[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
.
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2018
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
_______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS,
AND RELATED PROGRAMS
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman
KAY GRANGER, Texas NITA M. LOWEY, New York
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida BARBARA LEE, California
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida GRACE MENG, New York
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Frelinghuysen, 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.
Craig Higgins, Susan Adams, Winnie Chang,
David Bortnick, and Clelia Alvarado
Subcommittee Staff
________
PART 4
Page
Department of State and Foreign Assistance ................ 1
Department of the Treasury International Programs ......... 219
United Nations and International Programs ................. 281
281
Oversight Hearing on Accountable Soft
Power in the National Interest............................. 349
Oversight Hearing on the Department of
State and Foreign Operations Programs..................... 483
______
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
28-841 WASHINGTON: 2018
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey, Chairman
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky \1\ 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
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
KEN CALVERT, California LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida BARBARA LEE, California
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
TOM GRAVES, Georgia TIM RYAN, Ohio
KEVIN YODER, Kansas C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington DEREK KILMER, Washington
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
DAVID G. VALADAO, California GRACE MENG, New York
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada PETE AGUILAR, California
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
SCOTT TAYLOR, Virginia
----------
\1\}Chairman Emeritus
Nancy Fox, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2018
----------
Wednesday, June 14, 2017.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND FOREIGN ASSISTANCE
WITNESS
HON. REX TILLERSON, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Opening Statement of Chairman Rogers
Mr. Rogers. The hearing will come to order. Secretary
Tillerson, thank you for being here today to discuss the
Department's fiscal year 2018 budget request. I want to thank
you also for your service to your country. I would like to
thank the big Chairman, Frelinghuysen, for being here today
with us. I know these issues are very important to him as well.
I also want to recognize our distinguished Ranking Member,
Mrs. Lowey. I am pleased we were able to continue working
together as chair and ranking member of this Subcommittee. I
want the Secretary to know that this Subcommittee has a history
of bipartisanship, and I hope that will continue as we move
through the appropriations process for this fiscal year. And I
know the Secretary has been busy the last couple of days
testifying on both the Senate side before two committees and on
the House side before two as well.
Mr. Secretary, these are, to say the least, challenging
times for our country's foreign policy and national security.
There are crises at seemingly every corner of the globe. As the
nation's top diplomat, I know you are most keenly aware of
that. From longstanding challenges, such as achieving Middle
East peace, ensuring stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to
maintaining cooperation among our Gulf partners, denuclearizing
the Korean peninsula, tackling drugs, crime, corruption in our
own hemisphere, and the critically important task of leading a
global coalition to defeating ISIS, you have your work cut out
for you.
The President's budget request for the Department and
foreign operations for fiscal year 2018 is $40.09 billion,
which includes $28.8 billion in base funding, and $12.01
billion in Overseas Contingency Operations, OCO, for funding.
In total, that is a cut of 24 percent from the level included
in the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus under which we now operate.
While I support the President's effort to beef up our
military through the defense budget, and we all do, the
sweeping cuts proposed to the State Department and our
international assistance programs are deeply concerning. Many
of us share the views articulated so well in the last couple of
days by Admiral Mullen and General Jones in their recent op-ed
entitled, ``Why Foreign Aid is Critical to the U.S. National
Security''.
I appreciate that this budget request fully funds the
Memorandum of Understanding with Israel. It is imperative that
during such dangerous times in the Middle East, Israel be able
to maintain its qualitative military edge. The budget also
prioritizes programs to support the campaign to defeat ISIS,
but the proposed cuts to security and economic assistance for
many of our partners in this fight sends at best a mixed
message about our commitment to them and to the fight.
I hope you can reassure us today by addressing how the
Foreign Military Financing program and Economic Support and
Development Fund will meet the needs of partner countries
engaged in defeating ISIS.
Although the funding levels are reduced, I am pleased the
request continues to focus on programs that counter Russian
aggression. I understand from your statements last week that
the President asked you to begin a reengagement process with
Russia. I would like you to tell the Subcommittee what that
entails, because from where I sit, their actions on so-called
``areas of mutual interest'' continue to be problematic. A good
example is North Korea--one of the greatest global threats
today. Recent reports indicate Russia has stepped up their
economic engagement with North Korea, intending to diminish the
impact of China's economic sanctions. I don't have enough time
today to go through the list, but with almost every top U.S.
security priority, you will find Russia working against our
interests in some manner, not to mention the arrest taking
place this week on the streets of Moscow.
I have noted many of the ongoing global crises that require
diplomatic efforts, but they also underscore the tremendous
need for continued investments in humanitarian assistance,
democracy promotion, and support for global health and
development programs. This budget proposal makes significant
cuts in these areas that I believe are contrary to our nation's
long history of leading the world, in helping the most
vulnerable people during times of crises, conflict and unrest.
Mr. Secretary, I hope you can reassure us that keeping U.S.
personnel safe while serving abroad is at the top of your
priorities. The recent attack in Kabul is a reminder that we
must remain ever vigilant in the defense of U.S. personnel and
facilities overseas. It will certainly be my first objective as
we review your request and move through the appropriations
process. I hope you will address how such a challenging task
will be achieved with substantially fewer resources.
Before I close, I want you to know that I take my role in
providing oversight of this Department and the many foreign
assistance programs very seriously. My first hearing as Chair
of this Subcommittee was with the Inspectors General of State
and USAID, to identify the most significant management
challenges. I am sure I don't need to tell you there are many
and they are indeed significant. I intend to address this issue
further in my questions of you, but I believe there needs to be
a position at the highest levels that can focus on the business
of managing the operations and assistance of the Department of
State.
As you and I have talked briefly really early on about the
need for a Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources,
freeing you and the policymakers of the necessary time required
to do the paperwork of running the Department. We look to
working with you to identify your most pressing needs and
support your efforts to maximize efficiencies, and find other
cost-saving measures. The taxpayers deserve this level of
scrutiny that you have underway in the Department.
However, it is the Congress that has the Constitutional
duty to fund the federal government, and this Subcommittee will
uphold its responsibility by carefully considering the impact
of the President's proposed funding and personnel reductions to
State and foreign assistance programs. You have your work cut
out for you, and we want to be there to help you in the chores
that are important to all of us.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rogers. Mrs. Lowey.
Opening Statement of Mrs. Lowey
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Secretary
Tillerson, thank you very much for joining us today. During
your confirmation hearing, you stated, quote, ``Quite simply,
we are the only global super power with the means and the moral
compass capable of shaping the world for good. If we do not
lead, we risk plunging the world deeper into confusion and
danger.''
I must say, I was very moved by this statement as a strong
believer that our diplomacy and development efforts are
critical to maintaining U.S. global leadership and protecting
our national security. But after the dramatic 32 percent
reduction in the fiscal year 2018 international affairs budget,
I am truly struggling to reconcile your remarks with the
President's disastrous plan. Ironically titled, ``A new
foundation for American greatness.''
Slashing development and diplomacy will not put ``America
First,'' it will put American lives in danger, a fact
underscored in a recent letter by 120 three- and four-star
generals. Additional statements from your confirmation also
confused me. You spoke about your time at ExxonMobil, where you
saw the impact of development and global health programs, such
as PEPFAR, describing it, quote, ``as one of the most
extraordinary successful programs in Africa.''
In fact, you reference Secretary Mattis' quote about
needing more ammunition if we don't fund the State Department,
and foreign policy and diplomacy goals should be elevated.
Those comments do not comport with this budget's
elimination of funding for: Food Aid; UNICEF; Family Planning;
development assistance; climate change; programs for vulnerable
children; and drastic reductions, such as the proposed 53
percent cut to basic education; 52 percent cut to educational
and cultural exchanges; 40 percent cut to prevention of
trafficking in person; 26--I get ill as I go through these
numbers--26 percent cut to the global health budget; and 12
percent cut for PEPFAR.
Frankly, and I know you must believe it, this would make
Americans less safe by reducing our ability to stabilize
regions on the cusp of extremism and to combat epidemics like
Ebola. The United States will not maintain our global
leadership if we slash our development and diplomacy budgets.
By your own admission, the goal is to have other nations fill
the gaps left by these cuts. That is abdicating our role in the
world. We should not risk that void being filled by those who
oppose our values or interests.
You also referenced U.S. funding for international family
planning as a, ``important level of support''. And yet, your
budget would eliminate this funding. With this cut and proposed
reductions to maternal and child health, we cannot maintain
advances in maternal and child health. Quite simply, under the
President's budget, lives that would have been saved will be
lost.
I am gravely concerned by this administration's posture
towards Russia as well. The budget list countering Russian
aggression as a key priority. Yet, you recently questioned why
we should care about Ukraine, and propose cutting assistance by
60 percent to countries facing Russian threats, including a 70
percent cut to Ukraine. This budget would abandon our allies
and encourage the worst behavior by Russia.
Finally, we have heard from faith leaders, heads of
businesses, military authorities, foreign policy experts,
congressional colleagues on both sides of the aisle who all
agree, a comprehensive national security strategy is only
possible when defense is supported by diplomacy and
development.
Cutting these critical tools of our foreign policy is a
surefire way to put our men and women in uniform in harm's way.
I do hope you will explain the administration's strategy behind
this budget, because, frankly, I am not sure there is one. I
look forward to hearing your testimony. I look forward to
working with you. And I look forward to hearing your view of
the world and your responsibility of this very, very critical
Department.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Rogers. We are pleased to have with us, Mr. Secretary,
the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Frelinghuysen, who is
now recognized.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Chairman Rogers. And, Mr.
Secretary, welcome to the appropriation process on the House
side. You fill some historic shoes, and we want to wish you the
best of luck, and obviously work cooperatively with you.
Today's hearing is an important part of our oversight
duties of this committee. Now that we have formally received
the administration's budget request, the Committee will be
undertaking a thorough analysis. After all, the power of the
purse lies in this building. It is the Constitutional duty of
Congress to make these types of spending decisions on behalf of
the people we represent, whether they work here at home or
whether they work abroad on our behalf.
Mr. Secretary, there are many, as others have said, both
the Ranking and Chair, there are many important programs in the
State Department budget that support national security and our
ability to influence events in the world. All of us have heard
from our colleagues that the State Department, USAID,
Millennium Challenge Corporation, and other agencies are
critical to preventing conflict and reducing the need to put
our men and women in uniform in harm's way.
Mr. Secretary, I am also pleased, as the chairman noted, to
see that your budget is focused on the campaign to defeat ISIS,
al-Qaida and other terrorist groups that pose a threat to our
country and our allies. Hopefully, your soft power will be able
to match our military power and endurance. We are going to try
to make that happen. I am also pleased with my colleagues to
see your continued strong support for the state of Israel. That
is a very special relationship and we need to keep it strong.
However, many of my colleagues are as concerned about the
magnitude of the cuts to the State Department, USAID programs,
that suggested America is stepping back from the engagement--
from its engagement in the world. I hope that is not the case.
I am sure that you will reassure us that it isn't. Frankly, the
world is a better place when we are front and center.
We know that events around the world impact the safety of
Americans, America's businesses and jobs. Much of the work of
the State Department, and may I say, and all of us up here have
had the opportunity to interact with your foreign service
officers. Their work is to be commended. So they, indeed, are
the ones oftentimes in a position to shape events that provide
stability and defuses conflicts in the countries where they do
this type of work. And, of course, it is our job in this
Committee to try and make the right kind of tradeoffs in the
tight fiscal environment, keeping all this in mind.
While we are talking about safety and security, I don't
mean to pile on, Mr. Secretary, I have to say I was surprised
by the depth of cuts in this budget to embassy security. In a
world where our overseas diplomats, and let me commend them and
you, our facilities, and our citizens pose a temptation to
those who seek to do us harm or make a political statement or
grab a headline, we must all agree more to harden these targets
from attack. I am very skeptical about a reduction of 19
percent in your budget, that relates to that particular
account. But, once again, Mr. Secretary, we welcome you here,
we look forward to working with you. I thank the Chairman for
the time.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Secretary, we look forward to your
testimony. Your written statement will be put in the record,
and we would like for you to summarize it.
Opening Statement of Secretary Tillerson
Secretary Tillerson. Thank you, Chairman Rogers, Ranking
Member Lowey, and distinguished members of the Committee. I
would like to begin by saying, of course, we were all stunned
to learn of this morning's shooting involving your colleague,
members of congressional staff, and the Capitol Police.
Representative Scalise is a friend of mine, and he represents
many friends of mine back in Louisiana. It is painful for me to
hear about those that were wounded.
I also understand at least one Capitol Police officer was
injured in the line of duty. We want to honor those law
enforcement members, the emergency medical teams, those who
responded for their courage in dealing with the situation
quickly. I and my colleagues at the State Department pray for
swift recovery for all of those injured.
Today, I want to continue the conversation we started about
the administration's State Department and USAID budget request
for fiscal year 2018. As I said to your colleagues on the House
Foreign Affairs Committee this morning, I would like to offer a
point of view on the Russian sanctions legislation currently
being considered by the Congress. I agree with the sentiment
that has been conveyed by several Members from both parties
that Russia must be held accountable for its meddling in the
2016 election.
As Congress prepares to vote on the sanctions bill, I would
urge the Members of Congress to ensure any legislation allows
the President and myself to have the flexibility to adjust any
sanctions to meet the needs of what is always an evolving
diplomatic situation with the Russians. It seems to me that we
would ask for the flexibility to turn the heat up when we need
to, but also, to ensure we have the ability to maintain a
constructive dialogue.
As we all know, America's global competitive advantages and
standing as a leader are under constant challenge. The
dedicated men and women of the State Department and USAID carry
out the important and often perilous work to advancing
America's interests every single day. That mission is
unchanged. However, the State Department and USAID, like many
other institutions here and around the world, have not evolved
in their responsiveness as quickly as new challenges and
threats to our national security have changed and are changing.
The 21st century already presented many evolving challenges
to U.S. national security and economic prosperity. We must
develop proactive responses to protect and advance the
interests of the American people. With such a broad array of
threats facing the United States, the fiscal year 2018 budget
request of $37.6 billion aligns with the administration's
objectives of making America's security a top priority.
While our mission will also be focused on advancing the
economic interest of the American people, the State
Department's primary focus will be to protect our citizens at
home and abroad.
Our mission is, at all times, guided by our longstanding
values of freedom, democracy, individual liberty, and human
dignity. The conviction of our country's Founders is enduring,
that ``all men are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights.'' As a Nation, we hold high the aspiration
that all will one day experience the freedoms we have known.
In our young administration's foreign policy, we are
motivated by the conviction that the more we engage with other
nations on issues of security and prosperity, the more we will
have opportunities to shape the human rights conditions in
those nations. History has shown that the United States leaves
a footprint of freedom wherever it goes.
Ensuring the security and prosperity of the American people
and advancing our values has necessitated difficult decisions
in other areas of our budget. But even having made hard choices
to reduce funding, we will continue to be the leader in
international development, global health, democracy and good
governance initiatives, and humanitarian efforts.
If natural disasters or epidemics strike overseas, America
will respond with care and support. I am convinced we can
maximize the effectiveness of these programs and continue to
offer America's helping hand to the world.
This budget request also reflects a commitment to ensure
every tax dollar spent is aligned with the Department's and
USAID's mission critical objectives. We believe this budget
also represents the interests of the American people, including
responsible stewardship of the public's money.
I know there is intense interest in prospective State
Department and USAID redesign efforts. We have just completed
collecting information on our organizational processes and
culture through a survey that was made available to every one
of our State and USAID colleagues, as well as through
individual listening sessions. From this feedback, we have been
able to get a clear overall view of our organization.
We have no preconceived notions about outcomes in our
discussions about the goals, priorities, and direction of the
State Department and USAID, are not token exercises. The
principles for our listening sessions and subsequent evaluation
of our organization are the same as those which I stated in my
confirmation hearing for our foreign policy. We will see the
world for what it is, be honest with ourselves and the American
people, follow facts where they lead us, and hold ourselves and
others accountable.
We are still analyzing the feedback we have received, and
we expect to release the findings of the survey soon. From all
of this, one thing is certain. I am listening to what my people
tell me are the challenges facing them, and how we can produce
a more efficient and effective State Department and USAID. And
we will work as a team with the Congress to improve both
organizations.
Throughout my career, I have never believed, nor have I
ever experienced that the level of funding devoted to a goal is
the most important factor in achieving it. Our budget will
never determine our ability to be effective, our people will.
My colleagues at the State Department and USAID are a deep
source of inspiration and their patriotism, professionalism,
and willingness to make sacrifices for our country are our
greatest resource.
I am confident that the U.S. State Department and USAID
will continue to deliver results for the American people. I
thank you for your time and look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. I
understand that you have nominated Eric Ueland as Under
Secretary of State for Management. Subject to confirmation, he
would fill that role. And I think it is terribly important for
you to have somebody that is sort of looking after the shop
while you are on foreign missions or involved with policymaking
and the like.
Do you not agree with that concept?
Secretary Tillerson. Mr. Chairman, I think during this
period of time where we are in the evaluation and we are going
to undertake the redesign process, it is my intention to be
very involved personally in that. You will find throughout my
long career and my past life, I am a very hands-on manager,
even in the midst of managing a heavy travel schedule and a lot
of conflicts issues.
I am bringing in others to assist me with that. I am
interviewing others to come in to help with this redesign
effort. So I will have their assistance as well. I would like
to ensure that I have full line of sight into all of the
aspects of those elements of running the State Department in a
very unfiltered way. And I think when we complete the redesign,
then we can consider how we want to utilize that position. But
today, I would not want someone to come in and just continue
what we are doing, because that is not our intent. We have to
keep the Department running, obviously. But a lot of these
processes are right at the heart of what this feedback survey
is telling us have to be addressed.
So I really want to put my attention and my personal
efforts into that. When we have the redesign, then I think it
would be timely to consider how that Under Secretary of
Management can help us with the implementation.
Mr. Rogers. I have confidence, obviously, in your
capabilities because of your experience. Actually, running the
State Department is a minor job compared to what you did in the
private sector before you came here. I say that halfway
facetiously, but only halfway.
Mr. Secretary, we have long history and a good relationship
with Colombia, one of our strongest partners in Latin America.
Under this Committee's leadership, in particular, U.S.
investments have made a positive difference in the lives of
many Colombians, and now they appear to be on a path to peace,
which we hope certainly is successful. That being said,
Colombia continues to be among the major drug-producing and
transit countries in the world. I am very troubled by the
dramatic increase in the level of coca cultivation in Colombia.
According to the State Department's own drug report released
earlier this year, Colombia saw a 42 percent increase in
illegal coca cultivation for 2014 to 2015. Official estimates
expect 2015 and 2016 to continue that trend. That is
particularly troubling, since the DEA reports that 90 percent
of the cocaine in the U.S. is from Colombia, 90 percent.
According to DEA, ``The United States can expect to see
increased cocaine seizures, new cocaine users, cocaine-related
deaths,'' quote. I have seen those results firsthand in my own
district, as we all have.
Mr. Secretary, in your judgment, does the Colombian
Government have a credible counternarcotics strategy, and are
they serious about tackling the coca production growth?
Secretary Tillerson. In our recent discussions with the
Colombian president on his visit, and I had my own opportunity
for my bilaterals with him, I think there are some unintended
consequences out of the Peace plan. And there are a number of
elements of the Peace plan that cause us some concern, and we
are going to continue to engage with them on how the Peace plan
is ultimately implemented.
But to your point of the coca production being up
dramatically, one of their explanations to me was that they
have a program as part of the Peace plan, once it is approved
and implemented, that they will be paying farmers who were
forced to cultivated coca plants under the FARC, they will be
paying them compensation to convert their fields to other
crops. This has led to an unintended overplanting of acreage to
coca plants so they can collect more compensation.
Now, whether this is all of the reason is not clear to us.
But that was one of their explanations, that they made a
mistake. Well, what we have said is, you have to get back to
allowing the spraying of these fields, the destruction of the
fields, and whatever is standing in the way of that, which, in
the past is security, as you know, being able to secure areas
so people could go in and actually spray these fields, because
they have to be sprayed largely from the ground, it is
difficult terrain to spray them from the air.
We have to get back to eradicating these fields. So we are
in direct conversation with them. I would also say--and I get
into it later with you--we have a new initiative underway
between Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kelly and
myself and our Mexican counterparts, to take a completely
different integrative approach to addressing the supply chain
of narcotics to the United States, which deals with where is
the supply originating from, whether it is coca plants out of
Colombia or it is Fentanyl out of China. What is the
manufacturing process within Mexico? What is the transportation
distribution? What is the marketing and consumption? We are now
addressing that through joint efforts to break the supply chain
into components, which we will address together. Obviously,
supply side in Colombia is going to be extraordinarily
important as to our efforts to work with the Colombian
government to step up eradication.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rogers. I am glad to see that you are on this in a
heavy way, and I appreciate that very much. And we wish you the
best in that effort. Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Secretary, in all my years on this
Subcommittee, I have never seen a budget request that is more
of a fundamental retreat from the basic tenets of our foreign
policy. This budget is simply insufficient to keep diseases and
unrest away from our borders, and would fail to provide
necessary services on which businesses and American citizens
rely. Simply put, the President's America First budget would
put Americans at risk. And as the Secretary of State, the chief
diplomat, and our face to the world, a couple of questions:
If you would explain, how would cuts to global health and
development funding not jeopardize the progress we are making
in saving lives and building a better and more secure world for
children and their families? How can the United States, in all
good conscience, leave millions of children and their family
members vulnerable by denying treatment or preventative
interventions? Have you considered the impact of withholding
vaccines from millions of children, leaving them at risk from
completely preventable illnesses and endangering maternal and
child health globally?
And by zeroing out Family Planning and reproductive health
programs, how would this budget not, in effect, increase
abortions worldwide? Many studies have shown that denying women
access to family planning services results in more unintended
pregnancies. With your proposed cuts, this would result in
millions of unintended children to families with no resources
to take care of them. I would appreciate your response.
Secretary Tillerson. Well, I think some context, first, on
the total budget itself being down 32 percent. Recognize we are
coming off of a record year in fiscal year 2017. If we look at
the budget relative to historic levels on an inflation-adjusted
level, we are about at where we would be on an inflation
adjusted level over 15 years. So there has been a tremendous
increase in budgetary funds made available to the State
Department and USAID over the past roughly 8 years.
So in our view, and I think the President's view, is that
level is not sustainable, given the other priorities that we
have. Having said that now, let me speak directly to the
impacts in the areas that you are--you have noted and they are
very important areas to us as well.
We have a $1 billion reduction to PEPFAR, a program that I
think is widely recognized as the most successful, and I spoke
about it in my confirmation hearing. That will still allow
PEPFAR, our programs to address HIV/AIDS will be maintained at
all current treatment levels, all patients, in 13 countries
that we are currently working in, the focus areas where we
think we are winning the war against AIDS, that will be
maintained, no reductions there.
In terms of new countries, what we are seeking is others to
come in and join this fight, use the PEPFAR model. Well-proven,
results-driven, and let's apply that in other countries as
well. So we do intend to be very active as a convener, and also
soliciting others to work with us. We worked very closely with
the agencies and the directors that carry out the PEPFAR
program, and they feel comfortable they can deliver the current
level of care with the budget--the monies that are included in
this budget.
Secondly, we are fully meeting our 5-year pledge to fully
fund Gavi for vaccines. This is the fifth payment of that 5-
year plan. We intend to fully meet those obligations to Gavi.
There are other areas of the health programs that have had to
be curtailed, again, tough choices, hard choices for us to
make.
We do have efforts in multiple parts of the State
Department and USAID activities where we will continue to
remain engaged, and continue to be interested in and continue
to attempt to bring other donors, other sources of funding, ask
for more pledges from others, including private foundations,
but also working with other government and health
organizations.
We are not stepping away from these very important
programs. For all the reasons that you have articulated, we
agree with that entirely. This is just some of the tough
choices we had to make, but we have been very careful to
understand, in the case of PEPFAR and areas like that, what is
the impact? We have been very engaged with the people who are
delivering these services.
Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Chairman, I just want to have one comment
in conclusion. I am pleased that you are reaching out to the
private sector. I am pleased that you are reaching out to
foundations. The 2017 budget, of which we are very proud, was a
bipartisan effort. The needs in the world for food, for
clothing, for water, are so great that if you can be successful
in reaching out and bringing in additional resources, wouldn't
that be exciting, but don't cut the basic funds. And I do hope
you will think through this budget seriously, and respond to
the bipartisan constructive work we have done.
I have been on this Committee for over 28 years, and I am
proud of the bipartisan work we have done. Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Chairman Frelinghuysen.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary,
in your statement, you just said, if natural disasters or
epidemics strike overseas, America will respond with care and
support. I am convinced we can maximize the effectiveness of
these programs and continue to offer American's helping hand to
the world.
Please share with the Committee some of your ideas for
maximizing the effectiveness of some of these programs. Most of
us have been on these panels, we have heard about redesigns, we
have heard about surveys. I assume you came to the job with
some of your own opinions about our delivery system.
Secretary Tillerson. Yes, I did. You know, from some of my
past experiences, all of which we were working towards the same
objectives, whether it be trying to defeat malaria through
Malaria No More, whether it was through HIV/AIDS programs at
PEPFAR, whether it was through food aid. And I think there
are--and as we talked to our State Department colleagues, and
this is where some of this information is coming back to me,
there are well-intended programs that have been appropriated.
Sometimes the appropriation construct actually results in a
less effective and efficient way to deliver the need. Food aid
is one particular area.
We believe, and our colleagues in the State Department
believe the most effective way, and the most efficient way, to
deliver food aid is through IDA, through the international
assistance, rather than through Food for Peace, which is a
well-intended program. But they have told us our experience in
comparing those two methods of delivery is clearly IDA is far
superior in its speed of delivery, its ability to get the
needed aid to people quickly.
So we have a number of models within the State Department
that will inform us as to what is the best way to do this. And
we need to take our own internal learnings and best practices
and apply those based upon experience. There are others in the
private foundation, private NGO, the NGO sector, that also have
different delivery models, that we hear from them, if we could
do it this way rather than that, we can be faster, which is
going to be more efficient, and we are much more responsive to
the needs.
So, again, through part of this redesign is looking at how
do we deliver on mission internally, and then, obviously, we do
this through a lot of partners. But that is going to cause us
to look at: How are we getting our work done? What are the best
ways? And our people know, I mean, the people that are down
there doing the work are going to tell us what it is, and we
hear these examples coming out of the survey work already.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. One comment. I think you are directly or
indirectly complimenting some of the good people beneath you.
Whenever we have the privilege of visiting a foreign nation, we
meet with the embassy team. I do think there is a true amount
of dedication there, and they really do know which programs are
effective. So I hope during the survey and redesign process,
you talk to the very men and women who have been part of the
diplomatic service for 20 years to seek out their ideas as to
how we can best spend--if there is less money, how we can spend
it more effectively.
Secretary Tillerson. That was a direct compliment, but more
importantly, it was a direct recognition. We know where the
expertise lies within the State Department, it is the people
who are delivering. And that was the intent--and, again, that
is the information of the survey. The survey was designed to
have our people tell us, what is getting in your way? Your
ability to do this?
We are going to have, also, a former foreign service
officer, some former ambassadors are going to be engaged in
this redesign process. So we take advantage of people who have
years of experience dealing with this.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. Good to see you, Mr.
Secretary. Thank you for being here. I, too, am really quite
shocked at this budget. I have been on this Committee a while,
and prior to this, the Foreign Affairs Committee. And I have to
just go back to Secretary Mattis' quotes, the Secretary of
Defense, he said, ``If you don't fund the State Department
fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.''
Now, I assume this $54 billion increase in defense and the
30 percent reduction in your budget means that we are getting
ready for more ammunition purchases and for wars. So I am just
really quite dismayed to see this, given your statements and
your history.
Let me just go right to the HIV/AIDS PEPFAR and Global Fund
cuts. This is outrageous. First of all, I understand--and I am
happy to hear you say that we are going to maintain the
treatment for patients. But I don't know if you are aware of
this, but there will be approximately--new infections, people
who will need treatment throughout the world--280,100 people.
This is just outrageous. So we are not looking at the new
infections, the preventative nature of what PEPFAR has done. We
are trying to get to a world where we know, and the U.N. has
said that we can see an AIDS-free generation. We are losing now
with this budget. We are going backwards. We are going to lose
the progress that we have made.
I am not sure if you know the history of PEPFAR. Just very
briefly, it was myself and the Congressional Black Caucus that
took this to President Bush. President Bush, Democrats,
Republicans, all of us led by the Congressional Black Caucus,
we worked on PEPFAR, and we worked together in a bipartisan way
up until now.
And so, I just can't understand why in the world we would
cut funding, maintain flat funding, if we risk this epidemic
spiraling out of control. While I am very pleased to hear that
people aren't going to be cut from treatment, what are we going
to do about these hundreds of thousands of new infections of
people who are looking to us, not to other countries, not to
the private sector, but to us to lead and bring other countries
together? But I know for a fact that countries are not going to
put up any funding unless we lead in that. By us cutting,
naturally, that gives everyone else an out.
Secretary Tillerson. Well, as I indicated, we are going to
continue to lead. At $5 billion, we are still leading. And I
think when we talk to the folks that are managing PEPFAR,
again, maintaining the treatment of all current clients and
patients, some of those will move off of the rolls as their
disease moves to a different stage, and we will accommodate new
treatments as they move off, and that is their expectation
within our 13 focus countries.
There are, obviously--I know you know the subject quite
well, and I know it reasonably well, there is a need to have
these programs in other countries that we are not present in
today. We are going to continue our efforts in this area
working with others, and again, to attempt to attract
governments, other governments, as well as other NGO
foundations and whatnot, to take the program into countries
that are currently not served. We have countries today that are
not served under the past program. But I want to, at this
level, we continue to be the leader, and I think, therefore, it
gives us a convening authority as well as asking authority of
people. We are doing a lot. If you look at the history of how
much the American people have done in this regard, it is
something to be very proud of. And we are very proud of it.
So I don't want to indicate to you in any way that we have
lost our commitment to continuing to fight this battle because
we do--I think many of the health professionals believe we are
turning the tide.
Ms. Lee. Mr. Secretary, but we can't do this with a $470
million cut to PEPFAR and a $225 million cut to the Global
Fund, and eliminating the bilateral HIV/AIDS funding at USAID,
we just can't do that. And I know the experts and I know people
in the field; they are worried about this, because they know
good and well that we won't be able to bring people on to
treatment. And with new infections, we can't do our prevention
now. And with the projected numbers of new infections, this
budget is just not going to get it.
And believe you me, the rest of the world is looking to us
to lead. They won't step up unless we step up. And we know that
we can achieve an AIDS-free generation by 2030. We can't do
that if we back off now, Mr. Secretary.
And so I would hope that you would reconsider this and
really look at the history of this. And, finally, in the few
minutes that I have left, I just want to see in terms of the
cuts to the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, which
is charged with upholding human rights abroad. Given what is
taking place in Chechnya against LBGT individuals, gay men, it
is outrageous.
How are we going to address human rights if, in fact, we
are cutting the budget at this level?
Secretary Tillerson. Well, it takes a lot of advocacy and
it takes a lot of engagement with those countries where these
atrocities are occurring. As I indicated with Russia, we have
quite a large number of issues on our table between us, and
this is one of them. We are going to work through these issues
in, hopefully, a way in which we can make progress, but I will
tell you, it is early stages in our engagement with Russia. The
past 4 years of no engagement has us starting with a lot of
issues on the table.
Mr. Rogers. Chairwoman Granger.
Ms. Granger. Thank you for being here. Thank you for the
job you are doing. You said at the beginning that you listened
to people, and I think that is important. It is also important
to listen to the Congress. We are your friends. We have done
this for years. I called you over 4 weeks ago; never a call
back, no one from your staff, nothing. And all I was doing is
offering my help. I now chair a defense subcommittee. I did
chair this Subcommittee for 6 years. I think the members of
these subcommittees are the best you can find. They care for
what they are doing. They have been involved for years. And we
are dealing with very important issues. So I would ask you to
end--the administration--to look at us as friends and help.
I have two specific concerns that sort of go with both
defense and foreign operations, which many of them do, because
everyone who serves on this Committee or defense knows that
they are just like this. There are things that we can't do
defense-wise. We can certainly do them through our help to
those countries. The same thing--those countries are helping
us. Jordan, specifically, I would say. You couldn't ask for a
better partner.
If we do go different ways, and, for instance, cut to
foreign military financing,--Mrs. Lowey asked a question. So if
we cut that, who does it? How many countries go to Russia? How
many countries go to China? There is a cost there, and it is
not a dollar cost, it is a cost in lives. So I would say, what
is the plan for that? And are we really--are you really
considering it seriously. And then I have one more question
when you answer that, or I will ask it if you like now.
Secretary Tillerson. Well, as to the foreign military
finance budget, as you indicated, it is down about $700
million. We are fully meeting our commitments to Israel, fully
meeting our commitment to Egypt, to Jordan, and to Pakistan, in
those four countries where we have made prior commitments. That
leaves us about $200 million that we can utilize with other
countries for FMF. OMB has asked us to look at other ways to
support countries for military finance, including where
countries have the capacity to consider loan guarantee
structures.
But I also would want to make sure you understand that
Secretary Mattis and myself have also set up a process where we
have our staffs--he has a part of his budget, and we are not
trying to supplant our budget with his, but there are some
areas that are closely aligned to our same objectives in
certain countries, where if we are insuring we are coordinating
their budgets with ours, we think we can still meet a lot of
the objectives of our foreign military financing.
You are exactly correct. When we are not able or unwilling
to enable purchases of arms from the United States, people are
going to shop elsewhere. And we see the peddlers of arms from
other countries appearing as well. We are very mindful of that.
The President is very mindful of it. So, I think, we are being
asked to try some different approaches with countries, and
let's see if we can't maintain meeting the needs with a little
less money. As I said, about $700 million is the difference.
Ms. Granger. My second question has to do with the rumors
and, of course, this is a place for great rumors but there are
programs that have been funded through the State Department
that will push--be turned to DOD, to Defense. As Chair of
defense, I would ask you to look at that, and always know that
we are trying to rebuild a military that has been cut year
after year after year until it was--until finally, people that
leave the military said, ``we are finally telling you, we can't
do the job we are asked to do with this sort of money.'' I
would ask you to be very mindful of that in moving any extra
new programs into Defense.
Secretary Tillerson. Well, that is certainly not what we
have underway. So if you have a specific--I would appreciate
your staff letting us know if they are hearing that something
is going on. Secretary Mattis and I have a very open and close
communication on a weekly and every-other-day basis, and we
have been working this particular issue of how we ensure our
funding in areas that is complementary to theirs, and theirs is
complementary to ours. How we coordinate that. And there is no
intention of transferring programs.
We have suggested that in some of the DOD programs, and
this has been the practice in the past, when Congress has
authorized those, that those programs that Defense is carrying
out require State Department concurrence. We think that is
still a good mechanism to ensure that our respective
organizations get the message that we have got to work together
on these things, and he is committed to that as well.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. First, I am trying to decide how to
approach you to begin with, to try to influence you to some of
the things we think are important. We have specialties in this
Congress. My specialty has been the last 15 years in
intelligence and national security, and working on a lot of
these other issues, too. The questions that were asked
yesterday by the Senate and telling you that these deep cuts
will hurt us, and they will.
You know, you have a lot of experience. And I am glad you
are where you are. Hopefully, you will use that experience, and
I know this is your intent on what is right for America, not
the political side. But the fact that you have managed one of
the top corporations in the world, you know management. I think
it is great that you are reaching out to employees on, what do
you call it, redesign programs. That is very important.
But I think right now, you know budgeting, too. Budgeting
is about priorities. And there is a lot we have to do. And if
you can bring money in from the private sector, that is fine.
If you can save money, that is fine. But I think one of the
things that I am very concerned about, and just in the last
month or so, I probably have been in about 10 different
countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, a lot of these different
countries. And when you came into office with the Trump
administration, the morale--and every time we go to another
country with your people out in the field--is not good at all.
Now, that is not unusual when a new boss comes in.
But what you see now, you see many positions that haven't
been filled. You see individuals who are really career people,
just like our intel people, our military people, that are
throughout the world on a regular basis, out on our behalf. And
when morale is bad, that is difficult. They are not going to
tell the top boss that. But I really hope, and based on your
experience, that you understand and see where the problems are.
I am not going to quote Mattis again, I will quote him, but
not the quote that has been used. The quote that I have is he
talks about extremism, and he basically has said that extremism
is because of lack of opportunity in these countries,
insecurity, injustice and hopelessness. This is part of what
the soft power does, the State Department.
I am asking you, and this concerns me because we love
America, and we are patriotic people, and forget the
Democratic/Republican issue, it is about the United States of
America, who is the best country in the world. But when we pull
back, when we don't go on our budgeting and what you are doing,
it gives China the ability to be the more powerful person in
the world and take a position that we are pulling back.
What I am seeing from my point of view, it gives Putin the
ability to get whatever he wants. And I am glad you are
communicating with him. That is fine. And you don't get places
if you don't. But the fact that everything that we do and the
way we have treated our European allies and some of the things
that we have said, that really hurts our relationship.
When the Chancellor of Germany says, we will deal with
China now instead of the United States, I hope you can fix
that. That is important. And all these different regions. And
my question is: Do you see what we are seeing from where we
are? And those of us who have been here for a while and have
the experience, not only in national security, but what
Chairwoman Granger said, I agree with 100 percent that we have
the experience. You are in a powerful position. We want to work
with you. I think you got everything it takes to do it. I am
glad you decided to do this for your country.
Where do you see this budgeting--remember, budgeting is
about priority. Where do you see this putting us when we are
pulling back? And that some of the things that members have
said, where do you see us as it relates to Russia and China and
losing our power in the world?
Finally, I want to say, every quarter, you had to produce
monies for your corporation. Government is different, some of
the decisions that are made here will be 15-20 years out, and
that is a big difference as far as some of the roles.
Accountability, all of that, that is fine. So if you can answer
the question about--I am more worried about losing our power
and our ability and our reputation throughout the world with
our allies first, but then the world generally.
Secretary Tillerson. I think the best way for me perhaps to
try to address that is to give you what was my assessment of
how I found U.S. relations around the world in my first month
as Secretary of State.
But I will tell you, it is informed by the fact that in my
old life I was very engaged with these same leaders and would
just listen to them talk about the relationship with the U.S.
and where I think it is today, and recognizing that that
relationship that I walked into as Secretary of State was
defined by 4 years of very high spending levels in the State
Department.
And I would tell you the relationships were not good. They
were not good in Europe. They were not good in the Middle East.
They were not good in Southeast Asia. And the reason they were
not good is there was an absence of engagement. There was an
absence of decisive engagement. And I heard this from them over
and over and over.
We are not pulling back in any way from our engagement with
our allies. Rather we are leaning into the engagement. And I
think, while our conversations with them are frank, sometimes
they are blunt, and sometimes they are brutally honest, what I
am hearing is they are glad we are back having these
conversations. They appreciate the decisiveness of this
administration. Even if they don't agree with some of the
decisions--and they don't--at least it is clear where we are.
And we are engaged. We are more engaged diplomatically, they
tell me, than we have been in quite some time.
And I can tell you, when I heard from the ASEAN countries,
and I have had two ministerials with all the ASEAN countries,
that was the message, that, ``Because you were gone for several
years''--to your point--``China has moved in. Please, you have
to help us push back.'' We are reengaging with ASEAN.
Mr. Ruppersberger. My time is up now. I do want to say
something about the people. You know as a leader in the
corporate world, you are only as good as your team. There are
big morale problems there, and I hope you can focus and address
that, especially the people throughout the world that are
transferred every 3 years to other areas of the country.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary, first, thanks
for your willingness to serve.
You were already asked something about Colombia, and I just
want to kind of go there again. I don't have to tell you that
we spent a lot of money on Plan Colombia, and it was highly
successful, and production of coca went down to 50,000
hectares. Unfortunately, after the negotiations with the FARC,
as you know, that has skyrocketed to 159,000 hectares of coca
production.
This Committee, led by the Chairman and the Chairwoman, put
language in the fiscal year 2007 bill which, in essence, has
some strings to make sure that we are incentivizing our friends
in Colombia to lower production of coca.
Your thoughts about the concept of making sure, too, that
we do what we can to make sure that that continues, number one;
and, number two, to make sure that money does not go to members
of the terrorist organization FARC.
Secretary Tillerson. Well, we have had, as I said, we have
had discussions with the Colombian leadership, with President
Santos, and questioned how could this happen, how could this
be, that we are now in a peace process and everything explodes
on us. And so I shared with you one of their explanations. So
we are going to continue to press them, and if they need our
assistance to go in and eradicate these fields, we must begin
that process now.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I am glad to hear that, and I think we
share that attitude, this Committee shares that attitude with
you.
Let me shift to Venezuela for a second. By the way, I am
exceedingly pleased by the sanctions that this administration,
very young administration, has imposed on some, frankly,
problematic folks, including the so-called vice president, who
is a narco kingpin, as has been noted by the administration, as
well as the members of the court that, in essence, tried to
eliminate the elected members of Congress. Could you please
explain how--because the President's budget obviously is silent
on programs that support democracy in these regions--so your
thoughts about how the Department of State intends to support
pro-democracy movements, opposition, et cetera, in places such
as Venezuela?
Secretary Tillerson. With respect to Venezuela
specifically, as you well know, it is extremely challenging
there right now, though I think we have made some important and
significant progress within the OAS. We are going to continue
to use the OAS as a vehicle to advance pressure on the regime
to return to its Constitution, return to its called-for
elections.
But we also have to work with the opposition to help the
opposition become unified. That has been one of the great
challenges of the past, is the opposition can't seem to be of
one voice.
We are also convening with others. We have had
conversations with the Vatican. We have had conversations with
other countries. Mexico, in particular, is ready to take a lead
on some of these issues. Because our view is, as you would
know, better than I, Maduro uses America's interventions as a
propaganda tool in his local campaign.
So I think when it comes to Venezuela, we have to find out
how we are effective, but be fairly low key about it and
working through other organizations, and that is the approach
we are taking.
Throughout the region, though, in terms of how we
strengthen democracy, strengthen anti-corruption, and rule of
law, it is our efforts within the Triangle area, in particular
of Latin America, we are going to be coming out. I think the
President has plans to make a statement about his policies on
Cuba as well.
So we are working with Argentina, we are working with
Brazil in ways that we strengthen, in Argentina, their
emergence from that long period of socialism and Peronist rule.
With Brazil, it is how do we stabilize the situation there.
So we have an engagement in each of those important
countries to speak to what the most pressing need is. And in
particular, in the Triangle area, we know we have made some
gains. We have got a lot of work to do. But we are making gains
on anti-corruption, strengthening the courts, strengthening the
power of attorney generals. We want to continue that.
So we are directing, the resources we have are driven by
where we can make the most impact and driven by where we
believe we can show results from those.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Secretary, on Colombia and the eradication
of coca and the like, wasn't it a part of the agreement with
FARC that brought about the peace process to stop eradicating?
Wasn't that part of the deal?
Secretary Tillerson. I would have to look at the specific
language, Chairman. I can get back to you on that.
[The information follows:]
The Colombian government and the FARC signed the final
peace accord on November 24, 2016, which the Colombian congress
ratified on November 30. The accord contains agreements on six
agenda items: (1) rural reform; (2) political participation;
(3) bilateral ceasefire and surrender of FARC weapons; (4)
illicit drugs; (5) victims; and (6) end of conflict and
implementation.
In agenda item four of the peace accord, the Colombian
government and the FARC outlined their goal to tackle the issue
of illicit crops via a national and integral crop substitution
and alternative development plan. This new eradication
mechanism allows coca growing families to voluntarily
substitute their illicit plantings for government-provided
licit alternatives while receiving a short-term subsistence
subsidy. The peace accord does not prohibit the Colombian
government's use of traditional forced eradication methods.
As you recall--and I know you know the history there--there
was a peace plan that was rejected when it was put to a
referendum among the people. It was modified and then agreed
and approved by the Congress without taking it to the people.
I think there is a reason the people rejected it. It had
some problematic areas to it. It still does have some
problematic areas around ensuring that those who have committed
certain crimes, in particular crimes against humanity, not be
given a free pass. So there are some human rights issues we are
concerned with.
In terms of the programs to eradicate the coca fields, that
is something that our law enforcement people are looking at and
working with them on.
They indicated to us their commitment to undertake the
eradication. Now, the way they do that is they buy--it is an
arrangement where they essentially buy out, so to speak, these
farmers that alleged they were coerced--they were forced by the
FARC--to plant these coca fields. Now, again, what happened is
during the peace process, they tell me, people went out and put
more fields under cultivation to increase their buyout.
Mr. Rogers. Well, we have seen buyouts don't work anywhere
in the world, including the U.S. But the fact is that the peace
process, peace agreement, included provisions that the FARC
demanded, and that is to no longer eradicate and spray. And so
in the meantime, 90 percent of the coca is coming out of that
country, and it is growing every day.
Secretary Tillerson. Yes. It is regrettable that efforts
and a lot of money put into Colombia by the U.S. bring us to
this point. So we have got to work with the Colombian
Government to resolve this coca problem, but we have got other
issues we need to resolve with them as well. And I think we
are, I would just tell you, we are at a challenged place with
them right now, but we don't want to abandon what has been
achieved. And we certainly don't want to send it back into a
conflict situation.
Mr. Rogers. And, certainly, the Plan Colombia has been a
smashing success, and we want to see that continue.
Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
I have a question about the office of the U.S. Special
Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism. We have written a
bipartisan letter and made repeated calls from Congress for you
to fill this seat. By what date do you know if you will have
appointed a new special envoy to monitor and combat anti-
Semitism?
Secretary Tillerson. Well, I am sure, as you are aware, we
have, I think, when I walked into the State Department, I think
we have over 70 special envoys, special representatives,
special ambassadors. One of the things that we are
considering--and we understand why they were created and the
good intentions behind why they were created--but one of the
things we want to understand is, by doing that, did we actually
weaken our attention to those issues, because the expertise for
a lot of these areas lies within the bureaus. And now we have
stripped it out of the bureau.
And one of the questions I have asked is, if we are really
going to affect these areas, these special areas, don't we have
to affect it through the delivery on mission at every level, at
every country? And by having a special person, an envoy out
here, one of my experiences is mission then says, ``Oh, we have
got somebody else that does that.'' And then they stop doing
it.
And so it was not the intent. I know the intent was to
bring more attention to it. But I am back to how do we deliver
on mission, how does this actually get done. And when we
examine some of these roles, what we really find is we have
diminished the delivery on that issue in every country because
people don't think that is part of their mission anymore, it is
somebody else's mission.
This is some of the confusion that we are getting out of
the listening survey. We are hearing confusion around what is
the mission, who owns it.
And so right now we are kind of holding on these things
until we can understand and again get back to redesign. Those
that are mandated by statute, we will be back to talk with you
about those as to whether we think it is good to have it
structured that way or whether we really think we can be more
effective on those issues in a different way.
So this will be a conversation for us to have, and we fully
intend to grapple with the issue in discussion with the Members
of Congress.
