[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2019
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND 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, Dean Koulouris, and Clelia Alvarado
Subcommittee Staff
____________
PART 3
Page
Department of State and Foreign Assistance........................ 1
Department of the Treasury International Programs ................ 3
United States Agency for International Development ............... 43
Written Testimony from Outside Witnesses ........................ 181
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
_______________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2019
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND 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, Dean Koulouris, and Clelia Alvarado
Subcommittee Staff
__________
PART 3
Page
Department of State and Foreign Assistance........................ 1
Department of the Treasury International Programs ..................3
United States Agency for International Development ............... 43
Written Testimony from Outside Witnesses ......................... 181
...............................
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
______________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
33-569 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 2019
----------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND FOREIGN ASSISTANCE
Clerk's note.--Due to the Secretary of State's busy
schedule, the Committee on Appropriations was unable to find a
mutually agreeable date for the Secretary to appear before the
subcommittee concerning the President's budget request for
fiscal year 2019.
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2019
----------
Wednesday, April 11, 2018.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS
WITNESS
HON. STEVEN MNUCHIN, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Opening Statement of Chairman Rogers
Mr. Rogers. The Committee will be in order, and to all a
good morning and welcome. The State, Foreign Operations
Subcommittee is now in session.
It is a pleasure to welcome our witness, the secretary of
the Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, as we consider the department's
budget request for international programs and its policy
implications for foreign affairs and national security.
We are glad that the ranking member and my dear friend Mrs.
Lowey is able to be with us today. She was instrumental as we
shepherded the omnibus across the finish line last month, to
questionable happiness, and will be bringing new bills for the
House to consider shortly.
We also want to welcome all subcommittee members back. A
sparse number this morning. I expect we will see more as time
goes on.
Mr. Secretary, we appreciate your service to your country,
and are interested to hear from you on how your budget request
comports with the national security strategy, supports the
Department of State and USAID's joint strategic plan, and
decreases reliance on foreign aid.
The department's budget requests $1.4 billion for
international programs. Within that amount, over $1 billion is
for contributions to the World Bank. In terms of dollars
requested and the number of multilateral institutions to be
supported, this request is conspicuously smaller than in the
past. I have long encouraged agencies to be as efficient as
possible with taxpayer dollars, in part by taking a hard look
at whether a different approach could yield better outcomes at
less cost. But if the administration is deliberately reducing
its engagement with multilateral banks as a matter of policy,
then it is incumbent upon the department to inform Congress of
the decision and the justification for it.
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, you supported the
President's America First agenda and, as with other cabinet
members, clarified that America First does not mean America
alone. Similarly, we would not expect Treasury alone to make
decisions about foreign assistance and policy.
On the one hand, I was pleased to see Treasury with the
Departments of State and Justice issue a trifecta of sanctions
against North Korea, Russia, and Iran. On the other hand, I am
concerned that the administration is proposing to eliminate all
of Treasury's multilateral funding for food security and to cut
in half USAID's bilateral funding for such assistance.
In your testimony today, I would appreciate answers about
food security assistance: How did Treasury and USAID reach this
decision? Did the agencies debate the effectiveness of
bilateral versus multilateral assistance? What are the expected
consequences of significantly reduced food security assistance
on global economic and political stability?
Mr. Secretary, this subcommittee has the responsibility to
scrutinize not only the numbers in the budget, but also the
policies behind them. Therefore, you should expect that we
would question the department's budget and policies, and we
would expect timely and substantive responses.
We thank you, Mr. Secretary, for meeting with us. Your
time, attention and service are greatly appreciated.
Let me recognize now the ranking member of our subcommittee
and the full committee, Mrs. Lowey, for any remarks she would
care to make.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Opening Statement of Ranking Member Lowey
Mrs. Lowey. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to say,
before the hearing begins, what a pleasure it was to work with
you on the last bill and we were so proud of it.
And that is why today, Secretary Mnuchin, I have real
concerns with the fiscal year 2019 budget request. The
Administration has ignored congressional support for robust
international engagement and has once again proposed a
crippling 30 percent cut to our diplomatic and development
efforts.
I want to make it clear, Mr. Secretary, these cuts, in a
bipartisan way, were rejected and we turned out a really
excellent bipartisan budget in the last cycle. If enacted, this
budget would substantially harm critical U.S. interests, put
our embassies and diplomats at risk, and stymie our efforts to
counter violent extremism and fight terrorism.
The Treasury Department's international program is
essential to achieving U.S. strategic objectives overseas. The
proposed cuts to important international partners would
recklessly undermine U.S. global leadership and inhibit our
ability to steer the international development agenda.
Some of the worst parts of this request would slash our
contributions to the Global Environmental Facility by more than
half; and eliminate resources to multilateral funds,
specifically targeting food security, even as numerous
countries face famines.
Congress should, yet again, reject these cuts and boost
investments in international financial institutions. These
entities are critical in the fight against global poverty by
helping low-income countries strengthen their economies. When
properly managed, these institutions leverage U.S. dollars to
develop sustainable programs and enable countries to become
self-reliant.
Should the United States step back from our leadership at
international financial institutions, there are many other
countries that would gladly fill the space. But these countries
will almost certainly not represent American values or our
interests. A diminished U.S. role at these entities would hurt
low-income countries in the world and damage U.S. economic and
national security.
The Treasury Department is also charged with leading U.S.
efforts to combat terrorist financing networks and enforce
sanctions against rogue nations. I am very concerned that
President Trump's impulsive actions in the international realm
and his troubling tendency to act favorably towards
authoritarian leaders are impacting policy decisions at your
department.
For example, despite signing the Countering America's
Adversaries Through Sanctions Act into law in August 2017, the
Administration failed to apply these sanctions against Russia
until mid-March 2018. And while these sanctions were a step in
the right direction, both sides of the aisle agree that more
must be done to punish Russia for election meddling;
government-sponsored hacking operations targeting U.S.
companies in the water, aviation, construction, manufacturing,
and nuclear sectors; and the use of a chemical weapon on the
soil of our closest ally.
Additionally, the Administration has lifted sanctions
against countries such as Sudan and been unwilling to impose
sanctions on countries such as the Philippines. This lack of
accountability feeds a global perception that the United States
condones corruption and human rights violations. This is not in
our interest, nor is it representative of our moral obligation
as a champion of human rights.
As Secretary of the Treasury, I hope you know that global
challenges do not have military solutions alone, and that
``soft'' power is fundamental to national security. As
Secretary of Defense Mattis said, ``America has two fundamental
powers: the power of intimidation and the power of inspiration.
Soft power is largely found in the power of inspiration.''
This Administration undercuts our ability to inspire
through irresponsible behaviors and a woefully insufficient
budget request. These actions pose grave threats to U.S.
security and global leadership.
So again I welcome you, Mr. Secretary. I look forward to
discussing this with you further during questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Secretary, you are recognized for as long as you care
to speak.
Secretary Mnuchin. Thank you.
Opening Statement of Secretary Mnuchin
Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey, and members of the
subcommittee, it is good to be here with you today to discuss
the President's budget.
In fiscal year 2019, the Treasury Department requests $1.4
billion for international programs. This reflects the
administration's priority of preserving investments in
multilateral development institutions and remaining a key donor
to those institutions.
Constructive use of concessional funds is an important
component of our agenda to promote better economic policies and
foster growth. Our participation will contribute to a more
democratic, prosperous and secure global economy.
Our budget envisions United States contribution levels that
are more appropriate relative to those of our partner
countries. We seek to balance priorities and direct government
resources to programs that support the national interest and
national security.
Treasury also encourages international financial
institutions to operate more efficiently and has been a driver
of shareholder support for reforms to the multilateral
development banks. These reforms are aimed at improving
governance, maximizing development impact, and ensuring
financial discipline.
Treasury continues to seek reforms at several of these
institutions to improve monitoring, evaluation, independent
compliance operations, and the efficient deployment of capital,
particularly to countries that need it most.
I would also like to highlight Treasury's request for $30
million for the Office of Technical Assistance (OTA). This
helps to reduce countries' dependence on financial aid, by
helping them to mobilize domestic resources more effectively
and supporting private sector economic growth.
In addition, Treasury plays an important role in combating
terrorist financing, among other financial crimes. And OTA's
provision of technical assistance is key to enforcing relevant
laws.
Ultimately, the United States expects a strong return on
this investment, not only because it will help other countries
to stand on their own, but also because it will lead to more
secure and stable markets around the world.
The policies in the President's budget demonstrate this
administration's commitment to promoting economic growth,
putting our country on a sound fiscal path on the long-term,
and prioritizing our national security.
Thank you very much, and I would be happy to answer any
questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And thank you for
being here this morning.
Congress gave the department clear marching orders in the
form of the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act
and Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. I
am heartened to see the department making use of these new
powers by issuing sanctions against North Korean shipping
companies, Russian oligarchs, and Iranian individuals who stole
intellectual property for the benefit of the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Mr. Secretary, the cooperation from other countries,
especially China and Japan, is required to isolate the
economies of North Korea, Iran, and Russia. You recently
returned from the G-20 meeting and will be attending the World
Bank-IMF meetings later this month. Have you and will you raise
the importance of confronting the illicit financing and cyber
activities of North Korea, Iran, and Russia with your
counterparts at these meetings? And how would you characterize
their support for such measures?
