[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2017
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
_________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
KAY GRANGER, Texas, Chairwoman
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida NITA M. LOWEY, New York
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BARBARA LEE, California
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
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, David Bortnick, and Clelia Alvarado,
Staff Assistants
_________
PART 5
Page
Assistance to Combat Wildlife Trafficking...................... 1
United States Engagement in Central America.................... 61
Department of State and Foreign Assistance..................... 175
Department of the Treasury International Programs.............. 341
United States Agency for International Development............. 413
_________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
21-440 WASHINGTON : 2016
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey NITA M. LOWEY, New York
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
KAY GRANGER, Texas PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
KEN CALVERT, California SAM FARR, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BARBARA LEE, California
TOM GRAVES, Georgia MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
KEVIN YODER, Kansas BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas STEVE ISRAEL, New York
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska TIM RYAN, Ohio
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
DAVID G. VALADAO, California MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland DEREK KILMER, Washington
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida
DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
William E. Smith, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2017
----------
Wednesday, February 3, 2016.
OVERSIGHT HEARING--ASSISTANCE TO COMBAT WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING
WITNESSES
HON. WILLIAM R. BROWNFIELD, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF
INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AFFAIRS,
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
HON. ERIC G. POSTEL, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
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 oversight of assistance to combat
wildlife trafficking. I would like to welcome our two
witnesses, Ambassador William Brownfield, Assistant Secretary
of the Bureau of Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement Affairs,
Department of State; and Mr. Eric Postel, Associate
Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development.
This hearing will address an issue we have followed closely
for several years--international wildlife trafficking. This is
a crisis and we must address it in an urgent manner. We can't
afford to do business as usual.
Not only are unique species at risk, but the continued
surge in wildlife trafficking threatens international security
and stability.
The numbers are staggering: Over 120,000 African elephants
were killed between 2010 and 2013. The current population is
estimated at 400,000 to 600,000, down from 1.2 million in 1980.
In South Africa, a record 1,214 rhinos were poached in
2014. Just 7 years earlier, that number was 13. Again, 7 years
ago it was 13. Then, in 2014, 2015. Last week, South Africa
released numbers for 2015 that showed a small decrease for the
first time since 2007, but we know that rhino poaching has
increased substantially in neighboring countries. These are
just a few examples, but there are many other species that are
suffering the same fate.
There is also a human toll. We know that hundreds of park
rangers have been killed by poachers, and just earlier this
week there were news reports of a conservationist being shot
while working to protect wildlife in Tanzania.
Extremely sophisticated criminal networks, some with links
to terrorists, are profiting from poaching. The illegal trade
in wildlife is estimated at $8 billion to $10 billion annually.
We can't afford to sit and think about what to do. We have to
act.
From fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2016, the
subcommittee appropriated $180 million for wildlife
trafficking. We want to hear about how this funding is being
used to combat poaching and trafficking of wildlife, as well as
to reduce demand for illegal wildlife products.
There is a greater awareness of the problem today, but
there is still so much work that must be done. The President
issued an executive order in 2013 that we have a national
strategy in place. There is a lot of talk about plans, but the
subcommittee needs to hear about actions.
A common complaint is that there is very little information
publicly available on what the U.S. Government is doing to
address the crisis. The subcommittee needs an update on how
much of the funding has been spent, what has been achieved so
far, how you evaluate programs, and what you plan to focus on
going forward that will turn this tide and help bring an end to
the illegal killing of these animals.
Corruption is one of the main challenges we face in
countries where wildlife trafficking is most prevalent. The
funding we provide around the world must address this issue
also.
It is going to take a serious and sustained effort across
the U.S. Government to make a real difference, and I hope you
will be able to share with the subcommittee how the Department
of State and USAID are doing just that.
I will now turn to my ranking member, Mrs. Lowey, for her
opening remarks.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Opening Statement of Mrs. Lowey
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, for
calling this hearing.
And welcome, Assistant Secretary Brownfield and Associate
Administrator Postel. I join Chairwoman Granger in welcoming
you and thanking you for your service.
I also want to thank the chairwoman for convening this
hearing on a topic of critical national security importance.
Not only does illegal wildlife trafficking destroy some of the
world's most treasured wildlife species for future generations,
this criminal enterprise finances terrorist groups and
militias, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Groups like Al Shabaab, Joseph Kony's Lord's Resistance
Army, and the Sudanese Janjaweed have turned poaching and the
illicit trade in endangered and threatened wildlife into one of
the most lucrative criminal activities worldwide, estimated by
the U.N. Environmental Programme between $50 billion and $150
billion annually.
With the prospect of such large financial gain, poachers
and traffickers have taken advantage of weak governments, law
enforcement, porous borders, corrupt officials, and decimated
elephant and rhinoceros populations. It is staggering that the
elephant population in Africa has been reduced by one-half to
two-thirds since 1980 and that rhino poaching increased by
7,000 percent between 2007 and 2014.
In order to stop fueling the ruthless destruction of
African wildlife and thwart a major financing source for
terrorists, it is clear that our efforts must be better
coordinated across a wide spectrum of actors: Law enforcement,
port and border security, environment experts, NGOs, the
private sector, multilateral institutions, and the leaders of
countries where the demand for elephant tusk and rhino horn is
most insatiable.
In short, we need to focus on turning wildlife crime from a
low-risk, high-reward enterprise to one of high risk and low
reward.
The administration's 2014 National Strategy to Combat
Wildlife Trafficking was an important step in helping to
prioritize and coordinate our considerable domestic and
international response. I am interested to hear from you about
its implementation and whether we are making progress.
Specifically, are there gaps in our response that need to be
addressed?
I hope you will also update the subcommittee on China's
level of cooperation as well as the other East Asian countries
fueling this crisis. What progress has China made on its
commitment to ban ivory imports and exports? How much pressure
is the administration placing on other countries to do the
same?
Wildlife trafficking undermines much of the development
progress we have made in Africa. It destroys livelihoods for
impoverished communities, decimates landscapes, undermines
security in the rule of law. That is why this subcommittee
allocated $80 million in last year's omnibus for your agencies'
efforts to combat poaching, a significant increase over fiscal
year 2015.
While there is broad bipartisan support for this funding, I
hope you will assure members of this subcommittee that these
funds are being put to good use and we are making appreciable
gains. I look forward to your testimony.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Granger. I now call 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.
The entire committee, all the members, are very interested in
this issue. Your full written statements will be placed in the
record.
We will begin with Assistant Secretary Brownfield.
Opening Statement of Ambassador Brownfield
Mr. Brownfield. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member
Lowey, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today.
My thanks as well to the gentleman seated two rows behind
me, to my right, for the loan of these reading glasses,
permitting me to sound stupid on the basis of what I actually
say and not due to blindness.
I am here, members of the subcommittee, to discuss INL's
efforts against wildlife trafficking. Had I appeared 4 years
ago, I would have described a program budget of less than
$100,000. I would have lauded the noble work of USAID, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the conservation community in
protecting endangered species.
I would have spoken little of law enforcement. And I would
have been wrong, because wildlife trafficking is organized
criminal trafficking. And whether drugs, people, firearms,
contraband, or slaughtered wildlife, countertrafficking
strategies are similar.
We attack traffickers at the source, where the product is
created or the animals butchered. We attack traffickers in
transit at chokepoints along border crossings, airports, and
seaports. We attack traffickers' distribution systems at market
destination, and we attack their financial systems at every
stop along the way.
In 2012, following a robust kick in the pants by this
subcommittee, Federal law enforcement joined U.S. Fish and
Wildlife colleagues in combatting wildlife trafficking. The
President issued an executive order in 2013, followed by a
government-wide national strategy in 2014, and the interagency
community promulgated an implementation roadmap last year.
INL pursues an international strategy built around four
pillars. First, we develop legislative frameworks against
wildlife trafficking. Law enforcement cannot combat trafficking
if it is not a crime. Second, we build capacity to investigate
and capture traffickers. This is normally a combination of
equipment and training. Third, we strengthen capability to
prosecute and convict traffickers. Law enforcement accomplishes
little if traffickers are not tried and punished. And finally,
we facilitate regional and global cooperation in both
international organizations and cross-border cooperation.
Congress, and this subcommittee in particular, have been
generous in supporting this effort, appropriating nearly $100
million for these international efforts since 2013. You have
every right to ask what this investment has produced.
Today, INL manages more than $50 million in wildlife
trafficking programs in 30 countries. Last year, we trained
more than 1,000 law enforcement and justice officials in 50
sessions around the world. This year, we will train at all of
our ILEAs and not just those in Africa and Southeast Asia.
Last year, the Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania Operation Worthy II
led to the arrest of 376 criminals, seizure of 4.4 tons of
ivory and rhino horn, and dismantling of several trafficking
networks. We developed a pilot K-9 detection program in key
ports in Uganda, Tanzania, and Kenya. The dogs deployed to
Kenyatta International Airport, and four seizures were made
during the very first week.
There are operational Wildlife Enforcement Networks in
Southeast Asia, South Asia, North America, and Central America
providing coordination, cooperation, and intelligence exchange.
New WENs are getting underway elsewhere in Africa and Asia.
We placed wildlife trafficking on the agenda of U.N.
organizations. In 2015, the U.N. General Assembly passed a
resolution calling on all member states to make wildlife
trafficking involving organized criminal groups a serious
crime.
You will tell me, Madam Chairwoman, correctly, that much
more needs to be done, and I will agree. We are still behind in
this race to prevent extermination of some of the noblest
species on the planet. But I would like to think that the
traffickers can hear our footsteps approaching from behind.
I thank the committee, and I look forward to your questions
and comments.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Opening Statement of Mr. Postel
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Postel, you are now recognized.
Mr. Postel. Good morning, Chairwoman Granger, Ranking
Member Lowey, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I
would like to thank you for holding this hearing and giving me
the opportunity to testify.
The United States Agency for International Development
continues to be deeply concerned by the current poaching and
illegal fishing crisis. Like my State Department colleagues
here today, we strongly believe that the slaughter of thousands
of animals and the murder of park rangers trying to protect
these species must be stopped.
Protecting wildlife is also critically important to USAID's
mission to end extreme poverty. The rural poor often
disproportionately depend on natural resources for their
survival. The illegal wildlife trade threatens tourism that
sustains developing economies. It fosters corruption, as you
mentioned, undermines the rule of law, and discourages foreign
investment.
USAID is dedicated to building on our longstanding
commitment to protect wildlife by both continuing to invest in
strategies that work and testing new, innovative approaches. In
accordance with the President's National Strategy for
Combatting Wildlife Trafficking, our approach is focused on the
entire chain involved in this, deploying a combination of
tactics to address the complex problem.
With your generous support, we have increased our
investment to fight wildlife trafficking from $13 million in
fiscal year 2012 to more than $55 million in fiscal year 2014.
We have launched 35 new programs in the last 2 years, in
addition to 30 that were already underway. The results are
modestly encouraging, but much, much remains to be done.
Last year, in addition to the work that INL is doing, we
worked with another about 1,000 people across Asia and Africa
to train them and help them use the skills they gained to
contribute to the arrest of more than 500 poachers and
traffickers.
In the Philippines, an anonymous hotline generated more
than 3,000 reports of illegal fishing that led to 25 arrests in
6 months. That model is now being deployed in seven more marine
areas in the Philippines.
Sustained long-term investment in community conservation in
Nepal has resulted in the third consecutive year with no tigers
or rhinos being poached in the country. And where this model
can and is replicated, such as in northern Kenya, we are seeing
some similar results.
To dry up the market for illegal wildlife products, we also
have supported demand reduction campaigns that reach more than
740 million people in Asia. We are optimistic that our efforts,
in combination with the efforts of others in our government and
around the world and many different organizations, are
contributing to a downward trend in ivory consumption in the
last year or so, as new research seems to be suggesting.
In all cases, partnerships with government, partnerships
with the private sector, with NGOs and civil society, are
critically important. Our latest one involves working with
representatives from key transportation and logistics companies
and associations to address the role of transport companies in
ending the illegal wildlife trade.
And technology has an important potential to help us scale
the reach and the impact of these interventions. Our Wildlife
Crime Tech Challenge, which we did in partnership with National
Geographic, the Smithsonian, and an NGO named TRAFFIC, recently
announced 16 winners from around the world. These extraordinary
innovators propose solutions that will help contribute to
shutting down transit routes, strengthening evidence on the
forensic side, reducing demand, or combating corruption.
But despite these modest successes, the illegal wildlife
trade, as you eloquently described, continues at unacceptable
levels. Enormous challenges remain. Widespread corruption
obstructs progress and many governments lack enough training
and resources and, most importantly, the will to respond
effectively.
USAID will continue to respond aggressively to the crisis,
strengthened by cooperation with new partners and counterparts
in Congress and across the United States executive branch. Our
response will require we pay attention to the whole problem,
supporting law enforcement efforts on the ground, addressing
the root cause of demand, supporting effective and accountable
institutions, and investing in communities to end extreme
poverty and enable them to have alternatives to poaching.
Thank you all for your interest and strong leadership on
this topic. I look forward to your questions and to your
counsel.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Granger. Thank you very much.
I want to follow up on what you talked about in hearing
from people and what they are doing around the world, because
we really, as I said earlier, we can't conduct business as
usual with this situation.
The subcommittee held a series of roundtable discussions
with conservation groups working in the field, and last year we
heard from Tsavo Conservation Group that uses unique strategies
to address wildlife poaching. Nontraditional partners like
Tsavo sometimes have a difficult time being successful in
receiving USAID funds. So what can USAID do to ensure funds are
available to organizations doing important work, even though
they have not had experience working with USAID in the past?
Mr. Postel. Thank you for the question.
As somebody who in my own business 20 years ago encountered
some of the challenges of learning how to work with the Federal
Government, I am very attuned to this, and under two successive
administrators we have been working hard to be more open and to
help people understand what is involved.
I am very pleased that in Kenya one of the most recent
procurements had, out of the six partners that are involved,
five are new, one is an existing one. And we are trying, both
on the level of the countries as well as in Washington, to have
a lot more openness about what is coming, what are the
opportunities.
And also we know that some organizations need help with
their capacity. So in a recent posting of a new grant
opportunity in Kenya, they built into that the ability that
some of the funds would be used--of course the bulk of it for
working on this issue--but a very modest amount to help the
organizations themselves improve their capacity.
And similarly, in Washington, for instance, in the E3
Bureau, semiannually we do what we call an open house, and we
publicize it through FedBizOpps and all kinds of other ways. We
had 600 people there last week, more than half were new. And
literally, every office director and their team is required to
be there so that people can have a two-way dialogue, not only
about opportunities directly to work with us, but to give us
feedback on how to improve.
So we are not in the perfect place, but I think we are
making progress. The SBA seems to think so because we went from
a C grade a few years ago to an A last year. So we have to keep
working this. There are more improvements to be made. But we
are definitely trying to be much better on that score.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. As a former schoolteacher, I
appreciate going to the A's.
Ambassador Brownfield, we have heard from rangers and other
law enforcement about the equipment they need to address
poaching. In 2014, I asked you about the equipment and you said
you wanted to focus on training first. So now that several
years have passed, could you give us an update on equipment and
how that has been provided and what additional equipment you
might need?
Mr. Brownfield. Sure. Madam Chairwoman, our thought process
remains the same as when we started, which is to say our first
focus is capacity building and training, and then as they
develop the capabilities to make use of the equipment, then we
phase the equipment in.
In the course of the past year we have done some basic
equipment provisions to both Tanzania and South African law
enforcement, overwhelming rangers or those that are involved in
ranger activity. Some of it has been gear that allows them to
operate in wilderness-type environments. Some of it has been
more specialized.
For example, I believe, last week, if not this week,
Secretary Jewell is in South Africa, and she was able to
participate in a donation ceremony of night vision goggles for
South African park rangers in the expectation that they will be
used in their efforts to locate, identify, and take steps
against poachers as part of their regular work and their
regular activity.
I suppose I would change what I said to you in 2014 when I
said we will be overwhelmingly training now, to suggest that
2016 is the point where we should be seeing--and you have every
right to expect to see--greater provision of equipment as the
thousand or so a year that we train come online and are in a
position to use them.
At the same time, I feel it only fair to tell the
committee, our approach in INL is to defer substantially to the
judgment of our chiefs of mission in those countries and their
country teams to tell us when these units, when these policing
or law enforcement organizations are capable of making good use
of the equipment.
What we don't want to do is come back and report to you
that we have provided millions of dollars of equipment and
cannot at this time account for it or tell you where it has
gone. I predict that by the time you summon me here by the end
of this year, I will be in a position to talk much more than
just Tanzania and South Africa as recipients of equipment from
INL.
Ms. Granger. And I hope you will be.
Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
There has been a great deal of discussion this morning on
the enforcement efforts to combat wildlife crime. And this is a
serious part of the problem and one we all take very seriously.
But with a challenge this varied and involving so many
players, I hope the approach of the U.S. Government is balanced
and broad. For example, we all know that the lack of economic
prospects often drives communities to become complicit in
poaching or resistant to enforcement of antipoaching laws.
So from encouraging community conservation to reducing
demand and the economic benefits of poaching, how does our
approach ensure that every angle of this problem is tackled?
You can each decide who goes first.
Mr. Postel. Thank you for your question.
You are exactly right, there are all of these dimensions to
it. And, of course, what happens is some in Washington, some
in-country, where under the lead of our chief of mission they
work with the government to look at what are the situations.
And then also on the Washington side, we are looking and
discussing with the whole interagency what are the situations
in different countries.
The demand side is especially but not exclusively focused
on Asia. We are the second biggest--our own country is the
second largest source for illegal products--so obviously Fish
and Wildlife, Department of Justice, and others are focusing on
that part of the problem. And we are working in Asia on a
number of demand reduction projects to help reduce the
underlying demand.
And as you said, another big part is the community, so that
people have alternative livelihoods. That is one of the areas
where there has been a long track record. And in some countries
where all the pieces of the puzzle come together there has been
strong success; in Nepal and Namibia, in some spots in northern
Kenya, and so forth.
One of the things that has changed, as evidenced by the
numbers that Representative Granger was mentioning, is that you
have new players, and it is tied to very organized or
sophisticated folks with heavy-duty weapons that are not local
folks and have their own night vision goggles or whatever.
So that is why we have got to work on all three, because
sometimes they are overwhelming the community's ability to do
this. So we have to work on all three, you are exactly right.
Mr. Brownfield. And, Congresswoman, if I could just add two
quick points. Part of the answer to your question as to how do
we ensure that there is some degree of balance between what I
would call the social and economic development side, which is
to say, how to give communities in these vulnerable areas a
stake in doing something other than poaching and butchering
wildlife, connecting or balancing that with the law enforcement
approach.
By the way, a lesson that we have learned over 50 years in
the counternarcotics area, and the lesson is there must be some
degree of balance between the so-called soft side and the hard
side.
First, you are talking to two-thirds of the organizations
that are responsible for managing this in our programs
overseas: USAID, which obviously has a natural tilt towards the
economic and social development side; INL, and the L of INL
stands for law enforcement, which speaks for itself; and
missing from this group is Fish and Wildlife Service. We are
the three who are in a sense trying to coordinate these
programs and projects specifically overseas.
Back here in Washington, we do it through the task force
that was established as a result of the U.S. National Strategy.
And the task force that focuses on this is driven by the State
Department, the Department of Justice, and the Department of
the Interior, co-chaired by the three of them.
Our objective in each case is to talk these issues
through--and we do talk. In fact, even when you will find that,
say, USAID and INL are working with the same international
partner, we are doing it with a different focus in each case as
to what that partner would be responsible for doing.
Because your fundamental assumption is right: If we do
nothing but law enforcement, all that we are doing is driving
these communities deeper underground to continue to do the same
thing. And I would suggest the opposite is true as well. If all
we do is community development and alternative development for
them with no consequences for wildlife poaching, they will
continue to do it on their own time.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
I want to remind members that you have 5 minutes for your
question and the responses from the witnesses also. Pay
attention to that one. A yellow light on your timer or this
timer right here will appear when you have 2 minutes remaining,
and if time permits we will have a second round.
I will call on Mr. Diaz-Balart first.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Administrator Postel, you mentioned the use of technology
in fighting illegal trafficking and poaching. Do we have an
idea of how successful that has been? And do you have an idea
of what is working and what isn't working? So in other words,
are there bright spots and not-so-bright spots, and how do you
do that?
And if I may, let me just throw out the other question to
Secretary Brownfield, which is, what is the connection between
the trades of poached animals or animal parts, unfortunately,
and, for example the drug trafficking or human trafficking
networks? Are they not in many cases some of the same networks?
And what is our approach to then go after that in more of a
holistic fashion?
So with that, I will yield to both of you.
Mr. Postel. Thank you for your question and your support of
many of these foreign assistance programs and humanitarian
programs.
The technology area is still evolving in a lot of
organizations. It is not just Federal agencies, but NGOs and
many other people are working and experimenting with different
things.
You might have seen Bryan Christy's article, an
investigative piece looking at trafficking in East Africa,
where they used a lot of technology, a tracking device,
satellites, and other things to actually track the path of
illegal parts into hands that really shouldn't be involved in
this.
So you see things like that. There are innovative data
systems in place. We have supported several. There is one you
can put right on your cell phone, and if any American or
anybody is in Asia and they are in a market, they see
something, or a policeman, they answer about six questions, and
it will immediately show them pictures of things that it could
come from and then guides them, this is illegal and a protected
species and this isn't.
So it is an evolutionary process. There are some things
that clearly work. Some people have successfully used DNA to
try to get a sense of from where the animal parts originated.
But I think there is room for a lot more innovation. That is
why we do the Tech Challenge and a lot more monitoring
evaluation, to really see what is going to scale and what is
going to work.
Thank you.
Mr. Brownfield. Congressman, while it is not my question to
answer, I would mention one additional technological issue,
which is kind of cool and I want to make sure that you all are
aware of it.
And that is, beginning about 2 years ago, a professor at
the University of Washington in Seattle worked on a project, a
program that was designed to determine whether DNA taken from
ivory, seized at final market somewhere in the United States,
could actually be backtracked to determine where that elephant
or those elephants originally came from.
And then if he had enough of a survey to be able to study,
to be able to then identify the hot spots where elephants were,
in fact, being poached in large numbers and to be able to
vector the law enforcement community into those areas. We are
at the 2-year mark. And while it is still too soon to say
whether this is, in fact, tactically a useful piece of
technology, it is one of the coolest new ideas that have come
out in our time.
Drugs and wildlife trafficking. You make an obvious and
correct point. Criminal trafficking organizations are criminal
trafficking organizations. More often than not they corrupt and
penetrate the same government officials, the same
organizations. They have to move their product, whether it is
firearms, drugs, people, or trafficked wildlife, through the
same airports, the same seaports, the same border crossings,
and quite often the same organization is involved in doing the
same thing.
Are we drawing together the larger Federal law enforcement
community to working the issue? Yes, we are. But it is
happening more on a country-by-country basis.
Some of them, in fact, are quite advanced. Tanzania right
now has a monthly wildlife trafficking meeting of the country
team members who are involved in this line of work. And they
coordinate, so that, they determine if one particular Federal
law enforcement agency and its counterpart through a judicial
wire intercept program has developed information that perhaps
was designed to collect on drugs, but, in fact, revealed
something related to wildlife trafficking, they make that known
and made available to the Fish and Wildlife Service
representative or whoever may be responsible for wildlife
trafficking.
I see more of that today than I would have seen 2 or 3
years ago, and at the end of the day it is becoming
increasingly holistic, which is why I concluded my statement
saying I actually think we are making progress in winning this
race.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. One of the issues as far as getting on
top of the issue is that you need intelligence to find out who
the people are, what they are using, what their resources are,
and that is extremely important. The first question is, are you
working or getting enough intelligence in these areas to deal
with that?
But the second thing, and I think this is really important,
I think, to be used in the right way, and could be a little bit
expensive, but maybe there is a way that costs could be spread
out, and that is using drones. Because these individuals don't
have geographical boundaries. And I know drones have been
mentioned in your field. But I think one of the first issues
might be the cost, but there are ways to deal with that cost.
And do you have people on your team, on your staff that are
working with the intelligence agencies to try to get as much as
you can in that regard?
Mr. Brownfield. Congressman, let me take the two questions
in the order that you offered them. Intelligence. Writ large,
you are correct. One, intelligence is absolutely essential.
Lord knows we have learned that lesson in the counternarcotics
field for the last 50 years.
And second, we still need to make progress. When we got our
first global intelligence assessment, a little bit less than 3
years ago, of where kind of the world is on the wildlife
trafficking issue, my observation at that time was this is a
starting point, but it is a pretty basic starting point. A lot
of work still needs to be done there.
Where we have a much better story to tell, I believe,
Congressman, is on a country-by-country basis where the U.S.
Embassy has determined that this will be a priority. Countries
like Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa, countries like Thailand,
where the United States Embassy has said, for us this is a
priority issue, bringing in then the law enforcement and
intelligence community members and actually making them work
together on this issue, there I think you do see very good
local or countrywide progress.
UAVs. I have been wrestling with UAVs generally on behalf
of INL now for about a year and a half. A little over a year
ago, we purchased three systems by the INL Air Wing, and we are
in the process of testing them. But when I say testing,
Congressman, I want you to understand, at this stage it is just
figuring out how could we operate them, how many people would
we need to deploy if we are going to deploy a UAV system, in
what conditions can they fly, can they operate over water, must
they be over land.
We are still, in my opinion, which is not that of my Air
Wing director, but we still have a few more of those questions
to answer. This is, however, exactly the sort of thing where I
would like to put UAVs against should we get to the position
where we believe these are good, workable systems.
But meanwhile, as you well know, a UAV system as a
reconnaissance or intelligence collection system will work only
so well as we are able then to get local host country law
enforcement to react to the intelligence. It does little good
to know that there is a poaching party at this specific
location if we then cannot get a reaction to it.
So we have two sets of issues. The first one I am going to
solve and I intend to have solved before we have reached
springtime in Washington, DC. The second one requires continued
working with rangers and host country law enforcement.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Just one suggestion. You don't need to
reinvent the wheel. And I would think that we have a lot of
successes in the intelligence field that use drones on a
regular basis. You might want to reach out to those agencies to
help you deal with that.
Mr. Brownfield. Agreed. Agreed.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And thank you all.
A couple questions. One is, you mentioned we have 35 new
programs on top of 30 programs we already had. Maybe you could
give us one or two real world examples of what those new
programs are doing. There is a lot of money involved, and this
is a serious problem. I want to know about our comprehensive
programs. We know there is the demand side, we know there is
the very highly profitable production side, and we know there
are weak local institutions.
So of those 65 programs you have now, how much time and
energy do you spend making sure you coordinate those so that
they are not each running off on their own little plan? On
those three big areas of demand, production, and weak
institutions, where do you think the priority of those 65
programs is?
Mr. Postel. Thank you for your question, and also thank you
for your focus and leadership on making sure that foreign
assistance is very effective.
So in terms of the new programs and the distribution and
everything, so first of all let me describe from a couple
different ways to slice the pie. So basically about two-thirds
of them are focused on Africa, about 25 percent on Asia, with
the rest Latin America and central programs like that transport
partnership that I mentioned.
Looking at it another way, about 65 percent involves
enforcement work, 25 to 30 percent on community-based work, and
about 7 percent on demand. That is by the dollars, but that can
be deceptive, because, for instance, demand is not as
financially intensive as some other activities. You are not
necessarily buying equipment and things like that. So you can
stretch the dollars further for the results. So it can be
deceptive strictly by counting the dollars.
Some examples. There is new work going out now in Asia on
the demand side. For instance, in Vietnam one of the issues is
that someone got the wrong idea that rhino horn would cure
cancer. So the work there is focused on trying to correct those
misconceptions. And there are other programs like that on the
demand side. You heard about the hotline that I mentioned in
terms of the fisheries in the Philippines.
In Africa, in some cases it is a shift of geographies. As
the chairwoman mentioned, in Tanzania there has been this huge
increase in the elephant slaughter. The situation within the
country varies. In other words, up north where mainly the
iconic parks are and things, that is not the area. That is a
big traditional area where the activities were. That is not the
big increase for the killing. The killing is down south. So
some of the new programs are focused on that in terms of both
trying to stop it on the enforcement and the policy side and
also some work on trying to increase investment so the tourists
not only go up north, but south.
So those are a couple of quick examples. And in all of
this, both our ambassadors lead on a country level the
coordination across the agencies to make sure there is not
duplication, as well as with the other people. The British are
active in a number of countries, other donors. So we have to
make sure that and the NGOs, it is all well coordinated, we
don't duplicate.
And then of course, as the Ambassador and I both described,
there are a lot of things done under the task force to make
sure that there is no duplication or anything like that. I hope
that gives a flavor of it.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you to our guests.
It is interesting how things change and for the better.
Fifteen years ago this kind of a hearing there would have been
the conservationists and the environmentalists against or aside
from the group that feels the development gets too involved in
everything, and yet we now realize that this is a bigger issue
than we thought. This is not just about preserving wildlife; it
is about keeping money out of terrorists' hands. And so
terrorists, being who they are, find any possible way to look
for money.
I just did a Google search, and all I did was ``wildlife
trafficking images.'' And no matter how many times you see
this, you can't get used to it, the hundreds and hundreds and
hundreds of photographs of just lions' heads and elephants torn
to pieces and just for the sake of making money, you know, as
if they were not part of our Earth and our land. And it is a
scary thought, but it is just something that we deal with.
Let me deviate from my original questions here to ask you a
question that someone might have asked but I missed. We always
think of Africa, we think of Asia, but this also happens in
Latin America, doesn't it? Can you comment on that, please?
Mr. Postel. Thank you for your question and your
longstanding interest in Africa and other areas.
So it is absolutely also a problem in Latin America in a
number of areas. Obviously, there is the whole illegal logging
that goes on throughout the Amazon, and there are many species
all through the Amazon Basin. So there is a lot of work to be
done there as well.
Mr. Serrano. And the logging then affects the species also,
is that what you are saying?
Mr. Postel. Yes. I mean, if people are wholesale cutting
down the forest and destroying the entire ecosystem, all the
different species have nowhere to go, nowhere to feed, and so
forth. So there are linkages. And also it is just another form
of the same criminality and these chains of people that work on
all different forms of contraband.
Mr. Brownfield. Congressman, if I might add from the law
enforcement perspective.
Mr. Serrano. Sure.
Mr. Brownfield. One of the lessons that we have learned,
and this kind of builds on Congressman Diaz-Balart's question
earlier on, is that the trafficking organizations do actually
overlap and connect. And it is not just drugs and wildlife. We
have also learned that illegal logging, illegal mining, and the
organizations that traffic that product are, in fact, tied in,
in places, to wildlife trafficking as well.
And we have also learned that with certain governments, it
is easier to get their buy-in, their enthusiasm, their support
for efforts to counter and combat wildlife trafficking if we
tie it to something that from their perspective is a money
loser for them.
Peru, as an example, Peru is a country which believes it is
suffering from a serious illegal mining and illegal logging
problem. When we tie what we want to do on wildlife trafficking
to that, we get much more support and enthusiasm from them, and
we are able to train law enforcement organizations basically as
antitrafficking organizations.
If I could add to what you were saying and what the good
Dr. Postel was saying in terms of our thinking for the future,
when we got our fiscal year 2016 appropriation and we began to
think of where the directions we would be moving on wildlife
trafficking--and you will know if I get some of these wrong if
someone behind me hits me in the back of the head--I said: So
where should we be expanding or moving beyond our basic East
and Southern Africa base and Southeast Asia base?
My thinking is to expand more into Africa, up to and
including West Africa; expand into Latin America, where you
correctly note there are serious wildlife trafficking issues in
Latin America, particularly South America; and expand into
other areas, particularly in the financial systems and money-
laundering processes of the wildlife trafficking organizations.
When next summoned up here, I look forward to describing
our thinking in terms of where we will be adding and increasing
our efforts in this calendar year.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony today.
Ms. Granger. Just a second.
Mr. Serrano. I just wanted to make a quick ending comment.
While it is important for us, as we always do, to criticize our
own efforts and the efforts of the State Department and other
groups, it is interesting to note that on this particular issue
our government has been way ahead.
Years ago--and this is something Mr. Diaz-Balart may be
aware of--years ago, before we even thought of having any kind
of getting close to Cuba, there was work between the Bronx Zoo,
the Wildlife Conservation Society, and Cuban authorities, not
in the government but in the civil society, on preservation of
species and so on. So in that area we were probably way ahead
of ourselves, but we still have to catch up with this new wave
now.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. If the gentlewoman will yield for 5
seconds. It has always been clear that the Cuban regime treats
animals much better than they treat their own people. I agree
with you.
Mr. Serrano. Boy, did I leave myself open for that.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
To Mr. Serrano's comment, this is one of these issues,
these concerns, problems that transcends boundaries.
Conservation is the most conservative ideal, it is a
progressive ideal. There is significant unity around the
dynamic of not watching or sitting by idly while majestic
animals are slaughtered for no reason, and then the
connectedness that we have to not only international
trafficking and the money flows that go to nefarious
activities, but also the tie to the loss of a vision of
sustainable-type development for other peoples.
To that end, I appreciated your comments that there is this
balance here between enforcement and community development. An
overemphasis on either one is going to undermine the
interdependency that is necessary between those two entities to
actually achieve the goals. I think that is a thoughtful
comment.
In this regard, a number of us met last year, late last
year, with several CEOs of major corporations, including Wal-
Mart, and Harrison Ford, Han Solo, was there as well. Anyway,
big investment on their part in trying to petition us to think
creatively about conservation in a bipartisan fashion.
One of the things I pointed out--the comments were
particularly directed to the head of Wal-Mart--is that you do
significant business in China, major, major manufacturing
integration into China. Now, you look at us as government
officials as having the ability to create the narratives for
societal governance, but you may have potentially more power
than we do.
Given that China is one of the largest places for demand
for illegal ivory, and I noted that you pointed out in your
testimony that President Obama and the Chinese President
apparently agreed that China would stop importing and exporting
this, I would like you to unpack that further, because I don't
think that is very well known.
And then the second part of the question would be the role
that international business can play in trying to again
recreate a narrative, as we have done around many other
important social initiatives, that this must be stopped.
Mr. Brownfield. If I may start, Dr. Postel.
First, Congressman, I could not agree with you or every
other member of this subcommittee, because you have all
referred to this directly or indirectly in your comments, that
it is absolutely essential that we have partners, partners
being other governments, partners being international
organizations, partners being NGOs, whether they are global in
nature or regional in nature, partners being the international
or the U.S. business community.
If we are not working with those partners, we are at a
minimum--at a minimum--failing to make use of a very effective
means to multiply the impact of whatever we are doing. And that
would at least be stupid. And I would hate to be accused of
stupidity unless I truly was intending to be stupid, which if
you listen to my wife, happens at least 10 or 15 times a day.
Second, China, and thank you for waiting until well into
this hearing before we move into the issue, which I would call
the 800-pound gorilla, who is actually not in the room but that
is very much at play here.
Working with the Chinese on this issue, something that I
have been doing now for nearly 4 years, is a slow process. We
work with them through their law enforcement organizations and
institutions.
My own summary would be, in 4 years we have moved from
something that they are not willing to talk about at all to
something that they are willing to acknowledge is an issue and
that they have taken some ownership of.
Mr. Fortenberry. What about this--I am sorry, the time is
running out--what about this agreement? What level of agreement
was reached? Would you explain that?
Mr. Brownfield. In September of last year, during President
Xi's visit, President Obama and President Xi agreed that they
would take steps to eliminate the commercial trafficking in
ivory. Important because China today is overwhelmingly the
largest market for ivory in the world. And, as Mr. Postel has
pointed out, we are not blameless in this regard as well.
Two months later, at something called the U.S.-China Joint
Liaison Group on Law Enforcement, which I co-chair, we got the
Chinese--this is their Ministry of Public Security and their
Customs Service--to agree that we would form a working group to
develop details on how we would work to make this happen.
Now, with many countries in the world you would say this
sounds laughably little to have accomplished. With China it is,
I would say, a step in the right direction. Also in the course
of last year, for the first time they did a public ivory crush,
where they, in public, before the media, with hundreds of
people watching, did destroy beyond possibility of reuse a
substantial amount of ivory.
Does that stop the problem? No. Is it symbolic and
therefore has at least some potential impact on their own
officials and their own criminal elements? Yes.
I would describe the Chinese issue as a work in progress.
It is moving in the right direction. It is by no means moving
as fast as we wish it would, and we still have a lot of work to
do before we are both going to be in a position to say we are
satisfied with where we are with China.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And to the witnesses, for many years of service. It is
something that I think many of us feel important but
underappreciate it, which has been said here a number of times.
I actually want to take just a second and tell you why I am
interested particularly on the subject. One of them is I am
just a recent convert to this, the beauty and really
magnificence of these animals in this area.
My wife and I spent, I don't know, 8 or 9 days in Africa
last summer. It was a life-changing experience, particularly
for my wife.
I also sit on the Intelligence Committee. Africa is my area
of assigned responsibility. I spend a lot of time in Africa,
not, obviously, dealing with this issue, but with some of the
more troubling aspects that that continent is dealing with in
Al Shabaab and Boko Haram and others.
Which leads me to my question.
Ms. Granger. Can you just hold just a second? We are having
a hard time hearing. Could you turn the mike up?
Mr. Stewart. Yes. Well, I have such a big, booming voice.
Ms. Granger. Ok. Would you speak a little bit louder?
Mr. Stewart. Yes, ma'am, I will.
Ms. Granger. We don't want to miss any of the words.
Mr. Stewart. OK. Thank you. Is that a little better?
I was there last spring and saw some operations against Al
Shabaab and also Boko Haram, and the numbers of this are fairly
startling. You know, what an animal is worth--and I will use Al
Shabaab and some of the information that we have here from
other sources, not provided by either of you--but they may
receive something between $200,000 or $400,000 or maybe
$600,000 a month on illegal ivory alone.
Let's use the middle figure, $400,000. They pay their
soldiers about $300 a month, which in the scale of things is
actually fairly high. ISIS is paying their soldiers about $150
a month or something like that. But using that $400,000 a month
figure, you are paying for something like 1,300 soldiers, full-
time soldiers to fight in your army. It is a meaningful
national security consideration, and we haven't talked about
that much.
Would you be able to respond quickly to two questions.
