responsibility to
help to make a difference in lots of different situations, and
we have to be clear-eyed about the challenges, and obviously
the environment has to be ripe for a breakthrough in one place
or another, but particularly, for instance, in Ukraine.
Congresswoman Lowey, you mentioned the need to try to find
a diplomatic solution, and our interest is in protecting the
sovereignty, the independence, and the territorial integrity of
Ukraine with our European partners and others, and we have a
responsibility to be engaged, and we are engaged. We also have
to be willing to try to sit down and deescalate the situation,
as you said, Congresswoman Lowey. That is why President Obama
has asked me to leave tomorrow evening and fly to London to
meet with Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Friday,
and I will do that, and we have had previous conversations. As
you know, we spoke earlier this week. The President has talked
several times to President Putin.
I will make clear again, as I have throughout this crisis,
that while we respect obviously that Russia has deep
historical, cultural, and other kinds of interests with respect
to Ukraine and particularly Crimea, nothing justifies a
military intervention that the world has witnessed. There are
many other legitimate ways to address Russia's concerns, and we
are trying to make that very, very clear. In my discussions
with Minister Lavrov I have made it clear that there are many
reasons for Russia to choose a path of deescalation and of
political solution here. We believe that interests can be met
and that, most importantly, the desires of the people of
Ukraine can be respected and that the international law can be
respected. We do not seek a world in which we have to apply
additional costs to the choices that have been made thus far.
We don't think anybody is more served, better served not
for the interests of our efforts in Iran, not for the interest
of our efforts in Syria, not for the interest of our efforts
with nuclear weapons or Afghanistan or many other places by
isolating Russia, but we will do what we have to do if Russia
cannot find the way to make the right choices here, and our job
is to try to present them with a series of options that are
appropriate in order to try to respect the people of Ukraine,
international law, and the interests of all concerned.
So we will offer certain choices to Foreign Minister Lavrov
and to President Putin through him and to Russia with hopes,
and I think the hopes of the world that we will be able to find
a way forward that defuses this and finds a way to respect the
integrity and sovereignty of the State of Ukraine.
It couldn't be any clearer. What you all do here and what
we talk about here today really matters, and when I think about
that, I can't help but recall standing in Kiev just a few days
ago near the Maidan on Institutska Street right at the spot
where so many were struck down by the snipers, looking at the
bullet holes up and down lampposts, looking at these
extraordinary memorials that people have spontaneously built,
stacks of flowers, candles, photographs, and juxtaposed to the
street which was filled with these extraordinary barricades of
bedposts and tires and all kinds of detritus, and a street that
was covered in a film of the results of the fires that had been
lit and the burning that had taken place and the chaos that had
ensued.
What came through to me were the voices of the people I
talked to on the street, telling me how much they wanted to be
able to determine their own future and how grateful they were
for our support and assistance and how they just wanted to be
able to live like other people. One man particularly struck me,
he had come back from Australia, and he said, you know, I saw
how other people are living, and we just want to be able to
make the same choices and live the same way. What we do is true
not just for Kiev, but it is true in so many places, and some
places that don't always get the headlines.
It matters in a place like South Sudan, a nation that Frank
Wolf and some of you helped to give birth to, a nation that is
now struggling and needs our support in order to be able to
have a chance to survive its infancy. It matters in the Maghreb
where the State Department is coordinating with France to take
down al Qaeda, making sure that French forces have the
technology and the weapons that they need. What we do matters
to us in terms of what we do in central Asia, where we are
working with several nations to stop the trafficking of
narcotics, to keep more heroin off our streets, and to cut off
financing for terrorists and extremists.
What we do matters in the Korean peninsula, where we are
working with our partners from the Republic of Korea to make
sure that we can meet any threat from North Korea and to
continue to push for the denuclearization of North Korea. I was
just in China, we can talk about that a little later if you
want. But thanks to the State Department's work, the South
Koreans are now making the largest financial contribution to
these efforts in the peninsula in the history of our joint
security agreement. What we do matters from Bosnia to Indonesia
in our work with NGOs and civil society groups to defend
religious freedom, protecting the universal rights of people to
practice their faith freely and working to bring an end to the
scourge of Anti-Semitism.
This isn't just what we do in this budget, this is an
essential part of who we are as Americans. I firmly believe
that in this increasingly interconnected world, global
leadership isn't a favor that we do for other countries, as you
mentioned, Madam Chair, it is vital to our own strength. It is
vital to our security and the opportunities that we can provide
for our children.
Now, I have spent enough years here to know that you
shouldn't call anything that costs billions of dollars an
automatic bargain, but when you consider that Americans, the
American people pay just one penny of every tax dollar for the
$46.2 billion in investments in this request, I believe the
American people are getting an extraordinary return on their
investment.
We have kept our funding request in line with what was
appropriated to the Department and USAID in fiscal year 2014
within our base request of $40.3 billion, and the additional
part of our request for OCO, Overseas Contingency Operations,
totals $5.9 billion. With OCO funding we support programs, as
you know, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan as we continue to
right-size those commitments. These resources also provide the
U.S., the State Department and USAID with the ability to
respond to the humanitarian crisis in Syria and flexibility to
meet unanticipated peacekeeping needs.
I know it is easy for some in Congress to support larger
cuts in the budget, but what is impossible to calculate
completely is the far greater price our country would pay for
inaction on many of the things that we are facing today. It is
impossible to calculate the dangers in a world without American
leadership and the vacuum that that would create for extremists
and ideologues to exploit, but I am telling you without any
doubt more deeply than I ever believed it before when I chaired
the Foreign Relations Committee, this year has impressed on me
the degree to which if we aren't engaged in these things, we
will pay the price somewhere down the road for the vacuum that
will be created and for the dangers that will come to our
country as a result.
For me it is no coincidence that the places where we face
some of the greatest national security challenges are also
places where governments deny basic human rights to their
nation's people, and that is why development assistance,
investing in our partnership with our allies, and supporting
human rights and stronger civil societies is so critical. These
are the surest ways to prevent the kind of tragedy that we are
seeing unfold in Syria today.
Now, I know that Frank and others of you have seen these
horrors firsthand, as have I. You have looked into the eyes of
refugees. There is simply no way to articulate how important it
is for the richest, most powerful Nation on this planet to do
its part to try to make the world a safer and a better place.
For the Syrian people, for Lebanon, Turkey, and for Jordan
coping with how to keep their societies running and keep
extremists at bay while they host millions of now refugees, our
support is critical to that. We are the largest donor in the
world, and that helps us because it is critical to us that
Lebanon and Jordan remain stable.
With our assistance to one of our oldest allies in the
Pacific as it recovers from one of the worst natural disasters
in history, Typhoon Haiyan, we are also leading the way.
Through an $56 million contribution from State and USAID to the
Philippines, we are working with our partners so that hundreds
of thousands of people literally can put their lives back
together, and I visited that devastation and saw how it just
flattened that community in a matter of minutes.
With our core budget request, there is a $1.35 billion
contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and
Malaria and the goal that President Obama has set today for an
AIDS-free generation would have been absolutely unthinkable 10
years ago--it was, I am telling you--because I wrote the
legislation with Bill Frist in the Senate that created the
first effort on AIDS, and we got the support of Jesse Helms,
and the story since then with President Bush growing it into
PEPFAR and all of the things that have happened is an amazing
story for the United States of America and for the world, and
an accomplishment, and we are now working to transition the
leadership of these life-saving programs to local hands, with
Rwanda, Namibia, and SouthAfrica, some of the first to take the
reins.
Because of our leadership, children are waking up today in
Sub-Saharan Africa who face a very different future from what
they did only 10 years ago, and just as our partners in Asia
and Europe make a transition from being recipients of American
aid, 11 of the 15 countries that we used to give aid to, the
biggest aid recipients, are now donor countries. Remarkable
story. Korea, a donor country, was a major recipient of aid and
so forth. We can be proud of this. Americans, I think we need
to talk about it more. We need to get people to see the huge
benefit of this one penny on the dollar investment, and part of
making sure that African nations and many other emerging
markets make the most of opportunities in approving reforms to
the International Monetary Fund is going to be a critical part
of that.
I think all of you know the IMF has been a central part of
the transformation of so many countries, and it is also
important to greater trade with people in our own hemisphere as
well as right here at home, and particularly for trade with
Brazil, Chile, Colombia, India, Korea, Mexico, Peru, the
Philippines, Thailand, all of whom once borrowed from IMF and
now are some of the most powerful traders in the world.
So I will just close by saying to you that Ukraine's
struggle for independence, particularly its financial
independence, will depend on Congress ratifying reforms that
will help Ukraine borrow through the IMF's rapid financing
instrument. Our $200 million investment and sovereign loans are
needed urgently, but it is only through the IMF, a reformed IMF
that Ukraine is going to receive the additional help it needs
in order to stand on its own two feet.
We are doing, I think, amazing stuff out of many of our
embassies, consulates around the world, and I just say to you,
look at the advocacy from Embassy Lusaka that helped a New
Jersey-based firm win an $85 million contract to build 144
bridges in Zambia with the potential to grow to $250 million
contract. That is jobs at home. That is U.S. tax benefit, and
strengthening of our economy.
Our consular staff in Calcutta helped bring an Illinois-
based Caterpillar together with Sasan Power Limited on a $500
million deal to develop 396 megawatt power plant. Embassy
Wellington and Embassy Apia in Samoa helped TE SubCom, a
company based in New Jersey, land a $350 million contract to
lay fiber optics across the Pacific. When 95 percent of the
world's consumers live outside of our market and when foreign
governments are out there aggressively backing their own
businesses, believe me, this is the kind of advocacy that
American workers need to compete, and that is why I have said
since day one of becoming Secretary of State, economic policy
is foreign policy, and we have just talked about that with all
of our embassy chiefs and mission chiefs who come back to
Washington. We have put in place a very strong economic team,
and we believe that it is critical to be able to strengthen
that.
So Madam Chairwoman, this budget keeps our ironclad
partnership with Israel intact, $3.1 billion in security
assistance, and as we make these investments around the world,
we can never eliminate every risk, especially in a world where
our vital interests are not confined to secure and prosperous
capitals, but we can and will mitigate these risks, and we have
been in implementing the ARB and working off the lessons
learned in Benghazi. This budget does that, and it does more.
It implements all of the recommendations of the independent
Benghazi Accountability Review Board, and it makes additional
investments that go above and beyond that.
Every week I am sitting with our team to evaluate the
threats against a number of different embassies, the levels we
have drawn down, we have added back, we have had authorized
departures, we have had mandatory departures. It is a constant
challenge, but I believe we are meeting that challenge
appropriately and allocating our resources in a way that best
protects the men and women serving our country.
I believe this budget strikes a balance between the needs
to sustain long-term investments in American leadership and the
political imperative to tighten our belts here at home. I
believe the budget is a blueprint for providing the minimum our
people need to be able to carry out their mission, and to
enhance national security and promote global stability.
I will just close by saying to you it is never, and that is
not a budget that we would like to have, this is the budget we
have to have under the circumstances of the budget agreement,
and that is a longer conversation. Maybe we will get into some
of that today. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Granger. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Granger. Thank you for your detailed discussion on
Ukraine. This subcommittee and the Congress also understands
the urgency, which is why we passed so quickly the $1 billion
loan guarantee, and we understand that the administration is
also going to redirect existing funds to provide technical
assistance to the government ministries. My concern I would
like you to discuss first is the funding for Europe and Eurasia
that is reduced in your fiscal year 2015, it goes down by 18
percent from the levels in fiscal year 2013. So how does your
budget request help to support other countries in the region
that may also feel threatened and want to continue to work with
the United States and the western partners?
Secretary Kerry. Well, Madam Chairwoman, we actually
believe the fiscal year 2015 request includes $1.4 billion,
which is 8 percent above 2013 for operations and assistance
programs in the Asia-Pacific region to do a number of things:
Deepen the alliances, expand and strengthen partnerships,
support ongoing operations. We have had to do some trade-offs,
but where we have done some trade-offs there is money we
believe in the pipeline, and we are able to keep up the current
efforts, so we don't believe it is a reduction in effort at
all. We think it is an increase overall because of the way in
which we have been able to shift additional support. So, you
know, in our judgment we are positioned as powerfully as we
have ever been within the region. I literally just left a
meeting with our East Asia-Pacific, all of our representatives
talking about how we are dealing with Japan, South Korea,
China, North Korea, ASEAN, enforcing our interests with respect
to the South China Sea and dealing with additional efforts.
Ms. Granger. My concern was Europe and Eurasia.
Secretary Kerry. Well, in Eurasia we have 217.8 million,
which is 44 percent of the EUR bureau's entire request, 44
percent, and we are going to prioritize funding for Georgia,
Ukraine, Moldova, supporting reforms necessary for European
integration and so forth.
In the Balkans we have 27 percent of the EUR entire bureau
request, and our European partners represent about 10 percent
of the EUR request. So I think we are targeting this to support
democratic, the democratic transformation process and reforms,
economic, military, justice sector. We really believe while it
is a decrease, the largest dollar amount decreases are in
Poland and Kosovo, where we think we have made up for it
through both European presence as well as the success that has
taken place there.
Ms. Granger. I would like to talk to you about the later
also. But I will go on. The other concern has to do with Egypt
and there are a lot of changes that have occurred. One of the
changes that hasn't occurred is the importance of our
relationship with Egypt, and the administration's policy to
withhold the delivery of the military equipment has brought a
lot of questions from the Egyptians to this subcommittee and
certainly to me. It sent a message to the Egyptians, but they
are not sure what the message is. So it has left members of
this committee wondering what the policy is, especially when
the peace treaty with Israel is being upheld.
In fact, the Egyptians and Israelis are communicating
better, they say, than they ever have. The Egyptian military
continues to cooperate with the United States and is taking
actions that really are very encouraging, destroying the
smuggling tunnels in Gaza. So as this continues, I am concerned
and members of the subcommittee are concerned that we have not
resumed our assistance and what is happening to Egypt in the
relationship, which has been so important having to do with
this equipment.
Secretary Kerry. Well, Madam Chairwoman, you raise a lot of
very important points about what Egypt is doing and about the
importance of the relationship. We don't disagree at all about
the importance of the relationship. Egypt is a very vital
relationship. It is a quarter of the Arab world. It has always
been sort of the hub of the region, if you will. It faces some
enormous challenges right now, and we are well aware of that.
We want this interim transitional government to succeed. We
are committed to try to help make that happen, but they need to
help us to help them at the same time by implementing some of
the reforms that we have been talking with them about with
respect to inclusivity, journalists, some of the arrests and so
forth. We have had these conversations. I met with the foreign
minister of Egypt just this past week abroad. We had a very
good conversation about it. I have had a number of telephone
conversations, including with him, with foreign ministers as
well as with Field Marshal Al Sisi most recently. It is our
hope to be able to make that transfer providing there is a
conclusion drawn by our team with respect to some of the things
we have been anticipating them doing, but I can't deny that
their efforts on security in the Sinai, their efforts on
security in enforcing the peace, the truce with Hamas and Gaza
has been very, very important, and we have a strong security
relationship with them, strong military-to-military
relationship. They want that to be strong, we want it to be
strong, and I am hopeful that in the days ahead I can make the
appropriate decision, and when I say days ahead, I mean short
term.
Ms. Granger. So you----
Secretary Kerry. It is up to me. I have the certification,
thanks to you. You all worked very hard with us on the
language, we are very appreciative of the language that, the
standard you have adopted, and I am very, very hopeful that in
very short order we will be able to move forward.
Ms. Granger. So we won't wait for a new President, new
parliament, we will do it before that?
Secretary Kerry. I can't absolutely say with certainty, but
it is our hope to be able to do that very soon.
Ms. Granger. My last question, and this is also on Egypt,
has to do with the extremist groups that are based in the
Sinai, the level of sophistication, what is happening there.
Hundreds of Egyptian police and military have been killed. So
now the way we understand it is that these terrorists are also
targeting tourists, which of course hurts Egypt, hurts us and
hurts Egypt's progression. Can you tell me what we are doing
about that or any updates on the situation?
Secretary Kerry. We are cooperating very, very closely, and
I am pleased, you know, that cooperation has never changed in
this process. It is security cooperation. We cooperate with
Israel also on it. Israel is very engaged in also dealing with
this it is a challenge for the region. The principal group
there is a Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, which is engaged in not just
attacks against interests in the Sinai itself, but there is
some evidence that they are playing outside of that and into
Cairo and other parts of Egypt itself.
So it is a serious threat. We all take it seriously. That
is one of the reasons why we would like to be able to get the
Apaches up here and meet this standard. They have some 33
Apaches, not as many are flying; unfortunately, there are very
few that are flying capable right now, which is why that is a
pressing issue, and they need them with respect to the
prosecution of our counterterrorism efforts in that region. But
we are deeply engaged providing different kinds of assistance,
some of which I can talk about here and some of which we would
have to talk about in a classified session.
Ms. Granger. You can see why it's confusing, however, we
understand there is a problem, and this equipment could help
the problem. Mrs. Lowey.
Secretary Kerry. I get it, and I have talked to them very
directly about that. I think they understand things that need
to happen here, and I think my hope is, again, that in the next
days, we will be in a position to be able to move forward.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, again, Mr. Secretary, and I
particularly appreciate your activity with regard to Ukraine,
but of course there are many other questions we have to ask. I
would ask for you to keep us up to date on your conversations
with Foreign Minister Lavrov. I can remember meeting with you
in July and asking what does Russia want with regard to Syria?
What does Russia want with regard to Iran? And I have a feeling
we will still be asking that question, but I appreciate your
actions and your positive steps.
I want to pursue some questioning on the Israeli-
Palestinian peace process. During many of our discussions, I
have said I hope to see peace in the Middle East in my
lifetime. The press reports that Israel and the Palestinians
remain divided on all the major issues, including border
security settlements, Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees and
recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.
So first of all, I would like you to update us on the
progress of renewed negotiations between the Palestinians and
the Israelis, and in particular, is it possible for the parties
to reach an outline for a final deal by April 29th? Should an
extension be necessary, would an agreement to extend talks
require Israeli and Palestinian signatures? I know that
President Abbas is due at the White House on March 17. Abu-
Mazen has stated that without an agreed framework, the PA would
resume their drive to join the U.N. and other international
bodies.
Do you believe that Abbas will revert to efforts to achieve
member status at specialized agencies of the U.N.? Did the
administration request waiver authority to continue funding on
a case-by-case basis for U.N. entities such as the WHO and IAEA
because you believe that Abbas will resume his U.N. campaign,
and what is the administration's plan to forestall the PA's
attempts to gain recognition in such organizations? Again, your
energy has been extraordinary. I think 10 or probably 12 trips
to that region of the world, and we appreciate your commitment.
Could you discuss with us where you are and use some of these
questions as a guideline?
Secretary Kerry. Sure, I would be delighted to, but I hate
to say it, but you are light on the number of trips. There have
been much more in the region, about 12 or 13 to actually Israel
and Palestine, or Palestinian territories.
Let me answer your question. On the waiver, I want to go to
the waiver just very quickly because then I will come back to
the general situation. We would like a waiver, yes, we do want
a waiver. We need a specific waiver, not because we feel they
are going to go, but because we already, we can't vote at
UNESCO. We have lost our vote, and we think that it is sort of
a, you know, it is a policy that was meant to deter, but in
fact, is hurting us more than it is deterring, and so has the
prospect of doing that. If things were to fall apart, I can
guarantee you that President Abbas will not be deterred by any
consequence in terms of our loss of funding. That is not going
to deter him. So our loss of vote or funding is our loss, and
what happens is we actually lose our voice and our capacity to
fight for Israel and to fight for other interests we have. We
are stripped of that. If they act, it doesn't seem very
sensible to put ourselves in that position. So we would like a
waiver, and I think we will be coming to you to talk about
that.
I do believe there are ways that we can reach an agreement
that would see an extension of the, I hope would be able to be
reached that might be able to have an extension of that. I
don't want to predict with certainty, but I would hope.
Now, my bigger hope is that we can find a way forward that
builds on the progress that is very hard to lay out to people,
and you are just going to, I am afraid, have to take my word
for it. While there are gaps, yes, and some of them very
significant, yes, you have to see those gaps in the context of
the negotiation. Certain narrative issues are so powerful and
so difficult, that neither leader is going to definitively cede
on them at an early stage of the negotiation. It is just not
going to happen. They are big ticket items in the context of
the trading and of the concessions that might or might not be
made.
So I am not going to talk about these in any kind of detail
here today except to say to you that I believe progress has
been made in certain areas, while great gaps, obviously, as I
just described, do remain. Our hope is we can get some kind of
understanding. I am not going to describe what it would be, but
some kind of understanding ofthe road forward. I do believe
both parties are serious, both parties want to find a way forward, but
each of them, you know, the level of mistrust is as large as any level
of mistrust I have ever seen on both sides. Neither believes the other
is really serious, neither believes that both, that the other is
prepared to make some of the big choices that have to be made here.
I still believe it is possible, but difficult. And so we
are going to proceed as privately as we have. I am not going
to, with your understanding, I hope, and respect, lay out where
the parties are or what the current tensions are over. I just
don't think it serves anything. I have been the one pushing the
hardest for them not to negotiate in public, and
notwithstanding the best efforts, there have been huge
restraints, I must say. Most of the details are not out in the
marketplace of conversation, but there have been enough public
dramatic statements of one position or another that I think
gets in the way of the negotiation.
So we are going to continue, President Abbas comes here
this week, next week, we are looking forward to that
conversation just as we looked forward to the conversation the
President had with Prime Minister Netanyahu 10 days ago or so,
and each of these is informative, each of them has helped to
inch forward, and in this particular challenge, inches are
acceptable and pretty good and helpful, and we are going to
keep moving the way we are moving.
Mrs. Lowey. I want to thank you. Because there are so many
of us, I won't go on to another question, Mr. Secretary, but I
just want to mention one of our very important grantees took a
position with regard to the Palestinian boycott after the Soda
Stream issue. I thought it was totally inappropriate, and I
made it clear to them in a letter and in a public statement. It
seems to me that when you have a business that is hiring 900
people in the West Bank, employing both Palestinians and
Israelis, that should be supported. We are investing economic
development funds, and I know you are particularly focused on
investing in economic development and going out to the private
sector as well to raise those dollars.
So for one of our grantees to support this boycott,
divestment, and sanctions drive, I just wanted to put on the
record that I thought it was outrageous. Thank you.
Secretary Kerry. Well, thank you, and I think you know our
position is we strongly oppose the boycott process.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Chairman Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Chairwoman. Mr. Secretary, in a trip
I made recently to Israel, the one thing I heard more than
anything else there was the word "incitement," and it is plain,
the PA especially, is teaching and preaching hatred of the
Israelis, and that has got to be a major stumbling block to
your efforts to bring a peace agreement about.
In the omnibus bill that we passed in January, thanks to
the work of Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Lowey, there
was the provision added that requires you to certify to the
committee that the Palestinian Authority is acting to counter
incitement of violence against Israelis, and is supporting
activities aimed at promoting peace, coexistence and security
operations with Israel.
This is an issue that is tough to deal with especially, but
this, I think, gives you some ammunition to try to tamp down
the incitement to violence and hatred of Israelis that has got
to be a major stumbling block to the peace agreement. What do
you think?
Secretary Kerry. Well, it is a problem. It is a challenge,
and it is very much on the table in our discussions; and if we
get some kind of understanding of how we will go forward, it
will include, I believe, a joint understanding of steps that
need to be taken on both sides in order to deal with the
problem of incitement.
Mr. Rogers. But the law says that you have got to certify
before you can deliver the money that we appropriated to the
PA, before you deliver the money, you have got to certify to
us----
Secretary Kerry. It is a good lever. I appreciate it.
Mr. Rogers. The question is, what are you going to do about
it?
Secretary Kerry. Well, I am going to make the judgment
appropriately obviously; and hopefully we will have movement on
that in the context of what we are doing here that will permit
me to. If we don't, I won't.
Mr. Rogers. The time is upon us. It is for fiscal year
2014. No moneys can be delivered to the PA until you certify
that they are fighting against incitement.
Secretary Kerry. There are steps being taken. Is it enough
at this point in time? Are there still problems with textbooks
and some of the teaching and some of the camps, and I have seen
videos and other things that are very disturbing. We have
called them to attention, and we are working on it. So I hope
to be in a position to be able to do that, Mr. Chairman; but I
am mindful of my responsibility to do it appropriately.
Mr. Rogers. When can we expect that?
Secretary Kerry. Before we give them any money.
Mr. Rogers. That is what I like to hear, but I am looking
for a date.
Secretary Kerry. Let me get through the next couple weeks,
and maybe I can give you a quicker answer.
Mr. Rogers. Well, we will be watching that. This, I think
very, very thoughtfully on the part of the chairwoman and Ms.
Lowey, a very thoughtful process by which pressure can be
brought to bear.
Secretary Kerry. Absolutely. No question. But let me say to
you, it is something that is a concern within leadership. It is
not always something that is controlled all the way down the
chain. It is not always, you know, it is not always easily
accessible. Even though one person may issue an instruction,
some things don't happen. So it is a little more complicated,
but we are working on it.
Mr. Rogers. Well, but it is being taught in schools.
Secretary Kerry. No. I understand.
Mr. Rogers. It is being taught in the schools, and it is
being taught in the marketplace and on the square and every
other place, and it is being done with relish, incitement; and
it seems to me if you could use this provision to sell Hamas
and that side of the importance of tamping down that kind of
incitement, it seems to me we would be a major step forward
toward a peace agreement.
Secretary Kerry. Mr. Chairman, I understand your concern,
and we will address it.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Ms. Granger. We will now be going to members. It is a very
active and involved subcommittee. I will remind the members
that you have 5 minutes for your questions and that includes
responses from the Secretary. If time permits, we will
certainly have another round. I will now call Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, I wanted first of all thank you for the
outstanding job you are doing. I don't know how you find the
energy, but we are grateful that you are as good at the job as
you are; and my compliments.
I want to share a couple quick thoughts on Egypt and then
ask you about Ukraine. I want to share a slightly different
perspective than our chair, which always makes me nervous
because our chair is outstanding, and when we disagree, it is
because I made a mistake, which I only find out about later.
But I completely concur with what Cairo has done in terms
of cracking down on terrorism within its borders as well as
assisting with cracking down on smuggling into Gaza and on
Hamas. I think it has been outstanding; but I am gravely
concerned that they are not only going after the Muslim
brotherhood, but also jailing the secular opposition, jailing
journalists, embarking on a campaign of deifying the new
military leader; and it looks like we may be returning to the
past, going back to another military government. And I think
whither Egypt goes, the Arabs spring and the hopes for
democracy in the Arab world go. And much as we want a
relationship with Egypt and much as we don't like the Egyptians
turning to our Russian, I can't say friends at the moment,
nonetheless, I think that we have to make clear our strong
support for democracy in the Arab world and Cairo's central
role in that and the concerns that we have they are deviating
from that path. Only tiny Tunisia is a ray of light at the
moment.
So I would urge caution and away from alacrity in terms of
assistance. I would rather be supporting Egypt in their
democracy building institutions than taking any actions that
will be viewed not only by Egypt, but by others in the region
as condoning a crackdown. It would be a return to a policy of
supporting authoritarian regimes that are friendly to usrather
than the democratic aspirations of their people.
On Ukraine, I don't envy your job. Mr. Lavrov tells you
they won't violate the territorial integrity of the Ukraine,
and then they do. Mr. Putin says they don't have troops in
Russia, and they do. They both say that they are there to
protect the Russian population which is under no threat. It is
clear they are going forward with a referendum and probably
annexation under the barrel of a gun and that more sanctions
are going to be necessary. I think it is going to be vital to
impose real costs beyond the first round that the President has
announced after Georgia and now Crimea.
Can you share with us a little of your thoughts on what the
sanction options may be, and I know you want to carefully
calibrate them and continue to offer an exit ramp; but it looks
like the Russians have no interest in heading to the exits and
that further costs will have been to be imposed; and if you
could share a few thoughts on what that might look like and
whether our European partners are willing to undertake them
with us, considering it will have a bigger impact on their
economies than ours.
Secretary Kerry. Thank you, Congressman Schiff, and thank
you for your generous comments.
On Egypt, our best source of leverage with Egypt really has
been and remains the international legitimacy that is provided
by the longstanding relationship with the United States and the
realities, the practical applications that come from the
military-to-military relationship and our ability to act as a
convener on their behalf if they are doing things that are
constructive and moving down the road to democracy, our ability
to bring business in the global community to the table in order
to help them economically.
We are not exactly leveraging ourselves in terms of our
aid. The UAE and Saudi Arabia have committed to some $13
billion. As you know, I talked at length with chairwoman last
year about how much we could take, and I think I took $195
million; and that is all we released. We had the power to
release more, but I wasn't comfortable with what I heard and
now borne out by facts, so I didn't release the additional
amount, which I am very grateful to the chairwoman for granting
us the authority to do had we thought it was appropriate. I
didn't think it was appropriate. But $195 million versus $13
billion.
So it is not our economic assistance that is our lever. It
is this relationship, and I think it is important for us to
leverage change there. We have spoken out forcefully, publicly,
and individually to members of the government about arrests,
about the young activists, about one of our employees, other
people. And that is why I said to the chairwoman a little while
ago, I am waiting to see a couple things I am hopeful can
happen. I am not going to go in with any specificity except to
say that we all share those concerns. President Obama has been
very clear about the unacceptability of that move.
But there is a delicate balance here. I mean, I am not
excusing a delicate balance with respect to any of those
things. Don't mistake that; but at the same time, they are
trying to establish stability against violent acts that are
purposeful to disrupt the economy, purposeful to go after
tourists, purposeful to, you know, undo their ability to
stabilize the situation; and it is this very complicated
chicken-and-egg kind of vicious circle where you have got to
get the stability to begin to attract the capital, to begin to
attract the tourists; and if you can't do that, and the
politics stay in turmoil, it is harder to make it work, and
people who are keeping the politics in turmoil know that, so
you get in a trap.
And the question is where and how do you sort of break out
of that. Hopefully through good politics. Hopefully through the
election, through the reforms, through the inclusivity, through
the respect for freedom of the press, through the respect for
the right to protest; and that will bring people together
sufficiently that where there is real terrorist violence, et
cetera, people can distinguish between the appropriate level of
law enforcement against that versus the system that is working
in other respects. That is our hope, and that is what we are
trying to help structure.
I know the light is flashing. I will just go very quickly
on Ukraine. I am not going to go into all of the sanctions. We
have been pretty explicit about the visa sanctions, banking
sanctions, targeted business sanctions, individual kinds of
sanctions. I don't want to go into all of the detail except to
say this: It can get ugly fast if the wrong choices are made,
and it can get ugly in multiple directions.
So our hope is that, indeed, there is a way to have a
reasonable outcome here. I will not be quite so definitive as
you have been that it is clear they will "annex" Crimea. They
may well, but they may have the referendum, have the vote and
not move in the Duma to do the other things. Or now I hear talk
about the potential of secession as an alternative and so
forth. That obviously, in our judgment, would be contrary to
the constitution of Ukraine and an illegal act; and I am not
sure that it would be recognized under those circumstances.
So there are a lot of variants here, which is why it is
urgent that we have this conversation with the Russians and try
to figure out a way forward. We have exchanged some thoughts.
We haven't had a meeting of the minds on that, but we have
agreed to try to find a way through the thoughts as exchanged
to see if there isn't some way to find a reasonable way
forward, and we will make the best efforts to do that.
We have Prime Minister Yatsenuk, he will be here today. I
will be meeting with him after this hearing, and then he will
be meeting at the White House; and we will have a better sense
from Ukrainians, who, after all, really are the ones who have
the choice here. Not us. It is what do they feel is acceptable,
and what do they feel is the way forward, and we will talk with
them about that.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Secretary, thank you
for your service; and, every time I see you in the paper, your
time away from your family, so I want to thank you for your
service in the Senate but also your service here. I think you
are really working hard. You probably have the toughest,
toughest, toughest job.
I have two questions. You really don't even have to answer
them because I would like you to think about them rather than
having an answer that gets a story and nothing happens. The
first question is on Sudan. You know more about Sudan frankly
than I think anybody else. You know more about Sudan than I
know about it. I remember once you were over on the House floor
and I came up to thank you. I think you spent a whole week
there that one time. I had written a letter. I would like you
to just think about bringing in the Bush Library and President
Bush to work under you and under President Obama. Salva Kiir
still wears the cowboy hat that President Bush gave him. There
was a quote whereby the South Sudanese Ambassador in Washington
welcomed the idea saying, "When you have a deadlock, you need
someone to break the ice and bring the people together."
If you just think about bringing in the Bush Library or
bringing in President Bush, the same way that President Obama
brought in President Bush and Clinton on Haiti, because there
is so much going on in the Department, and I know President
Bush wouldn't engage unless you said you wanted him to and
unless the President said he wants him to. I think you can make
a big difference.
The second question, and, again, you don't have to answer
this. I just want you to think about it. I was the author
several years ago and this committee of the Iraq Study Group,
the Baker-Hamilton Commission. I think they interviewed you, I
read during the process. And a group of us, Mr. Schiff was one,
Anna Eshoo and a group of others sent a letter asking would you
engage with the Atlantic Council and/or maybe the U.S.
Institute For Peace, which has been funded by this committee to
look at, maybe let's call it a Syrian study group to work under
you. Secretary Rice gave approval of the Iraq Study Group
because you can't contract foreign policy out to an independent
group. But working with you or working with Secretary Burns,
who is a great guy, and bring in the best minds, bipartisan,
take 3 months, people that you like, people that can come
together, but with the Iraq Study Group when you had Baker and
Hamilton coming together. So there are two questions to think
about. You don't have to answer it. I'm not going to put you on
the spot.
Secretary Kerry. I appreciate that.
Mr. Wolf. On Sudan to bring in the Bush Library for
reconciliation, for economic development, for a lot of things,
working for--let me make it clear, not freelancing; working
under you and President Obama, and would you consider the
Atlantic Council and/or the U.S. Institute For Peace, or if you
get a better group, to bring them in to do the same thing that
was done on the Iraq Study Group to see if we canWe are
reaching a third year, if we can do something that would help
you and us. Thank you.
Secretary Kerry. Good thoughts. I appreciate them both. The
only thing I would quickly say to you is that I gave Salva Kiir
several cowboy hats because I thought he ought to have a
Democrat hat, too; and on some days he wears that, one I am
glad to say.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. It is always good to see
you. Thank you for being here. Also, let me just, once again,
acknowledge your tremendous commitment, focus, and hard work at
the State Department as Secretary as well as those of your very
dedicated staff.
I am glad you mentioned, and thank you for mentioning
PEPFAR and the global fund and the real-life saving and life-
affirming value of United States taxpayer dollar contributions.
As you know, it was the Congressional Black Caucus here on the
House side which led this effort, and we certainly never could
have gotten the legislation through the Senate had it not been
for your bold and brilliant leadership as well as that of
Senator Frist and Senator Helms. I always remind the public
that it was an example of the success of bipartisan and
bicameral relationships, agreements and really a focus on the
fact that we should come together to save lives and to work for
an AIDS-free generation, just as this subcommittee and
committee continues to do.
I am concerned, however, that PEPFAR really has been flat
funded for a couple of years in your budget and that the global
fund has been cut now by $300 million. I am worried that
possible donor nations will not cede a real incentive to make
their hopefully significant contributions to the global fund if
we are cutting our contribution. And so I would like to hear
some assessment of how you see that moving forward because we
are at a critical and defining moment, as youknow, in the fight
for an AIDS-free generation.
And secondly let me just mention the whole issue of Uganda
and the LGBT laws that we are seeing in Africa and around the
world. I understand that your administration is doing a review
of our relationship with Uganda in light of the recent bill;
but I want you to, or at least I am encouraging you to look at
other countries and review other countries where we have
significant global and HIV funding which also have similar laws
on the books, and you will be receiving a letter from members
of the Congressional Black Caucus very shortly on this.
Secretary Kerry. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. I
really appreciate your passionate support for this. We wouldn't
be where we are today without you and a lot of other folks who
supported it. Let me just say very quickly--first of all, why
don't I answer the Uganda piece first. I spoke to President
Museveni recently, and we had a conversation about this. We
talked to him several times before the signing. We obviously
opposed the signing of the bill, and he agreed to have some of
our experts come over and meet with him and sit with him and
listen to them and sort of reopen it; and so we are going to
continue that conversation with him. But during that process, I
learned that there are 80 countries that have similar types of
laws, restrictions on the books, 80 countries, and we deal with
all of them. So we have a big task. We are doing what you just
suggested about looking at the others and figuring out the road
ahead, and we have talked about it with our mission chiefs in
the last few days. We need to start reaching out, and we are
going to.
This will be a distinct platform of our approach with
respect to rights, human rights, and the LGBT community
globally will know that the United States is going to really
actively, proactively, reach out and talk to those countries.
With respect to the global fund, we have $1.38 billion in
the global fund allocation, our request. And that honors the
President's commitment to provide $1 for every $2 that are
going to be provided here, and what we feel is that in the 2015
request, we are more than fully funding our pledge based on the
current commitments of other countries, and we think it is
adequate to the task at this point in time.
So the President's Opportunity, Growth and Security
Initiative, if enacted, would provide an additional $300
million for the global fund. So this bounces back to you all as
to whether or not we can get that enacted, and then we could
plus it up a little bit more, but I do believe we will be able
to meet the targets and meet our goals.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman and
Mr. Secretary again. Always good to see you, sir.
So many issues in the world, but I would like to bring it
closer to home, to our hemisphere. Let me just kind of toss
three issues out there, and I will throw some specific
questions if possible. And the one is, when the President
talked about in his first inaugural about those who cling to
power through corruption and deceit, exact words, but that he
would extend a hand if they are willing to unclench their
fists, and yet we see in some areas in our hemisphere that that
fist has been clenched even further. Let me just give you a
couple examples.
In Cuba, that regime is still holding Alan Gross. He has
now been serving prison time for 4 years. As we know, arrests
are up, numbers of repression and arrests have increased; and
recently even a ship of arms going to North Korea was
intercepted in Panama. What specific consequences will the
Cuban regime have to deal with because of the increased
repression, because of Alan Gross's continued arrest, and now
with this new issue of them even shipping arms to North Korea,
point number one?
Point number two, coincidentally it was a month ago that
the people, the students in Venezuela hit the streets
protesting the lack of democracy and freedom and the increases
of corruption in Venezuela. They have been confronted, as you
have all seen in YouTube videos by arrests, by beatings, even
by the way by death, by killing. The press has been thrown out
of Venezuela and censored including stations like NTN-24 that
is based out of both Colombia and the United States.
In Ukraine, you mentioned some things like denying visas. A
number of us sent you a letter asking if you could, and the
administration could do that, unilaterally deny visas to the
members of the Venezuelan regime, blocking property or freezing
assets and prohibiting financial transactions to these human
rights abusers. Are you going to be looking at doing something
quick to confront those who are violating the rights and the
human rights and arresting and beating the students in the
streets; and also what specific things is the administration
going to be looking at to help those who are peacefully trying
to recover their democracy.
And lastly, in your confirmation hearing, Mr. Secretary,
you pledged, and I was glad to hear that, that you would,
quote, reiterate our serious concern about Argentina's failure
to fulfill its private debt obligations to U.S. Creditors. I
don't have to tell this committee about Argentina. They have
worked with Iran to, Iran's responsibility for the 1994 bombing
at the Jewish Center in the Buenos Aires. They have undermined
global sanctions against Iran by expanding bilateral trade with
Iran tenfold in 5 years.
I can go on and on, and yet the Department of State has
consistently filed amicus briefs frankly siding with Argentina
when they have been in court on the issue of precisely them not paying
their debtors. That has been rebuffed by every court. Their lawyers,
Argentina's lawyers have actually said that they don't care what court
is going to do. They have criticized the U.S. courts as being just like
Iran. So here is the specific question: Will the Department of State
once again file an amicus brief if asked to do so siding with
Argentina, which is frankly hard to believe, but that is what has
happened, and there is a bunch of reasons why they say they need to do
this; but the courts have been very clear that that is not accurate. Or
will you, as you said--I know you are concerned about them, Mr.
Secretary, too, and I thank you for that. Will at least the Department
of State not side with Argentina in the courts if, in fact, they are
asked to file an amicus brief?
Secretary Kerry. Well, I can just answer that very quickly.
The answer is no. We are not going to.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, sir.
Secretary Kerry. And that is clear. But in addition to
that, we have urged Argentina to repay its debts to the U.S.
Government and to engage with creditors, public and private. I
will continue to do everything that I can and the Department
can do in order to recover those funds, some $600 million in
money owed to the United States. With our urging Argentina has
taken some positive steps. In October, they settled a long-
running investment dispute with three U.S. companies, and it
implemented, in January of this year, it implemented an
improved inflation index in order to address deficiencies in
its IMF reporting and so forth. But we continue to urge them to
fulfill their global international responsibilities, and we
will do that; and as I said----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your
very direct answer. And I appreciate that. Now the other two
issues----
Secretary Kerry. Venezuela and Cuba, I have been meeting
repeatedly, particularly in the last few months on the Alan
Gross issue. In fact, I met with his family just a couple of
weeks ago. And I am not going to go into it here, but I will
tell you that we are very focused on a couple of possibilities
of how we might try to approach that. We really want to get him
back because obviously we don't think he is that well, and he
is wrongly imprisoned as far as we are concerned obviously.
So it is a major priority for us and the White House
likewise. The White House has been very involved working
together in initiatives to try to do this. We hit a stone wall
on a couple, but we are continuing to try to do that; and I
have a couple of ideas that I hope could work. We will see what
happens.