Secretary Mnuchin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I think, as you know, the Treasury Department has been very
aggressive in using its sanctions authorities over the last
year.
Starting specifically with North Korea, our part has been
part of the maximum pressure campaign which we believe is
working quite significantly and is a major contributor to
having North Korea now being willing to sit down with the
President and discuss getting rid of nuclear weapons.
We have worked very closely with our allies, and
particularly Japan and South Korea--I participated in many
trilats with the President--as well as China. I have had very
many active discussions with my counterparts. President Trump
has spoken many times to President Xi and they have been an
important contributor in passing resolutions at the U.N. and
working with us, as well.
On Iran, I think you know we have been very aggressive on
sanctions on Iran. We think Iran's behavior is completely
unacceptable. The President is also reviewing the JCPOA and
actions on the JCPOA.
Finally, I would just comment on Russia. Again, we took the
CAATSA legislation very seriously. We had done many sanctions
on Russia before CAATSA under our different authorities. I
think as you know, we have to be very careful when we issue
sanctions. These are very, very powerful tools and we need to
do them carefully and thoughtfully.
We just released recently sanctions on the Russian
oligarchs and Russian political figures. I think they have been
quite impactful. You have seen an impact on the market. We have
also sanctioned a significant number of companies associated
with those oligarchs, and we will continue to use these
sanction authorities.
Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Are there further sanctions that are in your
holster in regard to North Korea? Are there more sections that
could be placed upon them than are now?
Secretary Mnuchin. I want to be careful about talking about
future activities, since we try not to highlight any future
activity in advance.
But I can assure you that we will continue with the maximum
pressure campaign. We have people working at Treasury and the
intelligence community around the clock on future sanctions for
all of our different programs, and will continue to use these
enforcements powerfully.
Mr. Rogers. Well, I hope that there are further sanctions
that could be laid on North Korea so that the pressures that
are now being applied to set up a meeting between the two
leaders is not the end. We need to keep up the pressure to
denuclearize--not just to meet but to actually do the
denuclearization that we are all after.
So I would hope that you have in reserve some extra special
punch to get us past the summit to actual results.
Secretary Mnuchin. Well, again, I want be careful and not
commenting on our reserve tank which we are careful to guard.
But I can assure you, the President has instructed me to
continue our maximum pressure campaign.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Administration has
said it will not sign a new sanctions waiver for Iran by May
12th unless changes are made to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action, JCPOA.
Now, I voted against the JCPOA, but abruptly leaving the
deal risks our credibility and could isolate us. I believe we
should stay in the JCPOA to ensure aggressive and vigorous
enforcement of the deal, and should also implement additional,
non-nuclear sanctions that address Iran's ballistic missile
program and other destabilizing activities.
I would like clarity on the President's plan. What metrics
is your department using to evaluate whether the suspension of
specific Iran sanctions pursuant to the JCPOA are or are not
vital to the national security interests of the U.S.?
Secretary Mnuchin. Mrs. Lowey, first of all, I appreciate
your comments on this, and I respect your vote and appreciated
your vote against the JCPOA.
I can assure you, we are not doing anything abruptly. This
is something we have been looking at for the last year. I have
personally had many conversations at the National Security
Council and with the President on this strategy. I obviously
cannot go through all those issues in this format, but I can
assure you we are not doing anything abruptly.
I can also assure you that the President is very concerned
about Iran's continuing behavior on both missiles and
terrorism, as well as he is very concerned about the term of
the JCPOA.
So this is something we have been carefully reviewing. I
have had many discussions with my counterparts in Europe. There
are active discussions going on with our counterparts in
Europe. The secretary of state has also been very involved in
these discussions.
I am not going to comment on specifically what the
President's plans are going forward, but it has been very
clear. He wants to have a better deal, and he is very concerned
about Iran's behavior, and any ability we have to put on
sanctions outside the JCPOA, we will continue to do as we have
done, over the last year.
Mrs. Lowey. Sanctions outside of JCPOA dealing with
ballistic missiles, et cetera, certainly, in my judgment,
should be imposed, and I would be interested to hear the
direction in which you are going.
But if we re-impose nuclear sanctions, what areas of Iran's
economy will we target to force Iran, once and for all, to
cease nuclear development? Will the world community join us in
this effort? And what is the Administration's plan to monitor
and evaluate Iran's activities to ensure it is not restarting
its nuclear program?
Secretary Mnuchin. Well, first of all, I would just comment
that, again, these sanctions programs are very effective. There
is no question in my mind that the sanctions on Iran is what
led Iran to come to the table.
There is no question that--we fundamentally believe--this
administration believes that we should have had a better deal
before we let the sanctions go.
Again, I want to be careful in what I say in this format.
We are evaluating, and we have evaluated, those issues that you
have discussed, but I think to the extent that the President
decides not to sign the waiver and we do re-impose those
sanctions, not only will there be primary sanctions, but there
will be secondary sanctions, and I believe that they will
continue to have a very strong impact on the economy in Iran.
Mrs. Lowey. Now, what you didn't mention--and, again, I
want to say I did not support the JCPOA because I felt it could
be more extensive and more inclusive.
However, you are saying if the President decides to move
forward on additional nuclear sanctions, what about the other
partners in the JCPOA? You didn't refer to that.
Secretary Mnuchin. Again, I want to comment on, I
appreciate your vote. It is actually--it is not the President
deciding on additional sanctions. If the President does not
sign the waiver--so, Congress requires a waiver to be signed by
the President--if the President does not sign that waiver, we
are required to re-impose the sanctions. So the issue will be
whether the President wants to sign the waiver or not.
Again, as it relates to, I am not comfortable in this
setting talking about what our allies will do or will not do.
Again, I can assure you, there have been extensive
conversations, both at my level and at other levels in the
government on a coordinated basis with our allies, and they
understand how we feel.
Mrs. Lowey. I will conclude, Mr. Chairman, but I think we
need additional clarity on the President's plan, because this
is a very critical step. And most of us, whether we voted for
JCPOA or against JCPOA, certainly Mr. Royce and Mr. Engel have
had important legislation on the authorizing side regarding
other actions that we think should be taken, but that is
separate from the JCPOA.
I would certainly appreciate additional information, and
perhaps this is not the format for you to discuss it with us. I
think my time is up, Mr. Chairman, so I will save the next
question.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here this morning. I certainly appreciate
the work that you are doing and the administration are doing on
the issue of sanctions with respect to North Korea, Russia and
Iran. It is very necessary, and much appreciated.
But I would like to focus on the Export-Import Bank (EXIM)
and trade, generally. As you may be aware, it seems that we are
now at the beginning stages of what some are calling a trade
war.
I am very alarmed by the way the administration is
proceeding on the issue of trade, launching against friend and
foe alike on aluminum steel tariffs. And then only to pivot to
the real issue, the big issue, which, of course, is the course
of technology transfers and intellectual property theft by the
Chinese, as well as excess capacity in metals. But in the
process we seem to have offended our friends and allies.
I wanted to say this, though, on EXIM. This bank does not
fully function. Do you, as secretary, want the Export-Import
Bank, and does this administration, want it to fully function?
Secretary Mnuchin. Yes.
Mr. Dent. OK. There is legislation pending, and we put in
the appropriations bill, State, Foreign Operations, the last
few years, Lindsey Graham and I, that would allow the bank to
function without a full quorum, so that they can make loans for
over $10 million knowing that there are hundreds of deals out
there that are not being done for export.
We can't send any--all kinds of--Mack Trucks in my district
can't sell trucks to Cameroon. We can't sell locomotives to
Africa from GE out of Pennsylvania and Texas. I have got a long
list. It is not happening. We need your leadership, and the
President's leadership, to say you want this to happen, because
the nominations are going nowhere in the Senate.
Do you have any comment on that issue?
Secretary Mnuchin. Well, again, the President is very
interested in reopening the Export-Import Bank. As you said, it
is effectively closed because of the lack of quorum. Our first
choice is to get people confirmed and have it fully
functioning. But to the extent we cannot do that, we are happy
to work with you and look at the legislation.
Mr. Dent. Because it is getting very late, you are going to
lose capacity over at the bank. You know, we have been having
this battle now for years and the President states that he
wants to see the trade deficit shrink. Well, here is a way we
can do it and make some money for the Treasury in the process.
And it just seems like--I just feel like there hasn't been
enough leadership coming out of the executive branch saying
they want this to happen. In fact, I think there are people in
the executive branch who don't want it to function. And I think
that is, kind of, a mixed message that I am getting. I am
pleased that you are on board, but I get the sense there are
those in the administration who are not.
Secretary Mnuchin. Well, I cannot comment on everybody in
the administration, but I can comment, the President does want
it to function.
Mr. Dent. I realize you are not the trade ambassador, USTR.
So I will be a little respectful, but you are Treasury
secretary and, obviously, we have a complex relationship with
the Chinese. And I would like to get your take on the second-
and the third-degree implications of this tit for tat with
China on trade and tariffs and how it might affect their
purchase of our debt or Treasuries.