Number one, because of this, Congress has considered
withdrawing or withholding military aid to countries who we
believe are not being our partner in trying to minimize or
eliminate this trafficking. Is that a good idea or does that
make it worse? And would you also address are there other
terrorist organizations that we know are profiting from this as
well and give us a sense of how much it means to them?
Mr. Brownfield. Why don't I take a quick bite at that,
Congressman.
I would say, first, you have vectored in on one of the two
organizations that are listed under our Foreign Terrorist
Organizations proscribed list that we are confident and say
publicly are engaged in wildlife trafficking. That is Al
Shabaab. The other, by the way, is the Lord's Resistance Army
further down to the south in the African continent.
Mr. Stewart. So that answers my second question. You think
it is only those two organizations?
Mr. Brownfield. But I want to be careful that I have stated
it in a way that makes sense. Those are the two that we are
prepared to say are, in our judgment, unquestionably involved
in this.
Are there other organizations that may be? Yes, there are.
My problem is I don't want to ring alarm bells if I can't then
offer clear evidence as to why it is that we believe these
other organizations, some in Africa, some elsewhere, are
involved.
Mr. Stewart. Mr. Ambassador, I have to tell you that I
believe that there are. And in another setting I think you and
I would agree that there is strong evidence.
Mr. Brownfield. I believe it is possible as well. And, in
fact, that is why I wanted to choose my words carefully.
Mr. Stewart. I understand.
Mr. Brownfield. And what Al Shabaab does, by the way, which
is very similar to what the FARC used to do in Colombia on
drugs, and that is it taxes. It taxes the trafficking
organizations as they move the product through their territory,
particularly through seaports and border crossings where they
have some degree of influence and control. And they do make a
substantial amount of money out there.
Mr. Stewart. Very effective middleman.
I am running short on time. Do you believe we should
withdraw aid?
Mr. Brownfield. And sanctions is a good question. You all
pay me the big bucks to offer you my own judgment in terms of
how we can accomplish what we want to accomplish
internationally. Here is my judgment. I believe we already have
some sanctions tools related to terrorism and support for or
accepting the presence of terrorist organizations that are
probably adequate to the task.
My concern on unilateral sanctions tied to wildlife
trafficking is that it will, as happens with sanctions on
trafficking in persons, sanctions on drugs, turn a chunk of the
international consensus that we have against us.
I have no objection to sanctions of governments that are
clearly tolerating and complicit in this. What I would want,
however, is a tool that allows us to be very selective and very
careful on how we apply those sanctions. I would like to have a
broader conversation on this when we have another option.
Mr. Stewart. Well, and maybe I will conclude by saying
thank you. And I would like to follow up with you on that,
because I recognize sanctions are a two-edged sword, that many
times there are unintended consequences that come from that.
But I think it might be a tool that we may be forced to
implement here in a more aggressive way. But, again, Mr.
Ambassador, I would like your thoughts at another time if we
could.
Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thanks, Madam Chair. I apologize for being in and
out of this meeting. I had some pressing business.
But it is encouraging to hear about all your efforts to
build capacity and to provide training and equipment to law
enforcement engaged in combatting wildlife trafficking.
Can you point to any specific law enforcement operations
that have been especially impactful?
Mr. Brownfield. In fact, Congressman, I can, and I would
like to offer you four specific examples of operations that
have actually produced measurable and concrete results.
First, and we did the first of these in the year 2013, an
international operation that involves more than 20 different
governments called Operation Cobra. And you will be stunned to
learn that it goes Cobra I, Cobra II, Cobra III, and Cobra IV.
Each one has generated, up to this point, I think we are
probably well over 400 individuals arrested. I have lost track
of the number of tons of illicit product or animals that have
been seized and the number of individuals and organizations
that have been arrested for prosecution. That, by the way, is
Asia, Africa, Europe, and the United States.
A second operation is one that has been working only in the
course of the past year and is Africa based, and it is called
Operation Worthy. This particular operation has involved
Uganda, Tanzania, and Kenya. And it, in fact, has produced
nearly 400 arrests, 4.4 tons seized, and a good number of
organizations taken down.
A third operation, which is U.S. focused and U.S. internal,
although focused on international organizations, is called
Operation Crash, that is led by the Department of Justice and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. And it also has nailed in
the course of this past year more than 20 successful
prosecutions and more than $5.5 million worth of assets seized.
And finally, something that they have done themselves but
they have done it with our equipment, our training, and our
organizations created, the Philippine maritime service, in the
course of 2015, has conducted operations vectored on wildlife
trafficking; that is to say product being moved in or out. They
have seized 23 vessels and they have seized more than $2.2
million worth of assets.
Four specific operations that we can point to and say these
are, at least to some extent, the result of our support and our
training, assistance, and equipment.
Mr. Dent. Most law enforcement actions you mentioned, I
think you said Tanzania, Uganda, and Kenya, what are the other
major countries where you have had these law enforcement
operations?
Mr. Brownfield. The Operation Cobra originally started as
an operation focused on East Asia and Southeast Asia. It
expanded to include parts of Central--I guess we call it
Central Asia, Nepal. And, in fact, as the pipelines and the
logistical lines passed through both Europe and Africa, we
expanded into some of the source countries in Africa, such as
South Africa, such as Kenya, such as Tanzania.
And on the U.S. and the North America side, of course, we
are dealing with the markets.
Mr. Dent. My time has expired. I appreciate it. And I just
have to tell you, you have got a great voice for radio. You
must do voice-overs. You don't have to answer a question.
Thank you.
Mr. Brownfield. Make me an offer, Congressman.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. We have time for a short round.
And, Mr. Ambassador, if you will see that light right
there, it will tell you when the time is up.
I just have one short question because it was mentioned
earlier about when we have huge amounts of ivory and the
decision to destroy all that ivory. What was the result of
that? It was confusing to me because I would think if we have
all this ivory then it could slow down the need because the
ivory is already there. They said, no, the intention, what
happens is when you destroy it, it helps stop the poaching. And
I didn't understand that.
Is it successful? You mentioned one in China, but there
have been several that are just enormous.
Mr. Brownfield. Yeah. Madam Chairwoman, there have, in
fact, been several here in the United States of America as
well. I will give you the law enforcement theory behind the
ivory crush, and that is, if you take ivory completely out of
any commercial value whatsoever, you have the impact of
discouraging the criminal networks from continuing to poach and
acquire additional ivory.
Now, there is a counterargument to that, and you hear this
frequently in the conservation community, by governments who
say the ivory has already been poached and by destroying it we
are merely creating a requirement for more ivory.
My own view, based upon my experience on working the drug
issue, is hit the network at every point in the chain,
including eliminating the product at market, because it sends a
clear and unequivocal message to everyone, from the initial
poacher up to the person who is selling the ivory illegally on
the streets of New York, that, in fact, they will be stopped
wherever they are on the chain.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Just something you would like to add to that?
Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much.
I just wanted to follow up. We have talked a little bit
about what China is doing in the big crush. I think it was in
September that the Chinese President was here and they
announced their commitment to a nearly complete ban on ivory
import and export.
If either of you would just focus on that for a minute. I
was interested in what specific steps have been taken since
that announcement, and are there examples domestically or on
the part of the Chinese Government that indicate whether this
pledge is being taken seriously? And what about other markets,
especially in Asia?
So I would like to hear some more about the Chinese
enforcement, the cooperation with China, other than the big
crush that happened, if you could.
Mr. Postel. I will start it. Thank you for the question.
We have seen work going on there both on the official side
as well as by civil society, and I think both are equally
important.
One thing that can't be attributed strictly to the crush,
but there seems to be some evidence that progress is being
made, because the price of ivory in the illegal market in China
has fallen 50 percent in the last 18 months.
And some of that is just getting consumers to understand
that. A lot of Chinese don't even know where the ivory comes
from. That is why there are so many on the civilian side, so
many efforts, whether it is Chinese actresses tweeting a
picture of a butchered elephant, so people understand.
I don't know if you will see it, but this is a picture of
Yao Ming in the Bangkok airport in Mandarin sponsored by us as
part of a whole campaign where the point is to tell the
tourists, you know, that this is not a good thing to be done.
So the government is pledging some things, and, of course,
there is ivory, but also the government pledged in other areas.
They have banned shark's fin soup from all their official
government banquets. And there is a whole range of species on
which we have to work with them.
So there are concrete steps. But as the Ambassador said, it
is a grind. It is slow. But, fortunately, sometimes they are
wanting to follow what we are doing. So they were very pleased
to brag about their crush, having matched our crush. And so
sometimes our actions are another goad for them.
Mr. Brownfield. Congresswoman, you asked specifically what
have they done since the September announcement by the two
Presidents. I would offer three things. First, the crush that
we have talked about. In their defense, they did it publicly
and it is something they have never done before. Second, 2
months later they did agree to establishing with us a bilateral
working group among law enforcement officials to work this
issue and put more flesh on the commitment that they made at
the Presidential level. And third, they have not yet
promulgated but released for circulation and consideration a
new wildlife trafficking law.
It has been reviewed by many people of the entire
conservation community. I will not speak for everyone. What I
would describe the law, as I have read it and understood it so
far, is it moves in the right direction in some ways, in the
wrong direction in some ways, and it unquestionably does not go
as far as we wish it would go.
Mrs. Lowey. Just one last comment, because I have seen many
working groups being established. Anything specific coming out
of it, or are they going to take a year to study it again?
Mr. Brownfield. It is joint, Congresswoman, so my guess is
we will be able to push it to a certain extent. The question
will be how far are they willing to go. What I will commit to
you is we will push them as far as we can push them and we will
see how far they are willing to go to comply with their own
President's commitments on this issue.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, since it is almost the red light, so I
guess you are not convinced of the seriousness of their
commitment. And I know we both look forward to following up on
this issue, and I thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. One quick follow-up as well. You talked
about the necessity of ongoing partnerships, NGOs, business,
and otherwise. But what other governments are engaged in this
with resource assistance? You said the British. Are there other
nations that have elevated this problem and have put resources
to it, other than the ones where the problem exists?
Mr. Brownfield. Congressman, I would give you lists in two
categories. First, obviously, are the partner nations that are
actually the source nations themselves. And the cooperation
there is us trying to facilitate, build capacity, train or
equip, and they would be--
Mr. Fortenberry. Yes. I don't think source nation is the
right word. Beyond the source nations.
Mr. Brownfield. You are talking about donors, others who
are prepared to participate in this as members of the
international community.
The European Union as a whole participates in this. The
British are in the lead in terms of who within the European
Union are most focused on it. However, I am prepared to say
good things--to a degree--about the French, about the Germans,
about the Spanish, and about the Italians in terms of having
stepped up to the plate to some extent.
Canada is playing a useful role, and in some specific areas
Japan. We bump into issues on Japan because in one area,
whaling, they clearly are not participating in a helpful
manner; in other areas they are. And in Southeast Asia, I have
found at least one government--and probably two--and that is
Thailand and Indonesia are playing both a helpful and energetic
role putting some money, but more than that being willing to
cooperate with NGOs, other governments, and international
organizations that are trying to address the problem.
Mr. Fortenberry. And where is this momentum coming from? Is
it coming from us?
Mr. Brownfield. I would suggest, first, I want to give the
conservation community full credit. And since the era, I guess,
of Theodore Roosevelt, they have, in fact, been doing
exceptionally good work. There is no one on the planet who does
not respect the conservation community and there is a reason
for that. So I give them credit.
Mr. Fortenberry. But it does seem like all of these
initiatives are very new, government-to-government initiatives
and NGO initiatives are new. So momentum for this is being
driven somewhere.
Mr. Brownfield. Yes. And I don't disagree with your
assessment that the momentum is probably coming more by pushing
from us than from any other identifiable government or
organization. I just don't want to dismiss the efforts of
others because at the end of the day we need them.
Mr. Fortenberry. No, I am just looking for information. It
is not some sort of judgment. I am just curious as to how this
is happening and for the potential of what you have talked
about in terms of problem solving and partnership with others.
Because that is going to be obviously a necessary outcome in
order to correct this problem.
Mr. Brownfield. Because part of the solution--and I will do
this in only 15 seconds--is we do have to keep the
international community and specifically the United Nations
engaged. If we can get through collective action certain
activities to be made criminal around the world so that
wherever you are doing it you are in violation of the law, it
is going to make it a lot easier for us to get all governments
of the world to cooperate.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Postel. Just to supplement two quick things. One other
group that is pivoting is the Global Environmental Fund, and
they traditionally didn't work in that area and they are
pivoting.
And I think the other driver, in addition to everybody who
was mentioned, is simply because of the connection on the
security side, which is you have new voices coming to the table
and saying, you know, this was important not just for
conservation but for other reasons. And that is another driver
that is affecting the British and ourselves and others.
Ms. Granger. I thank the witnesses for appearing before the
subcommittee today. 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]
Thursday, February 11, 2016
UNITED STATES ENGAGEMENT IN CENTRAL AMERICA
WITNESSES
HON. WILLIAM BROWNFIELD, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, BUREAU OF
INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AFFAIRS
ELIZABETH HOGAN, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, LATIN AMERICA AND
CARIBBEAN BUREAU
FRANCISCO PALMIERI, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, CENTRAL
AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN BUREAU OF WESTERN HEMISPHERE
Opening Statement of Chairwoman Granger
Ms. Granger. The Subcommittee on State and Foreign
Operations and Related Programs will come to order. I want to
welcome our witnesses. Thank you for appearing here today for
this oversight hearing on U.S. engagement in Central America.
For many years, this subcommittee has provided funds for our
partners throughout Latin America. Without question, we know
that what happens in these countries has an impact on the
United States; our economies, our security, and even our health
are closely linked.
The latest example of this is the outbreak of the Zika
virus, which is spreading explosively in the hemisphere,
according to the World Health Organization. We want to hear
from our witnesses about what the administration is doing to
address the Zika virus in the region.
Our countries are also connected because of migration. This
spring will mark 2 years since the crisis at our southern
border reached historic proportions. Members of this committee
and a task force I led for the Speaker took notice. We worked
together to address the unprecedented number of unaccompanied
children arriving from Central America. But we know more needs
to be done.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, more than
68,000 unaccompanied minors were apprehended in 2014. More than
three-quarters of them are from El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Honduras. Another 40,000 more were apprehended last year. One
reason these numbers decreased last year is because Mexico
stepped up its efforts to apprehend minors from Central America
before they reached the United States. In fiscal year 2015,
more than 16,000 were detained by Mexico, and 13,000 were
returned. Compare that to less than 2,000 removed by the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement over the same period.
Mexico's increased border security, which the United States
has long supported through funds in our bill, is making a
difference. While a total number of unaccompanied children
arriving at the southwest border went down in fiscal year 2015,
there has been a disturbing spike in the last few months.
Administration officials have pointed to recent enforcement
actions that may help reverse this trend, yet the number of
children apprehended in January was still significantly higher
than the same month last year. We must do more to address this
problem where it starts.
I have heard firsthand from leaders in Central American
countries that they want their children back. We need to
continue to work with these governments to return these
children safely, and to keep more from making the extremely
dangerous journey to the United States.
The Central American countries have already taken a number
of steps on their own. Guatemala passed a law increasing
penalties on human smuggling. Honduras continued to crack down
on drug traffickers and extradite fugitives to the United
States. El Salvador, which is one of the most violent countries
in the world, has started to implement a broad security plan in
its most dangerous cities. These are steps in the right
direction, but they require follow-through.
The fiscal year 2016 State and Foreign Operations bill,
provided $750 million in assistance to Central America; there
are tough conditions on this aid. The countries must show they
are improving border security, addressing corruption, and
countering gangs, drug traffickers and organized crime.
The fiscal year 2017 budget request includes $750 million
in this subcommittee's jurisdiction for Central America. Before
additional funds will be considered, the administration must
demonstrate how the funds already provided will address the
violence; the lack of opportunity contributing to the migration
problem, and that these countries are meeting the conditions in
our bill.
Congress and the American people are expecting results.
While the United States has a critical role to play in Central
America's success, we should not do this alone. Other countries
in the region have expertise, such as Colombia and Mexico. We
should continue to encourage partnerships between these
countries and El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. We also
need to ensure that other countries in the region facing their
own security challenges, such as Costa Rica, receive our help.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on these
very important issues, and I will now turn to the ranking
member and my good friend, Mrs. Lowey, for her opening remarks.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Opening Statement of Mrs. Lowey
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Madam Chair. Assistant Secretary
Brownfield, Deputy Assistant Secretary Palmieri, Acting
Assistant Administrator Hogan, I join Chairman Granger in
welcoming you today.
The news is often dominated by the devastating war in Syria
and the resulting refugee crisis engulfing the Middle East and
much of Europe. At the same time, but with less attention, we
face another deplorable humanitarian tragedy in our own
hemisphere. Horrific levels of violence, abject poverty, weak
government, plague the countries of Central America. Half of
the populations live in poverty and 30 to 40 percent is
underemployed.
Last year, El Salvador surpassed Honduras with the world's
highest homicide rate: a 70 percent increase over 2014 levels.
It has the highest concentration of gang members per capita in
the region.
In Honduras, the military police continue to eclipse
civilian police in most law enforcement operations despite a
long history of impunity and abuse by the military against
civilians.
In Guatemala, a shameless tax fraud scandal robbed the
Guatemalan people of millions of dollars, and, finally, led to
the President's resignation. Yet, the country is now led by an
inexperienced former comedian with questionable ties to ex-
military officials.
It is little wonder that more than 70,000 unaccompanied
minors tried to flee these three countries and cross into the
U.S. during the summer of 2014, and why the numbers of children
and families apprehended at our southwest border increased this
past fall and winter, a time when numbers typically decrease.
Until the underlying conditions driving migration change, I
fear desperate Central Americans will continue to believe that
fleeing to the United States is not any more dangerous or
uncertain than staying home. That is why we have a clear,
national security interest as well as a moral obligation to
address this crisis. There was broad bipartisan support for
substantially increasing assistance to the region in last year
omnibus, which is an important first step.
Now, we must allocate the resources wisely and prioritize
good governance, the rule of law, education, job creation, and
citizen security. Our response cannot rely solely on U.S.
immigration enforcement efforts or those by our Mexican
partners. I hope your testimonies will detail how the U.S. will
scale up programs in the region and address what can
realistically be accomplished this year.
Additionally, I hope you will comment on what progress the
three countries have made since announcing their Alliance for
Prosperity plan. When will we see measurable results on
security, justice reform, corruption, and tax collection? I
also hope you will address deeply concerning accounts by human
rights groups and local media of corruption, human trafficking,
and other abuses against those apprehended and deported.
To what extent are you working with the Mexican Government
to increase humanitarian assistance and migrant protection? Are
your efforts including rehabilitation services in the three
countries? This refugee crisis is caused by dehumanizing levels
of poverty, violence, gang activity, and failed governance.
Congress and the administration must work together in a
bipartisan manner to build partners on the ground, empower
civil society, protect human rights, and defeat criminals. I do
believe this can be achieved, but it is going to take
leadership, vigilance, and wise allocation of resources. I look
forward to your testimony.
Ms. Granger. Are there other opening statements? I will now
call on the witnesses to give their opening statements. All
right. Ambassador Brownfield.
Opening Statement of Ambassador Brownfield
Mr. Brownfield. Sure thing, Madam Chairwoman. And I will be
excruciatingly brief. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Lowey,
members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity.
I will skip the first page of my remarks by saying we all
understand basically the nature of the challenges that are
before us from Central America. We, from INL on the security
front, believe we have developed a three-part strategy to
address those challenges: a bottom-up approach to create
greater community policing; a top-down approach to produce
reforms and professionalization in the rule of law and law
enforcement institutions; and operational support for law
enforcement in the region.
We believe we have programs now that address those issues;
the place-based strategy in the 25 sites that are currently
underway; what we are working with the Colombia assistance
program; the CAPRI police training program based in Panama;
regional border police training; Justice Department's regional
legal advisers; COMPSTAT policing in Costa Rica and in Panama;
and vetted units through all of the major problem countries in
Central America. We believe they are producing results.
Madam Chairwoman, I would suggest that we have, in our
opinion, a strategy, programs to deliver on that strategy, and
results which we can discuss in this hearing. I thank you very
much, and I look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Opening Statement of Mr. Palmieri
Ms. Granger. Mr. Palmieri, please.
Mr. Palmieri. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Mrs. Lowey, and
the members of the committee for the support that you have
given to our shared efforts in Central America to address these
underlying conditions. Today's discussion is an essential part
in achieving the security governance and economic progress that
we all collectively hope to see in Central America. The U.S.
strategy for engagement in Central America focuses on three
pillars of action: security, governance, and prosperity. We
designed it as a multiyear strategy that complements the four
strategic lines of action of the Alliance for Prosperity, the
plan of the Northern Triangle governments.
The $750 million appropriated by Congress in fiscal year
2016 demonstrates the commitment and efforts we have to work
with the Northern Triangle leaders to address these systemic
challenges. At the same time, we have a responsibility to the
U.S. Congress to fulfill the 2016 criteria outlined in the
appropriations law.
We began work already with the three governments on an
ambitious and concrete plan for 2016, which will help us ensure
we meet the conditions for the continued support of the U.S.
Congress for the strategy in the Alliance for Prosperity. I
look forward to answering your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Ms. Hogan, you are now recognized.
Opening Statement of Ms. Hogan
Ms. Hogan. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member
Lowey, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you
for the invitation to testify today. I am grateful for your
support of USAID's work in Latin America and the Caribbean, and
I am pleased to update you on our efforts in Central America.
I would like to focus on what USAID is doing to help
address the challenges the region faces. We see prosperity,
improved governance and security, which are the objectives of
the strategy for engagement in Central America as
interdependent. We know that opening doors to employment and
education for citizens, especially youths at risk of gang
recruitment, crime, and violence, will bolster our efforts in
security and lead to freer and more prosperous societies. That
is why our prosperity programs include efforts to support small
businesses and entrepreneurs, encourage private investment,
train youths in marketable job skills, and improve agricultural
productivity. In El Salvador, for example, we have helped
10,000 small- and medium-sized companies exceed $100 million in
domestic sales and exports and create over 15,000 new jobs, 49
percent of which have gone to women.
And in Honduras, our Feed the Future investments resulted
in a 55 percent increase in incomes for more than 180,000 of
the program's beneficiaries, some of the country's poorest
people. These efforts to foster prosperity are only sustainable
in an environment where democratic values and institutions
flourish, where citizens can depend on basic social services,
where impunity is reduced and civil society and the media can
play their rightful roles. To that end, USAID governance
programs include help to reform institutions to root out
corruption, strengthen civil society's ability to hold
governments accountable, improve financial transparency.
For example, in Guatemala, we have supported the National
Forensics Institute since its inception in 2007. This body is
playing an instrumental role in collecting and analyzing the
evidence that led to the indictment of the former president and
vice president on corruption charges.
Ultimately, none of our efforts in prosperity in governance
will take root in societies that are plagued by insecurity. As
you have heard, the heart of our security work is youth-
focused, as we invest in programs that reach those that are
most at risk of gang recruitment, crime, and violence. We are
using tested approaches in the most violent-prone communities
to create safe community spaces, provide job and life-skill
training, and build trusts between police and residents.
Already, we are seeing results of our crime prevention
activities in El Salvador, where our initial analysis points to
a 66 percent drop in homicide in the 76 communities where USAID
targets its programming. This is all the more remarkable, given
the country's 70 percent increase in homicides over the same
period. To extend the impact of USAID's investments, we are
forming partnerships with the private sector.
We currently have 60 private-sector partners in the
Northern Triangle from whom we have leveraged $150 million in
support of our work with at-risk youth and our efforts to
increase food security and grow incomes. USAID is well-prepared
to implement the new strategy, and we are committed to
efficient, effective, and transparent oversight of our
programs. We use a full range of monitoring and evaluation
tools. We are commissioning external impact studies to better
inform our development work and we have established 5-year
strategic plans in each of our field offices.
In short, we are collecting hard data to inform our future
programming so that we can take advantage of what works, and
introduce new evidence-based programs.
In conclusion, we believe that with policy reforms and
increased investments on the part of the Northern Triangle
governments, coupled with our new and innovative programming,
the U.S. Government is well poised to achieve success.
Thank you, Chairwoman Granger and the committee, for your
support and leadership on the U.S. engagement in the Northern
Triangle and I look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Granger. Thank you very much. Would you go back to your
statement to what you said about El Salvador and the violence
that was happening there, specifically the numbers?
Ms. Hogan. Right. Last year, El Salvador saw a 70 percent
increase in homicides nationwide. National police statistics
that have been provided to USAID indicate that in the 76
communities where we have active community-level programs for
crime and violence prevention, we have seen a 66 percent drop
in homicide in those communities.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. I just want to make sure that I
understood that. Of course, we are very concerned about what is
happening and very hopeful about the plans for the Northern
Alliance and what is going on there. This is a very active
subcommittee, and they are very involved in what we are dealing
with.
So I don't want to hear from you a year from now. I want us
to have regular reports. We can do it in a very informal way
but this subcommittee, like I said, is very anxious to help,
and can help. And so I would hope that you would take that to
heart.
With regard to recent enforcement actions by the Department
of Homeland Security, how is the administration deciding who is
subject to removal procedures and what factors are considered?
How are these funds involved, what are you doing with the
children who have come across our southern border. In that big
rush for 2 years what is happening with them, and how you are
addressing that?
Ms. Hogan. Do you want to start? And then I will talk about
reintegration?
Mr. Palmieri. Sure. We would--the strategy for engagement
in Central America looks at getting at the underlying
conditions in the region in the three countries of the Northern
Triangle, but also to promote greater regional economic
integration so we can create the economic opportunities that
will keep people in their home communities.
And so the program will work in those areas and in those
communities that are most vulnerable, both to the violence, and
to the lack of economic opportunity, so that these young people
can stay at home in their home communities.
With regard to the enforcement actions at the border, I
would have to defer to the Department of Homeland Security for
an answer on that issue.
Ms. Granger. Yes, I am going to limit my questions, and
hope that we can have another round of questions. I know those
on this subcommittee also have hearings on other committees, so
we can do that, and then we will have more rounds of questions.
Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, I want to thank you very much for your
testimony, and Ms. Hogan, you really answered my questions. And
I think it is so important that we keep hearing your answers--I
don't want to question your statistics. I do want to say I wish
we could hear more success stories, but I constantly ask the
question: How do we break away from the cyclical phenomenon of
lack of security, lack of prosperity, lack of rule of law,
nonsustainable governance? And to what extent have the Northern
Triangle countries improved their governments, reducing levels
of corruption, so we give the American people greater
confidence that additional funds will be put to good use?
What about police reform? Stabilizing neighborhoods?
Degrading transnational criminal networks? I mean, we have a
responsibility to ensure that our assistance promotes more
efficient and sustainable energy, trade facilitation,
transport, customs and border integration.
Let me just stop at that because you mentioned some
successes. Can you talk about all of the things that we really
want to do, and give me confidence that some progress is being
made?
Ms. Hogan. Certainly, I would be happy to.
Mrs. Lowey. Start with corruption in government.
Ms. Hogan. Okay, great. Well, we will start with the fact
that we saw what happened when civil society was supported to
demonstrate peacefully in Guatemala which changed the
administration with, not only the president and vice president,
but half of the cabinet now sitting in jail and waiting,
already been indicted and waiting for their trials. The fact
that the incoming president has already agreed to the extension
of CICIG, the U.N. agency that is responsible for investigating
corruption, I think is a sign that there is that commitment
there to really change things on the ground.
And in Honduras also, we have seen the government there put
forward something that would provide increase investigative
abilities towards corruption charges. So that is a sign of
change. The fact that they have come up with their own Alliance
for Prosperity and have invested $2.6 billion in the
implementation of that plan, is another sign of real
commitment. And within USAID programming, we have been able to
help governments establish better oversight of their financial
management systems.
For example, in El Salvador, we had a financial management
program that helped to provide greater transparency on budget
execution, also to develop an e-Procurement system that gives
eyes on all of government procurements that people can actually
see and hold governments accountable for.
Going forward, we know that it isn't just government taking
the right steps, but it is also empowering civil society to
hold their governments accountable, which is why, under the new
strategy, we will have the resources available to provide the
kind of support that civil society needs in order to gain that
kind of traction to hold governments accountable and to be able
to report on abuses when they see them.
Mrs. Lowey. I will take your advice and move on. Just let
me say, I love to hear success stories, and I hope they
continue.
Ms. Hogan. We have got many more to share with you.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Just a couple
of points, first, reiterating what the chairwoman said. It is
really important that you all let us know, specifically, what
is working and what isn't, so we can work together to try to
move in the right direction. I really have two questions right
now, Madam Chairwoman. One of them is, you all talked, and I
think rightfully so, about security being such a priority. And
without that, Ambassador, I think you cited what President
Uribe was saying that you have to first have security, and then
you can have a tipping point where you can go on to other
necessary area such as development, et cetera.
When the chairwoman was chairing this task force dealing
with unaccompanied children, she led a group of us to Honduras
and Guatemala. At the time, Honduras was the murder capital, I
think, of the world, right? Now, El Salvador has been
backsliding. It has hit 6,600 murders and it has the highest
concentration of gang members per capita. El Salvador now is
pretty much at the same situation where it was during the civil
wars in the 1980s and 1990s. And so why? What has happened to
El Salvador--and again, you have talked about some good success
stories in certain areas, but overall, the numbers are
alarming. So what is the major cause and what is it that we
should be doing to try to see how we can reverse that?
Mr. Brownfield. Congressman, let me take a first crack at
this and let Paco add to or detract from as he wishes. I speak
to you as a man who actually spent the years 1981 to 1983 in El
Salvador, I guess, in the middle of their civil war. First,
success story, Mrs. Lowey. Honduras' homicide rate is down,
depending upon whose assessment you use, between 25 and 30
percent over the last 2 years. And we will not claim full
credit for that, but I will insist that we get at least some
acknowledgment and recognition.
El Salvador has been moving in exactly the opposite
direction, Congressman. One theory as to why is that several
years ago, the previous government of El Salvador reached an
accord with the organized gangs of the big cities of El
Salvador, specifically San Salvador. It produced short-term
results and a dramatic drop in violent crime and homicides. The
truce no longer is in operation. It has surged. Skeptics at
that time suggested that what the gangs were doing was using a
period to rearm, reorganize, and recruit. I won't take a
position on that. I offer that as a possible explanation as to
why El Salvador and not the others.
Mr. Palmieri. Sir, I would just add that the Salvadorean
Government itself has developed this Seguro, Plan Seguro, which
identifies the 50 most violent communities and the 11 priority
communities where they are going to be investing resources. And
we are aligning the assistance that we are receiving to try to
make an immediate impact on that homicide level in those 11
priority communities.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Madam Chairwoman, just very briefly too,
in the Appropriations Act, and this is a different issue, we
establish conditions on aid to Central America, and we also
require further reporting on economic investment conditions and
commercial disputes between the United States.
But I am particularly interested in these provisions about
these disputes, because I am aware of the number of U.S.
citizens with claims against, for example, specifically the
government of Honduras. One of those companies, a cement plant,
CEMAR in Honduras, which was expropriated by the government of
Honduras, and they have been seeking remediation for many
years. And it has been, frankly, met with relentless
bureaucratic dead ends. So, I really would like to know how the
Department of State and USAID intend to assist them and other
U.S. citizens to resolve such disputes, and how you are
monitoring what is going on, et cetera, because it continues to
be a serious issue.
Mr. Palmieri. We agree. We have to be active in protecting
U.S. American commercial interests in these countries. And we
are. Under the CAFTA process, there is a dispute resolution
process that is available to investors. And in Honduras,
specifically, we also have a bilateral investment treaty that
they can avail themselves.
With regard to the specific case that you have raised, the
United States cannot insert itself directly into the judicial
process of Honduras. However, we do continue to vigorously
advocate for those interests of U.S. businesses in Honduras,
and in the specific case, we have encouraged Mr. Cerna to avail
himself of the arbitration, and dispute settlement mechanisms
that are available to him.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. My time is up. Madam Chairwoman, Thank
you.
Ms. Granger. Thank you very much. Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member, for
this very important hearing. And thank you all for being here.
I wanted to follow up on a couple of things as it relates to
the Northern Triangle. Last year, some of us visited Panama. We
were with the President at the Summits of the Americas. It was
a bipartisan delegation. We had the opportunity to meet with
primarily all of the heads of state from Central America, and
barring none, they thought that normalizing relations with Cuba
and engagement with Cuba would help our overall efforts in
Central America. So I wanted to ask you, has it helped, and if
so, how?
Secondly, with regard to the United Nations, the U.N. high
commissioner for refugees, indicated that 82 percent of women
and girls that the U.S. Government interviewed in 2015 from El
Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico for expedited removal
were able to prove that they have a significant possibility of
gaining asylum and protection under international law as a
result of the threats they received--they face in their home
country; specifically, sexual assault.
We, I guess, appropriated some funding to address sexual
violence, narcotics, all of the issues that we need to really
focus on, and one had to do with Guatemala in terms of their
policy of creating sexual assault units. And so I am wondering,
do we know much about these sexual assault units? Has there
been progress addressing sexual assault? And if so, good. How
is it working? If not, what do we need to do to make sure it is
dealt with?
Ms. Hogan. Thank you very much for your question. In fact,
USAID has invested quite heavily in gender-based violence
reduction in El Salvador. We have 22 centers for victims of
gender-based violence where they can receive psychosocial
support, legal assistance, alternative dispute resolution, and
even job-skill training. We also have 12 centers for the
prevention of gender-based violence, because we know that it is
one of the lead causes of violence in the home in terms of
youth then going on to perpetrate violence in crime outside of
the home.
In Guatemala, I worked there in the early 1990s, and then
we were just starting to transition from the old system of
justice to the new oral transparent system of justice. I was
able to go back and visit just last year and now we have a 24-
hour court that is established with a special center there for
domestic violence crimes. And in that center, again, 24 hours a
day, they have investigators, prosecutors, and a judge on site
in addition to a full medical team and social service
providers. That model has now been recreated eight times over
in Guatemala, and so throughout the country, women are now
getting access to immediate support from government when they
are victims of crime.
Ms. Lee. Has Cuba shifted dynamics in terms of our
relationship with Central America countries?
Mr. Palmieri. It is clear that the countries of Central
America viewed the President's decision in a favorable light.
However, for them, they have focused on their relationship with
the United States, in particular, the efforts we are making to
work with them to address these underlying conditions that spur
undocumented migration from their countries toward our
southwest border. And in that respect, their priority is a
close, productive, and strong relationship with the U.S.
Government, and they do plan to work with us to meet the
specific conditions that are outlined in the legislation.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thanks, Madam Chair, and good morning. Over the
past several years, my district and many others around the
country have seen a dramatic spike in heroin use. In fact, my
local law enforcement has told me, they told me this at a
hearing I held, or a briefing I held several months ago, that
the heroin they seized, most of which is being brought in from
Mexico and Central America, is of increasingly higher potency
and being sold at lower and lower prices. In fact, they even
told me that the heroin they have seen in eastern Pennsylvania
is the most potent they have seen anywhere in the country.
What factors can you point to that would explain the
significant increase in heroin supply and how the State
Department is responding to those particular factors, and maybe
Mr. Brownfield?
Mr. Brownfield. Let me take a bite at that one,
Congressman. And half of my answer is a matter of domestics,
domestic politics, domestic law, domestic enforcement, but it
all makes sense. In this case, supply is following demand. The
argument, which I believe is a good one, is that over the last
20 years, we created the demand by overuse of prescription
opioids, largely pain killers, which developed a dependency or
an addiction which produced a demand for the opioid, and now
the heroin market is meeting that demand at a cheaper cost than
it would be for the users; whether in Pennsylvania, Florida, or
Texas, they can get a heroin dosage at about one-quarter of the
cost as it would be from--
Mr. Dent. That is entirely true where I live.
Mr. Brownfield. So that is the starting point. Then what I
assess, and we can have a conversation about this, is that the
overwhelming majority of the heroin that is now entering the
United States is coming from Mexico; not from Colombia, and for
the most part, not from further down in Central America.
Therefore, the impact is much more at our southwest border,
much less in Central America itself.
That said, is there heroin that is being produced in
Guatemala? Yes, a small percentage of what you see in Mexico,
but some. And is there heroin still being produced in Colombia?
Yes, and it must transit the Central America corridor to get
there. But the percentage is tiny compared to what is coming in
from Mexico.
And to conclude, early next month, I hope to join a group
that will be led by the Director of National Drug Control
Policy of the United States, Mr. Boticelli, to talk to the
Mexican Government on next steps and what further we can do to
address this crisis.
Mr. Dent. Yes, thank you, because it is obviously a
national issue. It is everywhere, and all of the deaths in my
district in recent months did a drug overdose of either heroin
or synthetic drugs. I mean, that is virtually 100 percent of
the deaths.
My second question is this: Many of us on the subcommittee
are watching, with cautious optimism, the mission to support
the fight against corruption and impunity in Honduras, and I
don't know what that acronym is----
Mr. Brownfield. MACCIH.
Mr. Dent. MACCIH, okay. It begins its work investigating
corruption and impunity in the country. So while we hope this
new organization will be as effective as the CICIG, that has
been very successful, in Guatemala, there are obviously some
different challenges in Honduras. What are some of the primary
obstacles facing MACCIH, and how can the United States help
them be successful in bringing real reform to Honduras,
particularly regarding the illegal expropriation of private
property?
Mr. Palmieri. Thank you, MACCIH will--first, it is an
agreement between the Honduran Government and the Organization
of American States. We and other international partners will
need to support it with funding, and we look to be able to do
that. But the critical elements for its success is, it must
have independence to operate with its partners inside Honduras.
It must have the ability to signal and highlight cases that are
not moving forward and should move forward. And the Honduran
Government has pledged itself to working in a constructive
manner with MACCIH in that area.
Mr. Brownfield. I will add just one additional comment,
Congressman. The head of CICIG, Ivan Velasquez, is in town
right now. I have had a recent conversation with him. I won't
be surprised if several others around this table have as well.
What Velasquez has said is that there are two keys to success
of a CICIG or MACCIH-type organization. One is independence
from the government, which is to say, he gets to pick his own
personnel, make his own decisions in terms of cases to
investigate; and second, the authority to actually proceed on
cases. In other words, he does not have--the government does
not make the ultimate decision. And what he has said to me is,
examine those two issues as you figure how we will work with
MACCIH in Honduras in the months and years to come.