Ms. Meng. I was under the impression that the State
Department was going to fill the position. This position, as
you know, is legislation sponsored by Congressman Chris Smith
from New Jersey and signed into law by President Bush. This is
an office that previously had a website which would have
reports that help our country keep tabs on global anti-Semitism
and advises other countries on how to combat anti-Semitism.
So we, in a bipartisan way, are very concerned that there
is no office to accomplish this. This is mandated by law. In
the United States there have been in recent times over 100 bomb
threats to Jewish community centers in both Republican and
Democratic districts. So it is something that we are all very
concerned about and hope that you will keep this office and
commitment.
Is it your position that a special envoy to combat anti-
Semitism is not necessary?
Secretary Tillerson. No. As I said, we have made no
determination on that. I think on the offices that are
statutorily mandated and have a statutory requirement for
certain activities, those are being met. We haven't pulled
staffs out. We haven't made changes in that regard. But if some
of the appointees have moved out because they were political
appointees, I have just--I have made the decision that until we
can determine that this is one that we know this is the best
way to deliver, we are just taking a pause until we can
understand is this really the best way to meet the intent of
the statute.
And it may very well be. And so I don't want you to leave
this discussion thinking I have not made a decision as to
whether I think that particular special envoy office should be
left just like it is or whether there is a better way to
deliver on the intent.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr.
Secretary. Just a couple things. When President George W. Bush
was in office, he and his people often talked about a national
security strategy that was three-headed: diplomacy, defense,
development. I shared that view. I think that is important.
In my view, this budget seems a bit too focused on hard
power, not enough on soft power and the tools that you have in
the development and diplomacy realms. I would just be curious
to get your perspectives on that, what you think about that.
I returned from Germany recently on a delegation, and I
think you need to be aware that there is a perception, at least
in Europe--I am not saying elsewhere, but in Europe--that there
is a loss of American leadership on issues like NATO and
security issues, to trade, and even to the environment, and
that they see a lot of political uncertainty over here, and
they might even use the term ``instability''. And I think it is
frightening to a lot of people in Europe.
And my view is that in Europe they expect an American
security guarantee. And you are right to insist on the 2
percent, but they also reserve the right to complain about us.
But they need our leadership. And I think they are scared
because we are the rock they could always count on. And I just
want you to be aware of that, and I would just be curious your
reaction to that.
Secretary Tillerson. I think the model you described from
President Bush's era is one that I too believe is an
appropriate approach. And I think in this particular budget my
observation is I think what the President is doing is he is
catching up on the strength, the hard power side of that 3-
legged balance. In his view, there has been a certain neglect
to maintaining our force posture in our military, in particular
in some parts of the Pacific region where we see the rise of
China.
And so I think the President has decided he is going to
address that element of it first, but in doing that does not
want to do that in a way that contributes to the deficit. So
tough choices were made. And that is why I think what we have
been asked to do is execute on the other two elements of that,
along with other agencies, obviously, that execute on elements
of diplomacy and economic development as well. It is not only
the State Department that does it, that has resources, anyway,
to advance those initiatives.
So we know we have been given a challenge, and the approach
we have taken is how do we deliver on mission with the
resources we have available to us. And that is why I say our
intent is not a discontinuance of anything, but to manage
across a period of change, and a period of change from a
budgetary standpoint and a budgetary priority from last year or
the last few years to this year and perhaps the next couple of
years. And that is why it is so important to me that we look at
how we do this and use this as an opportunity to challenge
ourselves as to how we can still deliver on mission.
Mr. Dent. Understood. And I just wanted to share one other
thing, too. On cultural exchange programs, something that is
important, it is a 55 percent cut. And I am familiar with one
of them, the Congress-Bundestag Youth Exchange Program, $4
million. We invest in that. The Germans invest in it. The
highest levels of that government will talk to me about it and
say it is important. They participated in it.
I think when we make these kinds of cuts, we have to think
about not only our investment but others who are investing in
the same types of programs, particularly allies. And
particularly when they are relatively small numbers of dollars
in multibillion-dollar budgets. I think we have to be a little
bit more nuanced and precise because I think it sends a
message--for a relatively small amount of money, it sends a bad
message. And I just wanted you to hear that, particularly on
some of these cultural exchange programs. In that case we are
talking about former enemies who are now great allies. So any
thoughts on cultural exchange?
Secretary Tillerson. I think, you know, clearly, not just
in allies, but even as we are trying to develop relationships
with adversaries to give us the ability to talk to one another
and to understand one another, these type of cultural people-
to-people programs are very important. I have said for many,
many years, the best diplomatic tool really is economic
development and economic relations between countries, because
as people can tie their own economic well-being to this other
nation and they see benefits of those relationships, that
strengthens the understanding of the population of one another.
The cultural exchange has only helped strengthen that.
Mr. Dent. I see my time has expired, and I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, good to have you here. I want to address
with you development and governance support. And I come at this
from years as the chairman and ranking member of the House
Democracy Partnership, a bipartisan commission that engages
parliament to parliament, staff to staff in strengthening
parliamentary capacity in developing countries. Have a close
collaborative relationship with USAID and its contractors, such
as the International Republican Institute, the National
Democratic Institute, RTI International.
We have seen democratic practices improve in countries that
are severely challenged by financial and political hardship and
conflict. We are convinced that fights waged within the
confines of parliament are often fights taken off the street. I
know you share that conviction.
I am very pleased that Ambassador Mark Green, has been
nominated to head USAID. He has led IRI very ably in recent
years. I take that as a positive sign for the future of
international development and that agency.
Now, in terms of your budget, it is hard to interpret
exactly what is in store for governance support, because you
have merged these categories of aid, Economic Support Fund,
Development Assistance account, assistance to Europe, Eurasia,
and Central Asia, among other accounts.
But the news clearly isn't good because the overall cuts
reducing economic development assistance, as best we can sum
them up--and that includes democracy and governance programs--
the overall reduction is something like 40 percent. And then
you add to that severe reductions or elimination of aid for
specific countries, many of which are countries who we work
with quite directly. I will just give you a couple of examples
and ask you to respond.
You define as low priority a number of countries that have
made great strides. That doesn't mean they have arrived. It
doesn't mean they have graduated. In fact, it means that they
may be quite fragile and in need of the kind of support--often
relatively modest support--that can help them make the
transition to full-fledged flourishing democracies.
Sri Lanka is a good example. Now, why on earth would we
decrease overall assistance to Sri Lanka by 99 percent? Sri
Lanka is a country that has had years of civil war, years of
autocratic government. They finally got a coalition government.
They have resolved their longstanding civil war. They are
trying to put this negative past behind them. They are faced--
we are faced with heavy Chinese investment in the country. They
are in a make-or-break situation. That is why HDP is engaging
with them, and in fact has moved very quickly to engage with
them. What are you thinking in dropping Sri Lanka from support?
A couple other quick examples. Eastern Europe, countries
aspiring to positive economic and political ties to the West,
facing hostile Russian opposition every step of the way. This
budget cuts Ukraine's economic and development assistance by 73
percent, total assistance by 69 percent. Big cuts to Georgia,
Moldova, countries similarly situated.
And finally in the Middle East. Lebanon, a complicated and
fragile democracy, a linchpin of the Middle East, economic and
development assistance is significantly cut, overall funding
cut by more than half. Tunisia, the one success story from the
Arab Spring, we are engaging with Tunisia. We think you should
be, that our government overall should be. But yet you are
proposing a funding cut of 62 percent.
And, by the way, you mentioned the Northern Triangle in
Central America. I don't know what you mean by citing support
for that because there the budget proposes to cut Central
America's Northern Triangle countries by 39 percent.
So can you please help me understand this?
Secretary Tillerson. First, we worked with the bureaus for
them to prioritize where they felt our greatest area of
influence and needs are. But let me just talk generally as you
go through that list of cuts.
These are tough choices. They were not easy choices for the
bureaus to make. But we are not disengaging. When you say we
are leaving, we are quitting, that is not true. Yes, we don't
have as much funding. Perhaps we cannot bring the same level of
aid or assistance. But our presence is not going to be
diminished. And that is why we are taking different approaches
on the Triangle area.
And I mentioned the effort there. We are hosting a day-and-
a-half conference jointly with the Mexican Government in Miami
tomorrow and Friday, bringing the Inter-American Bank, bringing
the World Bank, bringing private investors to promote economic
investment and development in these countries, and a half a day
on security and law enforcement to continue to strengthen the
role of anticorruption, the attorney generals, the ability to
prosecute, rule of law.
None of that is going to end. We may not be able to offer
the same level of direct program assistance in the country, but
the engagement is not going to end. The people are not going
away. Our level of diplomatic capability is not going to go
away. And so it just means that we can't come with some of the
tools we have had in the past, but it doesn't mean we are not
coming at all.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome. We appreciate your willingness to
be here with us today. Gleaning some key findings from your
testimony, I think you are saying that you want to create a
21st century architecture for diplomatic relations and foreign
assistance; and, secondly, that perhaps more money does not
equate to better outcomes. And third is--and I think this is
very important, because there is a misperception in this
regard--that there is going to be authentic engagement. I think
that is absolutely necessary in this complex time, that we lean
into these difficulties, and I agree with you that more money
does not necessarily mean better outcomes.
However, we always have to wrestle with these tensions,
because it has been said here that we are looking for the
proper synthesis of strong defense and smart diplomacy and
sustainable development so that we can create the conditions in
which other people have stability and we have security and we
can benefit from all of this exchange. I think that is the goal
mutually shared here by everyone. So we want to aggressively
wrestle with you as to where those right balances are.
Three specific things I would like to ask you about: With
the commitment to eradicating ISIS and the horror that they
have caused, particularly the genocide against Christians and
Yazidis and other religious minorities--and the people they
have killed the most, of course, are innocent Muslims--with the
fall of Mosul quickly coming, I think it is important to
quickly move toward what the administration has stated as a
potential option, interim zones of stability, one of which
could be the Nineveh Plain, which used to be a pluralistic area
of Iraq where multiple ethnicity or multiple religious
traditions lived side by side. This has implications for
migration as well. As three-plus million people in that area
have been displaced, where will they go?
If in coordination with the Iraqi central government and
the Kurdistan central government that we can create the
security situation, integrating potential Christians, Yazidis,
and others into military structures there so they can create
the conditions for stability, maybe people can return home and
recreate the pluralistic tradition in that ancient area.
Because without that, the Middle East has no hope. We will lose
the basis for any type of stabilization in society as a whole.
Second, I want to ask you about the International Atomic
Energy Agency and the commitment that you have to them. Look,
we went through a very difficult debate about the Iran
agreement. Part of that agreement--some of us voted against it,
some of us voted for it--but part of that was obviously a more
robust leveraging of the resources of the IAEA. I see that as
the beginning of an evolving role for the IAEA internationally,
to move from just nuclear security to nuclear verification.
This has implications as well for North Korea if we can ever
break that impasse.
Finally, I want to talk to you about Egypt. The
administration is engaged, I think, in a very appropriate
effort to replenish the relationship with Egypt. We forget that
there is a peace accord that has held. There is a roadmap for
peace in the Middle East. It is between Egypt and Israel. The
current President of Egypt has made some very courageous
statements about minority rights, protecting religious
pluralism, as well as trying to show leadership on the
international stage.
Anything that I think we can do to affirm that
relationship, and, of course, then have the authentic
friendship to be able to discuss hard things regarding human
rights and the rest, I think is a very important priority to
help restore Egypt's central role in creating conditions for
stability in the Middle East.
Secretary Tillerson. Let me try to comment quickly.
On the De-ISIS campaign, and you mentioned Mosul, the State
Department, working with USAID, the United Nations, and other
aid agencies, has a model of approach. As the military, and we
work this very closely with Secretary Mattis, General Dunford,
and our military forces on the ground, as they clear and
liberate areas, our role is to come quickly behind with
security, law enforcement, using local forces that are trusted
by local people to recontact the previous governance of that
area.
Many of these people fled ahead of ISIS. They are in
Turkey. They are in other places. Find them, bring them back so
they are ready to resume governance. And then to quickly
restore basic needs--power, water, hospitals, schools.
After east Mosul was liberated some weeks ago, we already
have achieved all of those. We have 40,000 children back in
school in east Mosul today. It is to create the conditions so
that people that fled, this huge refugee problem we have, they
want to come back.
Mr. Fortenberry. Does that include minority populations,
though?
Secretary Tillerson. Now, I will tell you, encouraging
minority populations to come back after the terrible atrocities
that they suffered is challenging. And I think it is going to
take time for them to see that the area really is stable, it
really is under the control of people who will not harm them.
So this is a confidence/trust issue with a lot of the
minority populations in particular, which we recognize. Prime
Minister Abadi recognizes it. That part, it will be a slow
process, but that is the objective.
We have Sunni nations now in the Gulf are engaged directly
with Sunni areas of Iraq. They previously would not engage. You
may have seen the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia made a
historic visit to Baghdad. The Prime Minister of Iraq is going
to make a historic visit to Riyadh and to Bahrain.
This is all of our effort to say to the GCC countries: You
must help us secure the future of Iraq, deal with your Sunni
populations, and support the restoration, the rehabilitation,
the humanitarian aid. We will work with Kurds and others on the
Kurdish areas. We will work with the Arab Shia within Iraq.
They are all Iraqis. They are Iraqis first. So we are working
Iraq very hard.
On the IAEA and our international organizations budget, you
see the reduction that has been taken there, we are working
through how to actually allocate that across international
organizations. We have not come to a final decision other than,
I would tell you, right now our intention is to fully fund the
IAEA for the reasons that you have described.
And on Egypt, we have a lot of work to do with Egypt on
improving the human rights situation. We were extremely
disappointed by the recent legislation that President Sisi
signed regarding NGO registration and preventing certain NGOs
from operating. We are in discussions with them about how that
is harmful to the way forward.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tillerson, thank you for being here. This isn't the
first hearings you have done this week, I don't suppose, and it
is probably not your last. But we do appreciate your time, and
thank you for your service.
I would like to talk about, generally, kind of a broad
question, and then bore down on that just a little bit. I have
spent a little bit of time in China. I was there a number of
times over the last few years. I asked President Xi and Premier
Li and others to respond to this idea. And I don't speak Greek,
so you will forgive me if I mispronounce this, but it is a
theory that I am sure you are familiar with, the Thucydides
theory that if you have a rising empire and an established
empire, that history shows that almost inevitably they come
into conflict.
And I think that is a fair description of us and our
relationship with China at this point. We have been the
established superpower for several generations. Right now I
don't think we could deny that China is a rising power. There
are a lot of people, a lot of economic power behind them, and
now a very powerful military.
So two questions for you. First is would you kind of give
us your thoughts on that, on how we--because the last thing any
of us want is any conflict with China. It is clearly not in our
interest. It clearly is not in their interest. History shows
that it is a very, very difficult thing to maneuver through
where you have these two superpowers, or what will be
superpowers, with very different interests.
And if I could, as I said, bore down just a little bit and
give an example of that. Sitting on the Intel Committee, there
are a lot of things we are concerned about. China is a very
strategic concern. But I will tell you, one of the things that
bothers me a lot is their exploitation, from an environmental
impact to a military consideration, of the South China Sea, and
as you have commented on a number of times, them building up
these atolls that are nothing but a piece of sand, hardly, out
in the middle of the ocean and now militarizing them.
In fact, in your written testimony, you talk about China's
artificial island construction and militarization of facilities
and that that is a threat to regional stability and, by
extension, a threat to our stability. I am interested in your
thoughts on those two ideas, if you would.
Secretary Tillerson. The U.S.-China relationship has been
defined for the last 50 years with Nixon's historic visit to
China, the establishment of the One-China policy, which really
created the conditions for there to be no conflict. And it has
worked. For 50 years we have had no conflict with the Chinese.
It created the conditions for China's economic growth,
which we have benefited from. As you know, 500 million Chinese
have moved out of poverty into middle class status. They have
moved to the coastlines. There are a billion more that want to
that same status.
In our discussions with the Chinese at the highest levels--
and these are the conversations that I have with them at the
highest levels--we recognize that China's economic growth has
now put them in the position of the rising power. They
recognize it. And we cannot constrain their economic growth. We
have to accommodate their economic growth.
But as their economic growth then translates into spheres
of influence that then begin to threaten our national security,
this begins to disrupt these conditions that have allowed us to
live without conflict for the past 50 years.
We are at an inflection point in the U.S.-China
relationship for this reason. China has now risen to a point
that we are approaching this inflection that you are referring
to. They see it. We see it.
Our conversations are around how are we going to maintain
stability and a relationship of no conflict between China and
the United States for the next 50 years. So we are not talking
about what happens next year. We are not talking about what
happens 4 years, 5 years from now. We are in conversations with
them about how will we define this relationship for the next
half century, recognizing that dynamics are underway.
The Chinese have significant internal challenges of their
own, with their own people. As their people rise in income
level and in prosperity, move to the coast, the culture of
China is changing, and they know that. That creates challenges
for them.
So we are in a dialogue with them and a journey with them
to decide how do we live with one another the next half century
and not come into conflict with one another. These are the
nature of our discussions.
Mr. Stewart. Sir, if you could--and I appreciate that, and
there is so much I would add to that--but can you talk briefly
about the South China Sea, the militarization of those islands
there, and our response to that?
Secretary Tillerson. There are three areas of particular
emphasis where we are working together. One is addressing North
Korea. Where North Korea has historically been an ally to
China, I think they are coming around to the notion that North
Korea is a liability to China.
The South China Sea island building and militarization of
the islands, we have told them: You are creating instability
throughout the Pacific region that will bring us into conflict.
Please don't do that.
Now, how do we want to deal with that? And we are dealing
with it regionally by strengthening our alliances with other
countries that are being impacted by the island building and
the militarization in particular.
And then lastly is the economic rise. And what we have said
to ourselves and our policy is, as important as trade is and as
important as China's huge economy is, we cannot allow China to
use that as a weapon. We cannot allow them to weaponize trade.
And they are doing that today. And our message to them is: You
will not buy your way out of these other difficult issues, like
North Korea, South China Sea, with your trade.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you. Thank you for that clarity.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Secretary, there may be a desire for some members of
the Subcommittee for a second round of questioning.
Let me do a poll. How many want a second round on this?
Well, at least what we can do is limit the time. So this
round you will have a 3-minute round. And let's try to move
quickly, because the Secretary, we are nearing his hard leave
time.
Does the Secretary wish a 5-minute break before we do the
second round?
Secretary Tillerson. I am fine. We can keep going.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, 6 weeks ago I took a CODEL to, among other
places, Egypt, and we were meeting with the President on Palm
Sunday morning for 2 hours when one of the church bombs went
off. But while meeting with President el-Sisi, this was just
after we had launched Tomahawks in Syria, he said something
that really stayed with me. He said in this part of the world,
at least, what that signified was America is back. And he was
quite pleased. We found the same reaction in Beirut and Amman.
So the President had, by all accounts, a very, very
successful Middle East trip which left a lot of enthusiasm in
that region. So it seems like we are sort of on the cusp of
something pretty good taking place. Can you feel that? Tell us
about that.
Secretary Tillerson. The President's trip to Riyadh in
particular--and the sequence of the trip was quite deliberate--
was to engage with the Saudis, obviously, as the leaders in the
Arab world, as the custodian of the holy mosque of the Muslim
faith, and to convene this Arab Muslim summit. Every leader
around the world of a major Muslim country was there, and the
President called upon them to take ownership for these
extremist elements that are out there that they have to fix.
He said: We can help you, but we can't do it for you. He
was quite clear. He has been very forceful in saying to them:
The time has come. The time has come. You have to own this. You
have to address it.
That was the message in the GCC roundtable, which I
attended with him. He then took it to the larger global Muslim
Arab world. And it has clearly motivated a number of countries
now, I think, to understand things have changed. And we are
back. We are back in a different way. We are back in a very
decisive way. We are back in a way that we have no more
patience for this. We have no more patience for this. You have
to begin to address this.
Two tangible outcomes of the summit were the creation of
the center to counter Muslim extremism, which the Saudis, they
built. The building is there. The President participated in the
ribbon cutting. Two hundred people working at computer
terminals, monitoring social media, monitoring messaging,
inserting ways into messaging.
That was just the beginning. That center is going to take
on a number of other challenges, ranging from textbooks that
are distributed in mosques which teach violence. This is from
the old Wahhabism. They have already developed new textbooks to
replace those. We said: You not only have to distribute the new
ones, you have to get the old ones back. We have got to get
them out of circulation, extending all the way to how they
begin to educate young imams through the great theological
centers. This message of violence will stop.
And we are engaged with them about cutting off funding to
terrorist organizations, and those who promote violence as
well. So the second important outcome was the creation of the
center to counter terror financing. We are marshalling Treasury
resources here, intelligence resources. We are going to create
a template on how to attack this with Saudi Arabia, an
agreement, because there are some important agreements around
intelligence sharing, how you actually use your own laws to get
at these.
When we have that template built and the Emiratis are ready
to sign on, we are going to approach every GCC country. And
then we want to develop a suitcase, I call it, that we can take
to lesser developed countries in Africa, South America,
Southeast Asia, because this problem is existing. The terror
financing networks now encircle the globe. And we have got to
cut off the funding. If we can cut the funding off to these
organizations, they can't transport people around the world,
they can't bribe officials to be able to move illicit equipment
around the world, we can begin to really degrade the spread of
violence.
This is a long journey, but we are putting in place tools
to get at the elements that allow this to continue to exist and
allow it to continue to be transferred to other parts of the
world.
So these were important outcomes. Now we have to follow
through and actually put them into action.
Mr. Rogers. Well, it is exciting. And it is obvious we are
on the verge of something big here. And we appreciate the
thought that went into that and in the execution of that plan.
Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you.
On April 18, you wrote to the Congress to certify that the
conditions of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015
were met as of that date. One sentence later, you referred to
Iran's role as a leading state sponsor of terror and explained
that the National Security Council will review the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action to evaluate whether the suspension
of specific Iran sections pursuant to the JCPOA is vital to the
national security interests of the U.S.
With the influx of billions of dollars to Iran as a result
of sanctions relief, what is the administration's strategy to
combat Iran's non-nuclear destabilizing activities in the
region, particularly Iran's funding of terrorist groups and
supply of weapons? And what are we doing to prevent Iran from
transferring advanced weaponry to nonstate actors in the region
who might use these weapons against our allies? How are we
confronting destabilizing Iranian action in Lebanon, Syria,
Yemen, and Iraq?
And if we had more time, or you can just add it to that, I
would like to know about Russia's efforts in that regard.
Secretary Tillerson. The Iran policy is under review
currently. I think one of the, as I think about Iran and the a
whole-of-country approach, I think one of the unintended
consequences of the JCPOA was that our relationship with Iran
got defined by a very narrow slice of concerns: nuclear
weapons. And as we spent all of our time focused on that, we
completely ignored all the other hegemonic activities that you
have just described.
We now approach the Iran policy with a whole-of-country
approach, and we see the JCPOA as one small part of it. We are
developing our policy toward Iran more broadly, and the JCPOA
will just be a piece of it. And whether the continuance of the
JCPOA is useful to our policy or whether it is
counterproductive to our policy is part of this review.
As you know, the JCPOA for compliance comes up every 90
days, which is followed by a waiver to the sanctions. So we are
coming up on the next report. I can tell you the President does
not like the JCPOA agreement. I don't like the JCPOA agreement.
Iran's compliance, the compliance mechanisms under the
disagreement, have a very low bar. It is not that hard for Iran
to comply.
And it ultimately does not solve the problem. I have
characterized JCPOA as the same mistake we made in North Korea.
We just booted it down the road for somebody else to deal with
later.
So we do believe we have to look at this as a whole-of-
country strategy. You have seen us already issue additional
sanctions for missile tests. We are developing policies of how
we respond to Iran's support of the conflict in Yemen, how they
are supporting the conflict in Syria, how they support
Hezbollah, and their interference in Iraq's efforts to stay
unified. Those are all of the challenges in our policy which we
are developing in terms of our responses, and we expect to have
that concluded here relatively soon.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Granger.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
First of all, let me say the change in the opinion of Iran
in that agreement is very much appreciated. A lot of us were
very concerned about that.
You stated that we now think China sees North Korea as a
liability. Can you tell me what changes or signs that you saw
from China to come to that opinion and what do you think China
is willing to do?
Secretary Tillerson. Well, that is what we are working with
the Chinese to have them realize. I wouldn't want to suggest
that they have come to the full conclusion, but I think it is
clear that China now sees how destabilizing North Korea can be
to the region.
The last thing China wants is a war, another war in Korea.
It will set their economic development back decades, and they
know this. And so they have a huge incentive to not put us in a
position to have to take military action to remove this threat.
But the President has said that option is on the table, and he
means it.
Regrettably, the situation in North Korea has come to a
point where we have no runway left. We cannot land this plane
any longer. And for years and years people kept saying: Well,
we will just--we will get there. We will get there. There is
nothing left. They are there.
So we have to reverse what North Korea is doing. And our
approaches and our strategies--and some of this is done
quietly, without a lot of visibility. That is the way we get
things done.
But China, I think, first, they have affirmed their policy
is a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. We have been very clear,
to give China room and to give North Korea room, as to what our
policy is not trying to do. And I have articulated at the U.N.
and elsewhere we do not seek regime change, we do not seek a
collapse of the regime, we are not seeking an accelerated
reunification, we are not seeking a reason to come north of the
38th parallel.
We are seeking denuclearization. Fix that and we are all
great, and you will be great. And China has indicated to us
those four statements have been crucial to their ability to
change their posture as well.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I will tell you, it is very hard for me to
understand how you can support this--and I say Steve Bannon's
budget--given your presentation today. This 29 percent cut just
doesn't seem to be consistent with your responses.
A couple of things: Cuba. I co-chair the Cuba Working
Group. It is bipartisan. And even though there is disagreement
with regard to normalizing relations with Cuba and allowing
Americans to travel to Cuba, allowing businesses to do
business, even though we do this with Vietnam, normal
relations, Vietnam and China--Cuba is still, for the most part,
embargoed. Yet I see in your budget it allocates 24 million for
this unnecessary and counterproductive and Radio TV Marti.
It has been well documented that these funds have been
misused in the past and are essentially aimed--of course, we
know that what it is doing, trying to undermine Cuban
sovereignty and regime change. I would think that you would
look at this and see other areas where it could be better
utilized in terms of your overall mission in the State
Department.
Secondly, once again, Steve Bannon's budget, deconstruct
the administrative state. When you look at the largest
humanitarian crisis that we have seen since 1945, in Yemen,
South Sudan, Nigeria, and Somalia, over 20--now it is 30
million people facing starvation. An additional 50 million
people are severely hungry. Yet you have cut 1 billion from
international development assistance and eliminated the Title
II Food Aid account. How do you justify these enormous cuts
while millions of children are severely malnourished and depend
on this critical funding for lifesaving food and care?
Secretary Tillerson. With respect to Cuba, notwithstanding
the changed policy of the past administration and all the
benefits that we would acknowledge have come about because of
that, to Cuban citizens and to American citizens as well, as I
said to someone in the hearing yesterday, that is the sunny
side of that deal.
The dark side of that deal is the Cuban Government and the
Cuba regime haven't changed their behavior or their treatment
of people one bit. All the prisoners are still locked up. All
the opposition gets locked up. The Ladies in White still get
harassed. And there is no more freedom in Cuba today than there
was before this opening.
So we have four statutes on the books that govern our
relationship with Cuba and the blockade. Our view is we are
supposed to follow and enforce the law. So our approach is not
to undo as much as possible the beneficial aspects to the Cuban
people to give them a better life. We want that. But the law
says we are not to be facilitating or we are not allowing the
financing or flow of moneys to the regime, and that is
occurring under some of the reopening arrangement. So we have
to address that.
Now, if the Congress, if it is this body's view that we
should change the relationship with Cuba, repeal those laws,
change the blockade, we will take the direction from the
Congress on that. But that is not the current situation. So the
administration intends to enforce those statutes that have been
on the books a very long time.
Ms. Lee. And have not worked.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, on China, I agree with you, you talked about
how that regime is weaponizing trade. Along with my colleague,
when she talked about North Korea, I just hope that we keep the
pressure on because I do think that China plays the long ball,
a long game, and sometimes I think that they are playing with
us. And so I just know that--I have liked what I have heard
from the President, but I just hope that we keep the pressure
on.
Let me just ask a couple of questions, because I keep
hearing about how we are pulling back. Now, we have some
differences on your budget, and we will work through those
differences. But let us talk a little bit about your policy and
the President's policy. I keep hearing about this pull back. My
understanding is you are going to keep pressure on Russia. Is
that correct? Yes or no?
Secretary Tillerson. We are going to keep the pressure on
Russia.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. All right. So there is no reset?
Secretary Tillerson. No. You can't reset what----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. All right. The Jordanian are allies.
Secretary Tillerson. We can't erase all that bad behavior.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. All right. Okay. Good. I appreciate that
because all of a sudden somehow, I hear all these things about
pull back, but, let's look about what happened a little while
ago.
Jordan, Morocco, our Middle Eastern allies, particularly
Israel--I hear that they are very happy that this alignment
towards Iran is no longer the case. Am I seeing that wrong? The
alignment towards Iran has changed, and now we are actually
going to be confronting Iran with their terrorism, correct?
Secretary Tillerson. If there is one thing that unifies the
area, it is the threat from Iran.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Would it be fair to say that the United
States is now going to be leading from the front, not from the
rear?
Secretary Tillerson. Well, we are going to be very clear
and very decisive with our security--national security, our
counterterrorism efforts, what we are willing to do. And the
President has already demonstrated this with two major actions.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I would agree with that. I just want to
make sure, because there is a lot of noise and there is a lot
of static. So there is no pullback in leadership. On the
contrary, there is resolve in leadership, is what I am seeing.
And I just want to make sure that I haven't misread something.
Now, again, you and I will have disagreements on budgetary
issues, and we will work through those, as clearly the Chairman
will. But what I am seeing is leadership and leading from the
front, not behind. I will tell you, some of us see that as
highly refreshing.
I yield back.
Secretary Tillerson. No, we are clearly leaning into our
role in the region and elsewhere, and having very difficult,
frank, honest, tough conversations with our allies and friends.
And when you do this, yeah, it gets a little uncomfortable from
time to time. And we are not going to agree on everything. We
don't have to agree on everything. But we have to agree on the
priorities and we have to agree on our common threats, and in
that area we clearly aligned.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And, again, it is important to know who
your allies are and treat them as allies and who your
adversaries and enemies are and confront them like that. And I
like the fact that there I don't see any confusion. So I am
grateful for that, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for your service.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I have two quick questions.
The first one, you mentioned you wanted to build up the
military. I agree. I think we need balance, when you build the
military, on the domestic side too.
But I think if you look at the real reason where our
military has been the last 3 years, it is because of
sequestration. And you know as a business person that budgeting
is about priorities, and you can't cut everything across the
board. Every four-star general, I know Chairwoman Granger will
tell you, that has come before us in the last 3 or 4 years on
Defense Approps has said that sequestration has done more to
hurt us than any other issue that we have to deal with. And I
would hope that you would work with the Trump administration
and with us and whatever to do away with this law that makes us
weaker.
The other thing, one of the most serious issues we are
dealing with--we know the Russia-China threat, and you have
talked about that--it is cyber attacks, cybersecurity, and it
is something that we really need to focus on. Russia is as good
as we are. China steals $2 billion a year from us. They even
cyber attack our fertilizer companies to get information.
Now, I know the Trump administration now has an executive
order establishing the American Technology Council. Reed
Cordish, who happens to be from my hometown, Baltimore, is
coordinating that. Something has to be done on our, first,
government network, which you are a part of in the State
Department, but just generally the whole issue of cyber.
And so I am wondering whether, first, whether you agree
with me on the sequestration and you will work with us on that.
But on the cyber level, the State Department, being all over
the world, and which your mission is, is really susceptible to
a lot of cyber issues. And where you are, what moneys you need,
and whether that is a high priority for you. Those are my two
questions.
Secretary Tillerson. I think all of us would agree
sequestration is a blunt force instrument. I am not an
appropriator. I respect the role of the appropriators. It is
not the way to run the railroads. And I think Secretary Mattis
has spoken on that as well.
With respect to cyber, quite frankly, I think this is one
of our most daunting challenges, for the government, for the
private sector. We have created systems that have brought
enormous prosperity, wealth, convenience, changed the way our
lives work day in and day out, but we left a lot of doors open
as those were being created.
The government systems require significant attention. Some
of it is hardware. Some of it is software. A lot of it is what
I call peopleware. And so until we can address the hardware,
software, the systems itself, our best defense is our people.
They have to recognize when an attack is underway. They need to
not open the door for someone.
I have looked at our cyber training at the State
Department. I think it is lacking, based on my private sector
experience. And we have to help our people understand how
vulnerable we are and how big the mistake, as little as they
may think it is when they click on something, how huge the
consequences of that could be.
So until we can address the bigger problem, we have got to
rely on our people defending the systems.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I represent NSA, and you are right--
Mr. Rogers. The time of the gentleman has expired. We are
really running short here. The Secretary has to leave very
soon. Can you be brief?
Mr. Dent. One question.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary, I have concerns regarding the embassy security
and the budget in light of the overall budget cuts to State and
the USAID. While the actual funding level for embassy security
was relatively similar to prior years, I am concerned that the
overall budget cuts are going to lead to cuts to the embassy
security accounts. And I would just like to hear your view on
that. Thank you.
Secretary Tillerson. We have kind of looked back to 2016,
because there were a lot of--there were additions to 2017, some
in the buildings part of the budget. If you look at DS,
diplomatic security budget, it is actually up 11 percent from
2016. As we look at the buildings and part of the embassies and
facilities part of the budget, it also was up.
We can continue our current program meeting our embassy and
facilities' needs, certainly, through 2018. The cut will begin
to influence our planning going forward.
We are very mindful of the Benghazi ARB, and we are
stressing to ourselves that we have to meet those
recommendations, that we cannot allow ourselves to fall below
those.
So some of the cut is in maintenance areas, which, you
know, you can only live with that so long. And then some of it
is scheduling of the building construction operations
themselves and how those are actually likely to be executed.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you.
Secretary, I am very concerned about the processing of
visas for foreign-born doctors who seek to practice medicine in
the U.S. They account for about 14 percent of the residency
matches in American hospitals every year, and they
disproportionately serve rural and underserved communities. We
have reports from constituents that these applications by these
doctors this calendar year have been denied at historically
high levels, and often, many are being processed so slowly that
these doctors lose their residency placements.
My first question, can you commit to examining this issue
and working together to ensure that qualified doctors' visas
are processed in a timely fashion and that they are not being
categorically denied so that our fellow Americans are able to
receive the medical care they need here in the U.S.?
My second question, I will be quick, in your confirmation
hearing, you said that study after study confirms that when you
empower women in developing parts of the world, you change the
future of the country. And I agree with you. An adolescent girl
can't be empowered if she misses school due to lack of access
to basic hygiene and sanitation needs.
A woman who is fleeing a disaster still needs menstrual and
reproductive health needs met if she is to focus on economic
stability and security of her family.
Your proposed budget, though, calls for slashing water and
sanitation hygiene, or WASH, work performed by U.S. agencies as
well as work performed by the U.N. in this area. How can we
empower women to change the future of their countries if they
don't have the basics to stay in school or participate in the
economy due to immediate concerns they may have about water and
sanitation needs?
Secretary Tillerson. With respect to the visas for doctors,
I assume you are speaking to the J-1 visa program? I have taken
a quick look at that as well as taking a look at kind of how
our--how is visa issuance trending generally. I don't detect
any change in the number of visa applications that have been
rejected, you know, through the adjudication process. It is
running about a third. And that is what it has historically run
is about a third, as best as I can tell.
So I will look into this further, since you have asked, and
we would be happy to get back to you.
[The information follows:]
The Department of State remains committed to facilitating
the legitimate travel to the United States of qualified
individuals who want to participate in U.S. medical residency
programs, and we continue to seek new ways to improve the
student and exchange visitor visa process. The Department
provides priority appointments to visa applicants in this
category as a further demonstration of our support for exchange
visitor programs.
While we acknowledge the importance of the work that will
potentially be performed by the participants of these alien
physician exchange visitor programs, this does not exempt the
participants from the need to demonstrate their qualification
for a nonimmigrant visa according to the provisions of U.S.
law. Each year we work closely with representatives from
physician associations to provide information and to facilitate
expedited processing for urgent cases to permit physicians to
report to their programs on time. Under section 214(b) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), in order to be
classified as a nonimmigrant, an applicant must prove to the
consular officer's satisfaction that he or she is not an
intending immigrant, that he or she is entitled to a
nonimmigrant status under INA 101(a)(15), and that he or she
will abide by the conditions of that nonimmigrant
classification. All visa applications are adjudicated on a
case-by-case basis, and if an individual applicant is unable to
provide sufficient evidence to establish to a consular officer
that he or she meets these requirements, the consular officer
must refuse the visa. I can assure you that each of these cases
are very carefully reviewed and given every consideration
consistent with U.S. immigration law.
Ms. Meng. We would love to work on this issue to make it
more efficient.
Secretary Tillerson. Yes. This is--again, I don't detect
that there has been any change in how we are handling that. But
the whole visa, as you can probably appreciate--the whole visa
process and consular affairs, we think is a big opportunity as
well, so we want to attack that.
On the women's issues, again, tough decisions we have had
to make about where to curtail certain spending, work with
others to see if we can bring other agencies in to the issue.
We are not withdrawing from the importance of the issue to us.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Secretary, quickly, can we return to one
of the points I raised earlier with regard to entering zones of
stability. You made the comment that as areas are being
cleared, we are filling those in with initial securitization
efforts and then allowing for government structures to
redevelop.
I fear, though, that without a larger footprint in this
regard, particularly in the Nineveh Plains area, we aren't
going to create the long-term conditions for resecuritizations
as well as revitalization and repatriation of the ancient
communities who once were housed in that area.
So we have done considerable work thinking as well as
putting down potential measurable outcomes in this regard. I
would love to be able to have the opportunity to get that to
you. Because, again, I see this as inextricably intertwined
with the future stability of the Middle East. It is not--of
course, it is a clear issue of justice for the people who are
so affected by genocide but to restore a once flourishing
pluralistic area, restore its conditions where true form of
nationalists, of which the Middle East is desperately in need
of. If we lose that, there will be a tendency to default back
to tribal ethnic allegiance, and we will never be in front of
this problem.
So is there a way to continue to dialogue with you in this
regard?
Secretary Tillerson. Well, most certainly, and we would
welcome the discussion.
In terms of the whole stabilization, we are looking at
stabilization of Iraq broadly when the de-ISIS campaign ends.
We have got a number of issues there in terms of Iranian
militias, some foreign fighters who need to go home. We are
working with Prime Minister Abadi on how he is going to deal
with Shia militia groups that have been engaged in the fight,
and they have been important to the fight, Kurdish forces that
are important to the fight, been engaged in the fight.
When all this is over, how do we secure Iraq? And that is
going to involve us and working with Secretary of Defense
Mattis over what is the security arrangement the U.S. is
willing to undertake with the government of Iraq? What do they
want in the way of our help to secure and create that stability
so that these regions--much of this, they need to get back to
the original constitution. A lot of elements of the original
constitution were never implemented, which gave the opportunity
for regional autonomy. That led to a lot of this conflict.
Mr. Fortenberry. That is the point.
Secretary Tillerson. Yes, we would be very happy and
willing to engage.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, first a quick note on Egypt. I am happy to
hear your strong criticism of the anti-NGO law. You know that
that law was actually sitting there. It was passed in
parliament last November. President el-Sisi reportedly
hesitated to sign it because of strong international criticism,
including people like Senators McCain and Graham, recently
signed the anti-NGO law. And most reports suggest that he did
it encouraged by the embrace of President Trump.
Now, what you are saying today is very much at odds with
that. And so the question is: Did Egypt misread U.S.
intentions, and what should we do about it?
Let me ask you about an appointment that the U.S. blocked
that the United Nations, and that still puzzles me and, I
think, needs to be explained. This involves Salam Fayyad, who
was nominated to be U.N. Special Representative to Libya.
He had great qualifications, and the Israeli ambassador to
U.S., Ron Dermer, has called him a peace partner, the first
Palestinian who cared about the Palestinians.
Nikki Haley made a puzzling statement implying that somehow
the appointment of Mr. Fayyad would be detrimental to Israel.
So my question is, what in the world happened? Does the
administration view the blocking of Salam Fayyad a person who
has arguably been probably the most constructive partner we
have engaged with regard to Israeli-Palestinian peace. Does
that--does the administration regard that as a way to support
Israel? Did the Israeli Government ask for Salam Fayyad to be
blocked? Was the blocking of Mr. Fayyad maybe linked to a
possible U.N. appointment of Tzipi Livni? I mean, that was
speculated about. Of course, she would also be a great asset to
the U.N.
Was Mr. Fayyad denied simply because he is Palestinian?
Because of his nationality? As you know, no one--one doesn't
need to be a representative of a state to be appointed a U.N.
Representative.
Is it the administration's position that support for Israel
and support for the appointment of a well-qualified Palestinian
to a post at the U.N. are mutually exclusive?
Secretary Tillerson. Well, first, with respect to President
el-Sisi signing of the NGO bill, as I indicated, that was a big
disappointment to us. There was no--to my knowledge, and I was
involved in some of the discussions between the President and
President el-Sisi, there was no discussion that would in any
way have encouraged him to sign that. So--and, certainly, we
were not encouraged. In fact, we had indicated to them that
they--he should not sign it. It came up in my bilateral with
him. And I know that others and the national security advisers,
they also asked that he not sign that. So----
Mr. Price. Why?
Secretary Tillerson [continuing]. Why? We are in
conversations with him now. I mean, they have received calls
where we told them, you know, what is going on? Why did you
sign this? So it may have been a miscalculation on his part. I
can't really tell you. But we have expressed our disappointment
on that.
On the second matter, I just have to be honest with you, I
am not that intimately familiar with it, but I will look into
it and talk to Ambassador Haley as well and do a more
thorough--I am happy to get back to you with an answer.
[The information follows:]
Our approach to managing Israeli-Palestinian issues in
multilateral fora is guided by three main policy priorities:
(1) combatting anti-Israel bias and efforts to delegitimize
Israel in the U.N. system, (2) preserving space for a
resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and (3) supporting
Israel's affirmative efforts to normalize its role in the
international community.
The United States actively opposes anti-Israel bias across
the U.N. system, including by lobbying other countries to join
us in voting against biased resolutions, reports, and actions.
As long as there is abusive action against Israel at the United
Nations, it is incumbent upon the United States to provide more
balance. As Ambassador Haley made clear at the time of the
decision, appointing Mr. Fayyad to the role of Special
Representative of the U.N. Secretary General was not in service
of that balance. Nor was the decision taken at the behest of
the Israeli government nor was it part of a quid pro quo
regarding specific positions for Israeli nationals.
Mr. Price. I would appreciate you doing that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Secretary, in your statement this morning,
you described the many evolving challenges to U.S. national
security and economic prosperity. You also said that we must
develop proactive responses to protect and advance the
interests of our country and spoke of the importance of
engagement with other nations on issues of security and
prosperity.
In the weeks ahead, the subcommittee will examine closely
the President's budget request for fiscal 2018, assess its
impacts, recommend funds that enable us to achieve these shared
goals.
It has been a long couple of days for you to testify before
these four subcommittees on the Hill. You have been very
generous with your time and your attention and your thoughts
and ideas, Mr. Secretary, and we are very appreciative of your
appearance here and willingness to undergo this exam.
So thank you for your service to the country. Good luck in
this role. We are impressed with your knowledge of what you are
doing. We want to be helpful, and we wish you well.
Secretary Tillerson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. The subcommittee stands adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, June 14, 2017.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS
WITNESS
HON. STEVEN MNUCHIN, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Opening Statement of Chairman Rogers
Mr. Rogers. The Subcommittee on State Foreign Operations
and Related Programs will come to order. Although our hearts,
heads, and souls are in another place as we speak here this
morning--this afternoon, and before we proceed with the
hearing, I want to take a moment to say that our thoughts and
prayers are with our friend, Steve Scalise and his family as
well as the Capitol police officers and staff injured by the
shooting this morning. This is a very troubling and sad time.
We hope and pray for a full and quick recovery for all
involved. We are also deeply grateful for the men and women on
the Capitol Police who selflessly dedicate themselves to
protecting all of us each and every day.
I want to thank the Secretary and members of this committee
for their understanding and flexibility in accommodating the
necessary delay in our hearing today.
We want to welcome our witness, the Secretary of the
Treasury, Steven Mnuchin. We look forward to discussing the
Department's budget request for international affairs programs
as well as sanctions, terrorist financing, and anti-money
laundering programs.
We want to acknowledge all members who are present. We hope
that others will come as we proceed. And, of course, our
ranking member, Mrs. Lowey.
I am confident that our full committee is exceptionally in
good hands under Chairman Frelinghuysen's leadership, and I am
pleased that Mrs. Lowey and I continue to work together in my
new role.
Mr. Secretary, this hearing is your maiden voyage with this
subcommittee. I understand you have recently met with your G-20
counterparts in Germany, attended the World Bank-International
Monetary Fund spring meetings here in Washington, and consulted
with your G-7 counterparts in Italy. We appreciate the amount
of time and travel that you have undertaken to prepare for
today.
We hope to hear from you on how the President's buy
American and hire American policy is being received by our
trading partners; whether we are getting international
cooperation on sanctions against Russia, North Korea, and Iran;
and how other donor countries are responding to the President's
proposed cuts to foreign assistance.
The Department's budget request is for $1.5 billion for
international programs, which is $295 million, 16 percent below
the enacted level.
This funding is primarily for contributions to
international financial institutions, such as the World Bank,
regional development banks, and other multilateral development
funds, and also for Treasury's technical assistance program.
These institutions provide opportunities for the United States
to extend its influence around the globe in the effort to
reduce poverty and foster economic stability.
Frankly, I am concerned that the proposed cuts to these
programs, coupled with the drastic reductions to other
international assistance programs, are not in our short- or
long-term strategic interests given the global turmoil
confronting the United States and her allies. Nonetheless, they
must demonstrate their effectiveness, purpose, and transparency
to U.S. taxpayers. Therefore, the Committee will scrutinize the
budget request for these institutions in a manner that balances
our fiscal constraints with the desire to maintain U.S.
participation and leadership.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for spending a good part of your
day with us. As I said earlier, the Committee takes our
oversight responsibility very seriously. You should expect a
good number of questions about the Department's budget and
policies, and we would appreciate timely and substantive
responses.
Let me now recognize Mrs. Lowey, ranking member of both
this subcommittee and the Full Committee, for any statements
she would like to make.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Opening Statement of Mrs. Lowey
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. And before I begin, I want to join
the chairman in sending my thoughts and prayers to our
congressional family who were shot this morning in Alexandria,
Virginia, especially the majority whip--God bless you--of the
House, Steve Scalise, members of the staff, and our brave
Capitol police officers. We wish them all a speedy recovery. We
are continually grateful to the Capitol Police for the risks
they take every day to ensure our safety and the safety of the
American people.
