[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EUROPE AND EURASIA: ENSURING RESOURCES MATCH OBJECTIVES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 27, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-165
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov,
or http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
32-307PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
PAUL COOK, California LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
RON DeSANTIS, Florida [until 9/10/ JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
18] deg. ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
TED S. YOHO, Florida DINA TITUS, Nevada
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois NORMA J. TORRES, California
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
Wisconsin TED LIEU, California
ANN WAGNER, Missouri
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
VACANT
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats
DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
TED POE, Texas BRAD SHERMAN, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
Wisconsin DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Ms. Janine Wynne, Acting Coordinator, Office of the Coordinator
of U.S. Assistance to Europe and Eurasia, U.S. Department of
State.......................................................... 5
Ms. Emilia Puma, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
South and Central Asian Affairs, U.S. Department of State...... 12
The Honorable Brock Bierman, Assistant Administrator, Bureau for
Europe and Eurasia, U.S. Agency for International Development.. 18
Ms. Ann Marie Yastishock, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Bureau
for Asia, U.S. Agency for International Development............ 26
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Ms. Janine Wynne: Prepared statement............................. 8
Ms. Emilia Puma: Prepared statement.............................. 14
The Honorable Brock Bierman: Prepared statement.................. 21
Ms. Ann Marie Yastishock: Prepared statement..................... 28
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 48
Hearing minutes.................................................. 49
EUROPE AND EURASIA: ENSURING RESOURCES MATCH OBJECTIVES
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o'clock
p.m., in room 2200 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dana
Rohrabacher (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
For decades it's been the policy of the United States to
see the countries of Europe and Eurasia increase their liberty.
That's been our goal--to find security from hostile foreign
coercion and to grow into their economic prosperity.
To achieve this, we have deployed men and women in uniform.
We have deployed our tax dollars abroad into these areas for
decades and we were resolved that a more secure and peaceful
Europe would be increased and that they would increase our own
security here at home in the United States.
This afternoon's hearing is to examine the path that has
been laid out by President Trump, Secretary of State Pompeo,
and Administrator Green for U.S. policy toward Europe, Eurasia,
and Central Asia--what are our aims and goals and what are the
aims and goals that we have as a country in that region, that
is, and what advantage we can leverage and what part of the
burden from what we do in that area can be borne by our allies
themselves and how are the resources our Government has been
putting in to that region--how does it match up to the
achievements that we have been having in that region.
Earlier this year when the administration unveiled the
first fiscal year 2019 budget proposal, the international
affairs portion amounted to, roughly, $42 billion. That was a
sizeable top line decrease and contained major reductions for
assistance programs and activities inside the region that this
subcommittee oversees.
Now, before we get into this any further, I know some of my
colleagues will point out that the international affairs
portion of the budget is relatively small, implying that waste
or unneeded spending must also be small if we have a small
budget.
Well, I totally reject that notion. Our Government and,
hence, the American people are over $1 trillion--that's $21
trillion--in debt. Every dollar that we vote to spend places
even a heavier burden on either the taxpayers today or our
children, who will eventually pay the bill.
We need to ensure that they are getting every ounce of
value that is in any budget that we propose.
From our witnesses today I look forward to learning about
the programming in their areas of responsibility and how much
of those efforts cost and how much they cost, and how they are
furthering the President's agenda and his stated vision to
build a stabler partner in the states there and the region and
to counter radical Islamic terrorism in Europe and Eurasia.
I want to thank our witnesses for appearing today and all
members will have 5 days to submit material for the record.
And we will be introducing the witnesses in a moment and
what I am going to do is ask you to keep your testimony down to
about 5 minutes. Anything else you want to put in the record
will be in the record, and then we will go to one question and
answer period once we are all done with your testimony.
So I will now yield to my ranking member, Mr. Meeks, for
his opening remarks. After that, I will introduce our witnesses
and ask them, as I say, to summarize their testimony.
Mr. Sherman. Are there other members of the subcommittee
making----
Mr. Rohrabacher. If there is a request, the answer is yes.
Mr. Sherman. Okay.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Okay. Got it. If we could--Mr.
Meeks, being the ranking member, go ahead--5 minutes. If I
could ask my other colleagues to make it about 2 minutes. Is
that okay? Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
hearing because the U.S.-Europe-Eurasia relationship remains an
important part of global stability in light of efforts by
Russia to interfere in our democracies.
The Trump administration has proposed a total fiscal year
2019 budget request for Europe and Eurasia that is at $424.2
million--a decline of 63 percent from actual funding for 2017.
The funding at that time was $1.1 billion.
I am concerned about this and want to get an understanding
from our witnesses today about how this aligns and how it
impacts U.S. interests.
The proposed budget calls into question whether or not the
State Department will be adequately resourced in Europe and
Central Asia at a time when there is an acute need to support
our allies and advance U.S. priorities.
The Trump administration's fiscal year 2019 budget leads us
to question the ability of USAID and the State Department to
execute their missions in the face of the Russia malign
influence and the draconian cuts proposed by the President of
the United States.
Enshrined both within--within both the USAID and the State
Department's mission statements is a commitment to promote
democratic values abroad, advance a free, peaceful, and
prosperous world, foster conditions for stability and progress
for the benefit of the American people and people everywhere.
And yet, we hear that some USAID missions in Europe are
closing completely and resources are being diverted away from
the USAID and the State Department.
Instead, those resources are headed one place--to the
Pentagon. Not back to the American people, not going to make a
difference with reference to the debt, but going to the
Pentagon.
So, in short--because my time is short--and I won't quote
all of the decorated American generals who time and time again
say a weakened diplomatic corps directly undermines our
national security.
I can't understand how the American people are served by a
diminished diplomatic community. What I see here plainly by
examining this budget is a mishmash of priorities and lack of
strategy to support our interests and needs.
Today, some leaders in Europe are leaning toward
authoritarianism and are not safeguarding the democratic
principles the EU and NATO were founded upon.
We see tactics like cracking down on free speech, attacking
the media, shutting down opposition and weakening of
judiciaries.
In Poland, we see the backsliding of strong democratic
institutions with actions that undermine the pillars of
democracy. I've spoken out, for example, about the termination
of judges based on their failure to agree with the ruling
party.
We know of the disciplining of judges for not ruling
against the ruling party, independent media censored and placed
in the hands of state affiliates, raids of NGOs and terminated
funding based on whether the government disapproves of the
community served by the NGO.
With regards to Hungary, on September 12th the European
Union--European Parliament voted to censor Hungary and
lawmakers denounced Viktor Orban's government as a systemic
threat to the rule of law.
This underscores that we must work with our allies to
bolster, not undercut, the very values that provide the basis
for the United States' partnerships with local governments and
their institutions.
We have seen the Kremlin's aggressive efforts to
destabilize semi-consolidated democracies and transitional
governments like Ukraine, Georgia, Montenegro, Serbia,
Bulgaria, and Hungary.
Consolidated democracies are not isolated from the same
Kremlin aggressions. Baltic and Nordic states, the Netherlands,
United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Italy are all
contending with Russia's anti-democratic efforts.
I do not understand how the administration's proposed
budget addresses our shared security objectives and prosperity.
And I hope to hear from our witnesses today how this budget
addresses our challenges and prepares us for our challenges of
tomorrow.