Mr. Dent. Thank you. I see my time has expired.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I think last time I saw you, you were
the Ambassador in Venezuela with Chavez who was giving you a
hard time, or wouldn't talk to you, or what was----
Mr. Brownfield. The greatest 3 years of my life.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, I see you survived and now you are
Assistant Secretary, so it was all worth it, I guess.
First, I want to make a statement. I think that our country
has really not focused on two areas of South America and
Central America and the crime and drug situation there. We put
so such emphasis in other parts of the world, especially the
Middle East, and it is amazing that you have been able to do
what you have been able to do. All of the organizations, and
that includes DEA, also who has very little resources.
Now, one of the issues I do want to talk about is the issue
of corruption, police corruption, and the corruption within--in
politics and extortion. And it is my understanding there is a
newspaper in, I think it was Honduras, that said that the
corruption paid by the government to these gangs, organized
crime, mostly drugs, were close to $300,000 a year sometimes. I
mean, $300 million a year. I am wondering if that is a true
statement and do we have the government itself--we know there
is corruption dealing with that.
The other part of my question will be the special group, I
think you referred to, the special anticorruption group that is
in different parts of, I think, Honduras, I assume Guatemala.
And if you could just talk about those two issues: the crime,
the extortion, what we are doing about it, and is it still
pervasive there? Because in the end, unless the public have
confidence in our elected officials and our police, especially
our police, you are going to have that atmosphere if there is
not a lot of trust.
Mr. Brownfield. Congressman, here is my 30-second
assessment. There are two driving factors that are creating a
vast amount of corruption in Honduras and, quite frankly,
throughout the Northern Triangle. First are the organized--the
transnational criminal organizations, largely drug trafficking.
They are professional criminals and their objectives are
economic in nature. And the second are the criminal gangs. And
in fact, the gangs that you see in El Salvador, Honduras, and
Guatemala are the same gangs that--many of the same gangs that
you see up here in the United States of America. There is no
question whatsoever, that those two criminal institutions are
penetrating and corrupting all three of the governments of the
Northern Triangle. I am not going to parse words in terms of
how many dollars are represented in terms of that corruption. I
acknowledge that in all three of the governments, it is
substantial at many different levels.
What they are doing now to address them in both Guatemala,
and, more recently, in Honduras, is establishing an
organization, CICIG or MACCIH, to both investigate and bring
cases against those in government who have been corrupted. They
are also developing law enforcement organizations to both
investigate and prosecute those crimes. There are TAG, or anti-
gang units in all three of the countries, and there are, in
fact, law enforcement units that are vectored on corruption.
My conclusion would be to suggest to you that it has taken
the region decades, if not centuries, to get into this
situation and we have to acknowledge it is going to take some
time to get out of it.
Mr. Ruppersberger. My time is almost up, but I do want to
say that you know how successful the program has been with the
FARC in Colombia, and you were an Ambassador in Colombia also.
What did you learn in Colombia that you might be able to use in
this area?
Mr. Brownfield. Yeah, if I had 10 hours I could probably
fill them all. Let me offer three or four of the biggest hits.
I come from west Texas, Madam Chairwoman. We have very few
people out there so we talk a great deal. First, you have to
concentrate on your law enforcement organization. In Colombia,
that was the CNP. And literally, during a 10-year period, they
expelled thousands of officers for corruption. There has to be
an internal mechanism that purifies your own institutions.
Second, you have to have programs that are in it for the
long term. You cannot hold them to a standard of eliminating
corruption in 3 months, 6 months, or even 3 years, or 6 years.
You have to assume that it is going to take time.
Third, you have to have consensus within the government and
that means all three branches of government, legislative,
executive, and judicial, that in fact, you will spend the
resources and the time to accomplish it. Those are three that
would come right off the top in terms of how to make long-term
progress against corruption and impunity.
Mr. Ruppersberger. And do you need resources and money?
Mr. Brownfield. Without a doubt.
Mr. Palmieri. If I could just add on that point, the
Honduran Government itself, modeled after the Colombia
experience, has put in place a security tax so that they can
raise the resources that they need to undertake some of these
reforms. And as part of the Alliance for Prosperity, as Ms.
Hogan mentioned previously, there are the three governments
investing $2.6 billion of their own money in 2016 to match the
$750 million you so generously appropriated in the 2016 budget.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe it was
you, Ms. Hogan, who testified that there was a turning point.
Have we seen a turning point--in Colombia, governance in the
Northern Triangle, in those three countries, whereby we can
anticipate--have we seen a turning point whereby we can
anticipate a stability of governance that will manifest itself
in measures of societal wellbeing, decrease in violence,
economic opportunity, decrease in migration?
Ms. Hogan. Thank you for your question. I am an optimist, I
think you have to be to work in this field of development. But
I truly believe that this is a historic moment in Central
America, whereby these governments are standing up and taking
responsibility for their problems, investing their own
resources, and trying to address these problems, and looking to
the United States, and other donors for strategic partnerships.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. How does that happen? Is it through
an awakened leadership? Is it fatigued with the violence? Is it
our input? Is it other bilateral partners' input? Tell me how--
why this trajectory is coming about right now.
Ms. Hogan. I think that--well, I would say yes to all----
Mr. Fortenberry. Do you think the trajectory is real?
Ms. Hogan. I would say yes to all of those points. I think
the tipping point is what we saw happen in Guatemala, where
through these this independent investigative unit called CICIG,
they were able to bring cases to the public's attention that
were so egregious that civil society stood up and said we will
not tolerate this any longer, and that coupled with hard
evidence by CICIG, and additionally, an empowered public
prosecutor's office, as well a special high-impact court that
oversees these trials, again, which were the beneficiaries of
U.S. Government assistance, I think that was the tipping point.
And I think Honduras sat next door and said, we see this wave
is coming towards us. We want to get ahead of it. And then
they, in fact, established their own similar investigative
process.
Mr. Fortenberry. What are your projections in regards to
how we are going to see real measurements of outcome in this
regard? It is murky right now. The violence is still very high.
There is migration waves still coming even though they are
lesser, and the economic problems are not clearly resolved. So
do you have a timeline if this trajectory continues?
Ms. Hogan. It is hard to give a timeline. As my colleague
said, it is not going to happen overnight. But one of the
things that we have seen is that when we have all hands on deck
in a community that is very violent, and we help these
communities take back their communities where they, frankly,
haven't had any safe space in which to operate, it is street by
street, block by block, and community by community. It is very
labor intensive. But because we have been able to show success
in the communities where we are working in terms of the
reduction of violence, these governments have said, we see what
is working. We want to invest our resources in scaling that up.
And that is what Plan Seguro is in El Salvador. It is taking
that model and bringing it to the 10 most violent
municipalities to scale up our interventions.
Mr. Fortenberry. Let me tell a quick story. I had the
chance to visit in Guatemala, as well as Honduras rather
recently. There is a little town called Dos Caminos, two
pathways, where there is a project underwritten by the
International Agricultural Corporation, Cargill, which provided
the seed capital for the formation of a bakery that is run by
women. The organization CARE, along with, I believe it is some
shepherding through the Feed the Future Program, provided the
ongoing technical assistance. It is an amazing transformation
to see this bakery flourishing. The women who are involved,
excited.
Just years before they would have had a subsistence, not in
starvation, but in what I call a benign poverty. One of the
women had lost her husband 3 weeks earlier to the violence, but
all committed to this vision of empowerment through this small
little economic project. It was very encouraging to see, and
obviously, this is the type of thing we want to scale that
involves the full partnership of the private sector which
ultimately has to be the longer-term solution here. But my time
is nearing to be completed, but are we going to have another
round, Madam Chair.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair, and to the witnesses,
thank you. It is an important issue. I would like to come to
something that my friend, Mr. Diaz-Balart mentioned, and I want
to go through this quickly. But it is worth, I think,
emphasizing and using this as an illustration of a concern that
many of us have, and that is this individual, Mr. Cerna, who
some of you mentioned. The challenges down there are
meaningful. We get that. There is drugs, there is violence,
there is kidnapping, there is gangs. And how anyone would have
economic opportunity in that environment is remarkable at all.
But the only hope for the individuals there, for the
families, is if there is some economic activity. They have to
have hope of a job and some type of future. This is an
environment that is very violent and very difficult to do, but
it is much more difficult if the Federal Government is making
it worse instead of better in some circumstances. And in some
circumstances, they are.
And I think that this individual is an example of that. You
will not have foreign investment if the investors don't feel
like there is respect for the rule of law. If they don't
believe that they can go in there and protect their investment,
and in this case, it was meaningful investment as is in many
circumstances, tens of millions of dollars. And the Federal
Government there essentially acted as, well, they are using
their power to expropriate this business from this individual
as they have in other circumstances. Essentially using, you
know, their power to tax, and their power to threaten
prosecution.
I wish any of you, if you would, could you assure us that
you are doing everything you can? You can't sway the gangs down
there, but you can have influence over the Federal officials.
And I just need some assurance that you are doing everything in
your power to create that rule of law in an environment that
would allow people to go down there and to try to make
investments that will help the people down there.
Mr. Palmieri. Yes, Mr. Stewart. The top priority, one of
the top priorities for every U.S. Embassy is to assist the
American citizens and to protect American investment overseas.
Our embassy has been engaged in Mr. Cerna's case since 2002. It
has a long judicial process that it has been subject to.
Mr. Stewart. That is, indeed, very long, because that is
going on 15 years now, 14, 15 years.
Mr. Palmieri. Yes, it is. There are arbitration proceedings
that are available for the settlement of that dispute, which
the Honduran Government has offered to Mr. Cerna in the past.
But more importantly, in the specific case, as part of the
conditions in the legislation, we are working with the
government to ensure that they are working toward resolving
commercial business disputes and putting in place new
strengthened rule of law procedures to protect foreign
investment.
Mr. Stewart. Well, and they just have to. I mean, this
example, 14, 15 years now into it, and it is arbitration which
is going to result in not a fair deal, in my mind. I mean, no
one would look at that and say, well, that is good. I will go
down there and investment $30 million in a business, and the
government may take that from me. And 15 years later I may be
in arbitration. I mean, no one is going to look at that and say
that is a good place to go down and be. And once again, I don't
mean to lecture because I know you know this, if there is no
economic viability, there is no hope for this region. They have
to feel like there is hope for their kids to get a job where
they can sustain a family and you can't do that without capital
investments.
Mr. Palmieri. And that is exactly right. They have to
create the conditions for foreign investment.
Mr. Stewart. That is right, and that is true anywhere in
the world. And if I could very quickly--in the few seconds I
have. There is a bit of a talk about a kind of Central American
spring, if you will, the protests in some of these countries
where people are actually beginning to push back. Very quickly,
are you optimistic? Is there something there we can look at and
say this is good, you know, this might help?
Mr. Palmieri. I think what we saw in Guatemala was
historic. It was youth, students, private sector, civil society
coming together, using social media platform, and using this
external entity to really demand accountability. And it was
successful in Guatemala. I think it is not just a wave in
Central America. I think it is throughout the Americas that we
are seeing this. And I do think it will continue to yield
results. And in Honduras, the agreement with the OAS to
establish MACCIH reflects the need for some external help to
get and move forward on these corruption and transparency
issues.
Mr. Stewart. Well, and let's hope so, and let's facilitate
that if we can, and encourage, and support those people because
they are in a very difficult circumstance, but showing
remarkable courage, in my opinion, so thank you.
Ms. Granger. I will start a second round and say I
appreciate all the members of the subcommittee for staying. I
know you are very busy, and we are using the time very wisely.
I want to ask you about the $750 million that Congress
funded for fiscal year 2016 for this three-country alliance
that has come together. I am very concerned because I worked on
Plan Colombia, and it took years. Everyone knows it would take
years there was that sort of commitment. Seven hundred fifty
million dollars in 1 year, how is it going to be used? Where
does it go? We said from the very beginning, this will be a
multiyear effort and I am concerned about that enormous amount
of money in 1 year, and how can it be used effectively? Thank
you.
Ms. Hogan. I would like to begin to answer that question
for you, Madam Chairwoman. We did not wait for the
appropriation to get started in planning on how we would use
those resources. In fact, as early as the fall of 2014, after
we saw the spike and we knew that the administration was going
to ask for increased resources for Central America, USAID got
started. And so we have been designing programs over the last
year to 18 months in anticipation of these resources. And in
fact, we have a very aggressive procurement schedule this year.
We expect to obligate up to $490 million in new activities
across the three pillars of the strategy before the end of this
fiscal year. And our goal is to live within the pipeline
standards of our agency so that we are good stewards of those
resources. We spend them wisely, but we spend them quickly
because the need is so great, and we think we have got the
right procurement instruments in which to put those resources.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Brownfield. And if I can add, Madam Chairwoman, on the
INCLE side of the House, and you will recall, of that $750
million, we come out to about $1 for every 2, 2\1/2\ that went
to the USAID accounts. So what we are looking at this year is
somewhere in the vicinity of $170 million, which was our 2015
appropriation now coming online for us. I would say the same
thing as Beth. We are starting on programs that are already
there. We are not starting at point zero. We have been involved
in CARSI now 6, going on 7 years. We want to reinforce some of
the justice sector, police reform, and border security programs
that we believe are delivering value and have been for more
than 5 years.
We also want to do something new, which I can use 15
seconds to say is the place-based strategy, where in an
unprecedented historical manner, USAID and INL are working
together, community by community, barrio by barrio, in terms of
developing an objectives-driven comprehensive approach in the
hardest, toughest areas in the region. And I would hope, Madam
Chairwoman, to be able to deliver you clear evidence of
results, positive, I hope; if negative, then we will figure
what we need to change.
Ms. Granger. Thank you very much. I am going to change to
Costa Rica now. I just got back from Costa Rica a very short
time ago. I looked at the security challenges of that country
because of the number of Cubans that were going through Costa
Rica, primarily from Cuba to Ecuador. The fiscal year 2016
appropriations bill provided for increased funding for Central
America, the regional security initiative. Some of those funds
should be used for Costa Rica.
Assistant Secretary Brownfield, how is the State Department
planning on supporting Costa Rica, and specifically, what can
be done to help their coast guard, which is very limited, to
help them with drug interdiction at sea and the security forces
to increase border patrols? They said a light has been shined
on Costa Rica due to Cuban migration through that country, but
they were much more concerned about human trafficking and drug
trafficking that is going through Costa Rica, and how their
limited Coast Guard, and our Coast Guard can address those
challenges.
Mr. Brownfield. Madam Chairwoman, your assessment and our
assessment are not at all surprising. Exactly the same. First,
our approach in terms of the total Central America INCLE budget
for the last 5 years has been about two-thirds, 60 to 65
percent goes to the Northern Triangle three; the remaining one-
third to two-fifths goes to the remainder of Central America,
frankly, three of the four remainders in Central America. We
have almost no program at all in Nicaragua.
That would remain the same, but we have surged, as you well
know, since you approved it, the amount--the total amount of
funding available for Central America. I am therefore, hopeful,
in fact, I am not hopeful, I am certain that we are going to
increase by nearly 100 percent the amount of program INCLE
funding available for Costa Rica. What do we propose to do with
it? First, we want to reinforce some programs that are working.
COMPSTAT, which is the computer-driven statistics that allow
the Costa Rican police to put their personnel where they are
most needed is a winner.
Supporting, training, and developing border guard
capability, which, in turn, controls, to some extent, the
movement of other populations across their southern and
northern borders has been a winner. The CAPRI police training
program which is headquartered in Panama, but in fact, provides
regional training to, among others, the Costa Rican national
police is something we want to support. Their anti-gang program
called GREAT is worth some effort. Maritime is the area that is
going to be new in this coming year. I have had several
conversations with the coast guard. The coast guard is prepared
to put assets there. We are prepared to support them in terms
of maintenance support, and building docks to help them control
and use those assets. I hope to have a good story, which I will
tell you as often as you are patient enough to hear in the
course of this year on Costa Rica.
Ms. Granger. I am not particularly patient, but I will
listen. I am a former teacher, so I give you an A on that
answer. Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. I am not a former teacher, but as you can see,
and our chairwoman has said this many times, we have on this
committee people who are really committed to the work you are
doing, and I couldn't help but think, Mr. Fortenberry, when you
talked about this enterprise that was empowering women, I
remember seeing this in many places in the world, and I still
get excited after 25 years of seeing some of the success
stories. And I must say, Madam Chair, when we have the caliber
of people such as this, it gives me hope in-between the times
that I am very depressed that we can't move more quickly in
solving these problems. But I do want to thank you for your
years of service, and I would hope that we can see more success
stories such as that.
And it is interesting, because I can remember them. I
remember one I saw in Arusha, Tanzania, Land of Lakes, a
wonderful project where they were empowering women and how the
women stand taller, feel empowered, take charge, work and raise
their families. However, I want to ask a question that is not
related to all of these good comments we are telling you.
If you could explain the administration's decision, on the
one hand, to expand the number of Central American refugees
permitted in the country recognizing the dire conditions in the
Northern Triangle, while at the same time, increasing
deportations of families. You may tell me that is someone
else's job, but I would like to hear your response to it, and
if you have any input.
Mr. Palmieri. Yeah, excuse me. The administration's effort
in Central America is to ensure that there is safe, legal, and
orderly migration from the region. Undocumented migration
through the region, through Mexico, leads people to being
exploited, potentially trafficked, assaulted in many different
ways. The administration has set up a Central America minors
program in the region that allows minors to apply for refugee
resettlement to the United States if they have a legal
relationship with a person who can apply for them, sponsor them
in the United States.
With regard to the removals, the Department of Homeland
Security has stated that those removal orders are based on
final orders of removal after individuals have exhausted all of
their claims for credible, fair, and refugee status.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, I just want to say, it is causing
tremendous turbulence in our communities, and that is probably
not your direct role. I just thought I would get it out there.
So thank you again for your service. We all look forward to
hearing more success stories, understanding how challenging,
tremendously challenging this is. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam
Chairwoman. As you all, I am sure, know and have seen, this
subcommittee chaired by Mrs. Granger is very, very, very good
at asking for specifics. And frankly, less concerned about
rhetoric and speeches. Let me just throw out one specific
first, because the question came up about Cuba. Since the
establishment of the relations there has been about almost a 90
percent increase in Cubans fleeing the island and coming to the
United States, based on the increased repression. And it has
been particularly difficult on Costa Rica. I want to thank you,
Madam Chairwoman, for going there, and for meeting and seeing
that firsthand. Those are some facts which obviously are not in
dispute.
So, Ambassador Brownfield, you mentioned that you think
about 100 percent increase in what you can--of INCLE assistance
to Costa Rica. I think it would be important if you keep us
informed as to specifically how you are doing, what you are
doing, and how whatever it is what you are doing is working,
because Costa Rica has this additional challenge of not having
a national military, per se, though they obviously have a
national police. So if you could just keep us informed as much
as you can on that, I think that would be helpful.
Mr. Brownfield. Will do. I make that commitment,
Congressman. And you are correct in your assessment. Costa Rica
has always been perceived in Central America as the exception
to the rule, kind of the Switzerland located in a difficult
neighborhood. And the truth of the matter is, they are now
encountering many of the same concerns, problem, and threats
that the rest of the region is.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Secretary Palmieri, going back to the
issue of the CEMAR issue in Honduras. As Mr. Stewart mentioned
in response to you talking about, you know, the Embassy has
been involved for 15 years. That is a pretty good example of
something that hasn't worked. In other words, if, for 15 years,
the U.S. Embassy has been trying to help and it hasn't worked,
we have got a problem. So I would tell you, and again, going to
how this subcommittee works, let me tell you what I expect, and
I think what most of us expect.
Right now, this subcommittee has put forward almost $1
billion. We expect the U.S. Government to exert leverage when
it is time to stand up for the interests of the United States
and also for property rights of American citizens. So I would
tell you, with all due respect, that the issue of, you know,
the Embassy forwarding, referring these individuals to a
process, this has been going on for 15 years. So what I would
ask specifically from you, sir, is I think all of us would ask,
and you seem to think there is great interest, we are talking
about property rights issues here. And again, if you don't
solve that, you can kiss all of the $750 million good-bye. So
if you could please get back to us, not on, you know,
bureaucratic answers about, well, we have referred them to--no,
no, what specifically, how can we exert--now that we should
have additional leverage to make sure that our interests and
that property rights' interests are actually followed?
So what I would respectfully ask of you is, tell you that,
answering that the same stuff that we have been doing for 15
years, is just not acceptable. And so how are you going to use
that leverage? I don't want an answer from you right now, but I
expect an answer, a specific answer as to how we are going to
exert leverage, and, particularly, additional leverage to
protect the interests of Americans and property rights, et
cetera, if you would.
Mr. Palmieri. I am very happy to do so.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. Let me just comment with
regard to Cuba. I think we have seen, and my colleague and I
disagree. I think we have seen over 50 years of a non-
engagement policy with Cuba. That hasn't changed one thing. So
it is time to at least have normal relations and dialogue in
the embargo. Perhaps through normal diplomatic relations, some
of my colleagues' goals could be accomplished.
Let me just say to Ambassador Brownfield, I, too, come from
the southwest, El Paso, Texas.
Mr. Brownfield. As did my mother.
Ms. Lee. Born and raised there; my mother born and raised
there; my grandfather, first African American letter carriers,
spoke fluent Spanish. Border town of Juarez, and we know what
has been happening in Juarez for many, many years now. I don't
know if you would consider the decrease in murders and
kidnappings a success story, or a partial success story, but
could you kind of tell us how you see what is taking place in
Juarez?
Second, and as it relates to El Paso, because I know El
Paso was one of the safest cities in the country in the United
States, yet Juarez was one of the most violent, and so it was a
very interesting period where those, the most violent and the
safest city were side by side.
Third, just with regard to the drug crimes and the drug
trafficking, unfortunately, the African American community has
been dealing with drug issues, and not the lack of
rehabilitation and drug treatment services for many, many, many
decades. You remember Iran Contra? I remember mass
incarceration, and so it is unfortunate now that other
communities are dealing with the drug epidemic. But I am glad
to see a shift finally from locking people up, you know,
because they use drugs, or deal drugs, to finding some sort of
rehabilitation alternatives, because we don't want any
community to experience what the black community has
experienced, which has wreaked havoc in our lives. And we know
where it started. And so the drug interdiction and dealing with
these drug gangs in Central America is extremely important, and
so I would like to just kind of know how you see now versus 20,
30 years ago, your efforts to try to stop this drug trade?
Mr. Brownfield. Let me offer a couple of comments on both
of your points, Congresswoman. First, Juarez, I am delighted to
talk about Juarez because in a sense, it represents an example
of what USAID and INL, what Beth Hogan and I are trying to
accomplish with what we call the place-based strategy in
Central America.
Five or 6 years ago, I mean, I will be quite clear with
you. There was a period of time where Juarez had a homicide
rate of about 180 per 100,000, and 200 yards across the river,
El Paso had a homicide rate that was under four. So a distance
of maybe 200 yards, one was suffering 180 per 100,000, and the
other something like 3.7 or something along those lines.
Now, Juarez has become now, I mean, I won't call it the
safest city in the world, but I believe they have brought their
homicide rate down to somewhere in the 30s, and that is an
astonishing accomplishment over 5 years. How have they done it?
They did it with a version of what Beth and I would call the
place-based strategy. Juarez city leaders and the Federal
Government, in essence, did a grid of the map of Juarez, and in
those troubled areas where the most homicides were occurring,
they concentrated resources; not just police, although a lot of
them were concentrated there, but also city and social
services, employment generation, education, community centers.
And in 5 years, Juarez has converted, I mean, it has literally
been a complete turnaround. We would like to see that happening
in San Salvador, in Guatemala City, in Tegucigalpa, and other
cities in Central America as well.
Drugs, writ large, you know as well as I do, particularly
coming from the El Paso area, it is a complicated issue. It is
a supply issue and a demand issue. It is where the drugs are
produced, which tends to be south of the border, and where they
are consumed, which is north of the border. And then there is a
variation: bad news on heroin, it is surging. Cocaine, on the
other hand, has dropped more than 50 percent in the United
States of America. Is there a connection? Yes, there probably
is. You are correct that in April of this year, all of the
governments of the world will meet in New York for a special
session of the U.N. General Assembly, where we will address
where the world wants to go on drug policy for the next 20
years. And I, for one, am looking forward to a good
conversation talking about realistic, pragmatic, logical steps
that we could take that actually would bridge the gap between
those who say legalize everything, and the other extreme who
say prohibit everything.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want to
say, it is about time because we have lost in the black
community a whole generation, maybe two generations of young
African Americans as it relates to the lack of involvement and
concern about the drug trafficking trade until, you know,
unfortunately, now too many other people are being victimized
and hit by it. So I am glad we are finally on it. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to share a
story with you which will become a quick admonishment, and then
I want to turn to a question about gangs. Last year, we had a
very lovely dinner hosted by the Ambassadors from Guatemala,
Honduras, and El Salvador. And it was just a regularized
attempt to create more ongoing relations between us and the
diplomatic community. However, the dinner happened to be timed
with the announcement from the administration that these
countries were going to get $1 billion. So we walk into a very
awkward situation of being thanked for something that we had
not done, had not heard of, had not been briefed on. The point
being, a lot of places in the world, when the President says
something, when the Congress says something, that means it is.
And so we were put in a very awkward position of gently working
ourselves through that and saying, wait, wait, wait, time out.
This has to be approved by Congress, and we want to know more
details of the plan.
So the admonishment is, expectations can get created by
things that are said that may not translate into reality
because we have the job of actually coming up with the law that
would mandate or dictate what you all do. So I put that on the
table for your consideration.
But it was fine. It was a lovely evening, and I think we
got through this.
Second, I want to know, give me your insights into gang
culture. We throw the word ``gangs'' around. The mobility of
this culture, where it primarily emanates from, clearly, it is
attached to drug trades, ungoverned space, corruption, habits
of being, residual effects of past structures. I would like
more insights into this.
Ms. Hogan. Thank you very much for your question. I would
like to start to answer that by saying that one of the things
that we have benefited from while addressing gang culture is
the work in the United States, particularly in Los Angeles and
Chicago, where they have had great success in reducing gang
violence. And one of the things that we have adapted from Los
Angeles, is something that is called the YSET model and it is a
series of indicators that helps one identify who are those
children that are most at risk for joining gangs. And those are
the kids that we are trying to focus on. We have a statistic
that says that roughly 0.5 percent of people are responsible
for 75 percent of crime.
Mr. Fortenberry. Yes--I am glad you brought that up,
because in a sense, this is a narrow band of persons who then
seize the conditions that are ripe for manipulating others.
Ms. Hogan. Right.
Mr. Fortenberry. And getting to the heart of that I think,
is the question for solving this. I'm sorry.
Ms. Hogan. And so a couple of those indicators are things
like, who are the kids who may have a family member in a gang?
Who are the kids that are coming from broken homes? Who are the
kids that have no parents at home after school and therefore
are susceptible?
Mr. Fortenberry. But those are U.S. measures, and these
places----
Ms. Hogan. We are using those in Central America as well,
and those are the kids that we are going after and why we have
these community outreach centers is to give a safe place for
these kids to go after school where they can get vocational
training, they can have recreational training, they can get
tutoring, and they have mentors watching over them and giving
them adult supervision that they don't otherwise have. And so
we are seeing a reduction in the number of kids who go into
gangs as well as people coming out of gangs, because it is not
a happy place to be. I mean, this is a very dangerous
proposition for them.
And so we have had example after example of kids who are
maybe low-level members, maybe watch-outs, you know, lookouts,
and they have turned around to come to our centers because they
don't want to fall in the footsteps of their brother, cousin,
uncle, who have been killed as a result of gang violence.
And so I think, you know, we are using a model that has
been effective in the United States and it is proving effective
in Central America as well.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. I am hearing what you are saying. I also had
concern because we were going in being congratulated for
something we had not heard of. And before that happened, in
meeting with the presidents of the three countries after we had
the situation with the unaccompanied children, we said, we want
to help you. The last thing we want is to take your children I
said I asked the question of each president in the country, do
you want your children back? Because if they had not said yes,
adamantly, then our plan would have been different. But we said
then, we are going to help you conquer the problems that would
cause a parent to say, ``I am going to give you my child to
take to another country. And all I am doing is paying you.''
It was a horrible thing as a parent to even consider. But
when meeting with the presidents of those three countries. What
concerned me is how unrealistic they were about what they
wanted to do. Because they started with, we are going to have
these Fortune 500 companies come to our country and that will
put people to work. I said, not if they can't walk down the
streets safely.
So I was very pleased to hear that you had already started,
done so much there. Also, we have to work with the governments
of those countries to say, we are going to help but there is
going to have to be a lot of work on your end, patience, and
realistic expectations.
Mr. Palmieri. And if I could just add, I think that
intervention, the dinner, your engagement when the presidents
came up in July of 2014, I think that helped catalyze their
thinking that they needed a more comprehensive approach, and it
led through the efforts of the Inter-American Development Bank
to this creation of the Alliance for Prosperity. And the
Alliance for Prosperity in Central America, really is an
historic-opportunity moment for the United States because it is
the first time, really, that Guatemalans and Salvadorans, and
Hondurans agreed around the same set of circumstances and what
the possible solutions could be.
And the U.S., Congress' support in the fiscal year 2016
bill to provide $750 million just doesn't make the United
States a partner to this effort. It sends a signal to other
partners in the hemisphere and around the world that this plan
has a chance. And we will work with you, the Congress, on those
conditions and help those countries live up to the commitments
they have made in the Alliance for Prosperity.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mr. Ruppersberger, you may have the
last question.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you. I want to talk about Zika,
and the situation is becoming serious throughout the whole
hemisphere. In your roles, all three of your roles, we, as a
Congress, have to decide how we are going to focus, how we are
going to fund it. There is already a debate whether we are
spending too much money or not.
In your role in the region we are talking about today, it
seems to me that you have to be involved in a lot of health
issues. But this is something that is growing. And yet, you
have situations where I am sure your health workers were being
threatened and intimidated by gangs, so if you could talk about
generally how your role will be in dealing with the issue of
Zika, what you need from us, and what you would like to see
from us if you could get that?
Mr. Palmieri. Yes, I will quickly give you the overview of
how the Department is approaching it. First, there is a whole
of government, U.S. Government approach to the Zika challenge
writ large. In the region, the State Department is leading the
diplomatic engagement, and we are working with organizations
like the World Health Organization, the Pan American Health
Organization, and Health and Human Services, and the Center for
Disease Control to make sure that we are getting information
out to American citizens in the region, taking care of our
employees at embassies who could be vulnerable to the virus,
and working closely with the regional governments.
And then finally, we are also working to ensure that there
is the appropriate scientific exchange as we work to address
this, and I will turn to my AID colleague to talk about the
programmatic elements.
Ms. Hogan. Thank you very much for your question, and of
course, it is of very grave concern for us as it impacts Latin
America so directly. We have been working with our counterparts
in the region, in the Ministries of Health, and elsewhere to
help identify what their needs are concurrently with what we
might be able to provide. And certainly, we can provide them
with existing resources, help in developing public education
campaigns on how to avoid contracting the disease, and
protective measures that people can take, particularly pregnant
women can take, in order to lessen their vulnerability to this.
We have only had one request for assistance thus far from
the region. It came from Jamaica to help them improve their
diagnostic testing, and that has been responded to through our
support through the Pan American Health Organization. With
additional resources, there is much more that needs to be done
that we are poised to do. Simulating private sector research
and development of better diagnostic tools, as well as a
vaccine; supporting the training of health workers in the
community to help affected countries with information about
best practices and supporting children with microcephaly; to
support pregnant women's health, in particular, including
helping them access repellent to protect them against
mosquitos. As I mentioned, establishing education campaigns
that will empower communities to take control of their
actions--for example, limiting the amount of collected water
that is a breeding ground for mosquitos; and then potentially
issuing a grant challenge with something that we do as a call
to the world basically to provide innovative ideas for new ways
in which they can, and improved ways in which we can develop
diagnostics, control personal protection, et cetera.
It was through a similar--through a grant challenge that we
were able to develop the new Ebola suit that was something that
was an innovation in the treatment for that disease, so this
has that same potential as well going forward.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you.
Ms. Hogan. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Following that up, let me ask a question, and
it is to Mr. Palmieri. Does the administration plan to use
unobligated balances from Ebola to address Zika?
Mr. Palmieri. I know that there is a presentation that has
been made on the administration's response to this Zika virus
and the budget request. If I could get you the specific
response to that question, I will have that for you by the end
of the day.
Ms. Granger. Yes, that would be great. I thank the
witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee today. 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]
Wednesday, February 24, 2016.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND FOREIGN ASSISTANCE
WITNESS
HON. JOHN F. KERRY, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Opening Statement of Chairwoman Granger
Ms. Granger. The Committee on State, Foreign Operations,
and Related Programs will come to order.
Mr. Secretary, I want to welcome you back to the
subcommittee. We are looking forward to your statement.
You recently noted that while funding for international
programs represents just 1 percent of the total Federal budget,
it may well define the majority of the history written about
our era. Members of this subcommittee certainly understand the
importance of these programs.
The United States continues to show leadership in areas
such as reducing poverty, fighting the AIDS virus, and stopping
preventable deaths of mothers and children. However, there are
countless security challenges around the world that grab the
headlines every day.
At the top of the list is the crisis in Syria and the
surrounding region, which is being fueled by the Assad regime,
ISIL, and other terrorist groups. This situation has grown more
complicated due to Russia's increased involvement, and we want
to hear your thoughts about the situation on the ground.
We also are concerned that our allies and partners in the
fight against terrorism, such as Egypt, Jordan, and the Kurds
in Iraq, are not receiving the assistance they need. While
there has been some improvement since I raised this issue with
you last year, I want to reiterate that there is no excuse for
bureaucratic delays.
It is critical that our policies promote our national
security interest and not undermine them. I question why the
administration plans to phase out the cashflow financing
arrangement from military sales in Egypt, which is one of the
most reliable partners of ours in the Middle East.
We must demonstrate our steadfast support to help Israel
address the threats posed by Iran and its proxies. Now that a
nuclear agreement is in place, we are all closely watching
Iran's actions.
You have said that some of the funds freed up from the
sanctions relief could end up in the hands of terrorists. The
threat to Israel is very serious. As you negotiate another
long-term memorandum of understanding, it must be made clear
that U.S. support for Israel's security is unequivocal.
Another troubling development is the increased violence in
Israel and the Palestinian territories over the last several
months. We want to hear your thoughts about the prospects for
getting the parties back to the negotiating table. We also want
to hear what the United States can do to help stop harmful
rhetoric and incitement.
I want to turn next to Russia's aggressive actions against
its neighbors. Many of us don't understand why Ukraine has not
received lethal military aid or why the State Department budget
proposes to reduce assistance to Ukraine by 55 percent from
last year's level. We also see China asserting itself against
the United States and our friends and allies in the Asia-
Pacific region. We want to hear how this budget supports
countries willing to stand up to China when their territory is
threatened.
We also watch with great concern as North Korea continues
to defy international sanctions. We want to hear your thoughts
on what more can be done to stop this rogue nation from its
nuclear pursuits.
In Afghanistan, a resurgent Taliban and a growing number of
foreign fighters continue to threaten the country's security.
We question how the $1.2 billion of foreign assistance
requested can be effectively programmed in this environment.
In the Americas, we see drug and gang violence, human
trafficking, and lack of economic opportunity continuing to
drive migration to the United States. The subcommittee held a
hearing 2 weeks ago on assistance to Central America where we
looked at these issues. We must see results before new funds
can be considered.
We are monitoring the new public health threat from the
Zika virus spreading in this hemisphere and received a
supplemental request on Monday. This committee has provided
significant funding and the flexibility to address global
health threats, and we want to hear how the administration will
immediately address the Zika outbreak.
We have additional questions about the administration's
budget request for the State Department and foreign assistance
programs. The total funding requested is roughly last year's
level, but you propose to cut programs that have bipartisan
support such as security assistance and humanitarian programs.
At the same time, we see an increase is requested for
administration priorities such as funding to combat climate
change.
One area that we all agree is a priority is preserving the
safety and security of our Nation's diplomats and development
officers. This subcommittee must be sure that funds provided
will keep our people safe.
In closing, I want to thank you and the men and women of
the State Department and USAID for your work in promoting
American interests abroad. We may not always agree on the
policy or the means to achieve these goals, but the members of
this subcommittee understand the need to engage with all the
tools we have available.
It is now my turn to turn to my ranking member and friend,
Mrs. Lowey, for her opening remarks.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Opening Statment of Mrs. Lowey
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And, Secretary Kerry, it is a pleasure to welcome you
before our subcommittee.
Since you were sworn into office, the world has witnessed
unprecedented levels of turmoil, requiring strong U.S.
leadership on many fronts. Chief among them is the Middle East,
and I do commend your attempts to bring about a cease-fire in
Syria. However, as recent events prove, this requires the
cooperation of Russia and Iran.
I look forward to hearing your estimation of what it will
take for both countries to work with the international
community to end the senseless bloodshed and atrocities of the
Assad regime, and specifically whether we have the leverage to
end the conflict.
To continue on Iran, despite differing opinions on the
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it must be vigilantly
enforced, in combination with other sustained efforts to
prevent Iran from ever developing nuclear weapons. The
international community must have mechanisms in place to thwart
Iran's destabilizing behavior in the region, particularly its
ability to fund terrorists and export weapons to various
proxies.
It is critical this committee understand how the
Administration will address these concerns and meet its
commitment to bolster the security of our allies in the region,
particularly Israel. These concerns are heightened with recent
sanctions relief for the regime and on the heels of the first
shipment in 3 years of Iranian oil to Europe last week.
In addition to threats from Iran, Israel is threatened by
radical extremism on several borders and combats almost-daily
terrorist attacks by Palestinians. President Abbas has yet to
condemn the shootings, car rammings, stabbings against innocent
Israelis, yet he meets with terrorist families. Such behavior
only incites more violence and makes the goal of two states for
two people even more difficult to achieve.
It has also been reported in the media that there have been
talks between Fatah and Hamas to establish a new unity
government. American support is predicated upon the Palestinian
leader's commitment to resolving all outstanding issues through
direct negotiations, which cannot progress if one party refuses
to abide by the Oslo conditions of recognizing Israel,
renouncing violence, and abiding by previous commitments. A
unity government with an unreformed Hamas would be an
unacceptable impediment to peace.