I would like to get your take on this and, how do you think
we can move this back from the edge and get this thing focused
on the issues that our allies care about, along with us, on
intellectual property theft?
Of course, the technology transfers and this could mushroom
into something far bigger that is going to have enormous
implications to our farmers and many, many others if we don't
get this into a better place.
Secretary Mnuchin. Well, I think, as you know, and I just
want to put this in perspective. The President's economic plan
has always had three parts to it. This was broadcast going back
to the campaign: tax relief, regulatory relief and trade.
We very much appreciate and we are beginning to see the
impact of the tax bill that was passed last year. We are really
just beginning to see the important economic aspects of that. I
think we have made a lot of progress on regulatory relief that
is also having a positive impact on the economy and we are now
dealing with the trade issues.
These trade issues, we have been discussing them for the
last year. The economic team meets weekly and has reviewed all
these issues. The President has been actively involved. I speak
to the President almost daily on these issues.
I think, as it relates to China, we should refer to this as
a trade dispute, because that is what it is. Going back to the
Mar-a-Lago Summit which was a little over a year ago, President
Trump and President Xi dealt with this issue and agreed that we
would work on reducing the trade deficit, together. We have
been in active discussions over the last year on that. And the
301 is meant to protect our companies, our workers and our
technology.
Mr. Dent. Thank you. Let's just give trade peace a chance
because there is a lot of concern out there that we are not
moving in the right direction. I agree with you on deregulation
and tax. We have done good work. I agree. I think on trade, we
are not in a very good place right now and that needs to
improve.
Secretary Mnuchin. Well, I would just, finally, comment.
President Trump did appreciate President Xi's speech and some
of the things he acknowledged. I think you saw that in the
tweet yesterday. So we look forward to continuing to work with
China on our mutual interest on this issue.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. First thing, I am very concerned about
the decreasing budget as far--in the developing world. We see
budget proposals that pull back from our investments in the
multilateral development banks (MDBs). And if we continue to
pull back, China will continue to step right in and fill the
void.
China has been increasing its investments in infrastructure
all over the globe. Their Belt and Road Initiative, which is
being funded, partly, through their development bank, will
connect China to the Middle East and Africa, creating new
markets and building China's influence. I believe this effort
will significantly impact our influence in these regions.
Now, my question, how does this budget reflect our efforts
to counter China's growing influence? Do you believe that the
United States can maintain its influence around the world when
we pull back in this area? What would you say to concerns that
an increase in China influence would be a threat to the United
States national security?
When the U.S. does not meet its international commitments,
we are at risk of losing influence and that is a major, major
issue and the power to direct policy in our favor. So, if you
could answer that, I would appreciate it.
Secretary Mnuchin. Thank you. I would say we are concerned
about China's growing lending on the One Belt, One Road around
the world and the influence and the concern that it causes. I
think, also, we are concerned in certain areas where countries
cannot, necessarily, afford the loans.
I would comment that, as it relates to the multilateral
development banks, I very much support these, the major
institutions. We have asked for the same amount of money in the
past, the World Bank, through both the IDA facility and IBRD,
we very much support.
We are looking for more efficiency at these institutions.
As a matter of fact, I have a meeting with the head of the
World Bank later today. I look forward to the meetings next
week, here. But we, very much, support these development banks
and on the margin, we are just looking for more efficiency in
them.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Now, as far as the JCPOA is concerned,
when we passed that, I was the ranking member of the
Intelligence Committee, so, in that regard, knew a lot more
than most of the people who were voting on it. In the end, I
think it was the right thing to do.
And the reason is because if, in fact, we would not have
moved forward with that, the Middle East and the world would
have been a lot more dangerous because Saudi Arabia, Turkey,
other countries would have gained nuclear weapons. And they
could purchase it. And that would be very, very dangerous.
Also, what is happened now, the checks and balances and the
inspections have worked, at this time. I agree, Iran is one of
the most dangerous countries in the world. We have to deal with
that. But as it relates to the nuclear issue and what is, a lot
of times, people mistake what happens with the JCPOA is what
else--everything else, that Iran is doing.
What it really has done has, at least is slowed down
nuclear weapons in the Middle East. So, when you are
negotiating and whatever you are doing, don't open a can of
worms if we are the only country that pulls back.
And I would hope we would look at what it is, not because
the President said this in a campaign speech throughout his
entire campaign. But really, what is working, how it is working
and to make sure that we come together with our adversaries who
sign that and our allies, also. If you can comment on my
comment, I know where you are, I know where the President is,
but I think this is a very, very serious issue at this point.
Secretary Mnuchin. Well, I want to be careful of what I
comment. I would be more than happy to come meet with you and
talk----
Mr. Ruppersberger. I would like to do that.
Secretary Mnuchin. In a classified setting on these issues.
They are complicated issues that I am just not comfortable,
obviously, going into the details. As I have said before, I
fundamentally believe and the President believes that, although
there were certain benefits of the deal, OK, that we should
have had a better deal.
We have significant concerns about the deal. We have
obviously done a lot of work and a lot of discussions at the
National Security Council on this. We have reviewed obviously a
lot of classified information. We have discussed a lot with our
counterparts.
Again, I do not want to comment what the President may or
may not do on signing the waiver the next time. But we have
been very clear with our allies what our objective is here and
that is protecting the United States, protecting the rest of
the world against the malign behavior coming from Iran. You see
that today in Syria.
Mr. Ruppersberger. These are probably some of the most
dangerous times we have; the Russia-China threat, the Iran
threat, the North Korea threat, ISIS threat. And it is
important that we maintain as much stability as we can. So I
would like to meet with you on this issue. I guess you are hard
to get a hold of. Will you commit to that meeting?
Secretary Mnuchin. I will. I am not hard to get a hold of.
Mr. Ruppersberger. OK. Well then we will see. We will test
it.
Secretary Mnuchin. That is fine. I am actually pretty easy
to get a hold of.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome. We have a formulaic problem in
Washington, and it is this: Good intentions plus more money
means good outcomes. That is not necessarily true, especially
when you are dealing with the multilateral institutions that
sometimes can become bloated and elitist and are not tethered
to holistic, integrated metrics that are constantly presented.
I am amazed that during budget season how some institutions
who really never show up start coming around when budgets are
threatened. You mentioned that sanctions are a very powerful
tool. So are budgets. They tend to focus the mind.
Now in this regard, though, I want you to help--I want to
try to get you to reconcile some comments you made last year at
this hearing with some of the cuts that you have proposed. For
instance, you mentioned that the Global Environmental Facility,
the GEF, was one of the most important, most effective programs
in the field serving U.S. interest, you got the proposed 50
percent reduction.
The Feed the Future program widely supported bipartisan
initiative in Congress to rethink how we protect our most
vulnerable leverage aid capacity with other nations and build
out the infrastructure that attacks systemic poverty and helps
those who are most vulnerable. The multilateral development
banks that are proposed for significant cuts are an integral
part of Feed the Future.
So in one sense, again, budget reductions or proposed
budget reductions can help focus the mind of institutions that
may not be as efficient as you just said. Yet at the same time
I need to better understand your strategy in this regard. The
comment that you did give, the contribution levels, that are
more appropriately relative to our partner countries and we
seek to balance private priorities, is vague.
So can you help me understand the strategy that you are
implementing here with these proposed reductions, particularly
in light of what I think is a generous comment to your earlier
that sometimes wielding budgets can actually help focus upon
and bring about reform? But it has to be tethered to a
strategy.
Secretary Mnuchin. Well, I agree with that completely. The
budget process is very important to making sure we align this
strategy. Quite frankly, I think, we appreciate what you
approved last year and we look forward to working with you this
year.
Specifically as it relates to the Global Environmental
Facility, there are a lot of different facilities that focus on
environmental issues. This is just one of them.
As it relates to this facility, again, the reason why we
are comfortable cutting the facility--we are asking for a cut
in half--is because this facility has defined obligations. A
significant amount of them have already been impacted and this
is what we think it is needed to meet our commitments of what
this facility is supposed to do.
As I think your--your other question was around--the
International Fund For Agricultural Development, where we do
not have a request this year, again--there are other areas in
the government. We very much support food security and food
safety and everything else. There are other areas of the
government specifically and USAID, which are much more
efficient. Again, these facilities are some of our smaller
facilities, but we look forward to working with you on them.
Mr. Fortenberry. In regards to that comment, I understand
David Malpass has now been confirmed as your undersecretary, so
we would appreciate a very rapid opportunity to integrate with
him and his strategy in this regard.
Again, because some of our programs designed to build out
the sustainable economic infrastructure to attack systemic
poverty, which Feed the Future is fundamental to, are tied
inextricably to some of the multilateral development banks.
So if that is just being pushed to--that intention is being
pushed more to USAID, then we have to--because you don't feel
like it is properly embedded in your department any longer, we
have to understand the fullness of the implications of this. So
it is not a cut, per se, but it is a change in strategy.
But I think the broader piecing together of that strategy
has to have a fuller conversation, or else we are going to
undermine the intent of Congress. Had some very important--a
new architecture for the 21st century that is emerging in terms
of both food aid and economic regeneration possibility for the
world's poorest. So what I don't want to end up is with--a
budget cut or not, is the budget cut tied to the broader
strategy of meeting the mission goals?