Cuba continues to confound, and there are continued
problems there. The Obama administration is prepared to try to
have a different policy, but we haven't seen the indicators
that merit that at this point in time. There are some things
that we are doing that we think help in terms of remittances,
the other kinds of cultural exchange and so forth. But at the
moment, you are correct; there are serious problems about how
the people are treated there and what the nature of that regime
is.
With respect to Venezuela, we have urged the release--we
have spoken out. I spent, when I was in at the OAS meeting, I
purposely reached out to Foreign Minister Jaua. What was
supposed to be a 10-minute meeting went for 45 minutes. We made
it clear that we want to try to engage in a normal relationship
if they are prepared to. But unfortunately they have been more
prone to simply want to use us as a political card in their
domestic efforts; and I think that has come home to roost
frankly now. That is part of what is going on there, huge
economic problems, unbelievable stratification within their
society, polarization, young people looking for opportunity,
and it is not unlike the story in many parts of the world.
We are prepared, we have urged President Maduro to use the
powers of his presidency to bring peace and justice and
tranquility and opportunity to the people of his country. And
we have not engaged in any of these kinds of activities that he
has on occasion alleged; and we believe it is time for the OAS,
the regional partners, other international organizations, to
assume a greater role frankly in urging the Venezuelan
government to refrain from demonizing opponents, to allow for
peaceful protest, and to move towards a meaningful dialogue
with the opposition. That is the only way the issues are going
to be resolved. Not with increased violence. Even today there
are stories of the potential of that increased violence, and we
would hope they would turn away from that.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary,
welcome. It is good to see you. I want to ask you three
questions quickly so I can give you the bulk of my 5 minutes to
respond. I am going to follow-up on Mr. Diaz-Balart's question
of you on Venezuela, but I do want to acknowledge and ask you
about any activities surrounding the disappearance now again of
Robert Levinson, who last week sadly his family acknowledged
the seventh year of anguish with his imprisonment. He is still
missing, and I just urge you to do all you can to find him and
ensure his safe return to the United States because it has gone
on for far too long.
On Venezuela specifically, my home town is Weston, which we
affectionately like to refer to as West Venezuela; and it is
home to the second largest Venezuelan population behind Doral
in the United States. Can you discuss specifically, and
recognizing that Maduro's regime is trying to use the United
States as a distraction and an excuse for his own failings, his
own oppression, and his own violation of Democratic principles,
and also recognizing that the harm that could come to people
who can least afford it from sanctions is part of the angst
that is derived from the opposition actually.
There are some members of the opposition in Venezuela who
are very concerned about the possibility of sanctions because
of the disproportionate impact that it would have on people who
are already poverty stricken and deprived by this regime. But
this is obviously a very tragic and difficult situation. Maduro
is oppressing his people. There is a tremendous amount of
violence, and we expect it to get worse. So what actions
specifically are we engaging in beyond discussions with the OAS
and urging them to engage so that we can be sure that we can
continue to be the moral leader, not just in our hemisphere,
but in the world.
And then lastly, I am deeply concerned about the complete
zero out of funds for the Global Agriculture and Security
Program. I know that there is a request tied to the
Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative, but we don't have
any guarantee that Congress will agree to appropriate those
funds, and given that that proposal goes over the cap and has
offsets that will likely be controversial, how is that going to impact
our Thousand Days Initiative that has been in place since 2010. Global
food and security obviously is one of the most tremendous challenges
that we face worldwide.
Secretary Kerry. Well, Congresswoman, I want to get back to
you on the global agriculture and global food piece and give
you more detailed answers as to how we can address that. The
food security issue, you are absolutely correct, is an
enormously challenging one. The bottom line is, you know, some
of these budget choices are very, very tough; and that is the
reality and tradeoffs. We believe we can make up for it in
other ways, but let me back to you in details of it.
On the sanctions issue and the challenge of Venezuela, let
me just say this: We have been in touch with surrounding
neighboring countries. We are talking with them about trying to
get some kind of initiative with them. They are not listening
to us particularly, obviously; and we are hopeful that peer
pressure, the hemisphere and the near neighbors are going to be
the people who would have the greatest impact on them, but we
are prepared if, we need to, to invoke the Inter-American
Democratic Charter and the OAS and engage in serious ways with,
as you said, sanctions otherwise.
Their economy is fragile enough right now that one might
have pause about doing that for the reasons you have described.
My hope is, I think the best hope right now, is that the
efforts of the neighboring countries who are deeply concerned
about what is happening and its impact on the region may, may,
be able to encourage the kind of dialogue that could actually
pave the way forward.
We have become an excuse. We are a card they play, as you
say; and I regret that because we very much opened up and
reached out in an effort to say it doesn't have to be this way
and to offer an alternative path. We share the same concerns.
We want fair distribution of the resources. We want
opportunity, economic opportunity. We want to provide the
health care and education and the other things that their young
people are screaming for. And we believe that we can help. But
up until now in the tradition of Chavez, who played that card
so forcefully for years, Maduro, who is not Chavez and who has
his own internal challenges, has tried to replicate it and to
no avail frankly, but it hasn't made it easy for us to be able
to have the impact we would like to have.
On Robert Levinson, we are--I have personally raised this
in my meetings with Foreign Minister of Iran, Zarif, and we
have raised it at the highest levels. It continues to be raised
in all of our engagements, and we have met with them. We are
doing everything possible. Again, there are three people being
held, we believe, in Iran; and they are all three on the table,
but we just have not had any positive return on that effort.
The Swiss have been engaged with us. We have reached out to the
Swiss. They are our representative with respect to that issue
in Iran, and they also have not been able to get positive
response on it. So there are some serious questions surrounding
that disappearance. I think you know that. It is not cut and
dry, and we are trying to get to the bottom of it.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. We have planned this hearing to end
at 12:30. The Secretary has agreed to stay 10 more minutes. We
have to make sure we hear from everyone. So we will now go to
Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Secretary Kerry. If you would like, just to speed matters
up, I will listen to the questions and I can get back to you.
My problem is we have Prime Minister Yatsenyuk coming in, so
otherwise I would stay even longer. But I can take the
questions and get back to you.
Mr. Dent. Sure. Thanks, Mr. Secretary, for being here
today. You mentioned in your opening remarks that economic
policy is foreign policy, or good economic foreign policy
assists foreign policy. I certainly agree with those comments.
We obviously have pending free trade agreements with TTIP and
TPP, the USCU and the Pacific agreement that would certainly
cement relations between our friendly nations and economic
relations and it would certainly bring about greater national
security benefits I think to all involved.
In recent weeks, discussion regarding the expedited
approval of lifting tight restrictions U.S. Exports of
liquefied natural gas, LNG, to loosen the grip Russia has on
Ukraine's energy consumption. Is the expedited approval of the
LNG exports an approach the administration is taking seriously
as this crisis continues to unfold? I did speak with our
ambassador to Ukraine last night at the reception over at State
and talked about--I know the Ukrainians and many of our friends
and allies in Europe are very, very concerned about that issue,
and they want to become--they want to diversify their supply,
get themselves closer to us. Is the administration taking that
issue seriously, and are there specific issues that may make
expediting these LNG exports difficult?
Those are some of the questions I really wanted to lay out
as well as the Keystone pipeline while we are at it, too. Let's
cement our relations with our good friends to the north. There
are clearly benefits to that. If you would respond, I would
appreciate it.
Secretary Kerry. Sure. Just very quickly on Keystone, it is
my responsibility now to deliver an advisory of judgment to the
President with respect to the national interests. I am engaged
in that process, and, you know, I am just going to do my due
diligence, and will report when it is appropriate.
With respect to the LNG, yes, of course the administration
is very, very serious about that, and, in fact, to date,
Department of Energy who has jurisdiction over the authority
over LNG exports has conditionally approved some six LNG
licenses for export, about 8.5 billion cubic feet per day that
could be exported to both free trade and non-free trade
countries such as Europe. That would include Ukraine. The
problem is that the first project, I believe, is not expected
to come on-line until sometime in 2015, so it is not going to
address, if Russia cuts off the gas, we understand they have a
certain amount of reserves. There will be some capacity to be
able to weather that, but this is not going to have a direct
impact on that. It is not going to be able to.
Mr. Dent. The only thing I would add is that--this is a
long-term proposition. I do understand that, but I have heard
both from the Japanese Prime Minister Abe, Chancellor Merkel
and others, they very much want to diversify their supply. They
very much want to get American energy.
Secretary Kerry. Believe me, there are a lot of takers and
I have heard this in many meetings I have had around the world,
including China, elsewhere, where there are voraciousappetites.
There is a counter point of view expressed by some about the effect on
the price, price of oil, as well as price of gas, if you are exporting
very significant amounts and what that might mean for American consumer
in terms of price, so I don't know what that break point is personally.
Mr. Dent. I understand we will be producing more than we
can consume just as we do with many commodities like corn. We
produce more corn than we consume and we export it, and we
would never tell the farmers to not export corn.
Secretary Kerry. And I believe we should be, Congressman. I
think we should do some, but I think there is a legitimate
question to figure out where is that break point on price and
what is our strategic interest, and we need to balance it.
Mr. Dent. Just on another issue about Israel and Palestine;
I think Mrs. Lowey mentioned that issue. In recent months, I
have been looking into the vetting of grantees and subgrantees
receiving U.S. funding focused on reconciliation in that
region. These matters are obviously very sensitive. Do you
believe that the vetting of these organizations is specific and
careful enough to ensure that those organizations and the
people associated with some of these organizations align with
U.S. policy, and frankly U.S. Israeli policy because, as Mrs.
Lowey pointed out, some of the groups receiving those funds
behave in ways that we find offensive and not in our interests?
Secretary Kerry. The question is whether or not the vetting
is----
Mr. Dent. Yeah, some of these organizations that are
receiving funding.
Secretary Kerry. I think, look, this is a new decision that
I think, without going into names and things, that was made by
this particular one organization and, you know, I think under
those circumstances not appropriate, but so it is a first
instance for me. I think we have to take a look at it. I have
not been asked, nor have I reviewed the overall vetting process
with respect to all the others. If there is a reason to, I will
evaluate it; but I am not sure that that is necessary.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this
committee hearing. Mr. Secretary, two questions. The first
question has to do with some language that Chairman Rogers and
Nita Lowey helped us put into the appropriation bill this last
year that calls for the head of each department and agency, as
they prepare their funding request, to directly link them to
their performance measures under GPRA.
So this is the first time we have done that. I would ask
your folks to look at that. The problem is that when you look
at the performance measures that you all have, and I don't want
to embarrass anybody, but I would ask that redo those
performance measures because if we put in $1 of taxpayers'
dollars, we expect to be able to measure that $1 that we gave
you; and with all due respect, the measures that you have there
don't tell us that at all. So I would ask you just to have your
folks to take a look at that.
Number two, I agree also with Chairwoman Granger, your
budget, your proposal, is basically the same, but I think you
substituted a lot of the bipartisan work that we did in this
subcommittee for some of the agency's or the administration's
priorities. For example, the Republic of Mexico, as you know I
live on the border, and I breathe and I drink the water. I am
very familiar with it. You know, we always complained about
what is happening across the river and the drug cartels and as
you know, they just got the godfather of all drug dealers
across the world recently; but the cuts that you all did and
without going to specific cuts, you all went down and made cuts
to a neighbor that has a large impact. I mean, a large amount
of the cocaine that comes into the U.S. will come in through
that country. And with all that, I would ask you again to look
at those cuts and ask you to reconsider; and I am sure the
subcommittee in a bipartisan way will look at those cuts. I
understand, Mexico is going through a great economic
transformation, energy, education, telecommunication, finance
reform, everything that President Nieto has been done. But on
the security part, I just have a concern as we spend so much
money on the U.S. side that I would hope to spend a little bit
of money on the other side; and the more we stop on the Mexico
side, the less of a burden it will be. I would ask you, and I
know we are out of time and I want to be considerate.
Secretary Kerry. You need to be helpful on the time. I
appreciate it. I will just take 15 seconds to answer your
question. On Mexico, our request specifically reflects money in
the pipeline, and it does not, in fact, translate into a
reduction in any priority or effort. The same is true for
Colombia. Colombia has an increased capacity to be able to do
the things we have worked for in planning Colombia and the same
in Mexico for the Merida plan.
So we feel very much as if there is adequate funding there;
and we have the resources in the budget because of the pipeline
to be able to do the things that we need to do. We are going to
draw down on it. It is going to flatten out, and we won't have
that ability next year. So this is the problem as we begin to
draw on those----
Mr. Cuellar. Right, and I am going to give up my time to
save, but if you could send maybe Roberta Jacobson. She
understands Mexico very well. I would love tosit down because I
slightly disagree with your statements on that, but I would be happy
to----
Secretary Kerry. Well, let's work it through. I am happy to
sit with all my smart people sitting back here.
Mr. Cuellar. All right. Include Roberta Jacobson. I yield
back the balance of my time.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman; and thank you,
Mr. Secretary, for being here today.
I wanted to give you the opportunity to touch on a couple
of things that I think are good news in the midst of all the
problems that we see in the world. You talked in your opening
statement a lot about foreign assistance, and you talked about
it in the context of national security, which I think a lot of
times people lose sight of.
When we think about national security, we think about our
Defense Department, and we spend a lot of money to have the
best-trained, best-equipped military in the world; but we don't
often talk about diplomacy or development as you touched on;
and I think that development is a key component to our long-
term national security; but I think, like any other spending,
we have to do it efficiently, and we have to do it effectively;
and I think one of the best examples of smart development
foreign assistance is through what we know as the Millennium
Challenge Corporation.
And as you know, when we assist emerging nations, we ask
them to do well in certain areas like rule of law, human
rights, things like that; and then it is a contract. And one of
the things that I was disappointed in a little bit over the
years, because this is the 10th year of the Millennium
Challenge contracts, the 10-year anniversary, is that the
funding has been reduced, I think, disproportionately. It is a
very efficient use of taxpayers' dollars to offer assistance. I
was encouraged to see in the budget proposed this year that
there is an increase in that spending; and I think that is
positive.
And so I assume that the administration believes, and you
believe, that the Millennium Challenge Corporation is working
well, and I wondered if you wanted to just comment on that, on
one or two successes that you have seen and your view on that
forum of foreign assistance.
Secretary Kerry. Well, I have been particularly interested
in the MCC, and I sit on the board; as you know, I chair the
board. And I have had several meetings now. We have been able
to review some 27 compacts that we have signed and 24 threshold
programs. We have a tension in our debates about MCC about, you
know, second rounds and third rounds because there is always a
tension between trying to excite an initial investment and then
get them out on their own, you know, self sufficient, versus
that moment where you have got to kind of refinance and keep
them going a little longer in order to do it. But I think we
have an 11 percent increase in the funding this year as you
know, I think. We basically have $1 billion out of 20-some
total that we put into the direct development programs through
AID, et cetera.
I would like to see that ratio grow personally. I think it
ought to be a little larger. Now, there is a tension here. MCC
has a very specific set of metrics, and it is an evidence-based
approach, much more along more traditional business investment,
not just pure development lines. With a theory that we want to
try to encourage really good governance, good democratic, all
of the things, but it takes--let me phrase this carefully.
It is really geared to engage at a different level of
development than some other moneys that we expend through
USAID. I believe that is necessary. There are different stages
of development, and different countries can embrace an MCC and
deal with it effectively and translate its metrics into better
governance, better performance. Other countries just aren't
there, and they are not going to be there, but it doesn't mean
that we don't have an interest in making certain that they can
get there and that they develop.
So we may be more involved in education, or more involved
in building an energy project or doing something in that
initial stage. And the question is sort of what is the
appropriate balance between this? You know, is 1 billion enough
to be putting into that, particularly when you have reduced
assets and so forth. But I think that, you know, you look at
Power Africa as an example. We have a major initiative going
where we are incentivizing change in three partner countries
involved in that. It is very effective, and it is going to
bring major, you know, power capacity, increase electricity,
power capacity to those countries.
So all in all, I would summarize it by saying that I hope
we can increase it to some degree. I think it is a terrific
model, but it is not a model that can be applied everywhere.
And we have to work off that as a basis.
Ms. Granger. I will call on Mr. Rooney and Mr. Yoder, and
if you both take 5 minutes, we will be respectful of the
Secretary's time.
Mr. Rooney. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Secretary, I
know that you are aware there will be delegations from all the
parties in northern Ireland coming to Washington; and one of
the things that, we, I think, as a country and administrations
from the Clinton administration on forward can take the
knowledge knowing that there has been some positive
developments with the peace process in northern Ireland. And
with that being said, Mr. Richard Haass testified before the
Committee on Foreign Affairs and I think last week submitted a
report talking about some developments where there may be some
backtracking. I hope that that is not true, but with that being
said, the administration has not put forward the international
fund for Ireland budget request this year, as he hasn't for the
last couple years, and maybe that is for good reason because of
the success stories in the north. But being that it is one of
the success stories that this country has been able to
participate in since the Clinton administration on up, do you
feel that that money, it may be time to revisit whether or not
we don't backtrack and lose the gains that we have made and
that that money is something that we should revisit spending
again in the current year or future years?
Secretary Kerry. That is very possible. There has been
unfortunately increased tension and some partisan events that
have been unfortunate that have been a reflection of times we
thought we had that completely left behind and our hope is with
the meetings here and so forth, to renew everybody's commitment
and sense of that.
So we haven't lost focus on it, but I do think there was a
feeling that things were moving and there was a level of
success. We have to evaluate that, and I am perfectly ready,
based on the situation to engage in that evaluation.
Mr. Rooney. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mr. Yoder.
Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Secretary, we
appreciate your testimony today. It is always a wonderful
dialogue to talk about these issue around the globe and this
committee has an important rule to ensure that we scrutinize
funding and that we are spending American dollars wisely. As I
am sure you know many of our constituents are worried about
that fact. And so maybe to wrap things up here, I have more of
a global question for you. The request is $46.2 billion, and I
think my constituents as all of ours do, have questions related
to what exactly our foreign policy is today. As I am sure you
are aware, as every administration, this administration comes
under some criticism for its foreign policy; and I wanted to
give you a chance to respond to some of the concerns that are
out there that I hear from my constituents that I am sure you
have heard from as well. I would start with a little bit of an
undercurrent of what was Ronald Reagan's foreign policy of
peace through strength, and that weakness invites aggression. I
would like to highlight a few concerns that have been raised by
constituents and others throughout the country, certainly in
Syria where there is a feeling that we painted ourselves into a
corner and we allowed Russia to become a major player in the
resolution there. Concerns related to the Iranian sanctions
relief and whether we are being essentially played by Iran
throughout this whole process. Lingering issues related to the
murder of our ambassador in Benghazi. Certainly today, the
Russian invasion into Ukraine. Russia sailing a ship into a
harbor in Cuba, a spy ship, 90 miles off of the American
border.
Some people see this as a retreat and that you spoke, I
think very passionately, about a vacuum that occurs in the
world if the United States doesn't play a significant role. And
so I would like to ask you, you know, we are familiar with what
the Bush doctrine was, we are familiar with what other
President's foreign policy is. How would of categorize American
foreign policy today in comparison to previous administrations
and in relation to some of the concerns that have been brought
up across the country.
And then specifically, I might just ask do you feel that
the reset of relations with Putin has been effective? Do you
think that the removal of missile defense from eastern Europe
unilaterally, was that concession useful and would we feel that
that was smart given today's relation with Russia. And then how
do you look at this in context with the reduction in military
spending under the President's budget, particularly given the
administration's belief that government spending is critical to
stimulus in the economy and that austerity is bad. Why
austerity just in the military and really nowhere else at this
point? And what message does that send in your role as
Secretary of State, as we reduce military spending to pre World
War II levels, and essentially, in relation to all those
issues, what is the American foreign policy as you see it? And
then finally if you have a second, speak to the Iranian
sanctions issue.
Secretary Kerry. Okay. We will do that in 2 minutes or 10?
Mr. Yoder. As much time as the chair would allot.
Secretary Kerry. I love it, and I am delighted to have a
chance to talk about those things because there is a narrative
out there that I think is completely without any basis; and I
love the opportunity of defending, not just defending, but of,
you know, making clear what the President's priorities are and
what our policy is.
Quite simply put, we are making America stronger, at home
and abroad, and making America safer by projecting American
economic interests as well as by standing up for and projecting
our values, which also support our interests and by taking on
terror before it comes to our shores; and we are fighting
terrorism in many, many different venues, in many different
ways, and that is a longer conversation; but let me go
specifically to this juxtaposition with, let's say Russia or
reset or whatever you want to call it.
The reset with Russia was not just a pushing of the button
and saying, oh, everything is going to be terrific. The reset
was an effort to find those things we could cooperate on,
understanding of course, that with Russia, we were going to
have major philosophical and other kinds of interest
differences. So we have been able to find cooperation in
important things, Afghanistan, on nuclear weapons, the START
reduction, on the CW program in Syria; and.
I might say, Madam Chairwoman, you asked me in the very
beginning of this hearing about the time frame on that. The
time frame originally in the agreement is until June. We are 30
percent out now. 30 percent is being moved out, and we are now
on a 65-day program, which I believe could be reduced to 35
days. And we are pushing very hard with OPCW and others to get
it out. So I want to take advantage of making that question.
But in addition to CW with Syria, Iran, P5 plus 1, Russia has
been an important cooperative partner in the effort to get the
agreement that we got. Now, you mentioned that agreement and
said are we being played by Iran.
Please, we are seeing Iran's 20 percent uranium enrichment
reduced to zero. We are seeing Iran frozen in its 3.5 percent
level of uranium stockpile. No new centrifuges have been put in
place except for a replacement. No additional numbers over the
number that we began with when we began 2 months ago. We have
seen inspectors go into Fordow. We had no inspectors at all in
Fordow. We have inspectors at Natanz. We didn't have them
there. We have inspectors not as frequently as the other two,
but sufficiently in Iraq, in the plutonium reactor. They are
not able to complete the plutonium reactor. We have cradle to
grave tracking of production. We have the right to go into
their storage facilities for centrifuges. In effect, Iran's
program is being rolled back from where it was, and there is no
way to draw any other conclusion but that the world, Israel,
United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, the region, are safer
because of that first step agreement that has been put in
place.
Now we are not sitting hearing and telling you
automatically Iran is going to make the judgment to conclude
the deal. I can't tell you that. President Obama and I share
serious reservations about whether or not they will, in fact,
make the hard choices that they need to in order to satisfy the
world fully and completely that this is a peaceful program.
But the bottom line is we are putting that to test and
earning the credibility of the world to know that if they don't
and we have to do something else, we will have exhausted every
possibility to prove to the world that we were willing to put
them to that test. I think these are very important things in
the conduct of foreign policy and in the potential of the use
of force or any choices that you have to make.
So we are not being played. We are doing what good
diplomacy requires, and we have done it in a way that expands
the so-called breakout time from what was about 2 months to
significantly more, and it could grow, and if we can get a
final agreement, it will be even larger. So I just don't buy
this notion. I don't think that--you know, I don't want to get
into, particularly 2 days before I am about to sit down with
Lavrov, but I think Russia has challenges of its own, and I am
not sure that they need to have the kind of economic
constraints that may be following depending on the decisions
they make. But I also want to say at the same time we recognize
Russia has interests in Crimea. You know, Ukraine was part of
Russia for centuries. Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine, he came
from Ukraine, but there are other reasons that he did it, and
the Russian religion comes from the eastern part of Ukraine.
There are battles for Russia's freedom that were fought in the
eastern Ukraine.
There is a long linkage there, and we need to approach this
in ways that we get Russia to be able to respect the
sovereignty of the country, the integrity of international law,
the rights of Ukrainian people to make decisions for themselves
even as Russian speakers and Russia's interests can be
appropriately met. That is really the challenge here, and I
don't think that the United States--I think the United States
is playing a critical role in helping to perhaps bring that
about, and I can tell you all over the world, my friend, I will
tell you right now, we are playing a critical role with respect
to North Korea, we are playing a critical role with respect to
the relationship between China, Japan, Republic of Korea, and
the Republic of Korea and Japan.
We are central to our engagement with ASEAN to maintaining
stability and freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. We
are engaged deeply in the Middle East obviously with Syria,
with Iran, with Middle East peace process, with Egypt, with the
others. We are engaged in the Maghreb, we are helping Tunisia,
we are working on Libya. I just came from a conference where we
are working with Libya for its hopeful stability and laid out a
plan with more than 40 other nations in order to be able to
help Libya. We are working on the transition in Afghanistan. I
negotiated with Karzai that BSA. He is not seeking to change
the BSA, but he is refusing to sign it until or unless there is
some effort on the peace process which we don't control.
Each of the candidates for President of Afghanistan have
said they will sign it. So I believe it will be signed, and I
believe the United States is in Africa where we have a young
leadership program, we are engaged with Power Africa, where
Russ Feingold just helped negotiate a special envoy, disarming
of M-23 and an effort in the Great Lakes where we have been
involved in helping to provide for a ceasefire/semi-truce in
South Sudan, where we are engaged with the Arctic and the
Arctic Nations, we will be assuming that chairmanship in a
year.
I can run a long list of economic things just alone. And
TTIP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, and
the Trans-Pacific Partnership take 40 percent each of them, the
world's economies, and put them into a system of trading which
will benefit Americans and create jobs in every State in our
country. That is what we are getting for this penny on the
dollar, folks, and I have only begun to scratch the surface. So
I thank you for the opportunity to. I would be happy to give
you a longer answer when the light is not flashing and I am not
abusing everybody else.
Ms. Granger. Secretary Kerry, thank you for your timetoday,
thank you for the energy and the passion that you put into the job that
you do. We appreciate it very much. This concludes today's hearing, and
members may submit any additional questions for the record. The
Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs stands
adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, April 8, 2014.
UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
DR. RAJIV SHAH, ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Opening Statement of Chairwoman Granger
Ms. Granger. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations,
and Related Programs will come to order.
I want to welcome the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for
International Development, Dr. Raj Shah. We always look forward
to hearing your testimony and particularly on the fiscal year
2015 budget request for USAID.
The details of the administration proposal are slowly
coming in, but I already see a few troubling issues from the
information I have. The administration prioritizes its
initiatives at the expense of congressional priorities. For
example, it is difficult to justify the proposal to reduce
humanitarian accounts by 25 percent at a time when significant
needs remain, particularly in Syria and Africa.
USAID is doing good work to improve the health of millions
of people around the world, yet there is a decrease overall for
many of the lifesaving global health programs. You also propose
a dramatic reduction in biodiversity programs that support
important conservation activities and critical efforts to
combat wildlife poaching and trafficking. I hope we can work
together on these and many other budget issues.
Next I want to raise some concerns about how USAID does
business. Since I joined the subcommittee 5 years ago, I have
heard that the United States must do more to address aid
effectiveness. Of course, this is an important goal, but not
when aid effectiveness is translated as providing more
assistance directly to developing countries and organizations
that may not have the capacity to program the funds.
In many of these places, corruption is also a serious
issue. I have concerns about this and other elements of your
USAID Forward initiative. I question the assumption that
foreign governments and local organizations are more effective
implementers than U.S. organizations. I am also wary about
their ability to manage U.S. taxpayer dollars.
That is why the fiscal year 2014 State, Foreign Operations
bill strengthened standards and requirements to ensure proper
oversight. I appreciate the work we have done together to
increase oversight of direct assistance to foreign governments
since I began, including conditions in the fiscal year 2012
bill, and I hope we can do the same for local organizations.
Dr. Shah, these are just a few of the issues I hope we will
get to discuss today. I want to close by thanking you and the
men and women of USAID who are committed to solving some of the
most difficult global development issues around the world. All
of us on this subcommittee understand and appreciate your work
and their work.
I will now turn to my ranking member, Mrs. Lowey, for her
opening remarks.
Opening Statement of Mrs. Lowey
Mrs. Lowey. Welcome, Administrator Shah, and I want to
thank you for your leadership and tireless work improving the
lives of vulnerable people throughout the world.
In deference to my chair and friend, I will be brief. Dr.
Shah, you may recall my support for development assistance, yet
I was disappointed to hear that the fiscal year 2015 budget
request again underfunds basic education at $534 million, which
is unacceptable. I expect to see a much higher level of
commitment than the administration has demonstrated to date.
Additionally, I am still anxiously awaiting the official
budget figures for several programs, particularly family
planning. As you know, family planning programs reduce maternal
mortality, promote women's rights, and contribute to the
stability of communities across the globe.
It is impossible to achieve food security, build democratic
institutions, or sustain health outcomes without basic literacy
and communication skills. In my opinion, the administration
routinely underfunds education, impacting the sustainability of
our development dollars. I hope you will provide greater
details on our family planning and education budgets.
I am concerned about the reduction in the budget for drug-
resistant tuberculosis. Drug-resistant TB is a highly
contagious airborne disease that respects no borders, and
threatens the health and safety of the United States. Why would
you slash funds for TB control when reports indicate that new
treatments, vaccines, and diagnostics are all necessary?
Finally, the press reports from last week on the ``Cuba
Twitter'' program highlight my longstanding concerns on the
potential politicization of development activities that place
both USAID programs and people at risk. It is important that
you clarify for this committee the nature and risks of these
kinds of activities.
USAID should be using its resources, which are generously
made available by the American people, to respond to current
challenges overseas like we did with the Asian flu, HIV/AIDS,
food insecurity, and so much more.
I look forward to hearing your testimony and ask unanimous
consent to place my full statement in the record. And I yield
back.
Ms. Granger. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Granger. And thank you. We are trying to get through--
this is a good attendance, particularly when we have multiple
subcommittee hearings today, and so we are trying to get
through before votes.
Thank you.
Dr. Shah, please proceed with your opening remarks. I would
strongly encourage you to summarize your remarks so we leave
enough time for questions and answers. Your full written
statement will be placed in the record.
Opening Statement of Dr. Shah
Dr. Shah. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and
Congresswoman Lowey and members of the committee.
I am very enthusiastic to be here to discuss with you
President Obama's fiscal year 2015 budget request for USAID.
You know, USAID's mission is very clearly to focus and partner
with all types of organizations and all parts of society to
help end extreme poverty and its consequences around the world
and to promote resilient democratic societies.
Your efforts to support USAID over the last 4 or 5 years
have helped us do some extraordinary things together. You have
helped us rebuild our staff by more than 1,000 people. You have
helped us rebuild our budget and policy operations and to put
in place a monitoring and evaluation system that allows us to
be accountable and sophisticated in how we pursue our mission.
Your support has enabled us to launch the U.S. Global
Development Lab, which will help to elevate the role of
science, technology, and innovation in helping to accelerate
the goals we hope to achieve. And your approach has helped us
lead around the world a series of public-private partnerships
that leverage our investments with private sector resources to
stretch American taxpayer dollars and get better results.
This year's budget, which is presented in the context of
overall fiscal constraint at the top line for the 150 account
and in particular for foreign assistance given some of the
major security investments that have been proposed, still
maintains a commitment to core and important priorities.
These include a nearly $1 billion investment in Feed the
Future, which has helped to now reach 7 million farmers and is
moving 12.5 million children out of a condition of being
chronically hungry and helping them achieve self-sufficiency.
It includes nearly $2.7 billion for child survival, which I
continue to believe is the most efficient return on investment
we make as the U.S. Government, when it comes to serving the
needs of the world's most vulnerable.
And it includes significant investments in education,
water, and energy, all of which are the subject of new,
comprehensive strategies that govern our work and new ways to
evaluate results and report back to Congress and the American
people on what their generosity is achieving.
I also look forward to discussing the pressures created by
three Level-3 emergencies this year--Syria, the Central African
Republic, and South Sudan--and note that our teams are involved
in leading global humanitarian responses in each of those
settings.
Given the shortness of time, I look forward to the
discussion of the topics that were raised in your opening
statements, and I would like to conclude just by noting that
this year, I had the opportunity to present some thoughts at
the National Prayer Breakfast.
And I remain convinced that if we can continue to build a
broad tent of public support for America's efforts to lead
development, health, and humanitarian efforts around the world,
and if we can continue to pursue what are sometimes difficult
reforms to ensure that we are using our money wisely, reporting
on results, and improving the cost effectiveness of our
investments, that America still has the capacity to lead the
world in ending extreme poverty and serving the needs of the
world's most vulnerable. And that that, over time, will
continue to make us safer, more secure, and more admired.
Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Granger. Thank you, Dr. Shah. I think the people on
this subcommittee believe the same thing or they wouldn't be
serving. And so, we just have questions on how that occurs.
I just have one question, one topic, and that has to do
with Afghanistan. And watching the elections with millions
turning out, that is really a testament to what has been done.
It was a very good thing to watch.
We don't know if the new president will sign the Bilateral
Security Agreement. That remains to be seen. We have made
important gains in health, education, women's rights, things
that Mrs. Lowey was talking about.
So, while the staffing plan in Afghanistan is decreasing,
the administration's request for assistance to Afghanistan is
increasing. Of the few questions I have, in light of the
ongoing security challenges and corruption issues, what kinds
of programs are you going to support with these funds in
Afghanistan?
Also, how do you also hope to have the level of oversight
this committee expects when there is less staff planned for
2015, and how can these programs be implemented to keep U.S.
personnel and our development partners safe? Their safety is
our greatest concern.
Thank you.
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Chairwoman.
And I just want to highlight that for 2 to 3 percent of the
cost of this war, USAID development investments have helped
ensure that 8 million kids go to school, including 3 million
girls, have helped to generate the most rapid reductions in
child death and maternal death anywhere in the world, have
helped to build out 2,200 kilometers of road infrastructure
that creates economic connectivity that gives the Afghan people
a chance to have a brighter future, and have helped to both
build the independent election commission and support the
election processes that we saw this weekend, which were a
powerful demonstration of a more optimistic future taken on by
Afghans themselves.
We will continue, even in a more challenging security
environment, to make the investments that we believe are
required to help Afghanistan achieve peace, security, and some
degree of prosperity and social justice, with a priority of
focusing on women and the important gains that have been made
and sustaining those gains. But also with a priority of--and we
have carefully reviewed, through a sustainability review, all
of our programs.
We are going to continue the agricultural programs that
make a big difference for the rural economy, which is still 60
percent of total employment in Afghanistan. We will continue
support for schools and higher education because that is
central to girls having opportunity. We will continue our
health programs.
We are looking at our larger infrastructure projects, and
we want to make sure that we can both get eyes on those
projects and that they can be sustained as well, some of which
requires other partners picking up a bigger component of those
efforts.
And overall, I was with the team this morning by
videoconference, with the Ambassador and our mission director.
You know, they are committed to visiting projects and programs,
to maybe paying the higher costs it will take operationally to
have the security and capacity to get out there. But we are
going to have an evaluation system that allows us to get
American eyes on most major efforts where that is required and
supplemented by all kinds of third-party data, including
satellite imagery on crop yields to local Afghan partners
reviewing and visiting projects and programs regularly.
The Accountable Assistance for Afghanistan initiative we
set up 3 or 4 years ago has been successful at improving
accountability for aid and assistance in Afghanistan, and we
intend to continue that effort, although adapting it a bit to
highlight the safety concerns you have raised.
Ms. Granger. And the last had to do with how do you keep
the people that are there safe? If there is not a Bilateral
Security Agreement, then what do we need to do about security?
Dr. Shah. Well, a Bilateral Security Agreement is very
important, and our team contributes to the larger security team
that is trying to pull that together, and we will see what
happens after the election.
Assuming that Afghan security forces have the kinds of
abilities they just proved that they have over the past
weekend, we are confident that we, with all of the
supplementary efforts, can have our people visiting projects
and programs in a safe manner. We are not going to take undue
personal risks.
We have already been challenged as an agency and a
government in losing key members of our team who went out to
visit projects and programs and were attacked and lost their
lives. We are not going to put our people at undue risk. But
all of our people out there are taking some degree of risk
already because they believe in and know this is work that is
critical to our national security.
And after the conduct of a highly costly war over more than
a decade, I certainly hope that USAID and our country and our
Congress can continue to support the efforts, like keeping
girls in school, getting women into civil service, helping
different parts of the country have economic opportunity, and
supporting agriculture that is going to becritical for the next
decade.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you.
Both our interests and challenges around the world do not
generally respect country borders. Yet our democracy,
governance, and development activities are inherently country-
by-country specific. As we witnessed during the Arab Spring,
events transpire differently in each country, particularly the
tumultuous aftermath of the 2011 revolution in Egypt.
Given recent unrest in many countries with which the United
States has strong military relationships, I hope you can
address how support for civil society and development versus
stated national security interests is determined in the
administration and specifically in USAID programs. I will
follow up with a couple of quick questions so that you can
discuss the issue, which I think is so important today.
How does the USAID implement democracy programs in
repressive countries while abiding by the Brownback amendment,
which prevents foreign governments from having control or veto
power over democracy assistance? In which countries has this
been a particular challenge, and how have you dealt with these
cases?
Is a foreign government allowed to review U.S. democracy
programming plans through prior consultation or other
checkpoints? For instance, could the government in countries
that repress women's rights preselect or obtain the names of
participants in your programs?
Using a national security lens, how would results be
measured and evaluated? Is focusing solely on strategic
interests a detriment to human rights concerns, or is it all
part of our interconnected policy strategy?
And I would appreciate it, given so much of the news today,
if you could put this in the context of one of the programs
that has been on the news' front pages, ZunZuneo. Who is
responsible for developing this program, and do USAID's
activities in democracy programs put other development programs
at risk by increasing the perception that everything USAID does
is political in nature?
If you could also share with us in which countries does
USAID's democracy work pose the greatest risk to our other
programs in health, education, or agriculture? If you can
clarify, I think it would be very helpful.
Dr. Shah. Congresswoman, thank you for those comprehensive
questions, and I look forward to the opportunity to address
them.
First, on civil society. The United States is deeply
concerned about the closing of civil society space in country
after country. Secretary Clinton and Secretary Kerry have both
started and pursued a strategic dialogue on civil society of
which USAID is a part. And in nearly every country we work in,
we support civil society actors, whether it is small women's
cooperatives that are part of our Feed the Future program or
whether it is the Ukrainian organizations that documented human
rights violations that took place during the protest period
that we are all acutely aware of.
The history of that type of support, which has been ongoing
around the world, has been an important part of how America
provides assistance and partnership. So that even when we were
in Senegal, the President met specifically with the civil
society groups we supported to hear their stories of how they
were able to leverage our support to build a culture and a
process that allowed for real democratic presidential
transition there, when it didn't look like it was going to
happen.
America is proud of that. USAID is proud of that part of
our portfolio, and it is an integrated and integral part of how
we provide assistance around the world.
With respect to the democratic governance portfolio, the
Brownback amendment, and your references about foreign
government review, we disclose all of our programs publicly.
The program with respect to Cuba is one example. But we notify
Congress of all of these programs. In country, we have these
transactions publicly available on foreignassistance.gov, on
our Web site, and through the grantees, there is no covert
activity that takes place.
That said, we don't share the participation data with
governments. Governments may sometimes express displeasure, but
we don't give them the capacity to shut down our programs by
cherry-picking one or two that are promoting civil society or
democratic governance that they insist be shut down.
I was thinking about that in the context of what is going
on in Uganda, where a new law, criminalizes certain activity
that we pursue to treat patients with HIV/AIDS that are gay or
lesbian. And you know, we work with governments, but we don't
program funds through them in large amounts, and we don't give
them veto power over specific projects and programs.
With respect to Cuba, I appreciate you asking the question.
The purpose of this program, like the purpose of other similar
programs, was to support civil society and to provide platforms
to communicate amongst the Cuban people. Any representation
that the purpose of the program is different from that is
inaccurate.
We have programs like this in Africa, in Asia, in Latin
America, throughout the world, and they are conducted and
consistent with the manner of the law. The GAO report on the
Cuba program specifically highlighted the improved management
practices at USAID and complimented our execution of this
program, and that was after a thorough review not just of the
program overall, but of a specific contractor and a specific
subproject with Mobile Accord.
With respect to your question about whether those programs
put at risk other efforts in health and hunger and those types
of issues, that is obviously not a critical issue in Cuba
because we don't have, per the Helms-Burton amendment, the
capacity to do those types of other programs there. But with
respect to other parts of the world, we have just said, and the
President said this, the Secretary of State has said this, and
the prior administration has said this, that when America
engages around the world, we are going to project through that
engagement some basic values.
We are doing that right now in Uganda with respect to the
antiretroviral treatment of people who are gay or lesbian. We
can't disassociate our values from our work, and one of the
core elements of our values is to support civil society, is to
allow freedom of expression, is to connect with those who are
vulnerable, and to ensure that the benefits of our overall aid
and assistance reaches the most vulnerable within society.
Mrs. Lowey. If I could just follow up with one other
question? Alan Gross has now spent more than 4 years in jail in
Cuba after trying to broaden access to the Internet there.
Could you respond to that situation?
Dr. Shah. Yes. Alan's incarceration in Cuba is wrong. It is
inappropriate. It is inexcusable. The Secretary of State; Wendy
Sherman, our Under Secretary of State; the President himself
have all engaged on this issue, and I know that there have been
a broad range of activities that the State Department has
pursued to secure Alan's release. Wendy can brief on that in a
secure setting and in a classified setting.
I will say on our end, I think about the Gross family all
the time. And sometimes we must be discreet in how we do our
work, whether it is to save lives in Syria when we are tending
to medical treatments of victims or whether it is in the
execution of this program, precisely because we want to protect
our people from being exposed to those types of risks.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. I will call on Members, alternating between
majority and minority based on seniority of those present when
the hearing was called to order. I want to remind Members that
you have 5 minutes for your questions and responses from the
witness. A yellow light on your timer will appear when you have
2 minutes remaining.