Secretary Mnuchin, I join Chairman Rogers in welcoming you
here today. As we know, international financial institutions,
such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund,
play a critical role in reducing global poverty and are
essential to the success and sustainability of U.S. global
development efforts.
When managed correctly, these institutions help low-income
countries, create strong economies, encouraging nations to
become more self-reliant, and contribute to the global
marketplace.
These institutions have proven their worth over decades,
rebuilding Europe after World War II, spurring economic growth
in dozens of countries, and bringing electricity to millions of
people. Through U.S. leadership and these institutions, our
country has steered the international development agenda.
But the President's fiscal year 2018 budget would undermine
our influence by slashing contributions through international
financial institutions by 35 percent, in some cases, ending all
funding and in other cases, falling far short of previous U.S.
commitments.
If this administration is focused on efficient spending of
taxpayer dollars overseas, drastic cuts to institutions that
maximize our resources, aid in the sustainability of
development programs and create new markets just don't make
sense.
A diminished U.S. role at international financial
institutions would provide an opportunity for other countries
to fill the space. Reducing our ability to influence the
international development agenda and advance American values
and national security priorities.
Sadly, the administration's budget makes clear the
President thinks putting America first means taking a major
step back from the international stage, which is a catastrophic
formula for the economic and security, well-being, of the
United States.
We saw this misguided approach just 2 weeks ago with the
administration's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate
agreement. This decision will have catastrophic consequences
for our Nation as would the administration's proposal to
eliminate all funding for the climate programs, especially the
Green Climate Fund.
This initiative is not only critical in the fight against
climate change in developing countries, it is instrumental in
creating U.S. jobs and moving forward U.S. national security
interests. Failure to meet our previous commitments--this is a
commitment of the United States of America--to the fund further
risks international U.S. leadership at a time when it is needed
most.
Mr. Secretary, the Treasury Department leads the world in
disrupting terrorist financing networks and enforcing sanctions
against some of the world's most dangerous countries, such as
Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
With increased aggression from each of these three
countries, your Department's work is critical. And today, I
hope you will provide details regarding new sanctions you
mentioned during your testimony to the House Ways and Means
Committee last month.
In addition, I look forward to discussing Russia,
particularly, the impact existing U.S. and EU sanctions are
having on Putin, and whether the threat of new sanctions would
impact Russia's activities in the Ukraine and Syria.
And finally, I hope you will address the administration's
plans for additional sanctions to address Iran's continued
financial support of terrorism, human rights abuses, export of
weapons, and ballistic missile testing.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with us today. I look
forward to your testimony.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Secretary, we want to recognize you now for
your statement. Your written statement will be inserted in the
record. And we invite you to summarize it, about 5 minutes
briefly.
Opening Statement of Secretary Mnuchin
Secretary Mnuchin. Thank you. In an effort to give you more
times for questions, I will not read my written statement, but
I do want to just take a moment to recognize today's tragic
events.
This is a moment when we unite together in support of our
colleagues, who are the victims of this attack, especially
Steve Scalise, and acknowledge the bravery of the Capitol
Police and our first responders. My thoughts, prayers, and
support are with them. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
If the gentleman would like to offer a statement, we are
happy to hear it. If not, we will proceed to questions.
Secretary Mnuchin. Well, I was more than happy to--since
the statement has already been provided, in an effort to give
you more time for questions, I was going to offer to skip it.
But if you think we have enough time, I am more than happy to
make the statement.
Mr. Rogers. No, I think we can proceed to questions. I
think that----
Secretary Mnuchin. Okay.
Mr. Rogers. We do have a shortage of time on your side and
ours, so thank you for that courtesy. We will abide by the 5-
minute rule and hope that everyone gets a chance to be heard.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action suspended nuclear
sanctions against Iran, but numerous economic and trade
sanctions are still in place. This is because the government in
Tehran and its affiliates continue their illicit activities of
sponsoring terrorism, developing and testing ballistic
missiles, and supporting human rights abuses. More must be done
to put an end to Iran's destabilizing activities. We need a
tough policy on Iran that is backed up not just by rhetoric but
by action.
Mr. Secretary, what steps is the Treasury Department taking
to respond more aggressively to Iran's illicit activities?
Secretary Mnuchin. Mr. Chairman, let me, first, say that I
believe that this part of the Treasury is some of the most
important functions that we perform around terrorist financing
and intelligence.
Let me just say, I am spending about half of my time on
this area, and I absolutely believe that sanctions work, that
the reason why Iran came to the table was only because we and
our allies put sanctions on them. I do have concerns about the
deal that was signed. I think the sanctions have been very
effective. I can assure you that the President and I will
continue to use sanctions against Iran to the maximum amount
available by law.
We have rolled out additional sanctions since I have been
in office, and we will continue to look to do so.
Mr. Rogers. U.S. assistance is intended to aid those who
are suffering from famine, poverty, disease, not to enrich
their governments, especially if their government is corrupt or
violent or provide safe haven to terrorists.
For years, the State and Foreign Operations bill has
included a prohibition against providing U.S. foreign
assistance to governments that either provide sanctuary for
terrorists or otherwise support international terrorism.
Such a restriction is not difficult to apply with regard to
bilateral assistance. But I would like to hear from you on how
this prohibition might be applied to multilateral assistance.
To what extent are you able to ensure that payments to the
multilateral development banks are not used to provide
assistance to countries that support terrorism?
Secretary Mnuchin. Mr. Chairman, I agree with you
completely that this is a very important issue, and although I
am new at the multilaterals, I can assure you that we will do
everything within our power. We do have tremendous influence,
and our allies agree on this, that we will make sure that in no
way do payments that go to the multilateral development banks
end up supporting countries that support terrorism.
Mr. Rogers. Or extra governmental units?
Secretary Mnuchin. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. Yes.
Secretary Mnuchin. I am agreeing with you.
Mr. Rogers. Yes.
Last year, Secretary Lew told the subcommittee that the
U.S. needed to not only pay its current MDB commitments but
also pay its arrearages. If not, he said, the U.S. would lose
credibility and would create conditions for violence and
terrorism. This year, the Department proposes to cut U.S.
contributions by one-third compared to last year, increase U.S.
arrearages to a record $1.9 billion, and in some cases, reduce
U.S. contributions compared to pledges made by the prior
administration.
Explain to us how U.S. participation and contributions to
multilateral development banks serves U.S. interests in
general.
Secretary Mnuchin. Well, let me first say that in looking
at our request, we put this in the context of the President's
overall budget. We had to make some very difficult decisions on
cutting back things to fund additional contributions to the
military, which the President thinks is very important, and
also our desire to have a balanced budget.
I can assure you that in my meetings, both with the G-7,
the G-20, as well as with the World Bank, and the IMF, I do
believe these programs advance our international interests and
are quite important in advancing our foreign policy.
In regard to the arrearages, well, let me make two comments
on--yes. We have requested, again, making difficult decisions,
cut back from previous commitments under the Obama
administration. When those commitments were made, my
understanding is that it was clear that those commitments were
subject to appropriations and approvals. So I am not concerned
on that issue about us cutting it back.
In regards to our unpaid commitments, as you know, I am a
little bit new to government accounting. So I, too, questioned
why we had these commitments still on the books. Again, my
understanding is that this has to do with the way we make
commitments, and we make commitments subject to appropriations.
So to the extent we were going to use the money and just pay
off previous commitments, these entities would not be able to
use it going forward.
So our preference is prioritize the money to go forward,
given that we have limited money to spend, and not to pay off
previous commitments. Although, I am somewhat concerned that,
eventually, we do have to clean up this accounting.
Mr. Rogers. Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, before I proceed with my question, there is
an important issue that I think I should bring to Mr. Secretary
before we proceed. It really affects the integrity of the
committee process.
Specifically, during recent news reports, that the White
House has instructed the executive departments and agencies to
ignore or not to respond to official requests from ranking
members of subcommittees of jurisdiction and Members of the
minority party of Congress.
If this is true, this is a serious departure of comity
between the executive and legislative branches of our
government. Before moving forward, I just want the Secretary's
assurance that all letters to your department and questions for
the record will be answered in a timely fashion notwithstanding
the party affiliation of the requester?
Secretary Mnuchin. Yes. Let me first say, I am not aware of
any such instructions, and, yes, we would respond to questions
or comments or letters from you.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, we have sought incentives to bring Russia in
step with the world community, but Russia's foreign policy
goals remain elusive. Russia has done very little to encourage
implementation of the Minsk agreement, instead, has reinforced
militants in eastern Ukraine with a goal of prolonging the
conflict.
Far from cooperating with the United States, Russia seems
to take every opportunity to counter our interests working
directly with the Taliban, bolstering Assad, arming Iran,
tampering in U.S. and European elections. Yet, I am dumbfounded
when I watch the news and continue to see the President
appeasing Mr. Putin.
It has been reported that the White House is seriously
considering unilaterally rescinding sanctions against Russia.
Is this true?
If so, what has Russia done to be rewarded with sanctions
relief? Should sanctions be lifted without, first, requiring
the Russians to withdraw their annexation of Crimea? What about
acknowledging Moscow's influence campaign during the 2016
election?
Senators Cardin, McCain, and Graham are pushing legislation
that would place tough new sanctions on Russia. And on Monday,
Senate Majority Leader McConnell filed an amendment to the Iran
sanctions bill that codifies existing Russian sanctions and
adds punitive measures against Moscow between of interference
in Ukraine, actions in Syria, cyber hacking activities.
Would you share with us the administration's position on
imposing new sanctions, and does the administration have a
coordinated international strategy on imposing sanctions
against Russia? And do you believe that the threat of new
sanctions or removing sanctions will have any effect on Putin?
I apologize. All that in a minute and a half.
Secretary Mnuchin. Thank you. You have brought up some very
good questions that I am pleased to respond to.
So, first, let me just assure you that there is no
intention for us to remove the Russian sanctions. I have no
intention of doing that, nor have I heard anybody in the
administration suggest that be the case. We intend to enforce
the existing sanctions at this point and the Minsk agreement. I
would also say that I believe that the sanctions programs, I
have discussions at the National Security Council with my
counterparts on sanctions, whether it is Secretary Tillerson or
Secretary Mattis or General McMaster. We all believe very much
in these sanctions programs, and they are an integrated tool in
our foreign policy.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much.
And I am happy to yield back my 50 seconds, I think. And I
will save the next question for the next series.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Secretary, thank you for your willingness to
serve.
In May, the administration imposed targeted sanctions
against eight members of the so-called supreme--Court of
Justice of Venezuela. Due to the court's undemocratic decision,
it stripped the elected national assembly of its power, and I
think that was a great step by the Administration.
In February, the administration also sanctioned the so-
called Vice President, Mr. El Aissami, who was handpicked by
the dictator there, and he was sanctioned for his role in narco
trafficking. Again, I think those are very, very important
steps, and I thank the administration and you for doing that.
Are you considering further sanctions, perhaps, something
more broad in scope? I don't have to tell you the Maduro regime
continues to oppress its people. There are over 60 dead,
peaceful demonstrators, have been killed. And it is really,
rather aggressive and now has become a murderous regime. Any
thoughts about potentially doing further sanctions?
Particularly, when we saw recently that a U.S. company, by the
way, did a $3 billion bond deal with Venezuela, which we know
where that money is going to go. That money is going to be used
to further repress. So any ideas on that?
Secretary Mnuchin. Well, let me just say I do share your
concerns with the situation there. We are monitoring it very
carefully. We took great consideration into the sanctions that
we have issued. We think they are very important. I might add,
the sanctions on the vice president, that was my first day in
office----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. That is a good start, Mr. Secretary. That
was important.
Secretary Mnuchin. A result of a very long review by our
intelligence people, and we will continue to use sanctions as
appropriate.
I want to say, we want to be careful in making sure that
sanctions don't hurt the people of Venezuela. We will use them
against illicit funding and illicit activity, and we will
continue to monitor the situation.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Again, I commend you for what you have
done so far, and I look forward to working with you on that
important issue.
Secretary Mnuchin. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Let me now go to a different part of
world. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has exceptions
to the issuance of general licenses authorizing certain
transactions with the Palestinian authority. I have been very
concerned, a lot of us have been very concerned with the
Palestinian authority. Frankly, they fund terrorists. They
literally give salaries to those who commit acts of terrorism.
And so, again, I don't know if you have had any opportunity
to look at that, but I am hoping that we can work together to
look at how we can curtail funds going to, again--and I
understand that our funds are not being directly used for that,
but we all know that funds are fudged a little bit. So, again,
I look forward to working with you.
Any thoughts on that? Because I think it is totally
unacceptable.
Secretary Mnuchin. Thank you. And, again, I share your
concerns in the area and look forward to working with you on
it.
OFAC does have an enforcement division that is able to take
appropriate actions against individuals and entities that do
not adhere to the requirements under the general license, and
we will continue to do that. So it is something that we can
enforce, and we look forward to working with you and your
staff.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I look forward to that. And I have liked
what I hear about sanctions. They can be very effective. And
that is an area, that I think, frankly, we can do better, and I
look forward to working with you.
Secretary Mnuchin. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Let me, then, now go to North Korea. We
have had in other subcommittees, other briefings, classified
briefings and nonclassified briefings. But what everybody knows
is that regime in North Korea is highly dependent on China. And
I have always thought that if China ever got serious about
curtailing North Korea's nuclear ambitions or their rogue
attitude, that could have a lot more influence.
I was pleased to see the President talk about that and
approach that. Any thoughts about potentially being tougher on
China and making sure that they understand--that we understand
that they have a major role to play?
I think this concept of just saying, well, they are trying,
which is not the attitude that I have seen from this
administration, which is welcome. That had been the attitude
for the previous administration. So any thoughts about maybe
doing some--being a little bit tougher on China to make sure
they actually put more pressure on North Korea?
Secretary Mnuchin. Well, let me first assure you that,
again, this administration shares your concern about the
situation in North Korea, which we take very seriously.
President Xi and President Trump had a very good summit. I have
had the opportunity to meet my counterparts several times both
there and at the G-20. I look forward to seeing them. I will be
traveling with the President to the G-20 in July. I will be
meeting with my counterparts again, and I can assure you we are
working closely and having very serious discussions with China
about helping on this issue.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Welcome. Our country is the greatest
country in the world. And I think one of the reasons is when
our forefathers created the check and balance between the
administration, Congress, and the judiciary.
Those of us in Congress who have been here for a while
specialize in different areas. I have specialized in
intelligence and national security for the last 15 years, and
with that, I have gone to probably 50 different countries and
dealing with those issues.
What my concern is that the cuts to those countries that
are working with us combating terrorism and how it will affect
our national security, especially true for some of the most
fragile, unstable, and conflict prone regions that we provide
assistance, financial assistance to, and they are really more
susceptible to home-group terrorists, and we see that over and
over again. And some of the terrorist groups that we are
fighting against are these countries that we are cutting.
Now, more and more affected areas and fragile states are
driving regional instability, which increases poverty and
weakens hopes for economic growth and prosperity. What are your
thoughts on World Bank spending on fragile or conflicted area
states, and how does the spending help our national security?
What are the impacts of U.S. not meeting our financial
obligations and upcoming international development association
account replenishment rounds as it relates to national
security?
And that is the first question. I have a couple more to
follow up.
Secretary Mnuchin. Well, again, let me first say that I
appreciate the work that you have done and know how important
these issues are on intelligence. As you said these
institutions, I believe, play a very important role.
So I want to just put this in perspective. We have made
difficult cuts. Again, the majority of this was really with the
intention to fund the military to its proper level.
The IBRD, right now, we do not have anymore commitments to
the IBRD. IDA, which we have cut back some of the commitments,
we are still proposing over 1.1 billion in current spending to
IDA, which will make us either the number one or number two
contributor to IDA. I think we do appreciate where IDA is
making these commitments.
So we have tried to maintain, really, the important issues.
We have scaled back the Asian Development Fund, and we have
scaled back some others. But, again, we have tried to be very
clear in where we are dedicating our resources that can be the
most effective in the context of the budget.
Mr. Ruppersberger. You know, you are a very smart man. You
have been very successful. You wouldn't have been confirmed by
the U.S. Senate if you weren't very, very good at what you do.
Secretary Mnuchin. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger. But there are disagreements, and there
is a lack, sometimes, of when the new administration comes in,
of expertise and experience because you haven't been there and
doing the same things that a lot of people have been doing for
a long time, especially a lot of Members of Congress.
You mentioned the military; you are going to have to cut
because of the military. I think if General Mattis was here, he
would tell you if you cut the State Department, you cut the
different areas, that he is going to have to double the
military.
I happen to be on Defense Appropriations, and sequestration
has hurt our defense, has hurt our whole country, and I hope
you could work with us to deal with that terrible loss,
sequestration. You know, budgeting is about priorities. It is
not about cutting across the board.
Secretary Mnuchin. I agree with that.
Mr. Ruppersberger. But I would hope that you would really
look and work with us, because it is about working together in
the end that what impact these cuts in the State Department are
going to have. You know, the--not the morale of the people who
are in this area, but soft power is important.
And what I am very concerned about is America being weaker.
The President said we have to make America great again. We are
the greatest country. We always have been, and we fight hard
and we do things that are right. But I am concerned that this
pullback is going to allow Russia or China--basically, Russia,
our enemy, is going to allow them to step in. You already have
the chancellor of Germany saying, okay, United States, you
don't want us, we will bring China, and China would love this.
You don't think Putin doesn't love the fact that--what he
wants to do is to make the West weaker. You don't think he
doesn't love the fact that people are--we are pulling back and
the Chinese that take control or power, that we turn our back
because of statements made by the President on our allies since
World War II? These are issues that really would make us
weaker.
Could you respond to the issue of China and Russia becoming
stronger and us becoming weaker because of some of the
decisions we are making especially as it relates to soft power
and the State Department?
Secretary Mnuchin. Well----
Mr. Ruppersberger. I am saying that as an American, not a
partisan issue at all.
Secretary Mnuchin. Sure. Let me first say, I am the first
one to say there are parts of this job that I have come with
lots of experience, and there are parts that I have not had as
much experience.
I can tell you the Iranian sanctions and the terrorists
financing, I feel I have gotten a Ph.D. in my last 100 days,
because we have an enormous very, very capable staff at the
Treasury who are able to help me and support me. I could never
do this job without the important career staff that we have.
Mr. Ruppersberger. That is smart. You are only as good as
your team. You know that.
Secretary Mnuchin. I do believe that the President has
shown some very significant leadership in foreign policy. And I
think, particularly, with the recent trip to the Gulf, one of
the things we are very proud of is we signed an MOU with Saudi
Arabia, and our Gulf partners, around setting up a terrorist
financing center there.
I think this is something that over the next 10 years is
going to be an incredible investment and much, much more cost
effective than what we would be spending on military and other
things.
This is something we do not have in the budget. We are
going to come back for additional funding, since it was signed
after we submitted the budget.
In my conversations with all my foreign counterparts, I
think they understand our role and what we are trying to do.
And----
Mr. Ruppersberger. My question was how does it relate to
Russia and China having more power, more influence, and us
losing our influence globally. That was my question.
Secretary Mnuchin. Okay. Well, I will comment more on
China. I have not had any interaction with Russia. But as it
relates to China, I can tell you we are in a very serious
economic dialogue with them now about rebalancing our economic
relationship. I think that we have made it very clear to them
that it needs to be rebalanced, and we have had very clear
discussions with our allies about the role of the U.S. We are
not looking in any way to pull back from our leadership
position on very important issues.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome.
Secretary Mnuchin. Thank you.
Mr. Fortenberry. I think the exact quote from General
Mattis was, ``if we cut these multinational programs--
multilateral programs, then send me more bullets.'' So I think
that on the one hand, I am very sympathetic to your position,
in that particularly, as a new administration, it is absolutely
necessary that we go back and reexamine our multilateral
commitments, to ensure that they are fostering the goals of
humanitarian necessity, economic cooperation, cultural exchange
and also stability in our own national security.
With that said, we don't want to end up, though, with a
contradiction, whereby in our effort to increase our military's
capacity, that we end up hollowing out the very things that
build up the conditions for international stability. The
military tells me, send us in last. Do everything that you can
to build up the toxic relationships that lead to goodwill and
friendship and take away the possibility of twisted forms of
ideology or nationalism.
So you have got 13 multilateral programs under your
authority, some of which are maintained, some of which are
significantly cut. And, again, I am trying to do two things at
once here: Be sympathetic to the reality that you ought to be
reexamining these for metrics of outcomes that are consistent
with what we want to see; namely, stability in our own security
but also opportunity for others and ourselves.
But at the same time, I think it is necessary to explain
the rationale why these particular suggestions that you have
undertaken. Particularly two; the global agriculture and food
security program, which houses the Feed the Future initiative,
which was a very strong bipartisan initiative to try to shift
the types of assistance that we are undertaking to those who--
to create capacity in one of the most pressing needs of the
world in addressing the significant sources of poverty and
sustainable food production. All tied, again, to stability and
ultimately, our own national security.
The second one being the global environment facility.
Again, our money is leveraged very significantly with other
donors that goes to, really, clear values of the United States
in terms of protecting against wildlife trafficking, which
leads to terrorist financing, creating the conditions in which
biodiversity is advanced and environmental goals are protected.
So those are two that I wanted to, specifically, ask for
your rationale. In light of the earlier comments that I--I
understand, and I think we ought to go through this exercise
together of examining our multilateral commitments to ensure
that there are sound metrics that meet our shared goals.
Secretary Mnuchin. Sure. Well, let me just comment on the
environmental ones first.
Our main cutbacks were to the Clean Technology Fund and the
Strategic Climate Fund. The Global Environment Fund, we are
still requesting that we fund, although at a slightly lower
level. So it was really prioritizing our dollars. I think, you
know, that as it relates to--that is the one that we think is
the most effective and has the direct contributions.
As it relates to the agricultural and food security
program, we are more than happy to work with your office and
get your views on that. Obviously, the final decisions of
appropriations is subject to this committee. You have a lot of
experience in this, and I respect that.
To the extent that we needed to move money around to that
you think we do not have the exact right goals, obviously, we
will work with you on that.
Mr. Fortenberry. I think, Mr. Chairman, that is, perhaps,
the most generous answer I have ever heard from a Secretary in
a cabinet before. Thank you. Because what that states is a
willingness to try to partner, to think constructively about
this right mix of what we are achieving that is consistent with
our goals under limited budgetary circumstances.
More money does not necessarily mean better outcomes. But
we do have to have a rationale behind why we are moving money.
But--so I am greatly appreciative of that offer, and we will
take you up on that.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Mnuchin. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. I
also want to ask about sanctions. Increasingly, we here in
Congress and the President rely on the Treasury Department to
keep America safe through its work on sanctions against
adversaries such as Russia and hostile regimes such as Iran.
I am sensitive to the fact that this reliance creates an
increased workload for you and your staff and requires
additional resources. In fiscal year 2016, the Office of
Terrorism and Financial Intelligence was funded at $117
million, and that amount was increased to $123 million for
fiscal year 2017.
For the coming year, however, President Trump's budget
calls for a paltry $116.6 million. I anticipate Congress will
continue to rely on you to perform an increased amount of
sanctions work. And with that in mind, and were this committee
to see fit to appropriate the Office of Terrorism and Financial
Intelligence more than the requested $116.6 million, do you
think the Department would be able to effectively use these
additional funds?
Personally speaking, I would like to see this particular
account funded at a rate that is at least as high as it was
funded for fiscal year 2017, $123 million.
Secretary Mnuchin. Thank you. First of all, let me assure
you, I think this is indeed, the most important function that
we have within Treasury, or at least right up there with
collecting our revenues and financing the government.
When we submitted the request, the intent was to keep it
flat, similar to what we were doing with other intelligence
functions. When we submitted the original request, we had not
yet had the omnibus for this year. So the fact that it was
going down was really a function of we got more money than we
thought we were going to at the time when we submitted this.
In essence, the intention was to keep it flat with last
year, and we ended up getting some more money, which we will
very wisely put to use.
As I mentioned, you know, since then, we have made an
additional commitment to wanting to expand our area of this,
and we will be coming back for additional funding for that.
Ms. Meng. Great. Thank you.
My other question is also about the Global Agricultural and
Food Security Program. Does the Trump administration's decision
not to request funding for this program in fiscal year 2018
reflect a judgment by the administration that the program does
not support U.S. priorities? And what circumstances, if any,
might the administration request future U.S. contributions for
GAFSP, and will the United States seek changes in the way that
it is managed?
Secretary Mnuchin. Again, let me just say that we do have
sufficient funding that--we do think it is a--it is a
technically strong agricultural project that supports some of
the world's poorest countries. I am just looking at this, and I
believe that we have met our commitments to them under the 2012
matching pledge, which is now ending.
Therefore, that was the reason why we are not focused on
additional for 2018. We are currently determining how it fits
into the long-term budget plan. But, again, this is something
we are happy to work on with the committee as we move forward
on it.
Ms. Meng. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary, good to be with you again.
Secretary Mnuchin. Thank you.
Mr. Dent. Just a couple of things, not to a specific issue
but to a broader thought.
You have been very articulate about the need to raise the
debt ceiling. The country can't default on its obligations. You
would like to see us do that cleanly. I would like to just
suggest to you, if you could take this back to the White House,
that we are opted to enter into a bipartisan budget agreement
and tie the debt ceiling to that before the end of July. I
think that would be extremely important to provide not only
stability for the markets but budgetary stability for all of
us.
I suspect you will get a lot of bipartisan support from
many members on both sides of the aisle on this committee, not
saying everybody but a lot, and it would be extremely helpful.
So I want to share that.
Secretary Mnuchin. Thank you. I appreciate that, and I will
definitely take that back.
Mr. Dent. I hope they move on it quickly.
Secretary Mnuchin. I do as well.
Mr. Dent. I know you do. And you should be a very good
vicar for such a cause. Thank you.
On the Export-Import Bank, Secretary Mnuchin, you know that
the bank is a--as you know, it is demonstrated to be a real
value for taxpayers by consistently returning money back to
Treasury. The bank also allows U.S. businesses of all sizes to
compete in the global marketplace; however, despite the broad
bipartisan support of Ex-Im Bank, its operations remain limited
to smaller projects as its--under 20 million as its board is
stifled by a lack of quorum. In fact, last year, in this bill,
State Foreign Ops, Senators Graham and I each inserted
amendments to allow the board to function without a full
quorum. We think it is extremely important that we do so.
So as Secretary, what are your thoughts on the bank's value
to our economy, and do you feel the Treasury would stand to
gain from returning exempt to its full operational status?
Secretary Mnuchin. First, let me say that we absolutely
support putting more people on the board and returning it to
its operational status. That having it only be able to make
very small loans is concerning and problematic and does not fit
our interests.
Having said that, I do think, and we have begun to do some
work on this at Treasury, once there are new board members and
we are making loans, I do think we need to make sure that the
board looks at the concentration risk, make sure that it is
making loans only when there are not good private alternatives,
and that it is moving forward on U.S. interests.
But, yes, I fully support, as does the President, reopening
the bank for business.
Mr. Dent. And I am good with the types of reforms that you
have just suggested. I think that is important that we maintain
much more rigorous oversight.
Also, one other thing too. It appears that the nominations
to the board are--don't seem to be moving very quickly over in
the Senate for whatever reasons.
And absent, you know, confirmations, would you be willing
to support the language that the Senator Graham and I put in
last year to allow the board to function without a full quorum,
similar to what we did in the late 1990s? It would allow you
then to move forward and to process the loans over 10 million?
Secretary Mnuchin. I have not looked at that. But one of
the suggestions I would make is, if it were passed, I would--
there may be a situation where cabinet members could serve on
the board until we appoint full-time people.
Mr. Dent. Okay. Well, we just want to get moving. Thank
you.
And in my remaining time, I know you talked a little bit
about Iran prior to my being here, but as you know, the
Revolutionary Guard in Iran, influence can be seen across
Iran's political and economic leadership. And as you are also
very much aware, the United States Treasury maintains a number
of sanctions on Iran.
In light of the Revolutionary Guard's impact within Iran,
how are you working to insure that the companies or financial
institutions that are reentering the Iranian market avoid
possibly going with the Revolutionary Guard?
Additionally, in an effort to maintain the full force of
the sanctions and to avoid accidental dealings with the
Revolutionary Guard entities, what steps are you taking to
maintain an accurate list of the entities controlled or owned
by the Revolutionary Guard's affiliates?
Secretary Mnuchin. Again, let me assure you that we are
very concerned about the activity in Iran, their support for
terror, their missile programs. As I have suggested, you know,
we have concerns about the JCPOA. I assure you that OFAC is
actively looking at the situations. We have rolled out more
sanctions where appropriate. We will continue to use those
tools.
As it relates to any companies that are doing business,
U.S. companies or foreign companies that have U.S. parts, we
have to issue licenses. I can assure you those are discussions
that we will be having at NSC before we issue licenses.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
And I yield back with 2 seconds remaining.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome to the committee.
Secretary Mnuchin. Thank you.
Mr. Price. I want to begin by underscoring what my
colleague, Mr. Dent just asked you to take back to the White
House, that is the need sooner, rather than later, for a
bipartisan agreement not just on the debt ceiling but also on
the budget numbers with which we are working for fiscal 2018.
That is an important request, and I endorse it wholeheartedly.
The prospects right now, honestly, are to slog through the
summer with an unworkable budget allocation and with
unworkable--therefore, unworkable appropriations bills. And
then when we have to, at the end of the fiscal year, scrambling
and doing everything possible to avert a government shutdown
and then, hopefully, at that point coming up with a budget deal
that lets us appropriate adequately for fiscal 2018.
For once, let's anticipate that. For once, let's get ahead
of the game, do the budget agreement now that will let us do
our work and avoid that kind of destabilizing scramble at the
end of the fiscal year. I very much endorse that suggestion.
That would be wonderful and tie it to a clean debt ceiling
increase would, of course, be desirable as well.
I will turn, like a number of members, to sanctions and ask
you specifically about the JCPOA in a couple of regards. We are
one month away from the second anniversary of the finalization
of the agreement, as you know, the International Atomic Energy
Agency continues to certify that Iran is in compliance with
this agreement. And of course, you oversee the implementation
of the economic sanctions against foreign entities, and
therefore, you are drawn into this in a very important way.
I want to ask you three brief but related questions: The
administration announced on April 18 of this year that they
will be conducting a review of the joint comprehensive plan of
action. Have you been involved in this review? And what is the
status of that review?
In that connection, you are well aware that new sanctions
are under consideration in both Houses and that renewed
sanctions for Iran's nonnuclear bad behavior, the continuing
threats from Iran, those sanctions have brought bipartisan
support.
However, it is important to leave the JCPOA intact. I would
assume you would agree with that. And there seem to be some
gray areas as to where nuclear or nonnuclear sanctions might
intersect or overlap or where there might be serious disputes
about that.
So are you actively monitoring these legislative efforts in
the House and Senate, and are you actively advising as to how
to avoid doing anything that would be in violation of the
JCPOA?
And finally, just to pick up on what others have said about
staffing. You have, I think, said earlier you spent half your
time on Iran sanctions. That is----
Secretary Mnuchin. Sanctions overall, just not Iran.
Mr. Price. Sanctions overall. Well, either way. Either way,
that is a lot of your time. So the question does arise, what
about these senior positions that are unfilled at your
department, and is this one area where you are going to need
some help?
The 27 positions requiring Senate confirmation unfilled,
only eight of those have nominations. Does this--how much of--
how many of these positions would be applied to the sanctions
area? I mean, is this hampering your ability to do this work?
Secretary Mnuchin. First, let me just comment on the
positions, and then I will come back and talk about the JCPOA.
We have identified, and we have made offers to people and
have accepted offers for every single position within the
Treasury. The reason why they have not been announced yet is
because most of these positions require FBI background checks
for their security clearance. Given the number of reviews that
the FBI is doing throughout the government, that is somewhat
time-consuming.
I want to assure you that we have taken staffing very, very
seriously. Filling all these positions in the Treasury was my
highest priority. I think we literally interviewed hundreds and
hundreds of people to find the best people to come in. I
believe we have--our Under Secretary will, hopefully, be
confirmed by the full Senate shortly.
As it relates to the JCPOA review, I am part of that. It
would be inappropriate for me to make any comments on that
until we finish the review. But, again, I can assure you that
is something that is being done at the National Security
Council, and I am significantly involved in that.
Mr. Price. Mr. Chairman, I know the time has expired, but
the question about the ongoing legislative efforts, can you
respond quickly to that?
Secretary Mnuchin. We are monitoring the recent legislative
efforts. I think the only issue we have in particular with them
is really around some administrative issues around licensing
and things like that.
Mr. Rogers. The chair wishes to announce that the Secretary
is on a tight timeframe here. We have two members who have not
had a chance to ask questions. I hope the Secretary might be
able to give us a little leeway here in that regard.
Secretary Mnuchin. I do. We will try. I think we have a
little bit of leeway. Unfortunately, we moved a lot of things
around.
Mr. Rogers. I understand.
Secretary Mnuchin. And we have a commitment we just could
not meet, but----
Mr. Rogers. And I appreciate you doing that this morning,
especially.
Secretary Mnuchin. Obviously, very understandable given the
situation.
Mr. Rogers. And, of course, we have the Secretary of State
coming here in 10 minutes.
Secretary Mnuchin. Okay. We are fine for another 10
minutes, and then we will let him take over.
Mr. Rogers. All right.
Mr. Stewart.
Secretary Mnuchin. You can ask him a lot of the same things
you have asked me about sanctions.
Mr. Rogers. I am sure we will.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you again. It has only
been a few days. It is good to be with you. I am going to--I
guess, I don't want to say beat a dead horse, but maybe we are,
maybe we are beating the other side of the dead horse. But I
want to come back. As you know, as your role here with the
committee, sanctions is, of course, one of the most important
things we can do to work together.
I look back, I met with the senior military official. I am
going to quote him, so I am not going to tell you who it is. I
will quote him roughly.
He said, ``Russia is the only existential threat that we
face. China is the most difficult challenge that we face, but
North Korea is the most dangerous challenge that we face.'' And
I share that view. General Mattis has said, essentially, the
same thing within the last few days.
I go back to my B-1 days when I was a young officer flying
a B-1 in the Air Force. This is in the 1990s, and one of the
things we prepared for was an attack on North Korea, because we
were trying to preclude them from developing nuclear weapons.
We failed at that, because we know that they have that.
Our goal now is to stop them from putting nuclear warheads
on top of ICBMs that are capable of reaching U.S. cities. I
believe that we are failing in that. If you had asked me a year
ago or 5 years ago, could we stop them from, you know,
putting--militarizing the warheads, putting them on ICBMs
again, threatening the USA, I would have said no.
I was in China about a year ago. When I came back I said, I
don't think we can stop them. I just don't see the pressure
points. I was in China a couple of months ago, and I actually
came home quite encouraged. I feel like things had changed.
And, frankly, it was because of the new administration.
People felt like there was--I hate the phrase--but a new
sheriff in town, and that maybe this administration was going
to be more serious than the previous administration in
confronting this.
However, we see them moving forward on not nuclear programs
only but now more worrisome on the ICBMs and their missiles. I
am just going to ask you simply--I won't elaborate. I would
just ask you simply. It appears to me up to this point we are
failing in stopping them. Can you tell us--I mean, how can the
process be improved? What will this administration do that we
haven't done that would bring pressure to bear on North
Koreans, as far as sanctions or and the economic pressure
points, to be hopeful they will maybe change their behavior on
this?
Secretary Mnuchin. Well, again, I can assure you that the
President shares your concerns. The Secretary of State, myself,
Secretary Mattis, and others all are very involved in this. We
are committed, and we think that China is critical to working
with us. We are committed to continue to put pressure on them.
As I have said before----
Mr. Stewart. Could I agree with you on that, your comment
regarding China? That is one of the primary reasons I came back
more encouraged, because they seem to be more sincere in their
commitment to work with us than they ever had been before.
Secretary Mnuchin. I cannot comment on history, but I
believe they are sincere in their commitment to work with us
now.
Mr. Stewart. All right. Well, thank you. We want to help
you with this. As I said, I think it is one of the most
important issues that we will deal with. You deal with it in a
kind of sidebar, bit of a tangent, but it is a very, very
important role that you and your--and that members of the
Treasury will play in doing that. So we look forward to working
with you on that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Good to see you, Mr. Secretary. First question, hopefully
in the spirit of bipartisanship, I will ask this one. The
bipartisan group of members sent you a letter on May 8
regarding South Sudan. All co-chairs of our bipartisan caucus
on Sudan and South Sudan as well as the chair and ranking
members of our House Foreign Affairs Committee wrote to you
requesting that your agency take urgent action to target the
financial interests of high-level military and political
officials in South Sudan.
Now, you responded about the ongoing--so you are aware,
then----
Secretary Mnuchin. Yes.
Ms. Lee [continuing]. Of the ongoing situation in South
Sudan. Violence continues to ravage that country. And we have
decided that the only way that we can really approach this at
this point, and we do you know many things and it just has not
worked, would be to stop the profiteers from lining their
pockets while their citizens starve.
Now, I know this office, the Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network, I think there is a proposed $3 million cut. But I want
to find out, what do you need in order to get this resolved so
that we can, hopefully, get a positive response to you--firm up
with regard to how to impose sanctions on these individuals?
And my second question is, we are hearing that the
President, the administration, may reinstate the requirement
for OFAC to issue licenses for travel related to and from Cuba.
I would like to know if you have looked at quantifying the
costs associated with processing licensed applications and make
some determinations about those resources, and could they be
better applied towards trafficking terrorists or targeting
illicit money laundering instead of coming down hard on
Americans who just want their basic right to travel to wherever
they want to travel?
Secretary Mnuchin. Let me just comment that the cut, the
small cut, on FinCEN, which you have referenced, is similar to
the OFAC--is similar to the other issue, which is just a timing
issue of when we submitted the budget.
As it relates to Cuba, I am part----
Ms. Lee. As it relates also to South Sudan in terms of when
we will know whether or not you will charge these individuals.
Secretary Mnuchin. South Sudan, will--we continue to be
concerned there. We are working on that, and we will work with
your office as soon as we have reached an issue. But I can
assure you that is something that we are concerned about.
And then as it relates to Cuba, the Cuba policy is under
review. I am part of that, and again, it would be premature to
discuss it at this time.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Once the new policy is announced we will get
back to you and talk to you about resources.
Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being very lenient
with your time and the difficult arrangements we have had to
make in view of this morning's event. So we deeply appreciate
your taking the time to be here with us.
Let me ask this final question. For decades, there has been
a steady stream of criticism about accountability and
transparency of World Bank and IMF expenses. In particular,
employee compensation. The executives of those organizations
make salaries more than either--our President--our Speaker of
the House or our majority leader of the Senate.
When governments are fiscally constrained, is it prudent
for the World Bank and IMF to provide private sector salaries
while the rest of our governments are hurting?
Secretary Mnuchin. Well, I think that is a valid concern.
As you said, they are somewhere between government entities and
private entities, and I think that will be something that I
will be looking at and working with the boards of both
institutions on.
Mr. Rogers. We will be watching that as well.
Secretary Mnuchin. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for being us
with.
Secretary Mnuchin. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. We hope to see you soon. We want to be of help
to you.
Secretary Mnuchin. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rogers. The hearing is adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, June 27, 2017.
UNITED NATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS
WITNESS
NIKKI R. HALEY, U.N. AMBASSADOR
Opening Statement of Chairman Rogers
Mr. Rogers. The Subcommittee will be in order.
It is a pleasure to welcome Ambassador Nikki Haley to her
first hearing before this Subcommittee to testify on the fiscal
year 2018 request for the United Nations and other
international organizations.
Ambassador Haley, it has only been 5 months since you were
sworn into this office as our country's representative at the
United Nations (U.N.). Already you have distinguished yourself,
making it clear that you are willing to challenge the status
quo in order to make the U.N. a more accountable body and one
that, in your words, ``better serves the interest of the
American people.''
The U.N. and other international organizations perform many
tasks that are laudable and have bipartisan support. These
organizations feed the hungry, aid the sick, protect the
vulnerable, and help to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
This good work, however, is often overshadowed by
bureaucratic red tape and inflexibility. In a world that is
changing faster than ever, often the U.N. is left playing
catchup to world events rather than helping to shape them.
In the U.N. General Assembly, commonsense reforms are
frequently obstructed by a group of countries who benefit from
the status quo. In the U.N. Security Council, resolutions that
would promote peace and security are often blocked by China or
Russia. Many U.N. peacekeeping missions, which start out well
intentioned, seem to grow bigger rather than smaller and go on
longer than planned or are necessary.
Furthermore, it is unacceptable that we find U.N.
peacekeepers abusing the very people they were sent to protect.
Many U.N. organizations still lack transparency and meaningful
protections for whistleblowers. And many organizations continue
to unjustly target Israel, using these organizations as a
mouthpiece for propaganda that only serves to inflame tensions
in that region. The list goes on.
What is required are meaningful reforms, which address the
problems that I have mentioned, while making better use of
resources to advance the causes that we support.
Ambassador Haley, I know you share many of these concerns.
You have started down a path of reform, and we want to be
helpful as you go along that path.
Now, turning to your budget request for fiscal 2018. The
request for the U.N. and other international organizations,
including U.N. peacekeeping is $2.2 billion. That is about 40
percent less than the fiscal year 2017 that we are now living
through.
While I appreciate the State Department's recognition that
we need to bring down the costs, the Subcommittee lacks basic
information on the administration's plan to accomplish that.
The budget justification does not specify which organizations
are funded or at what amount or what the impact these cuts
might have on our national interests.
What we have been told is that the administration is
reviewing these organizations and looking for ways to make them
more efficient, less costly, and pushing for others to pay
their fair share. This is long overdue. But since Congress
ultimately has the power of the purse, we need to know in
detail the impact of your funding proposals. I would encourage
you to consult with us on these efforts as quickly as possible.
Regardless of how we get there, we must ensure that our
national security interests are maintained and the United
States continues to lead.
Ambassador Haley, you have stated that one of your goals is
to restore trust and value at the United Nations. We support
you in this effort. We look forward to working with you as you
fulfill this great responsibility that you have been asked to
undertake. We are proud of your work, and we are proud that you
are here with us today.
Let me now recognize Mrs. Lowey for any remarks she may
like to make.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Opening Statement of Mrs. Lowey
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Haley, I join Chairman Rogers in welcoming you
today. As the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, your words
carry a great deal of weight. You represent the diplomatic aims
of the United States of America. When you speak, the world
listens.
Since becoming Ambassador, you denounced Russia's actions
in Syria, outlined the importance of human rights, and stated
that humanitarian assistance was one of your top priorities. I
have been impressed with your actions at both the Human Rights
Council and the Security Council. More than ever we need strong
leadership at the U.N., and I commend you for your comments.
Unfortunately, the administration has taken every
opportunity to contradict your statements, demonstrating that
an, ``America First,'' strategy requires a massive step away
from global engagement and the United Nations.
There is no better example than the President's fiscal year
2018 budget, which would minimize the U.S. role in humanitarian
assistance, human rights, cut funding to the U.N. regular
budget, and eliminate all funding to critical U.N. agencies,
like UNICEF, U.N. Women, and the U.N. Population Fund.
Throughout my career, I have consistently supported
vigorous U.S. engagement at the United Nations. The U.N. is
instrumental in advancing our national security interests and
confronting terrorism, infectious disease, humanitarian crises,
famine, and climate change.
However, we know the U.N. is not perfect, particularly the
anti-Israel bias at the U.N.'s Human Rights Council. But
frankly, I cannot understand how this administration intends to
influence the U.N.'s agenda, help those most in need, and
advance U.N. reform if it disengages and severely cuts our
contributions. Without a seat at the table, our voice not only
won't be heard, it will be replaced with voices of countries
who don't share our interests.
The proposed budget cuts would be far reaching and
catastrophic, including a 37 percent cut to the Contributions
for International Peacekeeping Activities that would lead to
violence, increasing the chances that our armed services would
be sent to regions they never need to go; a 27 percent
reduction to the Contributions to International Organizations
account, which would cut funding to critical agencies, such as
the IAEA and the WHO, curtailing their operations and putting
the world at greater risk from nuclear weapons and infectious
diseases; and zeroing out contributions to U.N. agencies such
as UNICEF, the World Food Program, which would lead to children
dying from preventable diseases and abandon the 20 million
people currently at risk of famine.
These reductions would take an especially severe toll on
women and girls who already bear the brunt of crises and face
discrimination in too many corners of the world. Reducing our
commitment to improving the lives of women and girls abroad is
not American values as I know them.
Working to reduce global suffering is a bipartisan goal,
one that is rooted in the fundamental generosity of the
American people and our country's national security needs.
Foreign aid is not a Democratic or Republican cause; it is an
American cause and the right thing to do.
In March, you said, ``People who have worked with me know
that I have no tolerance for unmet promises and inaction. My
team is about action, reliability, and results. We demand that
of ourselves, and we expect it of others.'' Your words and your
actions to date give me some hope.
But looking at this budget, I worry we lose the high
ground. We lose our ability to rally other nations in times of
crisis and abdicate our leadership in the world. At this time
of unprecedented human suffering, we are looking to you to
ensure these fears do not become realities.
At this time, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
place in the record a letter from Mars, Walgreens, and Becton
Dickinson & Company in support of our full fiscal year 2018
funding of United States financial obligations to the U.N., as
well as a letter from nine former U.S. Ambassadors to the U.N.
urging support for payment of assessed and voluntary
contributions to the U.N.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Rogers. Without objection, the letters will be placed
in the record.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you.
[The information follows and additional information can be
found on pages 333-335:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rogers. We are pleased to have the chairman of the full
committee with us today, Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Chairman.
Opening Statement of Chairman Frelinghuysen
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Chairman Rogers. I too want
to welcome Ambassador Haley to the Committee and welcome her
testimony and her leadership on many critical issues.
Madam Ambassador, as we sit here today, the United States
is the largest contributor to the United Nations budget
reflecting our position as the world's largest economy and our
nation's ideals to help others in need.
In addition, our taxpayers support the lion's share of the
funding for such important agencies, the World Food Program,
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, that are
absolutely vital as the world's largest humanitarian disaster.
And I am sure there will be a focus on it today.
What is happening in Syria deepens, and famines develop in
places like Yemen, South Sudan, Somalia, and Nigeria. We know
too that we have 62 million people that are displaced or in
refugee status. So the world is in a mess, and part of our
obligation is to address it as Members of Congress and as you
as our representative to the United Nations.
I am concerned, while I believe in the notion of burden
sharing--I think the administration has it right--there have
been some significant cuts to a variety of agencies and
operations which do concern me. For example, the White House
budget office seeks to eliminate all funding for the 326
million international organizations and programs account and
has suggested a 40 percent cut to the U.N. peacekeeping budget.
As you are aware, the United States has contributed more
than $2 billion to the U.N.'s $8 billion peacekeeping budget
last year. May I say, we don't excuse bad behavior of those who
are part of those peacekeeping teams, but better those teams
than our military, in those instances, being involved.
It is my long view that it is important to work with
international bodies such as the United Nations. And may I put
in a plug also for the amazing network of NGOs, nongovernmental
agencies, including the work of the Gates Foundation. I hope
that we marry our own financial efforts with a lot of those
private faith-based efforts. I think that is absolutely
essential.