I'll close with just that I just had lunch with several
former prime ministers in the Eastern Europe. All very
concerned--all allies, strong allies of ours--all who, you
know, even paid their 2 percent to NATO--seriously concerned
about what's taking place in regards to this budget and so I'd
love to hear from you in that regard.
And I yield back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. I want to associate myself with Mr. Meeks'
comments about how we need to be spending an adequate amount
and more than is put forward in the President's budget on
foreign aid in general and the region we are here to discuss.
One of the many reasons--advantages of spending money on
foreign aid is we can then go to European countries and push
them to do more, pointing out that the United States bears the
great burden of world national security--that when in the
region we are here to talk about there was mass atrocities in
Kosovo and Bosnia, the United States did a--the lion's share of
the national security and military effort to safe people from
ethnic cleansing and, some would say, genocide.
And so I'll want to know from our witnesses what is being
done by the State Department to push Europe to do more. This is
especially clear because we are asking Europe to do more in
Europe.
So the right comparison is not between what we do in Europe
and what Europe does in Europe, but what we do in Europe versus
what we do in the Americas and what Europe does in Europe, and
I don't think that Europe does very much to deal with the great
problems of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and the
Caribbean.
I'll also be asking our witnesses about the Caucuses,
particularly the newly renamed Republic of Artsakh, what
efforts you can make to get Treasury to focus on a tax treaty
for Armenia, and while it's outside the purview of this
subcommittee I will sneak in a question for Ms. Puma about
Sindh and Pakistan because I know that that is in your area,
and my colleagues will forgive me for asking a question on
that.
I yield back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Ms. Kelly.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing today on foreign assistance budget requests for Europe,
Eurasia, and Central Asia.
I was disappointed to see the President's request of
foreign assistance for this region represent a 28 percent
decrease from the fiscal year 2018 funding levels.
Countries like Ukraine and Georgia, which have experienced
direct conflict with Russia are subject to substantial cuts.
Georgia, in particular, will be subject to a 25 percent cut in
funding.
These cuts are not a return to average. They would fall far
below the average of the past 10 years.
Many countries in Europe and Central Asia are at pivotal
moments to either open their governments to democracy or
retreat into autocratic tendencies.
The United States should not step back from engaging and
pushing countries to adopt open markets and good government
practices. Now is the time to invest in the long-term benefits
of a stable and prosperous Europe and Central Asia.
Thank you to the witnesses today on their work in Europe
and Central Asia, and I want to thank you all for your hard
work that you bring--that you bring positive change to the
region.
I yield back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And thank you to our members who have
shown up. This is a discussion and not just testimony and not
just back and forth. We are going to have--and we appreciate we
have some great witnesses to help us lead this discussion.
Brock Bierman is the Assistant Administrator for USAID's
Bureau for Europe and Eurasia. Before coming to his current
position, Mr. Bierman served in multiple capacities with FEMA
and USAID and the Department of Interior and in the private
sector as well.
And Janine Wynne is the Acting Coordinator for the Office
of Assistance Coordination for Europe--there you are, okay--for
Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia. Ms. Wynne is also the
Director of the Office of Policy and Global Issues inside the
Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. She is a senior civil
servant with a long track record within the executive branch.
And then we have Ann Marie Yastishock--I mispronounce it
every time--there you go, but that's okay. My name is
Rohrabacher and everybody mispronounces that. So and she's a
career member of the senior Foreign Service and currently
serves as Deputy Assistant Administrator for Asia within USAID.
And prior to joining the Asia Bureau, she served as the Deputy
Mission Director of the regional USAID office covering Ukraine,
Moldova, Belarus, and Cyprus.
And Emilia Puma--there you are--is the Acting Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and
Central Asia. She is also a career member of the senior Foreign
Policy Service.
Since joining the State Department in 1991 she has held a
wide range of posts including assignments in Spain, Kosovo, and
Italy, among others.
So we have some real pros with us today and I want to thank
you for sharing your experience with us and your judgment, and
if you could do that, as I say, for 5 minutes, that'll be
helpful and then we will have a discussion--a dialogue.
Ms. Wynne, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF MS. JANINE WYNNE, ACTING COORDINATOR, OFFICE OF
THE COORDINATOR OF U.S. ASSISTANCE TO EUROPE AND EURASIA, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ms. Wynne. Thank you, Chairman Rohrabacher, Ranking Member
Meeks, and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to
testify today on the President's fiscal year 2019 budget
request for Europe and Eurasia.
I deeply appreciate your interest, commitment, and strong
bipartisan support for our region and the work we are doing to
protect our national interests. I would ask that you please
submit my written testimony for the record.
As reflected in the President's national security strategy,
the principal goal of U.S. engagement with Europe is to
preserve the West as a community of nations united by shared
sacrifice and a commitment to common defense, democratic
values, fair trade, and shared interests.
While making America more prosperous and secure is work
that starts at home, preserving the West cannot happen without
our allies and partners in Europe. A strong and free Europe is
vital to American interests.
The President's fiscal year 2019 foreign assistance request
of $424.2 million for Europe and Eurasia supports the
President's priority of enhancing the safety and security of
the American people, which includes advancing our vision of a
Europe that is strong and free.
To this end, we will pursue six main goals.
First, we will strive to strengthen the Western Alliance
and compete effectively for positive influence by working with
our NATO allies to ensure that the alliance is ready and
willing to defend itself.
Second, we will strengthen and balance the trans-Atlantic
trade and investment relationship between the United States and
Europe.
The President's fiscal year 2019 foreign assistance request
supports this goal, with over $117 million in economic growth
assistance. With these funds, we will establish a level playing
field that allows American companies to compete and create jobs
and strengthen the energy security of our European allies and
partners.
Third, we must secure the eastern frontier of Europe where
Russia and others increasingly seek to sow and exploit
division, destabilize Europe and weaken Western cohesion.
Our foreign assistance request reflects these priorities,
with over $252 million going toward supporting the front line
states of Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, where Russia's
aggression and pressure are the greatest, and nearly $78
million to support stability in the Western Balkans and advance
their Western integration.
Ukraine is engaged in an internal struggle to implement a
broad range of economic, anti-corruption, judicial, and
governance reforms, even as it faces continued Russian
aggression and pressure.
Our fiscal year 2019 foreign assistance request of $204
million for Ukraine is a tangible sign of our steadfast resolve
to stand with the Ukrainians and their democratic aspirations.
While the government has put in place many considerable
reforms over the last 4 years, it still has much to do,
including implementing anti-corruption laws, adjusting gas
tariffs, and reducing budget deficits in line with IMF
requirements, and ensuring upcoming elections are free and
fair.
We remain committed to Ukraine's territorial integrity, and
since 2014, we have provided over $1 billion in training and
equipment to Ukraine to help it defend its sovereignty and
territorial integrity, to better monitor and secure its
borders, and to deploy its forces more safely and effectively.
Our fiscal year 2019 request continues to support these
aims including $20 million in foreign military financing
assistance.
In Georgia, we have a steadfast partner whose efforts to
reform are one of the good news stories in a tough
neighborhood. Our fiscal year 2019 assistance request of just
over $31 million will continue to help Georgia counter Russian
aggression by diversifying its economy and fostering a business
environment that is grounded in rule of law and friendly to
American businesses.