If time permits, we will have a second round of questions.
However, we know that votes are going to be called during the
time that is allotted to this. So I would ask you to be
particularly careful about your time.
I know we all have multiple subcommittees, I do as well. So
I am going to call on Mr. Rooney, and then turn the chair over
to Congressman Dent.
Thank you.
Mr. Rooney. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Shah, I want to talk about Jordan and the Economic
Support Fund, which we have learned a lot about this year not
only from the king's visit, but with all the intelligence and
news that we have seen about the refugees going from Syria into
Jordan and with the challenges that Jordan is having to deal
with, with regard to that. And specifically, one of the
programs that I think is important, what I would like you to
comment on and sort of give us an update, deals with the fact
that some 36 percent of those refugees are or going to be of
school age, 5 to 17 years old, which accounts for almost
150,000 boys and 131,000 girls.
So this program, which goes to Jordan to help with
educating those kids, is something that I think will certainly
help Jordan and help deal with the issues that they are going
through right now. But can you talk about it, talk about the
successes, some of the challenges, and also specifically with
regard to how it is working to counter or try to educate
children out of the whole terrorist realm? Hopefully, you know,
that is one of the end goals of that program.
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate you asking
about Jordan.
Over the last several years, the United States has provided
$1.7 billion in support to Syrians and Syrian refugees who are
at critical vulnerability with respect to the crisis that has
been ongoing there. In addition to that, we have had our
ongoing program with Jordan, and that has been supplemented
with a major loan guarantee effort and then accelerated
investments in areas like education to help deal with the flood
of refugees.
There have been more than 2.5 million refugees coming out
of Syria, and Jordan and Lebanon I think in particular have
been the two countries that have taken by far the highest
number and percentage of Syrian refugees. As you point out, 40
to 45 percent are school-aged children; and we have large
education programs in both Jordan and Lebanon. So, in both
settings, we have worked to help create opportunities for
Syrian kids to go to school while also maintaining access to
the same schools, of course, for the host community children.
You can imagine this is very difficult. If any of us had
kids in school and all of a sudden class sizes were going to
double or triple overnight because of a refugee crisis, that
would be a tough sell in the United States.
So we have launched an effort that we call No Lost
Generation, and we have worked with a host of international
partners from the Gulf states as well as with other donors to
try to get more resources for education in Jordan and Lebanon,
to try to create a double shift system where Syrian kids can go
to school in the afternoons in those schools and try to make
sure that we don't lose a whole generation of kids to strife
and poverty, where a lack of education would be devastating in
an environment where there is a high risk that these kids go
the wrong way should they not have any meaningful opportunity
in life.
I hope the American people can take pride in the fact that
the United States and USAID have been by far the largest and
the global leader providing humanitarian assistance throughout
the region, now reaching more than 7 or 8 million people.
Mr. Rooney. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Dent [presiding]. Thank you.
At this time, I would like to recognize the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good to see you, Dr. Shah. And you know I have got to
follow up with you on the Cuba question. This Cuba Twitter
program was instituted, I guess, shortly after Alan Gross was
arrested.
Now I have visited Alan Gross twice. For the last 3 or 4
years, I have been very involved in the discussions between our
own Government and the Cuban government, and quite frankly,
there have been maybe five or six individuals on our side that
I have talked with. This is the first day that I have heard or
learned that Wendy Sherman is part of that.
And I just want to ask you, first of all, who is the lead
negotiator or person that we should work with on our side?
Secondly, you say that we don't engage in covert activity.
Okay, we may not, but some of us believe that you do and that
the whole goal is regime change. And you know, we just happen
to disagree when you say this is just to promote discourse
among civil society. But it is, in effect, most of the time the
goal is regime change.
And thirdly, with regard to Alan Gross, and we have talked
about this over and over and over again, he was a
subcontractor. Now whether you agree or not, Cuba has certain
laws, just like we have certain laws in our own country. If, in
fact, a U.S. contractor or subcontractor violates the law of
another country, they are subject to whatever follows, whatever
laws, you know, require in terms of prosecution.
I don't agree with what has taken place, and I think it is
inexcusable about Alan Gross, but to say that we weren't part
of this in terms of allowing Alan Gross to be--to work on a
project and you didn't disclose in the contract that he could
be subject to arrest based on the laws of another country I
think is outrageous. If a person is going to subcontract work
under these democracy programs, they should know what risks
they are taking.
Now Alan is on a hunger strike. We don't know where that is
going to lead. And so, some of us really want to try to move
this process forward so that we can get him out. And so, I am
asking you once again. One, who is the point person?
Two, have you all revised some of these contracts so that
the contractors and subcontractors know when they are engaged
in these democracy programs that they could be subject to
arrest based on the country in which their laws--in which they
are violating their laws?
And thirdly, you know, for the life of me, I don't quite
understand your not seeing as covert activity and regime
change, and I would like to hear why you don't see that.
Dr. Shah. Sure. Thank you, Congresswoman, and I just want
to on other topics, but on this one as well thank you for your
engagement and your support, and I have appreciated the chance
to learn from you and work with you.
On this in particular, let me say a few things. First, we
care about Alan, about his family, about Judy. What they have
had to go through is extraordinarily wrong.
Wendy Sherman is the lead on this. She may have a team,
obviously, the State Department is a big place, but she is the
Under Secretary that I have worked with, and I know that she
would be willing to and able to articulate to you our efforts
and our strategy. Efforts obviously have been unsuccessful to
date, and as you know, they include specific actions taken
recently by the highest levels of our Government.
The second is with respect to is the program covert? This
program has been notified in congressional notifications and
congressional budget justifications every year since 2008. The
fact that we are discussing it in this forum and that it is an
unclassified program illustrates that this is not a covert
effort.
Ms. Lee. Well, I think they did reveal that. It may not--
okay.
Dr. Shah. The GAO reviewed this project and made a judgment
that it was consistent with the law.
Ms. Lee. The GAO, yes, but that took a little bit of
pushing.
Dr. Shah. And we are discreet.
Ms. Lee. Which it is.
Dr. Shah. And we are discreet. Thank you. We are discreet
with the implementation of a range of things, not just in the
democratic governance space. But we have provided 250,000
medical procedures and surgeries inside of Syria over the last
3 years, some provided by Syrian-American doctors. We are not
waving the American flag at those posts, since they are already
targets, and many have already lost their lives doing that
work.
So we have to balance and conduct this work in a manner
where we are making some effort to protect those who carry it
out. And that is why we do some of these things discreetly.
I do want to address your point about how we think about
this in broad terms.
Ms. Lee. And the contracts. Why you would subject a U.S.
citizen to arrest and not disclose they are subject to arrest.
Dr. Shah. Right. So we do inform and clearly communicate
the context, the risks, and the personal responsibility.
Ms. Lee. No, but Dr. Shah, you don't communicate thelaws of
the other country that they could be in violation of.
Dr. Shah. We highlight the risks, and that requires
describing that.
Ms. Lee. But you don't say that you could be subject to
arrest if you engage in these activities.
Dr. Shah. Well, no, we do. We describe the context. It was
not done in Alan's case. I agree with that. That was in 2008.
It was before I arrived.
Ms. Lee. And we have worked with you to try to get this
straight since then.
Dr. Shah. Yes, and we have improved the management of this.
But I do want to say one thing about that. Right now, we have
people providing antiretroviral drugs to gay and lesbian
patients inside of Uganda that are also taking new risks, given
the criminalization of providing services in that context, and
it is tough. I am not prepared to tell them to cut those folks
off from receiving lifesaving assistance.
Ms. Lee. No, but that is not what I am talking about, Dr.
Shah. I am talking about----
Mr. Dent. The time is expired.
Ms. Lee[continuing]. Those engaged in these programs,
knowing that they are violating the country's other laws, and
they could be subject, just so they know.
Dr. Shah. Yes. Okay. I appreciate that. I think that is
right. I think we should be communicating the risks to our
implementing partners, and we do. Now we do with our partners.
Absolutely.
Ms. Lee. Now you do. But not when Alan was arrested, and
that has got to be part of the discussion.
Dr. Shah. But we have since I got there, yes.
Mr. Dent. Thank you. I recognize myself for 5 minutes at
this time.
Good afternoon, Dr. Shah.
The fiscal year 2015 request includes a $90 million cut to
USAID's global health programs relative to enacted levels. This
includes a $10 million cut to maternal and child health
programs. Yet within that line item is a $25 million increase
for the U.S. contribution to the Global Alliance for Vaccines
and Immunizations, or GAVI.
I am just concerned about how--where the administration
plans to offset the increase for GAVI. Could you provide
information on which maternal and child health programs you are
proposing to cut?
Dr. Shah. Yes. Thank you, and thank you for your support
and your leadership.
I will say on the global health budget, our fiscal year
2015 budget is a small increase compared to the request we made
in 2014. And I thank Congress for its generosity in 2014, and I
continue to believe that our investments in global health and
child survival are amongst the most cost-effective investments
we make around the world.
This year's budget environment overall has been very
challenging, with the top line coming down on the 150 account
and a shift in resources to pay for major security investments
around the world.
That said, within this portfolio, we will make the $200
million investment, if we have the support of Congress, in
GAVI. We believe GAVI is highly effective at getting low-cost
vaccines and new vaccines to kids who critically need them. And
then we will have the resources to work on a supplemental basis
to make sure that we are reaching those same kids with a whole
range of other interventions from supplementary feeding to
malaria bed nets to chlorhexidine and other new products and
technologies we have helped develop.
I can have my team follow up on precisely where the
redirections will come from, but in general, we believe over
the next few years, we will be able to accelerate dramatically
the achievement of results in child survival. And this budget
will enable that.
Mr. Dent. Thank you. I look forward to receiving that
information from your staff.
On the issue of PEPFAR, the use of the antiretroviral drugs
is critical to both treating and preventing HIV infection. The
double impact of the antiretroviral treatment is also reflected
in the new WHO guidelines, which recognize that earlier
treatment can result in fewer transmissions and prolong life.
In recent years, PEPFAR spending on antiretroviral drugs
has decreased and totals much less than 10 percent of all
PEPFAR spending, despite millions of people in need of and not
receiving antiretroviral drugs in PEPFAR-supported countries.
What actions will the Federal Government take to reverse
this trend and ensure that PEPFAR meets the statutory
requirement of spending more than half of the program's
appropriations on treatment and is targeting its spending to
maximize the cost-effective impact of antiretroviral therapies?
Dr. Shah. Thank you. I want to make a few points on this.
First, the President laid out a clear goal of 6 million
patients on antiretroviral therapy, and as of December this
year, we had achieved well beyond that goal. I believe it is
6.3 million in that context.
The second is we share the treatment burden and the cost
with countries themselves and with the Global Fund, and a
number of other partners, but really countries themselves and
the Global Fund. And what we have seen over the last 5 years is
a shift of resources where countries are putting more of their
own resources in, and Global Fund is putting more directed
resources in as well.
The third is the cost of the antiretrovirals have come down
dramatically. So as a total--as a proportion, the
antiretroviral itself is a lower cost. What is--what we now
know is required to have a high-quality program that is
preventing deaths at an optimized rate is having effective
treatment initiation earlier and having effective adherence
efforts over the long term.
So the all-in, more comprehensive treatment costs should
clearly meet the statutory requirements. I can follow up with
more specific detail on that, but that has been--those have
been the major trends in PEPFAR. And I believe they offer the
opportunity to create an AIDS-free generation consistent with
the blueprint we have published with our colleagues at the
State Department.
Mr. Dent. I have a series of seven questions, which I will
submit for the record, except for one. I will ask you to
respond, your staff to respond to those at a later date.
But worldwide, deaths of children under 5 years of age,
mainly from preventable infectious diseases, has dropped from
about 12.6 million per year in 1990 to 6.6 million per year in
2012. That is probably one of the greatest stories in the
history of human health. What more can the U.S. do beyond what
it is already doing to help prevent the deaths of the next 6
million?
Dr. Shah. Well, thank you, sir, for your question.
And the reality is the opportunity to end preventable child
death is, I think, the most profound and most cost-effective
opportunity we have in global development. Two years ago, we
brought together more than 80 countries, civil society, faith-
based institutions, and got everyone to sign a commitment to
end preventable child death by 2035.
And we have set targets and goals. We created country
strategies and measurement plans. We are now in the process of
reviewing 24 country programs and restructuring and redefining
the investment portfolio in those programs to accelerate lives
saved over the next 3 years.
At the end of June we will be unveiling the new investment
plan in those 24 countries and trying to bring many more of our
partners, including countries themselves, to that task.
A final thing I will say about this is that the most
important trend in this space has been getting countries
themselves to take more ownership, direct more of their
resources, and focus with more business-like, results-oriented
investment on ending preventable child death. And countries
like Ethiopia, India, Nigeria, South Africa have taken that on
and are leading that charge.
And that is why our investments in child survival are now
15 percent of the total global investment, and we want to
continue to get others to do more.
Mr. Dent. Thank you. My time has expired.
At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Cuellar, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Shah, good seeing you again.
Let me talk to you about your OEs, your operating expenses.
From the present estimate to the request for 2015, you all had
a $243,000 decrease. I haven't seen all the countries, but I
can look at the Republic of Mexico, and I know when we had
Secretary Kerry, I had asked him why he had reduced his 2015,
and he told me he didn't. And he was wrong.
His staff a week later sent me some information, and
actually, they had gone from $227 million to $115 million, a 49
percent decrease from the prior year. From there, also under
one of the accounts that you handle, we had specifically
increased Mexico from $35 million to $45 million, and then
again, it got reduced again on the request.
Dr. Shah. Well, thank you, Congressman.
Let me just say we have a very strong program in Mexico
that delivers really important results, particularly on justice
sector reform and support with implementation of crime
management policies. One of the things that --
Mr. Cuellar. I don't mean to interrupt. I apologize.
Dr. Shah. Yes. Sure.
Mr. Cuellar. You hear a lot from Members of Congress about
the violence and the border and this and at. Why would you all
decrease money, especially when we had just increased it by $10
million, and you all came back and decreased it by $10 million?
And again, if you are addressing violence, and everybody
talks about the violence that we have to our third most
important neighbor, why would you decrease this in Mexico?
Dr. Shah. Well, sir, overall, the budgets are very, very
tight this year. And the larger narrative on the budget is that
there has been a big shift to security investment that puts
downward pressure on foreign assistance. Within that, we have
tried to maintain core priorities.
And in the context of Mexico, the fiscal year 2015 request
is $47.5 million, and my team can follow upon the numbers. But
I think it is $47.5 million. That is higher than the $45 million
requested in fiscal year 2014.
So we are trying to maintain support for this effort. We
are trying to focus the effort on the Merida program and the
efforts to support citizen security.
Mr. Cuellar. America's funding was cut by 49 percent. That
is why I started off with your OEs. You only reduced it by
243,000. Actually, in Washington, DC., your Washington
operation is--about $425 million. This is for USAID. For
central support, that is another $248 million.
So I can understand there is pressure, but when you only
reduce your administration costs by $243--it gets us to think
about this.
Let me ask you, because I have got about a minute and a
half, a question I have been asking and I think Senator Tom
Harkin has been asking you all. And I believe he still hasn't
got an answer for over a year, and I haven't got an answer for
a year also.
The Scholarships for Education and Economic Development, or
SEED program. I know you all are looking at another plan, but
we still haven't got any details on that plan. I think the
Senator asked you about a 1-year extension so you can develop
something. In June of this year, in a couple of months, some of
those programs are going to lapse, but there is still no plan
from you all out there.
Could you tell us what your plan is for the SEED program
and whether you are willing to delay at least some of those
lapses so we can at least get an idea of what you are planning
to do? And anything you want to tell me about the President's
initiative, what your direction is for the Small Business
Network of America?
Dr. Shah. Thank you, sir.
On SEED, let me just say this has been a highly successful
25-year program to bring students, as you know, from the Latin-
America-Caribbean region to the United States, and it can cost
up to $45,000 per student per year.
And so, as we have looked at the program going forward, in
consultation with community college partners, we are
constructing a new vision of it where more of the education
takes place in country and where the community colleges are
engaged in partnerships with host institutions in country to
upgrade their skills and to allow for some connectivity.
What I have talked about with Senator Harkin and others is
there was a miscommunication or there was a perception that we
were abruptly ending the program before the new one comes into
place. That is not going to happen. There is no student that is
here on a 2-year program that is going to be sent back after a
year. All of the existing program is going to be fully
transitioned before we go forward with a new program.
Mr. Cuellar. So, for the record--for the record, on June,
if a program lapsed, that is going to be extended?
Dr. Shah. No student that is currently in a program is not
going to have the opportunity to live out the full commitment,
they currently have and that I think is the right decision and
consistent with your guidance and the Senator's.
But let me also note that Christie Vilsack, our special
coordinator for education, has been consulting widely with the
community colleges themselves, has been on the Hill a bit, but
would be eager to follow up with you to describe what we are
thinking to get your feedback to ensure that current program
partners are excited about the new program. I think it is an
opportunity to increase the number of kids we touch and support
and also build stronger ties between American institutions and
those in the region in a manner that will get all the program
partners enthusiastic with essentially the same amount of
resources going forward.
So it is an effort to just modernize what has been a very
successful effort. We don't want anyone to lose out in the
transition, and we want to work with you to make it a great
program again.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, sir.
Dr. Shah. Thank you.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Florida for 5
minutes, Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Shah, how are you, sir?
Just two questions. Before that, one quick point on the
issue of Twitter so that Cubans could use Twitter in a country
that access to the Internet is, frankly, forbidden.
I know I keep hearing a lot of folks talking about that it
was a strange, covert, you know, NSA program. And yet if you
look at the President's budget when it was created, they talk
about exactly what it was about. And a lot of the outrage
coming from particularly one member of the Senate, and yet that
same member of the Senate put language in the Senate bill,
appropriations bill last year asking USAID to do, frankly, a
similar program in Iran.
So, again, I just keep hearing all these things, and I was
a little bit shocked by the story from AP. I don't tend to
criticize the press, but trying to come up as if this was some
covert, strange operation when, in fact, it has been in print.
It has been looked at, reviewed by everyone, including GAO.
My only concern there is I hope that we are able to
continue to do that because it was a huge success for a while,
and then obviously, it became too big too quick and, all of a
sudden, kind of like outdid its funding. I am just hoping, Dr.
Shah, that we look at options like that and things like that
not only for Cuba, but other places where we need to try to
break that Internet and communication blockade.
That is not for you to answer, just I am hoping that you
are looking at the success of that and that we can hopefully
try to replicate that.
Two points. I was recently, Dr. Shah, in Haiti with a
couple of my colleagues. And we visited a USAID housing
project, the Haut Damier--and I know I am not pronouncing that
right--housing site. It was subject to a GAO report.
I am not going to get into what we saw there about the GAO
report. I am just going to bring out another little issue. We
all know that Haiti has an issue with the fact that they have
cut down a lot of the trees just to cook, charcoal. And so,
there is an initiative, which I think is meritorious, to see if
you can get people off of charcoal onto gas.
What we noticed, however, right away, because gas is more
expensive than just buying--you can buy a couple of chunks of
charcoal. And we noticed right away that some of the gas stoves
had been provided by programs were, frankly, just used as
shelves. And we saw the charcoal stoves right next door.
So this is the question. Have studies been done as to where
that kind of program--I am assuming there are other places
where we have had similar issues. Where it has worked, where it
hasn't worked? Why it has worked where it has worked? Why it
hasn't worked where it has worked?
I would imagine that there would be some things that you
could kind of just pull off different studies before you
attempt one. I fear that the one in Haiti, which is very well
intentioned, may not have the desired effect. And that is--if
you want to just address that first?
Dr. Shah. Sure. Thank you, Congressman.
On that specific effort, it is important that over time,
Haitians stop cutting down trees and using them for charcoal.
That is just--and there has been a huge amount of evidence to
demonstrate how disastrous that is for their core productive
agricultural economy, for example.
So as part of reconstruction effort and in providing 65,000
families with housing after the earthquake and in the
reconstruction period, we have had some of these pilot efforts
to do community conversion to LNG gas cook stoves. And what we
have learned from prior efforts is that training for food
vendors, for schools, for households is critically important.
Initial subsidy for the LNG canisters is critical to get the
new system up and running.
That ongoing kind of household-level community effort to
help people talk to each other and kind of move en masse both
creates a market, and it creates enough social infrastructure
so that people can see their neighbors using it and be more
comfortable with that practice. Some of the efforts in this
regard have been successful in Haiti. Others have not.
And so, we are in the process of evaluating all of these,
learning and adapting the programs. But it is something we have
got to keep trying to do, and you are right to direct us to
look at best practices, which are pretty prevalent in many
other parts of the world where people have successfully made
this transition, and try to adapt those learnings to Haiti.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Sure. I don't mean to interrupt you, but I
am glad that you are aware of that. There are areas where,
obviously, it is not going to work and where you have to make
it work. You are absolutely right. I am just concerned that we
are making sure that it is the best practices.
One other thing, Dr. Shah, we visited a hospital, which is
where Project Medishare is, Bernard Mevs Hospital. And
incredible amount of volunteers, including Americans, were
there--I know they are experiencing someelectrical issues, some
power issues. I don't know if your folks have had an opportunity to
look at that, but it is a crucial--it is a hospital that, obviously, is
very important to Haiti. And I can get you some more information.
And lastly-- well, I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. So maybe
we will have a second round to talk a little bit about
Venezuela.
Dr. Shah. Okay, thanks.
Mr. Dent. At this time, I recognize the gentlelady from
Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Shah, it is good to see you, and thank you for your
commitment. And I enjoyed talking with you in my office a
couple of weeks ago.
Just so that we are clear that Cuba is not a partisan
issue, let me echo the comments of my colleague from Florida,
Mr. Diaz-Balart. We have fought hard in a bipartisan way for
funding for civil society programs and also fought equally as
hard in a bipartisan way to ensure that through GAO review that
accountability was a part of those programs so that we weren't
just throwing money into a black hole and not really seeing any
results.
And for a while, we did have concerns that the civil
society programs that we were funding were just going to
organizations with not a lot to show for it. It is pretty clear
that this particular program--for lack of a better term, Cuban
Twitter--did have results and did connect Cubans to one another
and showed promise.
So, you know, I really--while I don't want to endorse
regime change here in this subcommittee, I think there is no
question that the United States position is and should be that
human rights be something that we stand up for as a nation,
that we use our vast resources and influence to help people who
are being persecuted, and that there is no question that that
persecution and human rights violations are ongoing in a nation
just 90 miles from our shore.
So just saying. And I would appreciate if you have anything
to add.
But I wanted to ask you specifically about faith-based
organizations and support for family planning. You know, we
often hear from opponents of access to family planning that
their opposition stems from religious beliefs. But I know I
hear all the time from religious organizations across all
religions, I might add, from the Jews to the Methodists -- even
in Afghanistan, there are some religious leaders who are
realizing that family planning has become critical for the
health and economic well-being of that country, as well as in a
variety of African countries as well.
So can you talk about what USAID is doing to work with
faith-based organizations in the field to deliver reproductive
health services? Also what more can we do to support those
efforts and get the word out but that not only is family
planning not incompatible with faith, but that the two are, in
fact, mutually reinforcing? Because I think there is a
disconnect here inside the beltway between those that seem to
condemn family planning as somehow being not in line with
faith-based values.
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Congresswoman, for your tremendous
leadership on these issues. I appreciate the question, and I
may save Cuba for perhaps later in the hearing and speak to the
family planning issue first.
As you know, our programs in family planning are entirely
voluntary, that we have very strict controls to ensure that we
do not fund abortion, that we are the world's largest supporter
of voluntary family planning for very poor communities, and it
is a critical element of empowering women to take control of
their own lives in settings where they otherwise may not have
that opportunity.
We know that the Obama administration, relative to the
previous administration has increased the commitment to family
planning on the order of 40 percent and sustained that over the
course of a very difficult budget environment. And we know that
we actually have built partnerships with AusAID and the UK and
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to bring others into a
really results-oriented approach that can take advantage of the
two big realities of these family planning programs.
The first is that this is one of the most cost-effective
ways to save mothers' lives during child birth. And in places
where child birth is still highly risky in terms of mortality,
that is critical. And second, that it is about the most cost-
effective way to save a child's life as well, with proper birth
spacing contributing not just to reductions in infant and child
mortality, but also to investments that families make in kids'
education.
So we have been pretty effective, I think, in our family
planning programs around the world. They are done under, as you
know, careful scrutiny. But we have been proud of these
efforts, and we have been proud of the fact that we have gotten
so many other partners, including the Gates Foundation and the
UK and Australia and countries themselves, to take ownership of
many of these and increase their resources considerably through
an initiative we all call Family Planning 2020, I believe.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
At this time, I recognize the gentlemen from Kansas, Mr.
Yoder. Five minutes.
Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Shah, thanks for joining us. It is good to see you
again.
We have discussed this issue before. I wanted to just go
back to a topic related to the Food for Peace program and how
it affects American, Kansas farm producers all across our
districts who are part of producing grain and other products,
meat products, et cetera, that are sent around the world to
help deal with world hunger.
It has been sort of a two-part relationship. One, we are
helping feed hungry people, and two, we are putting American
producers to work. These products come with a label saying
furnished by the American people or being furnished by the
people of the United States of America. It is a source of
pride, I think, for our country when we see those bags of grain
with our label on them go to the right places.
The President's budget would allow 25 percent of that aid,
as I am sure you are well aware, which is the equivalent of
$282 million, to go to cash assistance, as opposed to food
assistance. In light of the farm bill debate in which Congress
had a chance to litigate this issue and determined to keep the
food aid programs the way they are and the status quo, is the
administration going to continue to move forward with this
budget request, as opposed to changing the underlying law, but
to use the appropriations process to change how we administer
the dollars?
Do you agree with my concerns related to less Kansas, less
American farmers being helped? What are your thoughts on that?
And I am very concerned about it.
And are you concerned about an erosion of public support
for the program if more of the dollars are direct aid dollars,
as opposed to dollars that are coming back to pay farmers and
producers in the country?
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
I appreciate the points that you raise, and the reason
President Obama put forth the proposal last year and this year
to reform and modernize this program is because we are facing
an acute crisis in terms of humanitarian needs in a number of
places that strip our current ability to provide humanitarian
services.
And we have a proud Food for Peace history. We have reached
more than 3 billion people over more than 50 years. But
frankly, the value and the size and the consequence of the
program has been diminishing over time because of the higher
cost structure of a model of assistance where we buy food here,
put it on American ships, send it into communities, sometimes
sell it in communities to raise cash that we then give to NGOs.
That is not as efficient as it used to be, and we believe
that a modest incremental reform will allow us this year to
reach 2 million additional hungry kids in Syria, Central
African Republic, and South Sudan, not cost America anything
additional, and continue to support farmers.
And here is why I think the reform proposal will continue
to support farmers. This whole program is only 0.56 percent of
total agricultural exports by value. Most of the major partners
we have in the program will continue to be partners and will
continue to be partners at a very large scale. We are talking
about 25 percent of a $1.4 billion program.
Second, we are now moving the product mix that we are
sending from America into more specially designed medical
foods, whether it is peanut paste or nutributter, and those
higher-value products are appropriate for the American food
system, which, as you know, is the best and most advanced in
the world.
And so, I think America is always going to have a huge role
to play. But I think our farm partners in particular understand
the challenges here. The National Farmers Union has expressed
support for the President's reforms, as has Cargill and a
number of companies that people might have thought would not.
And over time, I think we will build a broad enough tent to
continue to allow America to actually be the leader we need to
be in these humanitarian settings, and we would appreciate your
support for these modest reforms that will continue to make
sure people see that American contributions are what are
fueling these strong responses in the Philippines and South
Sudan and Syria.
Mr. Yoder. Well, in light of our efforts around the globe,
whether it is the Food for Peace or food aid programs or
whatever it may be, as we add more money into the system, the
potential for fraud and corruption and misuse grows. Dollars
are easier to probably fraud the Government out of than a bag
of grain, although that happens as well and in many cases as
significantly.
So I worry as we move it to dollars, as opposed to grain,
that that might become more troublesome. There have been lots
and lots of accounts--media reports, IG reports--about fraud
and waste in Afghanistan aid. Malaria drugs being sold on the
black market that were not going to the intended recipients.
I am sure you have been well aware of many of these
situations. Could you outline for us where our biggest fraud
risks are? What percent of our food aid and our foreign aid as
part of USAID is being frauded or not getting to the right
recipients based upon your analysis? And what are we doing to
cure that?
Dr. Shah. Thank you.
You know, we have, I think, a very strong program in place
to oversee how we spend resources and mitigate the risks of
fraud, waste, and abuse. I would say war zones of all kind
increase the risks. So active conflict environments in
Afghanistan, providing and trucking food around Somalia through
al-Shabaab controlled areas a couple of years ago. Those are
the kinds of environments that have the highest risks for
waste, fraud, and abuse.
The reality is most of our program, the great majority are
not provided in those contexts and under those terms. And we
have a very strong oversight system that includes the Inspector
General. It includes very clear reporting. For any resources we
provide directly to local partners or countries in particular,
we provide them on a receipt basis. So we evaluate the receipts
and the costs they have incurred and then reimburse them for
incurred expenses.
I have worked at the Gates Foundation. I now work at USAID.
I understand accountability is critical, and we have increased
our accountability systems very significantly in places like
Afghanistan. In general, we don't overinvest in it, but we do
create a lot of bureaucracy to track every penny. I understand
why that is important. But I think we are covered in terms of
having a very, very strong accountability system when it comes
to waste, fraud, and abuse.
And as it relates to your last comment, I will just say
that we have now been, since the Bush administration,
implementing local and regional purchase in food aid, and we
have not only found no higher rate of waste, fraud, and abuse
there, we have actually found it brings the cost down, gets the
food faster to people in need, and often is the more
appropriate mix of products that they need, like in the
Philippines response.
Mr. Yoder. Well, I look forward to working with you to
ensure that we improve the integrity of these programs. I think
nothing probably angers our constituents more than seeing
American dollars wasted on a program where it is not intended
to be overseas.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Shah. Thank you.
Mr. Dent. Time has expired.
I recognize Mrs. Lowey for a moment.
Mrs. Lowey. I just want to apologize. Unfortunately, there
are four hearings at the same time so I have to leave. I wanted
to make two quick points, and I know we will have the
opportunity to continue this discussion.
First of all, as you know, I am not very happy with the
basic education dollars. I think it is absolutely essential
that we raise that number and continue to invest in basic
education.
Secondly, I referred to the situation in Cuba before. As
you well know, we had a problem in Pakistan where immunization
workers were perceived as being helpful in tracking down Osama
bin Laden, and this caused a decrease in immunizations because
the general population did not trust them.
So I think as we proceed, and I understand that everything
that has happened is all on the record and notices were given,
et cetera, but I think we have to constantly weigh the
investment in development programs and how they can be
sabotaged by some of the work that may be perceived as very
noble in democracy programs. Whether it is in Cuba or other
countries, this is an important priority, and we have to
continue to discuss the impact of one on the other.
So I thank you again for clarifying the actions of USAID,
but I don't think we have resolved the challenges that we have
before us.
Thank you.
Dr. Shah. Should I respond?
Mr. Dent. You may respond.
Dr. Shah. Well, I would just say thank you, Congresswoman.
I would say briefly on education, we have had the chance to
discuss this, and I just want to say on the record how much I
value your leadership and admire what you have done to help our
country lead on this issue all around the world.
The two things I will say on that is our fiscal year2015
request is higher than the fiscal year 2014 request.
Mrs. Lowey. Not as high as it should be. [Laughter.]
Dr. Shah. Not as high as it should be. And as you well
know, through our Room to Learn initiative, the partnership
model we have with some other funders is really helping us get
leverage and better results, and I am very appreciative of your
support.
And I take your comments on Cuba and Pakistan and look
forward to future discussion.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you.
Mr. Dent. I recognize the gentleman, Mr. Schiff, for 5
minutes.
When we go to the second round, we will do 3 minutes of
questions. Thanks.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Director, welcome. It is great to see you again, and I
apologize if this is the subject of an earlier question, but I
wanted to raise Syria with you.
According to USAID figures, well more than 9 million people
are now in need of humanitarian assistance in Syria due to the
devastating civil war there, including over 6.5 million
internally displaced persons. I understand and appreciate that
the United States is continuing to work through all possible
channels to deliver aid to those in need in Syria, including
through United Nations, international and nongovernmental
organizations, and local Syrian organizations.
I am also encouraged to see in your testimony that USAID is
providing lifesaving aid to more than 4 million people across
the country. While all of Syria's people have suffered, its
minority populations and especially Syrian Christians are most
at risk. These are some of the oldest Christian communities in
the world, dating back to the first decades after the death of
Christ.
About 2 weeks ago, the town of Kassab, which is
predominantly Armenian Christian, was attacked by al-Qaeda
linked fighters who crossed over from Turkey, resulting in the
town being emptied. Many of its residents were descendents of
the survivors of the Armenian genocide, and this attack has
greatly increased the apprehension of all of us concerned about
Syria's minority communities.
Can you tell us what efforts USAID is making to identify
and provide for Syrian minority communities? Many of them, I
understand, resist seeking refuge in UNHCR and other NGO
facilities out of fear for their safety and, thus, are more
likely to be internally displaced persons.
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Congressman.
I appreciate your laying out the consequences of this
horrific situation, and the reality is while we are reaching
more than 4 million people inside of Syria, there are still 3.5
million that are not being reached by anybody because they are
inaccessible because of the conflict.
Two hundred twenty thousand of them are literally in
besieged areas where food and water are used as a weapon of
war, and we saw what they looked like when they left homes a
few weekends ago.
With respect to minority communities, especially in the
north, most of our services to those communities are provided
through NGOs and international partners, not primarily U.N.
agencies, and are provided through cross-border activities.
That allows those communities to be reached, and it allows more
effective access, and the U.N. only started some of those
cross-border activities very recently in the last few weeks,
especially across the Turkish border.
Expanding cross-border humanitarian support is a critical
part of the U.N. Security Council resolution. I would just note
that Valerie Amos of the U.N. reported on the first month of
the resolution's implementation and said that the Syrian regime
had not lived up to the standards of access on what we call
cross-line inside of Syria and cross-border across neighboring
countries access issues. And so, we continue to work through
that with the Syrians, with others to make sure we are doing as
much as we can.
But it is insufficient by definition, and I am verysorry to
hear about the communities in Kassab, and we will ask our teams to
specifically follow up on that.
Mr. Schiff. If you would, I would appreciate it. If you
could let me know in particular what you are able to find out
about the refugees from Kasab. Some of them have taken shelter
in Latakia. Others in--I understand some of the elderly across
the border in Turkey. If you could let us know what can be done
to help provide for them?
It is, admittedly, a very small subset of Christians in
Syria who are being targeted because they are Christian, which
is, in turn, a very subset of the humanitarian disaster in
Syria. But I have a great many constituents who are deeply
concerned about this. As we approach the genocide, Armenian
genocide anniversary, it is particularly painful to see yet
another Armenian community ethnically cleansed from its homes.
[The information follows:]
Dr. Shah. We continue to monitor and respond to needs of
recently displaced Christian Syrian-Armenians from the Syrian
village of Kassab. USAID partner the United Nations Office for
the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has conducted
several monitoring missions to displacement sites within Syria,
including sites with populations displaced from Kassab, to
identify humanitarian needs and to negotiate with local
authorities for protection and assistance to displaced
civilians.
UN partners report the majority of displaced Syrian-
Armenians from Kassab have been registered as internally
displaced persons and are receiving assistance through local
Red Crescent Society organizations. In addition to being housed
with extended family or renting apartments in urban centers,
displaced families have received food assistance, basic
household items and hygiene supplies.
In addition to the internally displaced population, twenty-
one Syrian-Armenians from Kassab were met at the Turkish border
by local authorities, where they were provided initial medical
exams and then escorted to Turkish-Armenian communities for
assistance. The US Consulate in Adana, Turkey visited the
refugees and confirmed their immediate needs, including food,
medicine, clothing and housing were being met through local
community and Red Crescent organizations. Turkish authorities
also provided a doctor to assist the refugees who required
specialized medical care and prescription medications.
The US Consulate in Adana has verified that while the
Syrian-Armenian refugees from Kassab are eager to return home
and reunite with families if their safety can be assured, they
described being safe and comfortable in Turkish communities of
refuge.
Mr. Schiff. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
At this time, we will move to a second round of
questioning, but for 3 minutes only. First, I recognize Mr.
Diaz-Balart for 3 minutes.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Shah, just very quickly about Venezuela, if we may? I
don't have to tell anybody here about what is going on there,
where you have folks hitting the streets, trying to -- mostly
students, trying to regain their freedom and their democracy.
You have some of the main opposition leaders in prison for over
a month. You have mayors thrown in prison. You have the press
being censored.
But specifically to your budget request, I believe it
includes $5 million ESF funds. My understanding is the budget
request of the last few years for Venezuela has actually been
seeing a gradual reduction in democracy and civil society
programs, despite the reality on the ground in Venezuela.
And since the congressional budget justification has not
been released yet, as far as I know, well, a couple of things.
First place, because of what is going on in Venezuela, do you
expect an increase above the $5 million figure, number one? And
number two is since the CBJ has not been released, if you can
provide us with some additional details as to your request for
democracy programs throughout our hemisphere and specifically
for Venezuela?
And Mr. Chairman, in time. You see that?
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Congressman.
As Secretary Kerry recently noted about the Venezuelan
government, they have severely limited freedoms of assembly and
expression precisely as you articulate. USAID supports
Venezuelan organizations, and civil society broadly to support
citizen advocacy pushing for public accountability.
In fact, over the last 45 days, those partners have done
quite a lot to identify, document, and report on human rights
violations, as our partners have done in Ukraine and in some
other parts of the world.
The $5 million request for FY2015 is consistent with the
fiscal year 2014 request.
And throughout the region, we will continue to support
these programs. Again, we have had a long conversation about
this in this session, but we do think that investing in
democracy rights and governance, support for civil society
precisely in those places where civil society is harassed and
prevented from operating is particularly important.
These are longer-term investments that don't often yield
very strong and immediately recognizable short-term results.
But having seen the long-term efforts pay off in many parts of
the world, I think it continues to be a modest, but critical
part of how America presents itself in the context of USAID
programs.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you.
Mr. Dent. At this time, I recognize the gentlelady from
California for 3 minutes. Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Back to Cuba again. I am equally as committed to the
promotion of human rights everywhere in the world, just as my
colleagues are, whether it is in the 70 countries that
criminalize those with HIV or AIDS or here in our own country,
where we should really be ashamed of the mass incarceration of
African-American men.
What many of us don't agree with is an embargo against
countries like Cuba, 90 miles away, which prevents normal
foreign and economic relations where our Government and our own
citizens, mind you, cannot travel nor engage in dialogue to
address many of these issues. That is the point.
I assume the taxpayers believe that the Cuban Twitter
program, given our fiscal constraints, was in the best
interests of our national security, given that Cuba is on the
state-sponsored list of terrorists, or terrorism. It is one of
the state sponsors that you guys continue to say, you know, we
need to deal with as such.
So I just want to see how many money could you lay out the
taxpayers paid for this, given that I am sure it is also in our
national security interests?
Secondly, trying to get a better understanding of how USAID
works with the United Nations as it relates to Haiti, in terms
of the fight against the cholera epidemic and how you
prioritize the funding for cholera, addressing cholera in
Haiti?
Finally, your cut, I think, in the tuberculosis funding, I
believe it is 19 percent from last year. And so, I would like
to get a handle on why you are proposing to cut the TB budget,
particularly in light of the strong relationship between HIV
and AIDS and TB as it relates to it being an opportunistic
disease?
Thank you again.
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Congresswoman.
On Cuba, I will just acknowledge your perspective, and I
understand the point you make about the embargo. My priority
has been taking the law, implementing it and ensuring that our
implementation of it was well managed. And the GAO report was
important at validating that approach, and I will leave it at
that.
Ms. Lee. How much did the taxpayer--
Dr. Shah. The program you are referring to--and there were
a number of inaccuracies in the AP story so we can share with
you the point-by-point rebuttal that we put out publicly--was
$1.3 million over a number of years. And for that, about 68,000
Cubans were able to be part of a text messaging communication
system.
In terms of the U.N. and cholera, you know, cholera has
been a priority for our health and water and sanitation
programs in Haiti. Our rural health programs there have been
extraordinarily effective at reducing the rate of child
mortality related to cholera to under the 1 percent WHO target,
and we have done that hand-in-glove with the U.N.
And so, we will continue to make those investments. We have
also tried to do that in a way that builds out a proper health
system, so it is not just going and putting out a fire. But it
is rather making sure that clinics are well stocked, making
sure that the full range of child health interventions are
available to kids, especially in rural Haiti.
And in some of the districts, we have even invested in
secondary care maternity hospitals to help improve maternal
health outcomes and to do that in a way that is tied back to
some of the higher-order hospitals that were mentioned earlier
in the hearing.
In terms of TB, this has been a success story. We have had
a 50 percent reduction in TB mortality. The United States has
three primary accounts for supporting this. The first is
USAID's bilateral account. The largest is PEPFAR's bilateral
account, which, at $180 million or $190 million, is a
significant investment. And the other one is our resource gift
to the Global Fund for AIDS, TB, and Malaria.