Secretary Mnuchin. Good. Well, next week we have the World
Bank and IMF meetings, but I will ask David Malpass to come and
see you the following week and coordinate with you and your
staff and he can come discuss the strategy with you----
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Mr. Secretary--Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome back, Mr.
Secretary.
I wanted ask a question about cryptocurrencies, which we
know can be used to finance crimes and evade sanctions. What is
Treasury doing to address this new threat? And how can we here
in Congress work with you to prevent use of this?
Secretary Mnuchin. Thank you. I appreciate that question
because I am very focused on cryptocurrencies. The social media
following will now go up dramatically when we talk about this,
so this is a very popular subject.
I have been very active over the last year on this issue,
both working at the G7 as well as working with the regulators
here. From Treasury's standpoint, we have two major concerns.
One is we want to make sure that cryptocurrencies cannot be
used for illicit activities.
So on that front, in the United States, we have very strong
rules and regulations from FinCEN, that if you are a
cryptocurrency dealer, if you are a wallet, you are subject to
the same bank secrecy laws, the same anti-money laundering laws
as a bank. So at the G7, we are working very carefully, and at
the G20, of making sure that those same rules and regulations
and through the FATF are enforced throughout the world. That is
our number-one priority.
Our number-two priority is, they are also used for
speculation and we want to make sure that to the extent that
consumers are speculating that they understand these issues
carefully, and we have worked very closely with the regulators,
with the SEC, with the CFTC, and launching futures as well as
with the OCC and the Fed on these issues.
So, again, this has been a major focus of ours. We are very
pleased with the work we have done. We are not against
cryptocurrencies; we just want to make sure that the
enforcement is done properly.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. In your testimony, you note that
Treasury plays a role--an important role in combating terrorist
financing. What steps is Treasury currently taking to stop the
flow of resources to Hezbollah? What is being done to stop
specifically Iranian--our resources from going to Hezbollah?
Secretary Mnuchin. That is a big focus of ours. We have
enacted a very large number of specific sanctions dealing with
this. We have launched the Terrorist Financing Targeting Center
in the Middle East with our Middle East partners that are
working on--we did joint sanctions. We will be doing more joint
sanctions.
We are working on--very closely with our Middle East
partners, combating terrorist financing, enacting terrorist
financing laws through these countries. This is a major, major
focus of ours, and again goes to the issues with the whole Iran
strategy.
Ms. Meng. Do you think that the administration should
consider designating Hezbollah as a transnational criminal
organization?
Secretary Mnuchin. It is something that we are reviewing. I
am not going to comment on it at this moment, but it is
something we are reviewing.
Ms. Meng. And lastly, last year, Treasury listed Iran's
IRGC, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, as a supporter of
terrorism after Congress passed the Countering America's
Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. Unfortunately, there are
public reports of hundreds of IRGC-owned or-controlled entities
that have not yet been named or sanctioned by Treasury.
Do you intend to take additional actions to designate IRGC
individually-owned companies, front entities, and individuals
affiliated with the guard?
Secretary Mnuchin. Well, first of all, as I said, there is
an enormous team at Treasury and on an interagency basis doing
this, so I can assure you that any company that we have
intelligence on that we can connect either has been designated
or is in the process and will be. So it is a complicated issue.
Many times they hide this. We need to have a basis of doing
it. But yes, that is a major focus of ours that we continue to
work on.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Secretary, let me say
from the outset that foreign investment, including Chinese
investment in the United States has proven beneficial to our
economy and usually poses no threat to national security. That
historical experience, however, does not absolve us from
conducting our due diligence to ensure that such investments do
not compromise the security of the U.S.
Responsibility for that review course is vested in the
Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS),
which you chair. Many have suggested that CFIUS is in need of
reform. In fact, both the House and Senate are giving serious
consideration to reforming CFIUS.
Is there a need for reform?
Secretary Mnuchin. There absolutely is a need for a reform.
I take my role very seriously in chairing CFIUS. It is a very
important interagency committee. We have been very aggressive
in using our powers. The administration very much supports the
FIRRMA legislation, and we look forward to working with
Congress getting this passed as soon as possible.
Mr. Rogers. If the Foreign Investment Risk Review
Modernization Act had been enacted earlier, would CFIUS had
looked at the attempted Qualcomm-Broadcom acquisition
differently, do you think?
Secretary Mnuchin. In that circumstance I think as you know
it was one of the few times where the committee acted rather
rapidly on an evolving situation, and we reviewed that very
carefully.
We were comfortable that we had those powers under the
existing legislation. But there are many transactions that have
gone through that we do not have the ability to enforce because
the legislation is old and needs to be expanded. So that
specific transaction, we had authority but notwithstanding,
again, I encourage Congress to work on expanded authorities.
Mr. Rogers. Now, are U.S. investments welcomed in foreign
countries? Are those investments subject to similar national
security review? And would changes to CFIUS here result in
corresponding changes by other countries?
Secretary Mnuchin. Well, let me first comment that the
United States is the most open market in the world for both
trade and investment, and that is something we are very proud
of and something we are very pleased with. So going back to the
trade issue, the President wants free and fair reciprocal
trade. So we are only looking for to be treated the same way
abroad.
As it relates to investment, we welcome foreign investment.
We also welcome our ability to invest overseas. So, no, Mr.
Chairman, I do not see anything that will hinder this, and if
anything, we are working with the European countries on
enacting similar CFIUS-type of legislation and we would
encourage them to have appropriate restrictions for national
security concerns.
Mr. Rogers. Back a minute to the multilateral development
banks--MDB. Last year, I asked you about proposed cuts to the
MDB program. That trend of cutting multilateral development
bank contributions continues into this year. Do these cuts
reflect your doubt about the cost-effectiveness of MDBs?
Secretary Mnuchin. No, I think in general we very much
support the multilateral development banks. I also want to put
this in context that last year we had a program very carefully
on taxpayer dollars.
In the original plan of last year's, the original budget
was to make sure that we could pay for the increases in
military by cutting nonmilitary where we thought we could do so
without doing much harm. Now, obviously, since then the omnibus
has been passed. We are comfortable with the 2019 request, but
again, these were all put in the context of we were concerned
about government spending in general.
Mr. Rogers. Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Before I go to my question, Mr. Secretary, I am
a little confused, because Secretary Mattis has made it very
clear that the less we spend on diplomacy, the more we are
going to have to spend on bullets. So he has been a real strong
advocate of most of the programs, if not all of the programs,
that we are advocating for in this bill.
So I was a little confused with what you are saying.
Certainly, an increase in defense doesn't mean we should
automatically decrease some of these other programs.
But let me follow up on Mr. Fortenberry's question, and I
would like you to elaborate on your answer. Mr. Secretary, U.S.
interests transcend borders, and the only way to tackle global
challenges is through partnerships. There appears to be a
change in policy regarding U.S. participation in multilateral
institutions that have not been discussed with the Congress.
Last year, for example, the U.S. abruptly announced it
would no longer support the Global Agricultural and Food
Security Program and for the first time in 30 years did not
make a pledge to the replenishment of the International Fund
for Agricultural Development, despite participating in the
replenishment process over the course of a year. Why are you
stepping away from these institutions?
Secretary Mnuchin. I would just make a general comment.
Again, we appreciate what you allocated last year. I think our
request is still for a very large amount of money. We are, in
almost all of these facilities, the largest donor, and we
continue to believe in all of these.
So, again, I think this is more of a function of where we
are suggesting to use taxpayer dollars, how we allocate them.
Some of these we control at Treasury. As you said, some of them
are controlled through the State Department, as well.
Mrs. Lowey. Now, it is my understanding that USAID was not
consulted. Were they consulted on these decisions?
Secretary Mnuchin. These go through an interagency process
that OMB and the White House coordinates. So, yes, that is--it
is OMB's responsibility to coordinate these on an interagency
basis and I believe they have done that.
Mrs. Lowey. Can you say or do you think you should get back
to us with certainty that USAID and the people there who have
the expertise in these programs were consulted?
Secretary Mnuchin. Well, I cannot tell you--I did not
personally consult with them, but I speak to the people at
USAID on lots of international issues, but I will look into
that and get back to you.
Mrs. Lowey. I would appreciate it. And, if you could
explain, again, how a 50 percent cut to the Global Environment
Facility serves U.S. interests?
Secretary Mnuchin. Because that facility has a very
specific purpose on cleaning up certain things. Those issues
have been cleaned up. So, again, it is not to say that the
environmental issues are not important.
But, again, this entity had a mandate. This mandate will be
filled and we are not looking to use taxpayers' dollars to
expand it beyond its original mandate. If there is a need and
the mandate changes, we would fund that. We believe we are
meeting the obligation of what the purpose of specific cleanups
were.
Mrs. Lowey. I would be most appreciative if you could get
back to me with specifics about how this mandate was fulfilled,
because we must have a different view of that.