Our continuing support to our Western Balkans partners
prioritizes advancing the normalization of Kosovo-Serbia
relations and their integration into the Western community of
nations.
We will continue to facilitate political reform and
reconciliation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and work with Greece
and Macedonia to implement the Prespa agreement, resolving the
name dispute, and so unblock the path to Macedonia's euro-
Atlantic integration.
And we will keep working with partners to enhance the
region's capabilities, to fight organized crime, corruption,
and terrorism.
Finally, securing Europe's eastern frontier also means
supporting the democratic aspirations of the people of Armenia
including preserving their freedom to choose further
integration with the West.
Our fourth strategic goal is to work with allies, the EU,
and partners to stabilize the southern frontier where recent
migration flows have sent ripples through the heart of Europe,
even as Russian competition in the eastern Med is increasing.
Fifth, we will uphold Western democratic principles and
institutions, which are key to our security and prosperity. In
line with this goal, our fiscal year 2019 foreign assistance
requests includes over $150 million to support democracy and
governance reforms in the region.
Finally, our success in achieving all of these goals will
depend heavily on maintaining the confidence of the American
people who have entrusted the Department of State and USAID
with their taxpayer dollars in support of our national security
objectives.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wynne follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
Ms. Puma.
STATEMENT OF MS. EMILIA PUMA, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, BUREAU OF SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ms. Puma. Chairman Rohrabacher, Ranking Member Meeks, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
appear today to discuss the administration's fiscal year 2019
budget request for Central Asia.
I have submitted prepared remarks for the record as well.
Today my testimony will cover our request for Kazakhstan,
Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Turkmenistan.
I want to begin by extending my heartfelt sympathies to the
families of the two American citizens killed in Tajikistan in a
senseless terrorism act last July. We stand with those families
and are working closely with Tajik authorities in the ongoing
investigation. Both victims were brave individuals who
represented the best of America.
The administration recognizes the critical role Central
Asia plays in the world economy and political system.
Neighboring Russia, China, Iran, and Afghanistan, these five
proud nations have sought to maintain their sovereignty by
navigating a quickly changing political landscape.
Central Asia is experiencing a period of profound
transformation. Depressed petroleum prices have increased the
demand to diversify their economies. We continue to dedicate
resources to building the region's hydropower potential,
linking surplus hydropower resources in Tajikistan and the
Kyrgyz Republic with the energy-hungry markets of Afghanistan
and Pakistan.
Political transitions are also underway. We are encouraged
by the bold reforms championed by the President of Uzbekistan
in economic development, rule of law, and human rights.
Through his leadership, Uzbekistan is pursuing a neighbors-
first strategy, seeking to put an end to decades-old border
disputes.
We appreciate Uzbekistan's desire to support an Afghan-led
and Afghan-owned negotiation to bring the war to a close and we
continue to explore ways to work with Uzbekistan to help them
achieve these goals.
For fiscal year 2019, the department request $66.3 million
for Central Asia. This includes $15.5 million for Tajikistan,
the country in greatest need of development assistance,
bordering Afghanistan and China.
Assistance increases stability and economic growth,
supports food security, and combats the spread of multi-drug-
resistant tuberculosis. This also includes $10.6 million for
Uzbekistan in support of their reform agenda including justice
sector reforms, sustainable employment, and economic reforms.
Assistance will, likewise, combat transnational crime including
narcotics and trafficking in persons.
For the Kyrgyz Republic, the administration requests $10.5
million to accelerate their economic growth. Assistance will
also promote stability, regional security, civil society, human
rights, and the rule of law.
For Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, the administration
requests $1.7 million and $.4 million, respectively, to support
their export controls and related border security as well as
military-to-military training.
Finally, the administration requests $27.5 million in
regional funding for Central Asia to support efforts in
economic connectivity, democracy in governance, stability and
security, and to counter violent extremism.
Funding would also address the spread of HIV/AIDS and
support the organization for security and cooperation in
Europe.
Central Asia is a vital element of our South Asia strategy
and our efforts to create a peaceful, stable, and prosperous
Afghanistan.
But Central Asia itself is a welcoming culturally-rich land
of enormous economic potential. We welcome the subcommittee's
review of our fiscal year 2019 budget request and look forward
to working together to support this region.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Puma follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Bierman.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BROCK BIERMAN, ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR EUROPE AND EURASIA, U.S. AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bierman. Chairman Rohrabacher and Ranking Member Meeks,
on behalf of the U.S. Agency for International Development, I
would like to take this opportunity to thank you to be able to
testify today and I would ask that my written remarks be
included for the record.
I would like to start off by paraphrasing the great
observer of democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville, who noted that
true friends of liberty must remain constantly vigilant and
ready.
As I will outline in my remarks, USAID remains vigilant and
ready to assist our partners in Europe and Eurasia. Before I
got into more detail, I would like to highlight three points
from my confirmation hearing last November.
First, I spoke about the challenges of countering Kremlin
malign influence, and I will speak about that later.
Second, I committed to focusing on youth programs and how
we will build the next generation of leaders in our region.
This commitment is coming to fruition through our European
Democracy Youth Network, now known as EDYN.
Democracy demands a commitment from every generation to
public service and their willingness to enter into dialogue
with those who hold opposing views.
The EDYN program will build a network of youth leadership
across the region that will do exactly that.
And third, I committed to strengthening communications with
Congress, and over the last several months we have had high-
level engagements including conversations with both you and
your staff, and I look forward to continuing this effort and
deepening our relationship.
Mr. Chairman, over the past two and a half decades, the
countries of E&E have made incredible strides. Half of our
region partner countries have graduated from USAID assistance
and joined institutions such as NATO and the European Union.
They are all now close allies and key trading partners of the
United States.
USAID is proud of the role and its profound transformation
in this process. In response to the progress, the Kremlin is
stepping up efforts to undermine the gains and, for example,
let me just give you a couple of examples.
Frustrated farmers in northern Azerbaijan have personally
told me that Russia frequently manipulates and restricts water
supplies, and in July, Russia prevented truckloads of fresh
apricots from crossing the border, wiping out farmers' entire
livelihoods. And last year, Russian cyber attacks in Ukraine
infected 60 countries worldwide, causing billions of dollars of
damage.
Thus, while this budget is fiscally conservative, USAID
stands vigilant and ready to achieve our U.S. foreign policy
objectives by helping these countries consolidate democratic
progress, increase their economic--and increasing their
economic integration to the West.
And so now let me cover the region. Ukraine continues to
struggle with numerous fundamental challenges, particularly in
the intense political, economic, and military pressure from
Russia.
Our assistance helps Ukraine to resist these pressures on
its chosen path toward prosperity, democracy, and closer ties
with the West.
In particular, we continue to focus on reducing corruption,
fostering much-needed decentralization, and spurring economic
community development in conflicted areas in eastern Ukraine.
Now, turning to Georgia, the request supports U.S. foreign
policy objectives within the country by resisting malign
Kremlin influence, further consolidating democratic and
economic gains and enhancing energy security.
Specifically, we are building on gains of increasing
dynamic economy by promoting competitiveness and export
potential and at the same time we are strengthening civil
society to enhance rule of law by supporting a fourth wave of
judicial reform.