As intractable as the conflict may be, I want to thank you
for your efforts in trying to bring the parties together for a
two-state solution, and I hope you will reassure us that the
administration will maintain its indispensable role of mediator
and veto any resolution before the United Nations in keeping
with longstanding policy to defend Israel at the U.N.
With regard to the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request, I am
pleased it includes strong economic and security assistance for
Eastern Europe to combat Russian aggression and for Central
America to address the root causes of child and family
migration. Continuing our investments to combat climate change,
poverty, and disease is critical, yet the request reduces
humanitarian and disaster assistance by more than $1 billion.
With unprecedented human suffering and humanitarian needs
around the world, I want to hear your rationale for such a
reduction.
Mr. Secretary, I share your concern that much of the
Department's core programs are currently funded through
overseas contingency operations, or OCO, which inaccurately
reflects our commitment to key partners, international
organizations, and humanitarian operations. Diplomacy and
development are critical components of our national security.
Diplomatic failure increases the risk of conflict or failed
states and makes populations more vulnerable to radicalization.
Congress must find a more responsible budgeting method to
provide the resources to meet these challenges today, tomorrow,
and into the future.
And finally, I must state, yet again, my deep frustration
with the administration's failure to prioritize international
basic education. With more than 120 million children and
adolescents currently out of school, the administration's
proposed cut of 240 million from the amount appropriated by
Congress makes zero sense. We cannot make sustained progress on
any of our development goals, from health, to growing
economies, food security, to building democratic institutions,
if generations of children grow up without basic literacy
skills. In fact, the White House's own initiative, Let Girls
Learn, will be impossible to implement with this unacceptably
low funding request.
Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you again for your service
to our country, thank you for your testimony here today, and
your stalwart efforts to advance American priorities around the
world. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Ms. Granger. I will now yield to Chairman Rogers for his
opening statement.
Opening Statement of Chairman Rogers
The Chairman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, good to see you. Thank you for being here to
justify your budget request for FY 2017, for the Department of
State and foreign operations.
The importance of U.S. leadership in global affairs could
never be more pronounced than now. Your job to promote American
interests abroad, to pursue peace in regions bought by hundreds
of years of historical and cultural strife; your job to ensure
the safety of our people, our citizens living here and abroad,
all of this of paramount importance at a time when the world
could not be more insecure.
I echo the concerns our leaders have just voiced about
ISIS, and our need for a comprehensive plan to dismantle this
merciless terrorist organization who have senselessly killed
thousands of innocent women and children in horrible, horrific
examples of hate and prejudice. They will stop at nothing to
infiltrate this country and its allies. We need to provide the
American people with a degree of comfort that the tragic events
that transpired in San Bernardino cannot and will not be
repeated on our soil, and the State Department needs to play a
role in that effort.
On the international level, the President has rightfully
solicited the support of other nations in dismantling ISIS.
Coordination will be key to defeating this shared foe, and the
U.S. must support our allies in this effort.
I echo the chairwoman's sentiment that any assistance to
our friends must be delivered in due haste. I fear that
countries like Russia are all too eager to fill a perceived
vacuum in American leadership, and I hope you can address that
concern here today, particularly as Russia continues to pursue
aggressive maneuvers against its neighbors.
With that in mind, let me echo the chair's support for
Ukraine. The U.S. should support Ukraine during these tough
economic times and continue to assist in efforts to protect
their sovereignty, and we must provide, Mr. Secretary, the
legal, lethal military aid this Congress has supported, and yet
we see it being withheld. We want to ask you why.
Turning to issues that concern our closest ally in the
Middle East, Israel, first, we must maintain strong oversight
over the nuclear agreement with Iran. Stability in the region,
which is tenuous on a good day, depends on holding Iran
accountable for its actions. I think most people in this room
would agree that taking our soldiers hostage and testing a
ballistic missile immediately after the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Agreement went into effect, was a bad start, to say the
least.
I hope you will provide us with an update today about the
administration's efforts to make sure Iran lives up to its side
of the agreement and what tools we have at our disposal if they
don't. And I would remind the Secretary that just as this
committee and the Congress controls the power of the purse, the
Secretary has a purse to control as well around the world, and
we hope that that leverage is properly used.
Another matter that troubles our friends in Israel is the
spike in violence and harmful rhetoric. We know you have very
close relationships with leaders in the region. We want to know
what you are personally doing to dial back this incitement and
restore some measure of peace in this troubled territory. No
aid should go directly to the Palestinian Authority unless the
matter of incitement that is in our bill is addressed.
Finally, Mr. Secretary, let me talk a moment about Zika. I
have shared these thoughts with OMB Director Donovan yesterday
and others involved, but they bear repeating somewhat here. I
am very disappointed, Mr. Secretary, that the administration
didn't take our committee's recommendation to use unobligated
funds, laying there unused, for the immediate response to Zika.
Now, you have asked for a supplemental request, and we are
prepared to look at it carefully. But in the meantime, as an
emergency measure, you have got moneys laying there. Go ahead
and use it. You have our authority and our permission and
hopefully our direction to go ahead and use, at least
temporarily, the funds laying there that are not being used for
Zika. When we authorized and appropriated the funds for Ebola a
couple of years ago, we purposefully left the ability to use
those funds for other diseases as well. And so we have another
disease, Zika. Let's go ahead and use the funds that you have.
And then if that proves to be inadequate, we can always go back
to a supplemental.
So can we talk?
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Ms. Granger. Secretary Kerry, please proceed with your
opening remarks. There is a full panel of the members here
today, and they have a lot of issues they would like to discuss
with you, so I would encourage you to summarize your remarks so
we have time to address all of their questions.
A yellow light on your timer will appear when you have two
minutes left.
Opening Statement of Secretary Kerry
Secretary Kerry. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman and
Ranking Member Lowey and Chairman Rogers of the full committee,
all the members. Thank you very much. My apologies for being
late. I had a phone call that came in that I had to take at the
last minute, and I apologize for keeping any of you waiting.
Look, I want to just start by saying we really appreciate
your tremendous work with us last year on a bipartisan basis to
approve a budget that really does reflect our core national
security needs. And I really look forward, this is the last
budget of the Obama administration, and I look forward to a
collaborative effort again this year because, as the chairwoman
said and as Chairman Rogers said, we have got this vast array
of challenges, unprecedented in terms of time.
I must say I blanched a little when you said: Since you
have been sworn in there has been an unprecedented amount of
turmoil. I hope you weren't referring that that was because I
was sworn in. But obviously we are facing challenges, needless
to say.
Let me just say that $50 billion is the total request when
you add the OCO and the core elements and the AID. It is equal
to about 1 percent of the Federal budget, and it is, frankly,
the minimum price of leadership at a time when America is
diplomatically engaged more deeply than at any time, I think,
in history in more places at the same time.
The scope of our engagement is absolutely essential in
order to protect American interests, protect our communities,
keep our citizens safe. We are confronted by perils that are as
old as nationalist aggression and as new as cyber warfare; by
dictators who run roughshod of global norms and some who change
their constitutions at the last minute to stay in office beyond
the requisite periods of time and cause violence by doing so;
by violent extremists who combine modern media with medieval
thinking to wage war on civilization itself.
And despite the dangers, I believe deeply that we have
many, many reasons for confidence as Americans. In recent
years, our economy has added more jobs than the rest of the
industrialized world combined. Our Armed Forces are second to
none, and it is not even close. Our alliances in Europe and
Asia are vigilant and strong and growing stronger with the
passage of the TPP. And our citizens are unmatched in the
generosity of their commitment to humanitarian causes and civil
society. We are the largest donor in the world to the crisis of
Syrian refugees, over 5.1 billion. We can be proud of that.
We see and hear a lot of handwringing today, but I have to
tell you, with all of my affection and the relationships for
many of my colleagues and the relationships I have built around
the world and my respect for the jobs that they do, I wouldn't
switch places with one foreign minister in the world. Nor would
I, frankly, retreat to some illusionary sense of a golden age
of the past.
There are so many things that are happening in the world
that are positive and constructive, massive numbers of people
brought into the middle class, diseases being defeated, on the
brink of, because of our efforts, a generation being born free
of AIDS in Africa. I mean, this is extraordinary. And there are
great opportunities staring us in the face in terms of the
energy future and other possibilities, the largest market in
the world, frankly.
In the past year, we reached a historic multilateral accord
with Iran that has cut off each of that country's pathways to a
nuclear weapon, thereby immediately making the world safer for
our allies and for us. And I will note that the general in
charge of the Israeli Defense Forces, General Eisenkot, just
the other day made a speech in which he said that the
existential threat to Israel from Iran has been eliminated.
That is the chief of the IDF in Israel saying that himself.
In Paris, in December, we joined governments from more than
190 nations. No easy task to get 190 nations to agree on
something. But they approved a comprehensive agreement to curb
greenhouse gas emissions and limit the most harmful
consequences of climate change. Now we are determined to
implement that accord and do everything possible to reduce the
carbon pollution and grow economies at the same time, and we
believe it is not a choice between one or the other.
Just this month we officially signed a Trans-Pacific
Partnership to ensure a level playing field for American
businesses and workers, to reassert U.S. leadership in a region
that is vital to our interests, and it will cut over 18,000
taxes on American goods that move into that region. We are
asking Congress to approve that this year so we can begin to
accrue its benefits as quickly as possible.
In Europe, we are increasing support for our Security
Reassurance Initiative. We are increasing it fourfold and
giving Russia a clear choice between continued sanctions or
meeting its obligations to a sovereign and democratic Ukraine.
In our hemisphere, we are helping Colombia to end the
globe's longest-running civil conflict, and we are aiding or
partners in Central America to implement reforms and reduce
pressures for illegal migration. In Asia, we are standing with
our allies in opposition to threats posed by belligerent North
Korea, and we are on the brink of achieving a strong United
Nations Security Council resolution, which is now in both in
Beijing and Washington for approval.
We are working with Afghanistan and Pakistan to counter
violent extremism, deepening our strategic dialogue with India,
supporting democratic gains in Sri Lanka and Burma, and
encouraging the peaceful resolution of competing maritime
claims in the South China Sea.
And with friends in fast-growing Africa, we have embarked
on initiatives to combat hunger, to increase connectivity, to
empower women, to train future leaders, and fight back against
such terrorist groups as Al Shabaab and Boko Haram.
Of course, we recognize that the threat posed by violent
extremism extends far beyond any one region. You mentioned,
Madam Chair and Ranking Member, the issue of education. And it
is not going to be solved primarily by military means. So the
approach we have adopted is comprehensive, and it is long term.
Diplomatically, we are striving to end conflicts that fuel
extremism, such as those of Libya and Yemen. We are deeply
involved in trying to resolve both.
But we also work with partners more broadly to share
intelligence, to tighten border security, improve governance,
expand access to education, and promote job training and
development. And we have forged a 66-member coalition, an
international coalition to defeat the terrorist group Daesh,
and I am absolutely confident we are going to do that.
Ms. Granger. If you could close down soon.
Secretary Kerry. Well, let me just say quickly that the
most critical thing, obviously, on the table at this moment in
terms of this conflict resolution is the effort with Russia and
Syria. We can talk about it a little bit in our questions, I am
sure. But I talked this morning, the reason I am late, I was
talking with Foreign Minister Lavrov, and we have a team that
will be meeting in the next day or so, the task force for the
cease-fire, cessation of hostilities. I am not here to vouch
that it is absolutely going to work, but I am telling you this
is the one way that we can end this war.
The alternative is that the war gets worse, that Syria
might be totally destroyed, not able to be put back together
again. Everybody has said you have got to have a diplomatic
solution at some point in time. The question will be, is it
ripe, will Russia work in good faith, will Iran work in good
faith to try to bring about the political transition that the
Geneva Communique calls for.
I just want to close by saying to everybody that I have
been profoundly privileged to have the chance to work with all
of you in support of an agenda that I believe reflects not only
the most fundamental values and aspirations of the American
people, but also carries with it, I am absolutely confident,
the hopes of the world. That is the responsibility that you all
have. That is what we are going to be talking about this
morning. And I thank you very much for your forbearance, Madam
Chair.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Granger. Thank you very much.
I am going to start the questions, and I would like to
return to one of the topics I raised in my opening statement
concerning the delays in delivery of the U.S. security
assistance. The administration has asked our friends and allies
to step up and play a greater role in the fight against ISIL,
yet we need to do more to deliver our commitments to support
them.
The current foreign military financing and sale processes
are cumbersome and are bogged down by bureaucracy, and the
problems continue. I hear complaints about equipment delays to
our partners, for example, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Egypt. That is
why the fiscal year 2016 appropriations bill directed the
Government Accountability Office to review this process and
make recommendations.
Mr. Secretary, what are you doing to expedite the delivery
of important equipment to our friends and allies fighting ISIL,
and what more needs to be done to this system?
Secretary Kerry. Well, the whole procurement system could
be sped up, and that is a huge challenge for the appropriations
committees, and, frankly, the Pentagon and procurement process
itself, together with the State Department and the White House.
We try to move it as fast as we can, I can assure you. Over the
past year, we have seen unprecedented stress put on our
security assistance mechanisms, and, frankly, we have seen them
respond pretty efficiently and pretty quickly.
We are currently providing expedited assistance to Iraq,
Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and other counter-ISIL
coalition members, and I can go through a long list. We have
provided the Peshmerga with more than 65 million rounds of
rifle ammunition, 41,000 grenades, 115,000 mortar rounds,
60,000 antitank rounds, including 1,000 AT4s, more than 56,000
RPG rounds, 35,000 weapons, including rifles, antitank systems,
heavy-caliber machine guns, counter-IED equipment, more than
150 vehicles, ambulances, mine-resistant vehicles. Additional
equipment is on the way, 5 million rounds of more rifle
ammunition. That is just the Kurds.
In terms of Jordan, we continue to expedite it. We have
delivered over--I just want to point out that we are in a
massive process of providing materials.
Now, we have created a special task force with the GCC
countries, and I have met with them on three occasions now, I
think, and we are going to be meeting again in the next weeks,
and we have set up a special office within the State Department
for the specific purposes of expediting materials to our allies
and coalition partners precisely to be able to respond to any
activities by other countries in the region, Iran or otherwise,
but also to help them in terms of their coalition efforts.
So I just have to tell you, everybody is cranking full
speed. We are doing what we can. But as you know, we do have
some budget limitations.
Ms. Granger. You were speaking of the Kurds. The two that I
hear the most from is Ukraine and their request for weapons to
defend themselves, and then the Kurds. But the Kurds, the
situation right now, the immediate crisis has to do with the
price of oil and the flood of refugees. And it is a crisis,
from everything that we have been told.
What can we do to help them stabilize their economy and get
them the equipment they need to fight ISIL? I still hear
continually that the aid for the Kurds has to go through Iraq,
that 17 percent that is meant for the Kurds just doesn't get
there, and the small amount that does get there doesn't get
there in time to be helpful. So what else can we do?
Secretary Kerry. I have heard that, Madam Chair, about the
question of some siphoning off. I don't know, I don't have
specific evidence of it, but I have heard these allegations.
And we have a team working, the Embassy in Baghdad is working
very, very closely.
It is a fact, indeed, that U.S. military assistance has to
go through the central government, and that is required both by
Iraqi law and by international law. And the reason for that is
that part of our policy has been to try to strengthen the
central government of Iraq and not to encourage a breakoff or
the belief that the independent entities within the country can
deal directly with the United States or other countries.
So in order to strengthen Iraq, that has been the rule. But
I will tell you that massive amount of effort now is getting to
the Kurds.
And the Kurds, frankly, have been quite extraordinary in
their efforts to help fight ISIL.
Ms. Granger. They have.
Secretary Kerry. We need to say thank you to them. And we
are training and working with them right now with respect to
the preparations for Mosul, and that will continue.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And welcome again. And with appreciation, we thank you for
all your hard work.
Mr. Secretary, I know how hard you have been working and
how many hours you have spent on the Israel-Palestinian peace
process, and I share your deep frustration that the two sides
are not sitting down face to face. Just last week, the
Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki said,
quote: ``We will never go back and sit again in a direct
Israeli-Palestinian negotiation.''
And now, once again, we see the international community
attempt to step in and impose a solution on the parties, with
the French proposal that includes a stipulation that if the
talks fail, it will result in full recognition of a Palestinian
state.
I won't repeat all the terms of Oslo. You know them inside
and out. So a few quick questions. I don't know how quick,
we'll see.
What is our position on the French proposal? What are you
doing to oppose such one-sided actions by international actors?
If the Palestinians believe that the international community
will pressure Israel for them, what incentive do the
Palestinians have to negotiate with Israel and engage in
compromise? And what is the administration doing to convince
the PA that they cannot refuse direct face-to-face negotiations
and disavow them of the notion that the international community
will impose a Palestinian state on Israel? Do we have any
influence with the PA leadership at this point?
Secretary Kerry. Well, I like to think some, but I think it
is very difficult right now on all sides, to be honest with
you.
I think that, first of all, we do oppose unilateral
efforts, but what is happening now is there is a multilateral
movement that is growing that is concerned about any number of
things. And I was just in Amman a couple of days ago. I met
with President Abbas and encouraged him, obviously, to, first
of all, make sure that the incitement is being addressed most
directly, and we are working very directly with him with
respect to any aspects of incitement. I have called him on
occasion to encourage him to condemn acts of violence. He has
on occasion, but not with consistency, regrettably.
But, you know, it takes two sides to come to the table, and
both sides have to really begin to offer something and begin to
talk about the modality of doing that. I don't think that the
situation is helped by additional settlement construction and
building, and I think that we know we need to see measures
taken on both sides to indicate a readiness and willingness to
try to proceed forward and reduce the violence.
There is no question. I mean, the average Israeli is living
with day-to-day threats on life that could come from anywhere,
whether it is a scissors attack or a drive-by of somebody in an
automobile. But I will call to everybody's attention that there
were news reports just 2 days ago of the chief of the
intelligence in Israel submitting a report to the government,
and the headline of the report that I read out of the Israeli
newspapers was that unless there is a peace process there will
be increased violence.
So my hope is that everybody will take note of that, not as
a threat, but as a sort of sense of reality about the downward
spiral that comes if there isn't an active process, which is
genuine, by the way. And I think that requires a slightly
different formula than has existed previously.
I believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu is preparing some
major initiatives with respect to economics and some changes on
certain relationship components of the security relationship in
the West Bank and other things.
But I have been very clear that, and I think everybody
believes, there has to be some kind of political horizon that
both sides can understand, a reduction and elimination of the
violence and a real readiness to move forward in real ways that
people can grab onto and understand with respect to the
creation of a state. If that can happen, then I think it is
possible to have progress. But it is not in our hands.
Now, with respect to the French proposal, we are evaluating
it. We don't have all the details. We are trying to get some
details about exactly what it would seek to achieve and how and
what the rules of the road would be. But I think it is a
reflection of the frustration that the international community
feels that what is happening in the region, without blame,
without pointing fingers, without anything, just what is
happening, contributes to the overall instability and turmoil
that you referred to earlier.
So that is why it is urgent, and that is why we remain
committed to Israel, committed to Israel's security, committed
also, however, to trying to move the process forward and bring
the parties to the table.
Mrs. Lowey. Let me just say, because my time is up, I
appreciate your efforts, and I know how much time you have
spent on them, and I am pleased to hear your commitment that
the parties have to come to the table. As a result of Oslo,
that is the only way that we can have two states, two people.
And I want to express my appreciation. And I hope that
means that you could not support a French proposal which would
impose a solution on the parties through the United Nations.
Secretary Kerry. Yeah, I don't know what their proposal is,
but we have never supported something that is unfair to Israel
or out of balance. That has never been the policy of our
country.
Ms. Granger. Chairman Rogers.
The Chairman. Ukraine. In your budget request, you would
slash funding for Ukraine activities by 55 percent, from $363
million down to $295 million. In the meantime, the National
Defense Authorization Act of 2016 authorized 50 million for
certain defensive lethal assistance. And so far, the only
equipment that we have sent them has been nonlethal, and many
people say that it is used in not very effective equipment at
that.
In the meantime, the government that we support in Ukraine,
is teetering. The Prime Minister just survived a no-confidence
vote in Parliament. A lot of political turmoil, mainly due in
part, I am told, to the austerity reforms being implemented
that have lowered standard of livings for the average
Ukrainian.
The IMF has not disbursed funds from its loan package since
August. We can't get information out of the State Department.
The budget request for FY 2016 included $275 million for a
third billion-dollar loan guarantee to the government of
Ukraine. But the administration has not answered this
subcommittee's questions about when it will be finalized.
Can you help us?
Secretary Kerry. Yes. I can't speak to the lack of an
answer as to when it would be finalized, but let me just speak
to--
The Chairman. Perhaps someone in the room that is with your
staff could help us with that.
Secretary Kerry. As to when it is going to be finalized? I
don't think the loan guarantee is currently under negotiation.
It is the third loan guarantee that we have given. We put 2
billion on the table already in loan guarantees, and we are
negotiating the third.
But the uncertainties in the negotiation, Mr. Chairman,
frankly, I don't think they can be laid at our doorstep. The
reason the IMF has not been able to make a disbursement, and if
you look at what Christine Lagarde sent, a 10-point requirement
to the government in Kiev requiring them to move forward on
their reforms, that is partly the reason for some of the
turmoil that is going on. There is a significant amount of
political disquiet.
We have been addressing that very directly. Vice President
Biden and I met with President Poroshenko in Switzerland a few
weeks ago. We had further meetings in Munich. We have been
pushing very hard to try to get the reforms in place that are,
frankly, also required--some of the steps that are required as
part of the Minsk Process. So we are pushing on it.
But the request of USAID assistance is 294.8 million, which
is actually an increase of 103.4 million over the 2015 amount.
You are right, it is less than 2016, but it is more than 2015,
and it is calibrated to what can be absorbed and put to good
use in the context of where they are.
But they have probably a $20 billion gap overall. What we
are looking at is a situation where we need to have a
significant reform effort, passage of laws, the Rada has to
grab the bull by the horns here, President Poroshenko has to
push these reforms through, and then there is a chance that
this money will, in fact, reach the right people and do the
right things.
The Chairman. Well, I hope I am wrong in this, but I judge,
perceive, that we are not doing all we need to do in Ukraine.
And if that is so, it makes me wonder whether or not we are
taking that position as a quid pro quo for Russia's assistance
to us in Syria. Is that a possible angle here?
Secretary Kerry. No, I think--look, we are very involved.
We have had a series of conversations. President Obama raises
the issue of Ukraine with President Putin in every conversation
that he has had. I met with President Putin a few months ago.
We talked significantly about Ukraine. We talked about it when
we met at the U.N. last September. This has been a constant
effort to try to move that process forward.
Now, it is principally negotiated in the Normandy format
between the French, Germans, and the Russians, and we weigh in
and we are involved in an advisory fashion in that regard. So
it is not appropriate for us to suddenly try to link the two,
and I think it would be a mistake to do so.
But, Mr. Chairman, let me just say to you, I am ready to
defend anywhere the amount of work that our Department has
done, Victoria Nuland and our team. Geoff Pyatt, our
Ambassador, is superb and has done an extraordinary job working
day to day to help move things forward. We actually were there
present for days helping the Rada to be able to get the votes
to pass some of the things that needed to be passed.
So we are deeply, I mean, involved in ways that remain
appropriate and sufficiently respecting the independence and
sovereignty of the country, but we are pushing them and pushing
them. We have elevated the fight against corruption. We are
pushing the reform of the criminal justice system. We are
enhancing their energy security by getting them to rely less on
Russia. We have been strengthening their civil society. We have
been working on their, very frankly, corrupt and difficult
health system in order to transition it to a more effective
model. We have taken huge defense reforms to modernize their
military and security services.
I mean, we are deeply involved in helping them--with other
countries, I might add--to develop the capacity of governance
necessary for the task that they face. And it is difficult. It
is difficult ferreting out some of the levels of corruption
that existed there previously. That is part of the challenge
for President Poroshenko. That is part of the challenge that
was put to, and very directly, by the IMF. And the point the
IMF is making is they are not going to make a loan that is just
going to be wasted and squandered by virtue of a corrupt
process.
So this challenge is complex, but it is being tackled very,
very directly by our very dedicated and, frankly, very invested
diplomats who want this to succeed
The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your service to
your country.
Secretary Kerry. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. I want to thank you, Madam Chair and
our ranking member, for this important hearing.
I also want to thank Secretary Kerry. I want to thank you
for being here today. And as we considered the President's last
budget of his tenure, I want to just take a moment of personal
privilege to thank you for your phenomenal work as our
Secretary of State. It has really been a pleasure to work with
you on so many issues, HIV and AIDS, Cuba, Iran.
I think your leadership has really demonstrated the fact
that our international affairs budget really is a reflection of
our values and ideals as a country, and you have really put
that forward to the entire world. So thank you very much.
Secretary Kerry. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Ms. Lee. On Cuba, I was delighted to attend the reopening
of the Cuban Embassy in Havana with you. As you know, and this
committee knows, I have been a strong advocate for ending the
50 years of failed policy with Cuba, and I am also pleased to
co-chair our bipartisan Cuba Working Group here in the House.
How has the opening of diplomatic ties with Cuba changed
the perception of the United States? And how has that impacted
our ability to advance our agenda, for instance, with CARICOM
and in the Western Hemisphere and throughout the world?
Also, along those lines, I just want to ask you, in terms
of our democracy programs--in this committee and USAID, they
know that I have been asking these questions since the
incarceration of Alan Gross. How are these democracy programs
now ensuring that contractors and subcontractors who work on
them know what the laws are. Whether we agree or not with the
country's laws, that they could be, unfortunately, arrested if,
in fact, they engage in these programs, so that they know up
front what risks they are taking in their participation with
this, i.e., what happened with Alan Gross? And thank you for
helping to make sure Alan Gross got out.
Secretary Kerry. Thank you. No, I appreciate that. Thank
you very much, Congresswoman Lee. I really appreciate your
support in this effort. I know that some people disagreed with
it, obviously, but I have to say that it is already creating
change. You can see the transformation.
There have been more than 50 delegations, congressional and
Cabinet, that have traveled now to Cuba in the last year.
People have seen for themselves there are regulatory changes
that have taken place that have opened new opportunities for
U.S. firms to export certain goods and services to Cuba.
There have been agricultural delegations that have traveled
there to explore how we could eventually, if the embargo is
lifted, begin to change life for the Cuban people through
better agricultural practices, better goods, actually sell
American goods there, which we would like to do.
We signed off on a pilot program for direct transportation
and mail, which ought to begin soon. We just signed a--
reestablished scheduled air service between the United States
and Cuba for the first time in more than 50 years.
And we have actually empowered a Cuban private sector that
now employs one in four Cubans. A private sector is emerging.
And people in the United States can now send unlimited
remittances to support private businesses and private
microfinance and entrepreneurial training activities and a
broad range of tools, materials, and supplies for Cuban
entrepreneurs.
I happen to believe, as does President Obama--and also the
Cuban government has expressed its intent to expand development
of communications in Internet on the island, to have a target
of 50 percent of its households connected to the Internet by
2020, and we obviously endorse that. And the Cuban government
recently opened 35 public WiFi spots, hotspots.
So things are changing. It is not going to happen
overnight. We always said that. President Obama was very clear,
the transition will take time.
We are not happy with the movement in some regard on areas
of human rights. There have been some political challenges,
obviously, and we are going to continue to press those issues.
The President will speak to those things directly when he goes
to Cuba.
But we feel very, very strongly that this policy was geared
to address the hopes and aspirations of the people of Cuba, and
that is what it is beginning, in fact, to do, to take hold. And
we believe nothing would speak to the Cuban people's
aspirations and needs more than lifting the embargo so that we
can not have to wrestle with everything that we are trying to
do, but just let it happen.
And I think what has happened in Eastern Europe is the
greatest witness to what happens when you open up and allow the
world to come in. And there are other places that respect that
too. Myanmar and other people have been on a transition to
democracy.
Our Embassy is taking great care to make sure that people
understand the rules, aren't stepping over any lines. One of
the things we negotiated was an ability to increase the number
of diplomats in Cuba, and we are in the process of doing that
with this budget. We have asked you for the additional slots
and funding for that.
Ms. Granger. Thank you so much.
Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. Secretary, good to see you, sir.
Secretary Kerry. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I was taken aback that you mentioned as a
success the U.S. ag sales and independent business licenses,
when both numbers are actually down. So it is an interesting
thing that that would be the success of that story.
Today is the 20th anniversary of the murder of three
Americans and one American resident in international airspace
ordered, according to himself, he, himself, has said it, by
Castro. Just days before that, the President announced that he
could be traveling to Cuba.
Now, in December 2015, the President said that any trip of
his to Cuba would be conditioned on improvement of human rights
on the island. You, yourself, just said that that has been an
area where things have not looked good.
Facts. Let me put some facts on the table. Last year there
were 8,616 political documented arrests in Cuba, a huge
increase. Several political prisoners on the Obama-Castro list
of 53 have since been rearrested. Cuba remains as the only
country in the Americas to be classified as not free by Freedom
House.
Mr. Secretary, by any objective measure, the Castro regime
has not improved its human rights records. If anything, it has
gotten worse.
So, again, facts. Please reassure us and show us, give us
some facts of where the human rights situation has improved to
reassure us that President Obama is not breaking his word of
December 2015 when he said that he would not visit Cuba if
human rights conditions had not improved. Where specifically,
Mr. Secretary, have the human rights conditions in Cuba on the
island improved?
Secretary Kerry. Well, the agreement required a large
number of people to be released, as you know, it was about
fifty--
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Fifty-three, and a number of them, Mr.
Secretary, have been rearrested.
Secretary Kerry. Correct, and we believe they will be
released, as is appropriate, and that signifies some listening,
some movement. The fact that 50 of them were released--
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And rearrested.
Secretary Kerry. Yes. We were disappointed that four--I
think it was four or five. We have registered that. We were
very disappointed in that.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Where specifically have human rights
conditions improved?
Secretary Kerry. But the President and we always said that
component is not going to change as rapidly as other
components, but it is changing. And you have to look at other
countries that have gone through--and are going through--these
kinds of transitions.
I mean, we still, we deal with China. China is probably our
biggest--I think it holds the most debt of the United States,
one of the largest traders with the United States, and we
disagree with China on human rights.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Secretary, I hate to--time is of
essence. Where specifically have human rights improved? I would
like you to reassure us that the President is not breaking his
word when in December 2015 he said he would not go unless human
rights conditions improved. I just want you to reassure me.
Please, give me some facts.
Secretary Kerry. Well, I just told you, they have improved
in the sense that 53 prisoners who were in jail for political
reasons were released. And I believe these others will be
released. And the President is going to engage in this human
rights discussion. I am engaging in this discussion.
We just met with the Finance Minister of Cuba the other
day. I talk to my colleague on a regular basis about this. I
may be going down there before the President to have this
discussion to some degree. So we are continuing to push on it.
But like many----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I don't hear any facts here, Mr.
Secretary. You mentioned, for example, as a success, ag, but we
know that the facts show that ag sales are down. Again, you
keep mentioning, which I appreciate, that there were 53
prisoners released. A number of them have been rearrested.
There were over, I just mentioned the number, 8,000 arrests,
political arrests, not to mention 200 arrests every Sunday of
the Ladies in White, along with the beatings of these women who
are just trying to go to church on Sundays.
So I am just trying to see, I don't want to be
argumentative, I just want to see if you can give us some facts
of where----
Secretary Kerry. I gave you facts.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. So you are telling me that with 8,000
arrests--
Secretary Kerry. And people are engaged, one in four people
in the country are now engaged in the private sector.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And the licenses are down. The licenses
are down.
Secretary Kerry. Beg your pardon?
Mr. Diaz-Balart. The licenses of these so-called private
independent businesses, the numbers have decreased.
Secretary Kerry. No, there are an increased number of
private businesses. There is a capacity to provide finance.
There are people who are now able to open businesses who
weren't before.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Do you have any of those numbers, because,
again, the numbers that we have--
Secretary Kerry. I will get the specific numbers for you. I
don't have the--
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, I just want you to reassure us,
because, again, I just keep hearing in platitude.
Secretary Kerry. I am trying to reassure you, but you don't
want to be reassured.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Secretary, you are not giving me any
numbers.
Secretary Kerry. Well, I will get the numbers to you. We
will get you the numbers.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. So you have no numbers. And so, again,
please reassure me. The President said he would not visit
unless human rights improved. You are mentioning 53 political
prisoners, out of which a number of them have been rearrested.
When there have been over 8,000 arrests, in anybody's math,
fuzzy math or not, that is not a pretty good ratio when you
have 8,000 arrests, 53 supposedly released, and a number of
them have been rearrested. Again, please, if you could get back
to us, reassure us that the President is not breaking this red
line when he said he would not visit until there was a
substantial increased improvement in human rights, sir. We have
not yet to see it.
Secretary Kerry. I am happy to get you the details on it,
Congressman.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Our time is up. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I appreciate it.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Before I call on Mr. Ruppersberger, between Christmas and
New Years, I traveled to Costa Rica because I kept reading the
stories of the Cubans that were going from Cuba to Ecuador and
then from Ecuador to Costa Rica. I went to see them and to ask
them why they were leaving. And the answer that I got,
personally, was that there had been such a clampdown in Cuba
since the deal was made with the United States that they felt
like the only time they could leave was now. That was my
experience. And I am going to go back.
Mr. Ruppersberger, please.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here.
And I believe right now that this is one of the most dangerous
periods for the United States throughout the world, whether the
China-Russia threat, terrorism threat, Iran, all these
different issues.
I want to get into the issue of Iran. We had a lot of
debate, and the agreement went forward with Iran. I think the
focus, the focal point of the agreement, which a lot of people
didn't see it this way, was to stop Iran from having nuclear
weapons. It would have changed the Middle East, the makeup of
the Middle East, and it could have been very dangerous. And, as
we know, Israel is one of our most important and closest
allies, and their security is very important to us, and we
stand behind them.
Now, I am going to ask two questions. According to the
State Department, Iran continues to still be the world's
leading state sponsor of terrorism in its quest to dominate the
Middle East, expel our influence, that kind of thing. They are
very active in Iran, in Iraq, in Bahrain, Yemen, Lebanon,
Palestine, Central America. Quds Force is very active in a lot
of these areas.
The two questions I am going to ask--number one is what is
the status after we have the agreement as far as the focal
point of, number one, the issue of nuclear weapons? Where are
we? Do we feel secure that the goal has been reached? We have
independent examination; we want to make sure those
examinations continue to move forward.
And the second question is the issue of exporting
terrorism. Can you talk about other sanctions? I think it is
important that we understand that the United States still has,
through the United Nations, we have a lot of sanctions on Iran
as we speak now, as it relates to their exporting of terrorism.
And I think it is important that you discuss those, what they
are. An example: If Iran transfers money to Hezbollah, to the
benefit of Hezbollah, would the U.S. immediately sanction the
bank that did that? Those type of issues.
Those are the two issues: status of the agreement, where we
are now; and, secondly, what we are doing as far as Iran
exporting terrorism and the sanctions that exist there.
Secretary Kerry. Okay.
Well, Congressman, Iran is compliant with the requirements
of the JCPOA to date. There have been a couple of issues of
interpretation of one thing or another that we have worked
through in the mechanism that we set up to work it through, and
it has been resolved.
And they have taken some 19,000 centrifuges and reduced
them to 5,060. They have taken their 12,000 kilograms of
stockpile and reduced it to the requisite 300 kilograms that
cannot be enriched above 3.67 percent.
They have taken the calandria, which is the core of the
plutonium reactor which was being built, not yet commissioned,
they have taken it out and destroyed it, filled it with
concrete. IAEA inspected--dried concrete. It is destroyed,
cannot be used again.
They have ceased all fissionable enrichment process at
Fordow, stored the appropriate centrifuges in the appropriate
places, allowed the inspections to take place. And so, in
effect, they have moved the heavy water out, and it is on the
market for sale. They have moved their enriched uranium out.
The ship is now in Russia. Russians took that, where the highly
enriched uranium--so every aspect of what we laid out as a
requirement has been, in fact, carried out, which is why
implementation day took place appropriately, with the IAEA
signing off on it.
Now, we will continue, obviously, very--and this was the
whole purpose of the agreement. It is what we promised the
Congress and the American people and the world. There will be
an ongoing process of extremely intrusive but agreed-upon
verification of the continued compliance with this agreement.
And our intel community and Energy Department, which is
responsible for our own nuclear weapons, have assured us that
they believe they are capable of knowing exactly what is going
on and that compliance is taking place.
Now, with respect to Iran's other activities, we
purposefully left in place the regimens for other sanctions. So
sanctions for support of terror, for instance, sanctions for
missile tests, sanctions for arms embargo, all of those are
existent--sanctions for human rights. And we continue to
monitor those.
In fact, on January 17, we designated some three entities
and I think eight individuals, seven or eight individuals, for
violations with respect to the missile launch that had taken
place previously.
So we have put Iran on notice that those compliance
measures will, in fact, be utilized, and we will continue to
observe.
Now, the Iranians have--we have intercepted, in fact, one
dhow ship, a boat, a large boat, that was taking arms, we
believe, to Yemen. And we also turned away a convoy very close
to the period when we were completing the agreement, and that
convoy turned back because we singled it out and said this
would be a violation. So it wasn't violated because it went
back, and they never did, in fact, send the arms, but the
effort was attempted.
So that shows how acutely we are watching it and how we
have been able to actually have an impact.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Kerry. Good morning.
Mr. Dent. I am not expecting an answer to this question,
but maybe one of your folks after the meeting can help me with
this. It has to do with Colombian truck scrapping, believe it
or not.
American truck manufacturers, including some up in my
district, recently welcomed the news that Colombia may be
eliminating its one-for-one truck scrapping requirement, which
requires an old truck to be scrapped for every new truck
purchased. However, we have heard that this change may include
a caveat that the requirement would only be eliminated for
certain types of trucks, which would still pose a problem for
many American manufacturers. And, obviously, we have a
Colombian trade agreement, and this is a real source of concern
for many.
So the question I have is, what specific actions does the
administration intend to take if Colombia continues to restrict
its market for American-made trucks? I don't expect you to have
an answer at this moment, but I would like somebody to at least
be able to get back to me, unless you do have an answer.