And lastly, the Treasury Department and the State
Department are responsible for tracking illicit financing and
interrupting the activities of criminal networks overseas
before they become threats to the U.S. One of our greatest
national security threats comes from North Korea, which, as a
result of years of international economic sanctions,
increasingly relies on illicit financing to keep weapons
programs afloat.
Can you discuss the current pressure on North Korea by
targeting these flows? How can we increase the pressure on
North Korea by targeting these flows? Can you explain any
action in this regard?
Secretary Mnuchin. Absolutely. Well, first of all, we have
requested and we appreciate the additional money that we
received this year to support our TFI functions. We have
increased the resources dramatically that we have allocated to
North Korea and these other issues. We have done more sanctions
against North Korea in the last year than we did in the
previous history.
We believe that a major reason why the process is going
forward is the maximum pressure campaign that not only we have
done, but we have worked with our allies and China on, and we
will continue to do so.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I apologize for my
late arrival, but we have multiple hearings, as everyone knows.
Mr. Secretary, welcome.
I would like to pick up, first, on what I understand you
have said, previously, this morning about the Iran sanctions
situation and then turn to the question of arrears with respect
to multilateral organizations.
But just to clarify on the Iran sanctions, we are facing a
situation where U.S. participation in the Iran agreement could
be terminated. I strongly oppose such termination. Iran has
abided by this deal, although their behavior in other areas
leaves a lot to be desired and is still sanctioned. I can't
imagine anything they are doing that wouldn't be made more
dangerous if they also had nuclear capacity or were, once
again, actively working toward developing nuclear weapons.
So, it would be, I think, a catastrophic decision. But if
it were to be made, then the sanctions go back on. I think it
is important to realize, though, that the sanctions that
brought Iran to the table were not just U.S. sanctions. They
were U.S.-led, but these were multilateral sanctions.
The sanctions that brought Iran to the table in the first
place were the result of an extraordinary diplomatic effort
which included the countries, not just our western allies, but
also Russia and China.
So I am sure you did not mean that were we to abrogate the
deal or to pull out, that the international sanctions regime
would be reinstated. And since I know you could not have meant
that, I need to ask what the effectiveness of unilateral U.S.
action, in this regard, could possibly be?
Secretary Mnuchin. Well, first of all, I just want to
comment that this is a deal that was not approved by Congress.
Two, it is not a function of us pulling out of the deal. It
will be a function of whether the President decides to sign a
certification that he is required to sign by Congress for the
sanctions relief to stay in place.
If the President decides not to sign that, it does not mean
that we are necessarily pulling out of the deal. What it means
is that the primary and secondary sanctions will go back in
place. It is an automatic procedure under the congressional
legislation. And we would expect to enforce those international
sanctions, both primary and secondary sanctions.
In this format, I do not want to--again, let me be clear.
We have no interest in having Iran having nuclear weapons. That
is absolutely something we would prevent. Again, some of our
allies were interested in signing the deal, some of them were
not interested in signing the deal. But there is bad behavior
all over the world, including in Syria right now, that the
President is very focused on.
Mr. Price. You are saying that failing to waive the
sanctions would not constitute pulling out of the deal? I mean,
the deal is all about sanctions and lifting sanctions. It is
these international sanctions, sanctions observed by Germany,
Great Britain, France, Russia, China, and many other countries.
The international aspect of those sanctions is what brought
Iran to the table in the first place.
Secretary Mnuchin. And we have the ability to enforce many
aspects of those international sanctions in dollars if the
sanctions go back in place. But again, I look forward to
talking to you more about this in a different setting.
Mr. Price. All right, I have used most of my time Mr.
Chairman. But I would appreciate some commentary--if we could
have it--about these arrearages. We have been a leader, of
course, in fostering international cooperation, and so when we
are in arrears, it sends signals as well as hampers the
operations of these international institutions. So I wonder
about the cuts.
Secretary Mnuchin. Mr. Chairman, if you would like me to--I
would be happy to comment on the arrears issue, if you would
like me to.
Mr. Price. Please do.
Secretary Mnuchin. So, first of all, I look forward to
working with the committee on this issue. The issue of arrears
has to do with the way these commitments go forward. So the way
we make commitments to these entities is Treasury negotiates a
commitment, Treasury works with OMB on the approval for that
commitment, and we sign a commitment. That commitment is
obviously subject to appropriations since we cannot bind the
U.S. government without Congress acting.
So the issue of these arrears is really a legacy issue that
we have inherited. We look forward to working with the
committee on that. But when Congress appropriates money, we
apply that money to the most recent commitments, and again
these previous commitments are obviously--had been subject to
at the time appropriations.
Mr. Price. My time has expired. Mr. Chairman, if I could
ask for the record that we have a rationale provided about the
cuts that have been included in this budget that apply, as I
understand it, precisely to the very multilateral development
institutions that we have made payments to and given some
priority to in recent years. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. Secretary, I want to return just
briefly to the Global Environment Facility, the GEF, you give
in your answer. But one thing to keep in mind is--I think the
administration has done a very good job of encouraging a reset
in a lot of our multinational agreements and relationships, in
other words, saying in this century, the United States'
sacrifice and generosity has to be partnered in an authentic
way with your own sacrifice and contributions.
Regarding the GEF, it is important to keep in mind that the
U.S. contribution is leveraged six to one by other major
donors. So this will probably continue to come before the
committee because there is, as you suggest, maybe the narrower
mission might be somewhat accomplished, but there are broader
aspects of dynamics out there regarding emerging missions,
wildlife trafficking has its ties to terrorist funding, as well
as sustainability issues in terms of attacking global poverty
that are important to see through the lens of this facility, as
well. But I will leave it there for now.
You mentioned in your testimony--clearly these are
priorities for you, the relationship with the World Bank and
the IMF--our alternative executive director to the IMF. I would
encourage you to put as a part of our mission or make a
priority as part of our mission, the fight of anticorruption
and bring a fight to anticorruption measures in international
finance institutions.
This is very important so that we ensure back to the
longer-term strategy if we are participating in multilateral
initiatives that it is going to the right place to help the
most vulnerable and to build out the sustainable systems that
actually bring about protection for those who are most in need
in just governance structures.
I think the IMF with its extraordinary role that it plays
in reform around the world should integrate this into their
primary mission. I would like your perspective on that.
Secretary Mnuchin. I agree with you and we look forward to
following up and talking about that, but I do agree with you.
Mr. Fortenberry. Let me ask you about JCPOA one more time,
as well. What would you recommend to the President?
Secretary Mnuchin. I am not going to in the setting comment
on my personal recommendations to the President. Those are
obviously confidential. But I am intricately involved in this,
and I support the President's view, and we think very similarly
on this.
Mr. Fortenberry. I didn't think you would answer the
question. I respect your prudence in that regard, but it was
meant to be provocative. Obviously, this is coming upon us
quickly and given Congress's--the problem we have of lurching
from crisis to crisis without the ability to think through
long-term strategic planning, I do think that both the
consequences of being in this and the consequences of not being
in this, be thoroughly thought through--in a dynamic, ongoing
conversation with us if it does need to be in private is of
absolute urgency.
Secretary Mnuchin. OK. I just want to assure you, these
discussions have been going on for the last year. The President
has signed the waiver several times with very clear
instructions as to what he wanted to do. I look forward to,
hopefully, Director Pompeo being confirmed soon because he has
been an integral part of these discussions and he would, in his
new role, continue to be.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, look, a lot of us--I didn't vote for
the agreement, either. One of the reasons I didn't was
concerned about Iran's ballistic missile program and there were
dynamics associated with the agreement that clearly have
unleashed that.
However, what we do not want to end up with, obviously, is
some type of new arms race in the Middle East or our inability
to actually leverage with international partners outcomes that
we see that are desirable. If it is a delay moving toward a
permanent stopping of Iran's nuclear weapons capability,
wonderful. Losing that, though, is of course a huge problem and
demands that we have an alternative strategy in place. But you
have offered several times to meet in confidence or in another
setting with some of us. I would appreciate being a part of
that.
Mr. Secretary, could I be a part of that?
Secretary Mnuchin. Yes, I am sorry. I thought that was--I
shook my head yes----
Mr. Fortenberry. It was both a question and a statement.
Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, let me ask you more
or less a philosophical question. It may appear to be rambling,
and I am not sure how to phrase this subject. I am really
thinking about the prowess of the China economic juggernaut.
Everywhere that I go or hear from in the world, the Chinese
are there with something that they had not had before, some
office or some money or what have you. Tell us your
philosophical thoughts about this new chess game, economic
chess game that we are in with China and how you see that
playing out.
Secretary Mnuchin. I do not believe we are in an economic
chess game at all. First of all, as I have said, I think
President Trump and President Xi probably have the two best
relationships of any two leaders between the United States and
China. President Trump speaks to him regularly. I have met with
and spoken to my counterparts over the last year regularly.
We have been very clear in what the issues are. So these
are issues that I think we all share. The trade deficit is too
large. We have agreed to try to work together on that. The 301
that Ambassador Lighthizer led was something that was carefully
reviewed on an interagency basis and coordinated.
The report is several hundred pages and goes through
details on protecting our intellectual property. There were
hearings on this. The President has announced potential
tariffs. There will be discussions and reviews on this in a
public format. So I think we have been very transparent in what
our objectives are and what we are trying to do.