Now, moving on to Moldova, the request will support
independent media, strengthening democratic institutions, and
build more competitive economy integrating into Europe and
diversify its energy supply.
I must also note of the recent mayoral election in Chisinau
which was unfairly annulled, and it's a warning sign of
backsliding in the region. Thus, we will be carefully watching
Moldova's democratic process before and after the parliamentary
elections in February.
Turning to the Western Balkans, USAID programs address the
challenging and fragile institutions, weak growth, and rule of
law, endemic corruption, and limited media freedoms in addition
to responding to the issues of violent extremism, and increased
Russian influence in the region.
Next, I would just like to note two hopeful cases. In just
a few days Macedonia will vote on a referendum which will clear
the way for progress in the NATO and the EU. USAID is working
with the state election commission to ensure integrity of this
referendum.
In Armenia, thanks to democratic breakthroughs, this past
spring when citizens peacefully gathered to demand political
change, the new government appears committed to reforms and
USAID will harness this momentum in Armenia by encouraging this
civic engagement of newly mobilized citizens and providing
targeted assistance to the government and civil society
organizations.
Next, I want to also note some changes taking place at
USAID and how they will benefit the region. The agency's new
transformation initiative titled ``Journey to Self-Reliance''
will create conditions for partner countries to lead, finance,
and implement their own development agendas.
Key aspects include fostering democratic resources--key
democratic resource base to sustain development, and expanding
engagement in collaborative design with private sector.
Mr. Chairman, before concluding, I would like to take this
opportunity to tell you a bit about our countering Kremlin
influence development framework. This framework will guide our
programming to help countries withstand the Kremlin's
interference.
Priorities include strengthening democratic institutions,
the rule of law, expanding independent media, combatting
corruption, increasing energy security, diversifying the
economic sector, and advancing integration with the West.
And finally, by noting that although the countries in the
region boast many development achievements and successes, much
remains to be done. Many of those successes, while impressive,
are partial and subject to reversal.
This budget request ensures USAID's vigilance and readiness
to build a more democratic and prosperous Europe and Eurasia.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it and I look forward
to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bierman follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
And, now, I am going to see if I can pronounce your name
now. Let's see, Ann Marie Yastishock. That's as good as I am
going to----[laughter].
All right. Well, thank you very much. I mispronounce her
name every time she comes. She always has the best testimony.
So it's good.
You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF MS. ANN MARIE YASTISHOCK, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR ASIA, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Yastishock. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Meeks, and Representative
Sherman, thank you for inviting me to testify on USAID's role
in advancing U.S. foreign policy priorities in Central Asia. I
ask that my testimony also be included for the record.
USAID's fiscal year 2019 request of $48.3 million supports
our bilateral efforts in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and the Kyrgyz
Republic, as well as for the Central Asia regional programs
covering all five countries.
With fiscal year 2019 funds, USAID will strengthen
democratic institutions, focusing on improving governance,
amplifying the voice of civil society, advancing rule of law,
and supporting the independence of media.
In economic governance, USAID will create a legal enabling
environment for competitiveness, enhance trade facilitation,
and promote responsible infrastructure development including
transforming the energy sector while encouraging U.S. private
sector investment.
Enhanced energy and trade within Central Asia promotes
greater integration and reduces these countries' dependence on
Russia and China.
USAID's programs are a critical component of the
administration's South Asia strategy by advancing regional
stability, promoting partnerships between South and Central
Asia, particularly Afghanistan, and supporting the sovereignty
and regional connectivity of the Central Asian countries.
Accordingly, we will prioritize building local capacity in
Central Asia, engaging the private sector in the growth
process, and helping partner countries mobilize domestic and
international resources to fund their own development agendas,
which will move them forward on their journey to self-reliance.
In Uzbekistan, USAID is leveraging strategic openings,
working to strengthen civil society and rule of law, expand
trade and energy cooperation, and strengthen health outcomes.
For example, by digitizing the case management in civil
courts nationwide, USAID has helped the Uzbek courts cut the
average length of cases in half.
Earlier this year, USAID and Uzbekistan signed four MOUs to
enhance our cooperation in rule of law, trade, energy, and to
assist the country accede to the World Trade Organization.
With 2019 resources, USAID will help Uzbekistan open its
economy, fight corruption, and improve the business climate for
U.S. companies.
U.S. technology and products introduced over the last 2
years have resulted in Uzbek companies purchasing everything
from John Deere tractors to 600,000 walnut saplings from
California nurseries.
In health, USAID assistance helped reduce tuberculosis
incidence in the country by 44 percent from 2001 to 2016, and
helped decrease TB mortality by almost 80 percent in the same
time period.
In the Kyrgyz Republic, USAID will use 2019 resources to
boost private sector competitiveness and build on our
successful efforts in health and education.
USAID is also working to strengthen the financial
sustainability of local media outlets. In education, we've
improved the reading skills of 65 percent of public school
primary students and at the government's request have expanded
our reading interventions to every public primary school in the
country.
In Tajikistan, USAID will use the 2019 resources to
continue to foster inclusive development and reduce
malnutrition. New technologies introduced by USAID have
quadrupled high-value fruit and vegetable production and
sourced about 50 crop varieties from California. These efforts
have helped reduce stunting from 31 percent to 18 percent over
the last 5 years.
In health, the first patients treated with a new U.S. drug
are completely cured of multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis where
once the disease was virtually fatal.
Lastly, USAID will use 2019 resources to engage and bring
together the five Central Asian countries including through the
U.S.-sponsored C5+1 initiative to promote cooperation in trade,
energy, and water as well as to improve conditions for labor
migrants, reducing their vulnerability to radicalization.
Our budget request will also enable USAID to help establish
a market-based Central Asia regional electricity market.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your support of USAID's
programs in Central Asia. Investing in Central Asia's
development remains in our national interest.
With our fiscal year 2019 budget request, we are committed
to making the most out of every taxpayer dollar to ensure that
our partner countries move forward on their journeys to self-
reliance and we achieve the objectives of the South Asia
strategy.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Yastishock follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, thank you very much. Thank you to
all the witnesses for their testimony and I am going to let Mr.
Meeks lead off with the questions today.
And Mr. Meeks, you may proceed.
Mr. Meeks. That means he wants to do something else behind
me.
No, I am kidding. [Laughter.]
Thank you for your testimony, and I think that it's
tremendously important on what you have indicated.
And so I would ask each and every one of you, you all agree
that the work that you do, whether it's USAID, whether it's the
State Department, is tremendously important for the people of
the United States of America.
Is that correct? Everybody.
And it's been helpful. I mean, we have seen meaningful
results as a result of the diplomatic work that you do on the
ground on a continuous basis.
In fact, as a number of generals have indicated in the
past, it may have even saved lives, in the long run. Would you
all concur to that?
Now, my concern is, because I think that in the past when I
look at the severe cuts that are going to take place here, you
know, at the level that they are, I don't think, unless you
can--you tell me otherwise, that either the State Department or
USAID, running the programs that you have ran, just was
foolishly spending money and not looking at it and trying to
evaluate the programs with which you were in charge of, and
working very closely with some of our allies in some of the
countries in Europe and Eurasia and counteracting other
countries who may try--who may not have the same--the same
rules and values that we have. Is that also correct?