Secretary Kerry. No, Congressman, your expectation is going
to be met. But I promise you we will get back to you very
quickly.
Mr. Dent. And the second question deals with Syria. As this
committee considers the administration's request for funding to
aid in the fight against ISIS, I have to ask, what do you see
as our end game in this region, as it appears now that the
Russians have successfully shored up the Assad regime and
simultaneously increased their own clout in the Middle East?
We have also seen Hezbollah in Iran, Iranian fighters
increasingly engaged in that conflict, as well, on the side of
Damascus.
Meanwhile, Turkey appears to be using the conflict as an
excuse to wage war against the Kurds, many of whom are actively
fighting against ISIS. And you know the whole drill there. And,
of course, the Turks are more interested in taking down Assad,
it seems, at the moment, than fighting ISIS.
A very complicated, convoluted situation. And, you know, I
guess the issue for me is, what is our end game in Syria
diplomatically? And just as importantly, is there a viable
Sunni political infrastructure in Syria that is not radical and
that could actually govern in the event we ever reached an
agreement?
Secretary Kerry. Well, the answer to your last question is,
yes, there are Sunni who are extremely capable and moderate and
very qualified businesspeople, very capable potential
contributors to a resolution. But we don't want to divide this
thing up or talk about it in a context of Sunni, Shia, Alawite,
whatever. And it is up to the Syrians. I mean, the Syrians have
got to make that kind of decision, which is why we are so
supportive of the political process.
Now, you ask what is the end game. The end game is actually
shared--or, at least in statements and positions publicly put
forward, the end game is stated by Iran, by Russia, by the
United States, by the European community, and by the Arab
countries. All share the notion of a Syria that is united,
whole, stable, peaceful, protecting all minorities, in which
you have the ability of the Syrian people through an election
to choose their leadership free of coercion and of interference
and free of foreign fighters and free of Daesh and so forth.
Now, how do you get there?
And, by the way, the Iranians and the Russians have signed
on to that in the context of U.N. Security Council Resolution
2254. And they have also issued two communiques in the context
of the Vienna meetings where they have embraced exactly what I
just described--a whole, unified Syria in which the Syrian
people decide the future.
Now, Russia has long supported Assad. This is not a
surprise to anybody, that Russia is supporting Assad. Russia
also has a very specific interest in preventing terrorists from
coming back to Russian soil. There are probably more than
2,000--not ``probably''--there are more than 2,000 Chechens
fighting in Syria as part of the radical extremist elements,
and Russia doesn't want them coming back and fighting them.
So part of the Russian--part of the Russian strategy was to
shore up Assad, who they feared might have been about to fall
to Daesh and to Nusrah. So their concerns were that this would
be greatly destabilizing to them.
Now, they have other ulterior geographic, geostrategic, and
other interests, and we understand that.
But while Russia has succeeded in shoring up Assad, that
doesn't end the process for Russia, because Russia is there and
on the ground, and holding territory is hard. And if you have a
persistent and continued insurgency against that government--
and you will if there is no peace--that is a problem for
Russia.
So, in the long run, Russia has an interest, we think, in
working towards a legitimate political transition that can
provide stability and a change in Syria.
Mr. Dent. Without Assad? A transition without Assad?
Secretary Kerry. We believe it cannot happen except without
Assad. And the reason is that if you have barrel-bombed your
people and gassed your people and tortured your people and
starved your people, it is very hard to envision how you can
take 12 million people who have been displaced, driven out of
the country, and with over 400,000 killed, and have that guy
sit there and say, oh, okay, everything's fine, let's go status
quo ante. It is not going to happen. And Turkey, Qatar, and
Saudi and others in the opposition have made it very clear war
will not end if Assad stays.
So Russia has to confront that. Iran has to confront that.
And they have signed on, at least, to a structure that begins
to confront that. The reality will be the test in the next few
weeks and months, are they really supporting a genuine process
of transition. And we will know very quickly whether that is
for real or not.
But if you really want to end the war, there is no way, it
seems to me, to be able to ultimately do that without some kind
of negotiated outcome. And it is going to require some
compromise.
So we are going to have to plow ahead. I am not vouching
for the fact that this ceasefire will absolutely work and take
place, but it is the one way to get to the discussion of the
future of Assad and the possibility of a political transition.
And since Iran and Russia have signed on to the idea of
this political transition expressed in the Geneva Communique of
2012, we have to put that to the test. And President Obama is
deeply committed to exhausting the diplomatic possibilities
before we have to confront, if we have to, whatever plan B
might have to be.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you.
I want to first just recognize that next month marks the
ninth year of anguish for Robert Levinson's family. And as
heartwarming as it was to see our American citizens come home
from Iran earlier this year, we still have had, you know, no
progress on locating his whereabouts or moving towards being
able to help bring him home and end his family's pain and
return him to his home in south Florida.
And so I appreciate your efforts, the efforts of President
Obama and the administration, but would just underscore how
important it is to continue to press Iran for their assertion,
which has no credibility whatsoever, that they have absolutely
no idea where he is or anything to do with his disappearance.
And sticking with Iran, obviously, following the Iran
agreement, which I supported, the most important step we have
to take now is to make sure that we have a strong MOU, new MOU,
with Israel that I know we are in the midst of negotiating.
I had an opportunity to speak with Ambassador Shapiro at
the end of last week, and we had a good conversation, but could
you update us on where we are? And I know you can't go into
excruciating detail here in this setting, but could you update
us on the progress that we have made on finalizing that MOU
with Israel?
Because, obviously, making sure that we can maintain their
security and continue to make sure that, with the tumult that
continues to occur all around them, that they have the ability
to keep their national security interests strong and protect
their people.
And, particularly, my concern is that, with the language
that I am told is being included, that Congress be able to
maintain our ability to continue to increase the support that
is essential for Israel to keep her people safe.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Secretary, before you begin, we have until
12 o'clock, and I want to make sure we get around to all the
members.
Secretary Kerry. Absolutely. I will try to be really quick.
All right. Just very quickly on Robert Levinson, let me
just make it clear: There is a process. And, in fact, we wrote
into the agreement that saw the folks come back the other day a
very specific inclusion of an ongoing dialogue and process on
Bob Levinson.
I met with the family just recently. I know they are
disappointed. I understand that. I am very sympathetic to that.
And how can you not be, when you see people come back and you
are wondering what happened after all these years? But, as I
told them and we have said publicly, we just have not had a
proof of life since the last one--I think it was 2007? Am I
correct? Around 2007 or 2008 or somewhere in there--2010,
excuse me. And that was the last time.
And I am pursuing, personally, the obvious questions that
flow: From the moment of that last proof, what happened? And I
have raised this very directly with my counterpart. We are
trying to see if we can trace that back and work on that. So
there is a process in place. And we are determined, and
President Obama will not rest easy until we have exhausted
every possibility. And we are going to try to get him back, if
that can be done.
With respect to the MOU, we are negotiating. We have had a
10-year MOU. It doesn't expire until 2018, but we would like to
get it done. You all and the United States have given $3.1
billion a year for 10 years. There will be more, there is no
doubt, because of the needs and because of the increased
security process.
We have done a very strong evaluation of what it is. We are
taking into account all of the QME issues for Israel. I think
it is fair to say that the level of cooperation with Israel,
notwithstanding the disagreement over the Iran agreement, the
cooperation on a day-to-day basis has really just never been
higher or better. We have Iron Dome; we have constant
communication. We are working very closely with Israel.
And I have no doubt that an MOU will be reached, an MOU
that will have a larger amount, subject to your judgments, and
we will continue to provide Israel with the security that it
needs and help it to be able to defend itself by itself.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And our ability, as Members of
Congress, to be able to address crises and emergency
provisions?
Secretary Kerry. For sure.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And we have always had that, but----
Secretary Kerry. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. There have been discussions that our
ability to do that might be restricted in the MOU. And so I
want to make sure that----
Secretary Kerry. I am not aware of that detail at this
point. Let me check on it, Debbie. I will get back to you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Lastly, you alluded, too, that the
current MOU expires in 2018. Obviously, the situation--
Secretary Kerry. Everybody wants this ahead of time for
planning purposes. I think it----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes. Well, and also because the
circumstances have dramatically shifted, given that we have
entered into an Iran agreement, which, as I said, I supported
and I thought it was the appropriate way from Iran getting a
nuclear weapon, but we also have to address the security
concerns of that.
Secretary Kerry. Sure. And they will be.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Rooney.
Mr. Rooney. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, last July, I introduced legislation with the
co-chairs of the South Sudan Caucus, including Congresswoman
Barbara Lee, requiring the President to submit to Congress a
strategy to support the U.N. peacekeeping mission in the South
Sudan, to investigate human rights abuses, and ease the
intensifying humanitarian crisis.
The bill also directs the administration to pursue high-
level engagement with regional and like-minded governments in
order to promote a better environment for the resolution of
this crisis; to halt the flow of arms from all external
sources; and to support the creation, implementation, and
enforcement of the U.N. Security Council arms embargo and
targeted individual sanctions on all parties to the conflict in
South Sudan.
While I was cautiously hopeful about the signing of the
peace agreement, I felt and still feel strongly that, in order
for it to succeed, that U.S. leadership and long-term planning
is obviously critical.
U.S. officials from the past and current administrations
have been intimately involved and demonstrated incredible
leadership to bring an end to the 17-year civil war between the
north and the south. As you know, 5 years ago, the South
Sudanese people finally achieved independence, and the U.S.
gained a strong ally in South Sudan.
But this civil war is devastating, obviously, and it
shouldn't deter the U.S. from engaging in aggressive diplomacy
to prevent another generation from a lifetime of war, the
impact of which we are seeing manifest itself around the world.
I commend the U.N. panel of experts for conducting what
must have been an extremely harrowing investigation in South
Sudan, and I am hopeful that their work will compel the
international community to fully recognize the intensity in
atrocities committed throughout the civil war, ranging from
systematic rape and mutilation of women and girls to the
recruitment and exploitation of children soldiers.
Mr. Secretary, I would like to ask you sort of a long
question because I might not be able to chime back in. But I
just wanted to say, as you know, this country is 5 years old,
and if we can offer any words here today of optimism for their
future there, specifically with regard to missed deadlines,
ceasefire violations, attack on humanitarian workers,
restrictive laws against the press and civil society, NGOs.
So we can assume that this peace agreement may be deemed a
failure. What does the U.S. have in plans to facilitate the
immediate coordination of African leaders, the EU, and other
UNSC members to impose targeted sanctions on individuals who
have committed violations of international humanitarian and
human rights laws and to enact an arms embargo so that we can
try to save the ceasefire, the peace agreement, and the future
of the South Sudan?
Secretary Kerry. Well, Congressman, first of all, let me
thank you for your focus on this. It is really important. And I
really appreciate the detail and depth of your concern about
this.
The United States is the largest donor in the world, since
this conflict began, to the challenge of Sudan, South Sudan--
$1.5 billion. And we have been deeply involved. President Obama
has been personally involved when he went over to Ethiopia. He
held meetings. He has had personal conversations. I have had
personal conversations. I traveled to Juba as Secretary and had
conversations with President Kiir. I can't tell you how many
phone calls I have had with President Kiir and with Riek
Machar. And we have pushed very, very hard towards this peace
process. Ambassador Don Booth has been diligently working away
as a special envoy under very difficult circumstances.
I don't think South Sudan has a better friend than the
United States. And we have pushed very, very hard to have
compliance with the international community's desire to end the
conflict.
They are at a critical stage now. The security forces for
Riek Machar have now arrived in Juba. He is supposed to go
there at some point in time to try to fulfill the mission of
having this unity government as part of the peace process. And
we have a very real agenda--post-conflict reconstruction,
criminal justice, transitional justice--as part of the conflict
resolution. We have committed $5 million to accountability to
try to help lead in this process, in addition to the aid and
other things we are doing.
But the bottom line you raised at the end of your
question--the sanctions. My message to South Sudan and to the
leaders of the process is very simple: This takes leadership.
If President Kiir and the people around him and Riek Machar and
the people around him don't take on responsibility and deliver
on this peace agreement, then the international community is
absolutely prepared to put in place individual sanctions for a
range of things, ranging from the corruption, to property that
may be held in other places, to the crimes that may have been
committed in the course of the war. And we are very serious
about that.
This is a critical moment for South Sudan's survival, and
it is important for people who hold themselves up to be leaders
to actually lead.
Mr. Rooney. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your work, for your
service to our country in many capacities.
For many years, we always heard about Latin American
countries telling us, why do you guys have this policy with
Cuba, why don't you change it?
Is it too early to notice whether they appreciate it? Is it
too early to see a change in what Latin American countries are
saying about that change we made?
Secretary Kerry. Not in the least. We have been amazed by
the receptivity of countries throughout Latin America as a
result of this. It has changed our relationship with other
countries in the region. And it has changed their relationship
with Cuba and even with Venezuela.
It has established creditability for the United States, in
terms of our goals and hopes. And it really has opened up--
there is now a dialogue that is opening up that we may be
taking part in with respect to Venezuela, and the credibility
we have for that has come out of this transition of Cuba.
Mr. Serrano. That is great. That is wonderful.
And I will tell you, it was a special day in Cuba, for
Barbara Lee, it was a special day for all of us in Washington
to see that flag go up. I thought I would never see that
happen, certainly in my time in Congress and maybe in my
lifetime. So thank you. Thank you for your work.
On a more mundane-type question, you have to switch now
from an interest section that used to blare messages to the
Cuban people and against the government to an embassy that
behaves in a diplomatic fashion and so on. Physically and
politically, is the change difficult or is it a transition----
Secretary Kerry. Well, it is not--I wouldn't call it--I
wouldn't call it difficult. It has its challenges, yes, because
we still have some limitations on the amount of equipment that
we can bring in, but we broke through with an increase that
haven't had in years so that we can refurbish the embassy,
improve the equipment, have people be able to do a better job
of managing the increased numbers of Americans now traveling.
That is very important.
We negotiated an increase in the number of diplomats that
can be there. They are now able to travel throughout Cuba in
greater numbers, and this will be important to being able to
ascertain the needs of the Cuban people and being able to help
us to do good diplomacy.
So I think that, you know, as we have gone through this
transition, we are recognizing that it is going to require
additional funds from the committee. We have asked for that.
But I think, over the course of time, this will evolve. And
there is a natural growth.
There is also some building of trust in the process, as we
go forward here. They have to see that we are, in fact,
adhering to the Vienna Convention and engaged in diplomacy and
not other things. And we to have see that they are, in fact,
improving human rights and improving the opportunities for
their people. And that is how you will build the transition
over a period of time.
Mr. Serrano. Okay.
And I will close with this. Is it true you are negotiating
a Major League Baseball team in Cuba already?
Secretary Kerry. I think there has been some discussion
about whether or not there might be a visit at some point in
time, appropriately, of the team. But I have nothing to do with
any other negotiations.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Kerry. Good morning.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you for being with us.
Secretary Kerry. Thanks.
Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. Secretary, I had the extraordinary
privilege of being in the room with Pope Francis when he, in a
very powerful moment, was given a small cross, a Christian
crucifix. That crucifix had belonged to a young Syrian man who
had been captured by the jihadists, and he was told to choose:
convert or die. And he chose his ancient faith tradition; he
chose Christ. And he was beheaded. His mother was able to
recovery the body, recover this cross, and bury him. And she
fled to Austria, which set the stage for this moment which I
witnessed.
Mr. Secretary, this is repeating itself over and over and
over again against Christians, Yazidis, and other religious
minorities in the region.
In 2004, Colin Powell, when he was Secretary of State, came
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--and I believe
you served on that committee at that point--and declared what
was happening in Darfur to be a genocide.
There are 200 Members of Congress--in a bipartisan fashion,
we have put our names on a resolution that is forthcoming that
declares this genocide. There is a growing international
consensus in this regard. The European Parliament has passed
something similar. The U.S Catholic Bishops; Pope Francis has
spoken out; Hillary Clinton has called it such; Marco Rubio;
the International Association of Genocide Scholars.
I want to note, as well, a word of thanks to you and
President Obama for the quick action on Mount Sinjar that
actually saved the lives of women and children, countless
persons, who would have been wiped out and victimized.
And so what I am urging here today is that you use the
authority and power of your office to call this genocide; to
help restore the rich tapestry of the ancient faith traditions
in the Middle East; to stop this assault on human dignity and
civilization itself; and to set, potentially, the conditions
that we are all hoping and praying for that reestablishes
stability and reintegration of these ancient faith traditions
into the fabric of the communities and the Middle East
entirely. I think the stability, the future stability, of the
entire region depends upon this.
Secretary Kerry. Well, again, Congressman, thank you for a
very moving and eloquent description of the problem. And I
appreciate--you were lucky to be in that room to witness that,
and I certainly appreciate your reactions to it.
And I share just a huge sense of revulsion over these acts,
obviously. None of us have ever seen anything like it in our
lifetimes, though, obviously, if you go back to the Holocaust,
the world has seen it.
We are currently doing what I have to do, which is review
very carefully the legal standards and precedents for whatever
judgment is made. I can tell you we are doing that. I have had
some initial recommendations made to me. I have asked for some
further evaluation. And I will make a decision on this, and I
will make a decision on it as soon as I have that additional
evaluation, and we will proceed forward from there. But I
understand how compelling it is.
Christians have been moved in many parts now of the Middle
East, I might add. This is not just in Syria, but in other
places there has been an increased forced evacuation and
displacement, which is equally disturbing, though, you know,
they aren't killing them in that case, but it is a removal and
a cleansing, ethnically and religiously, which is deeply
disturbing.
So we are very much focused on this, and, as I say, I will
make a judgment soon.
Mr. Fortenberry. They have taken the conditions for life,
as well as life, away from Christians, Yazidis, and religious
minorities.
And I bring up the declaration by former Secretary of State
Colin Powell to demonstrate the power that the declaration
actually has. Because, in doing so, he helped put a stop to
that grim reality there in Darfur.
I know you share deep sympathies in this regard. I just
urge with you, plead with you, partner with us. There is a
growing consensus that this is not only true and real but I
think, again, it sets the condition for whatever future
settlement we have to have.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Kerry. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And, Mr. Secretary, thank you for your service.
And I have to say, I am just a little old Congressman, and
I really mean that. I don't have the background that you do.
But we view the world in a very different way. If men are from
Mars and women are from Venus, we have kind of a whole Mars-
Venus-Pluto thing going on here. And let me give you a couple
examples, if I could.
You said in your opening statement that you believe our
alliance with Europe is strong and getting stronger. As a
Member of Congress, especially as a member of the Intel
Committee, I have a chance to travel and talk with world
leaders, and this is what I hear again and again: Where is the
United States? We don't know if we can trust you. We don't know
if you are going to stand by alliances that have been in place
for generations in some cases. We don't know if you are going
to stand up to your adversaries.
And the evidence of that isn't something that I see--it is
not anecdotal. It is not something that I have read in
newspapers. It is my own personal experience.
Another example, if I could. You said that you are
confident that we would defeat--you said Daesh, but most of us
refer to ISIS or ISIL. I just don't believe this administration
has a plan or the will to defeat them, and I am certainly not
alone in that concern.
And, with that being said, that we come from this from a
different view, there are so many questions I would like to ask
you. It is a target-rich environment. I would like to ask one
quickly and then turn to Syria.
Your own State Department has told us that the former
Secretary has kept more than 1,600 classified emails on an
unsecured server, of which your State Department classified 29,
at least, as Top Secret. And recognizing that the definition of
``Top Secret'' is that their exposure would potentially cause
exceptionally grave damage to national security, Top Secret is
not a trifling thing.
And so I wanted to read these emails. I wanted to know what
was in them and what had potentially been exposed. And I am
curious, Mr. Secretary, have you read these emails that were
classified as Top Secret that were kept on the former
Secretary's private server?
Secretary Kerry. So let me answer the questions there that
I think are relevant to the budget and the policy.
On Daesh, yes, we have a plan. Let me be clear about that--
--
Mr. Stewart. Well, Mr. Secretary, I wasn't asking that
question. I know that we----
Secretary Kerry. Well, you did ask a question. You said you
don't think that we have a plan. And I want to make it clear we
have a plan----
Mr. Stewart. OK.
Secretary Kerry. And we are going to defeat--let me just
finish now.
Mr. Stewart. Well, actually, Mr. Secretary, this is my
time, and I didn't ask that question.
Secretary Kerry. Well, I thought it was your time to ask a
question.
Mr. Stewart. And my question was, have you read Secretary
Clinton's emails that were on her server that have been
classified as Top Secret?
Secretary Kerry. No. No. I have not. It is not my job to do
that. It is being thoroughly vetted through another process,
and I think you know that.
Mr. Stewart. Well, like me, though, it is not necessarily
my job to vet that, but I was curious what was on those emails
and what would be classified as Top Secret, so I went ahead and
read them.
I would encourage you to, sir, because I think that there
is information on there that, as the Secretary, in your
position, that you would want to know, I would think, what had
been potentially been exposed.
If I could in the last 2 minutes----
Secretary Kerry. We have appropriate people who are
managing that through appropriate channels. And I think you
know that----
Mr. Stewart. Well, I certainly do.
Secretary Kerry [continuing]. Congressman. And I don't
think it is appropriate to be characterizing something that the
world can't read, which is being taken care of with more than
50 investigations by 8 or 9 committees. Honestly.
Mr. Stewart. But, Mr. Secretary, I----
Secretary Kerry. So let's not fool round here. Let's talk
about----
Mr. Stewart. Mr. Secretary, I didn't characterize those. It
was your own department that characterized----
Secretary Kerry. No, you just characterized them without--
you said, I read them and I think it is important for people to
have a sense of whatever. That is a characterization.
Mr. Stewart. Well, the characterization of being Top Secret
is not something that I characterized.
Secretary Kerry. Right. And things get classified after the
fact. And it happens in the Senate and the House. You folks
send things on your BlackBerrys, and you send them sometimes
from a foreign country.
Mr. Stewart. Yes. But, having read these emails----
Secretary Kerry. Have they been classified?
Mr. Stewart. But, having read these emails, I can assure
you that this isn't a case of being overclassified. Having read
them, I know that.
Secretary Kerry. So let's come back to Daesh, because that
is really important to the American people.
We have taken back--the Iraqis have taken back 40 percent
of the territory that they held in Iraq. We have liberated
Tikrit--they have liberated Tikrit. They have liberated Ramadi.
They are now moving on Hit. They are going to be doing that in
Mosul.
We have cut off the main road between Al-Raqqah and Mosul.
The secondary roads are being cut off. There have been more
than 10,000 air strikes. People have been eliminated from the
battlefield. We are eliminating their money. They have cut
their money to their fighters by 50 percent, in some cases
eliminated it. We are taking away their source of revenue.
And President Obama made it clear at the very beginning
this was not going to happen over night, it is going to take
time.
There are a lot of people in that part of the world who are
happy to fight to the last American. And the fact is that we
are trying do this without having the last American on the
ground, but, rather, getting forces there, training them,
working them.
We have special forces on the ground. Americans are in
Syria; Americans are on the ground in Iraq. We are helping them
to help themselves. And I think most Americans believe that is
a pretty good way to get it done.
I have heard the handwringing. And I referred to the
handwringing in the beginning of my comments. I hear it. But we
are making a difference. We have reassured Europe. We are going
up to $3.4 billion. We have redeployed troops. We rotate troops
through the forward frontline countries. And, frankly, we do
more than any other country in the world----
Mr. Stewart. Well, of course we do more than any other
country. We are the United States.
And my time is up, so I will just conclude with this. There
is no question that we have made some progress there. I
wouldn't say that that isn't true. I would say--and you call it
handwringing in a pejorative way, as if, you know, we are
children who are just sitting with----
Secretary Kerry. Because it doesn't comport with the facts,
Congressman.
Mr. Stewart. There are legitimate concerns----
Secretary Kerry. The facts are that we are getting these
things done. The facts are----
Mr. Stewart. Well, Mr. Secretary----
Secretary Kerry [continuing]. That we are providing for
these folks.
Mr. Stewart [continuing]. We could have an exchange about
whether we are getting these things done. But it a legitimate
concern on many of our part whether this administration has the
will and a plan to move forward on this and to actually defeat
them. Because I am not the only one who questions whether that
is the case. And it is not only Americans who question that, as
well. Many of our allies do.
Madam Chairman, I apologize for going over. I yield back.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Secretary Kerry. Can I just say, Madam Chairman----
Ms. Granger. We have one last question from Mrs. Lowey and
from me.
Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Madam Chair, I just want to say I think the
discussion of the emails in this forum, when we have the whole
world here, seems inappropriate.
And if I am not mistaken, in all the discussions I have
heard, that Secretary Colin Powell had the same system in
place. And, in fact, the emails that were sent to both
Secretary Powell and Secretary Clinton were not classified at
the time they were sent.
Secretary Kerry. That is correct.
Mrs. Lowey. So I think, in looking at the whole process--
and I am sure you, as the Secretary of State, are looking at
the whole process. But I don't think this is the appropriate
forum to deal with it.
Ms. Granger. But I believe you had a question, didn't you?
Mrs. Lowey. And I did have another question. Thank you so
much.
What I was so concerned about, Secretary Kerry, when you
were talking about arms shipments outside of the JCPOA being
turned around--and isn't it wonderful that they were turned
around?--my reaction was, is this a cat-and-mouse game? Or is
there a real understanding with Iran that they have a
responsibility to comply with the U.N. sanctions, the other
sanctions in place, and they shouldn't be arming other nations
in the region that are just causing one incident after another
where people are dying?
So I am a little puzzled about that and why Iran is not
complying with the other sanctions that are very clearly in
place.
Secretary Kerry. I think, Congresswoman, what you have is--
sometimes independent actions by independent entities is very
hard to measure. But, as you know, the IRGC opposed the Iran
agreement bitterly.
Mrs. Lowey. Right.
Secretary Kerry. The IRGC wanted to have a nuclear
umbrella, and the IRGC resented--the IRGC does certain things.
And so we, in contacting the government, made it clear that we
would take steps if indeed they were going to deliver anything.
And since nothing was delivered, there was a response that
seemed to be appropriate.
Now, it is not a cat-and-mouse game, no. If we find
something happening, we are going to respond, as we did on the
missile launch. But----
Mrs. Lowey. May I ask you--because I know we are all going
to be cut off and you have to leave. But, Mr. Secretary, with
great respect, when you said the IRGC is independent----
Secretary Kerry. No, I said sometimes things happen. I am
not saying that.
We don't know what happened. What we do know is that
nothing happened; we didn't have a transfer. We don't know for
sure what was on there. We didn't inspect it. So we saw a
convoy, and we told them it would be better not to push the
envelope here, and they didn't. Now, I didn't know specifically
what was loaded in there or what--I am just saying to you that
I think you need to have your facts. When we have the facts,
like the missile launch, we responded, and we will in the
future.
We do know, also, that there are weapons that have come out
of Iran, gone through Damascus, gone to Lebanon. And we have
made it very clear, very clear, that that is an invitation to
response, no question about it.
Mrs. Lowey. Because we are limited on time, I will pursue
this with Secretary Lew, because I understand these sanctions
are being overseen by his department. Treasury is responsible
for this series of sanctions. And I think it has to be made
very clear that this is unacceptable even if we don't catch
you.
Thank you.
Secretary Kerry. Well, I mean----
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you for your work.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Secretary, the committee has given the
administration significant funding and flexibility to address
local health threats, including broad authority to use funds to
address public health emergency of international concern, and,
of course, that is Zika, which has been declared by the World
Health Organization.
Mr. Secretary, to use this authority, you have to declare
it in the national interest to respond to such emergency. I am
going to ask a quick question because all I need is one word,
``yes'' or ``no.'' Do you intend to make this declaration so
you can access existing funds immediately to fight the Zika
outbreak?
Secretary Kerry. You are right, I do have that ability. And
the Zika virus is still being analyzed and evaluated with
respect to exactly what it is going to require, how much it is
going to require.
We are concerned about it, which is why we have requested
the additional money. But we are also concerned about Ebola on
the other side possibly resurging. And, yes, there is some
money left over in there, but we don't know how much either one
is really going to demand. So we are loathe to take what has
already been appropriated for Ebola, with Zika coming down the
line and yet to be determined how big and how broad it is going
to be. So it is premature to make that decision.
I am well aware of the authority, obviously. If it suddenly
started to move more rapidly and we had a greater sense of
broad threat to the public which required a more immediate
response, obviously we would move in an emergency way to take
from wherever. But right now that is just not the way to deal
with it, in our judgment. We are trying to keep them on
separate tracks.
Ms. Granger. As we conclude the hearing today, I wanted to
raise an issue that I continue to hear about from my
constituents and also from Members. So for this one, just
please provide for the record an update on the refugee
screening process and highlight what changes have been made to
the process to better ensure that refugees admitted for
resettlement in the United States do not pose a threat to our
country or the community in which they are resettled. That came
up about the Syrians that we were looking at.
Secretary Kerry. Yep.
Ms. Granger. So if you could submit that for the record.
Ms. Granger. I thank you again for your time, I thank you
for your energy and all the effort you have given to world
crises.
Secretary Kerry. Thanks so much.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Secretary Kerry. Madam Chairman, again, I just want to say
to you thank you. You have been terrific. When I have needed to
call you urgently, you have been available. And, likewise, the
ranking member. You both have been enormously helpful, and we
are very grateful for the bipartisan effort. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
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, March 15, 2016.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS
WITNESS
HON. JACK LEW, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Opening Statement of Chairwoman Granger
Ms. Granger. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations,
and Related Programs will come to order. I would like to
welcome Secretary Lew to discuss the fiscal year 2017 budget
request for the Treasury Department's International Affairs
programs.
The funding under review today supports contributions to
international financial institutions, such as the World Bank
and regional banks, other contributions to multilateral funds
and technical assistance programs.
The budget request totals $2.3 billion, a $5 million
increase above fiscal year 2016. While this may seem like the
budget is virtually straight lined from last year, the budget
includes a number of new requests.
Turning to the World Bank and the regional development
banks, I remain concerned about the funds this subcommittee
provides. I would like to hear from you today about the efforts
these institutions are making to publicly track funds and
provide independent evaluations of program effectiveness.
Additionally, I have been following the growth and
contributions by USAID and the Department of State to trust
funds managed by the World Bank and other financial
institutions. I am concerned about the lack of oversight of
these taxpayer dollars.
The 2016 omnibus included a shift in U.S. resources at the
IMF from emergency fund to the general quota and required a
number of reforms. I hope you can discuss any recent
developments.
Also included in the administration's request is $250
million for the Green Climate Fund. Mr. Secretary, I don't have
to remind you of the strong opposition by many members of
Congress to any funding for this purpose.
Finally, the United States government is providing an
increasing number of loan guarantees to foreign governments. I
will ask you about loans and loan guarantees later. I know you
have taken a personal interest in boosting economies of our
allies and partners.
Secretary Lew, thank you for being here today. You have
many important topics to discuss.
And I will now turn to my ranking member, Mrs. Lowey, for
her opening statement.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Opening Statement of Mrs. Lowey
Mrs. Lowey. Secretary Lew, I join Chairwoman Granger in
welcoming you here today. I thank you for your service to our
country.
The President's 2017 budget request reflects the importance
of our continued investments in international financial
institutions, such as the IMF and the World Bank, which offer a
cost-effective way to leverage taxpayer dollars and promote our
own economic and national security interests.
Additionally, the Treasury Department leads the world in
disrupting terrorist financing networks, enforcing sanctions
against violators of international norms and providing
technical assistance to countries serious about strengthening
their own financial management and accountability systems.
Your department plays an essential role in these vital
efforts, and I look forward to hearing from you on how the
request would further these important undertakings.
First, with regard to Ukraine, a U.N. panel reported last
week that more than 9,000 civilians have been killed since the
conflict started in April 2014. Given Russia's ongoing
aggression, I would like to know what effect U.S. and E.U.
sanctions have had on Putin. Specifically, I would like to know
if Russia has retaliated economically against us or our allies,
and if there are additional punitive economic measures we
should be considering.
Second, Iran recently gained access to billions of dollars
in unfrozen assets following implementation of the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action. Please update this subcommittee
on how the regime has used the money so far and the
effectiveness of U.S. sanctions on Iran for its financial
support of terrorism, human rights abuses, export of weapons,
and ballistic missile testing.
Third, we should all applaud the climate change commitments
reached last year in Paris, as well as the announcement last
week by President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau on
reducing methane emissions.
Failure to provide the adequate resources to address an
impending environmental catastrophe risks creating conditions
for even greater dangers, including failed states and
populations more vulnerable to conflict and radicalization.
Instead, U.S. efforts to combat climate change helps
developing countries increase their own resiliency, mitigate
instability caused by population displacement, and address
declines in the global food and water supply.
That is why it would be very useful to hear specifically
how the administration's request of $409 million in Treasury
programs to address climate change, including the Green Climate
Fund and the Global Environmental Facility, would help protect
the environment, U.S. national security interests, and job
creation at home.
Fourth, faced with limited resources, members of our
subcommittee constantly weigh funding for bilateral versus
multilateral programs.
Unfortunately, last year the House mark eliminated funding
for several international financial institutions, which would
have jeopardized the interests of the United States and harmed
struggling communities abroad.
I hope we can avoid such divisive and counterproductive
proposals this year, and instead recognize that U.S. confidence
in these institutions is paramount.
I look forward to hearing from you on the administration's
oversight of the operations of the World Bank and other
international financial institutions, including for example,
the ongoing review of the World Bank's environmental and social
safeguards.
Finally, Congress approved last year the long-overdue IMF
quota and governance reforms. I would appreciate hearing how
these reforms have helped advance U.S. interests in the
institution and bolster equitable participation in global
economic decisions.
And thank you very much for being with us today.
Ms. Granger. Secretary Lew, please proceed with your
opening remarks. There are many issues that members want to
discuss during our time with you today, so I would encourage
you to summarize your remarks so that we have time for you to
address questions. The yellow light on your timer will appear
when you have 2 minutes left.
Opening Statement of Secretary Lew
Secretary Lew. Thank you, Chairman Granger, Ranking Member
Lowey. It is good to be here to discuss the 2017 Treasury
budget request.
Since my testimony last year, our economy has continued its
record-breaking streak of private sector job creation, which
has reached 6 consecutive years and more than 14 million jobs.
Over the last 2 years, we have experienced the strongest job
creation since the 1990s, and at 4.9 percent, the unemployment
rate is half its peak in 2009.
We continue on a sound fiscal path, with the deficit from
fiscal year 2009 to 2015 falling by almost three-quarters, to
2.5 percent of Gross Domestic Product.
With the passage of the omnibus spending bill in December,
we helped to build on this momentum. It will contribute to our
economic growth and it will help to rebuild our international
leadership. As you both noted, the agreement included critical
IMF quota and governance reforms that have helped to preserve
the central role of the United States in the international
economic system and to advance our economic and national
security objectives.
The budget agreement also demonstrated that we have the
capacity to find common ground on difficult issues. It lays the
foundation for addressing some of our long-term challenges, but
a lot of work remains. That is why this year's budget includes
critical investments in our domestic and national security
priorities.
Treasury's 2017 budget request builds on a significant year
for international development, which in addition to IMF quota
reform, saw the adoption of the Addis Ababa action agenda and
the 2030 agenda for sustainable development, and culminated in
a successful Paris climate agreement.
Our fiscal year 2017 request makes investments in some of
the most cost-effective ways to reinforce economic growth at
home and respond to critical international challenges like
poverty, environmental degradation, and food insecurity. For
example, the World Bank's International Development Association
provides a cost-effective means to support the world's poorest
countries. Every dollar contribution from the United States
leverages almost $13 in contributions from other donors and the
World Bank's internal resources.
Our request also begins to address some of our prior unmet
commitments to the international community and provides
additional funding for Treasury's Office of Technical
Assistance (OTA), to broaden its efforts to build effective
public financial institutions by advising and training
government officials in developing countries.
These investments in multilateral development banks (MDBs)
like the World Bank and the regional development banks help to
support our national security objectives, increase economic
growth, and reduce poverty. The assistance and technical know-
how of the MDBs has nurtured the economic reforms,
infrastructure and social investments that have driven the
growth of some of our most strategic trade partners.
They play an important role in building sustainable and
transparent economic growth in emerging and developing
countries, and more and more we have come to see the MDBs as
vital partners in helping to address national security threats.
In addition to meeting our current commitments to the MDBs,
it is urgent that we work with Congress to address our prior
unmet commitments, which now approach $1.6 billion. At the
World Bank, this is particularly urgent because failure to meet
our commitments this year will result in a loss of U.S.
shareholding that could impact our veto power, damage our
credibility, and weaken our ability to shape policy priorities.
When it comes to global challenges like climate change,
food insecurity and gender imbalances, the world continues to
rely on multilateral institutions, and strong U.S. leadership
within them, to help developing countries make concrete
investments.
And U.S. contributions to specialized multilateral funds
leverage resources from other donor countries and the private
sector, significantly multiplying the impact of American
taxpayer dollars.
In particular, I want to focus on two such funds: the
Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and the Green Climate Fund
(GCF). The GEF delivers benefits to the United States and
global community by protecting the environment, including
preserving the ozone layer, supporting fisheries, combating
wildlife trafficking, and reducing mercury pollution that can
contaminate our food supply. As you know, the President pledged
$3 billion to the GCF, which our budget request supports in
part.
The GCF is designed to be a key element of the collective
global effort to build resilience and reduce carbon pollution.
The fiscal year 2017 budget request also includes important
funding for a variety of other programs, including the Central
American & Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Program, the
Global Agriculture and Food Security Program, the International
Fund for Agricultural Development, and the World Bank Global
Infrastructure Facility.
Finally, Treasury is seeking $33.5 million for OTA, an
increase of $10 million over the fiscal year 2016 enacted
level. Our request reflects a strong and increasing demand for
OTA to support U.S. foreign policy, national security, and
economic priorities in Central America, Africa, Asia, Ukraine
and other regions.
The request also supports my commitment at the 2015
Financing for Development Conference to double OTA's assistance
and significantly increase U.S. Government support for domestic
resource mobilization by 2020, helping countries to better
raise and manage their own financial resources.
Treasury's international programs are some of the most
cost-effective ways to reinforce economic growth at home and to
respond to critical challenges abroad. Specifically, U.S.
leadership in international financial institutions enables us
to influence how and where resources are deployed, often on a
scale that we cannot achieve through our bilateral programs
alone.