With that said, I do not believe that the deep cuts to
foreign assistance proposed by the administration are
sustainable or advisable for a nation that expects to protect
its own national security and the freedom of people everywhere.
If our goal is to promote peace, combat poverty, and
provide humanitarian assistance where needed, we have to
encourage U.N. reform. And I agree with a lot of the sentiments
of Mr. Rogers that we must do it while supporting important
programs that are absolutely needed.
In our discussion with Secretary Tillerson, we pointed out
what you know well: we need to marry our diplomatic power, the
soft power, with military power to be effective.
Again, I welcome you to the Committee, and admire your work
at the United Nations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Haley. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Madam Ambassador, we want to turn to you now
for your statement. The written statement will be placed in the
record. We invite you to summarize it for us.
Opening Statement of Ambassador Haley
Ambassador Haley. Thank you, Chairman Rogers, Ranking
Member Lowey, Chairman Frelinghuysen, distinguished members of
the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the
United Nations and international organizations.
Five months and two days ago, I was sworn in as U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations. I came into this position at
a time when many Americans felt a deep sense of betrayal at the
U.N. in the wake of the passage of Resolution 2334.
At my confirmation hearing, I made the following promise:
If I am privileged to be the U.S. Ambassador, I will never sit
passively while America's interests and America's friends are
run down at the U.N. Five months later, I can say that I
haven't been quiet on the issues important to the United
States, and I can say this: I have kept my promise.
Our friends and our rivals know that America has, once
again, found its voice at the United Nations. The international
community is now very clear about what the U.S. is for and what
the U.S. is against. It wasn't long after my confirmation that
my promise was put to the test.
In early April, the Syrian regime dropped chemical weapons
on Syrian children. We forced the Security Council to hold an
open emergency session, which some members didn't want. We drew
a red line: If the U.N. would not act collectively, the United
States would act alone, and we did.
We brought new accountability to the North Korean regime.
When North Korea continued its illegal missile test, we brought
all the nations of the Security Council together, including
China and Russia, to impose new sanctions. Even as we focus on
North Korea's nuclear and missile threat, we also continue to
highlight the barbaric human rights violations the regime is
committing. Otto Warmbier's death brought home to Americans the
brutality that North Koreans have known for decades.
The same clear voice we have used to take on our
adversaries we have also used to support America's values and
America's friends. Thanks to U.S. leadership, human rights are
at the forefront of the U.N. agenda.
For the first time ever during the U.S. Presidency of the
Security Council, we convened a meeting dedicated solely to the
protection of human rights and their relationship to conflict.
We made the case that human rights violations and conflict are
directly related. History has played out that when governments
don't respect the rights and voices of the people, conflict
will soon follow.
We have also called out the U.N. Human Rights Council for
legitimizing human rights violators at the expense of their
victims. We have put forward reforms to make the Council what
it was meant to be, a place of conscience for nations and
justice for victims. I traveled to Geneva earlier this month to
make it clear to the Council that continued U.S. participation
is contingent on adoption of these reforms.
On a related note, the U.S. mission now refuses to tolerate
one of the U.N.'s most disreputable and dangerous habits:
obsessive bashing of Israel. We forced the withdrawal of a
false and biased report, and we have steered the Security
Council's monthly debate on the Middle East away from unfairly
targeting Israel and toward the true threats in the region,
such as Iran and Hamas.
In the areas in which the U.N. has real value, we have
built on its good work. Peacekeeping is one of the most
important things the U.N. does. We are reviewing each of our
peacekeeping missions with an eye toward ensuring that we have
clear and achievable mandates.
We are also working to ensure that troops are ready,
professional, and committed to the safety of civilians on the
ground. Troops in the U.N. peacekeeping mission in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, for instance, have long faced
charges of sexual abuse and other serious misconduct.
We inserted clear instructions into the mission's most
recent mandate to enforce performance standards of troops.
There is no place in any U.N. peacekeeping mission for
predatory and abusive troops.
Our peacekeeping reforms are aimed at producing more
effective missions for vulnerable citizens. We will hold
governments accountable to their responsibility to protect
their own citizens while also cutting down on waste and
inefficiency.
We have adapted the mission in Haiti to changing conditions
on the ground and are on target to save at least 150 million
for the year. We will continue our reform efforts when we take
up the peacekeeping mission renewal this month in Darfur,
Sudan. Our efforts will hold the government accountable to
improve humanitarian access.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to highlight
our efforts to reassert U.S. leadership at the United Nations.
It is hard to believe that it has just been 5 months since I
moved my family to New York to begin this exciting and
challenging new chapter.
I look forward to more progress in the months ahead, and I
welcome your questions. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much, Madam Ambassador. The 5
months have passed in a very speedy way, but I guess that old
saying about time passes when you are having fun applies here.
There is an immediate matter that has just come about, and
the White House is alleging that the Syrian Government is
preparing or has been preparing for another chemical attack
inside Syria. What can you tell us about that, and what would
we do?
Ambassador Haley. Well, I think the White House put out a
statement, and I think that is accurate. They have seen
activities that are similar to preparations of a chemical
weapons attack, much like what we saw on April 4. And I believe
that the goal is, at this point, not just to send Assad a
message, but to send Russia and Iran a message, that if this
happens again, we are putting you on notice.
And my hope is that the President's warning will certainly
get Russia and Iran to take a second look. And I hope that it
will caution Assad from the fact that we don't want to see
innocent men, women, and children hurt again.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Let me ask you about peacekeeping costs. Back when I
chaired the Commerce, Justice, State Subcommittee in the 1990s,
one of the issues that we made some progress on at that time
was the peacekeeping assessment rate. However, the U.N.
continues to overcharge the U.S. compared to other countries.
We pay more than China, France, Russia, and the U.K. combined.
Meanwhile, overall peacekeeping costs have skyrocketed. In
2006, there were 16 peacekeeping missions at a cost of $1.15
billion to U.S. In 2016, there were 18 missions, just two more
than 2006, yet the cost more than doubled to $2.5 billion.
Because many of these missions seem to be on autopilot, we
included language in the 2017 bill that Ms. Granger put
together directing the Secretary to work with the U.N. to
evaluate and prioritize peacekeeping missions and to consider a
drawdown when mission goals have been achieved.
What can you tell us about your efforts to get other
countries to pay their fair share? And what can you tell us
about your efforts to review current missions? Can any of them
be downsized or even terminated?
Ambassador Haley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
question.
I will tell you that it is something that we took on the
second we got there. With every peacekeeping renewal that came
forward, we stepped back and said, is it actually helping the
people on the ground? We looked at what the political solution
was. We also looked at the environment of how the troops--were
they trained, were they doing their job, all of those things,
and was it necessary with looking at what a possible exit
strategy would be.
Every mission is different. So there is no way just to cut
and change those. But what we have seen in the U.N. in the past
is, if there was a challenging area, they thought they would
just throw more troops at it. Well, if the troops aren't
trained and the troops don't have equipment, then what is the
point of sending the troops?
So looking at each renewal, what we have done is try to get
the spending smarter. And we have drawn down each of the
peacekeeping missions to make sure that nothing will harm the
citizens on the ground.
And I will tell you, I am very pleased with my team. As of
last week, we were dealing with budget negotiations at the
U.N., and the U.N. peacekeeping budget we were able to
negotiate down $.5 billion already.
And we will continue to look at each mission with the
importance of peace and stability in the area but also with the
importance that we are not going to continue to do this just
because we always have.
Mr. Rogers. Well, the U.S. contribution rate right now is
at just over 28 percent. It is in the statutes of the U.S.,
however, that there is a cap on the percent that the U.S. is
allowed to pay is 25 percent. And it will be the work of this
Chairman, and I hope the Subcommittee and Full Committee, and
the Congress, to keep that rate at 25 percent, no more, to
abide by the law. What do you say to that?
Ambassador Haley. I think that you can comfortably do 25
percent, because I have talked with the Secretary-General. We
have looked at the missions. He is aware that the U.S. would go
down to 25 percent, and that it is sustainable.
He too has been reform-minded and realizes that
peacekeeping missions have gotten too large or ineffective. And
so on certain ones, he has been a very good ally in working
with us on what needs to happen in peacekeeping missions and
making sure these reforms go forward. So I think you could
comfortably know that if you went to 25 percent, you are not
harming an area from peace and stability.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you heard, I am concerned that the President's budget
would make America less safe by diminishing our position at the
U.N. First, is there a value to U.S. participation in the U.N.
and its specialized agencies like UNICEF, U.N. Women, the World
Food Program, the IAEA, WHO, and the U.N. Population Fund? And
what impact will the President's budget have on continuing the
war on al-Qaida, the Taliban, and ISIS, our leadership on the
Security Council, our ability to impose meaningful sanctions on
Syria, North Korea, Iran, and other rogue nations?
And in your opinion, is participation in the U.N. in our
national security interest, and is it important for our nation
to pay its dues on time and in full? And when the U.S. makes a
commitment, does the Trump administration stand behind it?
Ambassador Haley. Thank you for all of those questions, and
I will do my best to answer them.
I can tell you that the way I looked at this position was
my job was to go to the U.N. and find value and to report back
honestly what I saw in terms of what was good and what could
use improvement.
I know that the President's budget sits in one place, and I
know that Congress will decide where it is going to be. I see
my role as to have you utilize me for information so that you
can make the decision and you and the President can come
together on what that budget should look like.
I have seen value in the U.N. What I can tell you is every
ambassador that goes to the U.N. is considered the best and
brightest of the President. They have the ear of their
President. Negotiations are very possible at the U.N. and do
happen and they happen very quickly.
So I think that when you are a part of an organization, it
is what you make it. What I am trying to do is make sure that
the U.S. voice is strong. I am trying to use it for
negotiations in every way possible. I am trying to use it to
push foreign policy, which I think it is a great avenue to do
that. But at the same time, the U.N. has fat around the edges.
And I can tell you that other of my colleagues at the U.N.,
when we talked about reforms, whether it be peacekeeping or the
regular budget, they are all in support of that and they
actually all want to see value for their dollar as well.
There are many good organizations that do good work for the
U.N. and help people around the world. I think the best way to
approach those organizations going forward is ask them the hard
questions, because I think a lot of those organizations assume
that you will always give them money, and in a lot of cases,
they do great work. But we all have to trim around the edges,
and we all have to say, are we spending in a smart way? Are we
actually giving the American taxpayers value for their dollar?
And is it actually doing what it is supposed to to help the
people on the ground?
So I do see signs of improvement. I do see that we could do
a lot more improvement. But I absolutely see the U.N. as a
place where the U.S. can lead through voice, through actions,
and continue to be the leader that it has been but continue to
show our power a little bit more.
Mrs. Lowey. I appreciate everything you said. But
specifically, could you comment on the effectiveness of UNICEF,
U.N. Women, the World Food Program, IAEA, WHO, and the U.N.
Population Fund? Is there value?
Ambassador Haley. So there is value in some of those,
obviously. UNICEF, I went to Jordan and Turkey to look at the
Syrian refugee situation. And I can tell you the work that
UNICEF is doing on the ground is fantastic, and they really are
changing lives there in Syria for the better.
When it comes to the World Food Program, I am proud to say
that we do have an American leading the World Food Program now
and a former Governor of South Carolina, David Beasley, and he
also understands that our goal is to make sure that we are
being effective in delivery and that we are making sure that we
are getting the access to those that really need it.
I think that the IAEA, certainly, that is an important one
as we are looking at the nuclear situations that we have and
threats that are around the world. We need to keep that. OPCW
is another one that I know we have seen value from--especially
with the chemical weapons usage and to be able to manage that
appropriately.
So there are some good ones, but I do think that we need to
always think about how we can spend smarter and what we can do
to make sure it is most effective.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much. We will save the rest of
the questions.
Ambassador Haley. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Chairman Frelinghuysen.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Briefly, on Syria, I like the notion of
a red line. Over the last couple of years, it was sort of
unclear what our foreign policy is relative to Syria. I think a
lot of Americans are unaware of how committed we are to Syria,
that we have troops on the ground doing some amazing things.
Some have suggested that they are in a bad place doing good
things. Is there a shift? Where are we relative to the issue of
regime change? Or is our focus on the annihilation and
destruction of ISIS? Has there been any--could you clarify what
our foreign policy goals are in Syria?
Ambassador Haley. Syria is very, very concerning. And I
went there, you know, to Jordan and Turkey, myself, as well as
to the Israeli border to see what the situation on migration
was as well as the status of the refugees there on the ground.
We are at a place where a political solution is going--it
has to happen. The conflict there now has so many players in it
that it has caused it to be more complex, but it is important
that the U.S. be involved.
I think that it set Syria back quite a bit when the red
line was drawn a few years ago and not followed through on. One
of the best things that happened, I think, was when Assad did
do the chemical weapons attack against those men, women, and
children, the fact that the U.S. acted so quickly and that the
President made that decision and struck as fast as they did,
the overwhelming response I got from ambassadors was, it is
good to see the U.S. lead again.
And I think in seeing the warning that the President put
out last night, it is very much letting them know, we are not
going to give you a pass for using chemical weapons on men,
women, and children.
It would be good if we could get the Iranian influence out.
That needs to happen. I think Assad is beyond brutal. I think
he is barbaric in many ways. I don't see a healthy Syria with
Assad in place.
But the U.S. priority has and continues to be to defeat
ISIS. And we also believe that a healthy Syria won't happen
with Assad in place. So I don't think we have to pick one or
the other; I think that ISIS is always going to be our
priority. But I think we should always be realistic about the
dangers of Assad and what that leadership means.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Haley. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning.
Ambassador Haley. Good morning.
Ms. Lee. Good to see you, Madam Ambassador.
Ambassador Haley. Good to see you as well.
Ms. Lee. Let me first say, I wanted to associate myself
with the remarks of our ranking member, Congresswoman Lowey,
and just preface my remarks by saying--and I say this each time
we have one of our top officials here--that I am reminded of
Steve Bannon's statement that their agenda and their goal was
to deconstruct the administrative state.
And as I see these budget cuts across the board, it is
unbelievable how we are just really deconstructing our
government, our role in the world. And to see our officials
supporting this and justifying it is quite troubling.
I wanted to ask you, one, about Africa. I see that you have
a 72 percent cut from the Africa Development Foundation. And it
is my understanding now that this administration is viewing the
continent of Africa from a military perspective rather than
providing for development assistance, aid, trade. They are more
military engagement. New York Times laid that out pretty
clearly yesterday.
Is this, again, consistent with what we are seeing now in
terms of disengagement from the continent of Africa in terms of
our development assistance and playing more into the military
engagement?
Ambassador Haley. I think that the U.S. is very much--very
much has Africa on its radar, because we look at the
instability in certain areas of Africa. We are very aware of
the famines that are taking place and what that is doing and
the fact that they are manmade and that we have political
challenges as well as access challenges to humanitarian issues.
Having said that, I will tell you that I work closely with
General Mattis as well as General Dunford on the African issues
in the areas. When we are dealing with peacekeeping efforts, I
always check with them to make sure that we are keeping the
right amount of force there and that we are doing the right
things.
We just worked on the G5 Sahel to make sure that we were
working with the African countries to make sure--as well as the
AU, to make sure that we are countering terrorism in those
areas, and we are very focused on famine.
So I would tell you, we are not disassociating from the
issues in Africa. I will be going there in the fall to make
sure that we look at it hands on and are dealing with it with
the proper way from the United States. But what the U.S. is
looking to do is work through the U.N. to get a lot of those
issues resolved. And just like we did with the G5 Sahel and as
we are doing with each peacekeeping mission, we will continue
to do that.
I have met with the head of the AU as well as continue to
work with the African ambassadors on these peacekeeping
missions as well as on funding as we go forward.
Ms. Lee. Well, you do know this budget impacts the
continent of Africa in many, many ways as it relates to their
development needs from the past. Look at famine, for example.
You know, the security situation, of course, is intertwined
with access to food in many of these countries. Yet the cuts in
peacekeeping, you know, will impact the humanitarian assistance
in South Sudan, Somalia. This is going to worsen if our
peacekeeping mission is cut.
How are we coordinating our efforts with regard to famine,
and are countries stepping up? We did close to 1 billion. We
want to know what is taking place with other countries. And are
you or your office, are you helping to facilitate the--I think
it is now 6 billion that is needed to address the famine?
Ambassador Haley. Yes. And first of all, thank you for the
1 billion towards the famine effort. It was very important and
very much needed.
I think that my job is really to help facilitate between
the President and Congress on how we can come together on how
to properly fund the things that are needed. And so I can tell
you, I have been very engaged in terms of the famines. We are
watching those closely. Yes, other countries are contributing,
but we are encouraging them to contribute more because the
situation is dire.
South Sudan fell off the famine list, but it is still a
very dangerous situation, and it is--the food and security
there is continuing to be a problem.
And then you add Somalia and you add in Nigeria and Yemen.
Our focus is very much on the port in Yemen to make sure that
humanitarian access is coming through. It is making sure that
we are fighting Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab as we go forward, and
then just making sure that we are looking at the political
solutions in all of those.
Ms. Lee. So we are leading in the effort, though, to try to
raise the additional funds?
Ambassador Haley. You will see us be very strong on African
issues and African peace and stability.
Ms. Lee. In terms of the famine, are we trying to leverage
our 1 billion to get to the 6 billion from other countries?
Ambassador Haley. Yes, we are. We are working with the
Secretary-General on that, and, yes, we are keeping famines at
the forefront.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Let me ask you one more question with regard
to UNFPA. Unfortunately, of course, we have defunded UNFPA. And
when we met, we talked about where that 70 million in funds
will be going, and you indicated you would let us know. Do you
know yet where--we haven't heard back from your office with
regard to where that 70 million is.
Ambassador Haley. Yes. We did send a letter to your office
shortly after to let you know exactly where that is going. But,
basically, the administration did not fund UNFPA because we
know that the UNFPA has associations with a Chinese company
that does forced sterilization. And so for that reason, they
did pull that away.
Having said that, all of that money went directly to global
health to make sure that the same things were happening but
just in a way that the U.S. agreed with. And so that is--we are
still as focused on women and children. We are still as focused
on family planning and focused on all those health and
humanitarian issues that we need to be.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you very much, Ambassador Haley.
Ambassador Haley. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. I now recognize the immediate past chairwoman
of this Subcommittee, Ms. Granger.
Ms. Granger. Thank you very much.
Thank you for being here and the work that you are doing.
Ambassador Haley. Good morning.
Ms. Granger. I have two questions. One has to do with the
U.N. Security Resolution 2334 that you mentioned when you
opened, where we asked that that be repealed or fundamentally
altered. So it is no longer so one-sided against Israel, a very
anti-Israel resolution, and so what is your continuing support
of that, to that change?
The other question I have--first of all, I want to say how
much I associate my comments with Mrs. Lowey and Chairman
Frelinghuysen about the cuts and what we are doing. I served
for 8 years on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and
chaired it for 6 of those years and then have served on
Defense.
And it wasn't until I served on that Subcommittee that I
really understood and saw worldwide how important that
partnership is. And it is not just the money the United States
gives. It is the partnerships, the leadership. And we are the
world leaders. And so when we say--when we go say peacekeeping
is important as well as a strong defense, we mean it. And I
think some of the cuts have sent just a shockwave around the
world saying, is the United States stepping back?
You mentioned trimming around the edges, but some of these
cuts are massive and they are just devastating. And I learned
so much on that Subcommittee of having meetings like this. But
going and seeing it and really understanding how much we give,
I would beg you to really to stand firm in that.
Of course, we need to use our American dollars well. But
our leadership is irreplaceable. So I would like to know, you
know, what is the future? What do we see? We are also your
partners in the Congress. You know, it is the administration,
it is the Congress. And we work together. We have different
responsibilities. But how are you going to work with the
Congress so that we will have our voices heard and our bills
respected? Thank you.
Ambassador Haley. Thank you. And I am going to take the
cuts first, if you don't mind.
I think that--I really do want to be a conduit between
Congress and the President. I think that we can very easily
come together in which everybody is happy. I will tell you that
the cuts that the President and the administration proposed did
send shockwaves through the United Nations, and it did put
everyone on notice.
But I do think that wasn't necessarily a bad thing. I think
that if he was intending to send a message, he did. What we saw
in return is they all understand that we won't be taken for
granted anymore. They all understand that we expect to find
value in the U.N. They all understand that reforms are needed,
because it has been archaic for a while, and that they realize
they have to support us in that. They do realize that we are
now watching the U.N. very closely. So all of those things are
actually really good.
Now we have to say, okay, where do we go from there. The
U.S. is a leader and needs to continue being a leader on so
many of these issues. And I think that there is a way that we
can come together on what that looks like so that we can go
forward.
Because it is very true: If we are not helping on the
humanitarian efforts, if we are not helping in the peacekeeping
efforts, it does cause instability, and it does worry us on
that front. And our job is to make sure every area is stable so
that we can focus on our country and focus on making sure that
everything is okay.
So I certainly look forward to partnering with the
administration and Congress to make sure that you get a budget
that you can work with, and I will certainly work with whatever
you give to make that happen.
In reference to 2334, I did put everyone on notice that the
U.S. saw that as a kick in the gut, and that it was something
that really put a dark cloud over the U.N. and made people
question why we were there. Since then, there is not a lot of
talk about 2334. They know not to bring it up. I don't see an
option to repeal it. That is a very hard thing to do, to repeal
it. But what we are trying to do is change the rhetoric.
And I can tell you, my first hearing on Israel, I didn't
know that much about it, but I had heard; I could not believe
how abusive it was. It was like the kid in the schoolyard that
gets beaten up. They were just continuing to beat him up
because they could. And now what we have said is, we are not
going to put up with that anymore. You know, we are going to
call out every time you do something. We are going to call you
out every time there is any sort of bias situation, and we are
going to call out so that there is fairness in the situation
and balance.
And so we certainly have a long way to go, but I will
continue to be loud on all of those things.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
Ambassador Haley. Thank you.
Ms. Granger. I trust you will. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. First, I usually don't say this, but I
am very impressed with your testimony.
Ambassador Haley. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I look at your background, you were a
Governor, so you managed. And when you are a Governor or in
local government, it is endgame. You have to balance your
budget. You have to manage people.
So far I know a lot of us in this country are concerned
about where we are. It was mentioned about Bannon's
deconstruction of the administration, which worries us. But
when I see people like General Mattis, Dunford, and now you
that communicate, that speak truth to power, and I think that
is important.
You know, our President has a tendency to tweet sometimes.
I say, please tweet--please lead not tweet, whatever that is.
But you have to deal with that. And I am not asking you
questions about your boss. But just your answer that you just
gave about there are some good things about letting the world
know that we are going to hold you accountable for expenses and
those type of things.
Now, with that said--oh, and I do want to get into the red
line too. When I look back at President Obama--and he did good
things, some things that didn't go as well. I think when you
say there is a red line, you don't follow through, a lot of the
countries and ambassadors, leaders that I have met with, our
allies were very concerned, are they going to back us. And we
need to make sure we project that.
America is the greatest country in the world. We don't have
to make it better. We are always going to work to make it
better. But we have to make sure that our allies know we are
there. And so what I want to hopefully--that when we say we are
going to be behind something, we do it.
If you look at the world right now, you need strength to
have peace. And we have the strength and we need to project
that. And, hopefully, that will bring peace. Now, that is my
statement.
Let me get to North Korea. North Korea, you know, is
building a nuclear weapon. It is very dangerous. It could hit
the United States. It is probably the most dangerous issue
today. I mean, we have Russia, China, we have ISIS, we have all
those things that are happening. There is also, you know, right
now, more information about Iran and North Korea working
together.
On May 17, you made a statement about North Korea, and you
said, ``I would caution the countries that have worked well
with China. They have really tried to help us in our
communications with North Korea, but we have seen where they
have strength in sanctions. Other countries are trying to fill
that void. And I will tell you that if you are a country that
is supplying or supporting North Korea, we will call you on it.
We will make sure that everyone knows who you are, and we will
target those sanctions towards you as well.''
I am leading to Russia, by the way.
Ambassador Haley. Yes.
Mr. Ruppersberger. What other countries might be helping
North Korea skirt international sanctions, and what should our
response be to these countries, including Russia? I am
particularly concerned about Russia filling the void. China
seems to be coming closer to us right now, working with us, and
helping North Korea avoid the important impacts of
international sanctions. China wanted to delay for a long time,
but I think they are getting to a point they realize they can't
keep doing that, and they don't want chaos there either.
So could you answer the question about what we need to do,
your statement, and where we go from here?
Ambassador Haley. So I agree with you, North Korea is a
huge concern for us. I think you are dealing with a leader who
is paranoid. He thinks that we are trying to assassinate him.
He thinks we are trying to overthrow him. And through that, he
is making decisions that would lead to massive instability in
the region.
Having said that, we have been strong. We had the Security
Council come together, and we did just enforce new sanctions,
in which China and Russia were with us, enforcing new sanctions
on those companies that had anything to do with the missile
launches of what happened a couple of months ago.
We are continuing that pressure. The pressure on China
can't stop. What we have seen is, while they have worked with
us and while they are continuing to work with us, North Korea
started to attack them publicly, and we have seen them calm
down and back off a bit.
And so that pressure needs to continue to stay there. We
have to have China doing what they are supposed to. At the same
time, all other countries need to make sure they are enforcing
the sanctions that the Security Council has already put in
place. And we are continuing to try and get countries to do
that.
Yes, I am concerned that Russia may backfill North Korea.
That is always a concern. It tends to be their habits that,
when there is a void, they try and fill it. We are seeing more
and more of that internationally. We don't have proof of that,
but we are watching it carefully.
And I think that at this point, we just need to keep the
pressure on China. We need to keep our eyes on Russia. And we
need to continue to let the North Korean regime know we are not
looking for regime change and we are not looking for
assassinations. We just want them to stop the nuclear activity.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I have 20 seconds, but I do want to get
into the issue of our threat, again, with Russia and Russia
coming back and warning us. Where is the status there? What
should our strategies be about the red line and we will react
and then Russia's response?
Ambassador Haley. In terms of this morning?
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes.
Ambassador Haley. Well, I think Russia is obviously wanting
to step away from Assad, but you can't do that at the time
that--Russia has been a friend of Assad. We have said that he
is a liability and they should see it that way.
It is important that Russia realize we know the connection
between Assad, Iran, and Russia, and we are going to continue
to call them out on it. And I think they have to make a
decision. Either they allow Assad to go forward with a chemical
weapons attack and they get associated with it or they try and
get this to stop.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I yield back.
Ambassador Haley. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First, Madam Ambassador, if anybody has any question about
the importance of what one person can do with clarity and
leadership, they just have to look your way. And I will tell
you that you have been a breath of fresh air, and it is great
to have somebody there who understands the world as it is and
not as we hope it is.
We can talk about hopeful deals about, in the mid-1990s, to
stop North Korea from getting nuclear weapons and that was
hailed as this great deal and that didn't work, or we can go
closer to where we are today and talk about wonderful, hopeful
deals with the Russians and Assad to eliminate chemical
weapons, and that obviously was hailed, but hope is not always
good public policy. So, again, you are a breath of fresh air.
To Mr. Ruppersberger, I want to work with him. I tend to
agree with everything he said, and he and I agree on a lot of
things. I want to work with him, because, for example, speaking
of North Korea, in 2013, the largest stash caught smuggling in
violation of the U.N. sanctions against North Korea was 240
tons of weapons materials to North Korea from Cuba. Strangely,
the previous administration sanctioned corporations associated
with North Korea, but they for some reason excused the Cuban
side. That is something I would like to work with you, Madam
Ambassador.
I know the President has been really good about now
treating that regime as it is. But the issue with smuggling
weapons in North Korea is something that has not gotten--I
think--enough attention. And I want to work with the gentleman
from Maryland, but I also hope to work with you on that.
Let me shift to Venezuela. You have been exceedingly clear
there. Human rights violations continue to happen. More than 70
people have been killed in demonstrations just asking for
democracy. Leopoldo Lopez was seen shouting to his wife from
prison that he has been tortured in prison.
The OAS, by the way, has tried with a new secretary
general, and I think we have to commend him for his efforts,
but I think--I can't speak for him, but I think the OAS has not
been as aggressive as we would like and I think even he would
like.
Any thoughts about what potentially the U.N. could do to
deal with this worsening political and humanitarian crisis
happening in Venezuela?
Ambassador Haley. Thank you. First of all, we will continue
to work with you as well on North Korea and those that choose
to supply them with arms, as we are watching that very closely.
When it comes to Venezuela, We have tried to bring as much
attention to Venezuela as possible. The situation is worse than
what you see on TV. It is a dire, dire situation, which is
rapidly deteriorating.
One of the things we did was we called an emergency
Security Council meeting on Venezuela to get the Security
Council to engage on this issue. They were all not happy with
me calling that meeting. They all said that this was not about
peace and security, which I beg to differ. It is definitely
about peace and security. And they said that it needed to be
taken up in the Human Rights Council.
The Human Rights Council has never taken up Venezuela
because Venezuela sits on the Human Rights Council, along with
Cuba, along with Saudi Arabia, along with China. And so when
you look at that, it really calls into question what the value
of the Human Rights Council is when it comes to things like
this.
Having said that, we had the Security Council meeting
anyway. We did discuss the situation. It is something that I
wish the OAS would have been able to have success with.
Having said that they haven't, it is important for us to be
watching this carefully and continuing to call out Maduro for
what he is doing and making sure that the rest of the world
knows we are not taking our eyes off of Venezuela.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And you have been very clear.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, let me focus on the Human Rights
Council. Obviously, we understand that there is value in all of
these international organizations. However, it is difficult to
take somebody seriously if they don't take themselves
seriously. And when you have a Human Rights Council made up of
the world's worst human rights violators, and then yet we are
asked to help fund it, it is clearly not an easy task.
You have been vocal about it, but any ideas as to potential
for reforming or for getting the U.N. to get serious about
having a Human Rights Council that is actually not just bashing
democracies like Israel and supporting dictatorships like
Castro or Maduro, or et cetera?
Ambassador Haley. I think the Human Rights Council can be a
very important body if it functions properly. And that is the
reason I actually went to Geneva to speak in person to them as
opposed to just sending a statement from New York.
And I told them that the United States wants to stay with
the Human Rights Council, but they have to make changes for us
to do that. And certainly, they need to have more competitive
races so that we don't have these bad actors sitting on the
Human Rights Council.
They have to stop things like Agenda Item 7, which is
specific just to Israel, where we don't have that specific to
any other bad actor or country that we have in there. And we
need to see them bringing up issues like Venezuela when it
happens, because that is the role.
I think the United States has a decision to make. We are
always going to be strong on human rights, as we think that is
directly correlated to peace and security. But do we continue
to be on the Human Rights Council to do that? And that is up to
the Human Rights Council. We have made our intentions known,
and we hope that they will respond and act accordingly.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Ambassador, let me add my welcome to the
Subcommittee, and congratulations on your appointment.
Ambassador Haley. Thank you.
Mr. Price. I would like to recollect a decision you made
early in your tenure, February 10. Apparently, without any
prior warning or expression of concern, the United States
blocked the appointment of Salam Fayyad to become the next U.N.
special representative to Libya.
Now, Mr. Fayyad's qualifications for that position seem
undeniable. He is former prime minister of the Palestinian
Authority. He served as prime minister of the Palestinian Unity
Government. He has worked at the World Bank, the IMF, the Arab
Bank, and the West Bank in Gaza, the Federal Reserve Bank in
St. Louis.
He is probably the Palestinian leader with whom we have
worked most productively, and the Israelis as well. Ron Dermer,
the Ambassador, Israel's Ambassador to the U.S. called Mr.
Fayyad a peace partner, the first Palestinian leader, he said,
in the century who cared about the Palestinians.
Your statement was brief but puzzling. You seem to imply
that the appointment of Mr. Fayyad would be to the detriment of
Israel and that blocking his appointment was an act of support
for Israel. My question is, what happened? Did you or the
administration view the blocking of Mr. Fayyad, a person who
has arguably been one of the most influential and constructive
Palestinians in support of the two-state solution, was that a
way to support Israel? Did the Israeli Government ask us to do
this?
Now, there was some speculation that the blocking or
approval of Mr. Fayyad would be linked to a possible U.N.
appointment for Tzipi Livni, who, of course, would also be a
great asset to the U.N. I haven't seen any recent reports about
that.
Was there any link to Fayyad's appointment to the potential
appointment of Livni or another Israeli? Was Mr. Fayyad denied
simply because of his nationality? Would any Palestinian have
been blocked? As you know, this isn't a state representative.
You don't have to be a state representative to be appointed a
U.N. representative.
So bottom line question: Is it the administration's
position that support for Israel and support for the
appointment of a well-qualified individual of Palestinian
nationality to appoint at the U.N. are mutually exclusive?
Ambassador Haley. Thank you, Mr. Price, for your question.
I will tell you, Mr. Fayyad is what you say. He is very
well qualified and is a good, decent person. I have heard great
things about him.
But it was not about Mr. Fayyad. It is about the fact that
the U.S. does not recognize Palestine as a state. And because
we don't recognize Palestine as a state and because that is how
he was presented, we did oppose that position.
We also at the same time brought to the attention of the
Secretary General that here you have never had an Israeli that
has held that high of a position, but you are putting a
Palestinian in that position, and it needs to be fair and
balanced.
But the reason that we oppose Mr. Fayyad is that we don't
recognize Palestine as a state, and Israel, yes, supported our
decision in that.
Mr. Price. Well, that does raise two questions. A, was this
to be a state representative? And, B, would not that reasoning
exclude anybody of Palestinian nationality simply by virtue of
the status of the Palestinian Authority as certainly something
considerably short of a state? But are we just saying that no
Palestinian need apply?
Ambassador Haley. I think at this point, since we don't
recognize Palestine as a state, that is something that we are
trying to be--we are trying to work with Congress. And what
everyone has said, that we don't recognize Palestine as a
state. It is the reason we are not involved in UNESCO, is
because once they allowed Palestine to be a part of UNESCO, the
U.S. withdrew funds--or withheld funds starting in 2011.
And so I am trying to be consistent with what we have done
in the past and what we continue to do. And so that is the
reason that Mr. Fayyad was not--that we objected to Mr. Fayyad.
Mr. Price. With due respect, that simply isn't an analogy.
The question about UNESCO is a question that has to do with
its--explicitly to do with its recognition and admission of
Palestine as a state.
You are here talking about a man's nationality. Not going
to be a state representative. An eminently well-qualified
individual, with a background with the Israelis, the
Palestinians, and the U.S. that would suggest some unique
abilities.
You didn't say that the Israelis directly initiated this or
requested it. This was our initiative. Is this some kind of new
policy that no Palestinian can possibly, as long as the Middle
East conflict is unresolved, that no Palestinian can be
approved by this country to any kind of U.N. appointment?
Ambassador Haley. Thank you, Mr. Price.
What I can tell you is that we saw abusive actions
happening at the U.N. towards Israel. And as long as those
abusive actions are happening towards Israel, our job is to
bring balance to the U.N. And putting Mr. Fayyad in that
position would only have added to the bias against Israel, and
that is not something we wanted to do.
One of the things I said was we have the backs of our
allies. And it was important for us to realize that, if Israel
had been abused the way they were in the U.N., that all things
needed to be considered as we were dealing with that. And if we
don't recognize Palestine as a state, we needed to acknowledge
also that we could not sit there and put a Palestinian forward
until the U.S. changed its determinations on that front.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Ambassador, welcome.
Ambassador Haley. Good morning. Thank you.
Mr. Fortenberry. You have heard many expressions of our
gratefulness for your leadership. But let me add, your passion
as well as your steadfastness. We are very grateful for your
willingness to appear here before us, but also the larger
signals that you are sending regarding our appropriate new type
of engagement with the international community.
If I could, I want to show you something that was
personally very impactful to me. I don't know if you can see
this.
Ambassador Haley. I can.
Mr. Fortenberry. This is a gentleman named Omar, and this
is in the town of Sinjar. And as you very much recall, Sinjar
was a site where ISIS attacked and was on the verge of
slaughtering massive amounts of the Yazidi community, women and
children, men who were left as well.
Due to the United States' quick intervention, many, many
lives were saved. This gentleman, after Sinjar was cleared, he
is now in the United States, but he returned to his town.
And, again, he professes the ancient faith tradition of
being a Yazidi. But when he went back to his own home, the
Christian church next door was in absolute rubble. And with his
own hands he fashioned this wooden cross and put it on top of
the Christian church. And he said to me personally, he said,
``These were my brothers.''
In this area of northern Iraq, you have had a long
tradition of pluralism where ancient faith traditions,
Christian, Yazidis, other religious minorities as well as
Muslims, have lived together and have created a tapestry based
upon this idea of human dignity which flows from human rights.
When ISIS began their direct extermination campaign against
the Christians, the Yazidis, and other religious minorities,
the House of Representatives rallied, and we passed a
resolution declaring--we declared it unanimously--that what is
happening there is genocide. Secretary Kerry, to his credit, a
few days later followed with the full weight and moral
authority of the United States Government, declared it to be so
as well.
What I would request of you, respectfully, is that you
continue this essential work of elevating this issue, this
fundamental assault on human dignity, this principle of
civilization, before the body which you represent.
If we could urge you, and if you would be willing to take a
leadership role, to introduce a resolution, similar resolution,
that says what is happening to these ancient faith traditions,
who have every right to be there in northern Iraq, in Syria, as
much as anyone else, what has happened to them is genocide, it
continues to press the issue of international consciousness as
to their plight, but also creates the gateways of the types of
policy consideration which can potentially help the
resecuritization, revitalization, as well as the repatriation
of people who have had to flee and are nearby. So this has huge
implications for migration as well.
So is that something that you could consider and undertake,
building upon the last conversation we had?
Ambassador Haley. So, yes, we would like to work with you
on that. But also the fact that when I got to the U.N., ISIS
accountability--U.K. had been trying to get ISIS accountability
moving forward for a while. And I think Iraq was very concerned
about it, and they were worried that it was going to turn on
them.
We have since been able to get Iraq to start to consider
this and move forward. So we have actually made great progress
on ISIS accountability. It is so important for so many reasons.
When these mass graves are found, the evidence is hard to keep
if we are not actually collecting it. We can decide how to deal
with it later, but it is very important.
And certainly, with the minorities in the area, it is
continuing to be more and more of an issue, and we need to put
ISIS on notice. So the idea of having an ISIS Accountability
Act, whether it is Yazidis, whether it is Christians, any of
those, hopefully it will continue to let them know we are going
to be watching, we are going to try and have accountability in
that system. But we look forward to working with you on those
resolutions.
Mr. Fortenberry. If we can pursue this, it does several
things. First of all, it gives the remnant of the community
still there who had to flee, who are in the Kurdish areas, in
camps in Turkey, many of whom are unaccounted for, in Lebanon
as well, we are also talking about Syrian refuges who have had
to flee as well, it gives them a sense of hope that there may
be the possibility of, again, security measures forthcoming--
the administration has already talked about interim zones of
stability--that we give the chance for, again, some measure of
security that people can go back and reclaim their ancestral
homelands.
This is not only essential because of the issue of human
rights and justice. It is essential for the long-term stability
of the Middle East, which is inextricably intertwined with our
own national security.
Thank you, Madam.
Ambassador Haley. I agree. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Ambassador. Thank you and
welcome.
Ambassador Haley. Thank you.
Ms. Meng. I wanted to follow up on your comments earlier
about the U.N. Human Rights Council. And I was encouraged to
see many of our European friends join us in boycotting its
recent session regarding Agenda Item 7. I know you have talked
about it. Do you have more specific steps on what it will take
to remove Agenda Item 7? And what steps would you recommend the
U.S. take if it is not removed?
Ambassador Haley. Well, Agenda Item 7, you know, even from
the like-minded countries in Geneva, when I met with them, they
admitted that it really did diminish the Human Rights Council
from being legitimate. And so they see it as a problem.
I think that the U.S. is going to have to engage on this. I
think we are going to have to try and talk to some of our
friends about why they continue to push Agenda Item 7. And I
have spoken with Secretary Tillerson about this as well. And so
we are prepared to actually try and call different groups to
see if we can get them to back off of Agenda Item 7.
This is very much about--you can still bring violations up
on Israel, but you can do it under Agenda Item 4. We don't need
to have 7. And so I think it is going to take some coordination
between the U.S., U.N, the State Department, and maybe even the
President to get them to consider pulling Agenda Item 7 off.
They are going to want something in return. That is the
unfortunate part. But I think we can put enough pressure that
maybe that is not the case.
And we really haven't thought about whether that is the red
line in terms of getting off the Human Rights Council. What I
said to the members of the Human Rights Council is we want to
stay on the Human Rights Council, but give us a reason to stay
on. Show us that there is a reason to stay and that it is
valuable.
And so my hope is that they take it seriously, which I
think they did, and I hope that they start to move forward. But
we continue to call them out when we don't think they are
acknowledging an issue or a challenge that the Human Rights
Council should take up, and then we are praising them when
working it as well.
Ms. Meng. Thank you.
My next question is about Hezbollah. It remains one of the
world's most dangerous terrorist organizations. And although
U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1701 call for
Hezbollah to be disarmed, the group continues to dramatically
increase its weapons arsenal. It is estimated that the
terrorist organization now has more than 150,000 rockets and
missiles, more than 10 times what they had when Resolution 1701
was adopted at the end of the second Lebanon war.
Its arsenal, missiles and military hardware, surpasses that
of many nation-states. Is the U.N. Doing anything to address
the blatant violations of these resolutions by Hezbollah and
its primary backer, Iran?
Ambassador Haley. I very much appreciate you bringing this
up, because that is something that should be on all of our
radar. I recently went to Israel and the Palestinian Authority,
and one of the things we did was go to the Lebanese border. And
as we did, we saw what Hezbollah was doing. We saw that they
are setting up.
But the worst part is now they are building missiles and
rockets right there in Lebanon, and the government is looking
the other way, for whatever reason.
We have a mission there. UNIFIL is there. And I actually
spoke with the Israeli general as well as the U.N. envoy for
UNIFIL there. They had two different stories. Israel has their
back up. They know something bad is going to happen, and they
are literally on notice ready. And we should all be concerned
about that, and we should all be aware of that.
UNIFIL, I am meeting with Secretary General today to
discuss the fact that we have got to make sure that our
troops--our U.N. troops in Lebanon are actually looking at what
Hezbollah is doing and not turning the other way. They are not
going into the areas where we know this is happening.
And I think if they do nothing else but document and get us
proof so that we can take Security Council action or do
something along those lines, that is what I think needs to
happen, and that is what I am going to try and encourage and
work with the Secretary General on today.
But you are exactly right. It is a real concern. And when
the governments stop paying attention and when we don't have
our U.N. organizations doing the right thing to make sure that
we are at least acknowledging things are happening, then that
is something that we have to change immediately.
Ms. Meng. Okay. Thank you. I yield back.
Ambassador Haley. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. We will now proceed with a second round, if
that is okay with the Ambassador.
Ambassador Haley. Yes, sir. Okay.
Mr. Rogers. In 2015, the U.N. Security Council adopted
Resolution 2231 calling upon Iran not to undertake any activity
related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of
delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic
missile technology. Iran continues to test ballistic missiles
in defiance of that resolution as recently as last January.
What action is the administration taking to persuade the
international community to pressure Iran to abandon its
ballistic missile program and abide by its commitments? Is the
Security Council capable of addressing Iran in violating 2231?
Ambassador Haley. Well, I think that it is no surprise that
Iran is not abiding by a resolution. They are known not to do
that. I think that anywhere there are problems in the world,
Iran seems to be associated. And it is a concern. They have
been in violation of that resolution in terms of testing, in
terms of actual missile launches, as well as exporting weapons
to the terrorist organization. So it continues to be a real
problem.
Yes, we would love to sanction Iran, and, yes, we will
continue to be loud about it, and, yes, Russia will veto it.
And that is the concern that we have when it comes to the
Security Council.
So I do think it is something the U.S. needs to look at,
and I also think it is something that we need to continue
pushing at the Security Council as best we can.
Mr. Rogers. Is change of power in Iran an option?
Ambassador Haley. I don't know.
Mr. Rogers. Okay.
Last month, the Associated Press reported that the World
Health Organization routinely spends about $200 million a year
on travel, more than it spends on AIDS, tuberculosis, or
malaria. Travel. What is more, the article reported that staff
routinely ignore rules designed to keep those costs in check.
Now, I understand that this is an international
organization mission around the world. Easy for them to lose
sight that they are also stewards of public funds. I understand
the importance of being able to travel. But do you need to stay
at five-star hotels and fly first class on the taxpayers'
money? What do you think?
Ambassador Haley. Your concerns are valid. It is the reason
why we need to look at every single organization that we give
money to, to remind them that we are watching and remind them
that spending in a responsible way is important.
I can tell you that, since all this has happened, I know
there is now a new Director at the World Health Organization.
And, certainly, the Secretary General will continue to watch
this closely as it did make and get quite a bit of attention.
But it goes back to what I continue to urge the members of
this committee, which is let's help keep all of these
organizations responsible by asking the questions and making
sure that they actually are putting that money towards those
people we are all trying to help as opposed to any sort of
overhead that is not needed.
Mr. Rogers. Does the U.N. or any of its affiliations have
enough rules and regulations in place to enforce the reasonable
use of the expenditures for travel?
Ambassador Haley. Well, I think it is something that I will
bring up with the Secretary General today in terms of what can
we do to have more transparency so that we see these things as
they are happening or on the front end as opposed to finding
out after the fact. But I do think there is more work to do on
that.
Mr. Rogers. Well, they are being excessive.
Ambassador Haley. Very much so.
Mr. Rogers. There needs to be some policing of expenditures
like this.
Quickly, let me ask you about Russia, who continues to
undermine our efforts--Russia continues to undermine our
efforts and the efforts of the Security Council on a whole host
of issues.
Nowhere has this been more apparent than in Syria where
Russia has repeatedly used its veto to block measures to help
the Syrian people and hold the Assad regime accountable.
Despite those actions, I understand that President Trump has
asked the Secretary to begin a reengagement process with
Russia.
What are your impressions thus far of Russian actions in
the Security Council? How will a reengagement with Russia
affect our interests and priorities at the U.N.? And if Russia
continues to block our efforts in the U.N., will you continue
to call him out on it?
Ambassador Haley. Yes. I will always call out anyone that
is challenging the United States. That is something that I can
do well.
I will tell you that when it comes to Russia, we have
called them out multiple times, whether it has been with
Ukraine--the U.S. just renewed the sanctions for Russia on
Crimea. And in dealing with Ukraine, I think that we have
called out Russia for how they continue to partner with Assad
in hopes that we can somehow separate that.
I think that Russia has continued to stop any resolutions
from passing in reference to Syria. The last resolution on the
chemical weapons, we were able to separate China and Russia for
the first time. So Russia was standing on an island by itself
in support of Assad. And so I do think that there is a chance
they might see that he is becoming a liability.
Having said that, Russia's tentacles are spreading out
everywhere, and we need to be conscious of that. And I think it
is in the U.S. interest to have dialogue with Russia and to try
and find out where we can agree.