Yeah? Okay. So then with this proposed budget, if it was to
be enacted--I will start--what adjustments would USAID--let's
start with that, Mr. Bierman--have to make in order to sustain
the current efforts so that we can continue to do what you're
doing, with the draconian cuts, you know? That we see 28
percent overall and we see how certain countries in the East
are being cut, you know, some--you know, 63 percent. What do
you do?
Mr. Bierman. Thank you very much, Congressman, and I
appreciate the opportunity to answer your question. I also
would just state, quickly, that we will remain available to
answer questions after this through the QFRs and also to meet
with you personally to go over every single one of your
questions that we might not have time for today.
Over the last 8 months, I have made a high priority of
coming up to Congress and meeting with members and their staffs
to answer these very important questions.
But let me just say that I think that the President's
request does give us the resources we need to accomplish our
goals. I would also suggest to you that we've been very
strategic in our efforts and we've been very focused, putting
together a strategic framework in terms of countering Kremlin
influence, and we are specifically going after those areas that
are of most need with both of our host countries and also the
region.
Finally, I would also suggest to you that we are working
with our European counterparts to be more collaborative and
strategic in our work. We are working with the private sector
in terms of bringing more resources to the table and we are
also working--and I think this is important--with diaspora.
I have made it a personal priority to make sure that I meet
with diaspora and I talk to them about how we can bring
additional resources to the table to help solve some of the
issues that we are facing.
And, finally, I just wanted to let you know that in Europe
and Eurasia we are not closing any missions. We are looking at
a country office in Albania where we are looking at the
relationship as it currently stands.
But there is no plans right now to close any of our
missions or country offices and we will be happy to work with
Congress to--as we--consult with Congress as we reassess our
host countries' path to their self-reliance.
Mr. Meeks. So let me just ask this then, because what I am
trying to make sure that maybe then we don't need to make the
errors of the past. Are you saying to me that this money that
you had previously you were over funded in the past?
Mr. Bierman. I would say that we are utilizing the
resources from Congress in a very strategic and positive
manner.
Mr. Meeks. Right. So you're just doing what you have to do
because that's all the money you're going to get if this budget
is enacted. Is that correct?
Mr. Bierman. I think we are being much more strategic in
our focus and we are also being more effective----
Mr. Meeks. So then we should have been more strategic in
the past. We didn't need to give you--didn't need to give the
money. Because I want to make sure we don't do that. If you
didn't need the money before and, you know, and we are just
going to accept that the budget is--the budget is--will get cut
and there's no advocacy, because in the past when I was in
these hearings, no matter who the President was, whether it was
Obama or Bush, the urge was to fight for as many--as much
dollars to create and have the kind of programs that are
necessary on the ground which would benefit the interests of
the American people.
Now, if I am hearing now that there has been a concrete
examination of the funds that was received in the past within
the agency--and I know I am putting you on the spot so I am not
going to let you--I am not going to--I am not going to do that
to you. I am not even going to ask you to answer the question.
Okay. I am not going to ask you to answer the question.
But I just want you to know that I appreciate very much the
work that USAID has been doing on behalf of the American people
and I think that in your statement, you know, you indicated
that there has been progress.
But there are several countries that are still under the
threat of Russia influence and some of that is increasing. Is
that correct? It hasn't decreased. It's still there.
Mr. Bierman. No, it is creating a clear choice between
authoritarianism and open democracy.
Mr. Meeks. And Ms. Yastishock, the State Department, it's
the same issue--I mean, the same questions. I mean, the work
that you do is valuable to the American people and make a
difference on the ground to people--to the American citizens.
So they've been getting--because when I look at what our
foreign aid is over our overall budget, it's less than 1
percent.
So the American people have been getting a good value out
of their dollar investing in our State Department and USAID and
the regions that we are talking about now, whether it's Europe
or Central Asia. The American people haven't been shortchanged
by the money that we've been giving to the State Department,
have they?
Ms. Yastishock. I am with USAID so I will defer----
Mr. Meeks. USAID. Okay. I am sorry.
Ms. Yastishock [continuing]. To my State colleague.
Mr. Meeks. Who's here from the State Department? Ms. Wynne
and Ms. Puma. I am sorry.
Ms. Wynne. I will answer the question first. Thank you,
Ranking Member Meeks.
First, before I answer the question, I want to say thank
you to the Members of Congress for the generous support that
you have provided both the career members of the service and
the department and USAID in supporting the foreign policy
objectives for our region.
I guess I would answer your question in the following way.
We recognize that as we sit here we understand that the budget
resources to support our foreign policy objectives are just one
part of the greater whole and that you have a very tough job in
balancing the priorities for our foreign policy objectives
against domestic policy objectives and the very real deficits
that face us.
So the President's request for fiscal year 2019 is a
request of fiscal restraint. Within that request--and I think
this is what Brock was trying to get at--is that we are trying
to be very strategic within this request.
We are trying to be very responsible in making sure that
the resources that we have are being put toward our highest
priorities and for us, within the State Department and USAID,
for Europe and Eurasia, that priority is focussing on those
states that are on the front lines of Russian aggression--
Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, where there are Russian boots on
the ground--and also more vulnerable areas in the Western
Balkans, which are also susceptible to malign influence.
Within that, we are also being strategic about the types of
assistance and engagement and interventions that we are using
so that we are focussing on those levers and influences that
are our biggest challenge.
First and foremost, supporting our partners and allies in
strengthening their cyberdefenses, especially as it relates to
their election systems; supporting local efforts to counter
disinformation, which serves to discredit our democracies and
sow division within the West; focussing on the fight against
corruption, which really is the door to malign influence from
Russia but also increasingly from China; and finally,
supporting our European partners as they strengthen their
energy security.
Again, with the resources that we have, we want to be
strategic.
Mr. Meeks. One thing that I know--I've gone over my time--
but so what will you now not focus on?
Ms. Wynne. So we are focusing--what we are not focussing on
are those areas----
Mr. Meeks. Right, these--go ahead.
Ms. Wynne. Thank you. So we'll not be focussing on those
areas that don't align with those goals. So, again,
prioritizing where the threat is the greatest in those areas
where the vulnerabilities are greatest and, finally, working in
partnership with our European donors and even with the private
sector to make sure that we are leveraging as much of the
outside resources as we can to address these threats.
Mr. Meeks. Right. I will just close with saying that I know
that if you're reprioritizing there's something that you have
got to leave out and I--from, you know, prior testimony under
various administrations, you know, they talk about the work
that they did. All of it was substantial. And now you have to
make choices and so a lot of things have to be left out.
And when I see where these dollars are going, it's not like
the dollars are going into a savings account. The dollars are
going into the military. That's where it's going.
And so it just seems to me then we are reshifting
completely from the diplomatic side or cutting the diplomatic
side into just the military side, causing a imbalance that we
once were trying to fix, because from the generals that I've
talked to they say we need both, and any--I mean, one general--
the favourite quote: The cuts that we take away from diplomacy
we got to add it for bullets.
And that's just my point. I yield back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, thank you, Mr. Meeks.
I have a few questions of my own. But let me note that we
are spending $833 billion more this year than we are taking in.
So every cent we spend overseas is being paid for by our
grandchildren----
Mr. Meeks. You passed a tax cut.