In addition to significantly increasing our Global Fund
commitments over the past several years, we just helped the
Global Fund board increase its allocation within its fund
responsibilities to tuberculosis from 14 to 18 percent, or
something along those lines. So we could get you more details on it,
but I want to assure you, having worked on this issue, visited
programs, built partnerships with local private sector companies and
the countries like Brazil, China, India, and Russia, that account for a
lot of existing TB mortality, getting them to do more and recognizing
that those are middle-income countries that should take more
responsibility has been part of our.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Cuellar, for 3 minutes.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Shah, again, maybe we can set up a phone call with
Senator Harkin and I because the way you answered the question
about the SEED program still doesn't say if it finishes in June
whether that is it for that program. So I would like to follow
up because I don't want to take up my time on that.
Dr. Shah. Okay.
Mr. Cuellar. But I am going to talk to Senator Harkin and
follow up. There are two community colleges in Texas. One is in
El Paso. The other one is in San Antonio. I represent part of
San Antonio. I would like to follow up.
The second thing is if you can also follow up later the $10
million that we increased and you all decreased----
Dr. Shah. Yes.
Mr. Cuellar.[continuing].If you can specifically tell us
what you are looking at doing with that?
And then my question for right now is your Central Asia
regional for $16.9 million, you are going to continue that
cross-border training for the new silk road initiatives. Can
you just quickly tell me what countries are included in the
silk road initiative?
Dr. Shah. Yes. So let me--on SEED, I will commit to that
call, and I would be eager to do it. I think both those
community colleges have been consulted by our team, but we
would be eager to do that.
On Mexico, I would just suggest, and we will follow up with
the numbers, I have that in our fiscal year 2014 request, we
had $45 million total, of which the $10 million in DA. And in
our fiscal year 2015 request, we had $47.5 million, of which
$12.5 million is DA and $35 million is ESf. So those, maybe
those are different from what you have, but we will work that
through, and I will make sure my teams are clear about that.
Either way, we have carefully reviewed this program. And
the investments are, as you know, part of Merida. We believe
and we rebid a new project that is focused on justice sector
reform, and the results from the effort are quite
extraordinary. In communities where we work versus don't work,
we are seeing very, very strong quantified, evaluated results--
speeding up trials, speeding up getting the process moving, and
making criminal justice more effective.
So I would appreciate the chance, to go into this in more
detail.
Mr. Cuellar. Yes, I would like to do that because, again,
what we got from folks at the department were different
numbers. So I would like to make sure we are on the same page.
Dr. Shah. Okay. And with respect to the new silk road, this
is, part of an effort we called the Almaty Consensus, but it is
an effort to have Afghanistan and its neighbors work on more
regional integration, trade, and energy partnerships. Recently
we just concluded an agreement that will help Afghanistan get
access to about 1,300 megawatts of energy that will be sold
from Tajikistan and other places.
The initiative is defined to include the region broadly,
``but specifically includes Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India.''
And then, there are specific priorities in energy, in trade
transit, in customs clearance times, and in improving
infrastructure and connectivity.
Mr. Cuellar. If you can follow up on this? I have the
"stans" countries, and I have Azerbaijan and Georgia. But if
you all can follow up on those just to make sure we are on the
same initiative.
Dr. Shah. We would be happy to. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Cuellar. We have some proposed language, and we want to
make sure we are on the same page as yours.
Dr. Shah. Good. Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you so much, Doctor. Appreciate your
good work.
Dr. Shah. Thank you.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
I recognize the gentlelady from Florida for 3 minutes. Ms.
Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dent. Before you begin, somebody has got a computer too
close to the microphone. Thanks.
Okay. There you go. [Laughter.]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That would be me.
Mr. Dent. Restart the clock.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Way too much technology going on
here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to focus for a minute on nutrition and just the
concerns that I know a number of people have expressed on some
of the proposed cuts in the budget in nutrition programs.
Congressman Diaz-Balart and I have worked together on the 1,000
Days resolution, and we think, obviously, addressing child
hunger and nutrition worldwide is critically important, and I
know you do as well.
So can you give us an update on the new nutrition
initiative, which I think isn't very well understood, and how
that proposes to address our priorities around nutrition and
child hunger in the face of what seems like cuts to programs
that are designed to be effective?
Dr. Shah. Thank you. And thank you for your leadership on
1,000 Days. It is one of my favorite examples of bringing
updated science and knowledge of what works to a field that has
been of ongoing for a long time, but now has an opportunity to
dramatically reduce stunting in particular.
In May, we will launch a new USAID strategy on nutrition
that will effectively serve as an investment plan to back up a
series of commitments the Obama administration made in the G-8
last year. And the most important commitment was that we would
spend almost $1 billion over a 3-year period in nutrition-
specific interventions from agriculture, health, and core
supplemental feeding in that 1,000-day window.
What we will articulate in the new strategy are the
countries we are prioritizing, the specific stunting targets we
hope to achieve with the effort, the need to use and leverage
resources from our Feed the Future programs in those countries
to ensure that we are tackling agriculture and nutrition
together.
I have had the chance to discuss with the NGO community
quite a lot about this effort, and I think it is very important
because it starts to bring together health, agriculture,
nutrition, against a common goal, which is ensuring that
children in particular are not debilitated and stunted over the
course of their lives because of a lack of access to adequate
nutrition in the first 1,000 days.
This has personal significance to me because I come from a
long history of Indian Americans, many of whom are stunted in
past generations. But when you are like 2 feet taller than your
grandmother, it hits home.
So we have an opportunity to actually do this well. It will
be, I think, a strong effort, and I think what is in the budget
is 101 million on the nutrition line item. But that is just one
component of what an integrated nutrition strategy can
accomplish.
America leads the world in this area, and so it is
appropriate that we have a strategy and a target and a goal and
the ability to report on what we are doing.
Mr. Dent. I will recognize myself for 3 minutes.
Dr. Shah, is USAID deploying any new technologies beyond
the monitoring and evaluation to ensure that when problems are
discovered in the M&E process, reasonable steps are being taken
to actually resolve those problems, not just learn from them
for the future? And do you need any other--do you need any
further specific support or flexibility to ensure that you are
able to watch projects, even after completion, and take
reasonable steps to resolve the problems once identified?
Dr. Shah. Well, thank you, Congressman.
We have put in place a very aggressive monitoring and
evaluation strategy. It was actually recognized by the American
Evaluation Association as a best practice. As a result of that
effort, relative to 4 or 5 years ago when we produced maybe 10
or 20 coherent evaluations on an annual basis, we now do about
280 a year.
They are all available on an iPhone app that you can go to
the app store, download the app, and then you would be the 15th
person to use it. And I love it. It is great if you have long
flights.
But the reality is we know that 50 percent of our
evaluations are used for midcourse program corrections, and we
are also doing post program evaluations in certain cases as
well. You know, I support the efforts you have made and others,
like Congressman Poe, to really put forth a vision that all of
our major programs should be coherently evaluated, and we
should learn from them. And I think USAID leads the charge in
terms of getting that done and making that data publicly
available.
In terms of using new technology for that work, in many
cases, we have third-party evaluations, which is a best
practice in the industry. And in many cases, we do use
technology, whether it is SMS data from program participants to
make sure teachers are showing up at the schools or satellite
imagery to track crop yields, as I just saw we are doing in
Nepal through a partnership with NASA.
But in general, the goal is to be cost effective in how we
do the evaluations.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
In the interest of time, I will submit my five additional
questions for the record and hope that you can respond to those
at a later date.
Mr. Dent. And just again, I wanted to thank you, Dr. Shah,
again for your time today. Thank you for coming.
This concludes today's hearing. Members may submit any
additional questions for the record.
Mr. Dent. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations,
and Related Programs stands adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, April 2, 2014.
UNITED NATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS BUDGET
WITNESS
SAMANTHA POWER, UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS
Opening Statement of Chairwoman Granger
Ms. Granger. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations,
and Related Programs will come to order.
Ambassador Power, thank you for being with us today to
testify on the fiscal year 2015 budget request for the United
Nations and other international organizations. The direct
appropriations requested goes up significantly, by more than 25
percent. We need to hear why this is justified, especially in
light of the fiscal challenges we face here at home.
In the short time you have been Ambassador to the U.N.,
many important issues have come before you that impact U.S.
national security. On Iran, the U.N. and the IAEA in particular
have an important role to play, both in terms of making sure
Iran follows through on its commitments, and in keeping up the
pressure as the final deal is negotiated.
In Syria, the U.N.'s role is critical, both in eliminating
the chemical weapons stockpile and getting humanitarian aid to
people in dire need.
On Ukraine, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution
last week that affirms its commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty.
However, the U.N. has not been able to send a more powerful
message because of Russia's veto on the Security Council.
On the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, just yesterday,
President Abbas announced that the Palestinians intend to be a
party to 15 international conventions. This is very concerning
and could jeopardize the peace process and possibly U.S.
assistance. Since this has just happened, the ramifications are
unclear. The administration must send a clear message to the
Palestinians that the only path to statehood is through a
negotiated agreement with Israel, not through unilateral
attempts at the U.N. I hope you will update the subcommittee on
these and other policy challenges that you face.
There are a few other issues I want to mention. The first
is a U.N. reform. During your confirmation hearing, you said
that you would aggressively pursue efforts at the U.N. to
eliminate waste, improve accounting and management, strengthen
whistleblower protections, and end any tolerance for
corruption. I would like to know what progress you have made in
these areas.
As you know, the fiscal year 2014 appropriations bill
strengthens the transparency and accountability requirements.
After all of these years, there is simply no excuse for the
U.N. not making these commonsense changes.
The final issue is the significant fiscal year 2015 budget
proposed for the U.N. and its agencies. The subcommittee has
learned that the U.S. intends to vote for a new peacekeeping
mission in the Central African Republic. The humanitarian
situation is troubling, and there is a clear need to protect
civilians and ease their suffering. Yet the costs of such a
mission would be significant, and the subcommittee needs to
know what you plan to reduce to offset this commitment and
whether you intend to submit a budget amendment to the
Congress.
The United States is by far the largest contributor to U.N.
organizations and peacekeeping activities. More work needs to
be done to ensure that the U.N. is making serious tradeoffs and
is getting its budget under control.
In closing, I want to thank you and the U.S. delegation to
the U.N. in New York and around the world for the work you do
to promote our national interests.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Granger. Now I will turn it over to Ranking Member
Lowey for her opening remarks.
Opening Statement of Mrs. Lowey
Mrs. Lowey. Ambassador Power, I join Chairwoman Granger in
welcoming you today. I must begin by raising yesterday's media
reports that Palestinian President Abbas applied for
recognition from 15 U.N. conventions and treaties. This
reckless effort signals a breakdown in the peace process, with
far-reaching repercussions on the United States' relationship
with the U.N. and its specialized agencies.
Madam Ambassador, I hope you will begin your remarks today
by discussing the administration's response to this news. This
is distressing because the United Nations plays an integral and
indispensable role in maintaining international peace and
security; promoting economic and social development;
alleviating hunger; championing human rights; and supporting
efforts to address humanitarian crises.
Conversely, instances of the U.N.'s negligence or
unwillingness to act by some members of the Security Council,
is unacceptable in the face of haunting images of victims of
chemical weapons, gross violations of human rights, millions of
refugees, and other tragic and eminently avoidable suffering
around the globe.
While the U.N. is far from perfect, neglecting or refusing
to pay our commitments leaves the United States in a position
of weakness, not strength. Our robust engagement is necessary
to better protect our credibility on the world stage as well as
our national security. Problems in remote areas now cross
borders at alarming rate. We need to leverage the strength of
this coalition of nations to prevent emerging threats abroad
from reaching us here at home and to ensure the U.N. remains
accountable and effective.
Nuclear proliferation, terrorism, drug trafficking, manmade
and natural disasters, infectious disease, extreme poverty and
suffering, and environmental degradation confront the entire
world community, and no one nation should address them alone.
Burden sharing remains the most cost-efficient use of our tax
dollars. For all these reasons, the U.S. must pay its bills in
full and on time, a responsibility both Republicans and
Democratic administrations have consistently upheld.
In an increasingly globalized world, the U.N. continues to
serve as a critically important tool for advancing U.S.
interests and augmenting our own response to many international
challenges. For example, the U.N. Security Council imposed
tough sanctions against Iran, which played a critical role in
bringing about an interim nuclear deal. The IAEA is now
monitoring, inspecting, and verifying that Iran is fully
implementing the agreement's requirements. Given Iran's history
of deception, I would like to hear an update from you on the
IAEA's mission and your assessment of Iran's compliance thus
far.
With regards to Syria, recent reports by the U.N.'s
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons indicate
that 50 percent of Assad's chemical weapons have now been
removed. Yet the Syrians missed a March 15th deadline for the
destruction of its production facilities. Ambassador Power,
what timeline can we now expect for their entire program's
disposal?
Additionally, please update us on the U.N.'s ability to
deliver humanitarian aid. What options do we have if Assad
continues to defy the U.N. Security Council and forbid aid
workers from reaching hundreds of thousands of innocent Syrians
in need?
Finally, given the recent crisis over Crimea, I am
particularly worried that Russian President Putin will never be
a partner in ending this horrific war. What, in your view, can
we do about Russia's ever-increasing intransigence?
Madam Ambassador, I look forward to hearing from you how
the President's budget request will enhance U.S. global
leadership at the United Nations. I hope you will highlight the
successes since your confirmation as well as your strategies
for overcoming the many challenges ahead of us. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Granger. Ambassador Power, please proceed with your
opening remarks. I would strongly encourage you to summarize
your remarks so we can leave enough time for questions and
answers. And your full written statement, of course, will be
placed in the record.
Opening Statement of Ambassador Power
Ambassador Power. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman,
Ranking Member Lowey, Congressmen.
Thank you for the invitation to testify. I am really
delighted to have the chance to talk with you about the
pressing challenges that you have alluded to, and our country's
leadership at the United Nations and beyond.
Madam Chairwoman, at my confirmation hearing last summer, I
pledged to work vigorously for a U.N. that would advance
America's stake in global stability, operate with greater
efficiency, eliminate anti-Israeli bias, and contribute to
universal human rights. My full statement outlines the steps
that we have taken in each of these areas. But to honor your
time, I will today confine my remarks to five key points.
First, I respectfully but strongly urge you to support full
funding for the administration's request for a new peacekeeping
response mechanism and for the CIPA, CIO, and IO&P accounts. I
recognize, and you both have alluded to this, that your
consideration of the fiscal year 2015 budget comes at a time
when both the administration and Congress are committed,
rightly, to fiscal restraint. I am acutely mindful of the very
difficult budget climate we are in and, in particular, the
extraordinary sacrifices being made by American taxpayers every
day. You are making difficult choices about what to fund and
what to cut. The United Nations and our financial support to it
must receive rigorous scrutiny.
Recognizing the need for restraint in spending but also
conscious of the very real value these resources provide, we
ask for your support because the U.N. and other international
organizations enable our country to address diverse problems
around the world at a cost and a risk far lower than if we
acted on our own. We are the world's leading power and the
primary architect of the international system, which continues
to benefit the United States and the American people. Our
citizens will do better and be safer in a world where rules are
observed, prosperity is increasing, human suffering is
alleviated, and threats to our well-being are contained. The
United Nations is an indispensable partner in all of this. And
if you will allow me, in the discussion period, I will go into
greater detail on the specific funding requests.
Second, the State Department and the U.S. mission will
continue to press and press hard, in much the same way you
have, Madam Chairwoman, for U.N. reform. This past December, I
personally presented the case for financial discipline to the
committee that handles the organization's regular budget. I am
pleased that the United States has kept the U.N. budget to near
zero real growth since the 2010-2011 biennium. We have also
secured U.N. progress in reducing staff, freezing pay, cutting
waste, increasing transparency, and strengthening oversight of
peacekeeping operations. Much more needs to be done, and much
more can be done. With your support, we will continue our work
to make the U.N. more effective, efficient, transparent, and
accountable.
Third, we are fighting every day on numerous fronts to end
the bias against Israel that has long pervaded the U.N. system.
With our help, Israel has in recent months become a full member
of two groups from which they had long been excluded, the
Western European and Others Group in Geneva, and what is called
the JUSCANZ human rights caucus in New York. These groups are
where much of the behind the scenes coordination takes place
for U.N. meetings, leadership assignments, and votes. And the
United States and Israel had tried for years to break down the
barriers that were blocking Israel's entry to both groupings.
These milestones would perhaps seem less consequential if they
had not been so unjustifiably delayed.
Slowly but surely, we are chipping away at obstacles and
biases. Israel's inclusion sends a powerful message to those
striving to isolate or delegitimize the Jewish state, and that
message is, ``You will not succeed.'' The United States will
stand with Israel. We will defend it, and we will challenge
every instance of unfair treatment throughout the U.N. system.
Let me also add, given reports yesterday of new Palestinian
actions that both of you have referenced, that this solemn
commitment also extends to our firm opposition to any and all
unilateral actions in the international arena, including on
Palestinian statehood, that circumvent or prejudge the very
outcomes that can only come about through a negotiated
settlement.
If I may, Madam Chairwoman, again, I would like to come
back to this troubling issue in the discussion period, if I
could. Fourth, I ask the subcommittee's full support for U.N.
peace operations. From Haiti to Lebanon to Sub-Saharan Africa,
our country has a deep and abiding interest in restoring
stability, mitigating conflict, and combating terrorism.
Multilateral peace operations enable us to do so in a cost-
effective manner in such strife-torn countries as South Sudan,
Somalia, the DRC, and Mali, as well as in transitioning
countries critical to U.S. interests, such as Afghanistan,
Libya, and Iraq.
Since the President submitted his budget on March 4, owing
to a sharply deteriorating security environment in the Central
African Republic, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has in fact
recommended the rapid deployment of a new U.N. mission to
protect civilians. The emergency in the Central African
Republic and our view that a peacekeeping mission is in fact
required because of the acute security needs highlights the
value of a peacekeeping response mechanism of the type that we
have proposed to deal with contingencies arising outside the
regular budget cycle. But at the same time, the real world is
presenting catastrophic humanitarian emergencies like this one
to which it is in the U.S. national interest to respond. We are
rigorously reviewing all U.N. missions and urging the U.N. to
do so as well. We know the importance of reducing or closing
missions where conditions on the ground permit and when host
governments have the capability and must find the will to
manage their own affairs, particularly after many year-long
deployments by the United Nations.
In our view, peacekeeping activities are often essential,
but they need not be eternal. Finally, we are striving to
mobilize the U.N. as a vehicle for the promotion of human
dignity and human rights, in a forum in which the United States
can continue to stand up to repressive regimes. With the strong
backing of many in Congress, including all of you here today,
we have exposed Russian duplicity in Ukraine, fought back
against the global crackdown on civil society, provided a
platform for the victims of repression in North Korea, Cuba,
Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and elsewhere, and pursued such vital
objectives as universal access to education, an end to gender-
based violence, support for religious liberty, and the defeat
of HIV/AIDS.
Madam Chairwoman, for almost 70 years, American leaders
have found it in our interests to participate actively in the
United Nations and other international organizations. In this
era of seemingly nonstop turbulence, diverse threats, and
border-shrinking technologies, we can accrue significant
benefit from an institution that seeks every day to prevent
conflict, promote development, and protect human rights. For
these reasons, I again urge your favorable consideration of our
2015 budget request.
To close on a personal note, I consider it both an enormous
honor and a great responsibility to sit behind America's
placard at the U.N. And a big part of that privilege and that
responsibility is the chance to work closely with you, as the
guardians of America's purse and Representatives of the
American people, to ensure that our national interests are well
served. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have,
including some you have already posed.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Granger. Thank you so much. Thank you for that.
I will begin the questions, and Mrs. Lowey and I both share
concerns about President Abbas' actions yesterday. As you know,
provisions of the U.S. law restrict funding if the Palestinians
attempt to obtain member status at the U.N. or its agencies,
such as UNESCO, outside of an agreement with Israel. Please
give us your interpretation of what happened, why it happened,
and explain the impact on the peace process and whether these
actions will trigger a cutoff of economic aid to the
Palestinians.
Ambassador Power. Thank you for that question.
We are all completely seized with this issue. And I think
you have heard Secretary Kerry speak to it already. But let me
say just a few things.
First, as I said in my opening statement, and as we have
discussed privately as well, the United States opposes all
unilateral actions anywhere they may occur in the international
system, including where I work every day at the United Nations.
There are no short cuts to statehood. And we have made that
clear. Efforts that attempt to circumvent the peace process,
the hard slog of the peace process, are only going to be
counterproductive to the peace process itself and to the
ultimate objective of securing statehood, the objective that
the Palestinian Authority, of course, has.
So we have contested every effort, even prior to the
restart of negotiations spearheaded by Secretary Kerry. Every
time the Palestinians have sought to make a move on a U.N.
agency, a treaty, et cetera, we have opposed it. By the same
token, here, given this apparent move on a number of treaties,
Secretary Kerry and all of us have made clear, again, that we
oppose unilateral actions and that they are going to be
tremendously disruptive and that they will not achieve the
desired end. So that is the first point, I think which is in
keeping with our traditional position.
In terms of its impact on the peace process, which is a
question you have also raised, I think what Secretary Kerry has
said, and he is still--this is a very fluid situation. It just
came about, as you know, yesterday. He is working it probably
as we speak, certainly was working it all day yesterday and
this morning. It is I think premature to make a final judgment
on what impact this will have on the peace talks and on the
prospects for a negotiated settlement. So I wouldn't want to
prejudge that.
As you mentioned, the Palestinians have pursued in this
instance it seems treaty membership. We will need to see,
again, what it is that they have submitted before being able to
speak to what the ramifications are. So if I could just again
continue to work with you in the days ahead.
And then, finally, on the question of the U.N. waiver, as
you know, the United States has pursued a national interest
waiver, notwithstanding our strong and relentless opposition to
unilateral efforts at enhancement of status and unilateral
efforts at statehood. The reason that we have sought this
waiver, and it is so critically important, is that in the event
that the Palestinians seek and obtain membership in a U.N.
agency, the last thing we want to do is to give them a double
win. And it would be a double win for them to secure a win at
an agency on the one hand and then the exclusion of the United
States from that very agency, leaving the agency at the mercy
of leadership from Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, the
countries that tend to fill the space when we depart. So,
again, our goal is to use the U.N. system to advance the
interests of the United States and the American people. Being
excluded from those agencies does not allow us to do that. And
of course, and we can go agency by agency if you like, but you
are as familiar with these organizations as I am, vaccinations
for children, weapons inspectors in the IAEA, you know, the
postal system. I mean, this is the international system, and it
is strongly in the U.S. national interest to be a part of it.
But that in no way detracts from the firmness of our opposition
to Palestinian unilateral moves.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Before I go to Mrs. Lowey, I would like to request all the
members of the subcommittee to stick to the timeline. I think
this will allow us more than one round of questions.
I will turn to Mrs. Lowey now.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And again, welcome. I am going to move to another issue,
but I just want to associate myself with the comments of the
chair. As one who has been very optimistic about a potential
peace process and has strongly supported Secretary Kerry's
efforts and his determination to bring the parties together, it
was extremely disappointing to me that Abu Mazen chose to take
this action at the U.N. It is counterproductive, and doesn't
move them closer to any final resolution. I think it was
wrongheaded and very, very disappointing. And frankly, I wonder
whether Secretary Kerry can save the process in light of this
action.
But let's move on to Iran for a moment. We understand that
Iran now faces domestic pressure and international isolation.
While I believe the pressure of sanctions and the demand for a
better economy pushed the Supreme Leader to allow for the
election of President Rouhani, I am not convinced there has
been a change in heart. And I am very concerned about the
perspective of the overall Iranian leadership. I remain
concerned that the election of Rouhani and his subsequent charm
offensive was nothing more than a political maneuver or a
facade intended to break the unity of international sanctions
by making Iran appear to be cooperative. We have every reason
to believe and to question Iran's real intentions, given their
track record and history of deception.
So a couple of questions. Many people have argued in the
Congress that the threat of additional sanctions is necessary
to pressure Iran to stay at the negotiating table until we have
an acceptable final deal. Can you share with us your opinion on
that? Maybe I will just group these, because you are keeping
the time pretty tight, and then you can respond in any way you
choose. How will the Security Council respond if Iran does not
agree to a final deal? The Secretary of State has said that no
deal is better than a bad deal and I wonder what you would
consider a bad deal.
Now, one of my concerns, the preamble to the Joint Plan of
Action states that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek
or develop any nuclear weapons. So I have been very distressed
to learn that the IAEA cannot inspect or gain access to
Parchin, which has been rumored as the facility where they do
weaponization testing. If you can comment on the whole deal and
you can speak to why the JPOA does not allow IAEA to inspect
the sites where delivery mechanisms are made, it seems to me
that such sites are an integral part of nuclear capability. So
if you can just comment in general, I would be most
appreciative, and in specific on the Parchin issue.
Ambassador Power. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Let me just make a few comments if I can. You have
certainly put your finger on some core issues. First, we share
your skepticism. We share your lack of trust. There is no way
that one can look at the U.S.-Iranian relationship over the
course of the last three decades and bring anything other than
great skepticism and a lack of trust. And I think that is the
mind set that our diplomats have brought at every turn to our
engagements with the P5+1 and, of course, with Iran. I think
President Obama has been clear that in the event that these
talks break down and this agreement does not provide a
foundation for a long-term agreement that we believe will shut
down Iran's nuclear weapons program and deny them the prospect
of obtaining a nuclear weapon, as he has put it, he will be
leading the charge up here for additional sanctions in order to
impose further pressure on the regime.
Right now, we are seeking to take advantage of a diplomatic
window that, again, as the President has said, will not remain
open for long. And, you know, talks are opening again, I
believe next week, where Under Secretary Sherman I think is
already on her way or will be soon.
Mrs. Lowey. If I may just comment, and you can respond on
the sanctions issue, because I know it has been an issue where
there is a great deal of difference of opinion on the part of
the administration.
Ambassador Power. Yes.
Mrs. Lowey. The $6 billion to $7 billion in sanctions could
be reinstated in a nanosecond. But you and I know, and the
administration knows, any additional sanctions can take 180
days to put in place. So I just want to add that for the
record.
Ambassador Power. Okay. Well, to underscore, again, that
the overwhelming majority of sanctions remain in place and that
the Iranian economy is still in the vice of sanctions put in
place, not only here by the Congress and by the executive but
also this crippling four rounds of multilateral sanctions that
have come through the U.N. Security Council.
And that international sanctions regime, which was your
second question, has been a critical complement and force
multiplier shall we say of what we have done ourselves here as
the United States. So you asked where will the U.N. Security
Council be? One of the reasons that it is very important that
we keep the P5+1 together, which is not always easy but is
critical, is that on the back end of, you know, either a
comprehensive agreement at some later stage when all of our
conditions are met or in the event of the collapse of talks,
that we would then be in a position to act together at the
Security Council.
The other thing I want to say, because I don't think it is
as evident because of all of the focus on the JPOA, is that we
still have not only the robust multilateral sanctions regime in
New York, but the sanctions committee, the panel of experts,
you know, we are as a United States at the very same time we
are engaging, testing this diplomatic window, seeking to end
this what is a crisis diplomatically, we are enforcing the
sanctions that are on the books and seeking to close any
loopholes that may exist in this multilateral sanctions regime.
I mentioned this because, of course, Israel just interdicted a
ship that was carrying weapons from Iran to militants in Gaza.
And that is something that we are now demanding that the
sanctions committee take up in New York, and we figure out what
the implications of that are. So, again, in addition to the
additional bilateral sanctions that the--sanctions designations
of individuals and entities that have happened since the JPOA,
we in New York are also always looking to take further action
on the basis, again, very crippling regime that exists.
I am well over time, so let me just, maybe if I could,
speak to the Parchin issue. The JPOA made clear that the P5+1
and Iran must, quote, ``work with the IAEA to facilitate
resolution of past and present issues of concern.'' This is the
formula that is used by the IAEA and Iran in addressing
possible military dimensions, which is of course why you are so
concerned about Parchin. And that includes Parchin. So what the
JPOA says is that a comprehensive solution requires not just a
final step, but also resolution of concerns, which is
understood again to hit the military dimension. So the more
plain English way to put it is that the interim, the JPOA
addressed some subset of issues. We only offered very, very
modest, reversible, and temporary sanctions relief in return.
Parchin is exactly the kind of issue that is on the table now
in terms of the longer-term negotiations.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Granger. I will call on members now, alternating
between majority and minority based on arrival time, as we have
done before. I want to remind members that you have 5 minutes
for your questions and the response. When you have 2 minutes
remaining, the light will turn yellow. And again, I think this
will allow us to have multiple rounds.
We will call first on Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
Ambassador, thanks for being here. Let me start out, I
would be remiss without first thanking you, and I have even
written you a letter in which you responded very quickly, by
the way, for I think in the administration nobody has been more
forthcoming on support and solidarity with those who are
struggling for freedom around the world. You have done so
repeatedly on social media, which is crucial, whether it was,
for example, during the CELAC issue in Cuba or the students in
Venezuela who are trying to recapture democracy. You have been
exceedingly forthright. And for that, as I did so in writing, I
want to publicly do so now, thank you for that.
Really three issues I am going to throw out really quickly.
And let me just do that really quickly, and then you could
respond. In March, a U.N. panel of experts provided a report to
the U.N. Security Council concluding that the July illegal
shipment of weapons to North Korea from Cuba in fact violated
sanctions and constituted, by the way, the largest amount of
weapons interdicted going to North Korea since the adoption of
Resolution 1718 in 2006. I don't have to talk about all the
details about that; they were clearly trying to hide it. So
given the discovery of Cuba and North Korea's regime's willful,
quote, frankly, collusion to violate U.N. sanctions, what
action is underway to hold those two regimes responsible for
violating--for obviously violating U.S. sanctions? Point number
one.
If I can then jump to Venezuela, where, again, like you
have been in Cuba, you have been very vocal, very, very vocal.
And by the way, you cannot underestimate the importance of
those statements that you have been making on Twitter for those
who are oppressed and repressed. That is a huge deal. I don't
have to tell you about what is going on in Venezuela; you are
very familiar. But what is the administration, or what can or
are you doing specifically through the United Nations to bring
attention to the, frankly, the horrible situation in Venezuela,
where students are being arrested, where, frankly, one of the
main opposition leaders has been in prison for over a month,
and all of the human rights violations in Venezuela? And again,
I encourage you, and I know you will continue to do your part
publicly. But what is the U.N. looking at that and what can be
done there?
And lastly, to a fiscal issue that you talked about--and I
think I still have a little bit of time--specifically
concerning the issue of the peacekeeping funds. So the
President's budget request is more than $800 million for
peacekeeping in a new peacekeeping contingency account. Now,
the concern is that the assessed rate for the United States
continues--it continues to rise above what is, frankly,
authorized by U.S. law. So then, meanwhile, the U.N. approves
new and expanded peacekeeping missions that are, frankly, very
costly. And then we don't see a lot of reductions or proposals
for the elimination or reduction of missions that have been
around for decades, for example, such as the one in the Western
Sahara. So there, what is the administration doing to reduce or
to eliminate, hopefully, outdated U.N. peacekeeping missions?
Why should the committee, this committee, support a contingency
fund when there is very little, frankly, if any discipline
being shown in budgeting for those peacekeeping missions,
current peacekeeping missions? And what is being done to help
bring, again, a resolution to some of those, specifically, for
example, like the Western Sahara?
So, Ambassador, I know I threw a bunch of issues out there.
I apologize for that. But we have a very strict chairwoman, and
so we try to be very cooperative with her.
Ms. Granger. And that color is yellow.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Exactly.
Ms. Granger. I want to point that out to you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I know my place, Madam Chairwoman.
Ambassador Power. Given how important each of the questions
are, I am very nervous about the 54 seconds I have left to
answer them all.
Ms. Granger. Do the best you can do.
Ambassador Power. I hope the chairwoman would give me just
a little bit of indulgence so I can at least seek to do some
justice.
I suspect the issue of the fiscal climate and the
peacekeeping funds will come up and will be raised by other
members, so maybe I can elaborate in greater detail. Let me
start with that, if I could. You rightly note that the
peacekeeping requests that we are making, or the peacekeeping
funds we are asking for, we are asking for more this year than
we did last year. That is owing to a couple key issues. The
first is Mali last year occurred after our regular budget
cycle. By Mali, I mean the takeover of two-thirds of the
country by violent extremists. And as a result, part of what we
are asking for here is funding to make up for a mission that
was authorized outside the regular budget cycle.
But the other reason is that South Sudan tragically,
devastatingly, has degenerated into a horrible ethnic conflict
just since December of this year, and we have had to expand the
number of peacekeepers in South Sudan. In addition, although it
is not actually reflected in the President's budget request
because this has just come on, we are going to be requesting
funding, as the chairwoman indicated in her opening statement,
for the Central African Republic for a peacekeeping mission
there in all likelihood. And this is something we are just
beginning to consult with you all on. And again, at some point,
I hope I will have a chance to speak to the devastation of what
is happening there.
But you are right, it is not enough to simply say the real
world is presenting these emergencies and we have to respond to
them, because we live in a fiscally challenged climate. And so
what we have done over the course of the last 5 years, and I
was actively involved in this when I was working at the White
House as the President's U.N. adviser, we have brought down the
costs per peacekeeper. The cost now is 16 percent lower than
when it was when we started seeking costs.
So, again, the pie is bigger because of the real world
emergencies. You only have to read the newspaper to see that
the world is presenting successive challenges to us. But per
peacekeeper, we are bringing down the costs. And that, you
know, has involved eliminating duplication. Again, I won't go
into the details here, but I hope we will have a chance to
elaborate on some of the measures we have taken. We just last
week closed down the mission in Sierra Leone. In my opening
statement, you heard me say that these peacekeeping missions,
many of them we find essential, but they need not be eternal.
And I think there is a habit, sort of once a mission gets set
up, to not be sufficiently assessing the original reason that
the Congress and the U.S., you know, came to support a mission
and assessing whether that mission is appropriately configured
given the evolution of circumstances on the ground. There are
reductions happening, but in a responsible way, in Haiti,
Liberia, Ivory Coast, I think where tremendous gains have been
made. And again, I can speak more to that.
On Venezuela, we have a responsibility, of course, as the
United States, to speak up on behalf of those who are seeking
their freedom. And I really appreciate the tremendous
leadership you have shown, always, in standing up to repressive
regimes. I think nearly 40 people have been killed in these
protests, these peaceful protests where people are airing their
legitimate aspirations and their legitimate grievances. You
mentioned the criminalization of dissent. That is something,
again, we have been outspoken about. We have called for a third
party to get involved in mediation in some fashion, because it
is in everybody's interests for this crisis to end. But that
third-party mediator needs to be credible to both sides. And
that, until recently, had been a sticking point, but a little
progress I think has been made on the mediation. At the U.N.,
at the Human Rights Council, we issued a joint statement on
Venezuela, enlisted a number of countries to join us. It will
not surprise you that, given that the U.N. is filled--more than
half of U.N. member states are nondemocratic, it is not always
easy for us to pull together the kind of coalition of the
willing, shall we say, within the U.N., a cross-regional
coalition. But that is what we seek to do. We seek, even if we
can't get overwhelming vote counts, we seek to create kind of
alignments of people who share the same democratic values
speaking out on behalf of Venezuela. I would welcome any ideas
you have about further steps that we can take within the U.N.
system. And I agree that it is incredibly important to raise it
there and to multilateralize the human rights concerns that are
at the heart, meant to be at the heart of the U.N. charter.
Lastly, if I could, just on the DPRK and Cuba sanctions
violations, we--there are sort of a lot of very bureaucratic
things I can say about the things we are doing at the U.N. on
this particular case. It was the largest arms seizure. We are
very grateful, and thank Panama for stepping up and meeting its
responsibilities, as it is doing in a remarkable way really
across a whole host of issues, including Venezuela. We have,
through the Sanctions Committee, issued a public--or sought to
issue a public implementation assistance notice to share
lessons learned with member states and correct Cuba's claims
about how they are interpreting the UNSCRs. And the report that
came back was very strong. It basically rejected the Cuban
arguments, which we felt was very important again and, given
that U.N. reporting can sometimes be uneven, is important to
stress. We are seeking to impose sanctions on entities we can
prove are responsible for the violation. This is challenging,
because U.N. sanctions, of course, come by consensus. And so we
will need to get China, Russia, and other members of the
Security Council to come along board. But that is a work in
progress. And we are seeking to release publicly the panel of
experts incident report, which again we think rejects frontally
Cuban and North Korean claims on this issue.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much for this hearing.
Ambassador Power, good to see you again.
In my role as one of the congressional representatives to
the United Nations, yesterday I had the pleasure of leading the
Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) delegation to the U.N. Thank
you so much for meeting with us. We were very happy to meet
with U.N. officials to really get a good handle on the
importance of American leadership in the United Nations, which
we all agree is so important.
Secondly, just as descendants of the transatlantic slave
trade, current day simple human rights issues of discrimination
both in our own country and abroad are very important to
members of the CBC. And so we want to thank you very much for
your support for human rights and civil rights, minority rights
throughout the world.
The United Nations is a critical body in our world
community. And we believe we must fully engage--at least I know
Members of the Congressional Black Caucus believe we must
engage in the United Nations and the international community to
ensure a safer world. And we get a huge bang for our buck with
the United Nations.
A couple of things I want to ask you, though, which I am
recently learning about, and that is our dues. Now, given the
nominal increase in funding for the United Nations'
peacekeeping missions next year, it was pointed out that the
bill, the omnibus bill underfunded significantly our
peacekeeping commitments. By some estimates, we have come up
with about $350 million short, which again puts us in many ways
in an arrears position. So could you explain this, how this
peacekeeping dues, the formula by which it is put together, and
how does being in arrears really affect our ability to pursue
our interests at the United Nations?
Secondly, the Convention on the Rights of People, Persons
with Disabilities, inspired in large part by our Nation's own
landmark disability laws, I can't for the life of me understand
why we would not, or why the Senate would not pass the treaty,
the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities. So
we need to know why this is so important to support disability
rights around the world so we can--I don't know if we can
figure out a way to move on this or not from this side. But I
think hearing about this and having this on record is extremely
important.
South Sudan. The Security Council's decision to deploy
reinforcements, of course, will enhance the ability to carry
out a civilian protection mandate. So can you discuss the
U.N.'s efforts to ensure the safety of displaced civilians who
have sought refuge at United Nations compounds over the last
several months?
And then, of course, Afghanistan. What is the U.N. role
going to be after 2014, if any? Could you explain that? And
thank you again very much. Good to see you here.
Ambassador Power. Great. Thank you. Let me start, if I can,
where you started, which is on the peacekeeping issue. And that
allows me to add a little more ballast to the response I
offered the Congressman.
I mean, first, your point, peacekeepers are going places
and protecting civilians and combating extremism so we don't
have to. And it is incredibly important for us to bear in mind
that, for instance, when Mali gets taken over by extremist
groups and militants in the way that they were--the French of
course staged an intervention, and the African Union initially
stepped up in really important ways. But in order to
consolidate those gains and ensure that militants remain
vanquished, we have to support U.N. peacekeeping. That is what
those peacekeepers are there to do.
In South Sudan you mentioned the effort to protect
civilians who are gathered in U.N. bases. South Sudan is a
country, newly independent country, has a historic relationship
with us, with, you know, college students around the United
States. Even high school students now are exercised about the
plight of people in that country. The United States led the
effort with many people here on this committee, including you
and Frank Wolf and virtually all of the members, to bring about
this country. And now it is the United Nations that is there at
a time when we are winding down our mission in Afghanistan and
of course have ended our mission in Iraq. It is incredibly
important to U.S. interests that peacekeepers be doing that
work.
The gap between what we owe the U.N. in terms of
peacekeeping and what was appropriated I think is explicable in
a couple ways. One, I mentioned already the Mali mission came
on the books after our regular budget submission. But second,
our assessment rate now is 28.4 percent. And there is a cap,
and that I would appeal to this committee to lift, that only
allows us to pay a share of 27.1 percent. And again, I think
reflected in a number of the members' comments so far, the
reason we don't want to pay more is we are paying an awful lot.
And that makes a huge amount of sense. The formula on which
this percentage is negotiated is based on an ability to pay.
And I have made it a huge priority up in New York to try to
ensure that others are paying their fair share.
In the recent scales negotiations, which were before my
time, where our assessment went up from 27.1 to 28.4, Russian
and Chinese assessment rates also went up. Our challenge with
some of the emerging economies, the Brazils and the Indias,
which have also gone up marginally--in Brazil's case, actually,
quite substantially--is that this formula is calculated on the
basis of per capita GDP and debt burden. So you get a discount
if you are a country that is growing but has still huge amounts
of poverty that you deal with in your country.
Now, we are seeking to change that methodology. But the
next scales negotiation is in 2015. And while, again, it is--
the 28.4 percent is not ideal; we prefer to be at 27.1 percent.
We are going to fight to get it back down. It has been much
higher in the past. In the 1980s and 1990s, it was at 31
percent at various times. So we are significantly lower than we
once were. And we are trying to find savings within the
peacekeeping missions that exist.
But I would ask you if you could lift the cap in order to
give us the resources we need to fund these really, really
important missions. And please know that I will work with you
hand in glove, again, to try to bring this back down.