On counterterrorism efforts, I think we absolutely can
agree with Russia. On Syria, it would be good for us to talk to
Russia on Syria and see if we can get them to work together
with us on that. On North Korea, I think that if we could get
them to also send a warning to North Korea, that could be
helpful.
So I think that it is important for us to be honest and
call out countries when they do something wrong, but also try
and find out, if there are certain issues that we think we
could use their help on, try and keep that communication line
open.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Ambassador Haley. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to return to the UNFPA issue, because it was earlier
this spring that the Trump administration notified Congress of
its determination that UNFPA was in violation of the Kemp-
Kasten provision.
In my judgment, this determination was arbitrarily reached
without a single visit to a UNFPA program. It distorted the
facts based on unsubstantiated fabrications.
In truth, UNFPA is a trusted partner that provides critical
family planning obstetrics, pre- and postnatal services to
women and their babies who would otherwise go without care.
I understand you recently returned from the Zaatari refugee
camp in Jordan where the U.S. supports UNFPA's programs for
pregnant mothers. I understand 7,400 babies have been delivered
in the camp without a single maternal death.
A couple of questions. Were you able to visit these clinics
during your visit? Were you briefed by UNFPA providers? How are
U.S. interests served by pulling our support from UNFPA?
The administration has the authority to allow UNFPA's
humanitarian work, such as their work in Zaatari camp, to
continue. How will you ensure that UNFPA's maternal health
achievements are maintained, particularly in areas experiencing
humanitarian crisis where no other providers of obstetric care
are available?
For example, UNFPA is the only provider of services in
Yemen, Syria, Jordan, and South Sudan. What has the impact been
to single out this provider?
And let's remind ourselves, Kemp-Kasten is about
involuntary sterilization and coercive abortion. Let's remind
ourselves that any dollar spent in China is deducted dollar for
dollar from UNFPA's budget.
Why would you want to take assistance away from Zaatari
refugee camp, a provider that is delivering 7,400 babies,
helping people where they are going through such misery? I just
don't understand it. Could you respond?
Ambassador Haley. Sure. I agree with you on the importance
of women's health, certainly with girls as well. I think that
you will continue to see U.S. being a leader when it comes to
women's health and trying to keep women and girls safe going
forward.
Having said that, it is just about which avenue do we do
that. And UNFPA was not funded by the administration because of
the relations of forced sterilization with a Chinese company. I
think that that is what set it off, but I think there were
probably a couple of other differences.
Having said that, the global health organizations are
receiving that same amount of money. We will make sure that
that care gets out to all those areas that need it, because it
is in the U.S. best interests to help them continue to have
healthy babies and to make sure that everything is safe in
terms of that. And I think you have seen that the Bush
administration did the same thing.
Ms. Lowey. I would like you to share with us the
capabilities of the health organizations that are going to
displace UNFPA health practitioners in Zaatari or other places
where they have been so successful. Can you tell me that other
health providers--just take one--are going to move in Zaatari
refugee camp where 7,400 babies have been delivered by UNFPA,
can you give me information that the other health providers
have that skill?
I have had three children, eight grandchildren. I am not
sure I would go to just any health provider. I would want
someone who has the skill to help me deliver those babies.
Could you send me information about that?
Ambassador Haley. I understand your concern. And, yes, we
will send you additional information, especially with Zaatari
camp, to let you know.
Ms. Lowey. Now, has this transfer already begun since UNFPA
has been asked to leave, or is there a gradual transition so
that all the women can continue to get those important
services?
Ambassador Haley. I will get that information for you. When
I was at Zaatari camp, that did not come up in terms of an
issue that they brought to our attention. And so let me look
into that, and I will make sure that we can get you some
information on that.
[The information appears on pages 330-332:]
Ms. Lowey. When you were there, was UNFPA still in place?
Ambassador Haley. I did not see any officials from UNFPA.
The ones that I saw were the UNRWA officials. Those were the
ones that I met with. And we looked at the schools. We went
around the camp in other areas. But I did not see any officials
from UNFPA.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Ms. Lowey. Thank you.
Ambassador Haley. Thank you.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador, you spent some time speaking about reform, the
need to reform UN peacekeeping missions. And so one of the
issues I wanted to talk to you about is, for the past few years
this Committee under the leadership of Chairman Rogers and
Chairwoman Granger have asked the Obama administration and
Department of State to conduct an accounting, like a census, of
the refugee camps near Tindouf in Algeria.
And the U.S. has been providing, as you know, humanitarian
aid for about a quarter of a century. We have been funding the
U.N. peacekeeping operations, MINURSO, for over 25 years.
And here is my concern, that despite all this money and the
urging of UNFC, UNHCR, and a number of refugee rights groups,
there has never been a true accounting of how many people we
are actually helping in those refugee camps.
Now, this spring, again, thanking you once again for your
leadership, the UNFC again voted to include a provision calling
for this census or registration to occur when MINURSO's mandate
was renewed in late April.
So I just want to--I am hoping that we can work with you
and you can work with this Committee, this is something that
this Committee has been doing now for a number of years,
because I think it is important to just have more transparency,
making sure that the money that we are spending, and it is been
a long time and a lot of money, that it is, in essence, going
to what we think it is going and to help the actual refugees.
So I am just hoping that we can--that is one of those
issues we can work together on.
Ambassador Haley. Absolutely. And just to clarify, is that
Western Sahara that you are----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Yes.
Ambassador Haley. Referring to----
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Yes.
Ambassador Haley. I will tell you that we were very careful
in working on that resolution. We had issues with the POLISARIO
as well as the Moroccans in the Berm, and we would not renew
the mandate until they both removed themselves from that, and
they did. We are working on the registry and telling of the
importance, and we are going to continue to make sure that we
follow that mandate as needed. So we look forward to working
with you on that.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you.
And, lastly, going back to Iran, you have been very, very
emphatic and very clear on your concerns with Iran. Now they
have a lot more money. You know, I fear that we are, you know,
to quote, this is almost like deja vu all over again with the
North Korea nuclear plan.
Ambassador Haley. Yes.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Which was hailed as this wonderful saving,
it was going to stop the North Koreans from pursuing nuclear
weapons. And, in fact, we know that didn't work.
It is probably unfair, and you may not want to answer this,
because this is just asking for your opinion.
I don't believe that the Mullahs in Iran have given up
their goal of developing nuclear weapons. It is pretty clear
that they are moving forward on missile technology, including
ballistic missiles and intercontinental missiles.
And so when you see all that, would it be fair to ask you,
do you believe that the leadership in Iran has, in essence,
given up their nuclear ambitions or--and I understand if you
don't really want to answer that.
Ambassador Haley. No. I have no problem answering that.
I think in reference to the JCPOA, we are not seeing any
sort of violations of that. Having said that, I strongly
disagree with what happened with the Iran agreement, because
all we did is delay something that is going to happen. They are
going to continue their nuclear capabilities. And we just gave
them a lot of money to do it with.
And my concern is everybody they are associating with are
all the groups that we are trying to defeat. So they have
aligned themselves with all these terrorist organizations. So
not only did we give that capability to Iran, we are now giving
it to those terrorist organizations we are trying to defeat.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I imagine it would be fair to assume then,
and I think the facts show it, that those organizations that
Iran has always helped are now, if anything, more flush with
cash because Iran has the money.
Ambassador Haley. They are. I mean, you can go from Hamas
to Hezbollah to all the other areas that there is a problem,
and you see there is this surge of weapons going into their
hands and money being used for different things, and you have
to wonder did we help do that.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Right. Madam Ambassador, in 30 seconds, I
just want to again reiterate, it is such a breath of fresh air
to have somebody with your clarity and somebody who is willing
to speak out and once again put the United States on the right
side of history. So thank you.
Ambassador Haley. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Ambassador Haley, I had asked you about the 70 million
UNFPA, where that money--following up from Congresswoman
Lowey's question--which organizations are receiving that now.
You indicated you sent us a letter. And I have this letter and
I want to mention--and I didn't ask that question just to ask
the question. I asked the question because I want to know.
In your letter--and I want to read you what you said in
your letter. You said--and I won't read the entire letter--but
you said, ``My staff will see that your office receives this
information as soon as possible, and I hope that you will find
it helpful.''
That was your letter. We did not receive the information
with regard to where that $70 million has been transferred to.
So we need to know which organizations received that $70
million.
Ambassador Haley. I agree----
Ms. Lee. This letter did not address that.
Ambassador Haley. Well, I apologize that you have not
gotten the information. I agree that you need to know where it
goes, as I want to also be able to tell you where it goes. So I
will get you that information immediately. And I do apologize
if my staff did not forward that to you.
[The information appears on pages 330-332:]
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
And on the camp, it is my understanding, the Zaatari camp,
that you were personally invited to visit the UNFPA clinic and,
I don't know, yourself or your staff refused to visit or speak
to the officials there. That is just what we heard.
Ambassador Haley. We wouldn't refuse to visit anything. I
mean, when we go to areas our goal is to see the entire camp,
to see all the aspects of the camp and to see everything. And
we especially try and look at the areas that are controversial.
That is the reason we went and looked at UNRWA. That was the
reason we wanted to see it, is because we want to see the good
and the bad and see it for ourselves. So we would never have--I
would never have knowingly declined that invitation.
Ms. Lee. No, I just wanted you to know that rumor was out
there, and I wanted that clarified by you.
Ambassador Haley. Thank you very much.
Ms. Lee. And also, I just have to say, with regard to just
receiving information, letters from this administration, at
least we received a letter from you, which we are not receiving
from most officials in this Trump administration.
Also, with regard to Cuba, I know the policy now and where
it is going. It is going in the opposite direction of where you
stated we want to go in terms of Russia's theory and North
Korea in terms of engagement.
And so I am just concerned and wonder how you think this
will--I am concerned, but how do you see American diplomacy in
the Western Hemisphere given our going back to a 50-year-old--
55-year-old failed policy now of disengagement rather than
engagement given all of the issues of human rights and all
other issues that we deal with, with Russia, Syria, North
Korea, and the world. Cuba, what makes it so unique?
Ambassador Haley. Well, I think that what we saw is when
the Cuban policy was reversed a couple years ago, I think what
we saw was an uptick in tourism, facilities in terms of hotels
and those types of things. But they weren't owned by small-
business people. They were owned by----
Ms. Lee. No, I understand that. I am just talking about the
diplomatic engagement in the region now in terms of moving--in
terms of America's leadership in the Western Hemisphere. You
talk about it in Russia, Syria, North Korea, but what is
happening in the Western Hemisphere.
Ambassador Haley. No. We want--look, our goal is to make
sure that government treats its people well.
Ms. Lee. I understand that. We want to make sure our
government treats our people well, including everyone here.
Ambassador Haley. That is right. But I do think the
administration has made their point that we want to help the
small businesses and the Cubans. We don't want to help the
military.
Ms. Lee. No, no, I understand, Ambassador. I am talking
about American diplomacy in the Western Hemisphere. What does
that do to our leadership with other countries in the Western
Hemisphere?
Ambassador Haley. I don't think we lose on that.
Ms. Lee. We don't lose on it.
Ambassador Haley. I don't think we saw any gains since the
reversal. I don't think we will, you know, we are going to see
any losses. I think what it does is it shows that we very much
care about human rights and how governments treat their people.
And it is not just words. It is action.
Ms. Lee. What about Russia, Syria, North Korea?
Ambassador Haley. We care about all of them.
Ms. Lee. We care about that, but we are engaging, you said.
Ambassador Haley. And we have called all of them out. And
we continue to take actions on all of those. Venezuela is
another one.
Ms. Lee. But we are not embargoing and preventing people
from engaging in normal relations with these countries, but we
are with Cuba, still.
Ambassador Haley. Well, I think we are doing that with
other countries. I mean, it is one of the things in South Sudan
we are trying to do as well, is arms embargo and sanctions in
terms of that. And I think that we will continue.
Ms. Lee. But we still travel to South Sudan.
Ambassador Haley. We do. And you can still travel to Cuba.
But we just are saying we don't want Americans to fund the
military and the government.
Ms. Lee. Yes, I understand that.
Ambassador Haley. I don't think Americans want to do that
either.
Ms. Lee. Yes, I understand that. Okay. So we are going
backwards with regard to the Cuba in terms of U.S. engagement
in the region.
What about the Inter-Parliamentary Union? How do you see
our noninvolvement in the IPU? We are trying--some of us want
us back in. What do you think we should--are we missing out on
anything by allowing the U.S. to be part of the IPU?
Ambassador Haley. I think I can get you more information on
that.
[The information follows:]
The United States is aware of the mission of the
InterParliamentary Union (IPU) to promote positive democratic
change through its international membership of national
parliaments. Rejoining the IPU at this time would require, in
addition to congressional authorization, a more thorough
understanding of the financial and other implications of this
action in the context of our current foreign policy priorities.
Ambassador Haley. What I can tell you now is we have really
taken, in these short 5 months, we are trying to look at the
U.S. engagement in a lot of different organizations and what
the U.S. role is going to be.
I know that the priority is U.S. strength and U.S. voice
and to make sure we are being as proactive on situations as we
can be. And so as we go forward, we will be looking at our
relationship and our involvement in a lot of different areas.
And I think that you have seen in terms of NATO and you have
seen in terms of some others, what we are trying to do.
Ms. Lee. But I am asking about the IPU. Will you----
Mr. Rogers. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Ambassador, let me briefly touch on a quick point,
put my accent on this delicate issue regarding Salam Fayyad as
well. I didn't see his potential representation to the Libyan
issue as some sort of proxy for declaration of a Palestinian
state. He is not representing that he is a, if you will, a
citizen of the world. Extraordinarily qualified on many fronts
and deeply respected by the Israelis.
So if we are going to move past a lot of the intractable
positions, I think that trying to find persons who have been
eager to wade in some of the most difficult, delicate positions
on behalf of their own people but also reaching out and
rejecting the concepts of violence and call for armed struggle,
I think it is helpful that we potentially rethink some of this.
I want to talk to you briefly about the International
Atomic Energy Agency. Obviously, we have an Iran agreement.
Many of us voted against it. Many of us voted for it. I
happened to vote against it because of what I could see as the
potential for unleashing ballistic missile problems, as we have
seen.
Nonetheless, the agreement is in place. It is holding, as
you referenced. The IAEA is a critical factor in determining
verification of this.
I see their role as evolving very rapidly in the 21st
century. It is an organization that has a defined security
component, making sure nuclear facilities are safe and
safeguards in that regard.
But I think we have a lot of work to do as one of the
leaders in the space of nonproliferation to assure that they
are rapidly moving in their own culture toward one of
verification. If we are able ever to get past, again, the
intractable problem with the North Koreans, obviously the IAEA
would play a critical role in helping determine verification
moving forward.
So I think that is one of their challenges internally, and
I think we can lead on that in moving that culture by engaging
with the other multilateral partners to assure that they are
evolving appropriately. I see that as their 21st century role
critically.
Third, I wanted to talk to you about food security. Let's
be the leader in food security internationally. I mean, that is
who we are in America. That is what we make in abundance. Our
ability to feed ourselves and then feed hungry people
throughout the world has been a backbone not only of our
humanitarian outreach, but also trade policy as well as
creating the conditions to fight poverty internationally.
Again, moving toward the 21st century, though, combining
that with innovation and assuring sustainable development of
small-scale agricultural enterprises, I think the combination
of all these things, again, creates the infrastructure
internationally for stability and humanitarian purpose. So,
again, as you are shaping your tenure, I hope that is an accent
point.
Finally, when you are encountering problems with other
countries who we have seemingly robust interest, dialogue, and
relationships with, but they keep voting against you, let us
know. I am sure you put together some type of report as to who
stands with us on critical issues and who doesn't.
But I think a direct communication with us helps those of
us who have immersed ourselves in international affairs to be
able to talk directly to representatives from particularly
other parliaments, but also their ministers, saying, Why are
you doing this? Explain this double standard or explain this
contradiction. We can help you.
Ambassador Haley. Thank you.
I can say in reference to IAEA, I think it is going to only
become more and more important. And so I agree with you that
verification is going to be extremely important going forward
as we are seeing more and more nuclear issues start to surface.
Food security is something that the U.S. should always feel
very strongly about. It is the reason why I went to Jordan and
Turkey in terms of making sure that there was humanitarian
access and making sure that we could get the food into Syria.
It is the reason why I am going to Africa in the fall, is to
make sure that the famine situation, to actually see what the
food security issues are and that we are dealing with them
appropriately, not just from the U.N. situation, but also from
the U.S.
We are continuing to see more and more manmade-type famines
that are concerning. And I think that the U.S. has always been
what I see as the moral conscience for the world. And so I
think it is very important for us to engage on food security
and those issues, especially in regards to the famines, as we
go forward.
And then, yes, I will absolutely use Members of Congress. I
have done that already, but I will do more. It is very helpful
to me in the budget negotiations to call on Congress and what
Congress expects of the U.S. I have told them that Congress has
told me to show value in the U.N. And so I have made you all
the heavy on that, and I will continue to do that.
And also, with resolutions, I will make sure that when we
are encountering issues, that we let you know what those are
and see if we can get help. We can use all the help we can get.
So we appreciate it.
Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I would like to switch to cybersecurity,
which is very important to our national security. It is
probably one of the biggest threats the U.S. faces from cyber
attacks. Cyber attacks can be employed by anyone, a foreign
country, a terrorist group, a patriotic citizen of a foreign
country. It can go on. Individuals anywhere in the world.
A destructive attack can, quite simply, cripple a country,
including the United States, grid systems, financial
institutions, all these different things. And we know that
China has been stealing billions of dollars from our country on
an annual basis, even cyber attacking fertilizer companies
because they are in that business.
Now, a destructive attack, which we have--the first one in
this county was Sony. And, unfortunately, that destructive
attack could take place with certain Americans in our country
right now. So we have to be aware. Destructive attack meaning
not only stealing information but shutting down the system.
Now, it seems that Russia, again, is very active,
aggressive, probably as good as any country in the world as far
as cyber attack is concerned. For example, they shut down
Estonia over a statute issue. And they provided cyber weapon
capabilities tables in the Ukraine when Russian affiliates shut
down that country's power supply. Just recently, within the
last 6 months, they continued to do that, and also in Estonia.
These attacks are a threat to every country. And I know a
long-term solution to cyber attacks is way off in the future.
But even if we get our act together, which we have a long way
to go in the United States, we also have to deal with it in a
global area, eventually.
Now, my question. I want to get your thoughts on U.S.
cybersecurity policy as it relates to the U.N. Do we need
treaties or a focus on cyber norms?
As a follow-up, are we moving towards an agreement on an
internationally recognized definition of critical
infrastructure? And I say that because critical infrastructure
does have different definitions and meanings. So we have to
focus on that. Should a destructive attack on Sony
Entertainment or a meddling with our election system be
considered critical infrastructure?
And finally, do we have any clear red lines when a cyber
attack would trigger a rights of self-defense response. That is
an issue out there now we are dealing with. Should an
influenced campaign be considered an act of war, such as
Russia?
Ambassador Haley. Thank you. I will do my best to answer
that. I can tell you--
Mr. Ruppersberger. In 5 minutes, you have got to get as
much in as you can.
Ambassador Haley. I understand.
So cybersecurity is important. I think that you are seeing
other countries now see it as ammunition, and they are using it
in different ways. And we have seen that play out with multiple
countries. And I think that that is not going to slow down. I
think we are going to continue to see that.
Having said that, I know the U.N. has been trying for a
long time to put cybersecurity under the U.N. We have opposed
that because we don't want Russia and China to get involved in
that. I think the U.S. has to make sure that we are defending
ourselves but also protecting that aspect.
Having said that, I think the U.S. needs to really look at
the cybersecurity situation across the world because it is just
a matter of time before we continue to see more and more
issues.
I do think that, when it comes to the definition of
critical infrastructure, I will get you some information on
that, because I am not real sure.
[The information follows:]
The term ``critical infrastructure'' has the meaning
provided in section 1016(e) of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 (42
U.S.C. 5195c(e)), namely systems and assets, whether physical
or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity
or destruction of such systems and assets would have a
debilitating impact on security, national economic security,
national public health or safety, or any combination of those
matters.
Ambassador Haley. But any way that we can be helpful in
working toward cybersecurity, we want to be. And so if you have
any ideas with the U.N. that you would like to see me do, I am
more than happy to work on that. Because I do think it is kind
of the unspoken bit of ammunition that is not talked about at
the U.N., and I think that it is something that I don't mind
raising attention towards.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Thanks.
You did say one thing. And we all are having, at least, we
are having a problem, it is not you, but getting back to us.
Unfortunately, when we ask for information from different
agencies, we want to get back. You just said you would get back
to me and to Congresswoman Lee. Will you get back to me on that
issue, on the cybersecurity?
Ambassador Haley. Yes. So anything that I have said to any
of you that we will get back to you on, you will hear from us.
And I really----
Mr. Ruppersberger. I hate to ask this question, but it is
not coming back. So I want to hold you accountable.
Ambassador Haley. No, and I want you to hold me
accountable. As a governor, I thought that was always very
important, to make sure that we communicated. And with a lot of
the Members of Congress, we have been in communication. And so,
yes, I will get back to you. And if I don't, you can call me.
But I promise you----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, if we call you, who is your top
staff person? That is who you go to.
Ambassador Haley. This one right here.
Mr. Ruppersberger. What is his name?
Ambassador Haley. He is right here in D.C. and----
Mr. Ruppersberger. What is his name? What is your phone
number?
Ambassador Haley. Jon Lerner, and I will get you his
number. So----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ambassador Haley. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Then gentleman yields back.
Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Stewart. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, and your
patience. I was chairing my own Subcommittee on Intelligence.
So I apologize for being late.
I am so glad I could be here, though, Ambassador, and spend
a few minutes with you, if we could. And I have been looking
forward to this. And I know that you have talked about a lot of
issues that are very important, and there is one that I would
like to address with you as well. And if you would allow me to
set the table just a little bit.
The United Nations Refugee and Works Agency for Palestinian
Refugees, UNRWA, as you know, they obviously count on donations
from the United States. We are one of the primary donors. I
suppose we are the largest donor. And yet, in my opinion, they
perpetuate the Palestinian, the refugee crisis, by this ever-
envolving definition of a refugee. It now encapsulates, for
example, citizens from other countries that are living in
Jordan, some who have been relocated to now what we consider
their homeland, Gaza and the West Bank.
We end up with something like 6 million individuals who are
considered refugees, and that, in my opinion, makes a peace
process impossible, because there is no way in the world that
Israel can agree to a right to return when your definition of a
refugee is so expansive that it would include about the number
of people that are living in Israel now or something close to
it.
And I think if we could refine that definition of refugee
to a more realistic and, frankly, a more fair definition and
move the peace process forward by doing that, it is something
that I have been pushing for several years now with, as you can
image, some mixed success, maybe frustrating success, but I
think it is one of the keys to a definitive and a lasting peace
there. And that is you can't expect 6 million people to come
home as refugees and for Israel to just say that is okay.
Help me with this, will you please, and how we can move
forward on this.
Ambassador Haley. So I had heard multiple things about
UNRWA. And so, again, it is the reason I wanted to see it for
myself and get an idea.
First of all, I do think that there need to be revisions to
UNRWA. I think that when you look at the population, as you
stated, I think you are exactly right in terms of getting a
clear definition of what is considered a refugee.
The other thing is U.S. is the largest donor to UNRWA, and
I think that it would be beneficial to the peace process, as
well as just true to who we are, that we somehow always
leverage the UNRWA donations that we give with the fact that
they are still continuing martyr payments. And I know that you
all are dealing with that with the Taylor Force Act. But that
is something that we always should condemn and tell them that
we don't agree with and that we don't want to see that happen.
Having said that, I can tell you also that UNRWA, there are
some things that they do very well. And when it comes to the
education, when it comes to healthcare, when you go into these
camps, UNRWA is a viable part of making sure that they are
educated and healthy. We don't want an uneducated, unhealthy
Palestinian that is just going to resent Israel more. It is in
our best interest to make sure that we are giving them whatever
they can do.
But I think that UNRWA has--are now--they are feeling
embolden and, once again, in the unbalanced world of how the
Israel bashing is taking place, they are now trying to get
assessed contributions at the U.N., and we are trying to do
everything we can to stop that so that that doesn't happen.
Because I think if they get assessed contributions, we won't be
able to control the refugee population, we won't be able to
control the martyr payments, we won't be able to control a lot
of things that we think are not helpful to the peace process
and Israel.
Mr. Stewart. And I appreciate your response. And it is
certainly not my interest, nor yours, for us to make things
harder there for the children or for those who are actually
relying on these.
Ambassador Haley. Right.
Mr. Stewart. We recognize that, in some cases, they do good
work.
But if you are interested in the peace process--and I am
not lecturing you, by the way, Madam Ambassador. I understand
that we probably agree on this. I am more speaking beyond you
and I.
If you are interested in the peace process, then you have
to concede that this is a nearly impossible ask that we are
asking the state of Israel to accept. And a redefinition, while
still protecting those who are dependent on these funds, while
still accepting that there are actual refugees who were
impacted by policies a generation ago that we can probably
reach out and allow them to return to the state of Israel, to
their homeland, or what they consider their homeland. But it is
not 6 million people.
And, again, I consider it one of the primary obstacles.
Now, there are others, no doubt about it. But, to me, this is
one of the primary obstacles that we have to overcome. And we
would just encourage you to use whatever tools are available,
not just the power of the purse, as you have indicated, but the
power of persuasion, as you are very good at, and the
administration using that lever as well to try to redefine and
open doors that just haven't been for many, many years now.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, in my 7 seconds, I yield back.
Thank you.
Ambassador Haley. And I do agree with you. Thank you.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Ambassador, I would like to return to the U.N.
peacekeeping budget and ask you to clarify the answer I heard
you give the chairman about the level of contribution that your
budget proposal would enable us to make.
First, let me to just set the table briefly. There are a
couple of ways to look at U.N. peacekeeping. One, which has
some prominence among White House staff, and sometimes the
President himself, the so-called nationalist view seems to view
not just U.N. peacekeeping but international engagements, in
general, as some kind of drain on this country, almost a scam
whereby other nations take advantage of us. I assume that is
not your view.
U.N. peacekeeping can also be viewed as a force extender
for the United States, a development extender, a stability
extender, a mechanism to help our country get help from other
countries. Burden sharing, development assistance that would
otherwise fall solely to us. That means cost savings.
We have had a firsthand view of this through the work of
the House Democracy Partnership engaging with parliaments in
developing countries, a lot of whom have had U.N. peacekeeping,
and some still have it. We are talking about Liberia, Timor-
Leste, Haiti, Guatemala, Georgia, Lebanon. Some of those
missions have been wound down. Others are winding down.
Liberia is a good example. I mean, what would be going on
Liberia conceivably without U.N. peacekeeping. Certainly, a
history of awful conflict there, but now a country that seems
to be inching its way toward legitimacy and viability as a
parliamentary democracy.
That is good for our country and its interests. It also,
just looking at it in economic terms, it prevents many a failed
state and many a situation where our security expenditures
might be much, much greater.
So U.N. peacekeeping missions have that function. We all
know they need to be rationalized, made as efficient as
possible. But they are a force extender for our country.
If that is the view, if that is the predominant view, then
what does the 37 percent cut in contributions to U.N. mean? The
budget proposal, according to State Department documents, could
permit us to fulfill an assessment rate as low as 14 percent. I
thought I heard you say that we could maintain a 25 percent
contribution to these operations. That doesn't seem consistent
with what we have heard in this budget justification.
So are you acknowledging and accepting that 25 percent
level? Are you acknowledging that the budget proposal will have
to be modified to meet our obligations?
Ambassador Haley. So I do think that the President's budget
was helpful in putting countries on notice and putting the U.N.
on notice, and I think that is why every peacekeeping mission
we are now changing to be more effective in terms of making
sure that we are not throwing troops for the sake of throwing
troops, but we are actually looking at are they trained, are
they equipped.
The other side of it is the accountability side. I think it
is a very true statement to say there are troop-contributing
countries that see this as a moneymaker, and they are not
holding their end of the deal. And so the accountability side
of if there is sexual exploitation, if there is any sort of
corrupt actions or things that they are doing wrong and not
taking care of the people on the ground, action needs to
happen.
And I can say that this last week there were multiple
examples of rape to minors as well as sexual assault in a lot
of different areas by the Congolese troops there were in the
Central African Republic. We sent a message and sent a letter
to the Secretary General and said it was unacceptable and all
600 of those Congolese troops have been taken out of the
Central African Republic.
So the change in tone in the way we deal with peacekeeping,
that we expect that the people on the ground are taken care of,
I think is important. I know there is a difference between the
President's budget and what you have to entertain, and my goal
is to be a conduit and to make sure that I can help you be
effective in what you decide to spend on as well as keep the
President informed.
He is very aware of what I am doing and what reforms I am
trying to push in place. And I think it shows that you can cut,
if we were already able to cut half a billion off of this
budget, you know, just at this time of year, we can do more.
And so the goal is to really bring peace and stability to
an area in the most efficient and effective way, and I think
that the 25 percent would accomplish that.
Mr. Rogers. We are running close to the Ambassador's
appointment expiration. So we need to be as brief and terse as
we can.
Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Ambassador.
Ambassador Haley. Good morning.
Mr. Dent. Just real quickly. On UNICEF, I just want to just
touch on that. Do you agree that investments in maternal and
child health benefit the goals and image of the United States
abroad? And if so, what steps do you plan to take to continue
to protect such programs and the work of entities like UNICEF?
Ambassador Haley. Well, I think UNICEF does amazing work.
And I saw that firsthand in Jordan and Turkey in the schools
that they have. But not only with that, they are really
assisting children in transitioning out of what has been a
traumatic situation. But they are doing it also with
psychosocial support, which I think is needed more than
anything else right now for those kids coming out of the Syrian
crisis.
But just looking at the schools and how they are effective,
I think it is important that we maintain a strong relationship
with them in terms of how children are being handled and what
we are doing in terms of all the well-being of their
populations. And so I have been very pleased with what I have
seen them serve so far.
Mr. Dent. Okay. Now, just on the budget matters, just
quickly. I have always believed in the three-prong approach:
diplomacy, defense, development. And, obviously, this is a very
challenging budget that has been presented to us regarding the
State Department.
Do you feel that the existing mix of development,
diplomacy, and defense investments provides the right set of
tools to address the broad range of national security and
instability threats facing our interests and our allies abroad?
And how do you think our contributions to the U.N. support our
security objectives?
Ambassador Haley. So I think that is actually a very good
point in that one of the things that I did when I went to look
at the Syrian refugee crisis was what is the U.S. doing and
what is the U.N. doing in reference to the Syrian conflict.
Because we don't need to be viewing this or handling this as it
is Year 1, because now we are in Year 7. And so we need to take
a Year 7 approach.
In looking at that, what I found was the Jordanian
Governments and the Turkish Governments are doing an amazing
job taking care of the Syrian refugees. They are doing
healthcare. They are doing education. They are giving stipends.
I will tell you, in Jordan alone, they give stipends. And
those are used by debit card, whether it is at a bank, whether
it is a grocery store, anywhere, they are using eye scan, there
is zero percent fraud in what is happening in Jordan, which is
phenomenal, especially having that they have taken in a million
refugees.
Then you go to Turkey, and you look at the fact that they
have taken in 3 million refugees in such a short amount of
time. And you have Turkish doctors in 3 months training the
Syrian doctors so they can take care of their own populations.
But both of these countries are double shifting in schools.
Jordanian and Turkish students are going in the morning.
Syrians are going in the afternoon. Their roads are getting
congested. Because Syrians are such great entrepreneurs and
very well skilled, they are competing for jobs.
So, basically, what I found is those countries are
stretched at this point, and we need to support them. If they
are being good host countries, we need to make sure we are
giving them support. It is not just about food and water
anymore. Now it is about what can we do to assist them with the
education and the health issues that they are taking on.
And so I have spoken with the President about how I think
the U.S. needs to support these host countries, and I have
actually already met with the Secretary General on how we shift
from a Year 1 to a Year 7 plan so that U.N. funds will go
towards assisting those host countries.
And so the Secretary General and I and the Jordanian
Government are going to be meeting about what they need, and
then we are going to meet with the Turkish Government on what
they need.
That is a long answer to say we have to keep development as
part of the mix, along with the diplomacy and the military
forces that we use, because it is all interconnected. And if we
do those things, then I think that we are making the most of
what we have.
Mr. Dent. Well, I suspect you are going to get an
appropriation greater than what the President asked for at the
end of this process, if we get an agreement on the numbers.
One thing, finally, I just wanted to mention one other
issue, U.N. peacekeeping and particularly as it relates to
Central African Republic. From your experience at the U.N. thus
far, have you identified any best practices for U.N.
peacekeeping and stability operations that help ensure positive
and sustainable results? And are there any aspects that you
emphasize when considering whether to support the
reauthorization to such missions? Because I know we have had
some corruption issues with some of these peacekeepers.
Ambassador Haley. Absolutely. And so what we are doing is
we are putting in best practices with every single renewal that
we have done. And the best practices could be accountability of
what is expected from the troops when it comes to sexual
exploitation and corruption. It could be clearly defining the
mandate so it is not so general and broad but it talks about
exactly what is expected. It is holding the governments
accountable, because, as you know, in a lot of the governments
where we have peacekeeping missions, they have actually been a
hindrance and not a support to the peacekeeping process. And I
think it is also making sure that we are doing what we can to
take care of the people on the ground, knowing that our end
goal should always be to lift up their government in a way that
they can do for themselves.
And so these best practices we are putting in place with
every single mission to make sure that it is being handled
properly. And I think the idea that we were able to get the 600
Congolese troops out of the Central African Republic when they
were doing so many different abuses really goes to the heart of
what that accountability means and what we hope the troop
contributing countries will realize as we go forward.
Mr. Dent. Thank you. Yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I will ask the two questions together
to save time.
My first question is, there are reports that 3,000 Yazidi
women were trafficked by ISIS last year, and the United Nations
Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General
for Sexual Violence in Conflict reports that a girl can be
trafficked for $13,000. This indicates that trafficking of
women and girls contributes to the financing of ISIS
activities.
Generally speaking, how does the U.N. currently track the
trafficking of women and girls? And what more can the U.S.
mission to the U.N. or Congress do to partner with the U.N. in
this effort?
My second question is, post-9/11, the U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1373 mandated targets on freezing terrorist assets,
thwarting money laundering, and blocking arms trafficking. In
2014, the U.N. Security Council passed a legally binding
resolution requiring all member states to put domestic laws in
place that will help prosecute anyone who travels abroad to
join a terrorist organization. In 2016, the Security Council
called on countries to share biometric and biographic info
about terrorists with immigration and border authorities.
How does the administration plan to build on the work of
Presidents Bush and Obama in this regard?
Ambassador Haley. Okay. In reference to the trafficking of
women, I know that it is something that the Secretary-General
actually has taken a big interest in, and I think that is why
he is not only just looking at the trafficking, but he is also
looking at the accountability of the troops as they are in
different areas.
We are working very closely. We just met with the Yazidi
activist as well to find out what is happening and what we
could better do, so we are keeping communications. But then
also that ISIS accountability is hugely important that we get
that passed through the U.N., and so we are working closely
with the UK on that, because I think that is going to go a long
way in what we can do. And we will continue to look for ways
that we can be helpful. And let me know if I can partner with
you on anything that you want to do.
In terms of the Security Council resolutions, I have to
say, my biggest concern with Security Council resolutions is
that not all countries follow them. And so that is the
frustrating part of we can do a resolution, but if we can't get
them all to actually act on the sanctions or act on the
mandates or do those things, that is the part that I found to
be the most frustrating.
I think that the administration very much wants to do all
they can. They have made ISIS and terrorist groups a priority.
I think that it is something the administration is laser
focused on in terms of what we are doing with terrorist
activity and what we are doing to stop terrorist activity,
whether it is militarily, whether it is with sanctions, whether
it is with arms embargoes.
I think those are all things that we will continue to have
on the radar that the administration fully believes in. And I
will continue to push all U.N. countries to make sure that we
are not doing these resolutions for the sake of doing these
resolutions but that they are actually following them as well.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Madam Ambassador, you have been generous with
your time.
Ambassador Haley. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. We have kept you a little bit beyond what we
had hoped, but thank you for being here.
As the Subcommittee and the Full Committee and the full
House and the conference with the Senate, as we weigh how much
funding for what takes place, I hope the recipients of these
funds at the U.N. and the other agencies around the world that
we contribute to, I hope they realize that we are watching now
very carefully how they control their spending. And we will be
judged on what we do just as they will as well.
These are severe cuts that the administration has come
forward with. Now, I remind everyone, Presidents propose;
Congress disposes. And we will be watching to see how these
organizations control their spending, which is our spending. I
hope somebody will tell them that we are watching and we will
continue to watch until we are able to pass these bills.
Thank you very much for your initial appearance before our
Subcommittee. I think you have been a hit. You have been very
responsive. You have answered questions with candor. You know
what you are doing. That is very apparent. We like your
enthusiasm for this job and this undertaking and the energy
that you obviously have to make it work. So, Madam Ambassador,
we wish you well.
Ambassador Haley. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. We are on the same team here with you, and we
are going to try to be of help to you as you carry out our
country's work at the U.N. And perhaps the most important thing
that I like about you is you don't speak with an accent. Thank
you, ma'am.
Ambassador Haley. Thank you very much. And I want to thank
the Committee for your time, and know that we are a partner in
getting you the answers that you need as you make the decisions
going forward.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Ambassador Haley. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. The subcommittee is adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, November 1, 2017.
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ACCOUNTABLE SOFT POWER IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST
WITNESS
HON. MARK GREEN, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Opening Statement by Chairman Rogers
Mr. Rogers. Good morning everyone. The hearing will please
come to order.
Ambassador Green, thank you for being here today, and
congratulations on your confirmation as Administrator of U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID). I am pleased to
see you in this new role and I am confident you will do a good
job. You are back on your old hunting grounds here in the
House, and we are glad to see one of us elevated to such a high
position.
I understand this is your first hearing since being
confirmed, so let me welcome you to the Subcommittee. We look
forward to hearing your testimony. We will be getting underway
with the hearing. I also want to recognize our ranking member
of the Full Committee and this Subcommittee as well, Mrs.
Lowey.
Mr. Ambassador, you are probably aware that this
Subcommittee has a history of bipartisanship--we work
collaboratively toward many of the same goals, and I expect
that will continue as we look to complete the appropriations
process for this year.
Today's hearing is appropriately entitled: ``Accountable
Soft Power in the National Interest.'' First, accountability.
Given the difficult but necessary task ahead of us to reduce
the nation's debt, all spending must be scrutinized and
prioritized. As Chairman of this Subcommittee, I take my role
in providing oversight of USAID and the other agencies
delivering foreign assistance very seriously. In fact, my first
hearing this year was with the Inspectors General of the State
Department and USAID to identify the most significant
management challenges. We must work together to ensure there is
accountability for every dollar provided to USAID. That is in
USAID's best interest, it is in the interest of the people and
countries that we are trying to help, and it is what the
hardworking tax-payers deserve.
Second, Soft Power. This term has gotten a lot of use in
the last 10 months. The now-famous quote by General Mattis that
``if you don't fully fund the State Department, then I need
more money for ammo'' sparked a real debate about the
importance of soft power. The intensity of these discussions
was elevated with the submission of the President's fiscal year
2018 budget request, which included a 33-percent cut to State
and USAID operations and assistance.
The Committee rejected many of those cuts, but we still had
to make tough choices within a reduced allocation. What is
clear is the bipartisan support for continued investments in
soft power, particularly at a time when diplomatic and
development challenges have grown not only in numbers but in
complexity.
And, finally, In the National Interest. There are certain
programs that are commonly recognized as beneficial to our
national interest. For example, helping stabilize the economy
of pro-Western governments facing Russian aggression, like
Ukraine, or supporting a key partner, like Jordan, as they work
through tough economic and social challenges as a result of the
conflict in Syria.
However, programs that are not always as obvious can still
have a positive impact for our country if they are well planned
and executed and those on the receiving end are aware the help
is from the American people. For example, the President's
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, known as PEPFAR, does more than
just save lives from the scourge of AIDS. Five years after the
program was launched, Pew research polls showed that American's
favorability was higher in Africa than anywhere else in the
world. In many countries like Nigeria and Kenya, it was over 80
percent. That means in places where there could have been
desperation and vulnerability to extremism and radicalization,
there was hope and gratitude for America's support. Mr.
Ambassador, I am sure you know this first-hand from your time
in Tanzania.
These examples can be found across the board in clean water
programs, investments in conservation, agricultural
development, education, and many more. If a country's people
are healthier and more educated, if their economy is on the
move, and if they have accountable government institutions
based on democratic principles, that country will be more
stable, and the U.S. will be more secure.
So, we know these investments are important. That is why
dozens of generals and admirals have said foreign aid is
critical to U.S. national security. But we also have our
limits. We cannot do all things for all people, particularly
when the needs are so great. Other donors need to step up and
do their part. That is why we are pleased the President is
focused on this issue of getting others to pay their fair
share. We are seeing progress on the defense side with NATO,
and Ambassador Haley is working to renegotiate our rates at the
U.N. Today, I would like to hear more about what has been
accomplished so far on development and humanitarian aid and
what we can expect to see in the months ahead.
Mr. Ambassador, we look forward to hearing your testimony
on these and many other important issues. I urge you to
remember this is a partnership. Congress has the constitutional
duty to fund the federal government, and we take that
responsibility very seriously on this Subcommittee.
That duty does not stop with the appropriation. It also
includes oversight of how your agency is organized and the
execution of your funding. We will be closely watching
proposals to reorganize the State Department and USAID and look
forward to a briefing and report on any changes once the
administration reaches a consensus. If we work together, I
believe we can accomplish some great things. But I urge upon
you, this is a two-way conversation.
Before I close, let me take this opportunity to thank the
men and women of USAID, who are doing important work during
difficult times, both abroad and here at home. We recognize and
appreciate their service to the country.
Now, let me recognize my ranking member and copartner, Mrs.
Lowey.
Opening Statement of Mrs. Lowey
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome, Administrator Green. I really want to thank
you for joining us today, and I am pleased that you are at the
helm of the U.S. Agency for International Development.
USAID is an essential component of our national security,
and I am confident that you believe, as do I, that
international development is critical to maintaining U.S.
global leadership and protecting our national security. I was
happy to hear you say last month that, quote, ``America is and
will remain the world's leading humanitarian donor.''
But I do remain confused about how you intend to do more
with less, especially if the less you speak of is the
President's proposed fiscal year 2018 budget. As you are aware,
it included the complete elimination of food aid, family
planning programs, development assistance, and climate change
initiatives. While USAID should always look for more efficient
ways to spend taxpayer dollars, you must agree that these cuts
would make U.S. citizens less safe, betray American values, and
fail to advance U.S. international interests. For example, if
we are looking to do more with less, we should prioritize, not
end, partnerships with multilaterals as they propel our dollars
further toward meeting shared goals.
I am hopeful the Senate and the House will work together to
pass a fiscal year 2018 State and foreign operations
appropriations bill to maintain U.S. global leadership on
humanitarian and development assistance and that you and
Secretary Tillerson will effectively utilize the funds we
appropriate as intended to advance our international
objectives.
I am increasingly concerned by rumors regarding the
reorganization process occurring at the State Department and
USAID, which is now being reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget. I want to make it very clear: There is always room
for improvement, but arbitrary funding cuts should not drive a
reorganization to, number one, reduce staffing positions; two,
cut valuable programs; and, three, walk away from international
agreements and treaties.
You should instead take a hard look at what you do best,
what you don't, how to improve in the latter areas. Yet,
despite repeated requests for more information, my staff and I
have thus far not seen, with the exception of the President's
30 percent cut to the budget, any concrete proposals beyond,
quote, streamlining our policies, maximizing our foreign
assistance.
As Chairman Rogers and I outlined in a letter to OMB
Director Mulvaney earlier this fall, congressional agreement is
necessary for long-term sustainable reform at State and USAID
to be successful. I am hopeful that you will shed some light
today on the proposals provided to OMB from USAID and how these
recommendations would help rather than hinder our foreign
policy goals.
Desperate conditions in the world's weak, failing, and
failed states drive hopeless individuals away from their homes
and into violent extremism and poverty. Through U.S.
international development efforts, we are able to combat
terrorism, prevent global pandemics, provide economic
opportunities, bolstering U.S. national security and preventing
our men and women in uniform from being put in harm's way. But
it is imperative that we do not forget U.S. foreign assistance
is one of the best examples of American values and, quite
simply, the right thing to do.
So I want to thank you. I have great confidence in your
ability and your vision. Thank you so much for joining us
today, and I look forward to your testimony.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rogers. Ambassador Green, we look forward to your
testimony. If you would try to keep your comments within 5
minutes to give us more time for questions, that would be
appreciated.
Thank you for being here. You are recognized.
Opening Statement of Ambassador Green
Mr. Green. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member Lowey, and members of the Subcommittee, many of
whom I served with. It is good to see all of you again.
As former foreign policy and defense leaders have often
said and as was cited in the opening remarks, in a world as
complex as ours, with our national security under greater
threat than, perhaps, ever before, we need to be able to deploy
the entirety of our State craft toolbox. This must include our
most sophisticated development and humanitarian tools.
At USAID, we embrace this mission. One sign of this is our
close working relationship with DOD. We currently have 26 staff
serving with American's military men and women in our combatant
commands and the Pentagon. DOD, in turn, has assigned 16
officers and representatives to work alongside our staff in
supporting development priorities. In response to the recent
disasters in Latin America and the Caribbean, DOD supported our
disaster assistance response teams. In Syria, our stabilization
and humanitarian experts are working hand in glove with DOD and
State to help stabilize Raqqa and to allow for the safe return
of displaced families.
But beyond this formal collaboration, our skills and
expertise in humanitarian operations and international
development help our nation respond to, counter, and prevent a
long list of ever-growing threats. Our development initiatives
address conditions which, left unchecked, can lead to the kind
of frustration and despair that transnational criminal
organizations and terrorist groups often try to exploit.
Furthermore, USAID's work responds to the challenges often
arising arriving from displacement of families and communities.
We counter the conditions that often drive mass migration,
including into the U.S.
Third, we help strategic allies respond to the burdens of
hosting displaced families. We also work to repair the fabric
of countries and communities torn apart by conflict and war in
ways that hopefully will solidify military success. In
particular, we know helping the most vulnerable and most
targeted has to be a big part of this strategy. When religious
and ethnic minorities are attacked, such as Christians and
other minorities in Iraq, we rally local and international
civil society and the private sector to join us.
We don't have all the answers to such complex problems.
That is why, in the case of Iraq, as many of you know, I am
able to announce that we have issued a Broad Agency
Announcement. This is a process to gather innovative ideas from
the public, including the affected communities themselves, on
ways to support the safe and voluntary return of internally
displaced persons in Nineveh.
There are also concrete ways beyond our development role
which contribute to national security. For example, USAID plays
a key role in the interagency international strategy to prevent
and mitigate the threat of infectious disease outbreaks,
epidemics, and antimicrobial resistance under the Global Health
Security Agenda. As another example, we help counter illicit
activities, from trafficking in persons to trafficking in
wildlife, which criminal and terrorist organizations often
leverage to fund their operations.