Mr. Rohrabacher. The tax cut--is that probably going to----
Mr. Meeks. A lot of money there.
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. May end up with actually more
revenue because the level of economic activity here will be
increased, as----
Mr. Meeks. I am sorry.
Mr. Rohrabacher. It's okay.
Let me just note that that type of deficit spending has to
be dealt with in some way and one way will be to increase the
productivity of our economy.
The other way will have to be trying to make sure that we
have a greater sense of responsibility in every dollar that's
being spent, especially outside of our country, especially for,
hopefully, the benefit of other countries. That is a mutual
benefit to us.
I understand your argument that helping other people is a
benefit to us and would create stability, et cetera. But should
we actually be financing--well, first of all, let me ask about
the crops in Ukraine.
Who was it who mentioned that we have doubled certain crops
in Ukraine? Was it you, Mr. Bierman, or----
Ms. Yastishock. I thought it was Tajikistan, doubling the
fruit crops.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Yeah, I--could you go into that
detail a little bit for that? What crops were doubled and how
did we do that? And----
Ms. Yastishock. Actually, I believe it is in Uzbekistan
where we have been working----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, that's Uzbekistan.
Ms. Yastishock. Uzbekistan. We've been working with the
private sector as well as the local farmers on increasing the
horticulture.
Mr. Rohrabacher. How did--how did we do that?
Ms. Yastishock. Through a contract and through a
contractor, and then we actually helped with leveraging private
sector investment to connect them to California to bring in the
walnut saplings.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So was--did we send--was it an American
company we contracted with to go there and help their farmers
produce more of their product? Is that what happened?
Ms. Yastishock. We did. We brought in American experts and
farmers to be able to increase the yields and the horticulture
sector.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Do you know what crops those were?
Ms. Yastishock. They were walnut saplings from the United
States.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Walnuts?
Ms. Yastishock. Walnuts.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Ms. Yastishock. That were brought in from California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. That's interesting. We have--
and how much did it cost us to double the walnut production in
Uzbekistan?
Ms. Yastishock. That's a number I would have to get back to
you on, Mr. Chairman. I am not exactly sure.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I certainly don't expect you to have that
off the top of your head. But if you could get back to me that
would be very nice.
Ms. Yastishock. Sure.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I guess what we need to know is every time
we have an expenditure, whether it's to increase the walnuts in
Uzbekistan or whatever it is, we need to now show in the age
that we are in exactly how this is going to have an impact--
positive impact on the United States because we are borrowing
that money from our grandchildren, and that--of course
Uzbekistan is a vitally important country.
There's no doubt about it. If--I think one of the most
important things that we have to deal with--one of the most
vital things is stability of Central Asia in the sense that if
Central Asia stays stable from the expansion of radical Islam
the whole world will be better off, especially the Western
world will be better off.
If, indeed, radical Islam permeates into Central Asia, the
instability that that creates would be incredibly damaging to
the stability of the entire planet.
So there is an importance there and maybe walnut production
in Uzbekistan may be part of that. But we have to make sure
that we can argue that case and that we know about that.
Now, what about the money that we are spending in
governments that are democratically elected and, like in
Hungary, and yet we are spending certain amounts of money for
what we call reformist groups that are involved with their
democratic process?
Is this something that we should--can still afford to do? I
mean, we have already a democratically elected government and
we go in and are supporting various people who are pushing for
various--what we consider to be fundamental aspects of our
society but maybe not necessarily fundamental to their culture.
And can we still afford to do that and why should we do
that if they already have a democratically elected government?
Anybody want to answer that?
Ms. Wynne.
Ms. Wynne. Thank you, Chairman. I will try to answer that
as best I can.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Talk a little louder so we can all hear
you.
Ms. Wynne. Sorry. I will try to answer that as best I can.
You know, we share with our NATO allies and EU member
states, including Hungary, some enduring principles and shared
values, and we expect our allies and partners to uphold them.
Part of what the source of American strength is is that
wherever we are throughout the globe we stand for fundamental
freedoms and democratic principles.
We'll continue to engage these governments on these issues
both privately and publicly when necessary. We'll also look to
engage societies in ways that we can to be helpful, to support,
those fundamental values and principles.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, if they have a democratically
elected government, isn't it quite insulting for us to go in
and say, here's how we define it and we expect you--I mean, the
people have freedom of speech there, whether it's Hungary or
these other--some other countries like Poland that have come
under attack.
Isn't it somewhat presumptuous of us to go in and then to
actually take more of that--spend more of that $833 billion
that we are spending in deficit to go in to try to help them--
push them in certain directions, even though they already have
a democratically elected government?
Ms. Wynne. So the second part of my answer, sir--and I
appreciate your question--was going to refer to the importance
of local context and that really does matter, especially if you
look at the space in Europe right now where we are facing
increasing competition--strategic competition from Russia and
China.
The manner in which we go about upholding our shared values
and principles is important. We don't want to ease the space
for Russian influence and Chinese influence.
We know that Russian disinformation is purporting
narratives that are intended to undermine our democracies. So
the way in which we go about engaging these governments and
supporting these efforts we want to both be effective. But we
also don't want to be seen as inadvertently criticizing----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, maybe the--maybe the people--maybe
the people of these countries--for example, Hungary or
elsewhere, when they see us getting involved with trying to
push various policies and issues with the NGOs, et cetera, in
their country, maybe they see it as the same kind of
interference that they don't like from Russia.
Ms. Wynne. We certainly need to be careful as we go about
supporting these fundamental--these fundamental values--these
fundamental principles.
We need to be careful that our efforts aren't inadvertently
exploited or mischaracterized as an attempt to criticise the
democratically-elected government of a NATO ally or we are
neither upholding our values or achieving our fundamental
national security objectives.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
And, you know--I will take a little extra time, too. So
the----
Mr. Bierman. And I--if I could just chime in, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Please go right ahead, Mr. Bierman. Yes.
Mr. Bierman. I would also say that these countries are
asking for our help in terms of building their democracy and
transparency. They are actually coming to us and asking for
assistance with transparent elections.
Mr. Rohrabacher. That's true. Yes.
Mr. Bierman. And I would also just add that this is a
matter of sharing a perspective rather than dictating a policy.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Somewhere between Uzbekistan and Hungary
there is a--you know, one is basically a very sophisticated
country--Hungary and Poland and those countries--versus
Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, which are really developing
countries.
So there's a line somewhere there for the point that you
made of where it becomes interference and where they're
actually asking for help and where they're helping and in terms
of values and such, especially disturbing is the fact that
we've had so much corruption in various countries that we've
helped.
I mean, Ukraine, we've spent $1 billion in Ukraine, I
guess, in the last couple years and everybody acknowledges the
level of corruption there is just dramatic.
Mr. Bierman. I would just add that we've seen more movement
to defeat corruption in the last 4 years than we've seen in the
last 20 years. They've just stood up a high level anti-
corruption court and USAID is helping them stand up that court.
We've seen a number of programs that help create
transparency with our ProZorro program. I visited the East
where we actually have created these service centers where
people can come in and receive valuable services from their
local governments that helps them be more proactive and more
responsive.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, I will say that at that level I hope
that they are having--experiencing less corruption. But from
what I've been told personally by various groups from Ukraine
that at the highest level corruption is worse than it's ever
been and that's--I can't verify that but that's what political
groups from that country--whereas we are the committee that
oversees our relations with Ukraine--they come to us and they
talk to us.