On your other questions, briefly on the disabilities
convention, the great champion of this is Senator Bob Dole, who
has made this his great passion. And for him, the fact that
veterans come home from war in Iraq and Afghanistan, so many
more veterans now suffering the loss of limbs and so forth, and
rehabilitating here, and getting to take advantage of the ADA,
and the accommodations that we have here in this country but
then, in effect, being told that the protections end at the
Nation's shore, that while your able-bodied counterparts can
imagine jobs overseas, the ADA extends only across the
continental U.S. And in a global marketplace, that is not fair
to our vets. It is not fair to our persons with disabilities
generally. So what this convention would do is simply allow the
United States to be party to an international convention that
enshrines the provisions of the ADA. And as a party to that
convention, we would then press other countries to bring their
standards up to ours. And it is critical for us to be a part of
that convention in order to show real leadership on disability
rights. It has strong bipartisan support in the Senate. And we
are still working, again, with Senator Dole, Senator McCain,
Senator Barrasso, Senator Ayotte, and of course the Democratic
supporters, to try to bring about ratification.
Lastly, on the U.N. role in Afghanistan, forgive me,
Congresswoman, there is a lot here, I would say a couple
things. First, it is clear that the U.N. will likely maintain a
political presence. They have a critical human rights
monitoring role. And we are seeing right now the centrality of
the U.N. in supporting the Afghan-led election process. And
those are all things that don't cease to be necessary, you
know, in the wake of any U.S. drawdown or even eventually when,
you know, all troops--all American troops are out of
Afghanistan. Because President Karzai has not signed the BSA,
the President has not made his decisions about what the U.S.
troop presence is going to look like after this year. And I
think the U.N. is waiting to understand that better. We have
seen, just with the monstrous Taliban attacks that have
occurred in the last few weeks, in addition to all those that
preceded those attacks, just how precarious the security is,
particularly for civilians, who are trying to aid the Afghan
population.
So that is a challenge. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Welcome. Let me ask you, we talked about the fact that we
spend a lot of money on the U.N., and over the years, there has
been an awful lot of efforts in Congress to bring about reforms
to the U.N. And one of the kind of glaring dysfunctions of the
U.N. is the U.N. Security Council. It is supposed to bring
peace and security on an international basis, but it doesn't
seem to always work that way.
If you look at Syria, the efforts to end the conflict
there, I think there have been at least three times where China
and Russia has vetoed efforts to do that. And so you wonder how
it can meet its goal when its permanent membership is divided.
So I would ask you two questions. One, do you think that,
to a certain extent, the Security Council has lost a little bit
of its credibility, maybe lost a little bit of its legitimacy?
And if so, is there anything the U.S. can do to help it regain
that? Because the second part of that question is if you look
at the other side, it seems like just about every veto that we
have put forward in the last 25 years is vetoing some
condemnation of Israel. Israel doesn't get treated very well. I
know you have been working hard to see that Israel gets fair
treatment across the board in the U.N. So take those two things
and talk about that: A, what kind of reforms might be brought,
either through the U.N. Security Council or even in a broader
sense; and B, how you feel like you are doing in trying to make
sure that Israel gets treated fairly in the U.N. Thank you.
Ambassador Power. Thank you, Congressman. And thank you,
generously, for leaving me 3 minutes to answer your questions.
Let me say about the Security Council that you have put your
finger on it. When the permanent members, particularly Russia
most recently, backed by China, decide not to fulfill their
responsibilities under the U.N. charter to enforce
international peace and security because they are a veto
holder, that leaves the council vulnerable. And there is no
question that the council's legitimacy has suffered greatly not
to be responding to the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria and
the profound threat to international peace and security when
you have millions of people spilling over into neighboring
countries, many of which are fragile, like that in Iraq and
Lebanon, and when you now see also foreign extremists take
root, you see a regime brutalizing its people using barrel
bombs, chemical weapons, Scuds. You know, the fact that Russia
can use its veto in circumstances like this really reflects a
vulnerability, as you say, in the council structure.
And we have had to work in other ways. Working through the
Arab League, working through the Human Rights Council, which,
as you know, is very problematic on issues related to Israel
but has created a commission of inquiry that has produced
really important reports for Syria that will be used some day
in some form of accountability to hold the perpetrators of
these, again, horrific crimes to task.
So we have had to do workarounds on Syria. On chemical
weapons and recently on humanitarian issues, we did manage to
get two resolutions finally through the Security Council. And
on chemical weapons, we have seen, as you know, just 50 percent
of the weapons removed. The deadline for the overall removal
operation is not until June 30, but the Syrians are missing a
number of milestones along the way. So we are very concerned
about the pace of removal and elimination. I would say Russia
has worked more constructively, clearly because it sees its
interests as imperiled, first because of the threat of force
that hung over Syria back in August and September, but also
because of their concern that chemical weapons will fall into
the hands of terrorists and so forth. So we can still see that
Russia a la carte can choose to see its interests engaged in
ways that coincide with ours on Syria. But by and large, on the
humanitarian situation, though we did get a resolution
recently, there is not nearly the same energy put into
enforcing that resolution. And we are seeing very disappointing
results on the ground, which, again, I can speak to later.
What I would say, though, is that in complementing or at
the very same time we are seeing this, as you put it,
dysfunction on Syria--and obstructionism might be a better word
on the part of Russia, because there is more accountability in
that--we are also seeing the Security Council go about its
business and do really important work. We just in the midst of
the Ukraine crisis passed a resolution granting for the first
time the international community the authority to interdict
stolen oil that ends up on the high seas from Libya. And the
U.S. Special Forces did a heroic job retrieving some of that
oil. But this is a phenomenon that could persist, and Russia
went along with that. We are renewing mandates and enhancing
mandates for peacekeepers in Congo and expanding the mission in
South Sudan in response to the situation on the ground.
So the council is still doing very important work for the
U.S. national interests, but of course, the vulnerability is
there because of Russian obstructionism.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ambassador, it is good to see you. I will try to ask my
questions in a compressed way also, so you can have most of the
time to answer.
I want to focus more on the Palestinians' pursuit of
statehood or recognition by U.N. agencies. And understanding
that our policy is that we withdraw from those agencies and
cease funding when a unilateral action is taken like that, how
can we--if you could walk us through your thoughts on how,
perhaps, a unilateral approach to that concern, which is
obviously a very significant concern, may not be the best
strategic approach for us. You know, instead of maybe a focus
in an a la carte way, to use your term, like with the ICC and/
or the IAEA, if we were going to try to leverage our
participation in a way that is, you know, a more microtargeted
approach to respond to wildly inappropriate actions, like the
Palestinians.
The other issue is on Israel's treatment in general at the
Human Rights Council and our ability to leverage our membership
in the Human Rights Council. What are we doing to get the Human
Rights Council--how are we using our membership to get the
Human Rights Council to stop it almost exclusively focusing on
their obsession with Israel and actually focus on very
significant, serious human rights abuses in Syria, and Iran,
and Venezuela, and Cuba, just to name a few?
Then just a couple of others. On humanitarian assistance,
you know, it has been for the entire existence of the United
Nations that we have essentially shouldered the burden of
financing much of what it does. How do we encourage more cost
sharing from, you know, wealthier countries that actually have
the ability to step up? And how can we use U.N. Security
Council 2139 to encourage other donors to do that, particularly
rich Gulf nations, for example, that have the resources but
choose not to use them? And then, lastly, if you could just
cover the issue of U.N. reform, because I know the United
States' position is that reform and economy, accountability,
integrity, and excellence are all essential. So what are we
working on in that regard?
Ambassador Power. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I mean, on the Palestinian question, I just would
underscore that we will oppose attempts at upgrades in status
anywhere. We are in very close touch now. We have a monthly
meeting with the Israelis where we look out at the sea of
international organizations and U.N. entities, including treaty
bodies and treaties and so forth, and coordinate with them, and
also try to understand whether they are prioritizing in
particular ways, sort of along the lines of what you are
suggesting.
The ICC is, of course, something that we have been
absolutely adamant about. Secretary Kerry has made it very,
very clear to the Palestinians, as has the President. I mean,
this is something that really poses a profound threat to
Israel, is not a unilateral action that will be anything other
than devastating to the peace process, which is, again, where
all of our efforts should be placed right now.
Before the peace negotiations started between the two
parties, restarted with Secretary Kerry's and the President's
leadership, we were fighting on every front. Contesting
unilateral efforts on every front. And that is what we would do
in any event, because we don't think that this is a productive
approach. We don't think there are shortcuts. And we know that
these--that this can be an effort to delegitimize Israel at the
same time it is an effort to upgrade Palestine status.
I think my point on the waiver and the funding issue is
that the American people and the United States are so much
better off when the United States is in good standing within
these organizations, defending our interests, fighting for our
friends, and not surrendering the playing field to those that
would like nothing more than for the United States not to be in
these organizations. So we are not punishing the Palestinians
if we cut off funding to these agencies; we are punishing U.S.
interests. And that is why, again, we need to deter precisely
the moves that are at--the spirit behind the legislation is to
deter Palestinian action. That is what we do all the time and
will continue to do. But we cannot surrender the vast range of
U.S. interests in the process. Very briefly on the humanitarian
assistance, the cost sharing, I will just touch upon that since
it hasn't come up before. The Kuwaitis have been the ones in
the Syria context who have hosted the last two donors'
conferences. And we think this is progress and an example of
the kind of leadership--and they have really shown tremendous
leadership on the humanitarian situation. We seek to mobilize
resources from the countries that you have alluded to. And you
have seen emerging economies, you know, like Brazil and others,
make contributions in a new way in light of, again, the scale
of the catastrophe. But we still think there is a lot of room
for others to be doing their fair share, and particularly those
wealthy countries in the region, a region that stands to be
very destabilized, again, by the effects of this crisis.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Yoder.
Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And Ambassador, thank you so much for joining us today. And
there are so many topics to cover and so little time. And we
appreciate the work of all of our diplomats and leaders around
the world. And thank you for your leadership.
Certainly, we talked about Syria and North Korea, Russia.
Continuing to be I think perhaps on a lot of our minds is the
nuclear threat from Iran. I know you have spoken about that
this morning on several of the questions. I have some specific
questions for you I would just like to get your thoughts on as
we as a Congress look at what our future foreign policy should
be. As we come back to the Iranian nuclear desires, I know we
are in a diplomatic mode now. Should those diplomatic efforts
fail, is military action still on the table if Iran does not
abandon its nuclear program? And how are we articulating that
today? Would that military action require U.N. Security
approval to move forward? Would you seek--and I know we are
dealing in hypotheticals. I need to articulate this well, but
not damage any current efforts. So I respect and appreciate the
way you are going to have to try to articulate your answer
here. But would you seek U.N. Security approval? And would the
country be willing to move unilaterally without that approval?
And did the United States' war and action in Iraq require U.N.
Security approval? Do we believe that that did in retrospect?
And then the second topic, the administration has called
for certainly a reset with relations in Russia in past years.
What can we do to successfully deter Vladimir Putin going
forward? What does the new reset look like? What are your
thoughts just generally moving forward? And how do we reset
those relations again? Because clearly that didn't work as
successfully as probably anybody liked. And then you were in
the White House and witnessed the struggle in our country over
the murder of our ambassador in Benghazi. That continues to be
a very big topic in this country and certainly before Congress
regarding what the United States did to prevent that attack,
statements following the attack from our then ambassador on
what may have led to the attack. And so I guess just seeing
that firsthand in the position you were in, and now you are the
new United States Ambassador to the U.N., what have we learned?
And specifically, what are we doing differently with security?
And how would we treat something like this differently in the
future?
Ambassador Power. Okay. Thank you so much, Congressman.
Let me--as you anticipated, it will not shock you that I am
not going to engage in hypotheticals. So I think it is more
appropriate simply to describe generally the President's
position, which is that, even today, he has taken no option off
the table as it relates to Iran. Consistently, he has made
clear on any issue that if America's vital national interests
are at stake, he is going to act to protect the American people
and our vital national security interests. And what that means
is that in the event that the Security Council does not
accommodate his need to lead and perform his duties as the
commander in chief, he is still going to pursue what he deems
the right policy on behalf of the American people.
In terms of the retrospective question you asked, again, I
don't think it is appropriate for me here in my current role to
be going back over decisions that were made. What we are
focused on at the U.N., but across the administration, is
trying to shore up the security situation in a country that,
unfortunately, in recent months has really taken a turn for the
worse in terms of the penetration of terrorists, the seizure,
as you know, by terrorists of Iraqi towns, towns that very
brave Americans expended, made great sacrifices to try to
secure for the Iraqi people. So we are focused, the U.N.
Special Representative there is working hand in glove with our
embassy to try to defuse that crisis, to try to ensure that the
coming elections go off without causing or provoking or being
accompanied by more violence. That is our emphasis on Iraq.
On Putin, I would just say that the steps that have been
taken even just since the so-called referendum in Crimea, and
the so-called annexation, which we reject, and which the United
Nations has rejected now in an overwhelming way, the steps that
we have taken have already had an effect. You are seeing
investor confidence plummet. You are seeing the ruble
depreciate. You are seeing investors recognize that if there is
not a climate of rule of law in Russia, and clearly taking over
part of someone else's country doesn't exactly reflect a
respect for the rule of law, whether domestic or international,
that that is a very perilous market environment.
And so, again, we do believe that this economic and
political isolation that President Putin has chosen for himself
is going to have an effect. And we are, in addition to that, of
course, supporting, thanks to the House vote and the Senate
vote on this issue, robust financial assistance for Ukraine so
that, you know, X number of years from now, we see a prosperous
Ukraine that is thriving, that is not forced to choose between
East and West, and where the people see the benefits of the
kind of economic integration available to those countries that
play by the international rules.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome, Ambassador.
At the outset, I want to just express my support for that
flexible funding mechanism for U.N. peacekeeping missions.
Regrettably, given how unstable the world is right now, it is
not a question of whether we will need to support such
operations, only where. And I would much rather make that kind
of investment than have to either have American boots on the
ground or suffer the effect of total state failure and collapse
and all the related risks that we ultimately face as a result
of those failed states.
I want to direct my question to Syria. Syrian civil war has
claimed the lives of at least 150,000 people, one-third of whom
are civilians. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights
announced yesterday millions more have been forced to flee
their homes to neighboring Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, and even
Iraq. And millions more have become internally displaced, their
faiths hanging on the ebb and flow of battle. While all the
Syrian people have suffered from fighting, it is minority
populations, and especially Syrian Christians, who are most at
risk.
As you know, Ambassador, these are some of the oldest
Christian communities in the world, dating back to the first
century AD. About a week ago, the town of Kessab, which is
predominantly Armenian Christian, was attacked by Al Qaeda-
linked fighters who had crossed over from Turkey, and the town
was emptied in a bloody assault. Many of the residents of
Kessab are descendants of the victims of the Armenian genocide.
And there was a particular poignancy to their being targeted in
this manner.
Can you tell us what efforts the U.N. and its agencies
working in and around Syria are making to safeguard Syrian
minority communities? My understanding is that many of them are
resistant to seeking refuge in UNHCR and other NGO facilities
out of fear for their safety and are thus more likely to be
internally displaced persons. Also, is the Kessab issue in
particular and minority issues generally on the agenda in New
York with reference to Syria?
And finally, is there any diplomatic movement at all in
resolving the Syrian conflict? Or is Assad so confident of his
military advantage now that any hope of a diplomatic resolution
is essentially gone?
Ambassador Power. Thank you, Congressman.
First, on the peacekeeping response mechanism, thank you
for raising it. And let me just say a word on that, knowing
that not all may think it is the best idea right from the
beginning. This mechanism comes about because what we have gone
through in the last few budget cycles, where real world
exigencies, like that in Mali or now potentially in Central
African Republic, arise after we submitted our budget. You
know, the bad guys in the world are not responsive to our
budget cycles. And we are trying to prevent the rise of
extremism, protect civilians, you know, meet humanitarian
needs. This is not something where the money would be spent on
anything other than the kinds of emergencies that this
committee, subcommittee, and the larger committee have
expressed and proven their support for over the years. And one
of the things that we would be very eager to discuss with you
is how could we create some kind of consultative process where
you felt at the heart of the decisionmaking around the use of
such a mechanism? But we are finding ourselves--our decision
space shrunk in New York when a crisis arises because of the
prior year's cycles. And if you look at refugee funding and so
forth, they have found a way, because refugee flows also are
unpredictable, to embed, I gather, within refugee programming a
little bit of flexibility, again, allowing for the kind of
consultation that could allow real world emergencies and real
world peacekeeping missions, exigencies to secure funding in a
nimble way. On Kessab, it is an issue of huge concern. And the
broader fate of minorities and all the Syrian people is of
pressing concern. In terms of what the U.N. is doing about that
particular--the takeover of that particular town, the Security
Council has met recently, I believe it was just--I have lost
track of time with my preparation for this hearing--but I think
it was late last week on Friday, where we discussed the
humanitarian situation in Syria generally. And most of the
council members raised the issue of Kessab, calling on the U.N.
to do more to try to meet the needs of these people. This was
in a closed consultation on the humanitarian situation in Syria
in compliance with the humanitarian resolution.
I would note that, unfortunately, the extremist group that
appears to have taken hold of that town is not one that the
United States or the United Nations has a huge amount of
leverage over. And so our emphasis now is on supporting the
moderate opposition in Syria that is taking on those extremist
groups and making sure that the U.N. has the funding it needs,
and the resources of all kinds that it needs to accommodate
refugee flow along--or IDP, in the case of the Syrian Armenian
community, and, as you say, an internally displaced flow. So it
is resources. It is strengthening the moderate opposition,
which is taking on ISIL, the very group that appears to have
taken over that town, making sure that none of the neighbors
are giving support to terrorist groups or extremist groups,
which would aid their efforts in seizures like that, and going
on a funding drive internationally, because only a very small
percentage of the U.N. funding appeal for Syria generally has
been filled at this point.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning. And following up on Mr. Schiff's question
with respect to Syria, that the U.N. Security Council has
demanded that the Government of Syria and opposition groups
allow humanitarian aid to be delivered. The Secretary General's
report last week made it clear that the Syrian Government is
violating the Security Council resolution I believe adopted in
February. The administration is also on record that the Syrian
regime is in violation of the Security Council's demands. And
many of my constituents think, and I mentioned that I have the
largest Syrian community of any other Member of Congress in the
country, support helping the Syrian people. And this
subcommittee provided a significant amount of funding and an
increase for humanitarian aid to help meet those particular
needs.
What will the United States and the U.N. do to ensure that
aid can get to the Syrian people? That is my principal question
to you right now.
Ambassador Power. Well, the first thing we sought to do was
to get Russia on board with a humanitarian resolution that
included in it a list of very specific demands, which capture
at least some, again, of the spirit of your question: a demand
to lift named besieged areas; a demand to allow cross-border
access so that food could go across borders, potentially
reaching up to 3 million or 4 million people who have not been
reached to this point or are in so-called hard to reach areas;
demanding the end of the use of barrel bombs, et cetera. And
although the Russians and the Chinese had vetoed three
resolutions on things roughly related to the humanitarian fate
of the Syrian people, in February, they finally came on board
and supported a strong resolution. That was a resolution also
that threatened further steps in the event of noncompliance.
And now because of the noncompliance you allude to, I mean,
really just a drop in the bucket compared to the set of demands
I have just laid out, we are consulting with our partners about
what further steps that we can take, recognizing that Russia's
history on this issue does not leave us wildly optimistic that
they would be enthusiastic for another Security Council
product, but still needing to follow through on the commitments
we have made.
What the U.N. on the ground is doing is seeking to leverage
this revolution in tactical ways. And what they can report is--
here or there--having this resolution has allowed them to get
through one cross-border checkpoint that they weren't able to
get through before, a lot of bureaucratic fixes, more visas, a
committee set up by the government. But it is nowhere near
sufficient to deal with the needs of the people on the ground.
And I will say that in addition to regime obstructionism,
which is by far the primary culprit here in terms of
noncompliance with the resolution, the fact of the terrorists
and extremist groups in Syria has not made this task easier for
the U.N.
Mr. Dent. Also, I just want to ask, too, since you
mentioned the Russians, Ukraine. Anything that can be done at
the U.N. outside the Security Council at this point? Because
the Russians, obviously, will veto anything we would attempt to
do to be helpful. What can be done at the U.N. to help provide
some assistance to the people of Ukraine right now, again,
outside the Security Council?
Ambassador Power. That is exactly the approach we take.
When we see that the Security Council is blocked, we look for
alternative U.N. venues within the broader U.N. family. And I
think there are two that we have made use of so far. And we
need to look at other mechanisms. The first is we had a very
strong, surprisingly suspenseful vote on Ukraine status and on
the legitimacy and the legality of the referendum last week.
I say it was suspenseful because a roughly analogous vote
on Georgia that had occurred back in 2008 passed by an account
of 14 ``yes'' votes--I think I have the numbers roughly right--
12 ``no'' votes, and 105 abstentions. Whereas, this vote, we
got broad cross-regional support. A hundred people voted saying
that this referendum has no legality, no validity, and will not
be respected. And only the Venezuela, Sudan, Syria, DPRKs, et
cetera, voted with Russia. So it was a very, very strong vote.
And it has real legal consequences, because now legally, the
U.N. finding, as it were, is that that referendum was
illegitimate.
The other place I think we can make a big difference
through the U.N. is in monitoring. And the Secretary General
has now sent a team of 25, 30 monitors to Ukraine, principally
deploying in Eastern Ukraine and places that we are concerned
about the Russian buildup. That is alongside an OSCE monitoring
team, which is both doing election monitoring and human rights
monitoring as well.
Mr. Dent. I see my time has expired.
Can I submit a question for the record with respect to
Israel?
Ms. Granger. You certainly can.
If we all stick to 5 minutes, we can do another round.
Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Okay. As we are wrapping up this hearing, given
the turmoil in the world, given the public's questions about
what is happening in Syria, what good is the U.N., what is
happening in Iran, I could go on and on, and we have mentioned
so many of the trouble spots, I thought I would give you an
opportunity in summing up. How does U.S. involvement in
multilateral institutions, such as UNICEF, UNFPA, help in
solving global challenges? What benefit is there to the United
States in participating in these institutions? Why is
participation in the U.N. in our national security interests?
And how is your office continuing to work toward updating and
increasing the efficiency and transparency of U.N. operations
and management practices? How does the U.S. oversee the
operations of the United Nations and other specialized
agencies? How are results measured and evaluated?
Ambassador Power. Thank you.
Mrs. Lowey. So make your case for why we should continue to
support the United Nations.
Ambassador Power. Okay. Well, let me start by noting that
we go to work every day recognizing that this is not a perfect
body. It is a body filled with 193 governments. And we all know
that governments are challenging creatures, and that not all of
us, you know, every day execute in just the way that we would
seek to execute. When you combine that fact with the fact that
half the U.N. member states are again nondemocratic, it gives
you some insight into the scale of the challenge sometimes.
But there are vast regions of the world, and it feels like
ever more, sadly, where civilians are being targeted, where
women are being subjected to horrific sexual violence, where
children are being recruited as child soldiers, where
terrorists and extremist groups are seeking to spread their
bile, shall we say, and recruit others to their cause.
And we, the United States, do not want to be in all of
those places. And yet the American people have made clear their
longstanding generosity, their humanitarian impulses, their
solidarity with the victims of sexual and gender-based
violence, with child soldiers, with the victims of a tsunami or
any kind of humanitarian catastrophe. America always stands up
and steps up first. And often it is the American people doing
so through private charities right alongside the contributions
they make through this subcommittee and the committee and the
Congress.
So we don't want to be deploying our troops around the
world to be dealing with every crisis of the nature that I have
described. While we pay a good healthy share of the U.N. budget
in terms of humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping, the regular
budget of the U.N., it is the other countries of the world that
pay three-quarters of the budget, by and large. Particularly
when it comes, again, to the U.N. regular budget and
peacekeeping, it is other countries that pay 71 percent. And it
is in our interest to pool the resources of the world to deal
with these crises.
I give you just a few examples. I think the peacekeeping
mission in Mali, where terrorists and extremist elements had
virtually taken over that country, and with the U.N.'s help,
led by the French, the Africans, the United States pushing to
roll back those extremists, Mali now has a chance. And that is
a chance not only for the people of Mali, which I think we
would of course support, but it is also a chance to wipe out a
threat that at some later stage could have come home to roost
for us.
Somalia, a place that was almost a poster child for state
failure now has an actual chance. They are building a
government. The African Union has provided troops. We have
helped support that, again, thanks to this committee's
flexibility. And Al-Shabaab is on the run, and the people of
Somalia have a chance to live in dignity and some security.
Again, it is not a perfect security situation. It is going
to take a very long time for the state to be fully recovered
there. But that is another example, again, where we don't want
to be sending U.S. forces to Somalia, and we want other
countries to be doing their share. We have spoken a lot about
Iran today. The sanctions that we have gotten through the U.N.
Security Council are a force multiplier. You can see through
the Iranian sanctions regime--and again, we will wait and see
what happens in these negotiations. Nobody is trusting that we
are going to be able to get where we need to get. But the
reason we are in the position we are in is because of how
biting that multilateral sanctions regime is and that every
country in the international community is bound to those
sanctions. That is the force of doing things through the United
Nations.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Yoder.
Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ambassador, in our last round of questioning, I had a third
question that we didn't get to, so I thought I would just give
us a chance to answer it. Hopefully, it won't take the full
time. The question is on the lessons learned from Benghazi. And
I know there are a lot of oversight committees and there are a
lot of investigations going on, but for our purposes today and
where we are looking at putting dollars forward and where we
finance operations I guess, given your position in the White
House during the Benghazi crisis, I wanted your thoughts on
what we could have done differently, what we have learned from
it, and how as a Nation we can move forward to ensure that it
never happens again.
Ambassador Power. Thank you, Congressman.
I guess what I can speak to probably best, or at least most
knowledgeably, is what I can see in the government in terms of
the precautions that we now take and how we are operating. And
again, there are other individuals in the government who would
be more expert at precisely what accommodations that we have
made and what resources we are deploying where. But, you know,
I have at least some visibility into the extent to which every
mission is being scrutinized to make sure that our diplomats
who are out there serving the American people--in the case of
Chris Stevens, one of my real heroes in the government just by
the way he chose to operate. I mean, he was always at one with
the people, always reaching out, you know, in the Internet
cafes, and trying to be out there, really hearing from the
Libyans how they saw their future. And it is tragic that in the
wake--it is tragic that we no longer have Chris, one of the
great human beings and great diplomats that this country has
ever seen. And it is tragic that an attack like that,
unfortunately, has us needing to, in particular in dangerous
places like Libya, to curtail that kind of interaction.
And we had already in the wake of 9/11 beefed up our
embassy security of course all around the world. And that had
big resource consequences, which you are well aware of. And now
we have done, you know, of course another overlay on that in
order to make sure that the President and the Congress and the
American people are satisfied that our diplomats who are
risking their lives every day, just as our soldiers are in some
of these very dangerous environments, have the protection they
need, and that they know that when resources are needed, that
we can come up and work with you and make those resources
available. You know, we have a budget ceiling that we are all
operating under with the Budget Control Act. We are trying to
do a lot internationally with less, because the costs of
beefing up those missions and enhancing that security is, of
course, substantial. So as we, you know, rightly, again act
responsibly fiscally, and set limits on our spending, you know,
I do want to note, even though our peacekeeping budget request
here is increased for the reasons that I have described, we are
finding cuts across the department and in USAID in a way that
we can both accommodate real world emergencies along the lines
that I have described but also the need to make sure that our
diplomats are safe.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Ambassador, if you wouldn't mind, I know there were a
couple of----
Ms. Granger. I cut him off I'm sorry. He was not on the red
light. His time had not expired.
Mr. Yoder. I actually didn't use all of our time. It is a
miracle in this committee. If I might, just to follow up with a
question. Just you are looking prospectively. Can you look
retrospectively a little bit for me? Looking back, what could
we have done differently to save Ambassador Stevens' life?
Ambassador Power. Again, I was not involved in that--I
think I don't have the familiarity to offer you a productive
response. I think probably there are others who would be better
positioned to respond to that.
Mr. Yoder. Okay.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Ambassador.
I think you didn't get to finish your response to the--I
think I asked you four questions.
Ambassador Power. The Human Rights Council I know I didn't
answer.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right. And just U.N. reform.
Ambassador Power. Yes, U.N. reform. And in fact,
Congresswoman Lowey asked a similar question.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And the other thing I just wanted to
get in is to underscore what Mr. Diaz-Balart mentioned on
Venezuela, and also to praise you, because you have personally
engaged, and the Secretary has, and President Obama has
acknowledged the very serious oppression that is going on in
Venezuela. But if you can more specifically discuss how we can
balance the United States' role and not feed into Maduro's
obvious attempt to distract from his own deliberate oppression
and blame his problems on the United States.
Ambassador Power. Okay. Let me start, if I can, by
addressing the Human Rights Council question. I don't remember
exactly how you worded the question, but it was----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Basically, how can we get the Human
Rights Council, through our membership, to focus less on Israel
and more on----
Ambassador Power. Exactly. That was the line I wanted to
pick up on. Because what I would say is since we joined the
council, since the President made that decision to return to
try to reform the council from within and make the council more
functional for human rights around the world, we have had a
great deal of success getting the council to focus more on real
world human rights abuses. Where we have had less success is
getting it to focus less on Israel. And so there are fewer
countries, I believe--I would have to look at the statistics
each year--but there are fewer country-specific resolutions on
Israel from one year to the next, but it is still a standing
agenda item. And the notion that Israel is a standing agenda
item on the Human Rights Council, and DPRK, which has some of
the worst atrocities on planet Earth, Syria, where you have a
government using chemical weapons, barrel bombs, and Scuds
against his people is not a standing agenda item, it is
obscene.
So our challenge there is the numbers. So what we do is we
use our platform to call out what is happening and to stand up
for Israel and to reject the delegitimization. I indicated in
my opening remarks that we also have secured I think a really
important step for Israel, which has membership now in a
regional grouping, which should not be something that we have
to celebrate, but because they had been excluded from a
regional grouping in Geneva for so long, this is something that
has come to mean a great deal to Israel and a great deal to us.
And so that is happening right alongside the challenges that we
face on Israel within the Human Rights Council. And we will
continue to chip away, including getting Israelis into
leadership posts across the U.N. system, which we are doing
more and more.
But on the functional side of the Human Rights Council,
this is the place where the first ever U.N. resolution
acknowledging that LGBT persons were entitled to full human
rights was passed 2 years ago, which again should not have
taken so long, but it is a very significant piece of normative
business. The Syrian Commission of Inquiry would not exist if
not for this. You mentioned Iran. The Iran, we just re-upped
last week the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights for Iran,
which at the very time that we are negotiating on the nuclear
issue, we cannot forget the state of human rights, the
deplorable state of human rights in Iran. And this Special
Rapporteur has provided an independent source of information
that has really strengthened, I think, our ability to document
and to get the international community----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Venezuela and Cuba as well.
Ambassador Power. Yes. I am sorry?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Cuba and Venezuela.
Ambassador Power. Cuba and Venezuela are more challenging
within the Human Rights Council because of the weighting of the
membership. And what we have done there, and again, I mentioned
this a little bit earlier, is we seek to use the platform we
have. We are America. People listen to us. They care about what
we say on human rights. We can show solidarity with people who
are suffering inside these countries. And then we have sought
to build regional--sort of not creating formal U.N. human
rights resolutions, which we haven't--you know, for whatever
reason, haven't been able to build the kind of support that we
would like on that, but we can still show that in all regions
of the world people are willing to condemn the human rights
abuses and the crackdowns that are existing.
And I would note in Cuba that there have been more roundups
I think in the first quarter of this year than in a very long
time. So one cannot be too complacent at all on that situation.
And then, on U.N. reform, if I may--I see a flashing red
light, it hasn't become a solid red light just yet--just simply
to say that there has been a huge amount of duplication in the
U.N., that we have a department of field support strategy that
has found $250 million in cuts on peacekeeping. I mentioned
earlier that the per peacekeeper cost has gone down by 16
percent over the last 5 years that we have been working on
these issues, thanks in part also to leadership of
Congresswoman Granger and the push we have made on audits. You
now have UNICEF, UNDP, U.N. Women, and a bunch of other U.N.
agencies who are posting their audits online. We have the
Secretariat doing so as well, and they are trying to make that
permanent, which I think is a real turning point in the U.N.
culture, which has been very opaque. We have created a hotline
on waste, fraud, and abuse. And we have frozen--the regular
budget growth had been growing, growing, growing, and we
basically, you know, have frozen the budget growth, put in
place a spending freeze, and we are looking at staff
compensation, which is where 70 percent of the regular budget
costs are accrued. And they have got to do a comprehensive
review on compensation, which we seek. And we just in the last
budget cycle secured the cutting of 221 posts, which, again, in
the U.N. culture where everybody is wanting to keep posts for,
you know who and you know who, was a pretty substantial
achievement.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thank you. The question I was going to submit for
the record I might as well present to you. I may not be able to
stay for the answer. I have a commitment that I must attend.
The United States has long led the fight against the Arab
League boycott of Israel and has aggressively combatted the
delegitimization of Israel through various international forums
like the U.N. The latter part of the strategy is known as BDS,
boycott, divestment, and sanctions. It is considered by many to
represent a new line of attack against Israel, delegitimizing
Israel's actions through the use of the international systems,
the misuse of international law. And it is now feared in the
creation of new international codes of conduct that have the
potential to truly harm Israel economically as well as
politically. These vestiges remain.
We effectively defeated the Arab League boycott as a tool
of delegitimization by establishing legal protocols and
advising corporations about the penalties in store for those
choosing to abide by it. While the challenge of this boycott,
divestment, sanctions, the BDS, is more diffuse, the underlying
principle pretty much remains the same. We cannot allow others
to pervert international systems to attack Israel. And we
cannot allow international codes of conduct to be turned into
new weapons in the delegitimization arsenal.
I guess the question is, do you share my concerns? And if
so, what steps is the U.S. taking to ensure that the
international systems of which we are part and a large
contributor to are not taking or supporting actions to
deliberately single out and delegitimize Israel?
And the last question is, how are we engaging with
international bodies as they seek to establish new codes of
conduct that, if left unchecked, could be used as sticks to
wage a destructive campaign against one of our closest and
dearest allies?
Ambassador Power. Okay. Well, let me try to take advantage
of your presence here for the next minute to say that we oppose
and reject divestment and boycotts. I think Secretary Kerry has
been very clear on this. I have certainly been clear on this.
In the U.N. system, the form that that has taken so far is more
along the lines of what we have discussed so far, the exclusion
of Israel from various groupings. I just had the chance to
discuss this Western European and Others Group, which back in
2000, we were able, the United States was able in New York to
get Israel membership in, in New York. But we were always
denied, Israel was always denied in Geneva. Taking advantage of
the peace process, and years of lobbying, and months of very
intensive lobbying on this issue, Israel was finally admitted
just this fall. Similarly, in New York, there is a human rights
caucus for like-minded countries that basically vote the same
way and think the same way on human rights issues. Israel's
voting coincidence with the countries who are part of that
group is very, very high, even higher than that of the United
States. And yet, for years, it was excluded from that group. We
just secured membership for Israel in that group. Israeli
officials have had a very hard time becoming senior U.N.
officials. But in recent years, we have gotten an Israeli
official elected vice president of the General Assembly. The
U.N. Human Rights Council has just named an Israeli an
independent expert on older persons. We have gotten them on to
executive committees for the Convention to Eliminate
Discrimination Against Women.
I mention these in some detail because this is what
legitimization looks like. This is what has to happen alongside
our efforts to oppose boycotts, divestment, and unilateral
statehood bids.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Two questions. One just to follow up, because I think my
clock ran out in the first round, is there any kind of
diplomatic avenue still open on Syria? Or given Assad's current
military advantage, has the Geneva process and any other
completely evaporated?
And second, while a lot of the barriers are coming down at
home in terms of the LGBT community, there seem to be a rash of
new anti-LGBT laws in Africa. We have seen the action in
Russia. But increasingly, even places like Eastern Europe, you
are seeing this on the legislative calendar in the parliaments
in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States. What are we doing at
the U.N. to try to get out ahead of this, to be proactive on
this? And do you see this as part of, at least as far as
Eastern Europe goes, Putin's effort to create a new ideological
war with the West and make this one of the components?
Ambassador Power. Thank you, Congressman.
On Syria, the diplomatic process is not in a good place.
That is evident for everyone. I can share personally that the
meetings that we had when Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. mediator,
was in New York, the challenge we are facing is that the
mediator has put forth a path forward which would have the
parties, both of whom again showed up for the second round of
Geneva finally, after much preparatory work on our part with
the opposition, but Brahimi's conviction is that in order for
these talks to go forward, one cannot exhaust the topic of
terrorism and come to conclusion on the topic of terrorism
without in parallel dealing with the issue of the transitional
governing body, which is the cornerstone of the Geneva
communique. And the Syrian position, obstinate position up to
this point, is we will not talk about the transitional
governing body until we have dealt with terrorism, which, you
know, is itself a show of bad faith, the way that they are
approaching these talks.
So we are working aggressively behind the scenes,
notwithstanding Ukraine and all of the other business that we
are doing at present, to try to get those who have influence
over the Syrian regime to change their position. Right now, it
is the Syrians who are preventing the reconvening of another
round of Geneva talks.
In parallel, and I spoke a little bit to this earlier, but
in a different context, the Kessab context, it is very
important that the moderate opposition be strengthened. And we
are looking at additional steps that we might take in order to
enhance their efforts on the ground. Because something quite
significant has happened over the last few months, which is
that they have taken on terrorist and extremist groups which,
you know, so far probably is one factor behind some of the
Assad regime's recent tactical military gains. And that counts
as infighting within the opposition, but it is certainly in the
U.S. interest for that moderate opposition, who are willing to
commit to protect the rights of minorities and who seem to have
a vision for Syria that is multiconfessional, it is in our
interests for those elements to be strengthened.
Right now, the regime is not--you know, does not--does not
feel that it needs to come to the negotiating table. And so
that support for the moderate opposition is going to be a
critical component, alongside pressure on those who are backing
the regime to bring the regime to the table.
On the LGBT issue, it is, I would agree completely with the
way you characterized it. Just at the time where LGBT persons
in this country are seeing a rate of progress, particularly
when it comes to gay marriage and inclusion and acceptance,
that is incredibly important and that of course needs to
continue and even speed up for the sake of the dignity of all
people living in this country, but at the very time we have had
some good news stories in this country, the trend
internationally is going in the opposite direction.
There are laws criminalizing homosexuality in 80 countries
at present. So the countries that you mentioned or alluded to
in Sub-Saharan Africa and in the Baltics, this is a new
chapter, shall we say, in what has been a chronic effort to
criminalize sexual orientation. The death penalty is applied in
seven countries on the basis of sexual orientation.
Two years ago, President Obama issued the first ever
Presidential directive on LGBT rights as international human
rights. Secretary Clinton gave an incredibly powerful, epic
speech in Geneva in the Human Rights Council, where many
countries were very startled to see the United States out there
leading in this way and insisting that LGBT persons were
entitled to the same rights as everyone else around the world
and are a central part of what it means to promote human
rights.
As part of the Presidential directive, we look at
assistance; we look at asylum claims on the basis of
persecution. And now, in many of these countries, people, of
course, have a well-founded fear of persecution because there
are mobs going door to door with lists of LGBT persons in
countries like Nigeria. Russia was the first recent country to
put these laws on the books. And unfortunately, in the old
days, we used to talk about the importance of exporting best
practices in development and security sector reform and all of
that. Now we see countries like Russia exporting worst
practices, and other countries taking the worst aspects of that
law and putting them on their books.
But President Obama, again, has been very outspoken on
this, and we will continue to contest this and make it a
subject of our bilateral diplomacy, and do what we can within
the U.N. system along the lines that I described earlier to
make sure that other countries are standing with us,
particularly from other regions and not just from Europe and
North America.
Ms. Granger. Thank you very much.
Thank you for being with us. I will be submitting for the
record some questions about U.N. reforms, having to do with
transparency and accountability, like spending plans for U.N.
organizations and a report on funds withheld because of any
provision of law. I will submit that to you. If you could just
give me an answer in writing. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Ambassador Power. Thank you.
This concludes today's hearing. Members may submit any
additional questions for the record. The Subcommittee on State,
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs stands adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, April 29, 2014.
UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE IN AFRICA
WITNESSES
LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF AFRICAN
AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
SHEILA HERRLING, ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE
CORPORATION
EARL GAST, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR AFRICA, U.S. AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
The Opening Statement of Chairwoman Granger
Ms. Granger. The subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations
and Related Programs will come to order. Today we will hear
from the panel before us on United States assistance to Africa.
I would like to welcome our witnesses: Assistant Secretary
of State for Africa, Linda Thomas-Greenfield; Assistant
Administrator for Africa, Earl Gast; and Acting Chief Executive
Officer for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, Sheila
Herrling.
Thank you all for being here.
We are expecting more of the members, but we are going to
go ahead and start because all they will miss is our opening
remarks. Right?
Mrs. Lowey. Right.
Ms. Granger. Today's hearing is very important--given the
significant funding that has been provided and the challenges
facing the continent. There are also many achievements from our
investments over the last several years, and I hope we can hear
about the successes and learn from them.
$6.9 billion of the fiscal year 2015 budget request for
State and USAID is for Sub-Saharan Africa. That represents 35
percent of the funds and is more than any other region except
the Middle East.
Additionally, all four countries proposed for Millennium
Challenge Corporation funding in fiscal year 2015 are in Africa
and three of those are in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Africa also receives the majority of funds requested for
the President's three major foreign aid initiatives, and last
year the administration announced three new initiatives for
Africa, focused on power, trade and youth leadership.