Mr. Chairman and Members: at USAID, we do take our role as
stewards of taxpayer resources very seriously. To that end, we
are undertaking a number of employee-led reforms that will
boost both our effectiveness and our efficiency. Because
responding to the growing number of humanitarian crises is a
core part, I believe, of American global leadership, we are
working to elevate and refine our humanitarian assistance
efforts. Because we don't believe that traditional development
assistance is always the most effective approach to our work,
we are reinvigorating our engagement with the private sector.
We aim to move beyond mere contracting and grantmaking towards
true collaboration with the private sector, and that means
soliciting outside ideas and opportunities in program design,
technology, adaptation, and even cofinancing where we can. As
part of this, we are also undertaking steps that we hope will
bring new partners to our work by reaching out beyond our
relatively small group of traditional partners.
Because we don't believe that assistance should ever be
seen by our partners as inevitable or a substitute for what
they should take on themselves, we have made clear that the
purpose of our assistance should be to end the need for its
existence. I am asking our team to measure our work by how far
each investment moves us closer to the day when we can explore
transitioning away from a traditional development relationship.
We would not walk away from our work or our prior investments
but seek to forge a new bilateral partnership that serves the
strategic interest of both countries.
To help our partners in their development journey, we will
aim to prioritize programs that incentivize reform, strengthen
in-country capacity, and mobilize domestic resources.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while our nation is facing
many challenges, as you have laid out, you can be confident
that the men and women of USAID are providing many of the
programs and tools that will, indeed, make our country
stronger, safer, and more prosperous in the years ahead. And we
are doing so while embracing our role as good stewards of
taxpayer resources, the resources generously provided through
this subcommittee from the generosity of the American people.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I welcome your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
We need to remind ourselves from time to time that this
country does have a strong conscience. And you represent the
agency worldwide that expresses that sentiment.
I recently led a group of our Committee Members on a trip
to Ukraine and Georgia. Those countries are making remarkable
strides despite facing tremendous pressure and occupation from
Russia. I believe their commitment to continuing reforms and
improving their economies is real, but they need and want our
help. In Georgia, where two entire provinces are now occupied
by the Russians, we looked at a USAID program on the
Administrative Boundary Line that is helping to counter Russian
influence by assisting families that were displaced from South
Ossetia.
This is an important time for them. It would be a mistake
to pull back from these investments and that is why we have
prioritized those countries in the House bill. For example, in
Ukraine, the current enacted level is $410 million. The 2018
request from the administration was only $204 million, a cut
almost in half from what we had enacted for this year. The
House bill maintains Ukraine's assistance level at $410
million. A little over half is for democracy and development
programs. The 2017 level for Georgia totaled $100 million. The
2018 request is $34 million, a reduction of more than half of
the enacted level. The 2018 House bill maintains Georgia's
assistance level at $100 million, slightly over half for
democracy and development programs.
I know you have experience in this region. We met with the
Prime Minister and the Speaker of the House and other
dignitaries, the Foreign Minister and so on, in Georgia. I was
very impressed. Here is a country, a small country, and
extremely poor, boundaried on the north by Russia, on the south
by Azerbaijan and Armenia and Turkey, and the Black and the
Caspian Seas on either end. It is not always a pleasant
atmosphere there.
What can you tell us about how USAID will support efforts
to counter Russia and your views on this region as a priority
for our assistance?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And you are right. I do
have some personal experience. I was an election observer.
Actually, my first observation was in Ukraine. I think my last
observation with IRI was in Georgia. So I have had the honor of
witnessing both and, in both cases, like you, was terribly
impressed with the work that so many are doing as they strive
to look Westward.
I often talk about our role in walking side by side with
countries as they undergo their development journeys. In the
case of both Ukraine and Georgia, that journey is a Euro-
Atlantic journey, which they have stated very clearly. I think
it is a high priority for us to help them on that journey. And
that means helping them take on, really, the preconditions that
need to be met in order for them to gain greater membership and
involvement in both NATO and potentially the EU. And so that is
where I put most of our efforts. That is taking on corruption;
It is one of the biggest challenges they have. In some cases,
weak institutions is a challenge. But a third one, one that is
not simply USAID but involves all of the U.S. Government, is
energy independence. That is, perhaps, one of the greatest
barriers that they face. They are still largely dependent upon
Russia for their energy. And that, of course, makes them very
vulnerable economically. So helping them to diversify their
energy is a key part of what we all seek to do. But I share
your views. It is a high priority. Ukraine is one of our larger
missions. And, of course, Georgia has long been an ally and has
embraced the West. And my own view is that we should recognize
that, embrace and build upon it.
Mr. Rogers. Well, part of your budget, the so-called
countering Russia groups of money, there are just two places,
to my knowledge, in the world where they are facing the Russian
aggression physically now, and that is Ukraine, and now it is
Georgia. We went to the checkpoint of the Ossetia province
where the Russian's have seized. We went to the checkpoint, and
there was the Russian military encampment, which forbade any
entry or exit. And the people that live there aren't able to
get to their herd of cattle or schools for their children
because of Russian occupation. Two separate provinces of a very
small country where they are facing it today.
So thank you for putting focus on the counter-Russia
effort. I think it is important for us especially at this time.
Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. In your first address to the USAID employees,
you spoke about how we could help partner countries by
prioritizing programs that show measurable impact, incentivize
reform, diversify our partner base, foster local capacity
building, and mobilize the partner's own domestic resources. It
is difficult to reconcile these worthy goals with the
administration's budget request for USAID and the hiring freeze
that is hamstringing your staff.
Are the goals you articulated shared by others in the State
Department and the White House? And what concrete steps have
you taken since your confirmation to make these goals a
reality? And if programmatic resources are cut, what impact
would that have on your plan for the agency?
Mr. Green. Thank you for that question.
First, I believe that my views are shared throughout much
of the administration. I am less than 3 months on the job. So I
don't quite have all the answers, nor have I had all of the
conversations. But we are being involved more and more in
interagency discussions on many of the challenges that you are
talking about. And I think that the opportunities grow for us
to share our vision and to push our vision forward.
In terms of domestic resource mobilization, it is a high
priority for me. It was started in the last administration by
my predecessor. Modest efforts. They have proven very
successful in Central America. We seek to build upon that and
expand upon it. As any nation undergoes its development
journey, obviously, the ability to mobilize domestic resources
for priorities is a key part of that. And so we can assist them
in strengthening their domestic resource collection and
mobilization, help them with transparency and accountability.
And so that is a key part of what we need to do.
We also need to bolster our private sector engagement in
this time of more limited resources. And we are seeking to do
that by getting the private sector involved earlier in the
conversation. All too often, traditionally, we see programs
constructed. And then, at the last moment, we reach out to the
private sector and say: Hey, can you help us with this?
What we seek to do, as we are doing in the case of the IDPs
in northern Iraq, is, instead, early on, say: Look this is what
we see; what are your ideas?
So we are hoping to get greater involvement, including by
new partners, in program design and even program cofinancing.
We think that will make dollars go further.
But make no mistake, with limited resources, we will never
have enough money to do all that we want to do. However,
limited resources will force us to prioritize, and will force
us to stretch our dollars as far as we can. And there is no two
ways around it. It forces tough choices.
Mrs. Lowey. I know we will continue that discussion. But I
want to get to another issue.
I am greatly disturbed by the reimposition of the global
gag rule, particularly this administration's unprecedented
decision to expand this terrible policy to all global health
assistance. I want to be very clear: Lives will be lost as a
result of this decision. And through our leadership on global
health, the United States has saved millions of lives, earned
the gratitude and goodwill of people around the world. By
inserting the global gag rule into every area of our global
health work--malaria, TB, pandemic preparedness, nutrition,
vaccinations, and more--we undermine our effectiveness and make
it harder to reach the most vulnerable, particularly women and
children.
We have seen the past implementation of the global gag rule
has proven that it does not decrease this rate of abortions or
unwanted pregnancies. And given these facts, if you could share
with us the data the administration is using to justify its
reimposition and expansion to all global health areas with no
connection to pregnancy, I would be appreciative.
Mr. Green. Thank you. Thank you, Congresswoman Lowey. You
have made your views clear privately as well as publicly. And
you and I have had some robust conversations, obviously, on the
topic.
You know, what I can tell you is that we will continue to
be the largest bilateral global health donor. Those resources
will continue to be made available. In terms of the specific
issue that you pointed to, as you and I have discussed, we are
in the process of working with the State Department to collect
data around its implementation. My understanding is that report
will be brought forward to us this month, now that it is
November 1st. And our commitment to you is to share that data
with you, playing it straight, as I indicated we would. And so
we will bring that to you--to this Subcommittee for review.
Obviously, it is vitally important that we make sure that
policies do not disrupt programming in the global health area,
particularly maternal and child health, which is a commitment
of not just the last administration but I think the American
people.
Mrs. Lowey. I thank you. And I think my time is up. But I
look forward to continuing this discussion and the ways that
you can really evaluate, honestly and fairly, the impact of
this policy.
Mr. Green. You have my commitment.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And good morning, Ambassador, Administrator, Congressman
Green. Great to see you here, my friend. And the President made
an outstanding choice. He couldn't have made a better choice
for this position, and I am delighted the Senate confirmed you.
So, well done.
Mr. Green. Thank you.
Mr. Dent. Your life's work is going to continue in this
role, I know.
Just a few quick questions. I want to touch on three
issues: one dealing with engineering projects, one dealing with
water security, and one dealing with Power Africa.
First one on engineering. USAID funds a considerable amount
of infrastructure in developing countries. But there is concern
that this is being done without proper engineering oversight.
The concern was highlighted in a 2014 construction assessment
report produced by USAID, which detailed about $5.6 billion in
construction over a 2-year period. The assessment noted that
nearly 45 percent of the building projects had no proper
engineering or architectural oversight, which can lead to
problems during construction, cost, schedule increases, and
potentially structural failure.
So I guess the questions are these. How is USAID looking to
improve project outcomes and costs on construction projects?
And could the agency do more to engage American engineering
firms to help address this challenge?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Congressman Dent.
You know, in relative terms, we actually don't do that much
in the way of infrastructure. Not as much as we used to. We,
though, take what we do do very seriously. Much of it is in the
Middle East. Much of it is in Afghanistan. And obviously those
are areas where we have to make sure that we get it right.
We recently renewed a memorandum of understanding with the
Army Corps of Engineers to make sure that we are doing this
correctly, that we have sufficient oversight in place. We have
also developed a number of relationships which will allow us to
surge our support in this area, if needed. But I will make sure
to go back and double-check. I have not seen the 2014 report
myself, but I will take a personal look at it and make sure
that we continue to have appropriate controls in place for
oversight.
Mr. Dent. I would appreciate that. Thank you, Ambassador.
Also, water security. As you know, a lack of safe drinking
water makes people desperate. And desperate people do desperate
things. And water scarcity is known as a threat multiplier in
Syria, Yemen, and likely elsewhere. Many infectious diseases,
Ebola, cholera, are also caused or exacerbated by unsafe
drinking water and poor sanitation facilities. What more will
USAID do under your leadership to get ahead of water-related
security threats, be they conflict, disease, or famine due to
water scarcity?
Mr. Green. Thank you for the question. And a good important
question.
I think water security, and clean water generally, is, I
think, increasing in our awareness. I am not sure that, in the
past, we necessarily had a full appreciation for how important
it is to every other aspect of what we do.
In terms of the global water security, we have appointed a
global water security coordinator to our programming, which is
part of our commitment to this Subcommittee and to Congress to
make sure that we fully implement the Water for the World Act.
And we will do so. But this is an area, I think, where there is
tremendous opportunity to partner and engage with the private
sector. There are a number of NGOs and for-profit businesses
that are exceptionally good in this area, and I think we can
partner with them closely to accelerate what we are doing here.
In addition, because of how closely this is related to the
work that we do in food security, in Feed the Future, we are
looking for ways to make sure that is better integrated so that
we get maximum optimum outcomes from both sectors.
Mr. Dent. Thanks for that answer.
Quickly, to Power Africa, as you know, it has been a very
successful initiative with interagency focus. According to a
2017 annual report, Power Africa has mobilized more than $54
billion in commitments from about 140 public and private sector
partners demonstrating that this is a model that leverages U.S.
investment, you know, for far greater impact.
Will electricity access remain a development priority for
the United States in the sub-Saharan Africa? And can you tell
the committee about the role you see for Power Africa in the
Trump administration?
Mr. Green. Thank you.
First, access to affordable, available, reliable
electricity is vitally important, not for its own sake but for
what it means in the ability to work with temperature sensitive
medicine and obviously to process food. So it is vitally
important in a number of ways. Yes, it will remain a priority.
One thing that I am doing personally is taking a look at our
Power Africa program and seeing what it is that we can do to
make it go even further and be even more effective.
In so many parts of the African Continent, the barrier to
reliable, affordable energy are policies of the host country
government which are counterproductive. Sometimes it is
artificially low tariff rates which don't allow for sustainable
projects. Sometimes it is lack of regulatory capacity. So I am
taking a close personal review to see if there are ways that we
can accelerate and expand what we do. I think the Millennium
Challenge Corporation's involvement in Power Africa, in a
number of places like Ghana, I think, has shown how a compact
which carefully incentivizes reforms can be very effective. And
so we are going to look at that closely.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. Thank you for this hearing.
Good to see you, Ambassador.
Mr. Green. Good to see you.
Ms. Lee. I, along with Chairman Dent, were in West Africa
recently. We visited Ghana, Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, and Gambia.
Everyone is very excited about your appointment and really glad
to see you heading up a very important agency.
In May of this year, a Navy SEAL was killed. Two other
personnel were injured during an operation fighting Al Shabaab
in Somalia. The recent horrific tragedy of four soldiers being
ambushed and killed in Niger. And we understand that soft power
diplomacy is really our link to our national security. I can't
understand why, given what is taking place on the continent of
Africa, why the President's proposed budget cuts, I think it is
about $3 billion in aid to Africa. This includes programs, such
as global health, peacekeeping, emergency food relief, and I
believe that this administration is turning its back on soft
power diplomacy and humanitarian aid while increasing the
military presence and overall militarization of U.S. foreign
policy, especially on the continent of Africa.
In fiscal 2017, for example, Niger received over $58
million in Food for Peace contributions. Yet this, as I
understand it, program is proposed to be eliminated, the Title
2 Program, totally. And so, given what is taking place on the
continent of Africa, how can we justify cutting our development
assistance programs and eliminating this program, which, of
course, is going to do nothing but create more despair and
instability in an already fragile nation? And, of course, we
know that countries like China, they are stepping in to fill
the void. And here we have--now, you talk about prioritizing
resources. Well, yeah, an increase in $70 billion in defense.
You know, where does that come from? It comes from your budget.
And so I would like to know how aggressively you push back on
some of these budget cuts, recognizing the importance of your
agency, or do you agree with them?
Mr. Green. Thank you for the question.
First off, interestingly, as you know, in many cases, the
strongest supporters of USAID and the development sector are
often the military and retired military. They don't want to do
what we do. And so, oftentimes, it is the retired generals and
admirals that are our fiercest and strongest advocates. So I
think they agree with you as to the importance of all of this.
The first trip I took overseas as Administrator was to the
Horn of Africa, Sudan, South Sudan, and Ethiopia. First off,
because it gave me a chance to see programs that I wasn't as
familiar with, the extraordinary humanitarian needs in places
like South Sudan; Feed the Future and what we are doing in
resilience building in Ethiopia. And so really quite important.
Part of my obligation, I think, to you and to this
Subcommittee is to do the best I can to be truthful about what
I see as the needs. And so that is a big part of what I am
doing in my almost 3 months that I have been is doing a deep
dive look at what some of these challenges are. And I will
continue to do that.
And some of the places that you pointed to are some of our
biggest challenges and some of our biggest opportunities. I
personally believe that Gambia is a great opportunity where we
saw democracy bloom. And it would be, in my view, a mistake to
let it wither on the vine. And so I am looking for ways to
expand our work there.
In Nigeria, we have this significant security challenge but
humanitarian assistance needs to get there. One thing I will
say, just to help put things in context, we are the largest
contributor of humanitarian assistance in the world, and no one
else is even close: 29 percent of all the humanitarian
assistance in the world comes from the U.S., and it is more
than number two and three combined. The humanitarian needs are
growing. And, you know, I think it is a key part of who we are
and our projection of values, and a lot of it is provided in
Africa. And we have to, my opinion, keep that going.
Ms. Lee. Mr. Ambassador, we were also in Gambia. And I know
that the leadership in Gambia, they want to see more USAID
presence there. Actually, we have very minimal presence, I
believe, from what I remember when we were there. But also I
know that, even though we are the largest contributor of
humanitarian assistance, these cuts are going to create more
instability. And, in fact, China is going to fill in the void.
And, you know, hopefully your agency understands that these
cuts are going to lead to more instability in USAID countries.
I mean, I can't see any alternative, and I think we have--
hopefully you can make that argument.
Thank you.
Mr. Green. One point to pick up on because of your interest
in Gambia, as you know, we haven't had a mission in Gambia
directly. We have worked out of Dakar. And I want to take a
close look. I met with former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who
has significant interest--policy interest in Gambia, and we are
exploring ways to try to build some of the capacity. Because I
agree with you. I think it is an opportunity.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ambassador, welcome. Let me add my voice to those who
have congratulated you in seeing you achieve this position
because I know your life's work has been spent around solving
complex humanitarian problems and trying to build out the
systems for justice and self-sustainment. I think this is a
perfect fit for you. As the chairman said, you are among
friends. Everyone on this committee has chosen to be here
because we do deeply understand that the ideals of USAID and
America's--the rest of America's very generous commitment to
trying to solve humanitarian problems from which we benefit,
both economically and culturally, but also creating
international stability, is essential for our national
security. These are the motivating factors for everyone here.
So we are partners; we are friends. And that means, of course,
we ought to be in constant dialogue about how we achieve
mutually shared goals.
In that regard, I appreciate the--in your opening remarks,
you raise the issue of Nineveh plain in northern Iraq. The
difficulties of Iraq are well-known to us all. But in that
particular area where you had a tapestry of religious plurality
for centuries, where Christians and Yazidis and Muslims and
certain other religious minorities lived side by side. When you
lose that, you create a vacuum in a space that is not only an
impediment to justice to allow the peoples of these ancient
traditions, their rightful--return to their rightful homeland,
but also the conditions for ongoing pluralism. And so this is
why this is absolutely critical.
I want to show you something. Last year, when the House
unanimously passed the genocide resolution that declared what
was happening to Yazidis and Christians and others to be
genocide, followed then by Secretary Kerry's announcement,
there was a gentleman in the balcony who was a Yazidi from
Sinjar. And this is a picture of him. He returned to Sinjar
after the area was cleared, but it still was not safe. He was
actually under fire and returned to his home. But next to his
home was an ancient Christian church, and this is what he saw:
a pile of rubble. And he fashioned a cross out of two wooden
pieces of board that he found and put it on that ancient
Christian church. I met him afterward, and I asked him why he
did this. He said: These were my brothers.
Again, when you lose the conditions for plurality, mutual
understanding, building bridges between different people, the
prospects for a long-term form of healthy nationalism and peace
in that very conflicted part of the world will go away. So I
think it is of utmost urgency, given the genocide resolution
and given your agency's being on point in solving the most
pressing humanitarian problems, that we move beyond. I
appreciated the fact that you emphasized and have made this a
priority. But when you say we are looking for innovative ideas
from a broad coalition of partners, the problem is the window
of time here is very, very narrow. There is an urgent crisis.
You have millions of displaced people--Yazidis, Christians,
others in Kurdistan, Lebanon, a few other places--who have a
right to return. If there is resecuritization, the possibility
of revitalization, then we can have the conditions for
repatriation. I would suggest that this is not a matter of a
year. It is probably a matter of 3 to 6 months. Or then the
pressures for migration increase; we lose the possibility again
of reestablishing this ancient tapestry of religious pluralism
and, again, the possibility of healthy nationalism there.
So my point in bringing this up, and I have a couple of
other things I think I will have to get to in the next round,
is to suggest that there is an urgency here. And if you could
further refine what we are talking about as innovative ideas
from a broad coalition of partners, I think it would help,
because we, by sometimes necessity, sometimes bureaucratic
constructs, are slow to react, and this demands an urgent
reaction.
Mr. Green. Thank you. And as you know, I share your
concern.
The (BAA) Broad Agency Announcement process that we have
announced is actually swift, at least by bureaucratic terms. It
is a matter of months. It is among the fastest mechanisms that
we have. And part of it is we want to make sure that we are
able to get input from the community themselves, and this
process will allow us to do that. One of those things that I
learned as I came to the job not quite 3 months ago was the
depth of devastation that is taking place in the Nineveh plain.
But you pointed to the right thing. This is not a matter of
singling out a minority. It is pluralism. And that is a key
component of the greatness of Iraq's past and hopefully the
greatness of its future supporting marginalized communities is
a key part--a core value of USAID and a key part of our work
and needs to continue to be. And in this case, you know, we are
focusing, as you have suggested, in doing our best to mobilize
such support.
Mr. Fortenberry. I do represent the largest Yazidi
community in America, by the way. And if there is an
opportunity for----
Mr. Green. Cornhuskers all----
Mr. Fortenberry. On their traditional flag, it is a yellow
background with a big red--and I call it husker red--symbol on
it. But I am quite certain they would be very eager, very
rapidly to plug into this process.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Firstly, Ambassador, you have a very
good reputation, and all your past experiences I hope will do
you well in this job.
I want to talk about the Philippines. I know the President
is traveling to Asia, and I think that is going to be one of
his stops. And there has been a really tough situation, a 5-
month battle in the southern Philippines where literally I
think ISIS almost took control. There were bloody battles
there, and I think the government took back the control. And I
know we have committed resources to help the region. Now, can
you talk about the USAID's role in the Philippines after the
defeat of the extremist southern part of the country? And
please talk about the recovery aid package, and what lessons
have we learned and can apply to make sure that we are using
our resources correctly in that area and our funds?
Also, the other thing is, with President Trump's visit, I
want to get your thoughts on the Philippines' war on drugs, the
concerns raised about humanitarian abuses, and generally, what
do you think of Duterte's current state of the Philippines and
the United States relationship?
It is going to be interesting to see President Trump and
Duterte, because, from my point of view, it seems sometimes
they have the same type of personality.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Congressman. I was in the Philippines
about the week before Duterte took office. I was there to close
out the MCC compact that was there. And I was struck by the
enormous potential that is in the Philippines and the business
community and working families all across the country, but also
struck by just how big it is, 7,100 islands. And I think we
have seen, sadly, how that has played out in terms of extremist
elements and criminal elements in the southern part of that
country presenting tremendous, tremendous problems.
We are helping out with humanitarian assistance. One of the
undertold stories near Mindanao are the size of the internally
displaced communities that are there, what that is going to
mean, and how long that is going to take to repair
infrastructure and provide services to the people. So that is
something that we are taking a close look at to see how we can
be helpful.
I share your deep concerns about the extrajudicial
killings. There is just no two ways about it. And we should be
very direct on that. I share those concerns myself.
It is in our interest, as I know you agree, for there to be
a stable, decent vibrant economy and government in the
Philippines. And so we are working with civil society there to
build and strengthen its role, working to strengthen the rule
of law, both law enforcement but more significantly with the
judiciary system helping to strengthen it. And as you have
noted and it is really true in so many other parts of the
world, hard power successes, if you will, really then lead to
where we come in. And it is repairing. It is helping to
rebuild. It is helping to strengthen. It is helping to counter
some of the extremism and the elements that caused damage in
the first place. And there is so much potential with the
Philippines, and they are obviously important to us. You know,
there will be a lot of work to do.
Mr. Ruppersberger. You know, we do have a challenge with
Duterte. But I think, as time goes on, because the strong
relationship that this country has had with the Philippines
since World War II, I have noticed that his anti-U.S. rhetoric
has slowed down. I think he tried to make friends with China,
and he realized they are not the best friends to have. So we
haven't heard as much lately. So I hope we can be successful.
And I think, you know, what you do in your role can be a
leverage to help our State Department and hopefully President
Trump try to get the Philippine relationship under control.
I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Chairman Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador, congratulations. I don't think that there has
ever been anybody with more experience, more talent, and more
common sense, who knows the world and who also understands
Congress, not only in this position, frankly--that is for
another conversation, Ambassador. The President chose extremely
wisely. So we are thrilled that you are here, Ambassador.
Let me bring you closer to our hemisphere, Venezuela. The
political crisis there has now created a humanitarian crisis.
And the Maduro regime has in essence assailed democratic
institutions, free media, and, really, nearly all aspects of
civil society in Venezuela. USAID's work in Venezuela focuses
primarily in strengthening and defending these institutions,
and so how have your programs--or are they evolving or
adjusting to the increasingly grave and, frankly, really
dangerous situation for democracy and human rights activists on
the ground in Venezuela?
Mr. Green. Thank you for the question, and as you know, I
share your deep concern. I think it is a crisis, and I think
that what happens in Venezuela affects the entire hemisphere.
So it really does matter and affects our national interests.
Currently, USAID is supporting 20 human rights groups,
strengthening their capacity. A big part of what we are doing,
given how difficult and dangerous it is to be on the ground--we
really don't right now have the capacity to work much on the
ground--we are doing a lot of scenario planning and a lot of
contingency planning and trying to mobilize the kinds of
humanitarian assistance that can come in and make a difference,
because the humanitarian catastrophe is occurring; it is
happening before our eyes.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Ambassador, one of the things that--and I
don't necessarily want to highlight individuals or groups--but
one of the things I am hoping that you are looking at is
supporting, whether it is the families of political prisoners
in Venezuela or the youth and the student protesters who, in
many cases, have been murdered in the streets and other key
members of the opposition in Venezuela, so I am hoping that
those are folks that hopefully you will be looking at----
Mr. Green. Yes.
Mr. Diaz-Balart [continuing]. As your programs look at
Venezuela.
Let me now shift to Colombia. Chairman Rogers has been
very, strong about making sure that funds, U.S. taxpayer funds,
don't go to, for example, members of a terrorist organization,
the FARC, or that funds that are used--if in fact the
democratically elected government in Colombia started getting
serious about controlling their narcotics production. But given
the Santos administration's peace deal with the FARC, how much
of USAID's attention and programming, and specifically--and I
don't know if you don't have to answer this specifically right
now, but regarding, for example, the Justice for a Sustainable
Peace, or the Inclusive Services for the Population Affected by
the Armed Conflict, also the Reintegration and Prevention of
Recruitment programs. Is USAID, geared towards supporting those
efforts? And if, for example, there would be a semicollapse of
that peace process or it suffers setbacks, can these programs
move forward independently and relatively unimpeded?
Mr. Green. Great questions. I have been to Colombia twice
myself in the last 2 or 3 years. And what I was struck by most
of all was the lack of connection between the central
government and many of the rural areas. And in my view, that
has led to some of the problems that we are seeing. So we are
trying to foster that connection and trying to reinforce it. A
good part of what we have been trying to do is to create strong
licit alternatives to the illicit substances being produced,
because that is a catastrophe and obviously a road in the wrong
direction.
In terms of some of the contingency planning you are
talking about, we are always contingency planning. We are
always talking to our partners and trying to monitor conditions
on the ground. Colombia has enormous potential. And, obviously,
there are still some lingering concerns.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I can't speak for the Chairman, but I do
know that Chairman Rogers has been a steadfast supporter and
leader on the issue of Colombia, and this Subcommittee has been
there. So we look forward to working with you. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
On that subject of Colombia, the coca production there is
exploding since the agreement was signed and ratified. What can
you say about that?
Mr. Green. A data point that I have is, about 2 months ago,
I had the chance to meet with the President of Costa Rica in a
social setting, and I asked him casually how things were going
in Costa Rica. And he said: Not well. We are seeing the worst
coca flowing around that we have seen in many, many years.
So that is obviously a terrible situation. Again, our role
in this is trying to provide alternatives, strengthening
alternatives. But there are deep concerns. And of course the
opportunities for fulfilling the hopes of the peace deal, as
you get closer and closer to the Presidential elections, get
harder and harder to see fulfilled. So there are challenges to
keep watching.
Mr. Rogers. Major problem for the U.S. We have an
unprecedented epidemic in the country on the use of drugs,
opioids especially. And practically all of the cocaine coming
into the U.S., especially by the southwest border, is from
Colombia.
I love Colombia. I have been there as well many times. Made
great progress. But this is one area that is hurting us
severely that I hope we can focus on.
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I can add that just last week I
was in Mexico City meeting with my mission directors from the
Northern Triangle countries as well as the U.S. Embassy in
Mexico and also business leaders to learn more about and to
gauge the depth of the crime challenges, the narcocrime
challenges. And so we are definitely focusing on this because
you are right: this is a direct challenge to the national
security of this country.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador, let me add my welcome to the Subcommittee.
Earlier this year, I was delighted to hear of your
appointment--I might even say relieved to hear of your
appointment--to the position you are holding because we know
you and we know your commitments and we have a great deal of
confidence in your leadership prospects.
As Ranking Member of the House Democracy Partnership, HDP,
you know very well that we have worked together in Georgia, in
Ukraine, in Kenya, and Indonesia, and other countries where the
struggle for democracy has generally been promising but
certainly needs support from our country. The International
Republican Institute, which you headed, is a vital instrument
in making that happen. And in that role and, before that, as
Ambassador, you have shown your dedication to strengthening
democratic capacities of governments around the world,
improving the effectiveness of our assistance.
Many people have expressed to you today our concern about
the budget that early on came from President Trump. One of the
most alarming aspects of that budget was the proposed cuts,
deep cuts for the State Department and USAID funding. We are
still hoping we will have a bipartisan budget agreement that
will let us enact bipartisan appropriations bills. But I do
give the chairman and this Subcommittee a good deal of credit
already for working in a cooperative fashion to reject and
correct some of the worst aspects of that budget, including
cuts in areas like global health and governance.
So that is what I would like to turn to for my question,
and that has to do with governance support, which is an area of
expertise and concern for you and something that, of course,
affects you and your agency directly. Governance is basic to
everything else. If governance in a country fails, chances are
everything fails. So I would like to ask you two questions. In
your view, what is the role of governance assistance and
democracy capacity-building activities at USAID? How
specifically does that further U.S. national security? And what
priority do you place on governance assistance going forward?
It is, of course, one of many areas of international
assistance, and there is a competition for funds. As we compete
for funds, I wonder how we prioritize this assistance and, in
particular, what kind of targeting we might need to do.
As you know, HDP and IRI on various occasions have been in
the situation of advocating against a premature termination of
assistance. We all know that governance support is one of those
areas that you cited where we hope eventually the support won't
be needed. But there are a lot of dangers in prematurely
cutting that off. In a budget-constrained environment, there
are going to be needs to set priorities. So I wonder how you
target governance assistance. And how do you deal with the
possibility that targeting could risk leaving some countries in
the lurch, graduating them, so to speak, from governance
support prematurely?
Mr. Green. Thank you. As you know, a topic near and dear to
my heart.
As a general matter, part of what I hope to do in my time
at USAID is to begin to develop those kinds of benchmarks and
measurements that will help us understand better what country
capacities are, governing capacities on a whole wide range of
topics. And it is the topics that are the subject of many of
our programs. I think what we need to do is to look for ways to
better attack what those capacity flaws are and to prioritize
strengthening them so that we help a country on that journey
and come to understand when it is appropriate to talk about a
new kind of relationship.
I think democratic governance is one of those areas that
must be part--is a key part of measuring that. You are right:
the investments that we make of precious resources are not
sustainable in the long run if they are not followed by
citizen-responsive governance. And sometimes I have to remind
people in the work that I do it is not just governance; it is
democratic governance. Authoritarians are often pretty good at
governance; they are just not much good at anything else or in
line with the values that we care about. So it is citizen-
centered, citizen-responsive governance. And to me, it needs to
be an important part of the work.
To go along with it, I think what we should do is be
looking at things like domestic resource mobilization, the
ability of countries to collect their resources in a
transparent, equitable manner, and to have transparency in the
allocation of resources so they have skin in the game. That
would also help us take on what is another key part of
responsive governance, and that is corruption. You know, we
oftentimes do naming and shaming, and there is a place for
that. I think it is also attacking the systems that lead to
corruption so that we fix the flaws, help fix the flaws in the
system.
All of those things are important. You can count on me to
try to find ways to prioritize democratic governance wherever I
can because I think it is a vital part of making sure that the
investments that we make lead to sustainable results.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador, Congressman, et cetera, Mark, it is good to be
with you. I often think on the time we spent together in
Africa. And it was my first trip to Africa for my wife and I.
And it is one of the defining moments in our service so far.
And thank you for your leadership and service.
And I am going to set up a proposition for you. And I think
this is an easy one, but I think it is one worth discussing.
And it is more broad; it is much more broad than what we have
discussed here so far. You know, I am a former military guy. It
is where I spend most of my time here in Congress, not all my
time, obviously, but on national security and issues regarding
intel. And you know as well as anyone in this room--I think you
know as well as any admiral or general because of your
exposure--that the world is a dangerous place. It is chaotic,
and it is getting more-so, not less so. And the reality is, the
U.S. has to lead. And a lot of people resent that. A lot of
people don't like it, but it is just the truth. We have to
lead. And if we don't lead, then who in the world will? Or
another question is China will, but they will lead us in a very
different direction. Vladimir Putin would love to be the world
leader, but he will lead us in a very different direction.
And my point is this, Ambassador: We are told all the time
that USAID and humanitarian efforts often preclude the
necessity for military intervention. And I think that is true.
I don't think it is true as often as many people think. I mean,
essentially, the argument is: Help us make butter or you are
going to have to give us guns. Again, I think that is the case
sometimes, but I don't think it is the case as often as a lot
of people think for two reasons. One is primarily of geography,
but the second is this: the scope of the problem. We can't feed
the whole world. And if that is the criteria for precluding
conflict, we are going to fail for that reason alone. And the
second is, even if we could, we don't fix many of the problems
that lead to conflict, but we can fix some of them.
So my question to you is this: For the American people,
there are examples. Will you talk about the areas that you are
working now that either have or that you hope will preclude the
need or the necessity for military intervention or expanded
military intervention? Help the American people understand why
your work is so important for our national security.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Congressman. In some ways, a
philosophical question, but for us it is a very practical one.
You are right: There are parts of the world, say Tunisia, where
we are helping Tunisians to strengthen their governing
institutions and to provide the kind of opportunity for their
young people that is motivating and causing them to reinvest in
institutions which will gird them against some of the extremist
voices that are in the neighborhood. So that is an example.
Mr. Stewart. Could I elaborate on that and agree with you
very quickly?
Mr. Green. Sure.
Mr. Stewart. I mean, 4 or 5 years ago, Tunisia was on the
edge of a knife. Remember we had the assault on our Embassy
there. They could have gone the other way. And we didn't use
military intervention. It was the soft power that made the
difference in Tunisia.
Mr. Green. The example I often point to is from my time as
Ambassador. The 1998 Embassy bombings, in some ways one of the
earliest signs of al-Qaida, was its attack on the Embassies in
Dar es Salaam and Nairobi. Ten years after the 1998 bombing, I
was Ambassador. President George W. Bush arrived like he was a
conquering hero. Streets were lined 10 deep. And President Bush
was smart enough to say: Look, this is not about me at all.
This is about all the investments that the American people made
along the way to help them take on their poverty-enhanced
challenges, challenges of AIDS, challenges of malaria,
challenges of destitution. And what we did when we did those
things is I think we encouraged the Tanzanian Government to say
I think they are on our side, so we are on their side. So I
think these projections of our generosity and our technical
assistance are vitally important for helping to shape the
world. We are not perfect. We are flawed. There is no way the
world gets better if we step into the shadows.
Mr. Stewart. You make a good point there too. And sometimes
our flaws are obvious and sometimes they are used as a reason
to degrade and degenerate against the good. No doubt about
that. Again, I know you could list others. My time is almost
up. I will just conclude with this. And I am glad you mentioned
Tunisia, but we could have listed others, but Tunisia was a
place. I mean, we had Libya intervention with U.S. soldiers
there at the time, there now. We obviously have on the other
side Egypt and the Middle East, which is a very, very chaotic
part of the world, a dangerous neighborhood. But in this one
case, we were able to make a difference, and we did it without
military intervention. And I remember meeting with the
President of Tunisia and him begging us: Will you please help
us?
And we did, and I am grateful we did, and I am thankful for
your work. We want to support you.
Mr. Green. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Administrator Green, and congratulations again.
My question is about women. Women invest in the health and
education of their families, which create more stable
societies. An adolescent girl can't participate in basic
education opportunities if she misses school due to lack of
access to basic hygiene and sanitation needs. A woman fleeing a
disaster still needs menstrual and reproductive health needs
met if she is to focus on economic stability and the security
of her own family. This is why menstrual hygiene management is
so important. It enables women and girls to participate in
education and the economy. Studies have shown that when girls
don't have access to education, they are more likely to be
recruited by militant terrorist groups.
The proposed budget, though, calls for slashing Water and
Sanitation Hygiene, or the WASH program, funding, which
includes menstrual hygiene management. We can't empower women
to change the future of their countries if they don't have the
basics to stay in school or participate in the economy due to
immediate concerns they may have about water and sanitation
needs. How specifically is USAID including menstrual hygiene
management in its WASH program development on a broad scale?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I know you have been a very eloquent advocate for this
topic.
So a couple of ways. First, on the more specific, we
include such items as part of our kits in disaster response. So
it is a key part--it is a recognition of the importance of
clean water and sanitation in disaster cases. So we do that. We
additionally work with NGOs and U.N. partners to make sure that
such items and services are available as much as we can.
In terms of the WASH program, we have already named--in
fulfillment of our obligations to you and the Subcommittee--we
have already created the position of Global Water Coordinator
to help oversee the planning that we do in fulfillment of the
Water for the World requirements. I will make sure that our
staff consults with you so that we are working closely to make
sure that work fulfills the intentions of Congress.
Ms. Meng. Just more broadly, nearly a quarter of the
world's children live in conflict- or disaster-stricken
countries. How has USAID been working to ensure children are
protected from exploitation and violence in humanitarian
settings? And in your opinion, how can USAID increase focus on
addressing challenges facing children and youth around the
world?
Mr. Green. A challenging broad question because the needs
are so great. Let me respond in a couple of ways. In terms of
helping exploited children, the response is a combination of
law enforcement, awareness building, victim services, and
referral networks. All of those we do and we support.
But, secondly, you are pointing to what is probably the
greatest realization since I have come to this position. My
background was on the development side. And I worked on a
number of our best known development tools. I have been struck
by the level of humanitarian need. I mean, I guess I really
wasn't fully prepared for that. We have nearly 66 million
displaced people in the world today. And I bring that up in
this context because, as I visited camps in Sudan and South
Sudan, I was struck by how many of them were children. And in
places like Darfur, they are born in those camps, and they are
being raised in those camps. And how they are able to get basic
nutritional services, basic educational services, health
services, it is an enormous challenge for us, and somehow we
have to meet that challenge because, if we fail to meet it, you
wonder where those children are going to be 10 years from now
and how they are not going to fall prey to some of the worst
influences. So it is something that causes me to stay up at
night. It struck me more than anything else.
Ms. Meng. And in talking about budget cuts and priorities,
will you commit to the empowerment of women and girls and
protecting them and, like you mentioned, the increasing record
numbers of people who have been born or are fleeing because of
these dire humanitarian situations?
Mr. Green. Women's empowerment is a key part of our
programming and will continue to be. It is. It is something we
try to take into account in all the programming we do.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. That concludes the first round of questions,
comments.
Mr. Ambassador, I know you are a busy man, but do you have
time for us to do another round of questions if we keep it
brief?
Mr. Green. Sounds great to me. The brief part sounds really
good to me.
Mr. Rogers. Let's go for another round. And we will hold
the time limit to around 3 minutes, rather than 5, to give
members a chance to at least bring up some of their concerns.
One of my big concerns is the legacy of USAID being a poor
manager, that the management of the Agency is famous for
struggling, poor planning, poor monitoring, lack of local
capacity and qualified personnel, coordination with other
agencies, and financial and information management. In fact,
the Inspector General, who was our first witness before this
subcommittee sometime back, made a great point of mentioning
top management challenges at USAID. Addressing those chronic
problems would not only enhance USAID but also the credibility
and legitimacy of foreign assistance itself. What can you tell
us about how you plan to remedy these chronic management
problems identified by the IG?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, let me say that I enjoy a great working relationship
with the OIG. We have met. She or her representative sits in
our senior management meetings. And one of the first executive
memos that I sent out across the Agency was a joint one with
her talking about the key role as a partner that I see the OIG
playing, especially as we take on issues of talking about
redesign. These are key things that we need to have as part of
every decision that we make. In terms of the recommendations
that had been left unaddressed when I came in, as I believe the
OIG will tell you, we are working through them deliberately and
getting as many done as quickly as we can to make sure that we
do this the right way. Again, I view the OIG as a key partner
in our work. You know, we need to jointly take on concerns that
are there. And so that is our commitment and will continue to
be to this committee.
Mr. Rogers. I appreciate the fact that you are interested
in her advice. But there is another adviser we want you to pay
attention to, and it is this subcommittee and the Congress. I
was just chatting with Mrs. Lowey a few minutes ago. You have
more discretion, larger amounts of money to disburse by your
discretion than most any agency head I can think of, which is
the way it should be. We should give you flexibility and give
you the funds to do your chores. But in exchange, we need
information and we need oversight and we need responsiveness.
USAID has a bit of a reputation for not being able to
provide information on its programs and funding in a timely and
comprehensive manner. It is a real communications problem that
we have had long before you came here that we are hoping that
you can remedy. What do you say?
Mr. Green. First off, you have my personal commitment. I
will be up here all the time. As we take a look at many of the
programs that we have, many of the responsibilities and
authorities that you have provided, they require congressional
notification. My commitment to you is congressional
consultation. Coming in and informing you of choices, of
decisions, is not consultation. We instead plan to be very
deliberative in our discussions with you.
As a practical matter, none of these things are sustainable
if we aren't in a dialogue with all of you, if we aren't
sharing ideas. There shouldn't be surprises. And so that is our
commitment to you. On some of the steps that we have been
looking at as we strengthen humanitarian assistance, I know
that this Committee has been briefed. And that is the practice
that we plan to undertake, is briefing as often as we can. I am
personally available to come up any time. But we want it to be
a constant dialogue. It is the only way that we get sustainable
outcomes.
And then, finally, and maybe it is because I come from this
institution; Congress has a lot of good ideas. You know, we are
trying to bring in from every part of the community, every part
of this community the best ideas we can find to take on these
challenges. Every now and then, it actually comes from Congress
as well. So we will do our best to make sure that you are
included in discussions.
Mr. Rogers. You know, we read a lot about and have
conversations a lot about the proposed reorganization of State
and USAID. Here we are 11 months into the administration, and
we don't yet know even the parameters of the supposed
reorganization that is being planned. This is more than passing
interest. This needs to be aired out. And Congress needs to be
a part of that airing out.
OMB is reviewing the reorg, as I understand. Will you also
commit to briefing this Committee and submitting the report
required by the 2017 omnibus before making any organizational
changes?
Mr. Green. Yes. We will comply with all of the requirements
of the omnibus bill, all the congressional notifications and
consultations. You can count on that. Again, we have already
started that process but want to make sure that it is a
continuous dialogue. So yes.
Mr. Rogers. You kept it a pretty good secret from us.
Mr. Green. Well, in terms of briefings, we did brief your
Subcommittee staff in terms of a couple of measures that we are
looking at. But the redesign plan was submitted on September
12. OMB has 180 days to look at it. In terms of what comes out
the other side, to be honest, it is premature. But you will
absolutely be consulted as we go.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Following up on the chairman's questions, while
Congress and the administration continue to grapple with the
fiscal year 2018 budget process, I remain very proud of what we
accomplished together in the fiscal year 2017 omnibus. Among
our other achievements, the bill provided adequate investments
in our diplomatic and development programs.
Three quick questions. Can you explain the reports from
implementers about funding being delayed or canceled, with the
administration citing budget uncertainty? I recently heard a
class of USAID Foreign Service officers was abruptly canceled.
Can you explain the reasoning for this? Will we be able to
effectively implement USAID programs if we are unable to bring
into the Foreign Service new talent? Congress has been alerted
that the Development Innovation Ventures program was put on
hold. Feed the Future priority countries were scaled back.
Numerous education and health programs have been shortened or
canceled altogether. Do I have your commitment that fiscal year
2016 and 2017 resources are being fully implemented according
to the agreements reached with Congress? And I would just like
to say, as you see, Mr. Ambassador, that you have a fan club in
this committee. It is a very bipartisan committee. We all are
focused on doing the best we can. And if there are recommended
changes, we certainly can review them together. But what is
happening now is unconscionable. It is inappropriate. I have
been in the Congress a long time. And as a person who is really
committed to these programs, who has seen the success of these
programs, I understand that they all aren't successful, and we
have to evaluate them together. But it is now November. Please
explain.
Mr. Green. Sure. Thank you. First, in terms of the delays
of funding, I have heard some of those reports. I am concerned.
We have looked into it. I suspect that a lot of this is due to
how late in the year the omnibus bill was signed. It wasn't
signed until May. I have actually sent out numerous
communications all across the Agency that money should be
mobilized and should be fully implemented as intended by
Congress. We will live up to all of the commitments that were
made in that bill and with 2016. So we will in fact program all
those dollars.
On a previous occasion, you had asked me about the $990
million in famine funding. That was fully obligated by the end
of the fiscal year per our commitment to you. A fair bit of
that was actually committed up at UNGA in the pledges that we
made. So we will absolutely live up to our obligations and make
sure that we do that. I will continue to look into these
reports. But again--and meet with your staff to go over
specifics. But our understanding, a lot of that has been in the
delay of the money reaching us.
But absolutely we have throughout the agency asked for full
implementation. There is no intention on our part to hold back,
none at all.
Mrs. Lowey. I think it is important for the record to note
that the money being held up is from fiscal year 2016, not
fiscal year 2017.
Look, in conclusion, I just want to say I know your goals
are similar to our goals. This is the eleventh month--January,
February, March--and there is so much uncertainty: People are
leaving. They don't know whether they are going to be retained
out in the field. There is a real concern of who is going to be
servicing these programs, who is going to stay, who is going to
leave. And many outstanding people that you and I and all of us
would love to see in these positions are moving on to other
things because they don't know what is happening next.
So I don't know if you have a closing comment on that
issue, but I am extremely concerned. I have been working on
these programs a long time. I have never experienced anything
like this.
Mr. Green. Again, we will be very happy to follow up with
you on the 2016 dollars. That is simply not what I have heard.
We are not going to hold anything back. There is no reason to.
We will fully implement. We will follow all of the agreements
struck with Congress. Absolutely. We want to see the success of
these programs. I personally want to see the success of the
programs.
With respect to the story that you are referencing, we have
not eliminated positions. We are still under a hiring freeze.