With one last point, let us just note that sometimes when
you have certain amount of money you're going to spend and now
we have to be much more cautious with it, spending the money
doesn't necessarily bring about the right end.
I remember, like, one of the things when I first got here
was the Clinton administration's insistence on spending what
was the equivalent of $50 million providing fuel for North
Korea, and it had just the opposite impact.
I mean, the North Koreans thought we were fools for doing
that and did not make peace more likely. It made it less
likely, and this President, with all of his abrasiveness and
all of the way that he gets people angry at him, calling the
guy ``Rocket Man'' and things like that, we have made
tremendous strides forward at least getting the dialogue going
to see if we can improve our relations as compared to what that
$50 million got us, which was a retrenchment of tyranny and
threat from North Korea.
So with that said, one last point and then Brad, you can
take over. And Brad loves to refute me but that's okay--you can
do that.
I think that this administration--I think what's
fascinating--I want to go on the record on this, fellas, and
that is we have left more career Foreign Services officers in
charge of the State Department than any other administration
that I've been through in the last 30 years.
So we've actually got the pros like that are with us today.
They're all pros, and with that said, that's one thing that you
got to take into consideration.
Thank you all very much and, Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. On that last point, I have urged the prior
Secretary of State and the current Secretary of State when they
have good people who happen to be career, give them the
permanent title.
I believe we have at least one acting DAS here and as good
as the people are, you can't do a good job until they tell you
it's your job, and I remember the former Secretary of State
saying well, yeah, we haven't filled all these positions
because we've got great people filling them temporarily.
Permanent is better.
As to the issue of if a country is democratic we shouldn't
criticise them, I think that we deal with both democracy and
human rights, minority rights, the rule of law, and we need
to--just because a country is elected does not mean it's
respecting minority rights.
That being said, I am concerned at the great popularity in
the American press of any color revolution anywhere in
Eurasia--we are running out of colors--when it's an attempt to
displace a democratically-elected government, the U.S. press
tends to focus on well, if people--if a majority of the people
in the capital city who are English speaking and secular are
against the government, then obviously it's undemocratic for
that government to continue. And the fact is that many of these
countries have people who don't live in the capital city and
who don't speak English whose votes ought to be given equal
weight.
As to the anti-corruption effort, it's good to see that
Ukraine has one. I would point out China has also had a huge
anti-corruption effort, which is basically an attempt by
President Xi to go after his enemies, and just because a
country is doing a lot in anti-corruption does not mean it's
primarily an anti-corruption campaign.
I want to associate myself with the ranking member's
statements and arguments that we should be spending more on
foreign aid but point out that we should also be pushing Europe
to do so as well.
Now, as a percentage of GDP they spend more on foreign aid
than we do. But we provide the security that they don't
provide, as proven even in Europe where that could not be
handled by European military. Kosovo and Bosnia was handled by
the U.S. military.
As part of our effort to point out that Europe should be
spending more on its international obligations, we deliberately
undercut that by understating the portion of our GDP that we
spend on the military.
We spend far more than 4 percent of our GDP and then we
hide that from the American people by saying don't include our
intelligence operations as part of what we spend on national
defense and don't include VA benefits as part of what we spend
on national defense.
If any private company excluded from its expenses of
product created the pensions that they are going to provide or
obligated to provide or the pension benefits that they're going
to provide their workers and they didn't list that as one of
their expenses, their accountants would go to jail.
So we should not be understating what we spend to fool the
American people when that undercuts our efforts to get Europe
to spend more.
I heard a number of the witnesses talk about trade
facilitation and the good of expanding trade. Often, U.S.
companies will come to you and say, go spend money on this--
it's trade facilitation and it's supply network improvement.
What they're really saying is go spend money so that we can
ship jobs overseas and our offshoring will be effective. Is
there any regulation at USAID that says that you have to look
as to whether a particular project will facilitate offshoring
of American jobs?
Mr. Bierman. I can't answer that but I am happy to get back
to you with it.
Mr. Sherman. Okay. So this is a program--let's put it
this--it's not a regular--you're the one running the program
and you're not of any--you don't, at least knowingly, carry out
a policy preventing your program to lead to offshoring of jobs?
Mr. Bierman. Oh, absolutely. In fact, I was just going to
mention----
Mr. Sherman. But, I mean, it's on your checklist. If a
project comes in and the effect is to allow shoes that are made
in the United States to be efficiently made in some other
country you don't fund the program?
Mr. Bierman. There is no regulation.
Mr. Sherman. There is no regulation. Is it a policy of
yours? So it's not a--you do not have a policy against funding
shipping American jobs overseas?
If a project is going to lead to shutting down an American
factory, you don't have a policy that says that's a bad idea?
Mr. Bierman. No. In fact, I would just say that we are
actually exploiting opportunities for American businesses
overseas through our programs. We are seeing the opposite.
Mr. Sherman. Okay. When an American business wants you to
help exploit the opportunity to close down an American factory
and make more money by producing the product overseas, what do
you do?
Mr. Bierman. Well, first off, let me just--let me give you
a prime example where we are working with a rural company in
rural Oklahoma where we've actually seen an increase in
working----
Mr. Sherman. I know there are going to be times when your
projects lead to increased American employment.
I am asking you a specific question. Do your policies and
procedures--so when we fund your agency we may very well on
occasion be funding a program that makes profits for a great
American company by shutting down an American factory and
facilitating--and doing trade facilitation that helps ship
those jobs overseas?
Mr. Bierman. As far as I am concerned, everything that we
are doing is actually a benefit of both American----
Mr. Sherman. But you don't ever--in looking at a project
you don't have on your checklist, does this lead to shutting
down an American factory?
Mr. Bierman. I can't give you an example where that has
been the case.
Mr. Sherman. Well, on the one hand--yeah, but you're not--
okay.
So you would need legislation--we'd have to tell you
through legislation not--you know, to notice whether it leads
to shutting down an American factory?
I will ask one of the other witnesses. Are you aware of any
State Department policy that says that we are not in favor of
trade facilitation projects that increase American corporate
profits but decrease American jobs?
Ms. Wynne. I am not aware of any such stated policy, sir. I
think the goal of----
Mr. Sherman. Well, shouldn't we have one? I mean, you're
asking us to go back--we've got this debate between the
chairman and the ranking member--you're asking us to go back to
our districts and say spend money on aid and you don't happen
to notice whether you're funding something that's going to shut
down American jobs?
Mr. Bierman. I would say it's just the opposite.
Mr. Sherman. But do you have it as part of your--I know
that you can point to examples where perchance it worked out
well. But do you have a written policy against funding a
project that you might not--that would displace American jobs?
Ms. Wynne. When we fund particular projects or particular
sectors, sir, we are not looking at the interests of one
particular or specific company.
Our focus is on, typically, improving the environment
overseas so that our firms can compete.
Mr. Sherman. But are you noticing whether--while hoping
that your project might increase jobs a--that a project might
displace an American factory? Close it down?
Ms. Wynne. No. I think what Mr. Bierman is trying to say we
are in fact noticing the opposite. Our projects are actually
doing the opposite.