As I have said now publicly many times, our objective on
the trade dispute is to reach an agreement on our common vision
of lowering the trade deficit and making sure that our
companies have the same opportunities in China that Chinese
companies have today here. If we are able to accomplish that,
that is one of the biggest, single, opportunities for our
companies in a large growing economy.
Mr. Rogers. I appreciate your statement about the
President's friendship with President Xi, but we have got an
enormous trade deficit with China that keeps growing. And we
are talking hundreds of billions of dollars a year. And it has
been going on, now, for a long, long time.
We have seen the Chinese economy grow to enormous
proportions, enormously fast, at our expense. So what is it
about that picture that we are not seeing? I mean, why is this
trade deficit so huge? And how are the Chinese able to build
that kind of an economy at our expense?
Secretary Mnuchin. Well, I think the simple reason why it
is so large is because our markets are completely open and
their markets are not. We buy over $500 billion of goods from
them and they buy $130 billion of goods from us. Our economy is
roughly--is not quite twice the size. Their number of people is
multiples of ours. So, as I have said, this is something that
we believe--our objective is to increase our exports. That is
our clear objective to narrow this deficit.
Mr. Rogers. Well, in the meantime, we are seeing the
economic structure of this country being eroded by this
enormous difference in trade with China principally. So I wish
you and the administration all the good luck in the world in
trying to bring that balance that is necessary into more of an
even nature.
Secretary Mnuchin. Thank you. That is the President's
objective.
Mr. Rogers. Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Are we going or concluding?
Mr. Rogers. Do you have other questions?
Mrs. Lowey. No, I think we have explored a whole range of
issues, and I do hope, Mr. Secretary, we will have some ongoing
discussions. And, certainly, there were several areas where you
said this would not be the appropriate forum for discussing it,
such as additional sanctions that are being considered by the
U.K., France, and Germany and Iran's ballistic programs, the
production of nuclear fuel, et cetera, separate from the JCPOA.
I think you have heard from our panel is unanimity of
thought on keeping the JCPOA in place but considering other
sanctions dealing with ballistic missiles and other
inappropriate actions by Iran. I want to thank you for having
this hearing. Thank you for appearing before us.
Secretary Mnuchin. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being
with us this morning, and we hope you stay in touch with us. We
want to be of help to you. Your success is our success--I am
talking about the country--and we wish you well. Hearing is
adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 26, 2018.
UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
AMBASSADOR MARK GREEN, ADMINISTRATOR, USAID
Opening Statement of Chairman Rogers
Mr. Rogers. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to
order.
We are pleased to welcome back to the House Ambassador
Green. We appreciate your being here today, Mr. Ambassador, and
we are proud of the fact that you represent us to the world,
really, the House, that is, for your honorable service here a
few years back.
We look forward to hearing from you on how the budget
request supports the administration's national security
strategy, as well as the Department of State and USAID's joint
strategic plan, while decreasing the reliance on foreign aid.
I want to thank our Full Committee Chairman who I think
will be here at some point during the hearing and the Ranking
Member for their leadership on these issues. Chairman
Frelinghuysen is well versed on foreign assistance, and so I am
pleased to have his interest and input as we proceed.
Last year, Ranking Member Lowey and I continued our
longstanding tradition of working together to advance our
shared goals, and I expect that we will continue that process
through the appropriations process again this year.
The president's fiscal year 2019 budget request is for
programs within the jurisdiction of this subcommittee in the
amount of $41.7 billion, which is $12.3 billion, or 23 percent,
below current 2018 enacted level. I am once again dismayed by
the magnitude of these cuts.
Even after a budget agreement was struck, proposing such a
significant cut for the second year in a row calls into
question the value the administration places on diplomacy and
development and its irrefutable contribution to our national
security.
While I support many of the goals proposed in this budget
request, the funding levels requested, as compared to the
enacted current level, call into question how such goals would
be met. For example, the budget purports to counter Russian
aggression, but the funding associated with these efforts is
reduced by more than half. The request also claims to support
U.S. leadership in Global Health, yet the budget reduces such
funding by nearly 23 percent. USAID released a new mission
statement that emphasizes democratic values, but funding
requested for democracy programs was cut by 39 percent.
There is bipartisan support in this subcommittee for
continued investments in soft power, particularly at a time
when diplomatic and development challenges have grown both in
number and complexity. Just as we did in fiscal year 2018, this
subcommittee will carefully review the proposals in the budget
request, assess the current diplomatic and development
challenges, and determine the funding amounts for such programs
and activities within our allocation.
In addition to setting funding levels, the state foreign
operations bill will continue to focus on oversight and
ensuring transparency for every taxpayer dollar spent.
Before closing, I want to mention USAID's reorganization,
or transformation, as I understand you now call it. We
discussed this at your last hearing, and I had a chance to
discuss it with you yesterday in my office, and I want to thank
you for your efforts to share the additional information. Your
staff and you have been very forthcoming with this
subcommittee, and we appreciate that especially.
I know you are just beginning your outreach on the details
of the proposals, so I encourage you to keep us informed and be
open and responsive to feedback as you already have done. I
also urge you to proceed carefully. The transformation touches
nearly all aspects of the agency. Implementation will need to
be done in a manner that enables USAID to implement, monitor
and evaluate programs and activities in a timely manner.
Finally, I want to thank the men and women of USAID who are
doing important work around the globe during very difficult
times, both abroad and here at home. We appreciate their
service to the country, as we do you, Mr. Ambassador, and your
staff here.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Let me now recognize Madam Ranking Member for her opening
remarks, Mrs. Lowey.
Opening Remarks of Ranking Member Lowey
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Administrator
Green. Thank you for joining us today.
Since your confirmation, I have been impressed by your
passion and your dedication to USAID and the important work of
our development professionals. You demonstrate a commitment to
bettering the lives of the most vulnerable, including almost 70
million displaced men, women and children around the world.
And yet, you come before us today to defend the Trump
administration's budget, which will once again cut 30 percent
from our diplomatic and development efforts. If enacted, it
would not only hamstring our diplomacy, it would: substantially
harm the development capabilities of USAID; recklessly
undermine U.S. leadership; put our embassies and staff at risk;
stymie our efforts to counter violent extremism; and fight
terrorism, and harm the very people you and your agency are so
dedicated to helping.
Some of the most catastrophic parts of this request: ignore
the impact of climate change on national security; zero out
funding for food aid and vulnerable children programs; and
severely cut historically bipartisan programs such as bilateral
family planning, basic education, water and sanitation, the
Global Fund, PEPFAR, nutrition, and international disaster
relief.
Many of the lawmakers in this room and throughout Congress
understand that our national security is strongest when
development, diplomacy, and defense are equally supported. We
cannot make America stronger by eliminating the programs that
make our nation more secure. As a result, I am confident
Congress will again reject these insufficient levels and
instead boost our international investments.
But I am gravely concerned by the long-term damage this
administration is inflicting on USAID. The president, who seems
to view development assistance as ill-advised charity, does not
seem to appreciate that global challenges do not have military
solutions alone and, ``soft power'' is a fundamental tool of
our national security.
As Secretary of Defense Mattis said, ``America has got two
fundamental powers--the power of intimidation and the power of
inspiration. Soft power is largely found in the power of
inspiration.''
Our foreign and civil service officers at USAID and State
are the backbone of our overseas efforts. Without them, we are
unable to promote American interests, build relationships, and
help those most in need.
In addition, while I appreciated the opportunity to discuss
USAID's transformation plans with you yesterday and acknowledge
the improved consultative process since your arrival, this
Committee continues to have serious concerns regarding the
Administration's so-called, ``reorganization and redesign''
efforts, at State and USAID. To date, the effort has led to
stagnation, confusion, and low morale throughout the agencies
that execute our foreign policy.
I have consistently said that I support reforms to make our
overseas programs more efficient and accountable. However, any
redesign at State and USAID will not be sustainable over the
long term without Congressional assent and the lack of
communication from this Administration, including OMB, on
reorganization efforts will not lead to sustainable reforms.
Again, thank you for appearing today. I look forward to our
discussion. And I must tell you again, as I have said both
publicly and privately, it is very special for me to have a
person of your experience and of your commitment in this
position. Thank you for appearing before us today. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Administrator, we would like to hear from
you.
Opening Statement of Administrator Green
Mr. Green. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Rogers, Ranking
Member Lowey, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
this opportunity to summarize my written testimony.
I would like to begin this morning by welcoming the
nomination of Director Pompeo. I had the opportunity to
initially discuss with him how development and diplomacy go
hand-in-hand, and I very much look forward to working with him
closely should he be confirmed.
In the meantime, as many of you have alluded to at USAID,
we have urgent work to do. From unprecedented humanitarian
challenges to exciting development opportunities, our work has
never been more important. That has certainly been a clear
takeaway from my travels over these last 8 months.
I have just returned from Peru and the Summit of the
Americas. While there, Acting Secretary Sullivan and I met with
courageous pro-democracy activists from Cuba. They shared with
us that this is a critical moment in Cuba's history and urged
us to support seeds of true liberty and democracy, not only for
Cuba, but for Venezuela and elsewhere around the hemisphere.