As of today, we are still under a hiring freeze. Before I
arrived at this position, we had asked for an exception for
that class that was involved, and it was denied. And that is
where that comes from.
Mrs. Lowey. I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, as you can
see from this hearing, we all have great respect for your
leadership. And maybe we have to have a joint meeting for the
person who is making these decisions because, whether it is
purposeful or not, in my judgment, the department is being
destroyed, the programs in the field are being destroyed, and
we should be able to make decisions about programs that are
effective, programs that are not effective, and I know we could
do them together. So the fact that this is November and this
administration has had since January, I think that is totally
unacceptable. But I thank you again for taking on this work,
and I look forward to working with the chairman and this
Committee.
Mr. Green. If I can just add one element, I would be very
happy also to attend a meeting that we convene with some of
those who have raised concerns about the financial flow
because, again, there is no interest here in holding it back.
These are our obligations, our commitments to all of you. So I
would be very happy to explore that further.
Mrs. Lowey. I thank you for your comments, and I look
forward to following up with our Chairman to see what next
steps will be because I know everyone who has chosen this
Committee is committed to its work. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ambassador, in your opening comments, you mentioned
part of your mission is to do what we can to stop wildlife
trafficking. Obviously, the loss of species is a concern, but
also as that leads to terrorist financing networks and the
disruption of basic important local economies and a sustained
ecosystem. I want to bring something to your attention that we
are working on. In Botswana, there is the Okavango, which is a
pristine wilderness area made possible by the highland waters
that come down from Angola and Namibia. Botswana does an
incredibly good job of managing this through private
concessions under government authority but clearly need to be
aggressively working with both the countries of Namibia and
Angola for its long-term sustainability. As Angola moves out of
its difficult period, there is, my understanding, a memorandum
of understanding between our Defense Department and Angola.
There is a new President coming in shortly. We have spoken with
them. There is a group of Members working on a new concept. I
have spoken as well with the Namibian representatives who are
also interested in this idea of a transnational conservation
area.
So there is a piece of legislation that is being worked now
that hopefully will be introduced shortly. It would primarily
potentially involve the Interior Department and Wildlife and
Fisheries, but there is going to be some nexus I suspect with
you as well. This, again, is a significant idea to think beyond
national boundaries as to how you create the conditions of a
holistic ecosystem which is beneficial to communities and
persons and allows for the more proper migration of wildlife so
that, again, they are sustained over time, leading to economic
benefits versus just simply resource extraction, which may
disrupt really an environmentally pristine area. There are also
geopolitical benefits of this as well in that we are bringing a
creative, innovative, entrepreneurial vision of sustainability
versus other countries that just want to pull stuff out. I
bring that to your attention because this is coming your way
shortly.
The second issue, quickly, is I have spent some time
studying an OPIC endeavor, Overseas Private Investment
Corporation, in which they are doing exactly what you pointed
out you want to explore as to how you better leverage private
sector and even the private market dynamics to create
sustainability of charitable or humanitarian projects. Here
OPIC participates in a private equity fund. So does the Gates
Foundation. So there are certain social metrics that are built
into actually a private profitmaking venture, which returns the
U.S. Government money. But it is targeted to sustainable
medical systems among the poor, cross-subsidized by the wealthy
because they go to the same clinics because these clinics work.
So we can have a longer discussion about that, but it is one of
the more innovative things I have seen out there that actually
makes us money, does not require troops to stand there and
guard the facility in order for it to be successful, and is
leveraging the best of the private market, even though it seems
peculiar that the United States is indirectly involved in the
private equity fund.
Mr. Green. Very quickly, I met with the Secretary of
Interior last week, and we just began our conversations about
some of the international conservation programs, which I think,
A, are a great part of our heritage, and B, a skill set that we
can help export. We can help build the capacity of other
countries towards ecotourism and sustainable ecotourism. So I
will take a look at the legislation. I am aware of some of the
concepts, and really preserving those corridors are obviously
key in a number of ways.
Secondly, one of the things that I have also picked up
since I have been on the job is I am now a member of the board
of OPIC by being Administrator. I have had one board meeting.
We have begun those discussions. I think that we need to make
sure that our development finance institutions, including
USAID's Development Credit Authority, are closely aligned. We
need to deploy all of those tools in so many situations to make
the dollars go further but, more significantly, to better
access private capital. Eighty percent of the money that is
flowing from America to the developing world is commerce. It is
private commerce. It is remittances. And we need to be able to
tap into those. If we don't, we are working with such a small
piece of the pie; we are really not leveraging development
outcomes. So it is a very exciting area.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Lee
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador.
Following up on Congresswoman Lowey's point about money
being obligated, the $990 million in emergency funding for the
famine relief, that money you confirmed has been obligated.
Mr. Green. Completely obligated.
Ms. Lee. Now, the fiscal 2018 budget requested elimination
of title II food aid, which, again, didn't reflect quite a
sustained response from this administration, given the ongoing
famine crisis. We know now, in Yemen, Somalia, South Sudan,
northern Nigeria, these crises aren't going away. So, by the
elimination of the title II food aid, I mean, I don't know what
options there are, given what you indicated in terms of our
commitment.
Secondly, let me ask you about these new partnerships. Now,
several years ago, we wrote language into the bill that we want
a report back on the utilization of minority and women-owned
businesses. USAID has been one of the worst in the Federal
Government in terms of making sure African-American, Latino,
and Asian-Pacific-American businesses are part of the mix in
terms of USAID operations. So I would like you to look at that
and send us a report on how you intend to use them and what is
going on in this.
And, finally, just with regard to UNFPA, when the money was
transferred it was $32.5 million transferred from the
International Organizations Bureau to USAID. Ambassador Haley
came before us and said that all of the money would go to
global health. So I want to make sure that USAID is using this
money for women and children, you know, whatever global health
now, however that is defined as it relates to USAID's mission.
Mr. Green. On the third point, I will get back to you. I
will confirm that for you. In terms of what we are doing to
bolster diversity, it has been a high priority of mine since
the day I arrived. I think it was my first executive message
that went out was to reaffirm and expand diversity in the
workplace and diversity in programming priorities, a key part.
We have also expanded what we are doing with minority-serving
organizations in terms of, not just business, but recruiting
for our staff.
Ms. Lee. We had an HBCU, Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, strategy. So we need an update on that.
Mr. Green. Yes. We are meeting with them and expanding to
the Hispanic-serving institutions as well.
Ms. Lee. Good.
Mr. Green. I also had the very enjoyable experience of
working with Donald Payne, Jr., of welcoming the class of the
Donald Payne, Sr., fellowships, and we are going to continue
that program. So you have my commitment. We are going to
continue to bolster it. We need to find the best talent we can,
and if we are not tapping into those organizations and
institutions in the minority community, we are not going to get
there. And, secondly, it is a key part of our projection of
American values around the world.
Ms. Lee. Minority-owned businesses, 8(a) programs.
Mr. Green. Absolutely.
Ms. Lee. Okay. And then, finally, on the famine, the cut of
food aid, the elimination of the food aid program, how do you
intend to sustain famine relief if in fact there is no money?
Mr. Green. So, as you know, the budget request didn't
eliminate food aid. It simply put it all into the international
disaster assistance accounts, but it is not as much as it was;
you are absolutely correct. And it is a challenge. And it does
create challenges. It does require choices. I will say one
thing that we have begun to see: We are seeing more partners
increase their share. Germany, Japan, the EU, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia. But the needs are still outpacing the available
resources. I want to just be honest with you.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador, as our time is running out here, I want to flag
one area for your response for the record, if I may. This is
basic education, the support of basic education. That has been
a major priority of this Subcommittee. And you shouldn't
conclude otherwise from the fact that it hasn't been directly
discussed here this morning. So I am going to be submitting a
question for you to respond to for the record having to do with
the nature of that commitment, what kind of priority you give
it, the relationship to development potential in countries, the
potential for countering radicalism, and so forth. We know how
important it is, and I do want to get some information on the
record as we write our future bills.
What I want to give you a chance to respond to orally is
what I take to be a major emphasis of your statement before us
and your plans going forward, and that is the increasing use of
public-private partnerships in our aid programs. We all know
that the flow of funds into developing countries has become
more diversified, not so much just development assistance
anymore; it is supplemented by philanthropy, by remittances, by
private investment, and so on. And so USAID's work is going to
be increasingly to stimulate that kind of support and those
partnerships.
There is a converse proposition, though, and that is, just
as you need to stress the potential of seed money to leverage
support and funding from other sources, I think it is also
important for us to have an assessment of how the removal of
seed money or the reduction of seed money potentially would
have effects far beyond just the direct funds expended. I
assume you would agree that is a peril as we consider foreign
aid budgets. It is a promise and a peril. I wonder if you would
elaborate further on how you are going to--on your plans going
forward in this area. We of course would welcome a submission
for the record. But anything you want to say here as well.
Mr. Green. Thank you. Thanks for the question. And you are
pointing at what is in some ways the most significant
development in development these days, and that is the ability
to leverage catalytic investments in ways that produce
development outcomes. It has been--again, I am not quite 3
months on the job, but it has been one of the strongest and
most rewarding lessons that I have learned. I was at the World
Food Prize event in Iowa a couple of weeks back and the
dialogues around it. And meeting with a number of the
companies--Syngenta, with whom we unveiled a new partnership;
Keurig Green Mountain, with whom we unveiled a new partnership;
the work being done by a number of agribusinesses to help
Africa take on the fall armyworm--there are all kinds of ways
where USAID can use its convening power, its ability to lower
risk and risk share, and also to provide some modest
availability of credit, the outcomes are almost unlimited. But
it is important that we coordinate those tools better than I
think we have done in the past or really had the opportunity to
do. But I think there are tremendous opportunities.
And we are even seeing it in the humanitarian space. In the
response to the outbreaks of Ebola in Guinea and West Africa,
the number of private institutions and businesses that came
forward as a response to some of the grand challenges that we
issued showed remarkable success in development of new
technologies that just mobilized our ability to respond. We
just have to keep that going because of the nature of the
challenges and the depth of the challenges that we face.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Mr. Ambassador, let me turn quickly and lastly here to
Afghanistan. USAID has been investing resources in Afghanistan
for a very long time now. There have been some accomplishments,
but there is still a long way to go, and resources are finite.
Assistance levels to Afghanistan have been declining steadily,
but we are still talking about a significant amount of money,
$650 million in fiscal year 2017. President Trump recently
announced his administration's new South Asia Strategy, and the
Committee recently received the updated civilian and diplomatic
strategy for Afghanistan. In your opinion, what can we do to
create a real and lasting impact in Afghanistan?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Right now, at USAID, we
are in the process of developing our 4-year plan to align with
the President's announced South Asia policy. And as you know,
the pillars of that are security and governance and corruption.
And that is what we are developing responses to, but also the
humanitarian assistance side. Those Afghans who are returning
from Pakistan and their integration and creation of economic
community and community connectiveness, those will be key parts
of it.
You know, clearly a successful Afghanistan is vitally
important to the U.S. in our broad-based battle against violent
extremism. But you are right: I mean, obviously patience is not
unlimited, and we all need to see results and progress. And we
will share, obviously, our strategy with you. But we are
working on it to try to take those on.
I think also looking for ways to create licit economic
opportunity and away from what we have seen the reports of
poppy growing is vitally important as well. That is in our
interest. So we are developing a strategy to align with the
President's policy, and we will share it with you as it is
completed.
Mr. Rogers. We appreciate the fact that your staff and your
partners are working in incredibly difficult conditions in
Afghanistan. We want to thank them for their dedication and
their service. But operating in that conflict environment also
makes it difficult to get eyes on projects that you have for
the best possible oversight. How can you ensure, if you can,
that U.S. funds aren't getting into the wrong hands?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is, as you point
to, a significant challenge. But it is a challenge not only on
the ground; it is a challenge to the systems of USAID. We have
developed a vetting system that we use to try to make sure that
every last dollar goes to where it is intended and, most
importantly, doesn't go into the hands of the wrong people. We
are able to use technology well. We do have some people on the
ground, but it is vitally important. And so we are spending a
lot of time on it. It slows down, for us, the responsiveness,
but it is absolutely important. It is our highest guarantee or
assurance that we are going to focus on this because it goes to
the integrity of USAID.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Ambassador, we really appreciate your being
here today. We have kept you longer than perhaps you had hoped,
but we have covered a lot of good ground. We appreciate your
testimony here today. More importantly, we appreciate your
service to your country, again. We are thrilled that you are
where you are. We think that you are perfectly situated, with
your experience, for this new assignment. So good luck to you.
Count on this Subcommittee as your friend and supporter. And we
will try to give you what you need as best we can. So thank you
for your service.
You are the face of America to most of the rest of the
world. You and your Agency are present everywhere in a good
sense. And so we wish you well in putting on the best face for
this country abroad. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. The hearing is adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 9, 2017.
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND FOREIGN OPERATIONS
PROGRAMS
WITNESSES
ANN CALVARESI BARR, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
STEVE LINICK, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND
BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Opening Statement of Chairman Rogers
Mr. Rogers. Good morning. The hearing will come to order.
I want to welcome everyone to the first hearing of the
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Subcommittee for the 115th Congress. In particular, I want to
acknowledge our Full Committee chairman, Mr. Frelinghuysen,
and, of course, our Ranking Member, Mrs. Lowey.
I am confident our Full Committee is in exceptionally good
hands under the chairman's leadership, and I am pleased that
Madame Ranking Member Nita Lowey and I can continue our work
together in my new role, and one that she has been in for some
time here.
I am honored to serve as chair of this Subcommittee. I am
committed to making sure that all members' perspectives are
considered as we work to address some of the world's most
complex issues.
As a Subcommittee Chair, I have always liked to begin our
annual hearing process with a review of the management and
operations of the agencies under our purview. This year is no
exception. A broad array of issues currently confront the State
Department and USAID, and no doubt, today's knowledgeable
witnesses can shed light on many of those issues.
So we would like to welcome to our Subcommittee this
morning Mr. Steve Linick. Inspector General for the Department
of State and Broadcasting Board of Governors; and Ms. Ann
Calvaresi Barr, Inspector General for the U.S. Agency for
International Development, the Millennium Challenge
Corporation, the U.S. African Development Foundation, the
Inter-American Foundation, and the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation.
As independent and objective representatives within the
Federal Government, your work is very important to the
Committee, and your willingness to testify today is much
appreciated. We need to know what is and what is not working
within your agencies so we can make decisions about how to
responsibly allocate scarce Federal resources.
As I take a deeper dive into the budget at State, I am
troubled about repeated findings by the State Department IG
regarding the Department's lack of focus on program management
and oversight, especially of grants and contracts; the fiscal
and security risks associated with shared responsibilities
across the Department without clear lines of accountability;
the absence of a centralized financial management system; and
the need for a strategic plan to proactively detect and respond
to information security risks.
I am also concerned by the USAID IG's work regarding
financial and other risks when working through foreign
partners, including host governments; shortcomings in
monitoring programs to ensure they are meeting their objective,
particularly in areas of conflict; OPIC's reluctance to embrace
oversight from your office; and MCC's ability to properly
assess the capacity of countries to develop, plan, and execute
compacts.
We look forward to hearing more of these issues from you
today. I hope you will not only identify problems that you see
at these critically important agencies but also provide advice
on potential solutions, ensuring that appropriate funds are
spent efficiently and effectively, with measurable benchmarks
and outcomes. That is an essential responsibility of our
Committee.
As a matter of housekeeping for members, we will follow the
5-minute rule during the question-and-answer period of the
hearing. Members will be recognized in order of seniority based
on who was seated at the start of the hearing, going back and
forth between parties. I don't plan to cut anyone off in mid-
sentence, but if everyone could keep their questions and
comments to about 5 minutes, that would be appreciated.
Let me take a moment now to thank Mrs. Lowey for her many
years on this Subcommittee and also as ranking on the Full
Committee that we worked together over the past 6 years. And
now, hopefully and gladly, we are back into a good working
relationship. We may not agree on all the issues, but we are
partners in shepherding bills to the President's desk, and we
long for and yearn for regular order on this Committee. And she
is a loyal soldier and partner in that effort.
So let me yield to the ranking member of the Committee,
Mrs. Lowey.
Opening Statement of Mrs. Lowey
Mrs. Lowey. I thank you, Chairman Rogers. It has been a
pleasure for me to work with you in both of your capacities. I
look forward to continuing our good, straightforward
relationship. This is a wonderful Committee. It is so very
important. And we are going to, I know, work together with all
our colleagues when they arrive too because of the important
work ahead of us.
And I join Chairman Rogers in welcoming Mr. Linick and Ms.
Calvaresi Barr. You have come to the Committee at a significant
time. The President will soon release his so-called skinny
budget, which is reported to cut State Department activities as
much as 37 percent. Such unsustainable budget cuts threaten our
diplomatic and development activities, will weaken our national
security, reduce our standing in the world, and cost the United
States more in the long term.
In addition, budget cuts to the inspectors general, along
with the reported potential ouster of IGs throughout multiple
agencies, would go to the absolute heart of eliminating
accountability.
In fact, if President Trump ever meets basic standards of
transparency by disclosing his tax returns, inspectors general
must be on the front lines of ensuring that agencies' official
actions are not influenced by the President's personal
financial interests.
You must have the tools to ensure taxpayer dollars are
spent wisely, efficiently, and effectively. Waste, fraud, and
abuse not only violate the trust of the taxpayers, they
undermine our nation's security.
As inspectors general, your challenging task of providing
independent oversight of U.S. investment overseas is further
complicated by the numerous nongovernmental organizations and
private contractors on which the State Department and USAID
rely for implementation. These partners, which are
indispensable to providing expertise and extending our reach,
must be thoroughly evaluated to ensure taxpayer dollars are put
to good use.
The security and safety of U.S. civilian personnel around
the globe, particularly those in areas affected by conflict,
humanitarian crisis, political instability, or terrorism, are
of utmost concern. And I look forward to hearing your
recommendations on budgeting and steps USAID and the State
Department can take to improve oversight, best secure U.S.
personnel abroad, and protect taxpayer dollars.
Lastly, I continue to be concerned about a lack of
coordination in our public diplomacy, as it often appears that
efforts to inform and influence foreign opinions of the United
States are disjointed, unconnected, working at cross-purposes.
I would like an update on how the BBG and the State Department
coordinate public diplomacy and address barriers to these
efforts' effectiveness. Your insights on obstacles at the State
Department, BBG, USAID and MCC, be they structural, cultural,
or resource-driven, and steps we in Congress can take to make
improvements would be welcome.
So I thank you for your ongoing commitment to ensuring our
engagements overseas are accountable and efficient, and I look
forward to continuing working together with our distinguished
chairman and members of the Committee to accomplish the very
important goals that certainly are going to deal with major
issues ahead of us.
Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentlelady.
Let me now recognize Mr. Linick. If you would please try to
keep your remarks around 5 minutes to give us time for as many
questions as possible. Thank you for being here.
Opening Statement of Mr. Linick
Mr. Linick. Thank you.
Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today
regarding the work of the Office of the Inspector General for
the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of
Governors, the BBG. We appreciate the Subcommittee's continued
interest in and support of our work.
OIG oversees the operations and programs of the Department
of State and the BBG, which include more than 70,000 employees
and over 270 overseas missions and domestic entities. These
agencies are funded through combined annual appropriations,
fees, and other income of more than $43 billion. Unlike other
inspectors general, we are statutorily required to inspect all
posts every 5 years.
In practical terms, these factors mean that a relatively
small OIG is responsible for oversight of thousands of
employees and billions of taxpayer dollars. For example, we
have only about 80 inspectors, who are responsible for over 270
posts, and less than 100 auditors to review the expenditures of
tens of billions of dollars.
Now I will turn to some highlights of our recent oversight
work. First, one of OIG's top priorities is protecting those
who work for the Department around the world. Although the
Department has made improvements in overseas safety and
security, challenges remain. Through our inspection and audit
work, OIG continues to find critical vulnerabilities that put
our people at risk. Specifically, we have reported on physical
security deficiencies at overseas facilities, weaknesses in the
process of developing emergency action plans, and health and
safety concerns.
Second, the security of the Department's information
systems is a focus of our work. The Department has spent
substantial resources over the past few years, but IT security
and management continues to be a significant challenge.
Last, OIG has closely examined the Department's management
of contracts and grants, an area that involves substantial
resources. In fiscal year 2016 alone, the Department's
obligations in these areas were more than $33 billion. The
Department faces continuing challenges in managing its
contracts and grants, particularly as these vehicles become
increasingly complex. In the previous fiscal year, we have
issued numerous reports related to these topics and opened
several, many criminal and civil, investigations related to
contract and procurement fraud.
Our priority recommendations for each of these areas focus
on systemic issues that have the potential to improve the
Department's overall operations. By way of example, regarding
physical security deficiencies, one root cause we have
identified is that the two Department bureaus, the Bureau of
Diplomatic Security and the Bureau of Overseas Building
Operations, have overlapping responsibilities for crucial
physical security issues. We have recommended that those
bureaus develop and implement formal standardized processes to
prioritize physical security needs, which would allow the
Department more effectively to prioritize, fund, and plan for
security upgrades.
With respect to IT security challenges, we have recommended
that the Department implement a strategy to identify, assess,
respond to, and monitor risk. Such a Department-wide approach
would enable the Department to better understand its current
risk profile, identify opportunities to improve risk
management, and communicate risk.
Since I have been inspector general, OIG has undertaken a
number of initiatives that allow us to use our limited
resources more prudently and help us improve our oversight of
the Department and BBG. For example, we are issuing management
assistance reports and management alerts that are designed to
alert senior Department leadership to significant issues that
require immediate corrective action.
We use these reports to bring specific issues to the
attention of the Department and BBG management quickly, without
waiting for the conclusion of the longer term audits or
inspections. We also have adopted a new approach for our
inspections. To target our resources most efficiently, we now
use a risk-based model that considers a variety of factors,
including a post size and threat profile. We believe that this
model will allow us to focus our resources on higher risk posts
that warrant increased oversight.
In closing, I would like to discuss the impact of OIG's
work. In my written testimony, I have included some financial
information that demonstrates how OIG helps return money to
American taxpayers. We are certainly proud of these efforts,
but focusing on these measurements does not fully reflect our
most important work, that is, helping to safeguard the lives of
people who work in or visit our posts abroad and protecting the
Department's information, reputation, and the integrity of its
programs. This work is a source of immense pride to OIG's
employees.
Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey, and members of the
Subcommittee, I want to thank you again for the opportunity to
testify today. I also want to emphasize that OIG's
accomplishments are a credit to the talented and committed
staff that I have had the privilege to lead; and I want to take
this moment to publicly thank them for their incredible work. I
look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Opening Statement of Ms. Calvaresi Barr
I now recognize Ms. Calvaresi Barr. If you would, try to
keep your remarks within 5 minutes.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss our
oversight of U.S. foreign assistance agencies.
Today I want to share information that speaks to the
efficacy of U.S. foreign assistance delivered through USAID and
the other agencies we oversee. U.S. foreign assistance goals
are broad and demanding. USAID and other agency programs
support economic growth, combat disease, address food
insecurity, and promote democratic reform. These programs also
respond to humanitarian crises and aim to counter threats to
global stability and to our national security.
While USAID's global impact is well-documented and points
to many foreign assistance achievements, our work has shown
that poor planning and monitoring, a lack of local capacity and
qualified personnel, and difficulties coordinating joint
efforts have limited the agency's potential reach.
Nonpermissive environments can exacerbate these challenges.
For example, in Afghanistan, insufficient planning and a
lack of data and systems unraveled the mission's multitiered
strategy to narrow monitoring gaps. The strategy was used on
just one of 127 awards.
In Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, a lengthy award
approval process and the government's inability to handle cash
transfers delayed USAID's Ebola response.
In Pakistan, USAID has yet to achieve most of the
development objectives Congress called for, due in part to
competing agency priorities.
In Haiti, and West Bank and Gaza, the governments currently
lack the capacity to sustain USAID-funded projects and programs
once USAID investment ends.
Our work also demonstrates the extent to which USAID
programs are vulnerable to exploitation. Our agents exposed
fraud schemes in cross-border Syria assistance programs that
involved collusion between vendors and implementers, product
substitution, inflated billing, and false claims. Subsequently,
160 complaints were filed and 30 investigations launched,
resulting in 6 program suspensions, valued at $305 million, 17
suspensions and debarments, and $19.5 million in savings.
In western and southern Africa, we continue to crack down
on illegal activities, such as theft and trafficking of USAID-
funded medical commodities. Indictments, local arrests, and
seizures not only raise awareness and deter criminal activity
but help ensure life-saving medicines reach their intended
beneficiaries.
Through the Syria Investigations Working Group that we
stood up, we have sent a total of 34 referrals regarding
potential wrongdoing to bilateral donors and public
international organizations, which receive about 40 percent of
USAID's Syria response budget.
While these examples point to the need to remain proactive,
they raise questions about the administration of USAID
programs. Our recent reforms will add more rigor to our
assessments of USAID operations and yield more targeted
recommendations for eliminating the vulnerabilities we have
documented.
Our strategic crosscutting approach also applies to the
other agencies we oversee. For example, past weaknesses in
large-scale MCC-supported projects, such as insufficient
planning and poor contractor performance, call for a
comprehensive assessment of MCC's business model with a focus
on infrastructure, which accounts for about half of MCC's
compacts.
These are the hard-hitting discussions we are having with
the agencies that we oversee, and they have stood up and taken
action. Let me explain. In response to our Syria work, USAID
added award conditions that require implementers to have sound
internal controls before funds are disbursed. USAID also hired
a compliance officer for Syria to help ensure implementer
controls and checks are in place and called for greater use of
third-party monitors to visit sites and report findings.
Officials at USAID, MCC, and the other agencies we oversee
understand our role and its importance to the mission. Our
authority was underscored by a USAID cooperation memo that I
established with the then Administrator soon after I was sworn
in.
But there is still work to do to solidify our independence
and further advance the impact of our work. For example, we are
taking back responsibility for closing out our recommendations.
We are working closely with USAID's Compliance Division to
ensure steady and appropriate action in response to our
investigative referrals. We continue to implement reforms and
initiatives to establish our office as a model in the
accountability community and a dogged steward of taxpayer
dollars.
I hope the information that I provide today will prove
useful to you as you deliberate fiscal year 2018 budgets for
us, USAID, MCC, and the other agencies that we oversee. We
genuinely appreciate your past support and continued assistance
as we address areas of congressional priority.
That concludes my statement. I am available to take
questions. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much.
I want you to talk about the magnitude of the financial
management deficiencies at State Department and USAID and make
recommendations to us. Over the last decade, the Department of
State has expanded its role in implementing foreign assistance
alongside traditional development assistance that is managed by
USAID. As more and more State Department offices and bureaus
took on managing those assistance programs, it became apparent
that the Department was not properly equipped for that huge new
role.
In 2015, you issued a management assistance report, which
noted that 10 years' worth of audits and inspections found that
none of the Department's data systems tracked funding and
expenditures by program or project or country or purpose. That
level of information is essential to track and manage funds as
well as to be able to respond to external inquiries.
That report led the Department to undertake a planning
process called the Foreign Assistance Data Review, which I
understand is still going on several years later. But since the
2015 report, the OIG has issued numerous audits of bureaus and
offices with concerning findings on financial management, such
as ``staff is required to engage in time-consuming,
inefficient, and parallel processes to track the bureau's
finances,'' and ``without procedures to monitor the financial
management of award recipients, NEA cannot easily determine if
funds are being spent in accordance with laws and
regulations.'' So, tell us, where are we?
Mr. Linick.
Mr. Linick. Mr. Chairman, you have accurately described the
situation regarding the foreign assistance at the Department of
State. We did make recommendations in 2015 for them to develop
a system that could track, manage spending by program, by
project, by country.
As it stands now, supervisors and managers in the
Department don't really have a way to manage foreign
assistance. And if you want to find out how much foreign
assistance has gone to a particular grantee, you can't just
call up that information very quickly. You can't figure out
exactly how much foreign assistance has gone to Africa versus
Asia. You can't figure out how much money is in the pipeline
that hasn't been spent, unliquidated obligations.
There is no way to do this without engaging in a very time-
consuming effort, going bureau by bureau. And what has happened
is a number of bureaus, to compensate for this, have decided to
undertake these efforts on their own and have wasted a lot of
money in doing so and designing their own systems.
Unfortunately, although we have made those
recommendations--we issued that report in 2015--the Department
still doesn't have a financial assistance tracking system.
There is a working group that was actually developed before we
issued the report, and, as I understand it, the working group
comprises maybe 10 to 14 different bureaus, but it really needs
leadership to shore up the solution and come up with a system
that would allow them to manage this huge amount of money.
Mr. Rogers. Where would that leadership come from?
Mr. Linick. Well, the leadership, we recommend that it be
led at the deputy's level because it really needs somebody who
is a supervisor of all the parties who are members of the
working group.
We are actually doing a compliance followup review, another
report on the progress of this working group. And we should
have that, you know, in short order.
Mr. Rogers. Would that leadership come from the Department,
the Deputy Secretary for Management?
Mr. Linick. There is no Deputy Secretary of Management at
the current time. When we made these recommendations, that
would be under her purview. Heather Higginbottom would have
been the individual responsible for shoring this up.
Mr. Rogers. So this problem is another argument for us to
have a Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources. Would you
say that?
Mr. Linick. I would say it is an argument for having a
deputy who is very focused on management, whether it is a
Deputy Secretary for Management or another Deputy Secretary. I
know there is a debate now as to whether there should be one or
two Secretaries. Regardless of whether there is one or two, the
deputy needs to be focused on management in the Department, and
this is one area where we need the deputy's assistance.
Mr. Rogers. While the Secretary of State is out around the
world doing what needs to be done from his point of view,
policymaking and the like, do you agree that there needs to be
somebody back here in headquarters running the day-to-day
operations of the Department, including this item that you have
talked about this morning?
Mr. Linick. Yes. I think that is very important.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Calvaresi Barr.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. I would be happy to talk about some of
the state of financial reporting and transparency into the data
systems at USAID. What I can share with you is that they have
essentially two systems. One is called Phoenix, and it is their
financial accounting system. The other is called GLAAS, and it
is essentially their procurement system.
They have made some progress in that these two systems are
able to interface with one another. Whether they can be fully
integrated is another question, something that they are working
on going forward.
What I would like to call your attention to is a
recommendation that came out of our FISMA work on information
security, which talked about--and I think it coincides here
with sort of having a person having a seat at the table on
these issues--with having the CIO report directly to the
Administrator or the Deputy Administrator. Right now, the CIO
is reporting to the head of management. And this is a
requirement that was established under Clinger-Cohen.
The importance of having someone there like that, they can
have a view across the board of the systems. They can have a
more strategic view, move away from the tactical and get away
from the decentralization of the information. So that is one
thing that I would sort of bring your attention to.
The other issue related to this that does concern me, even
though they have a financial accounting system, that system
does not compile information for the financial statement audits
at the end of each year. That module doesn't exist. That means
that there is a lot of manual entry. And when you have manual
entry, you are going to have errors. So those are some of the
risks associated with the financial reporting. I think our work
as we go forward, you know, on the DATA Act, where we focus a
little bit more on the information and the reporting and the
transparency of that reporting, will be key.
Final point on this is our work has found across the board
significant data reliability concerns. Seventy-one percent of
our reports from the time period 2011 through 2013 noted
overreporting, underreporting of contracts, grants, and
accomplishments.
So there is work to be done. Those are the items that I
wanted to highlight in response to your question.
Mr. Rogers. What can you do beyond what you are already
doing? What can you do to help us remedy this problem? I mean,
as you say, you can't tell us whether the money that we
appropriate is being spent wisely or not, right? What can you
do beyond what you are doing now to help remedy this?
Mr. Linick. Well, in terms of the Foreign Assistance
Tracking System, we can certainly make recommendations, and it
is up to the Department to adopt them. But if Congress were to
incorporate some of our recommendations into legislation or
explanatory statements and require the Department to do them
and have milestones and so forth, I think that would be very
helpful. And, in fact, that has occurred in the case of some of
our recommendations we have made with respect to contracts and
grant management and IT management.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you. We will look into that very
carefully.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. And as far as from where we sit, it is
implementing those recommendations. We are pushing very, very
hard on this issue of decentralized data quality, lack of data
reliability checks. It all starts there.
If the information going in isn't good, then the contract,
the agreement isn't going to be good, the monitoring and
evaluation system isn't going to be good. And what that results
in is, when folks are reporting information to officials such
as yourself, there is a question about the information that is
being presented.
So we are pushing very, very hard on the data quality
issue. We are also pushing very, very hard to have the CIO have
a seat at the table and report directly to the Administrator or
the Deputy Administrator so that they can have a view of these
systems across the board and link them to the goals and ensure
that the reliability of the data is there. So those would be
the two things I would push the most on.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. We are going to have you both back up
here----
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Very good.
Mr. Rogers [continuing]. For a little check of the oil in a
few months. We have not set a date yet, but I want you back to
report on how things are going, whether or not the Department
is heeding your wise advice or not. And maybe they will hear
about this and know that we are going to be keeping an eye on
whether or not they live up to these recommendations.
Is that agreeable?
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Absolutely.
Mr. Linick. Absolutely.
Mr. Rogers. Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I know this has been an ongoing challenge, and I look
forward to working with the Chairman and with you on this very
important issue.
At the start of a new administration, hundreds of new
personnel come into State Department and USAID to fill critical
and oftentimes senior positions. Conflicts of interest have
become a particular concern in the confirmation process of
several Cabinet-level nominees, but scrutiny of possible
conflicts of interest needs to go further than just those
officials requiring Senate confirmation.
This came to mind this morning, Mr. Chairman, because I
awoke, as I always do, to listening to the news on the radio.
And I understand that China approved 38 Trump trademarks. There
are those who say it violates the Emoluments Clause of the
Constitution. It may present a potential constitutional
problem. These are reported as being lucrative trademarks and
could be a conflict. Plus, it is taking value from a foreign
country not approved by Congress.
So what role does the Inspector General's Office play in
investigating conflicts of interest or assessing the
effectiveness of existing processes? And how are concerns
brought to the IG's attention? And what responsibility does the
office have to deal with conflicts of interest? And how does
your office handle potential conflicts of interest after a
high-ranking officer is confirmed? Do you review their ethics
filings proactively? Are you free to investigate potential
conflicts of interest before a complaint is registered?
Maybe I will ask another related question. Then you can
talk about the whole issue, because in addition to the press
that I woke up to this morning, recent press has focused on the
AG's recusal from probes of Russian interference in the 2016
election.
In your opinion, is recusal an acceptable step to shield a
senior Department official from conflict of interest, Mr.
Linick? And taking that a step further--I want to be clear I am
not making accusations--would you recommend Secretary Tillerson
recuse himself from decisions related to U.S. sanctions against
Russia since his former employer, ExxonMobil, would likely
benefit from loosening these restrictions? And does the
leadership role create a conflict for the whole Department?
So perhaps you can just talk about that whole issue of
conflict of interest.
Mr. Linick. There are a lot of questions there.
Mrs. Lowey. I thought I would give you a good challenge,
sir.
Mr. Linick. You did. Let me start----
Mrs. Lowey. Do I need to repeat them or you understand?
Mr. Linick. No, that is okay. I will give it a shot. I will
give it my best shot.
Let me start with conflicts of interest generally and how
we process them and so forth. We have an office of
investigations. We receive complaints through a hotline,
through Congress, through various other channels.
Conflicts of interest are clearly one of those areas that
we look at. There are different kinds of conflicts of interest.
There are conflicts of interest that may justify a criminal
prosecution. There are conflicts of interest that may be
administrative in nature.
To the extent that they--if they arise to the level of
criminal, what we would do is we would investigate those and we
would make a referral to the Department of Justice for
appropriate action.
To the extent that they don't qualify as criminal and only
administrative, then we would also do a report, and then we
would make recommendations to the Department or, rather, we
would send a report to the Department and ask the Department to
take appropriate action, depending on the nature of the
conflict. That is how we process those.
In terms of your specific questions about Secretary
Tillerson, I am really not in a position--I would be
speculating. I don't have work on that. I am not in a position
to give you an opinion about whether he should recuse or not.
Mrs. Lowey. You don't have an opinion on that?
Mr. Linick. I actually don't. I would need work. I don't
have an opinion on that. I don't have any work.
Mrs. Lowey. Now, isn't China within the responsibilities of
the Department for which you are the inspector general? Do you
have an opinion on that?
Mr. Linick. I don't have work to support an opinion. And,
unfortunately, you know, I don't offer personal opinions unless
I have a body of work to support it. And I just don't. I would
be speculating as to whether there are conflicts or not.
Mrs. Lowey. So you are not aware that the Secretary of
State has had very--I won't say positive. He has been a
successful businessman with regard to Russia. And you are not
aware of any conflict of interest?
Mr. Linick. I mean, I have read about some of his dealings
with Russia and so forth, but other than that, I can't really
speak to it.
Mrs. Lowey. You are continuing in this job. So I understand
this response. Okay.
Do you have any views about this?
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Let me just say, with regard to the
conflict of interest, I think what Mr. Linick described as the
process that all IGs use in terms of when issues like that
arise, these are things that we follow.
I can tell you our investigators, when issues have come in,
we have followed issues regarding conflicts of interest. I am
aware of one report that somewhat predated me, my arrival to
USAID, and it was regarding a Cuba Twitter report where there
was a noted sort of conflict of interest in the award and the
grant where action was taken. And I recall that going forward.
So we are on top of those types of issues.
I think when it comes to individual conflicts of interest,
we are required to submit sort of our standings, our holdings,
the same with all the officials in USAID. Those things are
reviewed. Where conflicts of interest are seen, then actions
are recommended, whether it be recusals or otherwise.
I am at USAID. I am not, you know, over at State
Department. But I would hope that, after the due diligence that
is given to looking at the information and if there are
conflicts of interest, then the appropriate actions are taken,
whether they be recusals or something else. But it needs to be
looked at, and it needs to be effectively dealt with and
managed, and that risk needs to be mitigated. And there are
processes to do that.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you. So I just want to, in conclusion, you cannot
look into potential conflicts of interest, such as conflicts in
Russia or in China, unless there is a specific request from--I
don't know who--the public?
Mr. Linick. No. We can look at--if there are conflicts of
interest that affect the operations and programs of the
Department, we can certainly look at them.
Mrs. Lowey. Do you think conflicts of interest of the
Secretary of State's dealings in Russia, or the fact that there
are 38 new trademarks in China, is that something worth looking
at?
Mr. Linick. Again, I am happy to work with you and your
staff if you think there are conflicts of interest that we
should be looking at. But, again, I can't offer an opinion as
to whether it is worth looking at or not.
But when there are conflicts of interest and allegations
against senior officials, we look at them. And that is our job,
and that is how we operate.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much. And you are staying on in
these positions. Is that correct?
Mr. Linick. I am subject to the pleasure of the President
in terms of staying on.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rooney.
Mr. Rooney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The oversight work of your office has helped shed light on
how our taxpayer dollars are spent across the world and how its
policies developed in Washington are actually being implemented
on the ground by our diplomatic and humanitarian staff.
In addition to your oversight work, the media plays an
important role in reporting and revealing potential issues of
waste, fraud, and abuse of our taxpayer money which I spoke of,
which sometimes requires response from those of us up here on
the panel in Congress.
A couple reports ran in the New York Times, as you may
recall, in September of 2015, alleging that U.S.-backed Afghan
security forces were sexually abusing young children in
Afghanistan and that U.S. servicemembers felt that they had no
recourse or protocol to report such allegations up their chain
of command or fear reprimand.
Senator Leahy and I, as you may know, along with more than
90 of my colleagues here in Congress, asked the Special
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, or SIGAR, to
investigate whether the U.S. Government had violated the Leahy
law, which prohibits DOD and State from providing assistance to
foreign military forces that have committed gross human rights
violations.
So I notice that in many of your embassy inspection
reports, you include an assessment of the embassy's compliance
with these Leahy laws and policies as well as the embassy's
vetting processes. How would you characterize the overall Leahy
compliance across all of our embassies and consulates
throughout the world, and have you noticed any regional or
country-specific implementation challenges?
And, secondly, it is my understanding that while State has
the International Vetting and Security Tracking system to
report Leahy law violations, DOD does not have a similar
formalized system to process these kinds of complaints on their
own. So how does State coordinate with their Defense attaches
to ensure proper vetting of foreign security forces receiving
our U.S. assistance? Thank you.
Mr. Linick. Congressman, as to Leahy vetting, as you
mentioned, we do look at Leahy vetting in every embassy that we
inspect. And I would say I can't draw an overall conclusion as
to how the Department is doing. It is mixed. I mean, sometimes
it is working well, and sometimes it isn't. I don't have
specifics at this point.
I am happy to work with you or your staff to discuss this
more about some of the particulars. But we issue, you know,
many, many inspection reports with many conclusions about Leahy
vetting in particular locations.
And, also, I am happy to get back to you on the
coordination issue. I don't have those facts handy, but I would
be happy to get back and look into that.
As to the sexually abused children, as you mentioned, SIGAR
and DOD IG are both looking at that issue right as we speak. So
I think that has been going on for about 6 months now.
Mr. Rooney. I think, Mr. Chairman, and to the panel, I
think that obviously, there has been a lot of discussion with
regard to State cuts potentially in funding. And I think that
this obviously is one area where U.S. taxpayers would demand
that this be done the right way and make sure that we are not
assisting countries that do not comport with those rules and
with the spirit of the Leahy law.
So thanks very much. I appreciate it.
I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Thank you both for being here and for your service.
I want to ask first, Mr. Linick, a question about the
Office of Cuba Broadcasting Radio and TV Marti. I have long
held the position that it should be eliminated. I think it is
counterproductive at best.
As this committee looks to review our efforts to, quote,
``promote democracy,'' more broadly, I want to sound a word of
caution. Our Subcommittee and this Congress must ensure that
our efforts to, quote, ``promote democracy'' abroad do not end
up undermining our goals and objectives. So we have to be
careful that our efforts are not viewed as efforts to undermine
and promote regime change in sovereign nations.
I want to ask you if you have done any audits of these
efforts. Are they working? If so, what are the metrics of
efficacy? And, also, do we factor in the views of people in
sovereign nations? And with this huge cut that is being
proposed, the 37-percent cut, my math says it would be
$19,775,000,000 if we just zero out the Office of Cuba
Broadcasting. I think taxpayers deserve more. And I would like
to find out what you all have learned as a result of your
audits.
Mr. Linick. Our audits and inspections on the BBG have
primarily focused on their operations and how they are running,
how they are managing their money to begin with.
And what we have found--I can't speak to the Office of Cuba
Broadcasting in particular. Whether it should exist or not
exist is a policy question that I don't have an opinion on. But
I can tell you that, with respect to the BBG and its grantees,
there are problems with the way in which they manage grants,
problems in which they manage contracts. There have been
problems with leadership at the BBG in general. And some of
those problems have been remediated. Now they have a full-time
CEO. They had problems with the board. There was a lot of
dysfunction a couple of years ago, which we reported on
extensively. But a lot of the sort of leadership problems have
been remediated, but they still have problems in the contracts
and grants area and in financial management as well.
Ms. Lee. This is I believe $28 million for fiscal 2016. I
think taxpayers deserve better. And at some point, and I
understand you don't agree or disagree with the policy, but we
have to know if taxpayers are getting a bang for their buck and
if, you know, this $28 million could be used elsewhere in terms
of what this committee's priorities are.
And some may believe this is a priority, but if we are not
spending this money wisely and if it is not accomplishing
whatever the goals were--I was on staff with Congressman
Dellums when this thing was put into place, and I still don't
know what the purpose is of it. And in this era and in this
environment, this committee understands we have to be very
careful with these efforts.
Let me ask Ms. Barr: With regard to Haiti, we have
committed, I think it was $4 billion in assistance to Haiti
recovery and transition into sustainable development. And,
unfortunately, there has been poor coordination between donors,
implementers, and governments, you know, coupled with
environmental challenges, like Hurricane Matthew, which struck
Haiti last October.
My bill, which was bipartisan, the Assessing Progress in
Haiti Act, it was signed into law by President Obama. It
requires the State Department to send Congress regular reports
on progress in terms of development assistance in Haiti. And it
has been very difficult in terms of having difficulty--Haiti
has--in overcoming some of the significant obstacles, including
the lack of infrastructure, sustainability of programs,
partnerships, and, of course, the ongoing cholera epidemic.
So what is your sense of how things are going in terms of
progress? We haven't had a report recently, and I would just
like to get your sense of what is going on.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Thanks very much for the question. And
I am sitting here, as I am listening to you talk about the
bill, trying to reflect on some work that relates to Haiti. And
there are two that, you know, immediately come to mind where we
found issues, whether it be the investment that we made, $88
million, into, you know, agricultural development, you know,
for Haiti.
And what essentially we found there is difficulties with
the design of the contract in that there were, you know,
contract flaws. They did not have enough warranted officers in
place to handle the huge flow of money. And I believe that one
was like $88 million. So, to get to your point, you know, of
what kind of impact is this having, are we doing well, we are
seeing programs--and it is not just for Haiti; it is sort of
across the board--ineffective design and implementation of the
grants or, you know, the agreements that go forward.
In terms of sustainability efforts, there was Local
Solutions, which is part of USAID's USAID Forward initiative,
which is that, for sustainability, it makes sense to invest in
the countries, country ownership. And what we found is that,
after USAID's, you know, investment in healthcare facilities
and other facilities, that the government was not in a position
to carry the salaries of healthcare workers for 80 facilities
once the U.S. investment ended.
So those are two examples that point, I think, to the
question and the issue that you are raising that I could bring
to the fore. So is there work that has to be done? There
definitely is work that needs to be done. And there are a lot
of basic things, at the design and the awarding of the grants
to the monitoring and the evaluation to assessing local
capacity, that has to work better in terms of how we design,
implement, and oversee these programs.
Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, just finally, just let me ask you to
give us a report, if possible, of who the grantees are. At one
point, the grantees were primarily foreign NGOs.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Yes.
Ms. Lee. And based on what I heard and learned on the
ground in Haiti and also here, a lot of the services, a lot of
the work, a lot of the infrastructure had not really trickled
down to the people who need it the most. And these foreign NGOs
didn't have that grasp of what was needed.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. You raise a great point. This goes to
an assessment of when we are using other implementers on the
ground, whether they are foreign NGOs, it is incumbent upon
USAID, MCC, whatever entity, to identify what are these
implementers' internal controls, procurement processes. Do they
know the vendors they are working with? Do they know how to
track the receipt of those goods and those services?
And where it is breaking down, the big takeaway is it
speaks to, what are USAID and the other agencies doing to
understand those NGOs that the money is flowing to? What is
their capacity? What are their governance structures? And if
there are risks, then there should be monitoring and evaluation
plans that mitigate those risks, going forward.
So you are on to a tremendous point that, unfortunately, I
would say cuts across all of our programs across the board. But
our work really speaks to that issue.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Sure.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
Mr. Linick, since the conflict began in Syria, the State
Department has provided over $730 million to the Syrian
opposition, including more than $170 million in nonlethal
assistance to the so-called moderate armed opposition. This
began as support to strengthen the moderate opposition to
Assad, but now much of it is characterized as counter-ISIL.