Mr. Sherman. I know--do you have--let's say you get 10
projects and nine of them increase American jobs and you come
here and brag about that.
Would you happen to notice that maybe the tenth project led
to shutting down an American factory? Do you have a rule
against funding that tenth project--the one that would shut
down?
I know--other than coming here and bragging about the nine
that increased, do you have a policy against funding the
project that would lead to closing an American factory?
Ms. Wynne. I don't know.
Mr. Sherman. Nothing you can point to?
Mr. Bierman. Hypothetical, but we've never----
Mr. Sherman. Well, you don't look for it. If it's not part
of your job to notice whether you're going to shut down an
American factory, I don't expect the foreign government to send
you a memo at their expense saying, don't fund this project in
our country because it moves jobs from America to Uzbekistan.
It's not Uzbekistan's job to protect American jobs, and you
won't know what you're doing if you don't look and you don't
have it on your written checklist to look.
So I hope that when you come back next year you will say
yes, we've got a 17-point or 170 points that we look at when we
fund a project and one of them is we are not shutting down an
American factory.
So come back next year and show it to me. It may be number
169 on the list. But don't tell me to go back to my district
and agree with Mr. Meeks and disagree with Mr. Rohrabacher and
try to provide more funds for your agency if you won't include
this as one of your 170 top concerns.
Now let me go to things far less controversial, although I
have gone on pretty long.
Mr. Meeks. Yes, you have.
Mr. Sherman. I am closing in on the amount done by the
chairman. I will sneak in one question if you will let me.
Mr. Rohrabacher. The answer is yes. But I want to note that
the way I handle this as chairman I usually let people finish
their train of thought and you go right ahead.
Mr. Sherman. Okay.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Just as long as when you're the chairman I
am going to get that same type of treatment. [Laughter.]
Mr. Sherman. Yes. Yes. Yes. You're right. Usually the
chairman gets a little bit more.
Mr. Bierman, we've talked here about saving lives. One of
your programs that does save lives is the de-mining effort in
Artsakh. What are your views on expanding this critical
investment in peace by finalizing the HALO Trust's mine
clearance funding?
Mr. Bierman. Well, first off, thank you for that question,
Congressman.
Let me just say for the record we've spent $43 million in
humanitarian assistance for victims of Nagorno-Karabakh over
the last--well, since 1998--over the last 20 years.
We are right now at about 97.6 percent completed the
mission of de-mining in that particular area and more than a
125,000 people have benefited from the de-mining.
This has saved lives and prevents injuries and generates
local jobs. So we continue to support that.
We will continue to look at humanitarian assistance in that
particular region as it--as it arises.
Mr. Sherman. In a QFR I am going to be asking you to urge
the Department of Treasury to conclude a tax treaty with
Armenia that will help achieve your goals and actually make
money for the IRS rather than cost money, which everything else
does.
And I will yield back.
Mr. Bierman. And I would just--one last additional point
would be that I have met with the Armenian diaspora and we have
made a point of reaching out to them and talking about
partnerships and benefiting not only Armenia but the region.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. We have exactly 5 minutes before the next
vote is called. So as a matter of self-interest as well as
courtesy, I am going to have Mr. Meeks say his closing remarks
and then I will close the hearing.
Mr. Meeks. And I will be brief.
I just want to thank the four of you for your service and
dedication to our great country and to everybody that works in
the State Department and USAID.
I've got to tell you, when I travel on this committee and I
go almost any place in the world, first, you know, many times I
go and I see our military, our young women and men that's in
our United States military, I am so proud of them and what they
do and what they stand for and how they do their jobs on an
everyday basis. And I've got to tell you I am as equally proud
of the women and men in the State Department and at USAID.
I see them working tirelessly on behalf of our country,
working together to make sure that we have a better world. They
are dedicated to this great country of ours and for a better
world, and I want to make sure that they know that they are
truly appreciated by members of the United States Congress.
So thank you and thank them for their service.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Good summary, wasn't it. That was
terrific.
All right. Well, let's just know that almost every Member
of Congress that I know agrees with that assessment.
We may be--come across as being too much having green
eyeshades and giving people problems over specifics and trying
to make do with the budget that we've got without leaving all
of this legacy of debt to our grandchildren.
But we know that you're the--you know, they're the front
line and you're the one who are putting out all the work and
policy. Dictating policy is a lot harder than carrying it out
most of the time. So we do appreciate that.
Let me just note that I think that we do--there are some
fundamental differences that separate us and I will have to say
that some I don't believe and that we should be in other
countries pushing them on policies and philosophies that are,
yes, consistent with our values but if it's a democratically-
elected government they can get those values and they can get
those decisions from their own people rather than from people
who have a culture, like we have in California--totally
different culture than what's going on in some of the countries
like Uzbekistan or Tajikistan or wherever.
They have a totally different culture than we do, and for
us to be pushing--and even in Hungary, even when we push--so we
are pushing for people to accept as part of our NGO program to
do this--that, I think, is not only a waste of money but it
will create antagonism for us.
Helping out to make sure that we help the walnut farmers in
Uzbekistan and if we do I think that we can--probably they will
be grateful to us for doing that rather than telling us what--
rather than saying okay, we will agree to your position on gay
marriage, okay, and I am just saying that's the type of thing
that we should not be pushing as U.S. policy but respecting
their culture in that way.
Otherwise, I think they're going to end up disliking us the
same way that people dislike Russia, especially during the
Soviet era, when they came in and tried to perpetuate their
socialist values on everybody.
So with that said, I am optimistic and I think we are in
line for a better world. I think that technology--your jobs are
going to be easier now because technology and especially
communications technology that we are able now to have an
influence in another country and, for example, I am on the
Science Committee and there's a company, Virgin Galactic,
that's just getting into what you call suborbital space.
Well, that means we will be able to go to Kazakhstan or
Uzbekistan in an hour from here. Ten years from now that will
be--there will an airline doing that and Virgin Galactic will
be offering that service.
This is going to be a--have a tremendous impact on the
world and I hope that it will be a positive influence, and we
do owe people mine clearing and I was very happy that that was
brought up because we have--in our history we have done things
to preserve our own security that we need to detail--we need to
focus on.
Mine clearing is one of them. People in Laos, people in
Vietnam--they still have kids who are going out and they are
being--you know, their legs are blown off or their hands are
being blown off.
We need to--to me, that is the most justified of all
expenditures of foreign aid because we are rectifying something
we created ourselves.
And with that said, just--and just improving their economy
with walnuts I don't think is enough. But making sure that we
help correct--for example, we need to work with people on
banking systems that are transparent.
I mean, the corruption that I noted in Ukraine, that's all
over the place. What you have got is a--bankers are now quite
often just accomplices to public officials who were looting
their own countries and that's not right.
And we can--that's one type of a project that would cost a
lot of money for us--a lot of time and expertise to try to help
people develop banking systems that will protect their own
people from that kind of looting.
Those are the type of projects that I think we need more of
and less of the more traditional things that USAID has been
doing for the last 50 years. Maybe we are in a new phase, and I
think we are, and we are depending on you to get the job done.
And thank you for your guidance as we are trying to make
the policies of this new phase.
So with that said, this subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:34 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]