We have seen proven results from some of the investments
already made, such as life-saving programs in HIV/AIDS, malaria
and maternal and child health, and conservation programs that
have helped countries manage and protect Africa's unique
natural resources.
Our investments pay dividends in public diplomacy. In
Africa, opinions of the United States ranks among the highest
in the world.
With respect to security, our assistance supports
activities ranging from peacekeeping missions, counterterrorism
initiatives, and programs to reform and professionalize police
and military throughout the continent.
The needs have never been greater. New and troubling
conflicts have broken out in South Sudan and the Central
African Republic. Longstanding violence continues in the
Democratic Republic of Congo, and terrorism remains a
significant threat not only to stability in Africa, but to our
own national security.
I want to hear from our witnesses how the programs we fund
address those challenges.
And, finally, the United States is responding to some of
the most devastating humanitarian crises in years. In Africa
alone, conflict, disease, and a threat of famine have put
millions at risk, but the cuts to humanitarian assistance in
the fiscal year 2015 request do not reflect this reality. I
hope our panel can address this discrepancy.
There is a wide range of topics we could discuss today, and
I expect this will be a very productive hearing. I look forward
to hearing about some of the issues I raised.
I will now turn to my ranking member and friend, Mrs.
Lowey, for her opening remarks.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Lowey's Opening Statement
Mrs. Lowey. Well, thank you, my friend, Chairwoman
Granger. It is a pleasure for me to join you in welcoming
today's distinguished panel.
Today's hearing is important and a welcome opportunity to
refocus our attention on Africa. We face numerous global
challenges: the upheaval in Ukraine, the interminable civil war
in Syria, Iran's nuclear program, our drawdown in Afghanistan
and more.
At the same time, we cannot neglect the alarmingly
increasing number of crises in Africa and must continue to
invest strategically in strengthening development and
diplomatic ties.
This is not the United States' responsibility alone. I want
to repeat that. I believe fervently this is not the
responsibility of the United States alone.
I want to hear from you how the administration is engaging
with other donors, the U.N., and multi-lateral institutions to
address the challenges and opportunities on the African
continent.
From countries in crisis to counterterrorist operations,
from conflict mitigation, humanitarian responses, to sustaining
health and development initiatives, Africa is a microcosm of
our diplomacy and development goals worldwide.
I look forward to hearing the panel's insight regarding our
assistance in Africa at this critical time, paying particular
attention to three pillars in U.S. policy: mitigating
humanitarian crises, promoting security and stability, and
supporting health, human rights and democratic governance.
Recent U.N. reports from South Sudan and the Central
African Republic reveal haunting details of violence,
instability, and human suffering. Ethnic groups are being
systematically targeted for political retaliation, and
atrocities are being committed against women and children.
I hope to learn further details on the administration's
diplomatic strategy and humanitarian response and on the U.N.
peacekeeping missions in South Sudan and the Central African
Republic.
How can the international community prevent these countries
from spiraling further into indefinite genocide? And given
other ongoing needs in places like Syria, Somalia, and Mali,
are the proposed cuts to the International Disaster Assistance
and the Migration and Refugee Assistance accounts by 28 percent
and 33 percent, respectively, appropriate?
I am also deeply troubled by the rising tide of terrorism
perpetrated by Islamic extremist groups. The merciless
brutality demonstrated by al-Shabaab's 4-day siege of the
Westgate Mall, Boko Haram's recent kidnappings of schoolgirls
and bus station bombings, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb's
seizure of northern Mali all sent shockwaves throughout the
world and threatened U.S. interests and citizens.
I hope you will provide greater insight into the
administration's strategy for enhanced security cooperation
with African countries, European Union, and the U.N.
We have seen tremendous success with our health
investments, with over 6 million people on HIV treatment as
well as advancement in child mortality rates due to improved
access to vaccines and treatment for deadly illnesses such as
malaria and pneumonia.
I am pleased to hear reports of rapid economic growth and
development in countries such as Ghana and South Africa.
However, we must sustain these gains in health and accelerate
progress in other areas such as food security, governance and
the elimination of poverty.
We need to ensure that every last foreign assistance dollar
is programmed to deliver results in a cost-effective manner.
Therefore, I was troubled to learn that the cost of training
one person on countering extreme violence can cost up to
$700,000. I hope you can tell me that this was a typo in a
report.
Because I ask myself: How many children can we educate for
that amount of money instead? Is education a better strategy
for countering extreme violence? Are we wisely spending our
resources on programs and policies that work and are cost-
efficient? How are the difficult decisions and trade-offs made?
And what evidence is used to support these decisions?
I am encouraged to see that the year's request continues to
prioritize investment in Power Africa, Trade Africa and the
Young African Leaders Initiative; yet, it greatly concerns me
that the administration is undercutting once again investments
in basic education.
So, in conclusion, I hope to learn more about how the U.S.
Government is diplomatically engaging African leadership to
invest resources in their own people and commit to improved
transparency in governance.
Both donor and host countries need to fully synchronize
their efforts through a holistic strategic dialogue if we are
to increase total investment across the key human development
sectors of health, education, energy, and infrastructure.
And, really, finally, I will close by saying I am very
concerned about backsliding in the area of human rights, in
particular, the proliferation of discriminatory and draconian
legislation against LGBT in Uganda and Nigeria, and I remain
deeply troubled about the impact on personal freedom and public
health.
Thank you again for joining us today. Thank you for your
service. I look forward to your testimony.
Ms. Granger. Thank you, Mrs. Lowey.
I now call on the witnesses to give their opening
statements. And I would encourage each of you to summarize your
remarks so we can leave time for questions and answers. Your
full written statements will be placed in the record.
We will begin with Ms. Thomas-Greenfield.
Opening Statement of Ms. Thomas-Greenfield
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield. Thank you very much.
Madam Chairwoman, Representative Lowey, members of the
committee, I start by thanking you for the opportunity to speak
today in support of the administration's fiscal year 2015
budget request and to further detail--provide further details
on our U.S. assistance to Africa.
And, as you noted, a complete version of my testimony has
been submitted for the record that will address the full range
of issues that have been raised. And I will be prepared to
answer any questions that you have.
As Secretary Kerry noted in his testimony before you last
month, we deeply appreciate the role that this committee and
the subcommittee play in helping the American people understand
why foreign affairs matters to them.
Advancing the values and interests of our country and
promoting stability in the world does matter to our citizens,
whether it results in jobs and economic opportunities,
connections between communities, or the safety and security
that we aim to achieve. The Secretary was speaking in a global
context; yet, we believe his words are applicable directly to
U.S. relations with the continent of Africa.
For far too long, images of poverty and insecurity have
dominated the American perspective on Africa. Yes, these do,
exist in Africa, and I would be remiss today if I did not
express my deep concern with the continued violence and
fighting in South Sudan, in Sudan, in Central Africa Republic
and with the increasing atrocities committed by Boko Haram
against schoolgirls and other innocent citizens committed by
Boko Haram and attacks that are committed against all faiths in
Nigeria, across the borders in neighboring countries as well.
But as in other parts of the world, they are certainly not
the whole story of what is happening on the continent. Those
images illustrate only a narrow component of what our
partnership on the continent are trying to address and to
achieve.
And, in fact, tonight I leave with the Secretary for his
second trip to Africa to meet with our partners to address some
of the challenges and the opportunities for cooperation.
He will open a high-level dialogue--our fourth high-level
dialogue with the African Union, and he will meet with our
regional partners regarding the situation in the South Sudan
and in the Great Lakes.
We also have an exciting summer ahead, as you mentioned,
with our Washington Fellows program, part of President Obama's
Young African Leaders Initiative, or YALI, and the historic
U.S.-Africa leadership summit to take place in August in
Washington.
Our fiscal year 2015 budget request reflects the policy
priorities set forth in the presidential policy directive for
Sub-Saharan Africa and the State-USAID joint regional strategy
for Africa.
The total request for Africa is $6.9 billion. It seems like
a lot, but when you look at all of the priorities that we have
and the crises that we are involved in, it is not. Of that
total, roughly 68 percent, or $4.7 billion, of this goes toward
bilateral assistance for 15 priority countries.
And over the last 50 years, the relationship between the
United States and these countries, as well as the whole
continent of Africa, has evolved dramatically.
In each of the priority countries, we are actively pursuing
policies of partnerships, ways to promote solutions that yield
benefits over the long term for both countries and as well as
for their people.
Their policy priorities--these--they are policy-priority
countries not just because of the need, but also because of
opportunities we see for mutual prosperity. Moreover, peace and
prosperity in these countries will have a positive effect
throughout the region.
As in previous years, the request includes a robust support
for the three global presidential initiatives: Global Health,
$4.8 billion; Feed the Future, $500 million; Global Climate
Change, $88 million.
It also includes resources to continue support for the
three Africa-specific initiatives begun in fiscal year 2013:
Power Africa, $77 million; Trade Africa, $27 million; and the
Young African Leaders Initiative, $10 million.
The fiscal year 2015 budget request also includes a
proposal to fund the Peacekeeping Resource Mechanism, PKRM, and
I know that Ambassador Powers, who--was on April 2nd before you
and she addressed this issue.
I want to add my strong support for funding this account.
Like many other parts of Africa--other parts of the world,
Africa faces many complex crises. And the origins of these
crises can be political. They can be ethnic or religious
tensions, as we have lately seen in Central Africa Republic and
in South Sudan.
And despite our best efforts to plan for these
contingencies and forecast the trends, we don't always know
when the next crisis will play out.
I don't think we knew that we were going to have the kind
of crisis we are in in South Sudan right now. So the United
States needs to be able to respond quickly and robustly, and
the PKRM will help us do that.
Our challenge is also to try to balance our near-term and
urgent imperatives with our long-term priorities. There will be
11 elections on the continent in 2014, 12 in 2015.
And for that reason, our budget request is focused on
providing support in all arenas, and most critical are
stability and growth, such as promoting strong democratic
institutions, building security sector capacity, facilitating
economic development, and creating lasting connections between
the United States and the people of Africa.
So across the board, we are trying to move beyond outdated
models for aid and focus on the objectives that link us with
the private sector, with other African Governments, with local
NGOs, with civil society, with other regional partners, with
our other partners in the donor community, as well as citizens
as partners.
And this must be, we believe, the way forward in terms of
budget realities and in recognition of how our relationships
with African partners have evolved over the past 50 years.
Thank you very much. And I look forward to your questions.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Opening Statement of Mr. Gast
Ms. Granger. Mr. Gast, you are now recognized.
Mr. Gast. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Lowey and Member
Schiff, it is my pleasure to appear before you today to discuss
the President's budget for U.S. aid in Africa.
Nowhere in the world is development such an important part
of U.S. engagement efforts as it is in Africa, and the changing
tide on the continent requires a new model for development.
This new model is at the core of USAID's approach in
Africa, which seeks to end extreme poverty by investing in
Africa's greatest resource, its people, to sustain and further
develop opportunity and human rights for this and future
generations.
Across the continent, we are implementing major initiatives
to improve health, food security, electricity access, trade and
resilience that are underpinned by commitments to good
governance, education, gender equality and the environment.
These programs are driven by a culture of innovation,
powered by efforts like USAID's Development Lab, which brings
together a diverse set of partners to discover, test, and scale
break-through technologies and solutions to chronic development
challenges.
Our fiscal year 2015 request focuses on bilateral
assistance for 15 priority countries in Sub-Saharan Africa that
are critical to national security and economic trade. 80
percent of the rest would go toward three of the President's
global initiatives: Feed the Future, the Global Health
Initiative, and Global Climate Change Initiative.
The request also supports three Africa-specific initiatives
launched by President Obama last year: Power Africa, Trade
Africa, and the Young African Leaders Initiative. All
complement the global initiatives and broaden our development
impact.
And when they are applied on a country or community basis,
along with the work of other government agencies and other
donor partners, they are designed to take root and fuel real
long-term change.
Each of the 42 countries where USAID works requires unique
support, from the devastation in the Central African Republic
to the rising prosperity in Tanzania, the violent crisis in
South Sudan and the peaceful political transition in Senegal,
the fragility of Niger and the anchor of South Africa.
While the governing principles of our work applies across
the continent, our strategies are tailored to each of these
country's singular challenges and opportunities. The
effectiveness of this approach is evident.
The Millennium development goal of reducing the number of
hungry people in the developing world is reachable by 2015.
PEPFAR is supporting life-saving anti-retroviral treatment for
more than 6 million persons.
The number of people newly infected with HIV is decreasing
for the first time since the epidemic struck, and 10 African
countries have reduced the number of malaria cases and deaths
by over 50 percent in the last decade.
Our long-term investments in the Global Health Initiative
half the burden of malaria for 450 million people, representing
70 percent of the at-risk population in Africa.
Over the past 20 years, with help from USAID maternal and
child health programs, child mortality has dropped by nearly a
third and maternal mortality has dropped by 41 percent.
A focus on resilience is being institutionalized within
Feed the Future, and progress has been steady, especially in
areas that recently suffered from historic drought.
And since the launch of the new Alliance for Food Security
and Nutrition at the G8 Summit in 2012, more than 140
companies--two-thirds of them are African--have committed to
responsibly invest more than $3.7 billion in new alliance
countries.
In less than 1 year, Power Africa has closed deals that
will add more than 2,800 megawatts, about 28 percent, committed
through Power Africa, which is a remarkable achievement that
will advance our efforts to mitigate the effects of climate
change, promote economic development, and improve education and
healthcare.
Trade Africa, a partnership between the U.S. and the East
African community, will aim to double intraregional trade and
exports to the U.S. by 40 percent.
In recent years, skilled civilians, statesmen, and women
have begun to replace the big men that once dominated the
continent. Africa's new leaders are now serving as role models
for the next generation and they are increasingly becoming
partners in development through initiatives such as the
Partnership for Growth.
This summer, President Obama will welcome the heads of
state from across the continent to Washington, D.C., for a
summit that will further strengthen U.S.-Africa ties and
advance the administration's focus on trade and investment in
Africa.
It will also highlight America's commitment to Africa's
security, its democratic development, and its people. This is
our new model for development in action.
USAID's work values partnership over patronage and
innovation over convention. This approach enables us to make
the greatest difference while making the most of every dollar.
And as we continue to work with Congress to achieve our
shared goals, we very much look forward to a continued
conversation on our priorities in Africa.
Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Opening Statement of Mr. Herrling
Ms. Granger. Ms. Herrling, you are now recognized.
Ms. Herrling. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Granger,
Ranking Member Lowey, members of the committee for inviting me
here this morning.
President Obama's 2015 budget request of $1 billion, an 11
percent increase over last year, will show MCC is continuing to
deliver results for the American people, for our partner
countries that share our values, and for the administration's
priority, from advancing transparency to supporting open data
and evidence-based programming to building new partners and
markets in Africa, including through Power Africa. We will
continue to work hard to keep MCC successful, and that means
working hand in hand with you.
I am going to focus here on three things: what makes MCC
work, what we have achieved particularly in Africa, and what is
next.
MCC was created 10 years ago with the model very purposely
built on the lessons others learned before us. You referred to
them, Ms. Lowey, in your opening remarks. And so, as you well
know, we have a singular mission: reducing poverty through
economic growth.
We work with a limited number of countries, poor, but well
governed, and they themselves design and implement the
programs. We target our investments to programs that accelerate
growth and generate a rate of return, and we evaluate every
major program, sharing our results publicly, part of why MCC
was ranked number one transparent agency in the world.
Now, Africa has seen the bulk of MCC's work. Some 15 of our
27 signed compacts have been with African countries, totaling
close to $6 billion, and the results are impressive. I could
list numbers.
We often come up here and list numbers of kilometers of
roads paved, farmers trained, land titles given particularly to
women. We live by these numbers. We publish these numbers. We
learn from these numbers.
But a list of numbers doesn't often tell the whole story,
and we want all of these outputs to add up to economic growth
and increased incomes. That is the real impact that we are
working to achieve. And with your support, MCC will continue to
forge successful partnerships in Africa.
Our 2015 request is slated for four African countries:
Liberia, Morocco, Niger and Tanzania. Liberia and Niger are new
compact partners, and it is always very exciting when new
countries have worked very hard to pass our eligibility
requirements and are in the investment pool.
In other cases, the data shows that the greatest
opportunity for impact is deepening partnerships with countries
we have worked with before, like Ghana and Lesotho. In all
cases, MCC's board is looking to put hard-earned taxpayer
dollars where it will deliver the maximum results.
In Africa and elsewhere, the question now is: What is next?
Let me highlight three things that we would like to be working
with you on over the coming year.
First, creative financing mechanisms. Pay for performance
and cash on delivery could give us ways to further innovate,
scale, and sustain our investments.
Second, regional impact. The port expansion program we
funded in Benin, for example, has regional impact. Enhanced
trade opportunities were certainly a benefit for Benin, but,
also, for its land-locked neighbors. But perhaps there is more
we can do on the assessment and operational front.
And, third, very importantly, fighting corruption. You
can't fight corruption if you can't measure it well. And to
keep our measures cutting-edge, MCC is bringing together an
alliance of experts and users of governance data to see if new
and improved ways of assessing a country's efforts to combat
corruption can be created.
For 10 years now, you have supported MCC's work. Thank you
very much for that support. It is very helpful to what we do,
constantly adapting, applying, and we hope for your continued
support going forward. And I am happy to answer any questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Granger. Thank you all very much.
I am going to start with a question and then turn to Mrs.
Lowey. Conservation, of course, you know is critically
important to our country's efforts. So I was very disappointed
that the budget reflects for biodiversity a cut by half from
the current level.
The programs are really important, and you know they are
important. Deforestation, over-fishing and wildlife poaching,
which has increased significantly, these needs are not
decreasing.
So I would turn to Mr. Gast, please. Can you explain the
proposed cuts at a time when the needs really have never been
more urgent, I think especially in Africa.
Mr. Gast. Thank you for the question.
And we also take it very seriously. In fact, as I
mentioned, we are looking at new models and innovations for
development.
And one area that we think where new technology can play a
role is in anti-poaching efforts. And, in fact, very shortly we
are going to be issuing a solicitation for ideas on how we can
bring technology to bear to help on anti-poaching efforts.
So, for example, very lightweight and very cost-effective,
cost-efficient UAVs are being piloted in some of the parks with
USAID funding.
With that, though, getting back to your question about
funding, I believe the funding from fiscal year 2013 to 2015
represents a straight line and not a significant decrease, but
I can say that we are looking at options on increasing the
funding for this year--this current year.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
One of the programs that receives this type of funding is
the Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment. USAID
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service both implement this
program.
Can you explain who does what, how that is coordinated.
Mr. Gast. Certainly. And, also, the Department of State is
a key partner in this as well through the use of INCLE funds.
We have a partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. It also receives a direct appropriation for the CARPE
program, as you mentioned.
Where we believe that we add value as a development agency
is working with the communities and working with them in
providing assistance in helping them themselves maintain and
conserve the area of CARPE, where Fish and Wildlife Service
brings its unique capacity, which is training the law
enforcement side and the fish--and their counterpart, if you
will, of the government enforcement agencies for conservation.
Ms. Granger. Good.
As you look at the technologies that you referred to, would
you keep us involved and aware of what is happening?
You know, Mrs. Lowey and I have talked about this before
and certainly with our staff and said, ``You know, I would hate
to think, as I served in Congress, that I watched those
wonderful herds of elephants and rhinos disappear from
wildlife.''
And so we are willing to help, certainly. So keep us being
involved.
Mrs. Lowey.
Mr. Gast. Thank you.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much.
With regard to conflict mitigation and humanitarian
response, Congress provided robust funding for the humanitarian
accounts in the fiscal year 2014 omnibus act, yet, the fiscal
year 2015 request cuts IDA by 28 percent and MRA by 33 percent
from the fiscal year 2014 enacted levels.
But the number of refugees, internally displaced persons,
conflict victims, other populations of concern has risen to an
18-year high with more than 45.2 million forcibly displaced
predominantly due to violent conflict or more. The number is
expected to grow as violent conflicts persist in the Central
African Republic and South Sudan.
So would the President's proposed deep cuts to these life-
saving accounts in his fiscal year budget provide your agencies
the resources you need to respond adequately to humanitarian
crises in Africa?
What is the best plan to utilize finite resources to
address increasingly complex deteriorating crises in DRC,
Central African Republic, South Sudan, the Sahel, Nigeria?
What programs in what countries would likely be cut?
And is there enough funding in the IDA/MRA accounts to
respond to a new emergency in Africa?
And since we can't do it all and since our budget is
decreasing, I would be very interested in having you address
how you are working cooperatively with other donors so there is
coordination, not repetitive efforts, and that you are
accomplishing something.
And if there is time in the couple of minutes, I would be
very interested to know how all this relates to the corruption.
So thank you. Maybe you can begin.
Mr. Gast. Sure. Absolutely.
And then--and, Congresswoman Lowey, let me get back to a
point that you made in your opening statement, and that is that
it is not the sole responsibility of the U.S.
Mrs. Lowey. If you could answer that thoroughly.
Mr. Gast. But it is our responsibility as leaders to bring
together other donors. And that, I think, is where we have been
applying a lot of our effort.
Our administrator just 2 weeks ago co-hosted with Valerie
Amos of the U.N. and, also, with ECHO Chairwoman Georgieva at a
conference among donors here to talk about the situation in
South Sudan.
And we have been very generous in using 2013 and 2014. We
have provided more than $400 million in humanitarian assistance
combined.
And this was an effort to bring together all the donors and
development ministers and finance ministers to talk about the
crisis and, also, the urgent need for additional funding. Some
made pledges there, but Norway agreed to have a donors
conference later this month.
So I think that is one way that we are trying to ensure
that these crises are not underfunded, just by exercising
leadership and getting--and bringing in other donors.
Getting back to your point of the reduced request, even
with the crises that we have and two level-three emergencies
within Africa--CAR and South Sudan--we believe that we will
have carryover funding on the humanitarian side to help us
support humanitarian efforts in 2015.
Getting back to one other point--because you mentioned the
Sahel--and that is we have the concept of resilience where we
are actually marrying together our development assistance funds
with humanitarian assistance so that we have a more regulated
and sustained effort in supporting populations that face
chronic emergencies.
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield. And if I may add to Earl and agree
with what he said before, we do work very, very closely with
others in the donor community and we look for opportunities to
find new donors as well to support our efforts.
The primary solution to all of these problems is finding a
peaceful solution in the DRC. Our special envoy, Senator
Feingold, has been working relentlessly with the other special
envoys to--we call them the five E's--to find a solution.
We find an accord in Nairobi in December, ending the
fighting in DRC with--in 2013, and we are working very closely
with the Angolans to see, as chair of the International Contact
Group for the Great Lakes regions, what additional role the
government of Angola can play.
It is a government with a lot of money, and they have been
very, very helpful in providing assistance to CAR and we think
that they can do more.
On the corruption front, it is--our efforts are relentless.
And I have to commend our colleagues from MCC. When I was in
Liberia, the best tool that I had was the MCC indicators on
corruption.
And when those numbers went down, I would take those
indicators in to the President and say, ``If you want an MCC
compact, you need to deal with this.''
And we see that Liberia has succeeded. Corruption still is
an issue there, but it is something that I think governments
realize, if they are to be taken seriously, they have to
address.
Ms. Herrling. So if I could briefly, you know, our model
resides on this belief that the best antidote to poverty and to
instability is economic growth and opportunity in these
countries.
We are in a limited set of countries, as I said in my
opening remarks, but that does require the three of us to work
hand in hand across those countries, most certainly to avoid
duplication of effort. But in the best-case situation, we are
looking to maximize impact, bringing to others comparative
advantages to the situation.
Thank you, Linda, for referencing the scorecard on the
corruption point.
You all know we do have a hard hurdle on control of
corruption for our partners to get into our program. We take it
seriously. We monitor it seriously. We message seriously, as do
our counterparts.
And we have seen it have an effect, as you referenced in
Liberia. So thank you for doing that.
The collaboration is both at the policy level. So on our
board, we have the Secretary of State chairing, the USAID
administrator. We have the Secretary of the Treasury, who
covers the MDBs. We have the USTR. So all of these interests
come together in a very purposeful way at the policy level.
At the operational level, we get to two brass tacks: who is
doing what? So if we are building a large irrigation project in
Senegal, USAID is training the farmers.
We are very purposeful in our collaboration. I think we
have come a long way over the last couple of years on this
front.
Ms. Granger. Thank you for that.
Before I go to Mr. Rooney, I thought--when you said you
were going to answer Mrs. Lowey's questions, I thought you were
going to address the $700,000 to educate one person.
Who could answer that question?
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield. I heard it and I made note of it.
And I hope it is a mistake, because I know that we don't spend
$700,000 to train one person on the security front. I know that
we have a limited budget and we have trained thousands of
African----
Mrs. Lowey. It is vocational training used in which
program?
Mr. Gast. CVE program.
Mrs. Lowey. CBE.
Mr. Gast. CVE.
Do you know which country? We will look into it.
Mrs. Lowey. Okay. Yeah.
Mr. Gast. We will look into it.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much. I was shocked when I saw
that number, and I--my staff insists it wasn't a typo. Thank
you very much.
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield. Well, I am happy to know that it is
not on the security, front spending that kind of money.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Rooney.
Mr. Rooney. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to talk about an issue which, for me, is a
little bit personal. I have a cousin who has actually become a
famous movie star named Rooney Mara.
Before she was famous, she went to Kenya in high school to
visit Kiberia--what they called urban slum outside of Nairobi,
and it motivated her to start a non-profit called the Uweza Aid
Foundation.
And, apparently, there was a bunch of other similar-type
charities that were supposed to be geared towards servicing
areas like that. As you know, this slum specifically came out
of Kenya's failure to recognize them as part of the country.
They are sort of like a people without a government and a
country, the way that I was explained to it. So they are kind
of on their own.
And one of the things that I came to learn was that they
don't receive Federal funding from us. There are charities
there that try to help them.
But one of the things that became disconcerting to me is
there was a lot of charities, just like in anything that you
see with 501(c)(3)'s, where charities are set up or groups are
made to look like they are going to help a certain situation,
and then, as you know, they end up not doing that.
They end up helping themselves or raising a lot of money
for staff or what have you. So that was one of the reasons why
she was motivated to do something different to actually try to
help these people.
So my question has to do with that, and I want to make sure
that I get it right. So forgive me for reading it.
But a history of failed aid projects and forced evictions
have left many of these residents that I am talking about
feeling exploited by these outsiders and what has compelled my
cousin to start her own non-profit in the first place.
There is a great deal of mistrust of the government and the
NGOs not only in this area, which she focuses on this area
called Kiberia, but, arguably, a number of other urban slums
just like it all across Africa.
Has State or USAID offices in Kenya implemented any
programs or projects to provide either basic assistance, water
sanitation, healthcare, education to the residents of Kiberia?
And, also, can you address--does State or USAID do anything
to sort of police or monitor these groups that are supposed to
be coming in there trying to help--this might be outside of
your lane; so, forgive me if I just don't know--that are just
using these people to exploit for their own financial benefit?
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield. Let me start.
I was in Kiberia on my last trip to Kenya in December,
visiting a project that USAID was funding with an NGO there.
And there are a number of such projects.
And not to speak on USAID's behalf, but I served in Kenya
in the mid-1990s as the refugee coordinator working for PRM and
working with NGOs that were working with displaced particularly
Somali refugees, and part of my job there was to monitor those
organizations that we were funding to provide assistance.
I don't doubt--in fact, I would say I know that there are
organizations that are not reputable, are not credible, that
seek funds to line their own pockets.
But I would say that any organization that we are funding
would be monitored and monitored quite robustly by our people
who are on the ground. And I think we take it very seriously.
That doesn't mean that there may be some that slip through
the cracks, but we would be interested in knowing so we can
make sure that--our job is to protect U.S. taxpayers' dollars
overseas and see that the funding that is being provided is
going to where it needs to go.
And, again, I saw one of the projects--and I was very
impressed--that was providing water support in Kiberia--in the
Kiberia slums.
Mr. Gast. And if I may just add, we do a very thorough
vetting process of the organizations that we fund, whether they
are U.S.-based or on the continent.
That doesn't mean that they don't fall down in meeting
their--in meeting their requirements from time to time. But as
the Assistant Secretary mentioned, we do have monitoring
officers go out and monitor the impact of the work that the
NGOs are performing.
One thing we do do as well is, even if we are not funding
an organization, an NGO has to adhere to international
standards in providing humanitarian assistance.
And if we do see NGOs falling down on the jobs, ones that
we are not funding, that information is then reported to the
government.
Mr. Rooney. If I could ask a quick follow-up question.
With regard to State, how do you deal with Kenya with
regard to a place like this and our affiliation or our
relationship with them? How do you deal with them when they are
just ignoring these type of places?
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield. I think that is a situation that
exists across the continent of Africa, where we find people who
are disenfranchised and who are not benefiting from the
government services. We try to work with the government.
For example, when I went out to Kibera, we took the
Minister of Education with us out there to make sure that he
also saw what we saw in those--in those slums, and we tried to
help them build capacity to deal with some of those issues.
But I would venture to say that Kenya is not the only one--
the only country with this kind of situation. I saw similar
situations in the slums of Nigeria.
And I have to commend your cousin for the work that she
does, because there are a number of organizations like her
organizations who are really reaching communities that nobody
else cares about and they are able to provide assistance in a
way that we all appreciate, and I think is a positive
reflection on America as a country. So, again, I thank her.
And we do deal with these governments. We push them. But it
is still a work in progress for us.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Just briefly, I remember taking--I just wanted
to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague. I
remember I led--I think it was 2003 a trip to Kibera. And I was
so angry at the mud and the filth and the fact that the council
people were coming in and all taking their share.
We met with people who were doing micro-enterprise, and the
local gang, supposedly, elected officials, were taking their
share. And I just felt we were facilitating this mess.
I said as long as I had something to do with it, I don't
want to give a dime--I said this to the housing administrator,
that, ``I don't want to give a dime to you or anyone here
unless you mow this down and build another housing complex.''
So I just really want to associate myself with your
remarks. And we just can't keep doing this kind of thing and
perpetuating these conditions--were you on that trip, Barb?
Ms. Lee. Yes.
Mrs. Lowey. Oh. That is right.
Ms. Lee. Yes. I remember it very well.
Mrs. Lowey. I remember we got so angry there. And I don't
remember the name of the housing administrator, but it was just
the government was collecting from these people. They were
living in inhumane conditions.
And I am not saying that this is unique, and you are saying
there are other places like that. But I remember talking to the
U.N. staff. I said, ``Why are you here? You are just
encouraging this whole way of life.''
So I think there is a real question. I would like to
continue that discussion. What are we doing? Maybe our money
would be better used just building another decent housing
settlement for these people, but keeping them in this abject
poverty with filth and mud--was very upsetting to us. I think
we are all making that point.
I don't want to take up more time at this hearing. Many of
my colleagues haven't spoken. But I thank you for bringing up
Kibera again.
And because there are so many other challenges, Barbara, I
don't think we have talked about Kibera recently, but I would
like to have a discussion with you.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Madam Chair.
There are so many issues to go over. Let me just throw out
a few and then see if you can respond to as many as you are
able to with the time.
Can you tell us the status of the peacekeeping operation in
Central African Republic (CAR), which the U.N. Security Council
voted to deploy April 10th.
Also, can you tell us what efforts we are making to address
the violence in South Sudan.
And then I wanted to ask you about Ethiopia. Nine bloggers
and journalists were arrested in--out of Saboba last week, just
days before Secretary Kerry's anticipated visit. Six bloggers
for Zone 9 and Amharic-language website whose writers have
criticized the government, and three freelance journalists were
arrested. No formal charges have yet been filed.
This is just the latest episode in an all-too-familiar
pattern of harassment of journalists in Ethiopia, throughout
all of Africa and, unfortunately, in all too many places around
the world.
I hope the Secretary will raise the issue of press freedom
in his meetings, and I wish you could update us on the current
situation with the nine specifically and more generally about
the department's efforts to promote press freedom in Africa.
Finally, on the issue of the LGBT attacks in Uganda,
according to the Associated Press earlier this month, Ugandan
police raided the offices of a U.S.-funded project. The
Makerere University-Walter Reed project in Kampala was targeted
for training youths in homosexuality, supposedly, said a
government spokesman.
The project later suspended its activities in Uganda after
one of its staff, a Ugandan citizen, was arrested and briefly
detained by police on Thursday. Now, this is a program that is
funded through PEPFAR.
I applaud the government--our government for its recent
action to divert money away from the Ugandan Government and to
NGOs.
But if the Ugandan Government continues to harass health
workers serving LGBT patients, it will be nearly impossible for
LGBT patients to get access to appropriate healthcare.
What are we prepared to do to ensure that U.S.-funded HIV-
related health services in Uganda and elsewhere are
comprehensive and inclusive?
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield. Thank you. Let me start, and I will
go as long as you allow me to go.
Let me start with CAR and the peacekeeping operations
there. I was in CAR a few weeks ago with Ambassador Power and I
was also there with her in December. And we continue to be very
deeply concerned about the situation there.
The U.N. did pass a resolution on April 10th for a PKO
operation that will start in September of this year. But
between now and September, we need to work with the African
Union troops to ensure that they have what they need in terms
of equipment and authority to address the ongoing violence in
that country.
I saw yesterday that the U.N. had moved 1300 Muslims out of
Bangui to another area of the country. And from December to our
visit a few weeks ago, the Muslim population has almost
completely left Bangui because of the violence there.
The situation, again, continues to be very, very troubling
for us as well as for the French, who have troops on the
ground, the African Union with troops on the ground.
Part of what the Secretary will be doing on his trip to the
region is meeting with the Angolan Government, as well as with
the U.N., to talk about how we can more robustly address the
security issues that exist in CAR.
On the humanitarian side, I will leave that to Earl to talk
about, but we have also been robustly involved with trying to
provide humanitarian assistance to the government.
On the situation in South Sudan, again, this is something
that is high on the Secretary's agenda for our trip leaving
tonight.
He will be in Addis, meeting with the IGAD negotiators as
well as the IGAD foreign ministers to talk about the way
forward for South Sudan. And then he is going into South Sudan
to meet with Salva Kiir and will be making contacts with Riek
Machar as well.
The violence there has led to thousands of deaths, and we
have been working with both the A.U. as well as IGAD to address
some of those concerns.
Former President Obasanjo was in South Sudan last week. I
spoke to him. He is chairing--heading the Commission of Inquiry
for the A.U. to look at the atrocities that have been committed
so that we have some record to hold people accountable for the
actions that have occurred there. And, as you know, the
President signed an executive order to provide sanctions on
those people.
On Ethiopia, we were very disappointed to hear once again
that Ethiopian bloggers were arrested. They are added to the
others who have also been arrested.
And we continue to raise this on a regular basis with the
Ethiopian Government and it is on the agenda for the Secretary
to raise when he meets with the Prime Minister and the Foreign
Minister while he is in Addis this week.
And, finally, on the LGBT, we are very, very concerned
about the increase in anti-LGBT legislation that has been
proposed on the continent of Africa and elsewhere in the world.
The legislation in Uganda has led to renewed violence against
the LGBT community.
As you know, the President announced that what has happened
in Uganda will complicate our relationship. We are in the
process of reviewing that relationship and our funding to see
where changes can be made and, in particular, changes that will
take funding away from those organizations and entities that
discriminate against the LGBT community.
This is still a work in progress. We are quietly working
with other governments that may be considering such legislation
and discouraging those governments from taking actions that
might discriminate against the LGBT community.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I first apologize because, as you know, we have----
Ms. Granger. Absolutely.
Mr. Diaz-Balart [continuing]. Conflicting hearings at the
same time.
Ms. Granger. Right.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Luckily, a few of them are right across
the hall. And I--again, I apologize if this has already been
touched on.
But dealing a little bit with the increase of China's
activity throughout, frankly, the world, the past decade or so
has seen a huge increase in Chinese aid and development
projects throughout Africa. It is apparent the regime's so-
called charm offensive is intended to secure political and
economic influence throughout the continent.
And, the Chinese have also been on this unrelenting quest
for natural resources, and we see that wherever they are,
including rare earth elements. They bring in, as you know,
Chinese labor and equipment without transferring those skills
and technology to the local level.
It is also pretty clear that they are not, frankly, in the
business of exporting, western values, like democracy and the
rule of law and human rights.
So how--are we using and what can we do--what can the
United States do to use our considerable influence to counter
and contain some of those actions that China is pursuing rather
aggressively?
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield. Thank you for that question.
And I see this in two aspects. We talk about the fact that
some of the problems that we are dealing with in Africa are not
just U.S. problems.
Interestingly, on South Sudan, we have been working with
the Chinese, and they have come onboard with the special envoys
to push for an end to the violence in South Sudan.
And so I see that our work is partially to encourage change
on how the Chinese approach Africa and encourage the Chinese
economic activities in Africa to complement what other
governments and donors are doing to the best interests of
African countries.
However, it is our view that a lot of the foreign
investment that is going into Africa that the Chinese are
providing does not support our values of good governance and
transparency and responsible management of natural resources.
And we have regular dialogue with African governments to
encourage that they also understand why it is so important as
they are dealing with the Chinese to have the Chinese take into
account issues that are related to human rights and political
freedoms and press freedoms.
When I was in Liberia--and I use that as an example a lot
because I know Mrs. Lowey knows Liberia quite well--the Chinese
provided some very useful development projects to Liberia.
And so I encouraged the government to make sure that they
were getting the best out of those development projects to
ensure that the Chinese used local labor as we would use local
labor and that they abided by the same transparency rules that
we abided by.
Again, it is going to be up to African countries to
negotiate the best deals for themselves, but we also have a
responsibility to ensure that there is a level playing field
for American companies that are going into Africa and competing
with Chinese companies.
So this is something that we are very conscious of, and we
continue to work with both governments as well as the Chinese
to ensure that their relationships with Africa are not just
extractive, but they also contribute to their growth.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Madam Chairwoman, I see that the light is
turning yellow; so, I will be very well behaved today. And I
yield back.
Ms. Granger. I am astounded and pleased. Thank you very
much.
Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. It would be the first time.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank all of our
witnesses.
And let me----
Mr. Cuellar. Second time, 2 weeks ago.
Ms. Lee. I especially thank you, Madam Chair, and our
Ranking Member for this hearing, because I want to follow up on
what my colleague just mentioned with regard to China.
Part of the issue is the void that has been left as a
result of the lack of focus of the United States as it relates
to Africa, and I know that. I was on the authorizing committee
for 8 years. I have been very involved on African issues since
the 1970s.
And so I am really pleased that we are having this hearing
today, and I am pleased that Secretary Kerry is going to the
continent, pleased about the President's visits, because it was
only when we started working with President Bush on PEPFAR
that, really, Africa became a focus of most members of
Congress. And so it is really important to understand that
history and where we are now.
Not only China, but Brazil and India are making strategic
gains in Africa. And very recently I was there, and part of the
issue of promoting American values is a very delicate issue
because Africans want to develop their continent and their
countries in the way that they see fit, recognizing, though, we
have to ensure democracy programs and insistence on the human
rights standards and what have you, but we have to be very
careful when we do this. And so thank you very much for that.
As it relates to--the other thing I wanted to mention is
the African heads of state meeting that is taking place here.
Thank you very much for that. I want to commend the President
and Secretary for this meeting. And I hope that you engage
members of Congress in early August in participating in that
meeting because that is going to be a very important meeting.
Ms. Lee. LGBT issues, you have raised most of the answers
to the questions, but we haven't received a formal response. I
just want to say, the members of the Congressional Black
Caucus, each and every member--unprecedented, historical--wrote
to Secretary Kerry to ask exactly what Adam Schiff just
mentioned, in terms of how we are going to ensure that
comprehensive services are delivered and that people do not
lose these lifesaving drugs as it relates to HIV and AIDS, but
how we do this through NGOs. And so, we would like to have a
formal response to our letter.
I wanted to ask you, how are we addressing the issue of
these laws in terms of encouraging African governments to look
at these laws and how they violate, actually, international
standards of human rights, understanding the issues of
sovereignty?
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield. Thank you for that question.
And this is something that we in the Department and across
the interagency have been engaged on in an intense way since
the passing of these two recent laws in Nigeria and in Uganda,
but we were engaged even before that. We were working very,
very robustly with both the Nigerians and Ugandan President to
discourage them from signing these laws. We clearly failed, but
it was not from lack of trying, in terms of our engagement with
them. We are engaged with other countries, as well, and we have
had some success in discouraging them from passing these laws.
This is a huge, huge problem for us. And I have constantly
said it is not just an African problem, it is a global problem
that we face. I have the issue of dealing with it on the
African continent, but I want to make sure that Africans
understand this is not just us against them.
Ms. Lee. There are about 70 countries, right, throughout
the world?
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield. Eighty.
Ms. Lee. Eighty countries. Okay.
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield. Yeah, 80 countries throughout the
world, 30-some of them in Africa.
A lot of the legislation is old legislation. It is not
being enforced. Even Nigeria and Uganda had old legislation
that they were not enforcing. This new legislation, however, is
much more restrictive in terms of the abilities to associate.
So we are continuing to engage with these governments. We
are engaging with the LGBT community in both countries, as well
as in other countries, to find out from them what they want us
to do to assist them.
But our policy has been to, in terms of our dialogue with
Africans, is to say to them, this is a human right. This is not
just about LGBT; it is about how you treat your people across
the board. And they have all signed on to human rights
agreements, and we are pushing and encouraging them at every
level to honor those agreements as it relates to their LGBT
community.
Ms. Lee. Okay.