Regardless, members remain concerned about who we are working
with and over the risk that these funds will be misused or
diverted to extremists.
Last November, you released an audit report on the State
Department's vetting process for Syrian nonlethal assistance.
The report uncovered troubling information with respect to
vetting for these programs.
So, if you could tell us, who are we working with? What is
the purpose of these programs? And what is the vetting policy,
and what steps are being taken to ensure these funds do not end
up in the wrong hands or are diverted for illicit purposes?
Mr. Linick. Congressman, we have done quite a bit of work
on provision of nonlethal assistance to Syria. In the report
that you mentioned, the government provided about $400 million
of nonlethal assistance from 2011 to the present. And that
money is managed by two bureaus, really, NEA and DRL,
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.
They are working with implementers overseas to distribute
this nonlethal aid. And we are talking about, you know,
blankets and food and trucks and equipment and things like
that. And the rules at the State Department require that
vetting occurs of both the participants, the implementer,
staff, as well as recipients. Unfortunately, the guidance at
the Department, it was all over the place. And they were not--
the implementers are supposed to provide this information to
the two bureaus that I just mentioned, and they weren't always
doing that.
So we made a number of recommendations to improve the way
in which the vetting is done. The vetting, obviously, is
important to ensure that the goods or the money are not going
to the bad guys. And those recommendations are open. I mean,
that report is relatively recent. I understand the Department
has agreed to implement those recommendations, and we continue
to monitor them.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
And, Ms. Calvaresi Barr, on a related subject, the 2016
investigation led by the USAID IG found that corruption
practices, bid rigging, bribery, et cetera, were taking place
in some of the Syrian aid programs. How have USAID's efforts to
reduce corruption or improper practices in their international
aid programs improved since last year?
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Thank you very much for raising that.
When we talk about sort of our greatest accomplishments, it has
been through the work that our agents have done looking at
these cross-border programs, mainly out of Turkey and Jordan,
into Syria. When you look at the amount of funding in Syria, at
this point, across the board, we are talking about $2.65
billion to date.
Once that operation was----
Mr. Dent. You are talking about the refugee assistance?
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. We are talking about humanitarian
assistance, yes. Yes, in general.
Once the operation was declared and the contingency
operation was stood up, our agents went out to Turkey and
Jordan and did a series of fraud awareness briefings, put
compliance handbooks together to talk to all of the
implementers, because what happens in these contingency
operations, the money flows. It is fast. It is furious. You are
working with vendors that maybe you have never worked with
before. You don't know their systems.
What our work has spoken to is the fact that we got, with
that initial outreach, to date, 160 allegations and 30 cases.
How it has gotten better, to get right to how it has gotten
better, we have seen tremendous effort from USAID, that when we
brought concerns to the table about implementers--and we
brought 48 referrals on 9 implementers to USAID and to other
entities--it has resulted in 6 program suspensions, valued at
$305 million, $19 million in savings, and 17 suspension and
debarment actions.
And having been in this community my entire career, I can
tell you that--and this is something I want to say specifically
with USAID--our agents go forward sometimes without the full
record of investigation. And I have seen the Compliance Office,
the Office of Security take tremendous responsive actions to
what we are finding and have suspended those programs, found
other vendors to move them forward. And I think we have the
data, the numbers that speak to that.
So I am very pleased with the responsiveness that we are
getting.
Mr. Dent. That sounds very impressive. Thank you.
Mr. Linick, does your team conduct regular assessments of
potential vulnerabilities at the State Department's overseas
embassies and outposts, and, if so, do your corrective action
plans typically convey recommendations to improve crisis
preparedness plans at those posts? And if so, do you feel the
State Department has taken adequate steps to address any items
raised in your investigations?
Mr. Linick. Congressman, our number one priority is
ensuring the safety of our American diplomats abroad and our
local employed staff as well. Almost every inspection we do, we
look at security issues. A number of our audits also focus on
security issues. And we continue to find vulnerabilities
wherever we go overseas.
Particularly, you mentioned sort of crisis management. One
of the issues that has come up recently is emergency action
plans. And we found a lot of problems with emergency action
plans: making sure that they are accurate, up-to-date, the
people know how to implement them, that the supplies are there
if there is an emergency. So we take that very seriously.
We have also found a lot of issues with residential
security and health and safety issues. So we do make
recommendations to the Department. And if I had to sort of
highlight one of the most important recommendations which
really addresses a systemic issue, it is this one; and that is,
the Department really needs to have an inventory of its
security deficiencies and security needs around the world so
they know where their highest priority security needs are and
they can properly fund them and prioritize them.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, do I have time for one more question?
Mr. Rogers. Yes.
Mr. Dent. Ms. Calvaresi Barr, what are the main lessons
learned from USAID's role in the Ebola response that can be
applied to future global health crisis responses? And do you
feel that USAID has adequately addressed and responded to any
shortcomings identified by your investigations related to their
Ebola response efforts?
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. So, with regard to the Ebola response,
our work has pointed to the fact that--we found that the
contract vehicles that were used for the response were the
right contract vehicles based upon, sort of, all the
requirements that you follow, sort of, in the FAR or other best
practices.
Where we saw things kind of falling down with regard to the
Ebola response is in the design of some of the efforts that
were going out there. And this just spoke to the folks that
were on the ground rolling the programs out, designing the
programs--that there were rather lengthy award approval
processes that were built in. It was in the design of the
contracts. So what happened is there was a delay, in the aid
getting out as quickly as it needed to get out.
There were also concerns with the government's ability to
handle things like cash vouchers. So it goes to the point I
think I was making, a little bit earlier, that when we are in
these environments and we are responding real-time and this is
a matter of life or death in containing these things, we have
to really understand that environment that we are operating in.
So using cash transfers, using vouchers, are those on the
receiving end, ready and ripe to receive that? Do they have the
infrastructure to do that?
So where we have seen problems is problems in those
assessments. So oftentimes what happens when an emergency
happens that quick, the first thing that goes out the door is
there is no country development coordination strategy, there is
no quick rapid assessment of the country's capabilities--all of
those things that would better position us to have a good plan
in place to know what the risks are and then mitigate them.
To your point, I think you would be very happy to know
this. One of our--and I am striving to move our work, which has
been very tactical, to more strategic going forward. We are
actually going to do an audit that is going to look at USAID
and other agencies' response to public health emergencies. When
they got it right, what did it look like, what are the
characteristics, what needs to be done? And when it didn't go
well, you know, what are those things? And the key case study
is going to be the case study in Ebola.
So I would be very happy to talk to you about that work
once we get it off the ground, but I think that would be
responsive to the core the question.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Ms. Calvaresi Barr and Mr. Linick, thank
you for your testimony and your service.
First thing, before I ask a question, I want you to know--
and this is for Mr. Linick--I am going to submit a question for
the record about worldwide aviation support service.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Now, my questions. I am going to focus
in the area of cybersecurity.
Protecting our government communications are vitally
important, especially our national security secrets. In terms
of management, it seems--and this is within our whole
government basically--it seems that making cybersecurity a
priority always seems to fall by the wayside for a number of
agencies. And it seems like USAID and State have the same
problems. And, too often, these Federal agencies are so focused
on completing their missions that the management projects, like
information and network security, get pushed to the side to
make sure core missions are always moving ahead. And we
understand that.
But what the questions will be--and I am going to ask a
couple questions, and then I will stop and let you answer. What
more can we do to make this a priority for the Secretary of
State and USAID Administrator?
Ms. Calvaresi Barr, in your testimony, you said that the
USAID Chief Information Officer reports to someone who might
not have the authority to prioritize and fund projects
necessary to keep their network secure. Now, is the problem
that network and information security isn't a priority, and is
it a cultural problem where the mission of USAID comes first
and management issues come second?
And then I am going to ask these and then stop. Is there
any Federal agency or department that is doing it the right
way? I would like to know that.
And, also--and I think this is really important--based on
what we hear from the President's budget and what his
priorities are at this time, from the IG perspective, how would
a 37-percent cut to the State Department impact the efforts to
protect themselves from cyber attacks?
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. I will begin with regard to the issue
you raised--and we did talk about a little bit the importance
of having the Chief Information Officer have a real seat at the
table. They have to look at all the systems. They need to make
sure that there aren't random buys that could, you know,
compromise things like cybersecurity efforts.
They need to have a strategic plan that addresses the
goals, addresses the requirements as spelled out in FISMA. So
when you asked what would be a best practice, what would be an
agency, they have to follow the FISMA requirements. What are
those? What does a good information security control
environment look like?
In addition to the CIO issue, one thing that we found that
I find particularly troublesome--and I am pushing on this
recommendation that came out of our FISMA work--is the fact
that the Chief Information Security Officer is the same person
as the Deputy Chief Information Officer--wherein lies the
problem, is that the person that is responsible for testing the
systems for security is also the person that signs off on
compliance with it. We think that is, to the earlier question,
a conflict of interest. We think that that could get in the way
of revealing concerns. And we are calling for a degree of
separation between those roles, because the testers and the
ones responsible for it shouldn't be saying, ``Hey, guess what.
It is all good.'' Right? You have to separate those two things.
So that is just another point of emphasis I wanted to bring
up.
Mr. Linick. Congressman, cybersecurity is a top management
challenge at the State Department, as you mentioned. And, like
USAID, OIG has found the CIO also needs to have a seat at the
table. And a lot of the issues that we have discovered at State
Department involve lack of coordination, because IT is shared
between the IRM, Information Resources Management, and DS. Both
of those, the CIO who works for IRM and the head of the Bureau
of Diplomatic Security, both report to the Under Secretary of
Management. And we recommended that the Department give real
consideration to repositioning the CIO so that the CIO can
implement information security across the Department.
It is the stovepiping which is the real problem. Inventory
is a major problem. They don't even know what they have. And if
you don't know what you have, it is hard to know what to
protect.
So that is one major recommendation we have made. And the
other, which Inspector General Calvaresi Barr mentioned also,
is they need to implement a risk management plan which
assesses, monitors, identifies, and responds to risk around the
Department so you know what your current state is, you know
what your target state is, and you know how to communicate what
the risk vulnerabilities are across the Department.
So those are the two things I would recommend in terms of--
and we have made those recommendations. In terms of what
Congress can do, it is something that I mentioned earlier,
which is incorporate that into legislation. I think that would
give real teeth to these recommendations.
As far as what a 37-percent cut would do, I really don't
know. All I can tell you is that IT security is a top
management challenge, that they need to continue to focus on IT
security, they need to do the things that we have recommended.
Otherwise, there is a tremendous amount of national security
information that is at risk.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Is my time up?
Mr. Rogers. I am afraid so.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Got it. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And to the witnesses, thank you.
Dutch and I come from a little bit of the same background,
having sat on some of the same intel committees that focus on
this. So, not surprisingly, I have some of the same interests
that he does. I would like to follow up specifically to his
questions and then ask something in addition to that.
And I want to quote, if I could, from your testimony,
Steve, here regarding cybersecurity, or your written testimony
at least.
``In fiscal year 2016, OIG reported weaknesses in the
Department's cybersecurity incident response and reporting
program.''
And you know where I am going with this, I am sure.
``The Department's efforts to respond to incidents,
including denial of service, malicious code, and unauthorized
access, showed that it had not complied with its own
information security policies in more than half of the
incidents the OIG reviewed.''
So two questions to you. The first is, if you run that
analysis for 2017, are we going to have the same answers? Are
55 percent of them going to be not in compliance? And how do we
drive that down?
And the second one, and this may be sensitive, and I am not
sure you will be able to answer it, but having traveled and
spent some time in overseas embassies in, you know, very hard
target nations, I am aware that you have a concern with secure
resupply and sometimes even maintenance. Is there something
that you could tell us there about that and how we could help,
if that is something that we could help with?
Mr. Linick. Congressman, on the incident reporting, that is
primarily a function of the lack of coordination between the
two bureaus in the Department that share responsibility for
enforcing and then complying with the requirements for incident
reporting.
I can't tell you whether or not that number is going to go
down. I can tell you that we have reported this deficiency for
years, and so, if I had to predict, it will probably be
something that will appear in our next FISMA report. So I can't
tell you.
But these problems, you know, are also including--the
contingency planning is another problem. They are not planning
for if the system shuts down sufficiently. These all result
from this coordination problem. And, to me, if you get at that
root cause, you are going to see improvements.
Mr. Stewart. Are we going to get at that root cause?
Mr. Linick. Well, we have made recommendations that affect
them, hoping that Congress does incorporate our recommendations
into legislation so that the CIO is properly positioned, you
know, to have oversight over the entire IT network at the
Department. I mean, that is the basic problem.
Mr. Stewart. These are extreme examples, but you look at
what we know about CIA the last few days, right? You look at
OPM--23 million Americans, very, very private information. And,
we could keep going back, even the State Department, with some
of your own hacking and going back to 2015 and that timeframe.
Take a moment, if you would, and talk about secure
resupply. Is that something we can talk about here? And is
there something we can help you with on that?
Mr. Linick. If you could just clarify your question.
Security supply? I am not sure what you are referring to.
Mr. Stewart. Secure resupply. For example, in some nations,
it is very difficult to get in even maintenance materials
because you have to take everything in and out in a secure
package.
Mr. Linick. Yes. That I would rather speak about in a
classified environment.
Mr. Stewart. Okay. If you do have things that you think we
can help you with, please come to us in a classified
environment and let us know, because it is a real concern for
obvious reasons.
Thank you.
Mr. Linick. I will do that.
Mr. Stewart. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to our ranking member.
And thank you to our witnesses for being here and for the
good work that you do. I will ask each of you a question, and
then my second and last question will be for both of you.
To Inspector General Calvaresi Barr, in the November 18,
2016, audit report, ``USAID/West Bank and Gaza's Financial
Reporting Should Be Clearer on Use and Results of Foreign
Assistance Spending,'' your office found with respect to the
USAID West Bank and Gaza mission that, for obligations and
disbursements, reporting was not always accurate or clear.
Further, reporting obscured which funds went to which
activities.
In response, your office recommended that USAID evaluate
the current practice of recording disbursements disaggregated
by foreign assistance objective and the associated impact on
external reporting.
To your knowledge, has the USAID West Bank and Gaza mission
responded to the report, as your office requested? And if so,
was it adequate? And by what date has the mission committed to
taking corrective action?
And in the interest of time, I will just ask--Inspector
Linick, according to your office's work plan for fiscal years
2017 and 2018, you intend to audit the Department of State
Refugee Admissions Program resettlement support centers.
The objectives of the audit will be to determine whether
the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration provides
sufficient oversight of resettlement support centers, whether
these centers ensure that refugee applicants undergo the
appropriate security checks, and whether they ensure that
required documentation and case files are complete for each
refugee before admission into the U.S.
I wanted to ask, what is the status of this audit? How much
do you think this audit might cost your office? And has anyone
from the Trump administration contacted you or your staff
directly or indirectly about this proposed matter?
And then my final question for both of you: There are some
individuals in and around Washington, D.C., who wish to see
funding that flows from this subcommittee cut by a third or
more. If this were to happen to either of your offices, what
impact would that have?
Thank you.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Thank you very much for your question
regarding our West Bank-Gaza work. And I will have to get back
to you on the specifics of the status of each of the
recommendations we made and the extent to which those have been
addressed and closed. So we will be happy to do that.
But in line with the question that you are posing, we
certainly have found--and it really speaks to the body of work
that we do on our non-Federal audits. And we have a team of
great Foreign Service Nationals that are out there doing those
financial reports on all the activities in West Bank and Gaza.
And they sit, you know, in our Cairo office doing that. And
time and time again, what they find is, sort of, you know, an
underreporting or an overreporting of programs'
accomplishments. Going forward, it speaks to the issue of data
reliability that I talked about before.
When you are in environments that are difficult to access
directly, to go into the sites, you are relying on others. You
are relying on implementers. You are relying on what they are
reporting. So it makes it very difficult that they can't get
out.
But we have found in instances where, actually, site visits
to verify and to check the impact of the delivery of those
goods and services, it is not always done. So we have made some
recommendations even beyond that report that you referenced
that speak to those issues.
So, by the nature of having our financial folks, you know,
following these programs and doing those assessments, I think
that it continues to put pressure on getting the reporting
right and making sure that that reporting, which then comes to
you all to reflect the success of this big investment that we
make in these programs, are things that you can rely upon.
Mr. Linick. Congresswoman, beginning with your first
question about the refugee admissions settlement audit, I don't
have the cost handy, but I am happy to get back to you on that.
It will be starting this spring sometime. And no one from the
administration has contacted us about that audit.
As far as funding cuts, if there are funding cuts, how
would they affect OIG, they would have dramatic impacts on OIG.
Right now, we are operating on a CR, as you know, that is 30
percent below our fiscal year 2016 amounts. Our mission is
mostly conducted overseas. We send auditors all over and
inspectors all over the world. It is very costly. We are
required to inspect every embassy all over the world. We are
required to oversee overseas contingency operations. We have
staff, boots on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq and so
forth--very expensive.
If there are cuts in the budget, it will have a dramatic
effect on us, and it is possible that we may have to pull back
on some of those international commitments.
Ms. Meng. Do you think that cuts would impact severely our
national security?
Mr. Linick. Well, all I can say is that if we have to pull
back staff from traveling to places where they are inspecting
embassies--we do look at safety and security of our embassies,
and to the extent that we are not able to look at those
embassies, then of course it would affect the national
security.
Ms. Meng. Do you agree, Inspector General Calvaresi Barr?
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. I agree with Inspector General Linick
completely. You know, having your budget flatlined or then
potential cuts to that magnitude, if you just look at USAID in
terms of the money that goes out, $20 billion per year, and you
look at the number of staff we had, you know, if I did the
math, each person would be responsible for, like, overseeing
$100 million. So if you start just with that--and that is just
USAID. I have five other agencies that I have oversight
responsibility for. So that is a heavy lift.
We have to be really smart. We have to be careful about how
we identify where are the highest risks, where could we be most
responsive to congressional interests that need to be informed
from facts and from data.
But I think when you are talking about those kinds of cuts
and you are also talking about a hiring freeze, you put those
things together, if you are not at your authorized level, and
there are going to be some, you know, real serious tradeoffs
that need to be made about those programs that we look at and
we follow.
And I am sure that if that does happen--and I will give it
my best. My mother and father always taught me you work with
what you have got, and you put it to the best use possible, and
you go after the right thing. And that is what my job as the IG
is, and we will do that.
But I would suffice it to say that our return on
investment, some of those numbers that I pointed to and
currently a $3 return for every dollar invested, will most
certainly go down.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Fortenberry.
Ms. Meng. Thank you.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for coming today.
Before I ask my question, I want to preface my remarks by
saying this Committee, Subcommittee, as well as you, have a
very critical job. It really is dealing with three tensions.
The first is to be able to explain to the American people
the importance of the State Department and particularly the
sensitive subject of foreign aid, as it is related to our
rightful desire to participate in humanitarian causes, the fact
that we do benefit from this exchange economically and
culturally, but also its inextricable link to international
stability and our own national security.
With that said, the second tension, though, is, in a time
of tight budgets, it is absolutely critical that we be able to
justify these expenditures and that the continuity of impact is
not only sustainable but measurable.
Third is, I believe, we have to be innovative. And when we
are dealing in places that don't have rules-based systems or no
enforceable norms, a lot of times that gets messy.
To the questions that I have. And they particularly are
pointed to the investments we make in leveraging capital for
Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Millennium Challenge,
there's a smaller one embedded in USAID and then another one
outside of State.
I learned recently about a very innovative project, to this
third point about innovation, that actually has OPIC helping
underwrite a portion of a loan guarantee in a private equity
fund, which is invested in by private investors, certain
American businesses, as well as a large American charity.
Now, at first glance, that might seem peculiar. Why in the
world are U.S. taxpayer dollars participating in what appears
to be a for-profit business? Which it is. Well, the model is
very interesting, because what worries me sometimes, again,
when you are in places that don't have rules-based norms or
sustainable governance systems, if you build something, we can
feel good about ourselves and check it off that we built a
school, but in 3, 4, 5 years later that school might be
completely abandoned, stripped of its hardware, and housing
livestock. And you see that.
This is a methodology whereby, with a little bit of
taxpayer dollars, you are leveraging a portion of an equity
fund that creates a return for investors but creates a model of
sustainability. So it moves beyond just thinking that a
nonprofit investment, that is good; a for-profit investment,
well, that is for business. It is a hybrid model of the two
that, again, creates scalability and sustainability for the
long term. I think that is an innovation that we ought to look
closely at.
But the question, though, is to ensure that that nexus of
benefit to America, particularly in the loan guarantee
portions, whether that is Millennium Challenge or OPIC, is
strong. It has been my understanding that there is some gray
area there, and I would like you to address that.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Sure. I would be happy to address that.
I think, you know, you raised very good points about some
of these environments that we are in and the extent to which
these kinds of investments, important investments, can be
sustained.
We have had a lot of work that report--whether it be our
work that came out of, you know, MCC. Nine of 23, you know,
compacts had significant, you know, cost growth, contractor
problems, sustainability problems going forward.
In the case of OPIC, we did do one risk assessment--I am
sorry, I am forgetting what year that was--essentially. But an
issue that we brought up with regard to OPIC was, is there an
incentive on their part to focus mainly on financial returns,
sort of, at the cost of development and humanitarian----
Mr. Fortenberry. So it has to converge, those three points
have to converge: development, proper social outcomes,
necessary financial returns----
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Absolutely.
Mr. Fortenberry [continuing]. But also American benefit.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. And also American----
Mr. Fortenberry. This is the question: Are we indirectly
subsidizing international entities at the expense of America?
Again, that is not to be traded off for the other two,
necessarily, but it is an important evaluation point----
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Yes.
Mr. Fortenberry [continuing]. For you.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Yes. And I think we don't have work
that actually looked at those three things. I mentioned our
work when we did, sort of, the risk assessment going forward,
but one thing that we are going to focus on and we want to
focus on going forward is looking at, sort of, the core
business, you know, operations. And with OPIC, there are
percentages to invest in small businesses and otherwise. So the
work that----
Mr. Fortenberry. You audit this?
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. And we are going to audit this going
forward. This is an audit sort of on the book, where we are
actually going to a look at, sort of, what are--all of the
goals that we are trying to achieve here, if we look at certain
projects, are they achieving that.
Mr. Fortenberry. And this is a slightly different question,
Millennium Challenge, but the spirit of question still applies.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Uh-huh, yep, same with Millennium
Challenge Corporation. That is work that we are talking about
doing, as well, going forward because these are somewhat unique
investment models.
Mr. Fortenberry. They have not been done before. And I
think it is absolutely fascinating.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Fortenberry. But it also creates the conditions in
which we have to be able to justify this and potentially use it
further, if it is successful, as a new innovative model for the
21st century in terms of foreign aid, with this sustainability
idea in mind.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Yeah.
Mr. Fortenberry. That is the key. And that is where you
have to help here.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Okay. And we will most certainly do
that.
If I can raise just one thing----
Mr. Fortenberry. Sorry. Yes, please.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr [continuing]. With regard to OPIC? And
it is an issue where you all could help us out a bit.
We do not have full audit access authority with Overseas
Private Investment Corporation. Through the Foreign Assistant
Act, it allows us to do, investigations. It says inspections,
but it doesn't mention audits. We are not allowed do their
financial statement.
The issue with the authority that I have, or I would say
the lack of, I feel like I have responsibility for overseeing
OPIC but I don't have the authority to do it, the full backing
of the IG Act to do that. Every year, we have to negotiate an
MOU with them about what work we are going to do, what we are
going to look at. And when I think of, again, my 33 years in
this community----
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, this is all said--my question is
said not in the spirit of ``gotcha'' because I----
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Yes.
Mr. Fortenberry [continuing]. Suspect something is wrong,
but this actually could be proven to show as that new
architecture for a development model, so with limited
financing, as you underwrite certain capital investments that
are leveraged for multiple, multiple returns, rather than just
direct funding.
That is why it is so important to make sure that this is
being done right, so that we can ensure it is done well and
then be replicated.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Right. And my point in bringing this up
is that we have to negotiate with them on what looks and what
audit----
Mr. Fortenberry. Was this an oversight in the law, or was
it purposefully left out?
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. It is something that has been, sort of,
written in the Foreign Assistance Act like that and then
requiring, sort of, these annual MOUs. So we have been working
with Congress to correct that going forward. Whether I remain
the IG of that or someone else, they need the full backing so
we can look at the kinds of questions that you are proposing
need to be looked at.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to join others on the committee in thanking our
witnesses for your good work and your forthright testimony here
today.
I want to return to the question Ms. Meng raised and pose
it more broadly. That has to do with the impact of reported
cuts in the budget that may be coming.
These are news reports. They indicate that the State
Department and international assistance budget may be cut by as
much as a third. And then even the reports of Secretary
Tillerson's counteroffer sound pretty draconian. Like, we are
going to phase that in instead of doing it all at once, and
then the first-year cuts would be something like 20 percent. I
have no idea, of course, whether that is going to come to pass,
but I think we need to understand the implications.
You began to answer the question when Ms. Meng raised the
issue of your own operations and the reach of your own offices
and what you are able to do. I want to pose the question a bit
more broadly, and that is how the more discretionary items in
the foreign affairs budget would be affected, as opposed to
costs that would seem to be more or less fixed, institutional
costs that would be more or less fixed.
Now, I am new to this subcommittee. I would imagine that
foreign assistance items, many of them are fixed costs, more or
less--in other words, the embassy costs, the personnel costs of
the Foreign Service, our diplomatic corps. So if that is true
and if there is--and, of course, you are in a position to
comment on that. That is why I am asking you the question.
If it is true that there is limited slack there, then it
would seem that the more discretionary part of the budget--
things like global health, things like foreign aid, a lot of it
to the world's poorest places, things like the kind of work
that I am particularly involved in with the House Democracy
Partnership, the support for good governance and civil society
development, and those kinds of efforts--it would seem that
one-third might be a low estimate for the kind of blow those
programs would suffer.
I am asking--of course, we will get more details on this
later. But I am asking for your top-line impression about the
way those fixed costs and discretionary costs sort out and what
the real impact on the foreign aid budget would be of a one-
third cut overall.
Mr. Linick. Congressman, so we haven't looked at what the
effect would be on the discretionary versus fixed part of the
budget, so I am not able to comment on that. But what we do
look at is how the Department manages its programs. And this is
an area which has frequently been given short shrift in the
past, program management.
If these budget cuts affect program management, in my view,
that is a problem, because we have identified oversight of
contracts and grants as a top priority in the Department. We
have identified millions and millions of dollars of questioned
costs as a result of the Department not doing an adequate job
in staffing its oversight of contracts and grants and training
people to do it. There are problems with--you know, in some
instances, we found they are not reviewing invoices, so it is
not clear that taxpayers are getting the benefit of the
bargain.
To the extent that cuts affect that, that is something that
is an alarm for me, because that has obviously been on my radar
for the last 3\1/2\ years.
Mr. Price. Yes. And you began to address that with the
previous question. And, of course, this is in the realm of
pennywise and pound-foolish, in terms of the work you do and
the kind of savings that can ultimately produce.
But I am really asking you for a broader view of--is there
some kind of ballpark estimate you could give of how much slack
you are finding in the institutional side of the budget? I
mean, is there a lot of room there for cutbacks in embassy
expenses, diplomatic corps salaries, and so forth? Where would
the brunt of a one-third cut fall?
Mr. Linick. Well, I can tell you that, through our work, we
do certainly find fat there. So, for example, we make
recommendations when we believe an embassy or a consulate is
unutilized, and we have made recommendations to sell. So that
is one area. So, for example, the consulate in Hamburg, we
recommended the Department sell it and lease, and there was
multimillion dollars in savings from doing that. We do that all
the time.
Mr. Price. Sure. There have been many examples of that. Are
there a whole lot more examples like that?
Mr. Linick. There are many examples like that. And I can
only give--I am just coming up with those examples, I think,
through the reports we have done. I don't have an overall
estimate to give you.
Mr. Price. I am talking about prospectively. Are there
consulates all over the world that we really don't need?
Mr. Linick. That I can't tell you. I can tell you that, in
some instances, when we go out and do these inspections, we
find there are--you know, sometimes there are consulates we
don't need, and we make those recommendations. I don't have
that information at my fingertips now, but I can certainly get
back to you on what we have found in the past.
Same thing with positions. Same thing with cost-of-living
increases; we are looking at that.
So, I mean, this is what we do. The bread and butter of our
work is looking at how can we most effectively and efficiently
make recommendations that save taxpayers money.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. With regard to USAID, I can tell you
that this is first and foremost on their minds, the agency, you
know, itself. And I know that discussions are underway about,
you know, a whole range of options; if those kinds of cuts come
in, where are we going to take them. You know, there are going
to be some winners, there are going to be some losers.
As far as what our work speaks to, and I think it is
similar to what Inspector General Linick mentioned, is, where
we find opportunities to say you have this large pipeline of
money, you are putting this money out, we don't have a complete
verification that the money is meeting the intended goal of the
program, those are areas which we have to scale back and
redefine before we go forward.
With that being said, I think this raises an interesting
question about the role the IGs can play going forward. If we
are talking about these kinds of budget cuts, it is for us to
be able to step back and take that strategic look. How did
USAID, how did the other agencies determine where those cuts
would be made? What drove those decisions? Were those the right
decisions? What are the positives about it? What are the
negative aspects of that? What is going to be lost? Are we
going to lose prior investments that we had that are going to
completely go away?
And we just have not done that kind of holistic look. But I
think, with these kinds of questions that are being raised,
that can be an appropriate role for an IG to take during this
time of change.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, do I have another minute?
Mr. Rogers. If the gentleman needs it, yes, sir.
Mr. Price. I will be brief, because this is another broad
gauge question, so I don't really expect an extensive answer.
But I just want to commend you for the work you have done
in stressing sustainability, in stressing the importance with
these aid programs of there being a capacity after our aid is
gone, with whatever is left on the ground, a capacity to go
forward. That is especially important, I think, with health
programs.
The question I want to pose, I am really asking if you have
worked on this, but it is for future reference really.
In the work we do with governance, it seems to me that
question of sustainability is especially hard to deal with.
Let's just take the work we do at the House Democracy
Partnership in parliamentary support. Almost always, that
parliamentary support is backed up by work on the ground by
NDI, IRI, various USAID contractors. And it is a good synergy,
you know? The members come in, we give this cache. The members
are engaged in these parliaments, and then, of course, the work
on the ground goes on much more than we could ever do from our
perch.
When is that work done? When does a parliament graduate?
When do you determine that this is sustainable?
I tell you, we have intervened a number of times in saying
the aid was being pulled prematurely. It wasn't that the
dependance was being extended too long; it was the opposite,
that this work wasn't quite done, and yet, because of economic
pressures or whatever, of course, it can't go on indefinitely
and decisions have to be made.
So, I don't know, are you into this as an area of research,
particularly with respect to the democracy support efforts we
make? It strikes me that that is a real challenge, is to figure
out when is the work at least sufficiently done to pull back
and what does sustainability look like.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. One of our top management challenges
this past year dealt with that issue, strengthening local
capacity and sustainability while ensuring monitoring and
oversight.
And one particular example that I think we cited in that
top management report had to do with governance initiatives in
Paraguay, where we were working with local implementers to help
stand up that kind of, like, technical support, make stronger,
sort of, governance structures going forward. And what we found
is that the implementers that we put the money through didn't
have their own structure to ensure that they could handle that
flow of money, and they didn't have the technical teeth to
actually achieve the outcomes that were called for in the
governance setting. So that is one example where that didn't go
well.
One job that we are doing going forward, because we just
wrapped up looking at our audit plan moving forward, is taking
a look at, as opposed to doing these--you heard me talk through
a number of these questions that we got, here is an example of
this, here is an example of that. We have to get more strategic
in our office. That is a big goal that I am pushing, being a
relatively new IG to USAID. And one of the initiatives that we
are going to look at is this local solutions approach.
And we need to look at a number of the programs across all
of USAID and even MCC. When they were successful, what did they
look like? When they weren't, what isn't there?
I can tell you, having just come back--and, actually,
Inspector General Linick, myself, and Acting Inspector General
for the Department of Defense Glenn Fine did a trip out to
Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we were in Jordan, and I visited
a compact there from MCC that was focused on a water irrigation
project. So this is one of the few that came out under-budget,
achieved its goals, and went forward.
And there are a couple things that are present there, when
you are talking about sustainability: longstanding history of
U.S. involvement with Jordan. They get our systems, they
understand our governance structures, they know what they want.
But the key to it is building in that hook, that tension
that says it has to be of interest to that government to
continue to invest when we go out. So, in the case of these
water sanitation programs, the folks that are on the ground,
that are building, where the jobs are being stood up, they have
to prove to the Government of Jordan that that water tests at a
certain quotient that makes it safe, or those tranches of money
aren't coming in.
So there are some key nuggets that we need to think about,
whether it be governance, whether it be infrastructure, that
need to be in place for these projects to take hold and be
sustainable going forward. And I am hoping our new work will
speak to that.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Price.
The gentleman raised a question, his first series of
questions, on possible cuts of spending. And that is a very
relevant topic, it seems, these days. It will fall upon this
subcommittee to eventually try to decide and recommend where
those cuts take place, if they do take place.
The public is under such a misunderstanding of what we do
in foreign operations. You ask the average citizen out there
how much foreign aid do we give, and they will say half the
budget or two-thirds of the budget or what have you. In truth,
it is what, around 1 percent or less?
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. So we have a lot of misconceptions to try to
remedy. And then we will have to eventually finally work with
you and everyone else to try to figure out where these cuts
take place. It is not a fun operation, but the gentleman
brought up a very, very interesting series of questions.
Let me ask you briefly about the armored car, armored
vehicle program. When I chaired the State, Commerce, Justice
Subcommittee years ago, we were the ones that mandated that
every ambassador have an armored car. But, since that time,
this program apparently has exploded. You estimate that between
1998 and 2016 the Department expended over $900 million to
procure and outfit armored vehicles, roughly half of that since
2010.
You did an audit, and the findings were shocking,
recommendations were numerous. The sheer carelessness of the
Department is troubling and inexcusable, particularly given the
risk to employee safety and mission readiness. We could spend
the rest of the day talking about that audit, but could you
quickly summarize it for us?
And we are interested in the root cause of the problem and
whether it affects other Department programs. And is this
another result of lack of a Deputy Secretary of Management and
Resources? I keep coming back to that, as I have for the last
20 years. In fact, it was the State, Commerce, Justice
Subcommittee, when I chaired it, that mandated the Secretary
name a Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources so he, the
Secretary, could focus on policy and the like and let an expert
run the inter-operations of the Department.
Is this another fruit of the lack of management at State?
Mr. Linick. Mr. Chairman, this is really a quintessential
example of the themes that I have raised in my written
testimony and during this hearing. It is an example of lack of
focus on program management and accountability.
This is, as you mention, an almost billion-dollar program.
And there were no internal controls, a lack of processes and
procedures to guide the bureaus and the posts that were in
charge of this particular program, namely Bureau of Diplomatic
Security, the Administration Bureau.
Lack of accountability--an example of that is it wasn't
clear who was responsible for running this program. Bureau of
Diplomatic Security thought it was merely sort of a service
provider, when it was supposed to be the program manager.
So there was a lot of finger-pointing going on. And this is
what we have seen in other areas; it is not just the armored
vehicle area. As a result, no one takes responsibility, you
know, for management of these big programs.
And what is the result? In this case, you had a number of
overseas posts which needed armored vehicles but didn't get
them, because there wasn't a system in place to allocate them
in an efficient way. You had many unused vehicles, over 200,
sitting on a lot wasting away, while the rest of the Department
was in need of these vehicles.
And these vehicles were also stolen and unaccounted for. We
had a criminal case involving an owner of an auto shop who pled
guilty to conspiring with a State Department official in taking
these armored vehicles and selling them. They are worth about
$150,000 apiece.
And we had disposal problems as well.
So this is just--this whole program was fraught with
problems.
Mr. Rogers. Over the years that I have been fooling around
with this question of management at the Department, we kept
bumping up against resistance within the Department. They don't
want anybody overseeing them, apparently, and I am beginning to
understand why.
But I will be meeting with the Secretary right away, and
this is the one thing I am going to try to urge him to do, and
that is to name a good CEO, a person in charge of the daily
operations of the Department, to get at problems like you have
just talked about with the armor.
But this deals with security and safety of personnel, which
I find abhorrent that they have let this go to this extreme
without remedying it. Do you see a remedy on the horizon? Are
they taking steps?
Mr. Linick. I don't know the answer to that question.
But just to follow on with your point about the importance
of having somebody at the top of the Department responsible for
security, just two examples. I think that is critically
important, and we have made recommendations to that effect.
Number one, after the Benghazi Accountability Review Board
issued its recommendations, we did work which suggested there
were a lot of repeat recommendations over the 12 or so years in
which we have had accountability review boards make
recommendations. And we found part of the reason that there
were repeat recommendations over and over and over again is
because there was lack of sustained commitment at the highest
levels of the Department to ensure those recommendations were
implemented properly. So that is one area.
The second example I would give is this. Again, this came
out of the Benghazi Accountability Review Board. The Department
needs to do--they recommend the Department do a better job at
risk management. They have come up with something called VP2,
which is a risk management system, where, if we are going to
close embassies or open embassies, we articulate in writing the
costs versus the benefits and--this is a key point--if we are
going to place people in harm's way and we can't mitigate, we
can't get around our inability to comply with policies, for
example, that somebody at the top sign the dotted line as
responsible. And that we recommended be under the purview of
the Deputy or the Secretary.
So that is why it is so important for someone at the top of
the Department to be, you know, pushing program management down
and setting the right tone at the top.
Mr. Rogers. Not only a person responsible for the security,
security personnel and the like, but also an overall Deputy
Secretary for Management and Resources, period, to run the
Department in the absence of the Secretary, who is dealing with
policy.
Mrs. Lowey, do you have questions?
Mrs. Lowey. I thank you. And I just want to say I thank the
Chair for your pursuing this issue. I have been in this
Congress and on this Committee for a long time, and sometimes I
feel like a broken record on this issue. And it really is a
challenge.
For example, on the Haiti program--Mr. Fortenberry, you
have been on this Committee a while too--the two people who
were running that program, a male and female, were probably the
best we have had. I don't know why we are not successful. Now,
there are a lot of reasons. It is the government, it is crime.
But I always looked at Haiti as a place where maybe we could
just see--at least to this date, you don't have terrorists
taking over the country, you know? I don't think. You don't
have an ISIS active in Haiti.
So I really look forward, once again, to work with the
chair, with you, to see what we can do to transform--I am not
sure if it is attitude or talents or focus. But there is a lot
of money being spent there, and we really have to look more
carefully.
Now, I will give you one example, the MCC. There has been a
repeated finding from the IG that the Millennium--I think it
has been a finding from you. I am just trying to see if it was
you--the Millennium Challenge Corporation's difficulty in
realistically assessing partner-country capacity before
approving a contract. And for a long time, everyone was saying,
this is the model, you know, MCC is the model.
This factor, in my judgment, is more important than ever.
Before approving a compact, MCC does engage with newer lower-
capacity countries. And especially as we face potentially
drastic budget cuts in foreign assistance--I hope we can change
some minds over there about that. Compacts are limited to 5
years, aimed at supporting country capacity. Unrealistic
expectations do a disservice both to our partners and MCC
effectiveness.
I see you shaking your head. So if you could share with us
what you have recommended to better assess country capacity.
And have you seen any improvement in the way they engage with
countries regarding realistic expectations and timelines? And
are there lessons learned from the MCC experience that can be
shared with USAID and other partners as we look more carefully
about how we work with host-country governments and local
institutions?
So I see you shaking your head. Can you share your wisdom
with us?
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. I am happy to respond.
One of our top management challenges, the few that we had,
the sixth in the lineup with achieving effective development
and implementation of MCC programs and stewardship over
resources.
So there are certainly challenges that remain in terms of
the process that is used to determine whether a country is
ready for prime time or not. There are the threshold programs,
which essentially involve, sort of, more technical assistance
to get the countries ready and primed up for the length of a 5-
year compact. And then there are those countries that meet the
indicators that are set out that make them eligible for it.
While there have been success stories with these compacts--
and we are not saying that there aren't--there still remains
these challenges. Hence, it is in our top management challenges
report that we don't always get it right.
So, clearly, the assessments on the country's, you know,
ability to handle the flow of funds. When you have an MCA, the
account holders are, as should be, are local-country employees,
officials that are running, sort of, the accounts. What we have
to do, whether it be for MCC, whether it be for USAID or ADF or
IAF or any of them, we rely on others for the effective
delivery of foreign assistance. In relying on others, we can't
rely without doing pre-assessments, without identifying risks,
and without identifying plans to mitigate those risks. And
sometimes decisions need to be made that say, you know what, we
looked at this, and maybe it isn't time yet. And those hard
decisions aren't often made, because I don't think those
assessments are properly done.
So do we have an area of concern or risk here? We do. Our
work, going forward, is going to look at MCC's core business
structures, the process for how the threshold programs are
decided, the compact programs are decided, and looking at, you
know, models where success has been achieved versus not, what
got in the way of it.
So we hope that that future work will further inform--I
think we have informed it very much, or we wouldn't have been
able to put it as a top management challenge currently. But you
are right, Congresswoman, there is more work to do in that
area. And it is not just related to MCC; it is related to
everywhere our foreign assistance is.
Mrs. Lowey. In closing, I just want to say, you have been
there 1 year, I believe.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Yes.
Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Linick, you have been there 3 years.
Mr. Linick. Yes.
Mrs. Lowey. And perhaps, as I know we are going to close
this hearing, as someone who is so committed and so passionate
about the important role the State Department and USAID play in
the world, I will give you--unless our Chairman has any other
statement, I would like your comment on that as well.
Sometimes I think it is because the people who are working
on these programs are so passionate about their work and so
determined to do good work that sometimes their decisionmaking
gets a little cloudy as to whether that program is really
worthy of additional investment.
But what is your view about this? In general or MCC,
however you choose.
Mr. Linick. Well, I don't oversee MCC.
Mrs. Lowey. I didn't think so.
Mr. Linick. But I guess I would say, particularly in the
foreign assistance realm, if you are dealing in these overseas
contingency operations, there is such a move afoot to get the
money out the door, and in the contracts area people want to
take shortcuts. In the grant area, I think the attitude is:
Just get the money out the door, and we will worry about
whether that money is used for its intended purpose later.
You know, I think the people at the State Department are
very passionate, they are dedicated public servants, but, you
know, their objective is diplomacy, and it is not so much
program management. And I think it is a cultural issue at the
Department of State, in my opinion.
Mrs. Lowey. I just want to say in closing, Mr. Chair, I
remember a specific occasion. It was a summer evening, and I
was sitting on the porch at my home in Westchester County. And
I heard coming over the news that billions of dollars was
coming out from Afghanistan. It was attributed to Karzai's
brother. And I quickly called Nisha, who was the staff person,
and I said, however you do it, stop every penny for the next 6
months to Afghanistan until we can figure out what was going on
there.
I remember that issue with absolute clarity. And I know the
chairman and I believe deeply in the work that the State
Department and USAID are doing, but we have to continue to make
sure that the money is spent efficiently and effectively.
Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Mr. Fortenberry, do you have a few questions?
Mrs. Lowey. Oh, I am sorry.
Mr. Fortenberry. It looked like you were eager to conclude,
but I would like to add something else.
Mrs. Lowey. No, I am sorry. I wasn't sure of the order
here.
Mr. Fortenberry. That is okay. I was listening intently and
just did want to follow on on a couple things that Mrs. Lowey
and Mr. Price and the Chairman have alluded to.
And I think the example of Haiti is a good one. I recall I
was there after the earthquake in the aftermath of some of
that. And the Vice President told us, he said: Look, you all
have given us $5 billion. We are extraordinarily grateful, but
it is direct foreign investment that is going to help us have
continuity for long-term sustainability.
So we are in a tension here. You are in a tension in trying
when there is a humanitarian crisis, yes, to move aid quickly.
And that is just going to be messy, and it is going to be hard
to measure as to its effectiveness because you are meeting the
emergency conditions.
You are trying, as I hear you saying, appropriately saying,
and want to affirm you in saying it, that you are developing
more advanced metrics to determine program sustainability prior
to the investment and in a post-evaluation period as well. I
think that is what you are saying, at least, right?
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. We are recommending that that is what
the USAID officials need to do, MCC needs to do, going forward.
Mr. Fortenberry. We are going to probably have to figure
out who is actually going to do that.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Right, right.
Mr. Fortenberry. Because I think this is very important
because it comes back to the core point that is being raised.
Look, we have got to have--it is important to always try to be
innovative in government. We have got some very innovative
things going on. And particularly in a time of tight budgets,
in a time of question, even more intense questions about
foreign aid, what does that deliver us, and is it sustainable
over time in building up the conditions for proper humanitarian
response but also stability so that it creates security for all
peoples?
Again, I think this is tied to the earlier point I was
making, that as we look at innovative models and you ensuring
that they are working and that they have a proper American
nexus, that we are leveraging the limited funds we have in
underwriting capital investments that attract other capital,
that even potentially have a return on that capital for other
people but nonetheless create the better conditions for
sustainability whereas, again, just building something and
leaving when in nongovernment space, you cannot guarantee that
that is over the long term.
This isn't to say we should shift from writing checks to
NGOs to making sure that multinational corporations profit.
That is not my point at all. But these new constructs of
leveraging capital that is already out there that then is
motivated to ensure there is continuity, as long as we have the
social metrics to ensure that we have met our development goals
and our humanitarian missions, I think is a new way forward if
you can show us that these are sustainable and that they have
that strong American nexus.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. I agree 100 percent with you. These are
the questions that we are asking those that use these unique
models. What are your metrics? What are you measuring? How can
you prove that this is successful? Some of the problems that we
have is, how long do you wait to see whether it sticks and it
lasts? Like when is the right time to go in and say, ``Yep,
they got it right''? You know, sometimes with some of the
programs----
Mr. Fortenberry. That is a problem we have because our
budget cycles are artificially short and we want an answer
within months and some of these things--again, this is a
problem to reconcile what you are dealing with because the very
point of sustainable development is to go into places that
don't have sustainable development. So to create those
conditions takes some time, and it is difficult and messy. But
if the trajectory is right and these new models are proving
themselves worthy, it leverages the limited funds that we have
for the same mission outcome.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Understood. We will make sure that we
take a particular look at that. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Thank both of you for your generous donation of time to us
this morning and, obviously, your attention. You have got a
really tough chore, both of you do, especially now. It is
important that this Committee know the work that you are doing
because we need guidance on where things need to be corrected
to perfect the system. So keep us posted and feel free to
communicate with us often and in detail.
Thank you for your testimony. Good luck to you.
Ms. Calvaresi Barr. Thank you.
Mr. Linick. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. The hearing is adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Tillerson, Hon. Rex.............................................. 1
Mnuchin, Hon. Steven............................................. 219
Haley, N.R....................................................... 281
Green, Mark...................................................... 349
Calvaresi Barr, Ann.............................................. 483
Linick, Steve.................................................... 483