It is crucial that we continue to have bipartisan support
for these institutions to ensure that our influence remains as
strong today as it has been over the past several decades.
And with that, I look forward to answering your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Granger. We will begin with the questions. I want to
remind members and the witness that you have 5 minutes for
questions and the responses. The yellow light on your timer
will appear when you have 2 minutes remaining, and it will be
followed by a red light which means you get thrown out of here,
I think--is that what happens? If time permits, we will have a
second round of questions.
I will begin. The fiscal year 2016 appropriations bill
included funding and authority for a third loan guarantee for
the government of Ukraine, but this agreement has not been
finalized by the administration.
Loan guarantees from the United States have helped boost
Ukraine's sovereign rating, which was raised last fall.
However, in fiscal year 2017, there are no funds requested for
another loan guarantee.
Mr. Secretary, I am concerned about Ukraine. I know that
you are concerned. The administration is also concerned about
Ukraine.
I know from the press that there has been a lot going on
with their government. I know they need the U.S. loan
guarantee, but I think all of us are concerned that we ensure
that reforms are being implemented by that government. How can
the United States use its leverage?
Secretary Lew. Chairman Granger, I think we agree
completely on the importance of Ukraine, and we have had a
great working relationship with you and with the subcommittee
to show united bipartisan support for Ukraine.
The two loan guarantees that we have put in place have been
essential as part of an international package to give Ukraine
the chance to rebuild its economy in the face of terrible
aggression and to get itself into a place where it has the
possibility of a successful future. In fact, they have turned
the corner sooner than expected and had a period of economic
growth earlier than expected.
We are working with them on the third loan guarantee. The
details are still being worked out. One of the conditions of
each of our loan guarantees is that they meet their fiscal
commitments and they also meet the commitments to government
reform. We have been very clear, as has the IMF, that both of
those commitments are critical, not just to keep the support
flowing, but for Ukraine to have a viable future.
I know this is a period of turmoil in Ukraine politically;
we continue to work with the finance ministry on the terms of
the loan guarantee.
Obviously, the situation has to settle down politically for
them to either form a new government or not. The test will not
change; the test will be, do they stick to their fiscal
reforms, both on the spending and the tax side? And do they
stick to their anti-corruption reforms, which are just as
critical.
We have made that, at the highest level, an issue. I invest
a lot of time personally with the government of Ukraine. They
value the role that we play; frankly, they value the fact that
we keep reminding them what they need to do to have a stronger
future for their country.
Ms. Granger. I know you and I have discussed that and how
important it is. I have been there three times, and we all
agree we would like to help, but they have to help themselves,
and I appreciate your staying with that.
The second question I have, Iraq has faced declining
revenues because of low oil prices, we all know that. The
government of Iraq has stated that they may raise funds on the
international capital markets later in the year.
In the fiscal year 2016 omnibus, authority was included for
up to $2.7 billion in direct loans for Iraq for military
purchases. In the fiscal year 2017 budget request, the
administration is requesting a second loan for Iraq for
military assistance, as well as a sovereign loan guarantee for
economic assistance.
First, what is the timeline for issuing the loan that was
authorized in fiscal year 2016, and how much funding will be
needed to subsidize that loan?
And second, what actions will the government of Iraq need
to take to receive the second loan for military assistance and
the new loan guarantee requested in fiscal year 2017?
Secretary Lew. Chairman Granger, the support for Iraq, we
believe is critical. Iraq needs to have economic stability if
it is going to have political stability. We are urging Iraq to
take very tough actions to counter ISIL and to be a partner in
that effort. But with the lower price of oil, they are under a
great deal of economic pressure.
I think the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) action was an
important way to make sure that they have the resources they
need to build their defense, but also to create the cash flow
for them to manage towards a more stable, economic future.
We are probably several weeks away from finalizing the
details of the first FMF loan. The State Department takes a
lead on that; we are consulting with them. The exact cost of it
will depend on the terms. I believe that the outer limit is
$250 million, but it could be less than that, depending on the
duration and the tenor of it.
We look forward to working together with you on additional
provisions for 2017. One of the things that Iraq will have to
do, not unlike the conversation we just had about Ukraine, is
put some economic reforms in place. They are in the midst of
working with the IMF on a standby agreement. That would put in
place the architecture for reforms that we could build on with
our loan guarantees.
I think they understand that it is a package and that they
need to have those reforms in place.
It has been a challenge, but that is something that I
think, again, they need to do it for their own future. And it
will be something that our ability to enter into the loan
guarantees is connected to.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Just one part about the loan
guarantees. The dispute between the Kurds, and their regional
government and Iraqis over oil revenues, the U.S. must use its
influence to try to resolve this matter.
I think we have all watched the Kurds and what they have
tried to do, and the real risks they have taken. So, finding a
solution to this issue, I think, and I believe it should be a
condition of Iraq receiving loans and loan guarantees. Do you
agree with that?
Secretary Lew. Treasury has consistently encouraged the
government of Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG)
to work together to implement the revenue sharing agreement. My
understanding is that their 2016 budget contains provisions for
the resumption of the 2015 oil deal. We will continue to work
with them, because having an orderly resolution of that
internally would be the best outcome.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, I remain very concerned with how Iran will
spend billions of dollars of unfrozen assets, which has been
valued between $50 billion and $150 billion. Just 2 weeks ago,
Iran's ambassador to Lebanon pledged $7,000 to each of the
families of Palestinian terrorists who committed acts against
Israelis.
In your estimate, exactly how much money has Iran acquired
since implementation of the JCPOA? What is the administration's
strategy to combat Iran's funding of terrorist groups and
supply of weapons, and do you have numbers for how much money
Iran provides Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian, Islamic, jihad and
Shia militias in Iraq?
And do you believe these figures are likely to increase as
a result of sanctions relief?
Secretary Lew. Congresswoman Lowey, let me answer that
question as best I can in this room, and we can have a
conversation in a different setting where we possibly could go
into some more detail.
Iran's nuclear commitments have been capped. That is very
important; it means that Iran is backing out of its pathway to
a nuclear weapon. We have, pursuant to the agreement, lifted
only the nuclear sanctions, but we have lifted the nuclear
sanctions, as we have to--if there is an agreement--that is the
purpose of sanctions to get the policy changed, and the
sanctions have to accordingly be reduced.
We have not lifted sanctions on terrorism, we have not
lifted sanctions on regional destabilization, we have not
lifted sanctions on human rights violations. We continue to
work, as we always do, to identify targets where there are
actions taken that require designation; we have made a number
of designations since the agreement was reached, we will
continue to do so.
In terms of the total amount of money, it has not changed
from where we were when we were presenting the agreement over
the summer. There is roughly $100 billion of resources out
there, of which only about $50 billion could actually go back
to Iran, because the others are tied up for reasons that make
them unavailable. Iran's own estimate is they have,
theoretically, access to maybe $30 billion.
We have actually seen a very slow return of those monies to
Iran. They are having a challenging time dealing with the
international financial system, but that money will begin to
flow.
One of the things that we know is that the backlog of needs
in Iran is tremendous. The domestic pressure is for spending on
domestic needs, both human and infrastructure. As I said in
July, I wish I could say not a penny would go to malign
purposes, but money is fungible and I cannot say that.
What I do believe, and what we continue to see, is that the
activities that Iran funds that we very much want to stop,
things like the funding of terrorism, are being stressed, which
means they are not accessing the kinds of sums that would give
you reason to believe that there is a significant change in the
shape of what they are doing.
But I am happy in a different setting to go into whatever
detail we have.
Mrs. Lowey. I would like to do that, because I am very
concerned, obviously, about where the money is going and how
much more money Iran might receive.
If you can share with me the status, which has been raised
here before, of multilateral bank loans to Iran and what steps
is the department taking to ensure international financial
institutions are complying with United Nations sanctions on
Iran?
And can you assure this subcommittee that the U.S. will
continue to oppose any World Bank loans to Iran until they are
in compliance with all bilateral, multilateral sanctions, human
rights, missile testings, supporting terrorism, et cetera?
Secretary Lew. We do continue to oppose them. There have
not been new loans to Iran, there are some old loans out there,
I believe. I am happy to get back to you with the details. But
we have made clear that we will continue with the position that
we have had.
Mrs. Lowey. I see my yellow--I have a couple more minutes.
The administration has pledged to strictly enforce existing
sanctions in Iran, other than those relaxed under the JCPOA,
and that is why the SFOPS bill last year included a reporting
requirement on the status of implementation and enforcement of
bilateral multilateral sanctions against Iran, and actions
taken by the U.S. and international community to enforce such
actions.
Now, if you could quickly--otherwise, we will continue--
what is the status of the report? Beyond the 11 entities
supporting Iran's missile programs, has the administration
imposed any sanctions targeting Iran's non-nuclear activities
since the JCPOA was reached?
For instance, sanctions for supporting terrorism,
supporting the Assad regime, human rights violations, and
supporting Shiite militias in Iraq?
Secretary Lew. In terms of the report, my understanding is
the report is due in June or July, and the work is being done
on it. I am happy to get back to you with details on that. In
terms of the sanctioning or the designation of entities, we
have continued; 11 Hezbollah-related targets were sanctioned
under terrorism authorities for terrorism-related activities
and a number for missile activities.
I am happy to get a list to you.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, and I know that the chair and I, and
this committee are very concerned. We understand that is
separate from the nuclear agreement.
Secretary Lew. Yes.
Mrs. Lowey. But I think it is important that we get
specifics and the administration is aggressive in making it
clear to Iran that this is serious and we are going to stop it.
Secretary Lew. We have been very clear, throughout the
negotiations and since, that the lifting of nuclear sanctions
does not take away the sanctions on terrorism, regional
destabilization or human rights.
The designation process, as you know, is a very time-
consuming and cumbersome one. We will continue to go through
it, as we have information, as we have the ability to make
designations, and it is something that I pay a lot of attention
to.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
And just one other comment, when you are preparing this
report, I am very interested in the transfer of that $7,000 to
the Palestinians who are committing terrorist acts.
Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I want to first thank Mrs. Lowey for that line of
questioning, and I think we all share your concerns. And I
would like to be there if you are going to have a classified on
that.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Secretary, good to see you sir. Let me
stay on the sanctions issue, but in a different part of the
world.
You now have more sanctions relief to the Castro regime,
but we are asking nothing in return. Your new regulations
effectively authorized the Castro dictatorship to use the U.S.
financial system as a flow through for their international
transactions.
Mr. Secretary, let's be very clear. The Cuban people aren't
shuffling dollars through Europeans banks or through Panama. It
is only the Castro regime. Let me give you an opportunity to
correct me. Do you know what percentage of non-regime players,
Cubans, are using the international system to--you know, for
financial ways, how many are using it?
Is it only the regime, which is 100 percent according to
the numbers that I have. Do you have different numbers or is it
100 percent, just the regime that you are facilitating this
for.
Secretary Lew. Congressman, I know that we disagree on
the----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I am just trying to get some facts. I am
trying to get the facts from you.
Secretary Lew. I am happy to ask for the technical staff to
come back.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, you have a number of--you have a
dozen people here with you.
Secretary Lew. Well, the purpose of our relief of the Cuban
sanctions is within the law, not go outside of the bounds of
the law, but within the law, to try and increase contact
between the United States and Cuba because the policy of the
last 50 years has not worked.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Secretary, again, there are a couple
of things here. It is not Cuba. What you are doing is helping
and only helping the regime. I want to help Cuba. But you are
helping--what you are doing is only helping the regime, unless
you can correct me. That is well--another area, where you are
only helping the regime.
Secretary Lew. I am happy to go through the elements of
what we have done, but we have----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, I am trying to get some facts from
you sir.
Secretary Lew. The facts are what we have tried to do is
increase people to people contact. We have tried to increase
the availability of communications for the Cuban people.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I am asking you very specifically about
the financial transactions.
Secretary Lew. I--the bank accounts----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Right. I am hoping that you can prove me
wrong, but I will bet that you are not going to be able to.
Moreover sir, this isn't for telecom or ad sales--which, by the
way, are exempted by law. It is a blanket authorization for all
of the regime's activities.
Now, what statutory authority do you perceive to have to
authorize such transactions which are clearly inconsistent with
federal law?
Secretary Lew. Well Congressman, we have complied with all
of the prohibitions, both in the embargo and in the
specifically, prohibited financial activities. What we have
done is we have addressed the sanctions that were put in place
by executive action, removing those executive actions.
We have been very careful to stay within the bounds of what
is not an open space. We have made clear that we would do
otherwise if we did not have those constraints, but we have
acted within those constraints.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Secretary, again, what I am asking is
what statutory authority do you have? Do you perceive that you
have? Because federal law is very clear that there are
exemptions for three areas and what this does is way beyond
that. So, what statutory authority--where is that statutory
authority?
Secretary Lew. Well, there are regulations that were put in
place under the Trading with the Enemy Act by executive action.
Those are being changed by executive action. None of the
activities prohibited by the Libertad Act are addressed by the
changes made. We have obviously made the changes, very
cognizant of the legal landscape.
We have worked, within that, to relieve what we can
relieve, but not that which we cannot.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Secretary, you are aware that General
Clapper said that when it comes to threats from foreign
intelligence entities, he said, Russia and China pose the
greatest threat, followed by Iran and Cuba. You are aware of
that?
Secretary Lew. I have not seen that comment, but----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. All right. Well, you should be aware of
that. So, again, in this particular area, how are you going
to--what are you going do to help, make sure that you are not
helping to finance--since again, these--this part of the new
reg that I am talking to you about, deals which allow the
regime access to U.S. financial institutions?
What steps are you going to take to make sure that it is
not used in a way to go against our national security
interests, which again, according to General Clapper, after
China and Russia, Iran and Cuba are the next greatest threats?
Secretary Lew. As you know, the embargo still limits very,
very significantly, what the amount of activity between the
U.S. and Cuba can be. We have taken the actions we have taken
in order to open up the ability for commerce, and people-to-
people contact and the financing necessary to support that, but
not in violation of the provisions that prohibit certain kinds
of financial activity.
We have worked in that space because we think the policy of
the last 50 years has failed. That this is a way to advance the
cause of change in Cuba and to get to a result which is a--
benefit to the Cuban people.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Secretary, my time is up. Hopefully,
we will be able to continue the conversation.
Thank you madam.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Secretary, I am going to not leave the
issue of these sanctions, but I want to get into Iran. First,
in response to Iran's illegal missile tests, the U.S. imposed
sanctions on 11 entities and individuals for the provision of
missile related technology to Iran.
The Iranians paid for that technology, but no financial
institution was sanctioned for the transaction. And the
technology arrived in Iran by either boat or plane and yet no
shipping line or airline was sanctioned.
Now my questions are, shouldn't we be going after the
infrastructure that allows Iran to continue its missile
program? And, did any financial institution or transportation
company facilitate a transaction that supported Iran's missile
program?
Also, can you commit to sanctioning companies that
facilitate the provision of support to Iran's illicit
activities?
Now, on the recent missile sanctions, Congress was notified
of the sanctions. And then the administration pulled back the
sanctions till after implementation day and that was the
release of American prisoners.
During the period of delay, were the sanction companies
able to move assets, such that when the sanctions were issued,
there were no assets to freeze. And where--were any assets
belonging to these entities actually frozen? Now, that is a lot
out there if you want me to resay it, but basically, where are
we as it relates to the sanctions with Iran?
Secretary Lew. So Congressman, we have, as you indicated,
designated the entities that we identified that were involved
in supporting the missile program in Iran. We continue to
investigate other entities and can only bring an action when we
have a fully developed foundation for a designation. We are
continuing to build additional actions.
I think that it is premature to talk about entities until
we reach the stage of designation, but we are looking at a wide
range of entities involved in supporting the missile program.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Another issue. I think the public is
confused about the appeal with Iran as it relates to nuclear.
And no question, that that did stop Iran from moving forward,
which really, probably solidified some very serious issues that
could have occurred with other countries buying nuclear weapons
if that was not done. And I think it is also important to note,
that we have still sanctions as it relates to terrorism and
other issues that you talked about.
But this is very important we continue moving ahead
because, in my opinion, Iran is still exporting terrorism and
that type of thing. I see I still have a green lignt--so I want
to get into another area very quickly. And that is the issue of
the China's new Asian infrastructure investment bank. Those of
us who have been in numerous countries--and I know that I would
see in Kenya and in Libya and--well, not Libya, but I saw in
other different countries--what? Yemen, is an example. A lot of
Chinese buildings. Like I remember having a conversation with
the former President of Libya, I mean--Yemen.
I think it is such a tough place now, forget it. In saying,
the Chinese give us a lot, but we just still don't like them.
So, I was glad to hear that, but when we are talking about the
Chinese--going forward with this new infrastructure bank, this
could have impact on us. How do you think we should deal with
that?
Secretary Lew. So our position on the Asian Infrastructure
Bank (AIB) has been, on the one hand, we think it is a good
thing that there is more support for international
infrastructure investment in Asia. But it is very important
that it be done in a way that is consistent with standards,
like the standards that we pursue in our multilateral
development banks that we are involved in.
We have made that case to all the participants, we have
made that case to the Chinese, and I think we have had a lot of
success. They have now adopted operating rules that are very
much leaning towards observing the kinds of norms that we
support in the multilateral institutions that we contribute to.
We are not part of the AIB, so we are not in the inside
making those rules, but I think our effort on the outside to
put a bright light on that----
Mr. Ruppersberger. But my issue there is that could be
dangerous. A lot of our European allies, a lot of our allies
are using this fund, which is really buying relationships and
influence.
Secretary Lew. But it is an international fund, they will
have to work on a multilateral basis, not just a bilateral
basis. I think what you have described is a fair description of
their bilateral economic activities.
What we have made clear is that for a multilateral
institution, they are going to have to operate in a different
way, where it violates norms that a lot of the countries that
have signed up to the bank would have to object to.
The jury is out, they have not made their first loans yet.
I think that a year ago the discussion of standards in the
context of the Asian Infrastructure Bank was a soft
conversation. I think because we have put a bright light on the
importance of that, it has become a very loud conversation,
with the right commitments being made.
But now the question is what will the actions be, and we
will start to know when they make loans. The more they partner
with the multilateral institutions that have high standards,
the more likely they are to operate in a way that is consistent
with the kinds of norms that are good for a growing, global
economy, and other values that we pursue in the multinational
space.
Mr. Ruppersberger. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I would like to follow up on the questions of Mr.
Ruppersberger and Mrs. Lowey with respect to the Iran
sanctions. There have been more ballistic missile launches by
the Iranians, in violation of U.N. resolutions and certainly
not in the spirit of the nuclear agreement.
Billions of assets have been unfrozen. Iran, in my view, is
now in a position to become much more of a regional hegemon.
Right now, the Russians are up at the U.N. protecting Iran,
voting with them, protecting them even though the Iranians have
violated the U.N. resolutions with respect to the ballistic
missile launches. They have humiliated Ambassador Power, put a
thumb right in her eye and our country's eye.
The question I have is: Do you believe that Russia is more
aligned with the United States or more aligned with Iran when
it comes to Syria and the broader Middle East crisis?
Secretary Lew. It is a complicated question to explain what
Russia's motives are.
Mr. Dent. It is not so tough--on Iran right now.
Secretary Lew. Let me explain how I see the Iran agreement
coming together and the role that the international community
played.
Russia was part of the agreement to put sanctions in place
and to enforce the sanctions. It brought Iran to the table that
led to a nuclear agreement. The nuclear agreement has real
important impact. It means that Iran is now out of the process
of developing a nuclear weapon.
I totally agree that the missile launches are provocative
and violate other understandings. We have made clear through
our efforts to sanction entities and our indication that we are
going to continue to identify targets as we have the cases to
do so, and that we will take the appropriate actions.
But I think the importance of the global community being
together forcing Iran to the point where it had to back away
from its nuclear program is a very very significant
accomplishment.
Mr. Dent. I can't believe, though, that knowing how the
Russians are behaving with respect to the missile launch, do we
think that they would actually ever support us on a snap-back
sanction in the event the Iranians were to violate the nuclear
agreement? This does not portend well.
Secretary Lew. The way the snap-back sanctions were set up,
we have the ability, unilaterally, to snap back sanctions on
our own and no party in the security council has the ability to
block the snap-back. So the snap-back was set up in a way where
if there is a violation of the nuclear agreement----
Mr. Dent. But what if they don't impose sanctions
themselves? I mean, if the--if our partners don't impose--
reimpose sanctions?
Secretary Lew. Well, first of all, to the extent that there
are U.S. sanctions, those have consequences beyond the U.S.
Secondly, to the extent that the international sanctions snap-
back, those have international binding power.
We cannot force other countries to put bilateral sanctions
in place, but the agreement set up the snap-back so that both
U.S. and U.N. Security Council sanctions will snap-back if
there is a violation.
There has not been that violation of the nuclear agreement.
So the fact that these missile launches are being made it not a
violation of the body of the nuclear agreement. But we are
taking actions unilaterally in response to that and we are
working at the U.N. to----
Mr. Dent. If I may,--it seemed that the Iranian nuclear
agreement was designed in large part, in the President's words,
to help Iran get right with the world. It seems to me, based on
the actions I have seen with the missile launch and their other
nefarious activities in the Middle East, that they are not
getting right with the world. Do you think they are getting
right with the world?
Secretary Lew. That is not what I think the purpose of the
nuclear agreement was. The purpose----
Mr. Dent. That is what the President said.
Secretary Lew. The purpose of the nuclear agreement was for
Iran to be forced out of the business of developing a nuclear
weapon so that they would not have it and they could not
transfer it to the third party that would destabilize the
region and the world.
Having accomplished that is an enormous contribution to
greater peace and stability. That does not mean that Iran is a
good actor in other areas. That is why we still have all the
other sanctions, tools and actions in place.
Mr. Dent. It just seems to me that because of this
agreement, we lost all our leverage in that part of the world,
and it doesn't seem that, in my view, that the Middle East is--
that we are getting Iran to help us in any way diplomatically
on any issue.
There is no detente.
Secretary Lew. There would be a lot more danger in the
world if Iran was closer to a nuclear weapon. The fact that we
have reversed that clock, they are farther away, and they are
not on the path to gain time is an enormous change. That does
not mean that Iran is a country that we can point to as
adopting standards or activities that we accept. They do an
awful lot of things that we consider to be just plain wrong and
beyond the bounds.
That is why we have all the other sanctions still in place.
Mr. Dent. I yield back. It looks like my time is up.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, welcome. It is good to see you.
I guess it is best to ask my--I will ask my questions all
at once. And I can help you if you need assistance in what I am
asking, if you get side-tracked.
I want to ask you a little bit about the Green Climate
Fund, because I know that, you know, we have made a significant
commitment and we have also encountered some challenges, to be
diplomatic, with the Republicans' willingness to provide the
initial tranche of funding so that we can be a full
participant.
It appears that because we don't have any funding in the
continuing appropriations act for FY 2016 that we have kind of
ceded things now to the Green Climate Fund to the Department of
State. Can you talk a bit about why it is so essential that we
make sure we provide--that we meet our commitments?
And, you know,--thank you--I was wondering what that was--
--
Secretary Lew. I did not know what it was either.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. My congressional district is really
ground zero when it comes to global warming and climate change.
I mean, we are really at a stage where just yesterday, there
was news that approximately 30 percent of our population in
South Florida could either have to drastically alter their
environment where they live or be engulfed by water. So if you
could address that.
Piggy-backing on that question is I would like you to
address our for the first time participating in the CCRIF,
which is the catastrophic risk pool, which is shared by a
variety of countries in our--in our region.
We have experience with a catastrophic risk pool in
Florida. Again, being in the midst of, you know, a consistent
and regular pathway in hurricane alley. And it has proven to
work. And this one appears to be functioning well. So if you
could address that.
And then also, the Global Agriculture and Food Security
Program is something I have an interest in. And, you know, I
know we made a challenge pledge. And if you could talk about
our progress in making sure that we continue our leadership and
ensure that we can meet our commitments.
Secretary Lew. Starting with the Green Climate Fund, I
think what you describe as being the situation in South Florida
is unusual, but not typical--not atypical. It is happening in
cities around the United States on the shores. It is happening
around the world. It is a national security threat as well as
an economic threat.
The Green Climate Fund is a way to bring the world
community together in a multilateral effort where we get
leverage, where our contribution is supported by other
countries of the world; and it gives us the ability to see the
kinds of investments in building resilience that the world
needs.
That includes both what happens at shorelines, but it also
means we are going to be developing energy and environmental
technologies that reduce the use of fossil fuels; that improve
the quality of inter-generation efficiency in agriculture and
forestry.
In addition to building the security that comes from
reducing the risk of dramatic climate-related events, it also
opens new export markets for American products and
technologies. We are one of the leaders in the world where
there is an appetite for what we produce, but without financing
is not an ability to purchase it.
So I think both from an environmental point of view, an
economic point of view, and a national security point of view,
it serves our national interests very well.
With regard to the Central American & Caribbean Catastrophe
Relief Insurance Program--we have requested funding for the
fund, which is a multi-donor trust fund that would support the
expansion of catastrophe risk insurance in Central America.
Just like South Florida, the countries in the Caribbean are
highly vulnerable to natural disasters and catastrophe risk.
Building fiscal resilience is really important to making
sure that they can respond when catastrophes occur and maintain
political stability when catastrophes occur. We have seen too
often that without there being a risk insurance program, we
need to go in and bilaterally provide support because there is
urgent need, and they are our neighbors, and we have a need to
make sure that there is both an ability to address those
catastrophic events, but also maintain stability.
On the GAFSP, continuing to support the pledges we have
made is very important. We have made real progress on the food
security front. I am particularly attached to this. I helped
develop this initiative in a former part of my life when I was
at the State Department. You go around the world and there is
an understanding that to feed the people in your own country
and to feed people around the world, we need to harness both
technology and we need to harness best practices, and that is
what these funds do.
But again, it is on a multilateral basis, where U.S.
support is leveraged by international partnership. We have made
a request that would fill in some of the gaps in the funding,
and I see we are out of time, but I am happy to get back with
the details.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you for being here today.
Let me follow up a little bit on this sanction business,
because I have a couple of questions. One is: You mentioned
that we lifted the nuclear sanctions, but we haven't lifted the
other sanctions. It seems like the only reason that they came
to the table was due to the nuclear sanctions that really
wrecked their economy. So they came to the negotiating table.
Do you think the non-nuclear sanctions, the ones that are
left there, are they really going to have any kind of impact?
Because it doesn't seem like they are doing much. We are
talking about doing things and designating things. But it
doesn't seem to change the behavior.
On the snap-back provisions that you talked about, I wonder
if you really believe those things are going to work. Because
on one hand, you will have a lot of little, small incremental
violations that won't trigger the nuclear sanctions, and they
will nickel-and-dime along the way. All of a sudden the
international community will wake up and realize it is almost
too late to stop them.
The other part of that is: Do you really believe that
companies believe in these snap-back provisions? Because if you
really believed that these provisions were going to snap back,
and you want to do business in Iran, and you knew Iran was in
the business of doing bad things and violating treaties, et
cetera, would you really want to go in there and do business
knowing that these sanctions might come back into play?
Wouldn't you avoid that in the long run?
Talk a little bit about those two things.
Secretary Lew. Congressman Crenshaw, both of those are, I
think, excellent questions, and I would say that on--with
regard to the nuclear sanctions versus the other sanctions,
while we had the toughest nuclear sanctions, the toughest
sanctions regime that we have ever put in place with the world
community, Iran was still able to fund terrorism, they were
still able to fund regional destabilization. So there was
leakage even with the nuclear sanctions because not everything
comes through sanctioned entities and not everything can be
stopped with sanctions.
Our goal is to make it as hard as possible for them to do
those activities. I do not believe the shape of the resources
they have for those activities will change dramatically. But we
should not kid ourselves, even with the nuclear sanctions, they
were finding ways to support terrorist activities. So we have
to keep on it, we have to be attentive to any entity that we
can make it harder and harder for them to work through.
But if you look at the nuclear sanctions, it was a case
where the world community came together and said on some things
we do not agree, but on the question of whether Iran have a
nuclear weapon, there was total agreement.
That was why that sanctions regime was as tough as it was,
and when Iran agreed to roll back its nuclear program, there
had to be a rollback of the specific nuclear sanctions. We have
never rolled back the non-nuclear sanctions and we will
continue to designate under them.
On the question you asked about the snap-back and the
willingness of companies to do business, there is not a rush of
companies and financial institutions actually executing on
doing business. We have made it clear where the nuclear
sanctions were lifted, it would not be keeping our agreement to
say that it was a violation of our rules, our laws, if things
that are not sanctioned become the basis for doing business.
But there has been a reticence in the global community.
Mr. Crenshaw. You think that is partly the threat of the
snap-back?
Secretary Lew. I do not know that it is a threat of the
snap-back or if it is a threat that because there is enough
other maligned activity going on that there is more risk with
Iran or if it is because Iran has conducted its business
affairs in the world that make it difficult to rebuild those
normal business relations.
What I can say is we have an obligation to keep our part of
the bargain. We have to lift the nuclear sanctions, which we
have done, we have to make it clear we are not going to take
action under the nuclear sanctions, and then businesses,
financial institutions, will have to make their own decisions
whether they want to be in that market. But I do not think we
ought to be suggesting that the nuclear sanctions continue to
be a barrier.
We have been clear about what sanctions remain in place, we
have a Web site that is very clear, we answer questions all the
time. If you believe in sanctions as a tool for effecting
change of policy, maligned policy, you also have to believe in
relief from sanctions when those maligned policies change.
In the case of the nuclear sanctions, they worked. In the
case of these other things, we have to continue to be on the
case. When we see entities that are involved in supporting
terrorism, we have to be willing to continue to act against
them.
Mr. Crenshaw. Well, I think it is a great concept if they
really believe that they are going to snap back. I think we
need to make sure we are vigilant and don't let them ease along
and we wake up one day and say----
Secretary Lew. If they violate the nuclear agreement, the
snap-back would kick in. They have not yet.
Mr. Crenshaw. Great. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr. Secretary.
First of all, let me say thank you once again for being here
and for your tremendous leadership at Treasury. As the co-chair
of the bipartisan Cuba Working Group and as someone who has
worked on establishing just normal diplomatic relations with
Cuba for decades, I really want to commend the administration
for the bold steps it has taken to re-establish diplomatic
relations with Cuba.
Now there is bipartisan support for what the administration
is doing and for even more normalization in terms of passing
both of our bills ending the travel ban and lifting the
embargo, but there is also bipartisan opposition to that, as
you know, even on this committee, so this is truly a bipartisan
issue both on the pro and con side. But I think the public is
with those of us who want to see normal relations.
The announcement this morning is very significant in terms
of the amendments to the Cuba sanctions regulations, especially
ahead of the President's historic trip to Cuba. So could you
sort of lay out what these changes are as it relates to banking
and finance and people-to-people exchanges? And then second, I
want to raise--and I have raised this before with regard to
medical advances--hopefully this is bipartisan--in terms of the
issue with regard to diabetic foot ulcers.
Both the House and the members of the Senate have
communicated with the Treasury Department with regard to the
fact that first an estimated 25 million Americans are affected
by diabetes and more than 2 million affected by diabetic foot
ulcers.
Now OFAC has previously granted a license for clinical
trials for Hebropo P treatment which is still unavailable in
the United States for those suffering from DFU, and the Biotech
Institute in Cuba has been, you know, leading in terms of this
innovative treatment. And we are trying to figure out how we
can at least go for clinical trials as well as for, if the
clinical trials work, the opportunity for people with diabetes
and diabetic foot ulcers to benefit from this treatment
because, of course, you know, in communities of color, diabetes
is a very big issue. And we have seen--many of us have seen and
we know the results of this very effective treatment.
Secretary Lew. Congresswoman, just to start with what the
actions taken today are, there is an expansion of banking and
financial services which permit U-turn transactions so that
without having direct financing, money can pass through the
U.S. financial system. There is an expanded authorization for
educational exchanges that do not involve academic study so
that individual travelers can engage in people-to-people travel
so that the travel does not have to be under the auspices of an
organization.
There is an expansion of the authorization to pay salaries
so that the limit on salaries will not stop the employment, and
certain dealings in Cuban merchandise will be permitted.
There are a number of other actions in the Commerce
Department area that I am less familiar with the details of,
but that get into permitting additional trade and commerce and
civil aviation. We believe that, again, as I responded earlier,
that we have acted within the boundaries of the law. If the law
were different, we would be able to do more than we are doing.
But we have eliminated restrictions that were the result of
executive action and we have been respectful of the legal
boundaries. So while we might prefer to have a more normal
commercial relationship, until the laws are changed, we cannot
have a truly normal commercial relationship.
On the specific question you asked about diabetes, you have
asked me about this before--I have passed it along to our OFAC
team. I can't comment on specific OFAC applications, but OFAC
is reviewing that application.
Ms. Lee. Okay, thank you very much. Madam Chair, I just
want to make a note that the U.S. International Trade
Commission estimated that the opportunity cost to U.S.
exporters of maintaining the embargo is around 1.2 billion per
year, so it is really in the United States' economic interest
to move forward with normalized relations. Thank you again.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Good morning,
Mr. Secretary. I stepped out of the room for a moment and I
walked back with a St. Patrick's Day flower. I was just----
Secretary Lew. Well adorned.
Mr. Fortenberry [continuing]. Visiting with my florist from
back home. Let me make a general comment to you about what I
perceive and then I would like your perceptions before going
into policy details.
The United States after World War II was cast into the role
really of the world's lone superpower, and we did so--we took
on that role at great expense to ourselves both in terms of
lives as well as monetary transfers to other countries. And in
doing so, we created a certain dynamic, a certain foundation
for international order and stability.
In the period in which we are living and in which there has
been rapid globalization and integration, it seems that this
post-World War II construct is under great stress, and the
multilateral institutions that have worked toward those
original goals. I would like your perspective on that and then
what you perceive we would need to--how do we evolve a more
robust 21st century architecture that demands that other
responsible nations of the world re-commit to more robust types
of partnerships with us on this fundamental question of
stability.
Secretary Lew. Congressman, that is a question I spend an
enormous amount of time thinking about and working on because I
think you put your finger on why it was so important that we do
the IMF quota reforms.
We were in the penalty box, because we negotiated quota
reforms that let other countries that had grown substantially,
have a larger share, and under terms that were very
advantageous to the United States, but for 5 years we were
unable to finalize it. That put us in a position where the
world started to ask is the U.S. committed to the post-World
War II institutions that it helped build.
We have removed that question by having an agreement on
doing IMF global reform, we have kind of lifted ourselves to be
able to ask exactly the question that you asked and to be part
of the conversation about taking it to a place that works in
the 21st century.
One of the real advantages of other countries coming of
age, reaching a level of a greater participation is they then
have greater responsibility, and we have to demand that kind of
responsibility as part of the institutions that we still have a
dominant voice in. We have to maintain the dominant voice if we
want our values and our standards to be the ones that drive the
debate. Earlier, we were talking about the Asia Infrastructure
Bank. Even when we are not in an organization, we have a very
strong voice about what norms should be.
I believe that the world of the future is going to be a
world that is very different from the ashes after World War II.
We had most of the world's wealth, we had most of the world's
manufacturing capability, the world had no choice, we were
generous, we stepped forward, we created a period of
unprecedented economic reconstruction and growth, and we have a
more peaceful prosperous world because of it.
Going forward, we are going to need to embrace countries
that are coming into their own and have them subscribe to the
standards that we want to live by. I think the worst thing we
could do would be to step away from that international stage,
because if we do not play that role, others will.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, this is the exact source of the
tension because I agree with that comment in its substance.
However, when the United States is not getting the best
deal or when other countries hide behind our largess or
continue to push us out in front, which has been the
traditional role, when they are fully capable of participating
in a more robust manner, it is simply not fair.
And the electorate not only perceives this, but feels it,
and so that is why I think what you are ultimately talking
about, and what we all ought to be talking about, is a value
proposition as to what true governance structures mean in terms
of justice, and how people build out systems economically and
culturally that protect human dignity and have the enforcement
mechanisms to do so.
To Mr. Ruppersberger's point, for instance, in traveling
through Africa, China is everywhere. I remember being in
Liberia, and seeing a brand new shiny soccer stadium. Liberia
of all places, in such proximity to United States.
I asked one person, ``Why does China trade so much with
Liberia?'' They said, ``we are waiting for you.'' In other
words, again, this perception, in certain areas of the world
anyway, which incline toward who we are, toward our narrative
and the values we hold--and the institutions that give rise to
their largess or their potential largess as a country, being
corrupted by other nations who do not share these values.
Secretary Lew. We have called on China, in particular, to
step up and play more of a role in making concessional loans--
contributions to international facilities that make
concessional lending available. China is no longer the
developing country, it is one of the two largest economies of
the world. Responsibility goes with that.
They are stepping into that space, tentatively, and they
will not necessarily always want to do it the way we want them
to do it. The more they are involved in organizations that we
help shape the standards and the values for, the more likely we
are for the multi-lateral cooperation to move in the right
direction.
When you go to a lot of the countries where China has done
business bilaterally, it is not a simple, good news story.
There is a lot of damage left behind, and I do not think that,
on a multi-lateral basis, that can be tolerated.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Stewart.
Secretary Lew. I do not think it should be the work they
work bilaterally either.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Secretary. It is
good to be with you as always. We have heard a bit of talk in
this hearing so far about sanctions.
I would like to concentrate some about--around North Korea
now. We haven't discussed them which surprises me a little bit.
You know, Leader Kim Jong Un is a very interesting person; I
would sure love to see a psychological profile on him. It would
be fascinating, I am sure.
I don't think that we understand him very well. He is very
unpredictable, he is very aggressive and, you know, it is
interesting to know with all the talk that we have had about
sanctions, especially vis a vis Iran and the nuclear agreement
which we spent a lot of last year talking about, their
ballistic program which we spent some time recently talking
about, but North Korea is already there.
I mean, the thing we are hoping to avoid with Iran, North
Korea is there; we know that they have had three or four, maybe
more, successful nuclear tests. And recently they launched a
missile which, under the guise of a satellite, but it was
certainly more than that.