Just a closing comment--and we are going to have a second
go-around, Madam Chair?
I serve on the U.N. Commission on HIV and the Law. And
while we didn't specifically look at discriminatory laws as it
relates to the LGBT community, we looked at the laws which
criminalize those living with HIV and the virus. Guess who one
of the worst actors is? The United States. We have, I think, 32
States, 2 territories which have criminalization laws on the
books.
And I want to thank the administration. I have legislation
to begin to work with the States to get rid of these laws,
because they, once again, are very dangerous and were put on
the books in the early 1980s here.
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield. And they make it hard for us when we
are fighting these issues overseas, because they throw this
back at us, that you have not resolved your issues in the
United States and you are telling us what to do. And my
response is, we are trying to help you avoid the mistakes that
we made and do it in a much more efficient fashion.
So, again, I do realize that we are still working this
issue in the United States, and we will continue to work this
issue on the continent of Africa.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Good morning.
A few issues. Last summer, some of us visited Ethiopia with
the Aspen Institute, and one issue that came up repeatedly was
the matter of accountability of foreign assistance and, I
should say, probably the lack of flexibility in our ability, or
your ability, to move funds from one area to another. As an
example, you may have more funds than you can utilize in a
particular country for HIV/AIDS, but malaria or TB or fistula
might be a bigger issue.
Do you see this as a big problem, this lack of flexibility
to move money between accounts in some of these countries where
you are oversubscribed in some accounts but undersubscribed in
others?
I don't know who wants to take this question.
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield. Back to you.
Mr. Gast. Sure, absolutely.
So the way we receive our money is through initiatives and
earmarks, and then we apply those funds to countries that meet
the requirements for receiving funds.
So I would say that the programming of the funds is done on
a needs basis, but once the money is in country, it is very
difficult to move the money into other areas. Within health, it
is easier, but from health to other sectors, it is much more
difficult.
Mr. Dent. Yes, from health to agriculture, for example,
that was an issue.
Mr. Gast. Yes.
Mr. Dent. That is just something we might want to consider
as a committee at some point, to provide that level of
flexibility.
Another issue, too. We visited, actually, the Oprah Winfrey
clinic, the fistula clinic, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. As you
know, it is a very horrible, debilitating condition.
What impediments do you see for the clinics working on
these fistula treatments?
I thought that was a very impressive facility we saw there.
And it is a condition that in this country I guess we more or
less dealt with last in the 19th century, but in Africa it is
still very real and very problematic.
Mr. Gast. Well, two issues I see, Congressman: One is, it
requires a high level of training for doctors to treat fistula.
And then the second one is, often, women who suffer from it are
treated as pariahs. And so that is also very difficult.
We have focused our efforts on about 45 locations on the
continent. Many of those locations are in conflict-prone zones
where often rape and other crimes of war take place, causing
fistula. And so we feel that we have a very targeted approach
to dealing with it.
Mr. Dent. Are there barriers to utilizing U.S. Funding for
this fistula work that you are aware of?
Mr. Gast. No, there are no barriers. We program annually
about $11 million to support fistula and fistula repair, and we
believe that that is adequate.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
The yellow light is on. I am yielding back.
Ms. Granger. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Madam Chair, thank you so much.
And thank you all for being here.
What I want to do is ask you all some questions on
performance. As you know, back in 2010, we passed the
modernization of GPRA, the Performance Accountability Act. And
there, we asked for certain things to be done, and especially
to go more into the performance. Because if we are going to
appropriate billions of dollars, we expect to measure those
documents.
Last year, in the appropriation omnibus bill, we added more
specific instructions for you all to follow. I have looked up
in performance.gov, where you all have so many performance
measures, and I would ask you, if we appropriate X amount of
dollars, are these the right measures for us to look at and the
public to look at as to your outcomes--you know, we are looking
more for results-oriented, but there are different types of
measures: outcomes, outputs; efficiency matters, which is what
the ranking member mentioned a few minutes ago, how much money
you are spending per unit; and, of course, a little bit on
customer service.
But let me just look at a couple things that you all list
and ask your thoughts about this. Under the goal of priority--
one of your priority goals, food security, I believe one of the
first measures you put in is the amount of Feed the Future
funds disbursed since 2010. What does that measure, how much
money we have put in in the last 3 or 4 years? Number one.
And I am just picking just a few. Another priority goal,
global health. As a performance indicator you have percent of
shipments of contraceptive commodities that are on time. Okay,
whether those contraceptives get there on time.
And I can go on. Another one that you have under the USAID
procurement reform, another performance measure you have is the
percent of Office of Acquisitions and Assistance series 1102
and BS 93 positions filled. Okay. And I can go on, but I think
you get the gist of it.
If we are supposed to provide oversight and we are supposed
to look at your performance measures, or the taxpayers are
supposed to look at the performance measures--and, remember,
there are already two. There is the GPRA of 2010 Modernization
Act; there is the language we added in the omnibus bill. What
are we supposed to get from these performance measures? I mean,
what do we get for the dollars? What are the results that we
are supposed to get? And I believe these are your measures on
performance.gov. Give me your thoughts on this.
Mr. Gast. So, allow me to give you my thoughts,
Congressman. And you raise very good questions.
I think when one looks at the performance measures in
isolation that it is not telling the complete story. And so we
look at both performance indicators that are related to
management actions and then also outcome indicators.
And so some of the ones that you mentioned, for example,
the amount of money disbursed or the number of agriculture
officers that we have in the field, they relate more to
management. Are we moving our resources quickly enough so that
we can have the impact that we expect for our programming?
But let me also address some of the things that we are
doing as an agency----
Mr. Cuellar. Are contraceptives getting in on time, is that
a measure we should be looking at?
Mr. Gast. I believe so, yes. Contraceptives arriving on
time or antiretrovirals arriving on time, but--because
logistics, especially in Africa, logistical systems aren't
always the strongest.
Mr. Cuellar. Right.
And I would ask you--and I am sure there are other
performance measures. I am just going on performance.gov.
Mr. Gast. Sure.
Mr. Cuellar. I am sure that what we want to look at is
performance measures that measure results. And there are
internal measures for management. I understand all that. But I
would ask you that. If you are going to put certain things in
public for legislators or for the taxpayers to look at, that
you should put certain measures that are a little bit more----
Mr. Gast. Results oriented.
Mr. Cuellar. But, again, I appreciate it.
Madam Chair, I will yield the balance of my time to
Representative Mario Diaz-Balart because I am sure he has some
other questions. I am just kidding. Just kidding. I yield back.
Ms. Granger. I knew you were.
Mr. Cuellar. The balance of my time.
Ms. Granger. I knew you were just kidding.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you so much.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to ask about maternal and child health and the
progress on addressing malnutrition. Because I think it goes
without saying that we have made some substantial progress;
there has been a sustained commitment to it, largely thanks to
the leadership of our country. And this committee and our chair
and ranking member have both personally been involved in this
issue, legislatively.
But we are still seeing newborn deaths increasing in some
developing countries, you know, even as other indicators are
improving. So what do you--and this is probably for USAID or
the Millennium Challenge Corporation. To what do you attribute
that glaring statistic? And what specifically are you doing to
ensure that childhood mortality is declining in all under-5
subgroups?
Mr. Gast. I will start.
You raised a very good point, Congresswoman, about
malnutrition. And, you know, when we look at malnutrition, it
is one of the causes of roughly 47 percent of the under-5
deaths. So it is a major contributor to child death, early
child deaths, and it is something that we take very seriously.
And that is why it is also a tenet of the Feed the Future
strategy, where we were focused on the first 1,000 days, from
pregnancy to age 2, to address nutrition issues.
Where----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You probably know that Congressman
Diaz-Balart and I were the sponsors of the 1,000-days
resolution.
Mr. Gast. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome.
Mr. Gast. We are beginning to focus on areas in countries
where we have not been able to move the needle. And so that
means a concerted effort in working with governments and
working with development partners in countries like South
Sudan, like Ethiopia, Nigeria, and the DRC.
Together, the three--DRC, Nigeria, and Ethiopia--account
for about 27 percent of under-5 deaths globally. And so we are
working--Ethiopia has made substantial progress, but we are
putting more effort into both DRC and into Nigeria, supporting
the governments' program.
We have just undergone a significant review over the past
year with the governments in Nigeria and DRC to make sure that
our programs are supporting the governments' strategies, that
we are geographically targeted, and that we are using the right
interventions to address under-5 death.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Ms. Herrling. So, if I could quickly, as you know, we have
a model that we let the data take us to where the binding
constraints to growth are in a country. And sometimes that is,
in fact, things like stunting in Indonesia. It is incredible,
right, it is such a severe problem that it is constraining
growth and private investment in a country. And so we will
invest in those particular cases.
More broadly, I would say our greatest contribution to this
space is that we are very purposefully looking to position
women as economic agents of change in our countries. So
everything we do, starting with that scorecard that is our
first interaction with our partners, we are saying, "We expect
you to educate your girls."
And 3 years ago, we added--we were so thrilled to have an
indicator in the global community that measures women's access
to the economy. So we are asking our partners, do your women
have the right to file for a passport? Can they file as head of
household? Can they own a business? Can they sign a contract?
This is the dialogue we want to have with our partner
countries, and these are the kinds of partners that we end up
having. Basically, we believe if women are greater components
of the economy, the growth is going to go faster and fairer.
And so that is the kind of policy aspect we have.
On the operational one, as you know--you have been
following our work--we do gender assessments and social
assessments of all of our investments. Why? Because we want to
make sure, if we can, in design, purposefully look at how to
make sure the benefits are shared. We design it that way.
Thank you so much for your support in this space, and we
look forward to continuing to work on this very important
issue.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Me, too. Thank you very much.
I will continue the tradition of the yellow light. Yield
back.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Since we have been so efficient in the use of time, if we
do that the second round, everybody will get another question.
And I think that would be great because this is a very active
subcommittee.
Let me ask you, Ms. Herrling, about something we talked
about earlier today. Recently, I read a draft report discussing
with MCC the practice of having a compact and then a second
round, and had this discussion. And it made some very good
points about the second round and what is happening with those
countries.
Could you address that?
Ms. Herrling. Well, I look forward to seeing the report you
are talking about.
Look, I appreciate the dialogue we have been having on this
issue. You know that we agree that we want time-limited
relationships with our countries. We are not looking to be
there 20, 30, 40 years. That is not our model.
I also appreciate, though, the foresight that this
committee had when it established the MCC to recognize that
development is a complex business and that, particularly with
an agency like ours, where we are constantly looking at where
to get the most return on American taxpayer dollars, sometimes
that greatest opportunity is, in fact, with countries we have
already worked with. And so you will find us there--not always,
not in entitlements. The vast majority of our existing compact
partners have not gotten second compacts.
But I know this is an issue you care about deeply. I think
there is lots of common ground. And I hope we can continue the
dialogue on this issue.
Ms. Granger. One of the points that was made is what a
country learns in that first round and then to take them to the
second round, then they are practicing what they have learned
through that. So it was very compelling.
Ms. Herrling. No, it is true. There is a lot of attention
focused on what is called the ``MCC effect'' related to reforms
countries are willing to take to get in, so our scorecard. But
there is this whole other space of ``MCC effect'' on the
operational front. So we see countries embracing U.S.
procurement standards, environmental standards, design
standards, and just implementation. It is quite amazing that
these countries can do these large-scale infrastructure
projects in 5 years. It is amazing.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. I have so many other questions, but in the
limited time, because the Congressman was kind enough to bring
up this issue of Kibera again. And, as you know and I think all
of you know, there are probably many Kiberas around the world
and many areas where women and children are just struggling to
survive every day. I have visited many, but this was among the
worst.
And I really wonder, in situations like this--are we just
perpetuating this, are we facilitating this, and is the U.N.
facilitating it. And I wonder, in your interaction with
officials who have the power to do something about it, do you
have the power and determination to say, ``Enough''?
Because this has been here--my staff corrected me, I was
there in 2008, but it has been there a long time. No toilets,
holes in the ground; government officials collecting money; the
inability of micro-enterprise to thrive because they go around
and collect from all the women.
To what extent do you just, after seeing so much horror, do
you get numb by it? Or is there any effort to talk tough to the
leaders and say, rather than put another dime in here, we are
going to build decent housing? Otherwise, we are just carrying
on a situation that is not really living. It is intolerable.
I just wonder if you get numbed by it.
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield. You don't get numbed by it. I----
Mrs. Lowey. Well, what can you do?
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield [continuing]. I was there in
December, and I was just horrified. And I was there the last
time in 1996, and it hadn't changed. So you are not numbed by
it, and you look for solutions. But you can't walk away from
it. Because if you walk----
Mrs. Lowey. No, no, I am not saying we should walk away.
But I remember, we spoke with the housing minister and others.
So, obviously, we had no impact, because it is still there.
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield. There are some new houses that are
being built away from Kibera, in the same vicinity, but away.
But it is such a huge problem, housing across Africa. And
sometimes what we will see happening is the government will go
and plow down the place, but they are not able to provide
alternative housing in an efficient enough fashion for people
to have an alternative place to live, so they end up going back
into the slums. Or as they push people out of the slums, maybe
into decent housing, new people move into those slums.
So it is an intractable problem that I think we all feel
frustrated by. And we are all looking to work with governments
to find solutions, because they have to find the solution. We
can't do it on our own. We can't impose the solution on them.
Mrs. Lowey. What if we cut off all the money? I guess it
would be even more miserable.
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield. That is the walking away, and that
is the hard part.
Mr. Gast. May I add just a few points, Congresswoman?
I agree, no one is numbed by it.
The trend in Africa is toward urbanization. And so, if
families are moving out of slums or if one slum is destroyed,
another one comes up, because that is how rapid the
urbanization is. And people are leaving the rural areas because
they are going to the cities, where they feel there are
opportunities.
And so one of the things that we are doing through our
development programs, certainly Feed the Future is trying to
keep people in rural areas to work on farms, to find
agriculture as a profession, rather than just subsistence
farming. I think it takes a lot of efforts from multiple--from
governments, from donor agencies, as well, to resolve this
problem.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, let me just close. You were there in
1996; I was there in 2008. It is just getting worse. What do
you feel you have accomplished there? How much money have we
put into Kibera, and what can you say as you look in the mirror
and say, well, what have we accomplished? Could we have done it
differently?
I just feel we are facilitating this horror, and I guess it
is hard for me to adjust to this. What do you feel you have
accomplished there? Just kept people alive in this existence
that is really not an existence?
Mr. Gast. Education opportunities, health----
Mrs. Lowey. You are cutting education, so that is not a
priority, but it is my priority. Yes?
Mr. Gast. It certainly is a priority. Opportunity, micro-
enterprise, focusing on women who are living----
Mrs. Lowey. Well, I could say that, too, but, you know,
they--I just think this is worth discussion again at some
point. Because for those of us who have visited this and seen
the corruption and the government involved in the corruption
and the women barely struggling to feed their families, I just
wonder whether we couldn't do it any differently.
But thank you very much----
Ms. Herrling. Well, and I think we would all agree on
focusing on the results of our efforts, and we are all trying
to tell those stories. And so keeping us accountable to what we
are actually delivering is an important thing. And we all have
a conversation about, is it value for money? I think we all
agree to that, and we all are producing those numbers.
Mrs. Lowey. But you notice, when I said, what have you
accomplished since 1996, pretty silent here, other than
facilitating, perpetuating--well, I----
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mrs. Lowey [continuing]. Have taken enough time on that
one. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. We will call on Mr. Diaz-Balart and then Ms.
Lee, and then we will close.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Yes. Thank you.
I just want to mention what Mrs. Lowey was just saying.
This is the group of the strongest supporters that exists in
Congress. And if those concerns are here, and they are--and I
think she speaks for all of us--imagine how they are outside of
this room. And so it is an issue that we need to continue to
address, and thank you for bringing that up.
My understanding is that USAID provides obviously not only
TB resources for tuberculosis but also it is critical in
technical assistance to countries with the highest TB burden.
Also, USAID also plays a vital role, in my understanding, in TB
research, including developing fast-reacting medications, et
cetera.
Now, my understanding is that the administration's budget
proposal dramatically reduces TB spending through USAID by 19
percent. And so this is at a time when drug resistance is
spreading. And so here is my question: Can USAID absorb a cut
of this magnitude and still carry out its vital mission?
Mr. Gast. The short answer is that the President's budget
for 2015 recognizes that TB is a problem that needs to be
resolved and, also, that there are multidrug-resistant strains
of TB that are moving from country to country. But we feel,
with the cut, that it can sustain the effort that we currently
have.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. All right.
And since I still have a little bit of time, let me kind of
switch gears here. And, obviously, you know, this group is a
strong supporter of these specific funding issues, because they
play a key role in expanding not only, obviously, in the
humanitarian assistance, health programs, the national security
implications, but also that it can hopefully also expand our
trading partners and our markets in future years.
And I know that, you know, I have heard of anecdotes of
U.S. Government-funded projects being awarded to non-U.S.
business firms. And there was that picture of a sign posted
outside on the Chinese-built storage facility project in Uganda
that says it is funded by USAID.
And so how are our embassies or the Department of State,
what are we doing to help ensure as much as we can that sales
of U.S. products and services have the best chance of competing
abroad and that our funding is hopefully being used by--you
know, that we are also going to be helping our domestic economy
here? I mean, what are we doing? Are there specific programs to
do that?
Because, obviously, when you see something like a sign like
that, you imagine what that does out there as far as people's
perceptions, and, potentially, the reality.
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield. Let me just start on the broader
point, and that is that we need to do a better job of
supporting American companies operating overseas. In many
locations where we are in Africa, there may not be the American
companies to bid on projects, and we need, again, to ensure
that that happens.
We have gotten a tremendous amount of support on getting
more commercial officers in the field who are qualified and can
help us in encouraging and supporting American companies.
So that would be the first point of action for us.
And then I will turn to my colleagues.
Mr. Gast. Very good points, Congressman. Three of the
President's initiatives focus on a better trade partnership
with Africa: Trade Africa, certainly; Power Africa; as well as
Feed the Future.
One thing that we are doing, with Congress' support, is
transforming our trade hubs. And we have three trade hubs that
are on the continent. They were designed originally for African
companies to take advantage of AGOA. What we are doing now is
transforming them into trade and investment centers, where
there is a better marrying of U.S. companies with African
companies and associations. And we are beginning to see signs
of good progress in enticing and encouraging U.S. companies to
either invest or to sell equipment in Africa.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Granger. Just to add on to that, in discussing your
successes, most of the successes involve a high level of
collaboration with each other and with the countries. And so to
keep that as a best practice, I think, would be very
appropriate.
Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. I will follow up on a couple
of these issues.
First of all, I am glad Mr. Diaz-Balart brought up the
whole issue of investment and trade. And I want to ask you--and
I was glad to see MCC's breakdown as it relates to the
involvement of women-owned, minority-owned companies. I would
like to ask you, did this aggregate that? I would like to see
African-American, Latino, and Asian-Pacific American companies,
how they break down.
One of the issues, though, I just have to say, especially
as it relates to--and I am not saying this is factual yet, but
I am looking into it. Many of these trade missions that are led
by Secretaries to Africa, to the continent, very few minority-
owned companies are on these trade missions. I am not sure what
the reason is, but I have heard it over and over and over
again, to the point where I am going to take my own. Because
businesses, black, Hispanic, Asian-Pacific American companies,
deserve the opportunities to participate on these trade
missions and go over.
For example, I want to ask you about Power Africa. How are
small, minority-owned businesses, how are they able to get
involved and participate in Power Africa?
Secondly, following up from Congresswomen Lowey and
Granger's question on Kiberia, one of the issues I think that
we saw and that I noticed by talking to people who live there
is the policies that we support aren't necessarily policies
that help them transition from living in such squalor into
decent housing. But one of the issues is the economic and
social system that has been developed through their lifetime in
these slums. If you just build a house and say, ``Move,'' well,
what is going to happen to their business? What is going to
happen to the benefits that they see by living there?
And so I think you have to have, or we have to look at a
comprehensive approach and maybe make some suggestions as to
how to restructure what we are doing there so that people have
that social and economic network as they move forward. Because
some people felt they would be abandoned and would not have
those structures in place. We definitely need to do something
and look at that very, very closely.
And, thirdly, as it relates to South Sudan, I don't know
what is happening in Darfur because of the atrocities now
taking place in South Sudan, but I hope that the Secretary and
you all will engage in a sustained effort after his visit to
try to really help reduce the violence and help South Sudan get
back on course. And that is going to be very important, because
if he goes and looks at it, talks to people, comes back, and
nothing happens, then, you know, nothing happens.
And so thank you again, Madam Chair. But I think Kiberia,
all the issues we are talking about, we are talking about today
is because there has been a void; we haven't really focused.
And this hearing is one of the few that we have begun to focus
on what is taking place in Africa. So thank you.
Ms. Herrling. Quickly, on the MCC point, I know how much
you care about minority businesses having access to our
investments. And I hope the fact that we have exceeded the
Federal targets on this issue, as well as our own agency
targets, is testament to how much we care, as well.
When you have a model that is driven around increasing
economic growth, you have to know what private sector is
identifying as the binding constraints to why they are not
investing in these countries. And we seek purposely to unlock
those constraints. So it requires us to be in quite careful
coordination with the private sector, minority and otherwise,
and we do that.
So please keep us informed, and we will continue to send
data to you. We are always looking for opportunities to gather
private sectors together around our compacts, both at the
identification-of-constraints stage and, as well, as the
specific operations stage.
As well, this data alliance that we are forming includes
private sector because they, too, want to understand corruption
in country, how it is playing out, what they have to be aware
of, create an integrity screen, if you will, for their own
investments. So there are many, many layers for interaction in
our space.
Ms. Lee. Darfur and South Sudan?
Ms. Thomas-Greenfield. Let me take that question.
As you know, Ambassador Booth, our Special Envoy, has been
working around the clock. We just got a message from him. He is
in Addis now. He was having meetings all day related to Darfur
and to the situation in Sudan. So he has not neglected to
continue to work on that.
But our highest priority right now is cessation, a real
cessation, of hostilities between the two sides. They have
signed an agreement, and they have continued to fight. And
people are continuing to die, and the humanitarian situation is
getting worse.
The Secretary is going with the goal of bringing about a
solution to ending the violence. And that is our hope as we go
into a series of meetings not just with the negotiators and the
envoys but with the parties to the violence inside of Sudan.
And we will be meeting with civil society there, as well, to
talk to them about where they see the possibilities.
Ms. Lee. Can we--Power Africa, very quickly, Madam Chair?
Thank you very much.
Mr. Gast. On opportunities for minority businesses, we
recently, in the Africa Bureau--in fact, it was just last
week--hosted a session with minority-owned businesses on ways
that they can cooperate and work with AID, to include on Power
Africa.
We as an agency have exceeded our goal. We want to do
better, but we are very pleased with the results that we have
had.
Ms. Lee. Okay. We will follow up with you on----
Mr. Gast. And, also, you mentioned----
Ms. Lee [continuing]. That.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Granger. Certainly.
Mr. Gast. May I on trade missions? We work very closely
with Corporate Council on Africa, and so we can raise that
issue with them. They are frequently sponsoring trade missions.
Ms. Lee. I appreciate that very much.
Ms. Granger. Before I turn to Ms. Lowey, when we are
talking about Kiberia, one of the things that was very apparent
was how important it is for us to see what you are doing and
see what the needs are.
I didn't know. I have never been there. I did not picture
2.5 million people, which is what Mrs. Lowey was showing me,
which means if you took the citizens from all three of the
Members of Congress's districts here, it is more than that. So
it is really important that we go out on the ground and see
things.
Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Yes. As we close, first of all, I want to thank
our distinguished chairwoman for having this hearing and having
you here today.
And we appreciate Secretary Kerry focusing on Africa, and
we do wish him success in ending the violence and finding
solutions.
As we focus on some of the terrible tragedies, I think it
is important to end the hearing and congratulate all of us
again on 6 million people on HIV treatment, advancement in
child mortality rates due to improved access to vaccines,
treatment for deadly illnesses--malaria, pneumonia. We have
made progress.
And I think it is very important as we put our budgets
together--and we know the money is not enough to do what we
have to do and face the challenges. Working with the Gates
Foundation has proved enormously successful. I do hope that
there are increased efforts to reach out to other donors, to
the U.N., to make sure we are all working together, because we
know the challenges are huge.
So thank you. Thank you for all your work. We have a lot
more work to do.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
I thank the witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee
today.
Members may submit any additional questions for the record.
Ms. Granger. The committee will also accept additional
statements for the record from other agencies.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Granger. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations,
and Related Programs stands adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE TO COMBAT TRANSNATIONAL CRIME
WITNESSES
AMBASSADOR WILLIAM BROWNFIELD, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF
INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF
STATE
AMBASSADOR LUIS CDEBACA, OFFICE TO MONITOR AND COMBAT TRAFFICKING IN
PERSONS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Opening Statement of Chairwoman Granger
Ms. Granger. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations,
and Related Programs will come to order.
Today's hearing is on U.S. assistance to combat
transnational crime. I would like to welcome our two witnesses
from the Department of State, Ambassador Brownfield, Assistant
Secretary of the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs, and Ambassador CdeBaca, U.S. Ambassador-
at-Large to Combat Trafficking in Persons.
Today's hearing will address many of the subcommittee's
priorities, such as combating human trafficking, countering the
flow of illegal drugs, addressing the wildlife poaching crisis,
and stopping the funding that supports terrorist activities.
Many of us follow these issues for humanitarian reasons, public
safety, or the cause of conservation. But these issues are all
directly related to the security and stability in the countries
we provide assistance to, as well as our own national security.
The outrageous actions of Boko Haram abducting hundreds of
girls and claiming to sell them as slaves should remind us all
how very real these threats are. This case is also an example
of how these issues are linked. Boko Haram is a terrorist
organization, and there are reports in the press that some of
its members have profited from poaching elephants for their
ivory.
Boko Haram has been terrorizing the Nigerian people for
years, and now they are involved in this horrific case of human
trafficking. We want to hear about how the funding this
subcommittee provides is being used to confront these types of
issues and what is needed for the next fiscal year.
Transnational crimes share common traits. The sex and slave
trade as well as the demand for animal parts and drugs drives
the trafficking problem. Weak government institutions and
corruption facilitate the criminal networks, and current laws
and law enforcement are not effectively deterring the
perpetrators.
We would like to hear how these criminal enterprises are
related and whether resources can be used to solve more than
just one problem. We hope the agencies we fund are coordinating
and applying these lessons learned from decades of
counternarcotics and anti-trafficking work to other areas of
transnational crime.
We also want to be sure the funding we provide around the
world to improve governance and reduce corruption is focused on
addressing transnational crime. This subcommittee included
funding in the Fiscal Year 2014 Appropriations Act for programs
to combat human trafficking and also for the first time
directed funds to address wildlife trafficking. I would like to
know more about how those funds will be used, and what has been
accomplished to date.
In addition to the funding, I would like to hear what new
technologies, partnerships, and diplomatic efforts are being
used to address these challenges. I was pleased to see the
budget request for fiscal year 2015 increased funding to combat
trafficking in persons. We know the need is tremendous.
The most recent human trafficking report concludes that
40,000 trafficking victims were identified in the last year,
and there are some estimates that as many as 27 million men,
women, and children are trafficking victims at any given time.
Turning to wildlife trafficking, I was disappointed to see
the request is down more than 50 percent from what we had
included in last year's bill. I should also note that I had to
ask for that funding to be provided because it was not included
in any of the budget materials. Secretary Kerry has said this
issue is a priority, but that is not what was reflected in the
budget.
In 2013, over 1,000 rhinos were poached in South Africa.
This was an all-time high. Cutting the funding in half does not
seem like an appropriate response. I would like you both to
discuss your plans for fiscal year 2015, including how the
funding this subcommittee provides will address the most urgent
needs.
I will now turn to my ranking member, Mrs. Lowey, for her
opening remarks.
Opening Statement of Chairwoman Lowey
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Assistant Secretary Brownfield, Ambassador CdeBaca, I join
the chair in welcoming you and thank you for your service.
Transnational criminal enterprises have grown in size and
strength, aggressively intimidating and overwhelming government
institutions. Transnational criminal syndicates, insurgent
groups, and terrorist organizations are now joining forces in
collaborative efforts. Reports show that transnational criminal
and financial networks have become increasingly sophisticated
and exploit countries and regions with weak governance and rule
of law.
The kidnapping of the schoolgirls in Nigeria is the latest
and most glaring example of the nexus between lawlessness,
terrorism, and human trafficking. I hope you will begin your
testimonies by updating the subcommittee on what we are doing
to assist the Nigerian government to find and free these girls.
This is a time when we must advocate our values and do more to
defend the defenseless.
I know we agree that the practice of human trafficking and
enslavement is abhorrent. Yet it continues unabated in many
regions. Whether for forced sex or labor, estimates suggest
that between 2 million to 4 million people, mostly women and
children, are trafficked every year. And between 21 million to
29 million people are enslaved. This is appalling.
Poaching and wildlife trafficking have also escalated.
According to environmental groups, an estimated 30,000 African
elephants were killed in 2012. Nonstate armed groups and
militias from Congo, Uganda, and Sudan, in addition to
terrorist groups such as the Sudanese Janjaweed and al-Shabaab,
profit from this horrific exploitation.
While I commend the administration for its efforts to
combat poaching and wildlife trafficking and the national
strategy to combat wildlife trafficking, I am interested to
learn what you are doing to address the seemingly insatiable
demand for ivory in China and other East Asian countries, which
is fueling the ruthless destruction of African wildlife and
providing a financing source for terrorists. Have we sought
cooperation with China to curb the demand? And what has been
the response to date?
I am also concerned about the continued reports of violence
and abuses perpetrated by police and military units under the
pretense of counternarcotics tactics in many Latin American
countries. As you know, corruption, weak governance, lack of
strong judicial institutions, all exacerbate the potential for
systemic abuses of power.
The President's strategy to combat transnational organized
crime acknowledges that transnational crime cannot be solved
through police and military actions alone, a principle I have
strongly advocated in my years in leadership on this
subcommittee. Our chances for success are greatly improved
when, in addition to enforcement capacity, security forces
institutionalize mechanisms to ensure transparency,
accountability, and respect for human rights and the rule of
law.
We must continue to work with partner governments to
address the underlying poverty and lack of opportunity which
criminal organizations use to gain power and influence. More
must be done to invest in alternative livelihoods, education,
job opportunities for youth. I will continue to insist that any
United States programs and funding to fight transnational
criminal activities emphasize these tenets.
Therefore, I hope to get a greater insight into the
administration's objectives and strategies to combat these
crimes and threats to international security. I would like the
panel to assess the following key issues.
What effect has the funding we have provided had on the
activities of transnational criminal organizations? How do we
break the power and impunity of criminal organizations? Is our
policy overly dominated by a counternarcotics agenda while
underestimating corruption and human rights concerns?
Does the State Department overly rely on interdiction,
eradication, training, and equipping law enforcement? How do we
improve the capacity of justice systems to protect the rights
of citizens? Can we do more to disrupt criminal financing
networks? What type of coordination is necessary to succeed?
And what challenges are not yet being addressed?
Thank you for your testimony.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Before I call on the witnesses, I want to thank all the
subcommittee members and tell the witnesses that we are having
so many hearings to get our appropriations process finished
that the Members are going from one to another, and that is
what they have to do. So there will be people coming and going.
I now call on the witnesses to give their opening
statements. I would encourage each of you to summarize your
remarks so we can leave enough time for questions and answers.
Your full written statements will be placed in the record, and
we will begin with Ambassador Brownfield.
Opening Statement of Ambassador Brownfield
Ambassador Brownfield. Thank you very much, Madam
Chairwoman, Ranking Member Lowey, members of the subcommittee.
Thank you all for this opportunity to appear before you to
discuss INL efforts against transnational organized crime.
I have a formal statement that, with your permission, I
will submit for the record and summarize it orally.
I have appeared before Congress many times to discuss
trafficking in drugs, firearms, and persons, corruption,
financial crime, and rule of law. I have never before testified
on efforts to combat illegal wildlife trafficking. And while I
am here to address any matter involving transnational organized
crime, I would like to focus my oral remarks today on wildlife
trafficking.
Our information is anecdotal, but we estimate that the
wildlife trafficking industry earns between $8 billion and $10
billion in illegal revenue every year. A kilo of rhino horn may
sell for more than a kilo of cocaine or heroin. And unlike
their drug colleagues, wildlife traffickers are exterminating
entire species.
Last July, the White House released a new national strategy
for combating wildlife trafficking. It directed greater efforts
to strengthen enforcement, reduce demand, and build
international cooperation.
Members of the subcommittee, I do not claim the expertise
of the conservation community whose noble work has led global
efforts to protect wildlife for more than a century. But I do
know something about criminal trafficking. I know that all
trafficking has elements in common.
Demand for the product creates a market, and the market is
supplied by criminals growing, manufacturing, or butchering the
product. Sophisticated logistics networks move the product to
market by corruption and manipulation. An illegal retail system
distributes the product to purchasers, and financial systems
are corrupted to launder revenues into usable commodities.
With strong leadership and support from this subcommittee,
the INL bureau has developed a four-pillar strategy to combat
this industry. First, we strengthen legislative frameworks so
wildlife trafficking is, in fact, a crime around the world.
Second, we work to improve law enforcement and investigative
capabilities through training and support. Third, we build
prosecutorial and judicial capacity to try these crimes. And
finally, we enhance cross-border cooperation through wildlife
enforcement networks.
We have some progress and success to report. In April of
last year at our instigation, the U.N. Crime Commission
declared wildlife trafficking to be a ``serious crime,'' the
most serious category they have. Last November, Secretary Kerry
announced the first reward offer of up to $1 million under our
new Transnational Organized Crime Rewards Program against the
world's largest illegal wildlife trafficking organization, the
Laos-based Xaysavang network.
And in February of this year, law enforcement from 28
different nations joined together in a month-long coordinated
operation called Cobra II, resulting in more than 400 arrests
and 350 major illegal wildlife seizures worldwide.
Members of the subcommittee, I acknowledge that global law
enforcement has been slow to add wildlife trafficking to our
list of high priorities. We still have much to learn, but we
are here now, and we intend to make an impact.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Mrs. Lowey, members of the
subcommittee. I look forward to your questions and your
guidance.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Granger. And thank you very much.
Ambassador CdeBaca, you are now recognized.
Opening Statement of Ambassador CdeBaca
Ambassador CdeBaca. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member
Lowey, and members of the subcommittee. We appreciate your
support and your ongoing commitment to this fight against
modern slavery. And I use the term ``slaver'' purposefully.
We use ``human trafficking'' as an umbrella term. It is all
of the conduct involved in reducing a person to or holding them
in a state of compelled service, whether for labor or
commercial sex. Movement may sometimes occur, but it is not a
necessary element, but rather a common vulnerability.
The common thread in these cases is the deprivation of one
person's freedom by another. That is why it is fitting to say
slavery, especially this week.
Our moral obligation against this crime is clear, but it is
also a strategic imperative. Modern slavery undermines the rule
of law, it feeds instability, breeds corruption, fuels
transnational crime, and taints supply chains that drive the
global economy.
As you mentioned, Madam Chair, the events of the last week
have demonstrated these interrelationships, and we must address
it but also must pause to think about the victims, to think
about the girls who don't know if someone is looking for them.
And we have to answer, yes, we are.
And so, I would like to talk about two major functions of
our office. First, the annual Trafficking in Persons Report,
which measures governments' efforts to fight trafficking. Every
year, we look at each country, and we put them on one of four
tiers as to what they are doing.
The tier ranking system has been extremely effective in
motivating governments to combat trafficking, and it has
enabled them to more effectively fight this crime. Time and
again, we have seen governments change course, often
dramatically, when faced with a potential downgrade or
confronted by a tough assessment. Time and time again,
political leaders and advocates and academics have credited the
report with spurring action.
And so, in only about a decade, 159 countries have become
parties to the United Nations trafficking protocol, modern
anti-trafficking laws, specialized law enforcement units,
victim assistance mechanisms, public awareness campaigns. And
here at home, cutting-edge new laws in every State and almost
every territory, again in just a little more than a decade.
Now what is important, though, is not to simply think of
this as a policy priority, but to think about the people. At
the end of the day, the trafficking report doesn't just shine a
light on what countries are doing. It is not just a name and
shame exercise. Hopefully, at its best, it shines a light on
the victims, on the responsibility toward the survivors, on the
responsibility of all of us to stamp out slavery once and for
all.
It also guides our foreign assistance, and that is the
second issue I would like to highlight. Since 2002, my office
has funded 835 projects around the world worth over $216
million.
Every year, because the need so far exceeds the
approximately $19 million we have to spend each year in
programming funds, we innovate. We identify and we disseminate
best practices. We maintain and set the international norms.
And knowing that sometimes it will only happen if America
does it, we fund support and services to trafficking victims--
not to labels, not to classifications, to people like the women
victimized by modern slavery in Sierra Leone who now have
access to shelter services for the first time, thanks to one of
our grantees. The men who are now recognized as victims of
trafficking and receive assistance in Bangladesh through one of
our projects.
Prior to the work of those organizations and those
projects, these underserved populations had no access to
service, had no voice. Like the South and Southeast Asian and
increasingly African women who find themselves enslaved as
domestic servants in the Middle East, the children in West
Africa forced to beg on the city streets, and yes, the
children, men, and women forced into prostitution and forced
labor here at home in the United States.
As you said, up to 29 million people, and yet only about
40,000 victims have been identified last year. But because of
our trainings, the laws we are helping to write, the service
providers and NGOs that we support, and the standards that the
TIP report is solidifying around the world, this is changing.
In the last year, we have seen countries with their first
convictions ever. Countries which once denied having a
trafficking problem at all are now proud to work under the
three P paradigm of prevention, protection, and prosecution,
with robust interagency activities and good cops and social
workers on the front lines.
These are victories. And with every victory, with every
law, with every liberation, with every trafficker brought to
justice, we grow nearer to our shared vision, a world free from
slavery.
Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Granger. Thank you so much.
I serve as a co-chair of the human trafficking caucus and
started before I ever came on this subcommittee. And I am
really glad, Ambassador, that you talked about parents who
never know what happened to their children or children who
wonder if their parents know what happened to them and where
they are.
And I know that technology--has a huge impact on law
enforcement, especially forensics. And I believe that we should
be using just every tool we have. I understand the State
Department and USAID support programs that use DNA technology
for general forensic law enforcement. Are any of these programs
focused on preventing human trafficking? Are you considering
using DNA technology?
Ambassador CdeBaca. We have to some degree. It is something
that we look at. I think that what we have seen, though, is
with the crushing need to address the people who are identified
and identifiable and in weighing the scarce resources against
the cost of DNA testing and those large programs, we have
instead put most of our eggs in the law enforcement training,
victim identification, and national referral mechanisms, so
that victims can get up and over to social services.
But I do know this is something that a number of folks are
working on, especially Interpol, with the notion of DNA
testing. And we think it is an arrow in the quiver.
Ms. Granger. Good. I had heard about a concept where people
are being trafficked across borders, and the DNA technology
could be used to identify where they came from. So I would like
to talk to you at another date about some of that technology.
Ambassador CdeBaca. I think that, but as well the notion of
some of the even more rudimentary technology, like X-ray
analysis of bones. So that we can see whether the person who
has perhaps been liberated in a brothel raid is actually a
child rather than an adult, given that a lot of these victims
may not even know their own age.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much.
I want to thank you, Mr. Ambassador and Assistant Secretary
Brownfield, for your testimony. We know how difficult this work
is, and we are all here in the United States listening to the
horrors every day.
And this last event in Nigeria is so shocking and so
disturbing to all of us, and you very eloquently, Mr.
Ambassador, listed all the things you are doing. Sometimes I
wonder what can we really do?
On the same news program we hear about the $23 million that
has been invested in President Zuma's home. The corruption in
Kenya, the corruption everywhere is so widespread.
Maybe I will begin by starting with Assistant Secretary
Brownfield. How do we actually break the power and impunity of
criminal organizations and urge governments to do more to stop
transnational crime? How do you measure or evaluate success?
I was pleased, Ambassador CdeBaca, you mentioned some
examples of success. What percentage of the total incidents you
have been able to declare victory?
But Assistant Secretary Brownfield, how do you measure or
evaluate success, and how do we actually urge governments to do
more to stop transnational crime?
Ambassador Brownfield. Sure. Thank you, Mrs. Lowey.
May I offer three observations, and these are based upon an
inordinate number of years in this business where I have been
serving either in INL or elsewhere in the Department of State.
First observation, in order to have an impact on a criminal
trafficking enterprise, we have to address all elements of the
enterprise. We learned the hard way in past decades that if you
just attack interdiction or you just attack production, it will
not succeed.
You have to hit every element. You may prioritize some over
others, but you cannot ignore one to the exclusion of all of
the others.
Second, you must approach from a regional perspective. No
country manages or is responsible for a transnational criminal
trafficking enterprise on its own. Using Nigeria as an example,
Nigeria is in a trafficking sense, in a transnational criminal
sense, part of the larger West African region.
We have been engaged for the past 3 years in what we call
the West Africa Cooperative Security Initiative, linking
together all 15 nations of West Africa in a common strategy
that deals with Coast Guard capabilities, corrections
capabilities, police training capabilities, prosecutorial
capabilities across the board in a regional context.
Third, you have correctly laid out a lesson that it took us
probably 30 years to learn, and that is we must have specific
criteria that we are measuring to determine how successful the
program or the effort is. From the '70s through the '90s, our
approach was to measure input. How many aircraft, how many
vehicles, how many people did we push through a training
program?