In fact, much of the recent summit focused on Venezuela.
The vice president and I announced $16 million for our
humanitarian response to the flight of Venezuelans from the
Maduro regime. This displacement of families is unprecedented
in Latin American history. What makes the tragedy even more
painful is that it is entirely manmade. It is caused by the
Maduro regime's continued mismanagement and corruption.
And similar forces are causing humanitarian crises in
nearly every corner of the globe. Near-famines continue to rage
in Nigeria, Yemen, Syria, and Somalia, all manmade. As I know
you agree, in order to fully respond to these crises we need to
address their underlying causes. Just as we lead the world in
humanitarian assistance, we should also lead in our commitment
to democracy, human rights, and responsive governance.
Our fiscal year 2019 budget request includes funding for
our democracy and governance programs in Venezuela that support
civil society, the democratically elected legislature, and the
free flow of information.
Last month, I addressed the U.N. Security Council on the
crisis in the DRC. I urged the Kabila government to hold
credible and inclusive elections by the end of the year. And I
am deeply concerned, as I know you are, over reports of
horrific human rights abuses in Burma in the northern Rakhine
state. I will soon be traveling to Burma and Bangladesh to
assess this situation first-hand.
Members of the subcommittee, I have had the chance to
discuss with many of you the rising negative influence of
Russia and China. Many of you have noted a disturbing global
trend toward the repression of basic liberties. Many of you
have pointed out that these are significant challenges, not
only for our interests, but for the future of the countries
involved. In response, our 2019 request includes targeted
investments in Europe and Eurasia that support democratic
institutions and civil society, while countering the Kremlin
influence.
We also recognize that China's investments in developing
countries are rarely aimed at actually helping those countries
achieve their economic independence. Often, they come with real
strings attached. We must offer these countries a better
choice. We should offer to help them on their journey to self-
reliance, not burden them with unsustainable indebtedness.
Members of the subcommittee, the fiscal year 2019 request
for USAID fully and partially managed accounts is approximately
$16.8 billion. This represents $1.3 billion more than requested
last year, including $1 billion for humanitarian assistance. We
readily acknowledge that this request will not provide enough
resources to meet every humanitarian need or to seize every
development opportunity. Indeed, no budget in modern times has.
This request attempts to balance fiscal needs at home with
our leadership role on the world stage. And our work has never
been more important or, sad to say this morning, more
dangerous. In April alone, we have seen humanitarian workers
killed in South Sudan and Yemen, simply for trying to ease the
suffering that pervades both countries.
We are committed to taking every step to extend the reach
and effectiveness of our taxpayer resources and to try to
protect our staff and partners. We are also committed to
working closely with this committee to ensure that your ideas
are reflected in our agency's transformation plan.
Finally, I would like to say a quick word about recent
published reports of sexual abuse and misconduct by aid
workers. Like you, I am deeply troubled by the allegations.
Needless to say, sexual exploitation violates everything we
stand for as an agency. I have met with partner organizations
and made it absolutely clear that USAID will not tolerate
sexual harassment or misconduct of any kind. And we have taken
numerous other steps and actions and will do whatever else it
is that we need to do. I assure you this is an action and an
issue that I am personally tracking.
With your support and guidance, we will ensure that USAID
remains the world's premier international development agency.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
appear. And I welcome your questions
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rogers. Well, thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Your team
began consultation with our subcommittee on your proposed
reorganization 2 weeks ago. And we appreciate the fullness of
those briefings and look forward to ongoing consultations and
formal notification as required in the 2018 bill.
I understand that the inspector general recommended a
number of key areas for you to focus on as you develop the
reform plan. It seems to me this reorganization presents an
opportunity for a more efficient and effective agency if you
can address those chronic management challenges that we have
seen for a long time.
Explain to us how your proposed reorganization will address
the top management challenges identified by the inspector
general.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the role
of the OIG at USAID. She or her representative sits in our
senior management meetings every week, and I have also very
much appreciated their role on the process of transformation.
So we have already incorporated a number of their
recommendations into our redesign process, and we will continue
to do so as we go forward. That is an important part of the
work that we do in making sure that whatever we do is
sustainable.
I should also point out that we have worked very hard to
take the constructive work of the OIG and build them into both
our programming and our overall operations. In the last 6
months, we have reduced the backlog of audits from OIG by 75
percent. They were at 100 percent last year. They are down to
23 percent, and we are on track to eliminate the entire backlog
by June. And so we continue to incorporate those results.
But in the process of redesign, we have worked closely with
OIG, making sure that we take the office input and incorporate
them into the design process.
Finally, I would like to say one of the things of which I
am most proud with respect to the redesign process, all of the
work that we have done, the five principle work streams, which
is how we organize the recommendations, since day one have been
led by our career staff. We believe it is the best way to make
sure they reflect the years of experience and best ideas that
we have at USAID, and we also believe it is the only way to
make the work sustainable.
What we are looking to do is to make sure that USAID is not
only the world's premier agency today, but it continues to be
in the years ahead, and that is really the spirit within which
or under which this whole process has been undertaken, and that
includes involving the Office of the Inspector General to make
sure that we take their counsel, their input and incorporate it
into our work.
Mr. Rogers. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, one thing
that has stood out thus far is that the reorg would touch
nearly the entire agency. It is one thing to develop a proposal
for a reorganization of this scope; implementation, though, is
where the real work begins.
I have previously chaired the, at that time, new Homeland
Security Subcommittee, trying to help merge 23 agencies into an
effective organization. That work is still going on, and far
from completion. So this likely will be a longlasting effort.
Do you agree with that?
Mr. Green. Very much, Mr. Chairman. We are--again, we have
organized the recommendations that were produced by our staff
into five work streams, and the only one that we have really
sort of gone public with at this point is the structural piece,
because you are exactly right. This will take months and months
to do, and we will do it the right way.
So I absolutely agree with that.
Mr. Rogers. Well, undertaking such significant reforms as
you are over a short period of time could impact your ability
and your effectiveness in delivering and monitoring foreign
assistance in the meantime. How can you assure us that your
agency's work will not suffer due to the amount of work
required to reorganize and reform?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A number of ways. First
off, our commitment in monitoring and evaluation continues
unabated and will continue to be a part of every one of our
programs and projects. Secondly, we continue to be in
consultation with the Office of the Inspector General to make
sure that we are constantly getting that feedback, as well. And
also, the work that we are doing is led by our experienced
career staff and making sure that we are doing things, again,
the right way.
But I think the most important point is the one that you
began with. This will take quite some time and is intended to
be done gradually, each step building on the other, in full
consultation with your staff and the other committees of
jurisdiction. We have provided more than 40 briefings so far to
members and their staff and will continue to do that.
We look at our consultation role as just that,
consultation, not notification, not informing, but coming
forward, showing you what our career staff have produced, the
logic behind it, what the implementation plan is, getting your
feedback, making sure that what you bring forward is
incorporated and considered in the work that we do. So we are
absolutely committed to it.
All of the changes that we are looking to do, whether they
be in structure, which is actually only about 20 percent of the
work, but the other changes, they are all really built around
what I have been talking about since the day I was nominated.
We believe that the purpose of foreign assistance must be to
end the need for its existence. And so everything that we are
trying to do is to work with country partners, assess capacity,
commitment, and work with them on their journey to self-
reliance so that one day if the steps are taken and the
commitments are made and the work is done, these countries will
be able to lead their own development, and that is the goal.
What we believe is what we are looking to do through
transformation, which is identifying metrics, is making sure
that our programming reflects assessments that are done in the
field and are field-driven to cross-fertilization of best
ideas. All of it is with that in mind. That is the way that we
believe that we live up to the commitments that we have made to
all of you, our generous funders.
Mr. Rogers. Have you reduced your reorganization plan to a
chart?
Mr. Green. You have seen it. We have actually given our
proposal on the structure. We have briefed your staffs with
that. So, yes.
Mr. Rogers. I have seen the chart. I didn't know whether it
was public yet or not.
Mr. Green. It is part of consultation, so it is not
finalized. But we are taking your input--we don't believe it is
finalized until we have had an opportunity to hear more from
your staff and incorporate all of that. But----
Mr. Rogers. Do you have that chart available for us?
Mr. Green. We will get it to you again today, absolutely.
Mr. Rogers. Yes, I think our members would like to see it.
I have seen it, and two things strike me. One, you are naming
two new associate directors----
Mr. Green. Administrators, yes.
Mr. Rogers. Administrators, one essentially over contents
of programs. The other, in a simplified way, an operations
director, I guess you would call it. Is that right?
Mr. Green. That is the proposal. That is what we are
putting out for discussion and your feedback, yes.
Mr. Rogers. I like the wisdom of doing that, so I salute
you in that regard so far. Now, you have consulted OMB about
the plan, correct?
Mr. Green. Yes, we have.
Mr. Rogers. And what did they say?
Mr. Green. To date, the feedback has been very
constructive. They have continued to allow us to move forward
as we are with you.
Mr. Rogers. Have you had a chance yet to discuss this with
Secretary-to-be Pompeo?