You know, the KN-08, for example, is a frightening new
technology and one that we can't ignore. And if I could make a
second point, we can't effectively sanction North Korea without
Chinese help because they are their largest trading partner by
far. And recently the Under Secretary for Treasury, Terrorism,
Financial Intelligence, and I know--this is actually leading to
my point now. I know that you know this, Beijing--you went to
Beijing and Hong Kong.
Secretary Lew. He is in Beijing today.
Mr. Stewart. Okay, today. My question is this, could you
give us an update on, forging a stronger cooperative effort
between us and China regarding these sanctions because, again,
it doesn't matter what we do. We--it is not going to be
effective without Chinese cooperation and they haven't been
very cooperative with us in the past.
Secretary Lew. Well, I think if you look at the U.N.
Security Council resolution that passed just about two weeks
ago, the fact that China supported very tough international
sanctions is a very significant development.
Mr. Stewart. I agree. I think it is a meaningful step.
Secretary Lew. China has a kind of--regardless of country,
they have a view that international, not unilateral, sanctions
are the appropriate way to go. So they are always more
committed to multilateral sanctions than they are to what we do
on our own.
I think the fact that they agreed to, frankly, the toughest
set of sanctions that anyone thought possible to get out of the
U.N. and it was put into place I think is very meaningful.
I was in China the week after the U.N. Security Council at
the G-20 meetings, and I had conversations at the highest
levels in China, and I can tell you that they do not view this
as something they are doing for us.
They look across their border and it makes them very
nervous that they cannot explain some of the actions that are
reckless and that are destabilizing.
So our--acting Under Secretary--we are waiting for Senate
confirmation, hopefully that will come soon--is in China now. I
have not had a readout of his meetings but he was meeting with
people who are in the business of the implementation--and
sanctions regimes are all about implementation.
Mr. Stewart. Yes.
Secretary Lew. They are theory until you implement them,
and I am looking forward to getting that report.
Mr. Stewart. Which is actually the core of my question,
sir, and that is, it is easy to agree to sanctions, many
nations do that. But have no intention or to comply with those
sanctions or to help carry them out, well, they either have no
intention or in some cases they have no ability; it is just so
against their economic interests that they just can't do it.
Is your read that China will be more aggressive in
implementing these sanctions than we have seen in the past?
Secretary Lew. They have certainly indicated a high level
of concern and the need to be clear. That is why they supported
the resolution. They have indicated an intention to implement
it, and the reason that we have followed up--with Acting Under
Secretary Szubin's visit is to take it to the next level.
This is not something that is just a 1-day effort. We know
from these sanctions programs that it is grueling day-to-day
work. You have got to identify the entities, act against the
entities, and then make it clear that they will be the kind of
international cooperation to actually shut the valves down.
I think it is a very significant statement to North Korea
that China is part of this international effort.
Mr. Stewart. I agree, and I wish that it had happened
earlier, actually, because we are a long way down that road now
and Acting Under Secretary Szubin, as you have said, I think
you and he working together can really make a meaningful
difference for us with--in an area of the world that I don't
think we give quite enough attention to as we focus in other
dangerous places, as well, so--
Secretary Lew. We give a lot of attention to it but it
deserves as much attention as we can give it.
Mr. Stewart. I understand. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
We are going to have another round, or going to try to. The
President is coming here to the Capitol for a lunch meeting and
we may have a problem getting out of this room so if you will
keep in mind the time and if we--if that happens, we will make
sure that we close it down and get out.
I think--Secretary Lew, I think you will be able to get
out. We may be stuck in here so I am just going to turn to Mrs.
Lowey for her question.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Mr. Secretary, we have sought incentives to bring Russia
into step with the world community. But Russia's strategic
foreign policy goals remain elusive. Now, I remember having a
long talk a couple of times with Secretary Kerry in 2013, and I
kept saying, what does Russia want? There was already
tremendous damage in Syria at that point 3 years later. Now it
has been 5 years.
And although the Secretary tried to meet with Putin and
meet with Lavrov, and had a lot of discussions, look how many
more lives and how much destruction has taken place. So it is
clear that Putin plays by his own rules, shows no interest,
except when it is convenient, in international cooperation, and
appears only interested in aggression.
Additionally, some countries in Western Europe continue to
have very significant and economic investments with Russia. So
I just want your view. Do we have--or is there a coordinated
international strategy on imposing sanctions against Russia or
do they just have the upper hand? Is the threat of new
sanctions having any effect on Putin, particularly with regard
to the oligarchs, over Syria and Ukraine? How has Putin reacted
to the sanctions levered on Russia by the United States and
E.U.? What measures has Russia taken to retaliate against
sanctions?
So, basically, we couldn't do anything with Russia in 2013.
The devastation continues. Is there any way that the
international community can cooperatively put pressure on
Russia and work together?
Secretary Lew. We have obviously had a very complicated
relationship with Russia over the last few years. We have put
in place--not just the United States but with the G-7--very
powerful sanctions against Russia on Ukraine. We have
maintained unity amongst our European allies in keeping those
sanctions in place.
We designed those sanctions to minimize the spillover and
target them towards the people closest to the decision making.
I think they have been very effective. It is a little hard to
attribute the exact amount of impact because with the price of
oil dropping as fast as it has, there have been multiple things
hurting Russia's economy. But Russia's economy is in terrible
shape and the sanctions are a part of that.
They are now trying very hard to put together a Euro-bond
financing and they are having trouble getting any financial
institution to cooperate with them, even though it is not
technically sanctioned.
What I can say about the Ukraine experience is we have had
united action. It has had an impact. I cannot tell you it has
changed fundamentally their policy. There is a way out for
them; they could implement the Minsk Accords. If they implement
the Minsk Accords, the Europeans and we would be very happy to
lift the sanctions. The purpose the sanctions has changed the
policy and get Minsk implemented.
But we have also made clear that those sanctions will
remain in place and that means that the pressure builds over
time because sanctions have that effect.
At the same, we have worked with Russia on a number of
issues. We talked about the Iran negotiations, just a few years
ago, working on getting the chemical weapons out of Syria was
something we worked together on. And now, obviously, Secretary
Kerry has been involved in negotiations on Syria that are a bit
out of my immediate realm of responsibility. But they are
obviously important conversations.
I think we are going to have to manage this relationship,
understanding that the things we do have an impact. We can
maintain unity on things like Ukraine sanctions and that Russia
will continue to make decisions based on its own national
decision making and its perception of its national interests.
But what I could tell you is that the Russian economy is in
much worse shape today than it would have been if the sanctions
had not been in effect, and that is causing a lot of wear and
tear in Russia.
Mrs. Lowey. Now, I probably have hardly any time, but since
it is last, why don't I let you conclude by sharing with us the
monetary benefits there are to the U.S. in participating
through these institutions, and how are the results measured
and evaluated? You can say it----
Secretary Lew. Well, in 15 seconds, I think that if you
look at our ability to project our policy objectives--just take
Ukraine. We would not have been able to put a $17 billion
package together alone for Ukraine. Working with the IMF and
with our international partners, we could.
That is replicated on many fronts, whether it is dealing
with Ebola or dealing with other crises around the world, or
great needs like food security and climate. I think our ability
to leverage our values, our objectives, our policies through
these multilateral institutions is just an enormous asset to
our national security and our economic security.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you for your leadership.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Secretary, sticking with the theme of
sanctions, on February, OFAC licensed a U.S. company to build a
factory at the port of Mariel, which by the way, happened to be
the port from which the Castro regime smuggled the weapons to
North Korea from. The venture at the Mariel port is run by
Almacenes, SA [Spanish spoken] a company of the Cuban military.
Cuba's ministry of interior, an arm of the Cuban military is
the most responsible for the brutality against the Cuban
people.
So, how does permitting companies to partner directly with
the Cuban military promote the Cuban people's independence from
Cuban authorities, which is the stated policy goal of the
President and that you have talked about as well?
Secretary Lew. So, Congressman, I would have to go back and
look into a specific license. I think that the general
objective of opening ports, opening shipping, having air
traffic and commerce within the confines of our law is about
building more economic----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Secretary--and again, I apologize for
interrupting, but I get that. It sounds nice. But you are
dealing directly with the Cuban military.
How does doing business with the Cuban military--let's not
talk about theories. It is not--what you talk about, what you
say, what the President says. What you are doing is authorizing
business directly with the Cuban military.
Here is my question: how does doing business with the Cuban
military help the Cuban people be independent of the Cuban
military and its authorities?
Secretary Lew. Well, I am not going to address the specific
license----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. In general. How does doing business with
the military help the Cuban people?
Secretary Lew. If the transaction you are talking about is
facilitating shipping in and out of Cuba, and one of the things
we do is we ship agricultural products to Cuba, and hopefully
we will be shipping things like communications equipment to
Cuba. That helps the Cuban people, that is the kind of support
for the Cuban people----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Secretary, this is not the instance
where you have permitted doing business directly with the Cuban
military. And again, that goes against what the President has
said, and it is just--it is again, how can you justify doing
business with the Cuban military as a way to help the Cuban
people?
Secretary Lew. We have never said that Cuba's system is
where it should be.
The question is, how do you cause Cuba's system to change?
We believe that by building more ties between the American
people the Cuban people, between the U.S. economy and the Cuban
economy we are more likely to change Cuba's system than a
policy that has failed for 50 years----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Oh, on that point, on that point. What
Congress has codified into law in a very strong bipartisan way
was basically asking for a number of things in return for a
sanction relief, and you know what those are. Free all the
political prisoners, some basic freedoms, freedom of press,
independent labor unions, political parties, and then start the
process towards elections.
I am assuming that you support those concepts.
Now, here is a question. That is what Congress insisted on,
before sanctions were--there was sanctions relief.
What has the administration gotten, because the
administration didn't insist on any of those things as a
condition. So, what, specifically, has the administration
gotten for the sanctions relief that it has given to the Castro
regime.
Secretary Lew. I think--you know, we can go back and
forth----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. No, I am just asking--I am actually asking
for specifics. What have we gotten back?
Secretary Lew. We are trying to change the relationship
between the Cuban people and the American people. We are trying
to set a foundation to be able to have change in Cuba----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. So, what are you asking back? What are you
asking for?
Secretary Lew. We are increasing the contact between the
U.S.--the American people----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. What are you asking for, though? Are you
asking for anything?
Secretary Lew. There have been a number of reforms that the
State Department has worked with Cuba on----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Can you tell me what--just want are you
asking for, Mr. Secretary? What are you asking for?
Secretary Lew. So, the----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Not on that theory, what are you asking
for? Specifically, what are you insisting on as to--you know,
we talked about, you just spent a lot of time talking about
demanding things in return for sanctions relief of Iran. And we
can argue whether it is enough.
What are you asking for in return?
Secretary Lew. I think--if you look at the Cuba policy, it
is the exact opposite of Iran.
We did not have the world with us, putting pressure on
Cuba. We were the outliers, even in the Western hemisphere.
There is not a country that I have talked to in the Western
hemisphere----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Secretary, for a long time, everybody
did business with South Africa, and I think you would disagree
that doing business with it was a good thing, whether you were
an outlier or not.
Secretary Lew. No, I am not--I am not going to defend
policies in Cuba that need to change. The question is, how are
we the most likely to----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And what are you asking for?
Okay, what are you asking for?
Secretary Lew. Okay, so we believe that the process of
increasing people-to-people contact----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. But Mr. Secretary, when you are dealing
with the military, that is not people-to-people.
Secretary Lew. But if we--if there is more information,
more communication available, if there is more contact----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. With the military, with the military.
Secretary Lew. But when we----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. With the oppression system.
Secretary Lew. It is not----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Secretary, I have just 90 seconds
left. Mr. Secretary, just very quick----
Secretary Lew. It is not the military----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. You were appointed to the OMB--you were
appointed to the OMB and also National Security Council during
the Clinton administration. Were you involved in the
negotiations with the North Korea deal--nuclear deal?
Secretary Lew. Not directly.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, I just hope that you do a better job
and this administration does a better job of that when you are
dealing with North Korea. You have all of those promises that
they were not going to have nuclear weapons.
Ms. Granger. Your time is up, Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, please.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to return to the subject of multilateral
development banks and other international financial
institutions, and our private sector engagement and how we can
best leverage it.
We are going to be meeting soon, the subcommittee with Bill
Gates, and you know, I know companies like Cargill and Coca-
Cola are interested in increasing their engagement and getting
involved in sustainable development. So, you can--can you talk
about that a little--expand on that a little bit?
Secretary Lew. Yes. I think that the future for successful
international development is going to have to get well beyond
the official development assistance pattern in order to have
the kind of impact that we need.
When we met in Addis Ababa at the Funding for Development
Conference, it was very important that there were three prongs
of the international commitment. It was to continue the Office
of Technical Assistance (OTA), but it was to be supplemented
with private economic activity and local government
contribution. There need to be three legs on the stool to
really build the kind of future that we need.
I do not think we can remove the bilateral and multilateral
development assistance, but it is not going to get all the way
to where we need to go if you do not have an environment for
private investment. So let me go back to why we pledge to
double the Office of Technical Assistance.
One of the things that we can do that has got the biggest
bang for the buck is to help a lot of these countries put in
place the kind of tax system they need, and business approval
system they need to have transparent, honest systems which will
attract the kinds of international investment that can really
leverage the development process.
When we made that pledge, it was the--the reaction was the
most reaction I have ever gotten for that small of a commitment
of dollars, because it is just considered to be many, many
times more important than just direct dollar assistance.
The Gates Foundation is a very large player, obviously.
They have the ability, just as an individual party, to make
commitments that equal major government contributions. We work
closely with them on a number of initiatives and we reach out
to the private sector, the not-for-profit sector as well as our
multilateral and bilateral partners.
I think the future is going to look very different than the
past in terms of how all of those elements fit together.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. How would you assess the United
States being in arrears on what we owe to this fund affecting
our influence?
Secretary Lew. I have had the misfortune and fortune of
inheriting arrears on multiple occasions. I think it is a
terrible thing. We have got to pay our bills. When you do not
pay your bills, you do not have the same amount of influence as
when you do pay your bills.
So now we are okay at the IMF, we have got a whole bunch of
others where we are behind. They are much smaller numbers, they
are things we should be able to address, but, it was not good
when we were in arrears at the U.N. in the 1990s, we cleared it
out, we are back in arrears.
We need to stay current with the commitments that we make.
You know, getting back to the idea of what is the pathway to
the future for the United States to sustain the kind of
influence we developed in the post-World War II environment,
part of it is keeping our commitments.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So you are saying playing whack-a-
mole when it comes to maintaining our pledges and keeping our
commitments isn't really the best policy to expand our
influence?
Secretary Lew. No. I mean, there is a certain confidence
that in the end will pay our bills, but I think we would gain
stature if we did it in a more orderly way where it was not
with the anxiety that we might not.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. Secretary, I want to return to our
earlier conversation about this idea of a values proposition
and then making it real for the benefit of other peoples,
creating an environment of stability, which is intimately tied
to our national security as well as our humanitarian interest
and economic well-being.
Agriculture. I come from Nebraska. I am so excited,
thrilled that agriculture has become cool.
The whole idea of creating initiatives for sustainable
agricultural development and properly ordered and inclusive
market systems, I think, meets multiple goals of empowering--
taking on the structures of poverty, empowering those to
provide for themselves, integrating again our own values and
technical assistance with others in need, thereby strengthening
underlying market-based systems which are consistent with human
dignity, and then basically taking away the option for twisted
forms of nationalism and ideology to take people in directions
that are just harmful and destructive.
So I present that to you because I think, again, looking at
the 21st century architecture of how we evolve, properly
evolve, development assistance and international frameworks for
those three outcomes of security, economics, humanitarian
values, that has to be core.
Secretary Lew. I agree with that entirely. I mean, if you
look at what a difference it makes in a remote area of Africa
when a cell phone came in to the town and you could all of a
sudden know what the price of a commodity was and you were not
a victim of whoever was there offering you whatever they wanted
to pay. That was a market; information created a market.
You now have exchanges developing in countries where there
is a formal market that empowers local producers, it also
provides a level playing field for imports and local products
to compete with each other on a fair basis. There is a long way
to go, but technology both in terms of the marketplace and in
terms of the food chain itself offer enormous potential.
You know, one thing that I know is that it will not be a
more secure world if we have, you know, more millions of
starving people. Starving people tend to be, looking for relief
wherever it can come from, and it is a source of instability
for there to be a lack of adequate nutrition.
Economically, you know, you look at where the growth of the
future is, the growth in demand is in countries where the
population is growing, and that is good for the United States
because we are going to sell things to those countries as they
break out of the subsistence levels into the middle class.
As far as values go, it is not just rhetoric when we talk
about a level playing field and transparency, it actually is a
different way to lead your own life and the life of your
country and the life of the world, and getting out of the
shadows of corrupted systems makes the world a better place. I
think we can promote that through these efforts.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, farm products and agricultural
products is one of the things that we make on a very large
scale, and continuing the export and the use of those products
for our own diplomatic goal is very important. It can be
augmented by these new development initiatives that point to
sustainability and in what I call inclusive capitalism that,
again, leads to these values outcomes. So that was a bit more
of an editorial than----
Secretary Lew. In a lot these countries, if women could
just get loans it would make a huge difference.
Mr. Fortenberry. Mrs. Lowey has heard me tell the story
before of how I was--had the privilege of going to Honduras,
and a programs that related to Feed the Future and some of
USAID's efforts, but nonetheless, it was targeted to the most
violent area of Honduras, highest murder rate in the world,
people living in what I call a kind of a benign poverty. There
is not starvation or anything, but really no hope for anything
more.
Through the infusion of capital from a multinational
corporation with the development assistance from an NGO
shepherded by the United States government, you had women--that
is women-owned bakery--empowerment, vision, hope, an idea of
how to expand regionally all happening in the midst of this
chaos and disorderly world where one woman had lost her husband
3 weeks earlier to the violence. So----
Ms. Granger. Your time has expired.
Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Sure. First, I just have a comment of--and again,
the disagreement is very clear on Cuba. But one thing I want to
mention is that no country is perfect. Vietnam, China, the
United States, we have many countries that have not
accomplished what we think are universal standards of human
rights. Our country, even in terms of mass incarceration of
African-American men and political prisoners. And so I think
what is important as it relates to Cuba is that we work towards
a more perfect union here in our country, Cuba, wherever else.
And people-to-people exchanges, lifting the embargo,
lifting the travel ban moves us closer, moves the Cuban people
closer to realizing a democratic society without the types of
barriers that my colleagues have raised. But also we have to
keep in mind we are still seeking liberty and justice for all
in our own country.
It is only through discussion, dialogue and diplomatic
relations will that ever occur.
I want to ask you with regard to the Office of Technical
Assistance within your department. There have been prior
efforts, including by the United Nations, to encourage donor
nations to improve the coordination of their development
assistance program. One of these include I think it is the 2014
Addis Ababa action agenda. One of the goals, of course, is
capacity building for developing countries.
And so I wanted to ask you what are some of the major
constraints to improving the coordination of technical
assistance programs in developing countries.
Secretary Lew. I think that the provision of technical
assistance is critical. One of the commitments that I made when
I was at the conference in Addis Ababa was to double our OTA
over a period of years. And the United Kingdom made a similar
pledge.
I think that there are multilateral institutions like the
IMF, there are countries like the United States and the U.K.,
that have specific skills and ability to go into these
countries and do this work.
There is room for all of us, but there are a lot of
countries where none of us are doing what we need to do. That
is why we need--we need more resources.
When I go around the world and I meet with the OTA folks
that we have, it really is very impressive what a few people
are doing in really hard places to build systems that will last
forever after they leave if the people that they are training
continue the work. That has to do with central bank policies.
It has to do with tax systems. It has to do with land
registration. It has to do with all kinds of things that are
just part of being able to conduct business in a transparent
way.
I have seen more appreciation for the OTA advisers than I
have in many cases for enormously larger sums of direct aid. It
has been striking to me that countries we have given billions
of dollars to have told me the most important thing you did was
provide these three technical advisers.
It just shows how--we--I do not think it is either-or. We
need to do both. They were not saying they did not need the
money. But the thing that they were just like over and over
pointing to was the value added with the OTA. So that is
something I think that we hopefully can work together to do
more of.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Secretary Lew, thank you again for your time today. Members
may submit any additional questions for the record.
This Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related
Programs stands adjourned.
Secretary Lew. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 16, 2016.
UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
GAYLE SMITH, ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Opening Statement of Chairwoman Granger
Ms. Granger [presiding]. 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. Administrator Smith, thank you for
being here today for your first hearing before the
subcommittee. We look forward to your testimony on the fiscal
year 2017 budget request.
USAID plays a key role in our nation's foreign policy, and
the members of this subcommittee understand and support the
good work of your agency from life-saving disaster assistance
to global health and other development programs that provide
clean water, agricultural assistance and education.
The men and women of the USAID are the face of the
generosity of the American people.
I would like to take a moment to highlight the impressive
work of USAID and other agencies in response to the Ebola
epidemic.
This time last year, we were fearing the worst, but the
response was an unprecedented example of American leadership
overseas. Now we see another public health threat on the
horizon, the Zika virus, and we expect collaboration across the
U.S. Government.
We want to hear your thoughts today about what can be done
to immediately address the Zika outbreak with the resources and
authorities available.
During the time I have chaired this subcommittee, I have
been surprised by the length of time it takes for funds to be
directed towards urgent needs. I also remain concerned about
the size of USAID and how difficult it can be to partner with
the agency.
Administrator Smith, I appreciate the discussions we have
had in your first few months on the job. I hope we can continue
to work together and to find real solutions to some of these
long-standing problems.
The budget request includes approximately $11 billion that
USAID manages directly. Additional funds are partially
administered by the agency. Unfortunately, once again, the
budget proposes to sacrifice congressional priorities for
administration initiatives.
For example, the request for climate change programs,
including the Green Climate Fund, is proposed to be increased.
Yet basic education programs and humanitarian assistance are
proposed to be reduced.
The request prioritizes malaria, but suggests that
tuberculosis and nutrition programs can be cut. In addition,
the administration has once again proposed to reduce two of
this subcommittee's top priorities: biodiversity activities and
programs to combat wildlife poaching and trafficking.
The subcommittee will carefully consider how to allocate
resources to address the greatest needs and meet our shared
priorities.
I want to close by thanking you, the men and women of USAID
and your partners for the most important work you do every day
to improve the lives of others and promote American interests.
I will now turn to my Ranking Member, Mrs. Lowey, for her
opening remarks.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Opening Statement of Mrs. Lowey
Mrs. Lowey. And I thank you, Madam Chair.
Administrator Smith, I welcome you again to the helm of
USAID. I am pleased to have you here today.
USAID continues to play an indispensable role in spear-
heading global development efforts. I am sure we will see even
greater achievements under your leadership. Given unprecedented
levels of humanitarian needs around the world today, you face
the unenviable task of guiding U.S. response efforts on nearly
every continent.
With this in mind, I have concerns regarding whether the
Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request will provide USAID the
necessary resources to implement current programs and prepare
for new or unanticipated challenges.
First, I am pleased with the proposed increases for malaria
and GAVI. However, I do not understand the cuts to nutrition
and tuberculosis programs, when nearly 800 million people
worldwide suffer from malnutrition, and T.B. claims more than
1.5 million lives per year.
Second, with regard to Central America in last year's
omnibus, this committee provided $750 million to address the
root causes driving thousands of minors to flee.
I look forward to hearing from you what progress the
Northern Triangle countries have made on good governance, the
rule of law, education, job creation, citizen security that
would provide the basis for further federal investment.
Third, the Zika virus has spread to more than 20 countries,
yet many governments have responded to their citizens with
antiquated messages to simply avoid pregnancy.
This is absurd; ignoring the potential effects of Zika by
putting our collective heads in the sand will only make the
problem worse. Restricting access to family planning and
reproductive health services would be a failure to support
women abroad during a public health emergency.
I hope we can work together without the partisan fights and
divisive riders on this issue. Unlike the emergency funds to
combat Ebola, which I recall only narrowly authorized the
specific use in West Africa, funding for Zika must also come
with as much flexibility as possible.
Finally, Administrator Smith, I still do not understand the
administration's continued refusal to prioritize education. In
2013, your predecessor said, in testimony to this committee,
that education was a core development objective.
Yet, given this year's low funding request, it appears to
me that it is only a core development objective to Congress,
not to the President or OMB.
There are currently over 120 million children and
adolescents out of school, and some 250 million primary school
age children in school but not learning the basic skills they
will need to participate in their communities and economies.
According to USAID's own reporting, the world is in the
midst of a global learning crisis. The United States has
prioritized many admirable programs, from food security to
electricity, health to economic empowerments. Yet, without
universal literacy, these programs are out of reach for
significant portions of poor communities.
We simply will not achieve real, long-term success without
education at the center of our efforts.
In closing, I want to recognize the remarkable public
servants throughout USAID who work night and day to better the
lives of millions of people around the world.
I thank them and you for your tireless efforts. I look
forward to advancing our shared development goals.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Granger. Thank you very much. Administrator Smith, you
can see there are few members here. It is because they have
already called votes, and they are waiting to vote.
I ask that you proceed with your opening remarks. Members
will be here today, so I would encourage you to summarize your
remarks, so we have time for you to address questions. The
yellow light on your timer will appear when you have 2 minutes
left, and I will stay for your testimony, and then hope the
rest will come.
Thank you.
Ms. Smith. I was complimenting you, and I didn't even have
the mic on. [Laughter.]
Ms. Granger. Oh, we listened to that part, anyway.
Opening Statement of Ms. Smith
Ms. Smith. No, I wanted to sincerely thank both of you.
This is a great job; there is a lot of work we can do together,
and there are some things about the Agency I think we all want
to improve. It has been a pleasure working with both of you.
The ability to come up and seek your guidance, and work through
how we would make some of these improvements is a real pleasure
to me.
Let me quickly go through my remarks. As you know, and have
asserted yourselves, for more than 50 years, USAID has led our
nation's efforts to advance dignity and prosperity around the
world, both as an expression of our values and to help build
peaceful, open and flourishing partners.
This request will help advance that important legacy, but
our budget line items tell only part of the story. In recent
years, with vital support from Congress, we acted to make our
work more efficient, effective and impactful.
First, recognizing that foreign assistance is just one
valuable tool of many, we are making smarter investments with
our assistance; leveraging private capital and funding from
other donors to scale our impact; and supporting governments,
small businesses and entrepreneurs to mobilize domestic
resources for development.
Second, recognizing that development is indeed a
discipline, we are improving the way we do and measure our
work. Since adopting a new evaluation policy in 2011, the
Agency has averaged 200 external evaluations a year and our
data show that more than 90 percent of these evaluations are
being used to shape our policies, modify existing projects and
inform future project design.
Third, recognizing that we can achieve more when we join
forces with others, we have partnered with other U.S.
government agencies, American institutions of higher learning,
NGOs and communities of faith. When we can achieve greater
efficiency or impact, we align goals and strategies with
governments and organizations all over the world. Engagement
with the private sector is now fully embedded into the way we
do business.
Finally, recognizing that development solutions are
manifold, we are pursuing integrated country strategies,
helping to build local research capacity and harnessing
science, technology and innovation to accelerate impact faster,
cheaper and more sustainably. These and other steps are making
us more accountable, stretching our dollars further and helping
USAID live up to its important role as the U.S. lead
development agency.
For less than 1 percent of the federal budget, the
President's request will keep us on this path, enabling us to
meet new challenges, seize emerging opportunities, improve the
way we do business and deliver transformational results on
behalf of the American people.
Specifically, the request of $22.7 billion will help
advance progress in the four core pillars of our work. First,
fostering and sustaining development progress. Second,
preventing, mitigating and responding to global crises. Third,
mitigating threats to national security and global stability.
And fourth, leading in global development, accountability and
transparency.
In countries around the world, we work to foster and
sustain development progress in a range of sectors. In global
health, we will continue to save lives and build sustainable
health systems. We will also continue to achieve
transformational progress through the U.S. government's major
development initiatives, including Feed the Future and Power
Africa.
And we will continue to promote quality education and
increase access to safe water and sanitation. Finally, as we
know progress is not sustainable without open and effective
governance and a vibrant civil society, the request will enable
us to expand our work in democracy, rights and governance.
As a global leader in humanitarian response, the U.S. is
there whenever a disaster hits. Our assistance saves lives and
protects precious development gains, whether in Syria and South
Sudan, or on any of the four continents affected by El Nino
this year.
The President's request provides the agility and
flexibility that is so desperately needed to prevent, mitigate
and respond to these global crises. We also work in places of
strategic importance to U.S. foreign policy, to mitigate
emerging threats and other global security challenges.
This request supports these critical efforts from planting
the seeds of dignity and opportunity that offer a counter-
narrative to violent extremism to fostering goodwill towards
the United States. We are addressing the root causes of
insecurity and migration from Central America, strengthening
our partners in Eastern Europe and Central Asia and investing
in long-term progress in Afghanistan.
Finally, this request will enable USAID to continue to
lead. It includes support for the Global Development Lab to
help us spur and integrate innovation across and beyond the
Agency and for our Bureau of Policy Planning and Learning to
help us continue to drive with evidence.
It also supports our work to strengthen USAID as an
institution and support the men and women of this Agency who
serve their country bravely, and in some of the world's most
challenging environments.
It is my honor to serve the American people alongside the
men and women of USAID, and I look forward to working closely
with Congress to make USAID more agile, accountable, and
impactful. Together we are building the Agency we need and the
world deserves, and making investments in a better future that
will pay dividends for years to come.
Thank you for this opportunity and your support, and I
welcome your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Granger. The subcommittee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Ms. Granger. The committee will come to order. We will have
some members that are coming in. Unfortunately, because of our
timeframe, we are all overlapping with each other's hearings.
I am going to start with a question that I think is a very
important budget issue. The Development Assistance account is
USAID's main source of funds outside of global health, and it
is also the account that has the slowest rate of spending in
our entire bill. We recognize that long-term development takes
time, but the data is troubling.
The latest information shows more than $4 billion in
unexpended balances and an additional $4 billion that has not
been obligated. This is difficult to explain in a time of tight
budgets. Administrator Smith, I know you want to work on this
problem during your time at USAID. Can you tell the
subcommittee how you plan to address this issue?
Why is the USAID standard of an 18-month pipeline
considered an acceptable amount of time to spend funding?
Ms. Smith. Thank you for that. As we have discussed before,
this is a priority for me. On the pipeline side, there has been
a reduction from 18 to 16 months, which is progress. This is
also something that has been bumped up to what is called the
Administrator's Leadership Council, so that there is a tracking
on a regular basis of where we are on the pipeline.
Some of the reasons that we carry a pipeline are things
beyond our control. There are some environments where it is
harder and slower to obligate money than others, but there are
some things we can fix on our side. There has been a lot of
great work done on looking at our systems and our processes for
how we can spend down more quickly.
I think with the combination of tracking it--in what are
quarterly meetings now at the leadership level of the Agency--
to see exactly where we are and what additional we need to do,
I am confident we can make additional progress on this.
The notion of a pipeline in health is one particular thing.
You need to carry a pipeline for some specific reasons so that
you don't get to the point that you have any risk that people
will not receive the assistance or the medicines that they
need.
But in other cases, it is to have the assistance to plan
and obligate even as we are learning what the impact is and
seeing how we spend down the money in the field. So it is not
unusual to carry a pipeline of some volume.
I think what we want to do is two things--reduce the number
of months of pipeline we carry and then, second, look at our
systems and our processes, see what we can--and I have raised
this with you before--systemically fix, even as we look at
particular accounts to spend down.
What do we need to do across the Agency to speed up the
time?
Ms. Granger. All right, thank you. The other question I
have is the issue of staffing. You inherited an agency with
more than 20 different hiring authorities. Included in the
fiscal year 2017 budget request is a proposal to add one more
for the global development lab, and included in the emergency
supplemental request to combat Zika is another proposal for two
additional hiring authorities. Why does USAID need these new
hiring authorities?
Ms. Smith. Madam Chair, you are absolutely right. We have a
lot of authorities. I have learned about many of them in the
last 3 months. A couple things on that: We need specific
authorities because at certain times we need specific kinds of
people for a time limited period to undertake a specific task.
And that is something the Agency will always need. In the case
of the Lab, this is a new entity, and we need to be able to
bring on specific people. With Zika, as with Ebola, there is a
temporary need.
If I may, let me offer a reflection based on having worked
at USAID before, served on a Congressional Commission to look
at these kinds of things, and led the President's transition
team in 2008 that looked across all of our agencies. I think
one of the things that has happened, frankly, over 20 years,
rather than us from administration to administration looking at
what our development agency needs foundationally, in terms of
staffing to support its work, and then what are the
capabilities it needs to surge if there is an emergency or a
special requirement, what has tended to happen is that as a
need arises, there is a new authority, a new way to hire, so on
and so forth. As you can imagine, it is not the most efficient
thing internally, and I am sure it is of--well, I know from
what you have said to me in the past it causes you to scratch
your head oftentimes.
We would like to propose two things. One, these authorities
would help us a great deal, but at the same time--and, again,
can we look at, over time, what kind of hiring authorities this
Agency needs to have a strong foundation, so that we have got
the institutional knowledge and memory that we can carry
forward, and the ability to flex when we need to flex?
We are also looking at this internally in terms of how this
affects our personnel system. And we have done an assessment
and put together a strategy to start fixing it internally to
make us more nimble.
Ms. Granger. Good. Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. I mentioned in my opening statement my
disappointment that the administration continues to undercut
basic education programs. USAID has made progress toward
reducing the pipeline that accrued after reorienting to the new
education strategy in 2011, and I am encouraged by the
successful reading pilot programs that are going to scale in
many countries and the heroic efforts to reach children in
conflict zones.
But this year's low funding request would undermine these
efforts. I know we agree on how important basic education is to
our success in every development goal and that we know how to
get results. So I have to ask, number one, why does the
administration continue to underinvest in this sector? Two,
last year, First Lady Michelle Obama announced a new
initiative, Let Girls Learn, to tackle adolescent girls' access
to education.
How were these efforts building on, but not diminishing,
our work in basic education? And how does the administration
plan to tackle such an important initiative with such an
insufficient budget request? And lastly, can you share concrete
results and progress with respect to USAID's bilateral
education program?
Ms. Smith. Thank you, Mrs. Lowey, for your championship not
only of the work that we do, but for education. Our challenge
on education is that we face multiple demands. Basic education;
workforce education, given what we are seeing with jobs and the
inability of people to find or create jobs; higher education,
where there are places where we feel that our investments have
enabled them to provide better training for citizens so that
they are creating an able workforce; and the emergency
education to which you refer, which unfortunately has proven
increasingly necessary in places like South Sudan and Nigeria.
We have also been able in education to do a couple of
things that I think stretch our dollars further. One is public-
private partnerships, which we do across the Agency now. The
value of those in education--and all of these are basic
education, so it is education across the board--from 2000 to
2014 is $957 million.
The other thing--this is a place where I think the Agency
with what we have learned with the shift to really focusing on
the ability of kids to actually read after they go through
basic education--is working with governments to affect their
education policies and what they do across the board. So in
some cases, we are affecting policy and national strategies
even if we are only financing a piece.
As I think you may know, so far in the 5-year strategy, we
have reached 30 million children. And let me just give you a
couple examples of places where I think in addition to the
dollars that we invest kind of in a straight-line fashion we
have been able to have impact beyond that. In Malawi, we have
been able to support the national scale-up of a local language
reading program that was proven to significantly increase
student learning outcomes in the pilot phase.
Now, by supporting the national scale-up, we are not
financing the entire national scale-up. Other donors are doing
some of that. The government is doing some of that. But we have
been able to play a role in the pilot and translating the
findings of that into government policy.
In Jordan, the Ministry of Education, with our support, is
now supporting nationwide adoption of these early grade reading
and math policy standards curricula and assessment. So again,
where we are able to provide kind of proof-of-concept of what
works, we are finding that we are able to influence and work
with governments to expand those efforts. May I----
Mrs. Lowey. Pardon me?
Ms. Smith. I am sorry. I just wanted to answer on Let Girls
Learn. On Let Girls Learn, there are a number of ways that I
think the First Lady has envisioned, and we have seen success
of getting support for that initiative. Already, there are
partnerships with the government of the U.K. and their
assistance agency, DFID, with Japan; and now with Canada. So
part of what we are able to do is go to them, and encourage
them to do more; and quite frankly, they are spending a lot of
their resources.
We have also been able to attract a great deal of interest
on the public-private partnership front. We have found that
there are a number of foundations and companies, propelled I
think by their own interest, but also now by the Sustainable
Development Goals, that really want to get behind this notion
of supporting adolescent girls.
Last, through the Challenge Fund, which is included in the
budget, what that is set up to do is develop new ideas and ways
of ensuring that girls stay in school, because as you know very
well, one of the problems we have is retention. It is $35
million, but I think we will get ideas, recommendations and
proposals on that that, again, the teams will be able to force
multiply.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, let me just say--because I think my time
is up--we will be coming back--I am always delighted to hear
about successes, but you know and I know that there are
millions of girls who are not getting an education.
Ms. Smith. Absolutely.
Mrs. Lowey. In fact, I think we heard recently, as we
follow, both the Chair and I, Jordan very carefully and the
King comes and his deputies come on a regular basis. At one
point, we were hearing they are building schools, which is all
fine, but you can have girls learning in tents.
So I am glad to hear about your successes. Please keep them
coming. But I really don't think the explanation for decreasing
money for girls' education, when there are so many millions of
girls, as you know, who need an education, so let's continue to
work together on that.
Ms. Smith. Let's please do that. Thank you.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon.
Good to see you. Thank you for joining us.
Ms. Smith. Good to see you.
Mr. Fortenberry. Sorry I missed your earlier statement. I
don't have the benefit of your testimony in that regard, though
I would like to follow up on some of the earlier conversations
that we have had regarding organizational structure of USAID.
It is difficult to get the arms and mind around the
multiple tasks that you are engaged in and whether or not this
is the most effective model to meet these four principles that
you have well laid out in your opening statement that--I agree
with this--foreign assistance is a valuable tool, it has to be
explained to the American people as to why it is valuable.
It is intimately tied to our own national security, as well
as our own humanitarian and values interest, and creating the
conditions for international stability is beneficial not only
to other peoples, but to us, as well.
So there are intended multiple good outcomes here, but
there also has to be a discipline. And joining forces with
others leverages scarce dollars. In that regard, why don't you
just walk through the basic--I think earlier you talked about
four columns and what those represent, their missions, as well
as the expenditures that go toward each column of activity so
that we can refresh ourselves?