We need to go, obviously, to the next step. Perhaps we are
measuring homicide rate. Perhaps we are measuring number of
individuals who are successfully prosecuted. Perhaps we are
measuring number of victims of crime in whatever category,
something that tells us in the long term what is our systemic
impact.
Finally, Congresswoman, if you would permit me, I am going
to add a little response to what the chairwoman asked about
technology.
Madam Chairwoman, we have kind of a cool DNA program on
wildlife trafficking as well. I signed off on it this morning.
What we are doing is taking samples from the crushed ivory from
throughout the world, doing the DNA on that, and using it to
map where elephants and rhinos are most being impacted to allow
us to focus our efforts.
I am sorry, Mrs. Lowey. I took advantage of those 30
seconds to answer a question that was not yours.
Mrs. Lowey. First of all, the red light is on, and I know
we both have many questions. So we will have another turn, I am
sure. And we share the concerns. So I appreciate your
responding to the chairwoman.
Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
I will now call on Members, alternating between majority
and minority based on seniority of those present when the
hearing was called to order.
I will remind Members you have 5 minutes for your questions
and responses from the witness. A yellow light on your timer
will appear when you have 2 minutes remaining. If time will
permit, and I think it will, we will have a second round.
And now I will call on Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And thank you all for being here today.
You know, you sit here and you listen. We have got a war
against illicit drugs. We have got a war against illicit
wildlife trafficking. We have got a war against human
trafficking. And you always have to wonder, are we winning the
war?
And I want to focus on human trafficking because I know in
Nigeria everything comes to the forefront. It is just awful.
You can't find words to describe it. But that brings a lot of
visibility. But the sad thing is every day, all around the
world, this kind of activity is taking place.
And quite frankly, sometimes when I travel internationally,
I would ask the leaders of the country about the TIP sheet, the
TIP list. And my impression is that they didn't know a whole
lot about it.
They would always say, ``Yes, we are level 1. We are level
2.'' And you say, ``What are you doing about it?'' And they
would say, ``We are working on it.''
But it seems to me that we have got that TIP sheet, and you
talked about some good things that are going on. But I really
wonder what is your view of how we are doing worldwide?
If 20 million people are part of this--and we don't do a
very good job in the U.S. I understand that as well. Florida is
probably one of the worst places. You get $20 million, $19
million, and you mentioned you had 800 projects or some number
and you have spent a lot of money. Are we really winning or is
it getting worse? Is it getting better?
Because sometimes I get the impression that nobody cares.
There is no visibility. Every now and then some wild, awful,
terrible thing happened, and we say that is terrible. You take
300 women and say you are going to sell them. But that is going
on every day, and it seems like in the shadows that people
don't care about, A, how are we doing, and B, what can we do
better? How can we help you do a better job of bringing
awareness of this and win that war?
Ambassador CdeBaca. I think you are spot on as far as no
matter how many zeroes were to be added to the money that we
spend, we are still playing catch-up against something that is
both cultural as well as criminal. And it is something that
only can change if there is political will to change it.
You would see a cascade effect on the issues of corruption.
The policemen who take bribes to cover this up or even own the
bars or the brothels where the women are being held.
You know, for me, one of the things that it comes back to
is trying to break our own internal U.S. cycle. If you look at
the last 250 years, you will have an administration that looks
at this and that focuses heavily on it, and then the following
administration will drop off. The good work that was being
done, frankly, in Florida by the first Roosevelt administration
dropped off.
Now part of that could have been that we needed the pitch
and the turpentine that was being made in the forests by people
in debt bondage. We needed them for the war effort in World War
I. But it dropped off.
One of the things that we have seen in the modern era is
this handing off of this issue from President Clinton to
President Bush to President Obama, and instead of dropping off,
we have seen an intensification. I think that that is where
political will comes in, not just as far as the presidency, but
as far as the Congress.
One of the things that Secretary Kerry challenged all of us
to do a few weeks ago at one of the staff meetings was to think
about how we bring this up more in our travels. Not just me. Of
course, I am going to bring this up everywhere I go. That is my
job. But the notion of the regional Assistant Secretaries, the
notion of himself when he is talking to Kuwait or someone in
the Gulf to raise those issues.
So I think part of it is raising it. Part of it is when you
are out there, you continuing to raise it. But at the end of
the day, I think that some of the things that we are seeing is
the notion of how do we make that bigger systemic cultural
change? To reject the notion that governments would buy
products made with forced labor. To reject the notion that when
our folks are on travel that they might, you know, go to
prostitutes or engage in things that create the demand.
So I think it is as much the cultural as it is the
programs. Now, clearly, we are going to try to design our
programs well, and we are going to try to disseminate the best
practices as much as we can, but we need your help to create
the political will.
Mr. Crenshaw. Again, I just hope that we, in our country
are not immune to this. We need to raise the visibility, and I
am not blaming other countries any more than I am blaming
ourselves. But I just don't think people focus on this.
I mean, this is awful. We all sit here and say how bad it
is, but somehow it doesn't get the visibility that it deserves.
It needs to be stopped.
Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you to both of the witnesses, Ambassador CdeBaca
and, of course, Mr. Secretary, also, Brownfield. Good seeing
you.
Let me, first of all, I also want to record my support on
what you are all doing for the young girls in the situation in
Nigeria there with the Boko Haram. As the father of two young
girls, I think it is just horrible that parents and the kids
have to go through that particular ugly, ugly, ugly situation.
I know that 3 weeks have gone by. That is a lot of time,
you know, for law enforcement and military. But hopefully, you
all can follow up on those leads, and I would also ask you all
to keep us informed instead of us reading this in the media.
Number two, let me direct my attention to south of our
border with the traffic in Mexico. A couple of issues, Mr.
Secretary. One is, as you know, the Mexican federal government
and the state government deal with human traffic, and there is
a lot of inconsistencies between the states and the federal
government.
I would ask you what are you all doing to help coordinate
that across the 32 states and, of course, the federal
government? What sort of united front are we looking at?
The second thing has to do with the judiciary system,
prosecutors, et cetera. As you know, a fraction of human sex
trafficking is being reported in Mexico, and less than 2
percent are being convicted. You know their conviction rates,
generally speaking, are pretty bad.
And tied into that, I know your boss, Secretary Kerry, and
I disagree with him. I think he is talking about cutting 49
percent of the aid to Mexico. There are some countries that get
over $1 billion, and they are able to have ``the capacity to
handle that.'' But for some reason, Mexico doesn't have the
capacity to do that.
And again, I say that simply because we have got a 2,000-
mile border, and we spend billions of dollars on the U.S. side.
So I would ask you to, you know, if you can address those
questions itself and comment on the last one.
Ambassador Brownfield. Sure. Let me start, Congressman, and
then I will defer to Ambassador CdeBaca, if he has any
trafficking in persons specific comments. And I will give more
of the Merida Initiative approach.
First, the importance of state and local engagement in
Mexico. It is a theme that we have been hammering in our
dialogue, narrative, and engagement with the federal government
of Mexico now for more than 2 years. Both the current
administration and, in its last year, the previous
administration endorsed the concept.
We had about a year during which time, as is to some extent
normal, when a new administration comes to office, most new
programs were paused under Merida. Beginning with the start of
this calendar year, January of 2014, programs have, in fact,
begun again with endorsement and support and agreement by the
national government of Mexico, and a substantial percentage of
those, about 25 percent, are focused on the state and local
municipal institutions in Mexico.
About one quarter are also focused on the office of the
attorney general, the PGR, in the Mexican government as well,
85 million out of 350 million so far agreed to this year. And
that is indicative, I hope, of a commitment, as well as a
realization that prosecutors and a court structure and
administration must be part of any long-term progress in terms
of our cooperation with and engagement in Mexico.
Finally, Congressman, I, of course, will have to start any
commentary in terms of budget requests for support for the
Merida Initiative by saying as a member of the Article II
branch of Government, that, of course, I support the
President's budget request for fiscal year 2015. I, too,
noticed that the request level is 45 percent less than it was
last year.
I will work to ensure maximum effectiveness and value of
whatever budget this body, the United States Congress, chooses
to appropriate and make available to us. But, yes, I, too,
noticed that the request level is 45 percent less than it was
for the year before.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you for your great job, Mr. Secretary.
Appreciate it.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Dent. Mr. Dent is not here.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I am sorry.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Does that mean that I can have his time?
Ms. Granger. No, it does not mean that.
Mr. Cuellar. And I didn't yield any time to him.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for this,
frankly, very, very important hearing.
And again, thank you, gentlemen, for your service to our
country.
Secretary Brownfield, I remember that I had the pleasure of
welcoming you to Miami last summer when the INL and the Port of
Miami signed this Memorandum of Understanding expanding
security collaboration at ports throughout the Caribbean. And
it is an initiative that shares--again, it shares security
threats and strengthens safety.
And because of your efforts, sir, the Miami-Dade Police
Department has trained and graduated members of anti-narcotics
units in the national--in the Haitian National Police,
something that you were trying to get done and you got done,
and obviously without your leadership would have not happened.
I mention that, Madam Chairwoman, because last month I had
the opportunity to visit Haiti with some of my colleagues, and
we met, among others, with the members of the Haitian National
Police Academy. And there, we saw firsthand those efforts, how
members of the Haitian National Police have been training with
the Miami-Dade Police Departments.
We also, by the way, met a group of I think it was 18
women, Haitian National Police cadets, who had just gotten back
from, I think, 9 months of training in Colombia. So I tell you
that, Mr. Secretary, because your efforts and your leadership
have made a huge difference. And I was able to witness it
firsthand in Haiti and also again seeing the efforts that
Colombia, and you were a big part of those efforts when you
were Ambassador there.
So, again, congratulations on a job well done, and it is
great to see.
Ambassador Brownfield. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Let me go a little bit to the issue of a
lot of the violence and the human trafficking, as we all know,
can be attributed to organized crime. And it is also the gang-
related violence or drug smuggling operations that are also
involved in human trafficking.
And according to INL's International Narcotics Control
Strategy Report, 86 percent of the cocaine trafficked to the
United States first transits through Mexico and the Central
American corridor, to you, Mr. Cuellar's point. It goes through
there first. About 75 percent of all cocaine goes, is smuggled
through flights departing South America that first land in
Honduras.
Now strictly on a budgetary issue, Mr. Secretary, the
fiscal year 2015 base budget request for your bureau includes
an overall cut of $284 million, 28 percent. And again,
specifically for the Western Hemisphere, where we have these
issues, that request includes a reduction of $135 million.
So given the increase of violence in Latin America, and we
are seeing what goes on in Latin America with the violence and
drug trafficking and obviously the proximity to the United
States, let me have your comments as to the realistic--is that
funding realistic? Can we really deal, seriously deal with the
challenges that we face in our region with those levels of
reductions in funding?
Ambassador Brownfield. Thank you, Congressman. And
sincerely thank you for your remarks in terms of our efforts to
engage both State and local law enforcement in the United
States, as well as regional efforts in the Caribbean, Central
America, and Mexico in our efforts to address and make progress
on drug trafficking and other law enforcement issues.
Congressman, you put me in a position where once again I
will preface my remarks by saying that I, of course, support
and endorse the President's fiscal year 2015 budget request.
You are correct in your math. The total budget request for
international narcotics control and law enforcement is nearly
30 percent reduced from last year's budget request, and you
could even do the assessment, which I will not do for you here,
as to what the overall State Department budget request has
happened to it between 2014 and 2015. You have those figures
before you already.
I did my own arithmetic while--while listening to you. Our
Colombia budget request is, in fact, down 30 percent. Our
Mexico budget request is down 45 percent. Our CARSI, Central
America budget request is down 30 percent.
I believe we are doing good, important, and necessary work
in each of those budget accounts. I believe they deliver real
value for the American people. I believe we are, in fact,
delivering on each of those program areas. But I, of course,
support and endorse the President's fiscal year 2015 budget
request.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Yoder.
Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony today. A wide
variety of topics that I know you are working on, and we
certainly appreciate your service.
I wanted to ask you a couple of follow-up questions related
to human trafficking, and particularly human trafficking into
the United States. Do we have an idea of how many people are
brought into the United States in a form of either work or sex
slavery or some form of human trafficking into the United
States each year?
How are they most likely to come into the United States; by
what means do they get here? What is their easiest form of
access? Where are they most likely to be from, how we--where
their point of origin is?
And then, just with what basic information, as we debate
solutions to our national immigration challenges in this
country, what components of immigration reform should we look
towards that would help your efforts to combat human
trafficking into the United States?
Ambassador CdeBaca. Thank you, Mr. Yoder, for that
question. I think that it shows the interplay between migration
and human trafficking very well.
Clearly, we have seen over the last 35 years or so, 35 or
40 years, a changing in the percentage of foreign victims of
involuntary servitude and slavery as African-American
communities have had other opportunities and have no longer
been in the fields, on farms and homes around the country. And
that has been replaced by--in many ways by foreign workers,
often from Latin America, but not always.
The vulnerabilities, the previous vulnerabilities of social
exclusion of the black community have been replaced by the
particular vulnerabilities of the immigrant community. Not
having their legal status, not having policing that really is
able to talk to them, the language barriers, the cultural
barriers. Maybe coming from a place where peonage and debt
bondage was the norm, and so they don't even necessarily know
that there is not a difference here in the United States.
The numbers are tough. The United States, for the last 10-
plus years, has chosen not to necessarily try to look at the
numbers of who is coming in. The folks over at the Joint Intel
Center, the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center, are doing
some work on prevalence issues by now looking at it not as what
percentage of border crossers subsequently become enslaved, but
rather looking at the very questions that you were asking.
Of the people who we have rescued, of the people who have
come forward who are getting victim benefits from the
government or from the nongovernmental organizations that we
fund through HHS and others, what was their story? And by
learning from them, by learning from the survivors, I think
that we are actually getting a little bit better idea than in
the early part of the last decade when there was some
preliminary research that didn't really have a strong basis
that was talking about 18,000 people a year.
Rather, one of the things that we are seeing is what do the
victims need, and where are they coming from? Every year, a
large percentage of the foreign victims who are enslaved in the
United States are from Mexico. Other countries such as
Thailand, China, et cetera, kind of rise and fall, depending on
the year, depending on the situation.
We have seen more people entering through either work-based
visas or other legal means than simply coming over the southern
border, although either way the vulnerabilities are present.
And interestingly enough, one of the things that we have been
able to glean from the survivors is that even if they were here
illegally--excuse me, even if they were here legally on a visa
category, the threat of being turned over to the immigration,
even if they didn't do anything wrong, is enough sometimes to
make them submit to the traffickers.
You asked about components of immigration reform, and I
think that is one of the things that we certainly have looked
at. And as you know, the United States has been included now in
the trafficking report for the last few years, and one of the
things that consistently is brought to our attention and that
we report on as one of their particular vulnerabilities is the
fear of the immigrants in going forward to the local police.
Instead of thinking of the local police as being someone
who you can go to for help to get out of a brothel, that you
can go to for help when you have been beaten up in the field or
the house that you work in, rather there is that fear. And
whether it is under 287(g), whether it is under Secure
Communities, whatever we call it, as long as those people are
afraid and in the shadows, somebody is going to take advantage
of them.
Mr. Yoder. Just so I understand your testimony, is it the
majority or a portion? How many of these folks are here under
some sort of legal status, but yet they are being corralled in
a way that are allowing them to be enslaved in some way?
Ambassador CdeBaca. You know, I would have to check in with
the folks over at the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center. I
know that they have been trying to suss out those numbers. That
is something that we can get with them and try to circle back
to you.
Mr. Yoder. I just think for all of us to understand how
this is occurring, how they are getting into the country--Are
they being smuggled in? Are they here legal status?--that has
an impact on how we decide our efforts, where we put our
resources to try to fix the problem.
So thanks for your testimony.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ambassador CdeBaca. Thank you, Mr. Yoder.
Ms. Granger. Thank you very much.
We will have time and make a second round. I will say I
want to associate myself with the concerns on both sides of the
aisle on the President's funding request on issues that that
truly are a crisis. The number of humans trafficked is just
enormous, and then on the poaching situation, I can't even
remember how many meetings I have been to talking about that
situation.
So I won't ask you the question, Ambassador, about wildlife
trafficking, which is less than half of what the Congress
provided in 2014 on this issue. But I will ask you about the
rangers and law enforcement officials. Do they have the
training and the equipment they need to respond?
I know we have talked about--the equipment, the funding
that came from this subcommittee on poaching at one time really
had to do a lot with education, how important it is. And now it
turned to criminal behavior. And so, it has been directed more
to crime fighting because it is a crime.
And so, the equipment that is needed is very different. Are
they getting the equipment they need?
Ambassador Brownfield. I am going to give you a yes and a
no answer, Madam Chairwoman.
We have concluded that given the amount of resources that
we have available to us, that we get greater value by focusing,
at least initially, in training and capacity building. The
argument being that if you give them equipment, but they don't
have the capability, the experience, the understanding in terms
of how to use it effectively, you get very little value from
your equipment. Whereas, if you train them, even if they are
lightly equipped, you get value, and as you can then process or
feed equipment in, they are able to use it more effectively.
We also have to deal with the fact that wildlife--illegal
wildlife trafficking is broadly dispersed, particularly in
Southern and Central Africa. And in order to have an impact
throughout the region from an equipment perspective, it would
come with a price tag that is enormous. I mean, that would
dwarf any amount of money that this subcommittee has so far
thought about to dedicate to the wildlife trafficking issue.
We are trying to compensate to a certain extent for that by
using international organization partners. There is the United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, UNODC, which has taken on
illegal wildlife trafficking as a priority issue. And there is
a consortium of international organizations that goes by the
acronym I-C-C-W-C, or ICCWC, which tries to bring all of the
international organizations together to work in a coherent
manner on illegal wildlife trafficking.
And we believe we can get at least a greater range and
scope for our efforts and our support by using, particularly in
the Africa context, those international organizations.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar. Oh, I am sorry. Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Go ahead. No, you go right ahead.
Mr. Cuellar. Oh, no, no. No. Ranking Member?
Mrs. Lowey. First of all, before I ask a question on
another topic, I want to say bravo. Because my mantra has been
``coordination, coordination, coordination.'' And when we visit
countries, the various people don't even know each other that
we meet at the Ambassador's house.
Thank you. I hope this will be effective.
I also want to say this is one area where there is such
great cooperation between the chair and the ranking member,
between Republicans and Democrats, to increase money for a
particular account, I also want to say bravo. I hope you take
that message back.
I also want to make another quick statement that I was in
Kenya several years ago, I think it was 2007, and the Secretary
gave an extraordinary speech on corruption. The country is just
as corrupt as it was in 2007. So we still have a lot of work to
do in that regard.
But, Mr. Ambassador, I want to focus on children in
adversity and the Action Plan for Children in Adversity to help
increase coordination between 7 agencies, 30 offices on
international programs working with children. The three primary
objectives of APCA are strong beginnings for infants and young
children, a family for every child, protection of children from
abuse, exploitation, violence, and neglect.
Now I know this program is basically USAID. So I would like
to know, since it is a USAID program, what oversight does your
office have on USAID's implementation, and how are you and the
Special Adviser for Children in Adversity coordinating to reach
the intended outcomes of this interagency action plan?
Thank you.
Ambassador CdeBaca. We have been--as you know, there have
been a few changes over at USAID as far as some of the
personnel around that. So that has been one of the things that
we have had to meet that challenge. But I think that what we
have seen is that the action plan and the coming together as
the task force on children in adversity has given a good
platform to really start to front these issues and look at kind
of a coordinated strategy.
Obviously, each of us has our own statutory mandates, and
we have to bring those to bear. But I think that even just the
fact of the working groups, the fact of our staff. The person
who I put on it, I am proud to say, is one of the folks who
started the modern U.S. victim rights movement back in the
1980s and 1990s, a psychologist by training, somebody who is
very familiar with this.
And I think that what this structure has allowed us to do
is identify those people within our own organizations who have
the best insights into the needs of the children in adversity
and come together that way and harness that. So I think it is
something that is really hitting its stride.
Right now, I don't think that we can necessarily say that
there is a project out there that is a specific children in
adversity project that has gone through the entire pipeline.
But I think that we are certainly seeing exactly what you
suggested, which is through this coordination, through this
complementariness between us and USAID, it really is what we
have been striving to do on all of our programs, whether it is
trafficking persons where we have the lead, whether it is them
having the lead on the child protection issues.
Mrs. Lowey. Just in conclusion, because I don't know that
we are going to have another round, I just want to repeat again
my view from the work that we have done together. The American
people are good people. We have a philanthropic sector that
is--frankly, it is not comparable to any other philanthropic
sector anyplace in the world that I have seen.
So I am very pleased, Assistant Secretary Brownfield, that
you talked about the coordination. But as money is tight and as
budgets are going down, and we can mention this area that was
discussed today or other areas, it is so important for you to
share with us your successes. Because there are too many people
who have been our friends, who have been our advocates, that
will tell me, well, what can you really do? Where is this money
really going? We need the money here at home. What are we doing
to accomplish our goals?
So the more you can coordinate and the more you can share
with us your successes, the better the chair and I and the good
members of this committee can back up the importance of this
committee and the work we can do on a whole range of issues.
Ambassador CdeBaca. And ma'am, the notion of the money that
you provide, we are trying to use that as seed money. So if you
look, for instance, at one of our projects in India through
International Justice Mission, so successful in getting people
out of debt bondage that now Google Philanthropy and other
philanthropic organizations are picking up that funding and
running with it.
So we were able to fund proof of concept. We were able to
get it off the ground and really act as an angel investor. I
think that is the future of how we tie in that type of
partnership. So it is not just intergovernmental coordination,
but it is with the philanthropic community as well.
Mrs. Lowey. And with the philanthropic community with deep
pockets, I think it is going to be more important for us than
ever before to coordinate and emphasize what the government
money is doing. We have to get that message out because not
everyone in the Congress are believers as we have here on this
committee.
So thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Let me shift a little bit now to Venezuela, if I may? INL's
2014 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report lists
Venezuela as both a major money laundering country and a major
drug transit country. The report goes on to say that in 2013
Venezuela and U.S. counternarcotics authorities increased
regular communications and some case-by-case cooperation. But
the fact remains that Venezuela is a major, major--again, as I
just mentioned, we have a major problem with Venezuela.
Despite the fact that on the surface, there would seem to
be some bilateral communications, Venezuela is also listed as a
Tier 2 watch list country. And according to State's Trafficking
in Persons report, Venezuela is a source of transit, a
destination country for men, women, and children subjected to
sex trafficking and forced labor.
We have seen in the past, and I don't have to get into
details, but we have seen in the past how the Venezuelan
military has been a part of the problem there. So let me ask
you gentlemen, with the--again, the report talks about a porous
border with Colombia, the fact the FARC next door, the
proximity to the Caribbean. What role is now, if any that you
can tell us, does the Venezuelan military play in the drug
trade, also in the human trafficking trade?
If you want to talk about that, and also is drug
trafficking and human trafficking a revenue source for the
Venezuelan government? If you could just comment on both those
issues, all those issues?
Ambassador Brownfield. Shall I start, Lu? Congressman, in
about the year 2005, 2006, during the tenure of an obviously
very unsuccessful United States Ambassador to Venezuela, the
government at that time elected to cease direct cooperation
with United States Government on drug trafficking issues and,
in a natural process of attrition, eventually attrited down the
U.S. presence at the embassy through DEA to support drug
trafficking. I think they hit bottom at a number of one,
leading the then-subsequent Ambassador never to allow that poor
rascal ever to leave country for fear that he would never be
allowed back in.
As a consequence, we, on an interagency basis and an
international basis, developed a strategy, which I guess I call
the periphery strategy, and that is operate on the assumption
that you do not have cooperation from the government itself and
try to address the problem through partners that surround that
particular country. And it produced some results, I would
argue. Certainly better than not doing anything at all. And
every other government of every other country that surrounds
Venezuela did cooperate in this effort.
As our INCS report for 2012-2013 notes, sometime in the
course of the year 2013, for the first time in like 6 or 7
years, there was evidence of some effort on the part of the
government to address drug trafficking. Your guess is as good
as mine as to why.
Was it because they realized that the amount of product
that was transiting through Venezuela had exploded by a factor
of 10 between roughly 2004 and 2010? Was it because they
realized that their own institutions were being hollowed out
and corrupted by billions and billions of dollars of illicit
revenue? Or was it a power struggle within--within and between
members of the government itself?
I don't know for sure. We did acknowledge there were some
steps. There was some communication, and quite frankly, there
was evidence of a reduction in the amount of air traffic that
was flowing from Venezuela north through the Central America-
Mexico corridor.
We still have a challenge there. There still is an
estimated 200 tons of cocaine that processes, in our judgment,
through Venezuela every year, compared to an estimated 15 to 20
tons 10 years ago. We still have a challenge. I believe it is
only right that I acknowledge those areas of progress while at
the same time state we clearly have a challenge remaining to
address.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Madam Chairman, it is yellow, but if later
on, you want to also deal with Ecuador, speaking of Ecuador, of
a problem where they expelled 20 civilian military DoD
employees. And that is another area.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Let me direct your attention back to transnational crime in
Mexico since we got a 1,954-mile border with Mexico. We were in
Mexico City with some members of the Appropriations, including
Chairman Rogers, a couple of weeks ago. One of the things we
spoke about in our discussion with President Pena Nieto and
some of the Mexican officials was the southern border, and the
three-ring strategy.
So I would like to get your thoughts on the three-ring
strategy on the southern border, which includes Guatemala and
Belize. Number one, your thoughts on that to help stop some of
the drugs and people coming in from Central and South America.
Number two, I wish Mexico would establish--I know there is
a pilot program, a small pilot program on having joint border
patrol work together on the U.S. and Mexican side. I wish they
would do that for the whole northern border.
And then the third thing is what caught my attention since
Texas has allied with Tamaulipas, and you know the state of
Tamaulipas, where it is Matamoros or Reynosa or Nuevo Laredo,
those areas, I mean, that state is in very, very difficult,
very violent situation. The Mexicans at least in Mexico City
said they are going to start sending reinforcements. When, how
much, I know their resources are being stretched so many ways,
but I wish they would do that because that ties in directly to
our border there.
So your thoughts on a joint Mexican border patrol; two, the
southern border; and number three, Tamaulipas.
Ambassador Brownfield. Sure. Thanks, Congressman.
May I suggest, since I am not unaware of the fact that
there are at least three Texans sitting in the room right now--
two sitting on the panel up there and one sitting at the table
right here--you make a good point when you remind us and we
remind ourselves that when we say southern border, we are
thinking one thing. When citizens of Mexico say southern
border, they are thinking another thing. But the truth of the
matter is we actually have interest in cooperating at both of
those borders.
I do not have the figures with me right now, although I
suspect I could get them within about an hour. But at this
point, the overwhelming majority of those entering the United
States without proper documentation across our border are, in
fact, not citizens of Mexico. They are citizens of, for the
most part, Central American countries.
Mr. Cuellar. By 53 percent.
Ambassador Brownfield. And in order to enter through the
U.S. Southwest border, they obviously must have a process
through Mexico. And if there were a stronger, more modern, more
effective system of controls along Mexico's southern border,
that would actually have a positive impact for the United
States of America as well.
So we have signaled, we have said, and I do intend to
support efforts to work with, cooperate with, the government of
Mexico in their efforts to strengthen and modernize their own
border. A much less complicated process, for reasons of
geography. Our border, up between Mexico and the U.S., as you
point out, is about 2,000-plus miles long. The border between
them and Central America is about 1/10th of that length.
Joint patrols. I would--I would say to you we have been
working on this issue with the government of Mexico for a
number of years. There are sensitivities that you, more so
probably than anyone in this room, Congressman, are aware of in
terms of Mexican willingness to work jointly with uniformed
members of the United States Government or, for that matter,
the State governments of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and
California.
I believe we are making progress in that area. We should do
it, in my opinion, one step at a time, and we should be careful
not to talk too much about it, at least in the early stages,
for fear of spooking those that are carefully trying to do such
patrolling in the border regions between the United States and
Mexico.
Third--fire away.
Ambassador CdeBaca. I am going to take this as Secretary
Brownfield's third, if I might? One of the things that we have
seen that has been very effective on the anti-trafficking front
is not joint patrol at the border patrol level, but with
interior enforcement. And we have been able to work with the
Mexican government now in the last few years so that they can
come to the United States, take affidavits from the victims in
the U.S. that they can use in court in Mexico.
Saves the wear and tear on the victims. They can be
interviewed in a responsible way. It doesn't retraumatize them.
It is allowing us to share our skills with our Mexican
counterparts, and it is one of the first times that we have
actually seen that notion of joint law enforcement really
working.
And I think that it is because we see it as a shared
responsibility toward those Mexican citizens who found
themselves enslaved, whether it was in Mexico or here. It is
allowing us to trace the networks all the way from New York
City down to a small town in Tlaxcala. And if it wasn't for
that kind of cooperation between the two police forces, it
wouldn't be happening.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Some Members have one last
question, and then I will wrap up.
Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Just if you gentlemen want to, you know, Mr. Secretary, you
talked about in the case of Venezuela you look at other
partners. Now, for example, Ecuador is now a serious problem.
If you want to just briefly touch on your thoughts on that?
And lastly, we heard recently, and I think he also
testified to the fact, but General John F. Kelly, who is the
commander of USSOUTHCOM, stated that--and let me just make sure
that I get this right--because of asset shortfalls that, in
essence, we are unable to get after 74 percent of suspected
maritime drug smuggling. He went on to say that a much larger
amount of drugs will flow up from Latin America and that he
believes that U.S. authorities only seize about 20 percent of
the narcotics in transit to the United States.
And a lot of times, by the way, he sees them coming up, but
he doesn't have the assets. This is the United States of
America we are talking about, in our hemisphere doesn't have
the assets to go after them. So it would seem to me that that
would be probably one of the most cost-effective ways to deal
with that.
Now, gentlemen, do you agree with General Kelly's
assessment that we are basically only seizing about 20 percent
of the narcotics heading to the United States? And again, we
have to remember that the same folks that are responsible for
drug trafficking, these organized crime groups, tend to be a
lot of the same folks who do human trafficking, that do a lot
of other--frankly, you know, commit a lot of other atrocities.
So let me just kind of throw those both open-ended
questions to you to finalize.
Ambassador Brownfield. Congressman, may I take your first
question first? In some ways, that is the easiest one, and that
is the state of play in our cooperation with and engagement in
Ecuador.
There has been public and press play on the fact that the
government of Ecuador has announced their intention that the
United States military group will close down and depart
Ecuador. They have not announced, but I am quite prepared to
acknowledge it right now, the INL section, which has been in
Ecuador now for more than 30 years, is also going to close up
shop, and we will have them all out by the end of September of
this year.
There, I think, is going to be one program that extends
into the next fiscal year, but you may assume that that
decision reflects the reality of the nature of the cooperation
that we have with that government as well. And I am not trying
to make a political point. I am merely acknowledging where
things stand right now in that regard.
Your second, larger question, the simplest answer, of
course, is I would never disagree with General Kelly. He is
much bigger than I am and, quite frankly, I suspect could wipe
the floor with me at any time he might choose to do so. But I
do not disagree in this particular instance because he is in a
position to offer a fairly accurate assessment of what, in his
judgment, is getting through, to use kind of a simple term.
And it allows me to make a point that I would have made to
Mrs. Lowey had time not run out, and that is the challenge that
we now confront, ladies and gentlemen of the subcommittee, is
we do not have the sorts of budget and resources that we have
had in past years. We do have to figure out, to use the truism,
how to do more with less.
We have got to explore things such as how to work in the
interagency community to find out if other parts of the United
States Government can perform missions that we previously were
doing, but that are roughly consistent with what they are going
to be doing anyway. What can we do with international
organizations that we haven't done in the past? What can we
squeeze out of other potential donors?
Because one of the things that is happening on the drug
front, Congressman, is much of that cocaine, which, for the
last 50 years, flowed from the South to North America, is now
flowing east-west. It is flowing from South America to West
Africa and Europe or to East Asia. Might we find greater
cooperation and willingness to participate by some of them as
donors?
And finally, even in my line of work, what philanthropic
organizations would be prepared to support us? There are very
few that work with law enforcement entities, but there are
those that do demand and--drug demand reduction, that do
treatment and rehabilitation. I believe that is our challenge
in this front for the years to come.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, in closing, one comment and then a
question. I have enormous respect, as you can see, for both
Assistant Secretary Brownfield and Ambassador CdeBaca, but
neither of you have addressed what you are going to do, what
are you doing with regard to this--there aren't even words to
express what just happened in Nigeria and Boko Haram. So I may
give you the opportunity if the red light--you can think about
it, the red light doesn't go on.
But I also want to ask you a more general question. Natural
disasters, such as the earthquake in Haiti or the hurricane in
the Philippines, or manmade disasters, such as the civil war in
Syria, cause massive movements of people and are fertile ground
for transnational criminal organizations.
Each year, millions of people are also affected by smaller
disasters--floods, droughts--many of which go unreported are
recurring and destroy livelihoods. These small-scale chronic
disasters roll back development gains, trap people in cycles of
poverty, and make them vulnerable to abuse, exploitation, and
violence.
So are there lessons that you have learned from the
conflicts in Syria, the massive movements of people? How can we
mitigate the exploitation of these refugees and displaced
persons?
In your opinion, what is preventing the U.S. Government and
the international community from disrupting and dismantling
current transnational crime? Is there a need to expand or
adjust existing congressional authorities to combat the
combined transnational crime threats? Are the available U.S.
foreign policy tools sufficient to meet today's challenges? And
are such tools effectively implemented? If not, what can we
improve?
And I want to go back to that first comment I made,
Assistant Secretary Brownfield. You may be getting cuts, but
there is still a lot of money out there. We are still the most
generous nation in the world, and I hate to say this as a
Democrat, but we can't always be asking for more money.
We have to constantly look at how we are coordinating, how
we are using the money. So perhaps you can respond to these
root causes of transnational crime and what you are doing about
it?
Ambassador CdeBaca. One of the things that we have really
been looking at over the last few years, the Haiti earthquake I
think brought it home to us, but it is something that we had
always been focused on. And frankly, with the help of our
colleagues at PRM, we are all part of the now what we are
calling the ``J enterprise.'' We all report to the same Under
Secretary.
And Under Secretary Sewall I think is keenly interested in
figuring out how she can leverage all of our synergies together
so that we don't have me working on one thing, Ambassador
Brownfield working on something else, Anne Richard in PRM going
in a different direction. And I think that Haiti really showed
us the necessity for that.
As is often the case, the first response is going to be
something that USAID and often the military commands are in
charge of. PRM is often going to be coming in very quickly
thereafter, using its implementing partners like the
International Organization for Migration and others to try to
set up shelters, to try to set up the refugee camps and other
things.
But then we have recognized, and we are thinking that it is
about a 6- to 9-month lag time that the traffickers then start
coming. They start coming to the refugee camps. People start
leaving the refugee camps because they are not feeling that
their needs are being met, and they are vulnerable to the
allure of the traffickers. And not just the sex traffickers who
are almost overtly kidnapping, but even the labor recruiters
saying come up and we will see something somewhere else.
One of the things that we have heard from the International
Organization for Migration, who is the holder of our emergency
services contract, is that they are starting to see women now
in the Angeles City and Manila area who are coming up from the
typhoon damage. That hadn't been happening, but because we use
them for anti-trafficking work as well as PRM using them to try
to come in and set up shelter and emergency camps and things
like that, we think that we have got a bit of an early warning
system through the IOM.
I do think that there continues to be a challenge, though,
because the response is often let us just get the pallets of
order in, and we will deal with the Mafia later. But the Mafia
guys are already starting to preposition their responses, and
we have seen that in southeastern Europe with the Bulgarians
coming around where the new Syrian refugees are, just as much
as we are seeing it in the Philippines.
And I would be happy to address the Nigeria situation as
well, depending on how much time.
Mrs. Lowey. Maybe because it is the end and because I know
how passionately our chair is concerned, we can let you respond
to Nigeria as well. Is that okay?
Ms. Granger. Sure. Absolutely.
Ambassador CdeBaca. One of the things that we have seen in
Nigeria over the last few years is the power of innovation, the
National Agency for the Prevention of Trafficking, or it is
called NAPTIP, which is atypical for its nimbleness in perhaps
the Nigerian government, especially on the security side, is a
small group that is doing some very good things.
We have not yet been able to get in touch with them as far
as the situation because I think it is largely being dealt with
as a security issue. Certainly the United States help that you
may have heard about, which Secretary Kerry offered and that
President Jonathan welcomed yesterday, is more operational than
it is programmatic.
And so, I think that what we will be doing with the NAPTIP,
the National Agency to Prevent Trafficking in Persons, is to
follow up with our counterparts and our colleagues then to try
to make sure that their expertise is actually brought to bear.
They are unique in Africa in that they are not simply a police
force. They are a combination of police, prosecutors, and
social workers because they realize that you have to think
about the psychosocial response and the victim care once you
are dealing with a trafficking case.
This is something--this situation is something that is
going to dwarf them as far as what they have done in a given
year in the past if, indeed, they are brought in to bear. And
we want to make sure that we are as supportive of our
colleagues as possible.
And I think it is that kind of follow-up, and I know that
Assistant Secretary Brownfield has been looking at various
policing support as well, and I don't know, Bill, if you want
to?
Ambassador Brownfield. Sure, I can give it just 30 seconds,
Madam Chairwoman. I mean, as----
Mrs. Lowey. We got the okay.
Ambassador Brownfield. Our assessment right now is that
there is an urgent crisis in Nigeria. It is an operational
crisis, and that is to say to rescue some 300 girls who have
been kidnapped and are being, at a minimum, misused, if not
worse, in terms of what Boko Haram is doing. That is an
operational issue. That is a security issue. And the people
from the United States Government that are now in the lead are
AFRICOM and the Department of Defense and the FBI representing
the Federal law enforcement community.
That is not a foreign assistance issue. That is an
operational issue. It is a foreign assistance issue for which I
will be held accountable for us to try to develop programs,
equipment, training, capacity building, exchanges that will
actually improve the capabilities of Nigerian law enforcement
to prevent this from happening again and to be more effective
and more responsive against those that would attempt to repeat
this sort of thing.
And that is our challenge, to be able to take on that
activity without undercutting the immediate urgent requirement
to put 100 percent of all available assets on the mission of
rescuing these girls.
Mrs. Lowey. As you know, and Madam Chair and I have talked
about this, in Nigeria the government has not responded. And we
are dealing with governments that are in too many places
corrupt and do not respond.
We keep hearing, for example, in Haiti that there are
10,000 NGOs, and I am sure they are all doing good work. We
have sent billions of dollars, as have others, but there may be
questions about the government in Haiti as to their
effectiveness, their efficiency, and their concern about doing
the right thing.
So we know the challenges that you have, and I know that
you have a great deal of support from all of us, and we look
forward to continuing to work with you to make sure that all
our assets, all the good people like yourselves that are
working on these issues are coordinated as effectively as we
can, despite failings in government leadership in too many
parts of the world.
And I thank you. Turn it back to the chair. Thank you very
much.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
I just have just three brief not questions, just comments
as we went through this. One of them had just what Mrs. Lowey
was talking about, the coordination.
Before I even came on the subcommittee, I was asked by the
State Department to take a delegation to look at human
trafficking. And I remember we had a meeting, and I was asked,
you know, when you think about human trafficking, where do you
think it is the most prevalent? And I was wrong on every count.
And it is sometimes countries that we don't expect. And so,
there has to be a better awareness. And on this trip that we
took, we went to donor countries. Moldova was one of them. And
recipient. And Greece was one of them. And I think about when
we are--when we are working, we, as the United States, there
may be less funding, but there is not less attention and not
less leadership. And that is what has to occur.
In this case, in Moldova, met personally and helped a young
woman who had been kidnapped, and she was in Turkey and she
tried to escape. She crawled out a window of a seven-story
building because the entire building was filled with people who
had been trafficked.
She fell to the sidewalk. The police found her, found that
she was--what happened to her, and gave her back to the people
that were trafficking her. And I know you see that still today.
And she finally escaped another time, but at great cost to her.
So we know so much. There is just so far we can go with how
we identify more. We need to attack the problem, and it is just
horrendous.
The other thing has to do with the use of technologies, and
I think about all the improvements and what we know about DNA.
And I just think it is a real opportunity in making sure we are
using the technologies today in trafficking.
In Africa, where--and I think it made a huge difference
when I saw it, and it is more attention now, but identifying
where they are truly killing whole herds, poisoning the water,
all that is happening. And the use of drones to see where are
they when it is happening I think we need to certainly--and
that we would certainly consider. And that is a coordination
situation again, and we just have to do it the very best we
can.
I appreciate the work both of you have done and continue to
do. And please keep us involved. Obviously, we are passionate
about this.
I thank you for appearing before this subcommittee today.
Members may submit any additional questions for the record.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Granger. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations,
and Related Programs stands adjourned.
WITNESSES
----------
Page
Brownfield, Ambassador William................................... 839
CdeBaca, Ambassador Luis......................................... 839
Gast, Earl....................................................... 691
Herrling, Sheila................................................. 691
Kerry, Hon. J. F................................................. 1
Mendelson, Dr. S. E.............................................. 795
Mendes, Andre.................................................... 803
Power, Samantha.................................................. 597
Shah, Dr. Rajiv.................................................. 431
Thomas-Greenfield, Linda......................................... 691
Zeya, Uzra....................................................... 786
[all]