Ms. Smith. Yes, and I will----
Mr. Fortenberry. I am going off memory from the earlier
conversation. So you might not have had four columns. It might
have been three----
Ms. Smith. No, I called them buckets.
Mr. Fortenberry. Buckets, thank you.
Ms. Smith. But I do have these--and I will confess that I
pulled these buckets together as a way to, as you rightly say,
get your arms around things and also some conversations with
Ms. Granger about how this Agency carries out a huge number of
tasks in the interest of our national security, as an
expression of our values, and in response to emergencies.
And so the first one where we are talking about fostering
development progress, that is the one where I would define our
primary purpose there is development where we have the
conditions to get meaningful long-term gains. It is the steady
hard work of putting investments in the bank that are going to
yield returns over time.
So in that category, I would put Feed the Future, for
example. I would put our global health budget--those are, I
think, $978 million and $2.9 billion, respectively. I would put
the work we are doing on Power Africa, and some of our country
programs. Now, it gets a little tricky whether you put
democracy and governance there. I would argue that we should.
It is a long-term investment over time.
Then we get to preventing, mitigating, and responding to
crises. That would carry our emergency assistance budgets, but
also I think some very important work that we do on resilience,
which is more of what the Agency is doing. It is very effective
work at reducing the vulnerability of communities and countries
to external shocks, which we know we are going to see more of
over time, and a lot of the analytical work that we do and so
on, on Ebola, all of those things fall in that category.
The third are the times where as a matter of national
security or foreign policy, USAID is called upon to bring the
third ``D'' of defense, diplomacy and development to the table
in the interests of policy and to pursue an important national
security priority.
Now, those are regions where it is difficult, Afghanistan,
for example. Our people work extremely hard under really
difficult circumstances, are given a challenging task in an
environment where it is not near as easy as doing Feed the
Future, quite frankly, where you have got better conditions.
Mr. Fortenberry. Let me--because the time is short, and I
am going to get cut off--let me--and maybe we will have a
chance to come back to it--but let me introduce my perspective
on one of your intense areas.
Ms. Smith. Yes, please.
Mr. Fortenberry. I am afraid our Chair is going to get
tired of me saying this, but agriculture has become cool. And I
am very happy about that, being from Nebraska. The whole idea
of sustainable agricultural development as an augmenting of our
traditional ag disposition or our traditional agriculture
exports and programmatic systems is a key component of
sustainable development.
Ms. Smith. Absolutely.
Mr. Fortenberry. It meets people where they are in the most
nurturing of circumstances. If we are looking for the ability
to meet national security goals in terms of giving people some
opportunity to have continuity with their own subsistence and
build out true market systems that are beneficial to persons
not controlled by others, you take away the options for twisted
ideology and wrongly directed nationalism to coopt
perspectives.
This is the right thing to do. We have got the technology.
The populations are growing. It is consistent with, again,
working toward the right market principles, and this helps
create the conditions for international stability.
You listed it first--and I don't know if you did that
intentionally as it is in the top of your mind as the main
development assistance priority, or it is certainly ranking,
but I noted you said Feed the Future first.
Ms. Smith. I have been involved with Feed the Future since
its inception for all the reasons that you point to. To your
earlier comment about the need to make the case to the American
people that assistance works and development is a worthy
enterprise, this is also an area where we have the evidence and
facts to show that we are having real impact, so I think it is
helpful in that regard, also. But I welcome your support for it
and agree with you.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Granger. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome. It
is good to see you again.
Ms. Smith. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I wanted to touch on nutrition and
the Rio summit, as well as Zika and family planning. As far as
the Rio summit, I would really like to know--because nutrition
has become one of the really kind of wonderful bipartisan
efforts that we have made here. Congressman Diaz-Balart and I
have led a resolution pushing the U.S. to follow through with
our commitments at the last nutrition for growth effort. We
want to make sure that we are stepping up to the plate and
maximizing our reach.
So can you talk about our commitment and how we are going
to make sure that we meet the kinds of commitments that we need
to be able to make at the conference or at the summit, rather,
and how we are planning to leverage the upcoming Nutrition for
Growth to really be able to ensure that the global community
strengthens its commitments for the lives of people, of
children who are struggling from malnutrition and from
stunting?
Ms. Smith. Yes, and thanks for your interest in this. And I
want to point out one thing on nutrition, which Mrs. Granger
and Mrs. Lowey both raised in their opening comments, and
concerns about the budget level.
One of the challenges we have on nutrition--including going
into things like the Rio summit--where what people look at as
the measure of our commitment is a line item in a budget, is
that what is carried in global health, which is where nutrition
is counted, does not include the work we do on nutrition
through Feed the Future, where we have seen reductions in
stunting from between 9 percent to 33 percent in the areas
where we work, or the work that Food for Peace does on
resilience--where nutrition is one of the core activities that
they undertake to, again, reduce the vulnerability of
particularly the extremely poor.
We have a great story to tell on nutrition and a lot of
evidence to show that it works. Our thoughts in terms of going
into Rio are that we need to do two things to leverage and
mobilize the international community. One is lift up those
partners who are doing more. There are a lot of developing
countries that are putting their own resources into this and
getting real results. We think that tells us a story and, quite
frankly, compels some other donors that aren't stepping up.
The second: this is an area where we have had huge interest
from the private sector. Now, I have been enormously impressed
by the degree to which every part of the Agency has factored
public-private partnerships into the work that they do. I think
we are at the stage now--and we are only in the preliminary
discussion phase--with some of our partners with whom we may
have seven or eight partnerships in different parts of the
world--to talk about what we have called ``systemic
partnerships'' where we look all across the value chain, even
at a global level, to see what impact we have.
I hope we can make progress on those soon, because I think
those could point to much greater gains in nutrition. So I
share that as a priority with you, and I think we will be able
to both deliver in terms of our commitment, but also show
enough results that we can persuade others to join us.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Good. And on Zika, how is USAID
working to improve access to family planning with UNFPA and
other international partners in the Western Hemisphere? We
talked about this yesterday with Secretary Lew--there are
countries that severely limit access to family planning, deem
women as falling pregnant, somehow, as if it happens by
accident. Clearly, we have all seen the heartbreaking pictures
of babies with microcephaly and we have really got to make sure
that we not only provide assistance for those who are afflicted
with Zika, but to make sure that women--in light of those
nations' recommendations to their own people--that they avoid
falling pregnant for 2 years, at the same time they are
blocking access to family planning to be able to make sure that
doesn't happen.
Ms. Smith. Thank you for that. Our proposed approach on
Zika--and we have moved out on some of it, but not as broadly
as we hoped to--we are in dialogue with both the House and the
Senate on our emergency request--I think we need to address
that in three ways. One is through information, because I think
when women have the information they need, the scientific
information that they need, they can learn how to protect
themselves.
One of the things we are already moving out on is, how do
we provide that public information? Again, we all know how
powerful that is when women need to act.
The second is on care and a focus specifically on women of
child-bearing age. With respect to family planning, our
approach in policy has been that it is voluntary. We provide
the information and we hope to be able to do that again in this
instance, should it be needed by women who are affected.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The key is to have a good team, and I am sure you have that
team with you. I want to talk about TB, tuberculosis. And just
before I get into the questioning, it seems to me that there
are three different types of strains, and the first is just
regular TB. The second is drug-resistant, which they call
multi-drug resistant TB. And the third which is extremely
dangerous, and that is extensively drug-resistant TB.
Now, according the World Health Organization, TB is now the
leading global infection disease killer ahead of HIV-AIDS. The
continued spread of drug-resistant TB is a threat to global
health security, with 480,000 cases of multi-drug--that is the
second--multi-drug-resistant TB reported in 2014 globally.
Yet the World Health Organization estimated that less than
25 percent of people with a multi-drug-resistant globally are
getting treated appropriately. Now, it is an increasing problem
also for the U.S.
In 2015, the U.S. had three cases of the extensively drug-
resistant TB, which is the most dangerous. The most difficult
and expensive strain to treat, and including--I am from
Baltimore, Maryland--and including one case in a young child in
my state who is being treated at Johns Hopkins right now and is
very sick right now.
Now, in December 2015, the President released the national
action plan for combatting the drug-resistant TB. When it says
national, that is really international and national, it is both
here also. It is also a comprehensive plan for combatting this
MDR TB in the U.S. and abroad and accelerating research and
development. But the President's budget proposes to cut funding
for the USAID TB program from $236 million in fiscal year 2016
to $191 million, a cut of 19 percent.
Can you update the subcommittee on USAID's efforts to
implement a national action plan and address what ramifications
that this President's cut, if it is sustained, will have not
only in the United States, but internationally? Did you get all
that?
Ms. Smith. I got all that.
Mr. Ruppersberger. OK, good.
Ms. Smith. Thank you for that. I was thinking to myself as
you were speaking, we have done Ebola and Zika and now we have
got extensively drug-resistant TB. The story just continues to
get worse.
A couple things on this. Our request on TB does not reflect
what we do through PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Plan for
AIDS Relief, and through the Global Fund for AIDS, TB and
Malaria, to which we are the largest donor. So we have
additional resources that go to TB, again, than are represented
in the line item.
The other thing--and particularly on the President's plan--
part of the reason that plan was put out there was a call to
action, both domestically as you rightly point out, but also
globally. This is an issue that has been raised in the G7, in
the G20: that we are seeing the acceleration of this and the
world is not responding. And just as the President led on the
Global Health Security Agenda, he has been out there pressing
on the rest of the world to do more.
Now, in the case of TB, one of the issues we also face is a
very high incidence in middle-income countries, so one of the
things we are pressing for through the action plan and our own
work is that those countries step up and put more----
Mr. Ruppersberger. What are some of those countries?
Ms. Smith. South Africa, which has just in its own domestic
budget rolled out increased funding for diagnostics and
treatment; and Brazil, which has recently--and I would like to
think this call to action had something to do with it--in
addition to their own recognition of the problem--expanded its
national TB control program. Russia is a country with a fairly
high incidence.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Even with all that vodka?
Ms. Smith. It turns out vodka and TB just doesn't do it.
Mr. Ruppersberger. It doesn't kill it? OK.
Ms. Smith. We are unfortunately in a moment where we have
to make some choices. This is one that we think if we marry it
to, again, what we are doing through the Global Fund and PEPFAR
and pressing on and working with middle-income countries to
raise their contributions, we can still move the ball forward.
Mr. Ruppersberger. It is important, I know, that we do our
research, and I know there are funds that you have. But we deal
a lot with medicine. I would think some of the research that
you are doing to try to deal with some of these things, it
should be akin to like a DARPA situation, almost out of the box
research that might be needed to address some of these issues
that are getting worse and worse.
Ms. Smith. I think there is a lot more of that going on
across the government as we see new diseases and higher
prevalence, absolutely.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you.
Ms. Smith. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. We are going to have a second round. I would
like to address the growth in funding by USAID and the
Department of State to trust funds at the World Bank and other
banks, and I am concerned about the lack of oversight of the
taxpayer's dollars. We received a report from the Department of
the Treasury that we requested on these trust funds, but it
raised additional questions to me.
First, how does USAID oversee this funding once it has been
transferred to the World Bank or other banks? Second, are
restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance adhered to if funds are
provided to trust funds? And finally, there are examples of the
trust funds languishing for years. Is there any mechanism for
the United States to retrieve funds once they are provided?
Ms. Smith. That is a really good question. And let me say a
couple things. Trust funds are often very valuable in
situations of post-conflict, for example, where you may have a
weak government that, quite frankly, doesn't have the capacity
to manage multiple donors. It often makes a great deal of sense
to put our resources into a trust fund, and reduce the
management burden that we impose.
I have worked with and through a lot of trust funds over
many years. And trust funds are as good as they are built and
as good as the oversight is. There are some very good ones, but
there have been some that have been terribly ineffective.
What we generally do with trust funds is have a role in
their creation, both through our role in the World Bank, where
Treasury plays a key role. With the global food security fund
at the World Bank, for example, we played a huge role in
actually designing that from the get-go, including the
governance structure.
In other cases, our oversight is through Treasury and our
role on the executive board, and on the ground. In countries
where we use trust funds, our USAID missions and other donors
regularly meet with and require evaluations from trust funds of
resources.
And, third, to your point about whether U.S. law applies, a
couple of things. For example, on terrorist financing, World
Bank Trust Funds are required through their connections to the
United Nations to screen for terrorist financing, Specifically
on health, when we provide contributions to a fund, our
agreement letter includes provisions that they must honor that
are in U.S. law.
So I think we have a role often on the ground floor through
the Bank, through regular monitoring in the field, and through
stipulations we may put in our agreements, I think it is always
important to take a look at how well a trust fund is working,
and that is one of the things our teams do. We are looking now
at how well things are going in Afghanistan, for example,
because it can never hurt to kick the tires and make sure
things are working really well.
As to the matter of trust funds that may be dormant and
still have resources available, I don't have a specific answer
for you, but I would be happy to look into that and get you
one.
The World Bank maintains a donor balance account for trust
fund contributors to allow for the return of unexpended trust
fund principal and accrued interest. USAID is examining this
donor balance account to determine which amounts will be
returned to Treasury as miscellaneous receipts versus funds
that may be eligible for reprogramming for other foreign
assistance activities. Once we make this final determination,
we will provide the World Bank with specific instructions on
how to direct these funds to the appropriate account.
Ms. Granger. Great, thank you. Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. You just touched on Afghanistan, so
I would like to follow up, because so much of our efforts a few
years ago was focused there, and many of us worry about what is
happening now. And, in fact, at a hearing like this a few years
ago, it would have been primarily about Afghanistan.
But the world has shifted its attention. Unfortunately,
there are so many trouble spots, and your important work is
evident in every one of them. But I have been--and I continue
to be--concerned about the women of Afghanistan following the
U.S. military drawdown.
I think we need to be more mindful of how fragile the gains
of Afghan women are. In 2014, USAID launched PROMOTE, an
initiative focused on the empowerment of Afghan women in
several ways. If you could share with us the progress this
program has seen so far, what benchmarks do you use to assess
whether we are having an impact, what is the current status and
near-term outlook for USAID's program in Afghanistan, and what
are we retaining, what are we turning over to the Afghan
government?
And if we do turn it over, how successful have we been? And
how does USAID combat fraud and abuse of U.S. taxpayers'
dollars? You can take a deep breath.
Ms. Smith. First, thank you for your attention to
Afghanistan. I think you are right that there is a lot of
competition in the world now. I think this may be the most
difficult transition our teams have been asked to handle. The
circumstances are really difficult. The security environment is
tough. I think we have some good fortune in that we have a
president in Ashraf Ghani who knows development well. I have
known him for a long time and worked with him.
But there is also some progress I think we don't want to
lose sight of. School enrollment has gone from 1 million to 8
million. Sixty percent of the population now lives within 2
hours of a health facility. It doesn't sound like something
that would perhaps satisfy you or me, but it is a very big
change.
When we started, 6 percent of Afghans had access to
electricity. It is up to 28 percent. On the sustainability
side--and that is what we are really focused on now--there is
some progress. Domestic revenues are increasing about 25
percent a year. That is slow. It is not enough to get over the
mountain, but we are certainly climbing up it.
On the issue of women and girls--and you know that is a
priority of the President himself--he has spoken as
articulately about girls' education as almost anyone--we are
seeing an uptick in enrollment in schools, and also in
universities, where university enrollment is up to I think
175,000 or so, and I think some 35,000 of those are women.
Again, it is not 50/50 yet, but that is tremendous progress for
Afghanistan.
On the program you mentioned, which is designed to
ultimately reach 75,000 women, it is the largest gender program
that we have in any country. Just a few results so far: We have
provided 3,500 women with vocational training; trained over
2,000 midwives; facilitated almost $2 million in small private-
sector loans, so that women can start and sustain their own
businesses; and trained 25,000 female teachers to support basic
education.
So that is starting. We are working with the Ministry of
Education to do that, because when you ask what are we handing
over, what we are trying to do with our partners is exercise
the muscles of governance to the point that they work well and
the government is putting resources on the table.
So we have seen some successes. If you look at the power
utility, which at one point we were financing, the government
has now taken that over. We are not financing it anymore. So
there are things that we are handing over, and our hope is that
we can sustain the gains, for example, in the social sectors,
including for girls and women, and work with the Ministry of
Education, and gradually more and more of that will be handed
over to them. But I don't think the task is completed yet.
We do a lot of evaluations in Afghanistan. We invite other
evaluations--GAO, the inspector general, and others--we get a
lot of recommendations which we are constantly working into the
system. And part of that is in terms of waste, fraud and abuse
from misuse of funds. I don't want to suggest that that is
easy.
And in an environment where our people can't move around
freely, and often have to rely on third parties to monitor, it
is a constant effort to reinvent how we track funds, what we
learn, and what new systems we need to put in place.
I can tell you, I have talked to the teams about this a
lot. They spend a huge portion of their time constantly
figuring out--again, in one of the hardest environments I think
we face--how they can both get the results we need for
sustainability in Afghanistan and take the recommendations that
they themselves often solicit to make sure that we are
protecting the resources we are given.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. But I know how difficult it is.
Ms. Smith. It is really hard. And I will tell you honestly,
I think the men and--the biggest change I have seen in USAID--I
was there during the Clinton administration--is the----
Mrs. Lowey. In Afghanistan, you mean?
Ms. Smith. No, in USAID.
Mrs. Lowey. Oh, USAID.
Ms. Smith. Is the impact on the agency of the men and women
who for 15 years have worked in environments like Afghanistan
where it is uphill and slow, two steps forward, one step back,
on and on. It is hard to spend money, hard to track money. It
is really difficult. And the reason I mention the gains is, I
think there are enough gains there that we need to keep going,
and I think we can get to where we need to go.
But you are right to point out that this can't fall off the
radar and not get the attention it deserves.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, let me thank you, because I know you have
been involved here so very long. And when I meet these
dedicated men and women, I really have just such enormous
respect and working together with other groups like Mercy Corps
that just get in there and putting their lives on the line in
many respects----
Ms. Smith. Absolutely.
Mrs. Lowey. It is extraordinary. But I just feel so
passionately about the girls' education, and I know our chair
does, in Afghanistan. And I do hope not only can we maintain
what we have achieved----
Ms. Smith. Can we expand?
Mrs. Lowey. But we can expand. So I look forward to
continuing to hear about the progress.
Ms. Smith. Absolutely. Thank you.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Fortenberry, do you have another question?
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Madam Chair. I only want to
spend a minute on each one of these things. The first question
is--and it is unfair to you--and then I will give you my
answer--but if you were re-designing this agency, what would
you do? Starting from scratch. Okay, I will propose my solution
or my perspective.
If you think about America and how America's economic
progress really was launched, it is through the land grant
university system and extension, whereby technical expertise
was then spread out across the land, mainly during agrarian
times. But that is really the source of it, a foundational
source of America's sustainable economic well-being.
Now, you don't have a corner on the market on development.
Universities are in this business. Other areas of the Federal
Government are. Charities. And all of that, that is good, that
is fine. But it just seems to me that replicating the land
grant system and then the cooperative extension service is a
means to get to all of the various components of what we are
trying to do here in a way that we already have knowledge
about.
Ms. Smith. You are speaking to an Ohioan, so I am for this.
And I have spent a long time in this field, and the land grant
universities are also something where I have seen a return
everywhere I have traveled, because you meet people who have
either been taught by, attended, met with, or benefited from
the research from some of the land grant universities.
One of the things that we have done over the last few years
which is important in building on that same kind of approach
of, how do you take the knowledge and expertise that we have
and share it systematically through our institutions, whether
land grant or others? Part of Feed the Future----
Mr. Fortenberry. Which provide a permanency of continuity.
Ms. Smith. Yes.
Mr. Fortenberry. And this is one of the difficulties of
fragmentation of air-dropped aid, semi-permanent contracts that
shift and change and--
Ms. Smith. Well, and also changes from administration to
administration. One of the things that has been a pleasure to
me is watching health from administration to administration on
health. We have continued. It is my hope that from
administration to administration we will continue on food
security and agriculture.
Early in the design of Feed the Future, one of the things
we saw as critical was to establish relationships with U.S.
academic institutions and other research facilities so we could
build that kind of institutional partnership that would
translate over time.
That has been done. My predecessor put a great deal of time
and energy into that. Those are relationships that in some
cases had faltered and I think have been rebuilt. Those same
kind of relationships are being built through the Lab. So this
notion that we need to have long-term institutional
relationships with institutes of higher learning is something I
think that has been brought back through Feed the Future and
through the Lab, and something, I agree with you, we should
absolutely continue.
Mr. Fortenberry. What is the best example--again, another
hard question--where the agency has picked up the pieces from
war, from external shock factors as you have said, has moved
people with respect to local values and local norms into a more
sustained position both in terms of eradicating poverty,
structural poverty, putting in place governance structures that
are consistent with human dignity, and then, again, provide
continuity for real hope and human flourishing in the future.
Where is the best example?
Ms. Smith. Colombia. Now, here is the challenge, though,
with that being the best example. That has taken a long time,
and we are about to embark on the next phase of the transition.
And I think there have been a lot of places where we have seen
significant gains over a year, 2 years, 4 years.
You can look at a country, any number of them, including in
sub-Saharan Africa, Central America, Latin America, where we
say there is great progress. There has been a huge reduction in
poverty, but do we have all the ingredients we need for that to
be sustained?
Oftentimes, the answer is no, because it takes a very long
time. One of the things I would put on a white sheet of paper--
we can talk about that plain white sheet of paper sometime--is
the ability to sustain the very long-term work it takes for
these transitions. It is not a 2-year proposition.
Mr. Fortenberry. It is a good answer. Let me add one more
thing before my time is up. There is a very small program which
you administer that goes through USDA called Farmer to Farmer.
It was the brainchild of my predecessor. And what this does is
it links farmers who are retired or who are in a phase of life
where they have a little extra time with partner countries,
communities in other areas where they can move their technical
expertise, develop person-to-person contact. What a beautiful
concept. And it has been very successful. However, I don't
think it is branded very well.
I mean, think of the impact that if this was more well-
known and then became a model for Doctor to Doctor, Nurse to
Nurse, Engineer to Engineer, Lawyer to Lawyer. It fits
seamlessly into what we already do, but it humanizes and
personalizes it for the American people. Most people can't join
the Peace Corps. Most people are beyond military volunteer age.
Most people are not going to join the foreign service or the
foreign ag service or USAID and an NGO, but they want to do
something that has meaning.
And that is a little small program that is not branded very
well that I think if further--I have talked to the secretary of
ag about this--further integrated into the ag department in
partnership with you, and then administered more closely by the
government itself, it becomes a template for leveraging the
vast expertise and goodwill of many Americans in achieving the
goals of leveraging additional assistance in continuity over
time that are available to us, if we just tap into the
expertise.
Ms. Smith. I like it.
Mr. Fortenberry. I will include you. I am getting ready to
write a letter to the secretary of ag on this, which he asked
me to do. Maybe I can copy you.
Ms. Smith. Please do, because I will meet with our Feed the
Future team and also talk to the Secretary about it.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay, thank you.
Ms. Smith. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to you,
Administrator, for being here with us today. I am going to ask
a question that I have been asking for years. I have never
gotten an answer. I am going to try it again.
How do we get into a country that doesn't want us to be
there? For example, Cuba. Did the Cuban government say it is
okay for USAID to be here, involved in activities? Did Mr.
Gross know what he was getting into, where at that time and for
many years an unfriendly government, unfriendly--and I am a
believer that we caused a lot of that unfriendliness--but
nevertheless unfriendly.
I mean, I sometimes can't tell the difference--and I will
be as blunt as I can--between your agency and the CIA on that
issue.
Ms. Smith. Sir, I think the policy of the Agency--and I
think it has been very much the policy of our government for
decades--is that we strongly support civil society and the
rights of people to organize and speak their views.
Unfortunately, some governments don't support that. And we
abide by U.S. law in our democracy and governance programs. We
support civil society all over the world.
We also abide by the Brownback amendment, for example,
which is included in annual appropriations bills, which reads
specifically that ``with respect to the provision of assistance
for democracy programs in this Act, the organizations
implementing such assistance, the specific nature of that
assistance, and the participants in such programs shall not be
subject to the prior approval of the government of any foreign
country.'' We abide by that law, sir, and it is in annual
appropriations.
Mr. Serrano. Okay, so you do get into countries in a covert
way?
Ms. Smith. No, it is not covert. We support partners on the
ground. There are civil society organizations all over the
world, including in Cuba and individuals, and in the case of
Cuba, we also have followed the law, as passed by this
Congress, but there are civil society organizations all over
the world that operate in their countries and oftentimes with
U.S. support. It is not us going in and sneaking in.
Mr. Serrano. But, I mean----
Ms. Smith. And I think if you look----
Mr. Serrano. I understand that. And I am not necessarily
against that. But I have always been amazed, especially in
Cuba, on how we pull that off. To be writing to a group and
saying, ``You should be doing this,'' that is one thing. To be
sending them text messages, if that is available, that is okay.
Sending them videos, that is okay. But going in physically and
establishing yourself there against the wishes of that
government, how do we do that? The Cuban Government knew you
were there all the time, right, USAID was there?
Ms. Smith. Sir, respectfully--and we have discussed this
before--past programming in Cuba, much of that was undertaken
before I joined the Agency. I am more than happy to have teams
come up and brief you on the very specifics of everything that
has happened up to now.
I can tell you that where we are now is that our programs
have hit their expiration date. I have asked our teams to do a
forward-looking portfolio review to see how we proceed, and we
will continue to support, as the President has said, democracy,
human rights, and governance in Cuba, despite the change in
policy. It is still a priority for the United States.
Mr. Serrano. And I think that is fine. You didn't answer my
question, but I don't think you did it because you didn't want
to. I don't think you know the answer to the question, and I
don't think anybody really knows the answer to the question.
The thing is that a lot of members of Congress--and this is
not a knock on any of my colleagues--accept things as they are.
``Well, that is the way it is.'' I tend to at times ask, why is
it that way? You know, how did we get into that country? I
mean, I know invasions. I know how we got into Iraq. I know how
the CIA gets into places. We all know that.
But I can't for the life of me figure out how USAID gets
into a place, works on the ground, and then is surprised when
one of the members is arrested or something for being in a
place they are not supposed to be in.
Ms. Smith. Right, let me share with you--I can assure you,
we do not invade anyone. New guidance was put in place at the
Agency almost a year ago for how the Agency operates in
environments where the space for civil society is closed
because governments do not support the right of their citizens
to engage in the way they feel they should be able to do so.
And we work through partners in those cases. This is not USAID
personnel on the ground.
And I am speaking from my experience. I joined the Agency
in December. And if you would like to go back into the past, I
am more than happy. Again, I would like to bring a team of
people to discuss it in detail. I was not present for all that.
But I can tell you that we work with partners. They are
aware of the laws. They are supposed to have--we require them
to have risk analysis plans, risk mitigation plans, shutdown
plans, should it become difficult for them to operate. We
regularly review all of these programs.
I have been able to attend one such review since I started,
and all these things have been put in place to get to some of
the concerns you point to, which is the well-being of partners.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you. I am still fairly new on this
committee, but one item that has intrigued me is the Global
Development Lab. I think it is supposed to be--and I referred
to it in my last questioning--kind of the DARPA of the
development world.
And I have worked with DARPA in my former committees and I
find them to be probably one of the most outstanding
organizations, because they think out of the box, they are
willing to take risk, but the whole purpose is to have the
ingenuity and the development to keep America ahead of our
enemies or adversaries or whatever.
DARPA has a 50-year track record of true innovation. The
Internet, GPS, stealth tech, drones, their involvement has
dramatically altered our military to an extent.
Now, it is my understanding that the Global Development Lab
is supposed to do the same. The lab is designed to be an
outside-the-box innovative group dedicated to disruptive ideas
and technologies to solve development challenges.
Their mission, the key to this lab is disruption. It has to
break down traditional ways of getting at problems, as to end
up notions of protocol and how we deliver services, and it has
to be allowed to think differently, act differently, in the end
game to find breakthrough solutions.
Now, I can say this. It is kind of tough to have an
organization like that with a manager. A manager has to have
accountability. But this is something that has worked in our
military, and I would really like you to address what your
opinion is, as the administrator for USAID, how you would
manage that.
I know that USAID has requested $170 million, which is a
lot of money, for this line item. And I am asking, as the
manager, how can you guarantee that this group will not just
unconditionally take the traditional ways down the road and
that you have the right people who are smart, that--you know,
they are given the right and the ability to be a special group?
It is kind of like the transition, when our younger
generation would go to work with no coats and ties and had pool
tables, but this is addressing those brilliant people that need
to try to take this group to another level. Could you tell me
what your opinion is and how you are going to manage it?
Ms. Smith. Thank you for that. And I think the Lab is a
really valuable addition to the Agency. And it has a lot of
smart people in it, so I am very confident that we have
intelligent, smart people running it.
One of the other benefits, in terms of when you ask how do
you manage it, is one of the things these people tend to do,
and they do it of themselves, but they also help the rest of
the Agency figure out how to do this, is that they measure
things all the time. They pay attention to data. They pay
attention to evidence. That is part of what drives their work.
So in my work with them since I--actually since I have been
nominated--and when I look at their plans for the coming year,
they have set targets for themselves. And, again, they measure
across the board to see if they are delivering. And I think
there is a high probability that they will.
I think the challenge in managing the Lab is twofold. On
the one hand, I think it needs to have the space to innovate
and be disruptive, as you rightly point out. But I think at the
same time it needs to be sufficiently integrated that we are
taking advantage of the innovations it brings to the table and
figuring out how to both integrate them into our programs and
get them to scale, because the other advantage we have--we are
the United States.
So if the Lab comes up with a development solution--as they
have in many cases--that if scaled could change the world, we
have also got to do the work of figuring out how we use our
convening power to force multiply in that way.
So my view is, as a manager, I am going to judge them
against the measurements they have put forward of their goals
and objectives for the next year. They have done a fine job, I
think, of striking the balance between space for innovation in
a kind of unfettered way, as well as innovations that are
directed towards our priorities.
And then my goal--and, again, I am a short timer--is to see
whether we can put in place some sort of process and if we can
pull one or two of these innovations forward, and really look
at how we use our role as the U.S. government to convene others
and take some of these things to scale. Because I think that is
the other piece of this.
Mr. Ruppersberger. And everyone has to be held accountable,
especially for the money that we are putting in.
Ms. Smith. Absolutely. We do a great deal more evaluation
than was done in the past across the Agency, so I think that
helps us do that. I am a strong believer in accountability, but
also transparently measuring our results, because that will
tell us whether we are succeeding or not.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay, great, thank you.
Ms. Granger. Ms. Wasserman Schultz will have the last
question.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much. Just briefly, I
continue to be concerned, as many other members do, about Haiti
and its continued struggle with being able to utilize, plan and
execute projects that are funded by USAID's assistance. There
was a GAO report on the $1.7 billion in USAID assistance that
Haiti has received, and they clearly found a lack of planning
for the sustainability of non-infrastructure projects.
So can you talk about what USAID has done to address GAO's
recommendations in its report and to try to focus on projects
with long-term sustainability and what your view is on how
Haiti is doing and how we can get them to do better?
Ms. Smith. Sure. And with GAO and other reports, what the
Agency does is track what the recommendations are and where we
are with respect to implementing them. I don't have the
specifics on exactly where we are against the number of
recommendations they provided, but I can get that information
to you.
USAID closely tracks the status of the Agency's responses
to GAO recommendations. We are addressing the three
recommendations from the June 2015 GAO report on Haiti
reconstruction.
With regard to the first recommendation, in December 2014,
USAID's Mission in Haiti began to incorporate sustainability
analysis into the design phase of non-infrastructure
activities, including for education and health (nutrition)
sector activities and for a project to combat gender-based
violence. The Mission has also made specific tools available on
its internal website to assist with sustainability analysis.
These tools include a checklist of sustainability
considerations and a menu of illustrative questions, issues and
examples to help design teams work through the sustainability
objectives of projects.
USAID expects to implement the second recommendation,
providing guidance on the types of information that missions
should include in Section 611(e) certifications, in the current
fiscal year. The Agency is already taking actions to address
Section 611(e) compliance, including having select operating
units develop guidance for construction activity management,
holding training on compliance with Section 611(e), and
incorporating construction activity tracking in the Agency's
Acquisition and Assistance Planning system.
USAID is also taking action to address GAO's third
recommendation. The Agency expects to complete guidance on
construction activities and link the guidance to our Automated
Directives System within the next six to 12 months.
I would say a couple of things. I think the challenge of
sustainability in Haiti is that Haiti still doesn't have some
of the core capabilities that are needed to sustain the gains.
And a lot of that rests with governance. And I don't mean a
government that we may like or dislike; I mean a government
that actually has the skills, inclination and steadfast
commitment to governing and managing resources.
That is, I think, one of the biggest challenges in Haiti,
which was not aided by its history, and certainly was not aided
by an earthquake that literally destroyed any physical
semblance of government that existed. It is still an uphill
battle to get the kind of sustained gains we need in Haiti,
given the weakness in capacity across the entire government.
So I think that has been a constraint. I have worked Haiti
for a long time, and actively once the earthquake struck. I
think that is still our long-term challenge.
In sustainability, I will just mention two examples to you.
We have done a lot of tree planting across Haiti and found very
high returns so far in terms of the sustainability there, that
those--I forget the--I can get you the exact percentage, but it
is well over 75 percent, 80 percent of the 5 million some trees
that we have planted with partners in Haiti are still growing;
they are still being taken care of, and so they are still
there.
As part of a larger effort to stabilize watersheds,
increase tree cover, and promote sustainable agricultural
practices in disaster prone regions of the country, USAID has
supported the planting of over 5 million seedlings (through the
Feed the Future WINNER project) with a survival rate of about
70 percent throughout the country.
But I was recently involved in a review of another project
that we did with partners--the Inter-American Development Bank
and Coca-Cola--on mangoes. Haiti produces, it turns out, very
good mangoes. We found that through the course of that project
we were able to increase incomes, and train producers in skills
that enabled them to care for and produce better quality
mangoes for export.
What we agreed, though, in terms of sustainability, is we
can't judge yet whether that is going to be sustainable. We are
going to come back and look in a year and see whether it is
sustainable, because, again, what is necessary to really
sustain it, it has to be either communities and/or governments
that will sustain it.
So I think Haiti is still a challenge. I think it is one we
need to have a commitment to working on. But I would have to
say, in all honesty, this is still going to be very slow going.
Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. As we close, I can't resist, and I want to
thank my colleague, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, for bringing up this
issue. We have had probably two of the best professionals--and
there are many extraordinary professionals at AID--Beth Hogan
and then Tom Adams, retired. And we have had in-depth briefings
on Haiti.
We don't have Boko Haram, thank goodness. We don't have
other terrorist groups there. We have really good people who
have endured a great deal. And it really is, for me, one of the
most--I don't want to quite say depressing--but unhappy
situation, because it seems to me we could do so much more.
I will give you one suggestion. I tried to put in place
what I have called the community of learning, getting people
outside of Port-au-Prince, establishing a school. We have Paul
Farmer, who is doing very good work on health care, putting in
place some kinds of source of ways for them to learn a living.
We just can't seem to do it. And we are upwards of $3 billion--
we have other private-sector money.
So I just want to say, as someone who has worked on AID
programs a long time, that many outstanding professionals, I
would like to work with you in the short period of time--and I
know when you say governance, we have governance problems
everywhere. And I wonder what are the lessons learned? How do
we improve the governance problem?
I think, frankly, of course, you will always have people
come and say, oh, we did this, we did that, but basically it
has been a failure. We don't have governance, we don't have
jobs, and the people keep smiling and singing. I really feel we
have let them down, so I would like to work with you to see
what we can do to really improve the situation. I know you
don't have that much time. But I just have always felt that
this was doable and somehow we just haven't done it.
Ms. Smith. I would love to work with you on that. And thank
you for your kind words about Tom and Beth. I have benefited
enormously from Beth's knowledge and experience, including on
this issue.
I think in an interesting way--and you may be able to tell,
I am the eternal optimist, glass-half-full kind of person.
Mrs. Lowey. As are we.
Ms. Smith. We may have a bit of an opportunity, quite
frankly, in Haiti right now, by which I mean if you look at the
sheer force of that earthquake, it literally broke Haiti in
two. I still can't wrap my arms around, my head around what
actually happened.
Then there was a very big surge of activity around
reconstruction. And this often happens. And during the big
surge, things often get quite confusing. Everybody is there.
Lots of donors. Peacekeeping force, lots of attention. It is
now a slightly quieter period. I think we have some evidence
and knowledge in the bank, both from Haiti, but also from other
cases about what has worked and what hasn't. We have a lot of
evidence of what didn't work, but I think we have some
important evidence of things that have worked.
So I think it may be possible in a slightly quieter way, if
you will, to take some things that have worked, and figure out
where we can build on them--your notion of communities of
learning is quite interesting. So I would be delighted to work
with you on this.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, I thank you very much. I thank my
colleague for bringing the issue up. I know you have in your
district, as I have, many Haitians who would like to be
helpful. I look forward to talking about successes a few months
from now.
Ms. Smith. I am game.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Granger. Now, as we close, just a couple of things.
One, Mrs. Wasserman Schultz raised Zika during the questions.
You mentioned a few things USAID had been doing, but not how
much funding that has actually been obligated. So can you
follow up after this and just let us know that for this fiscal
year?
Ms. Smith. Yes.
Ms. Granger. The second thing as we close, one issue I
mentioned in my opening statement, we continue to hear from
organizations with little experience competing with USAID about
how difficult it can be to partner. There are many groups that
are doing good work, have ideas they bring to the table. I know
that we could all give you an example of someone we had heard
from.
So we need you to come up with ways to address this issue
and report back to the subcommittee, if you will do that.
Ms. Smith. I would be happy to.
Ms. Granger. Good, thank you. Administrator Smith, thank
you again for your time. 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]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Brownfield, Hon. William R.
Hogan, Elizabeth................................................. 79
Kerry, Hon. John F............................................... 24
Lew, Hon. Jack................................................... 344
Palmieri, Francisco.............................................. 74
Postel, Hon. Eric G.............................................. 14
Smith, Gayle..................................................... 421
[all]