Mr. Green. I have not. He has been otherwise occupied
recently. But the single conversation that I had with him,
substantive conversation a couple of weeks ago, when we talked
about general notions on development and the role of
development alongside diplomacy were very constructive. And so
we believe that the State Department--we will work closely with
the State Department.
The redesign that obviously we are talking about here and
that you have seen is the USAID redesign. This is not the joint
State-USAID redesign that was contemplated previously under
Secretary Tillerson.
Mr. Rogers. But so far, you have got the green light from
the powers that be?
Mr. Green. So far, so good, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Before I yield to Mrs. Lowey, let me just make
one point. You know, we hear--all of us in our home districts
and elsewhere--that if we would just reduce foreign aid, we
would balance the budget. People have a lot of misinformation
about the amount of money that this country spends on foreign
aid.
I calculated it. All the money in this bill amounts to 4
percent of total federal discretionary spending, 4 cents on the
dollar. I just wanted to be sure that we understood the numbers
we are talking about.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I apologize, Mr. Chairman. That is
discretionary. If you actually get all of the expenditures, it
is then--it is not even a rounding error, right, almost.
Mr. Rogers. We will calculate that while we are talking
here. Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to say again
that you are a breath of fresh air and it is such a delight to
have you in this capacity. I appreciate your experience and
your commitment.
Following up on the Chairman, just tell us today, do you
believe the 30 percent cut to foreign assistance sends a signal
that America is abdicating its leadership, moral values, or
humanitarian commitments?
Mr. Green. Congresswoman Lowey, I believe the
administration had difficult choices to make. There was a
difficult balance, balancing American leadership abroad versus
needs here at home, and I think this budget request reflects
that.
Mrs. Lowey. Do you agree that should--you personally----
Mr. Green. So, what I would say, Ranking Member, is that my
obligation is to take the precious money that you provide and
to make it go as far as we possibly can, with quality
programming worthy of taxpayer support. So we are taking steps
from working better with the private sector to asking other
partners to do more, and they are. Funding is increasing, ODA
funding, countries like Germany, Japan, South Korea, and
others, and to try to make these dollars go as far as they can.
I readily admit this will not meet every humanitarian need,
nor will this seize every opportunity that is out there. That
is most definitely true.
Mrs. Lowey. I just want to express to you my concerns which
you are aware of. How can the president and his OMB director be
so confident that those who fill the void will support our
values or care about the national security of the United
States? Are you?
Mr. Green. We are lucky to have good funding partners in a
number of places of the world, but I do not believe there is a
substitute for American leadership.
Mrs. Lowey. And does this administration believe that
military power alone can prevent radicalization or prevent
despair that leads to outburst, of violence and instability?
Mr. Green. No, and I would point to the stabilization
assistance review that has been formalized--Department of
Defense, Department of State, and USAID--that talks about the
important role of each, as well as the national security
strategy. I think the administration recognizes the importance
of development and diplomacy, and I know that nominee Pompeo
does, as well.
Mrs. Lowey. I look forward, in fact, to discussing these
issues with nominee Mr. Pompeo, as well. So my question is--and
this goes to the facts--why should the administration propose a
budget that undercuts the very programs that prevent
radicalization?
Mr. Green. Again, Ranking Member Lowey, I think there are
tough choices that are being made. I recognize that. I will do
everything I can to capitalize on what is provided to us and
make it go as far as we possibly can.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Another issue which disturbs me is
the reimposition of the Global Gag Rule, particularly this
administration's unprecedented decision to expand this terrible
policy to all global health assistance. By inserting the policy
into every area of global health, malaria, TB, pandemic
preparedness, nutrition, vaccinations, and more, we undermine,
in my judgment, our effectiveness and make it harder to reach
the most vulnerable.
I have repeatedly expressed my concern that the
administration did not consider all the potential effects of
this expansion, or worse did not care. We already know from
past implementation that the policy increases the rate of
abortions and unwanted pregnancies. Can USAID say with
confidence that there will be no break in services for even the
most remote populations?
Mr. Green. First, if I may, you are a passionate advocate
on this cause, and you have been passionate about the cause
both publicly and with me privately. And what I have pledged to
you and I repledge again today is to make sure that as we go
forward in this process that we are absolutely truthful in
providing information on what we see.
We briefed your staff on the initial 6-month report on the
implementation of protecting life and global health assistance.
Your staff pointed out with, I think, some evidence that that
is only the first part of the report that was only 6 months
into the program, and we have pledged to once again work with
the State Department as it provides a year-end review, and we
will report the numbers to you accurately. We will be straight
up and show you everything that we see and be very open in the
process to make sure, in fact, that we are living up to our
commitments.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, just for the record, or if you have a
response, that really surprises me that more analysis was not
done before imposing the Global Gag Rule on all global health,
including areas with no connection to pregnancy. What steps
were taken to ensure that we would be able to find capable
partners to continue providing life-saving interventions?
Mr. Green. Thank you for the question. What I can say is as
PLGHA was coming online, USAID--and I am sure State Department
did, as well--undertook an education effort with all of our
partners and potential partners. Fifty-three hundred I believe
were done to make sure that there was clarity around the
understanding of the provisions and do everything we can to
make sure that there was no disruption.
And so that is what we have undertaken to take. And as I
have indicated earlier, my obligation to you is as we conduct
this next review is to be very clear on the impacts and show
you the numbers that we have so we are all working off the same
facts.
Mrs. Lowey. I appreciate that, but I am sure you realize
that in February, State released a report on the first 6 months
of the expanded policy's implementation. The report revealed
that the policy has caused mass confusion, wasted implementers'
valuable time, trying to understand and comply with the policy.
How will the next review assess and evaluate service
disruptions, inefficiencies caused by this policy? And how will
USAID address the mass confusion created by this policy?
Mr. Green. We will, as we have done to date, make sure that
we are in constant communication with grantees, contractors,
subs that we work with, or that are interested in working with
us in the global health area, again, and this is as of some
months ago had conducted 5,300 outreachs. In the 6-month
report, as I understand it, 4 prime grantees and 12 subs,
indicated that they would not receive funding, that they would
not follow the PLGHA restrictions.
But other than that, they were able to shift--we were able
to fill the gaps by shifting over the work that they were
doing. But again, my promise to you is to be absolutely clear
with the facts that we have and the data that we have.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. And
because this is so critical in the field and because of my
years of interaction with many of these grantees, I hope that
there will be a careful analysis and report, and that there can
be a movement in correcting these directives which seem to be,
as I mentioned, causing mass confusion out there in the field.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Ma'am.
Mr. Diaz-Balart is going to be recognized, but he brought
up a point. We have calculated the percentage of total federal
spending that is comprised in this bill. And what we spend on
foreign aid is about 1 percent, about 1 percent of total
federal spending.
It is not 25 percent. It is not a third. It is not a half.
It is 1 percent. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And before I
begin, let me apologize. I am chairing my subcommittee next
door, so I will have to leave after this.
But, Ambassador, let me, again, first, thank you for your
attendance, your leadership at the summit, which you mentioned,
I think specifically meeting with members of--Cuban civil
society. You talk about that. Also for your deep understanding
of the nature and the reality of whether it is the Castro
regime, the Maduro regime, the Ortega regime. It is--and there
are fake NGOs. It is frankly refreshing.
Also, you mentioned that you and the vice president's
efforts for humanitarian relief for the Venezuelans, who are
now the refugees who are either in Colombia or Brazil.
So let me first ask you something about Nicaragua. The
State Department's 2017 human rights report stated that the
Ortega regime was responsible for arbitrary or unlawful
killings, torture, lack of independence in the judiciary. I
could go on and on. And last week, unfortunately, we saw that
behavior in just all of its colors, right, where you saw the
Ortega regime shut down at least four television stations. And,
frankly, you saw people even dying in the streets.
So how much of USAID's funding for Nicaragua is going to
civil society and good governance? And how much of it for
infrastructure and other development? Do you know?
Mr. Green. Thank you. I believe that nearly all of it is
going towards civil society, trying to foster voices at civil
society in democracy and to encourage independent media and
free voices in the country.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. I appreciate that, Ambassador, because if
anybody had any false ideas of the nature of it----
Mr. Green. And--$6.5 million is going towards civil
society.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Great. I think the notion that that regime
was a decaffeinated dictatorship is no longer the case.
Let me now go to, again, the--you like the decaffeinated
part? Let me now talk about--and I know the vice president and
you are committed to some serious funding for the humanitarian
effort for the refugees and Venezuelans who are struggling with
that dictatorship, how will USAID administer your portion of
the funding? Will you also work with UNHCR or NGOs on the
ground? Or how are you looking at doing that, making sure that
it gets to the people that need it, as opposed to it filtering
to the regime that is using all of the resources to repress the
people of that country?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Congressman. You know, first, I am
struck as you are talking--when we take a look at some of the
world's greatest humanitarian challenges right now, places like
DRC and Venezuela, we have countries that should be donors.
These are countries that should be, in fact, helping with
assistance in the region, and yet they are drivers of the
problems.
With respect to Venezuela, when I had the opportunity to
meet with Venezuelan opposition voices, first off, the
suffering is almost indescribable that is taking place. But
secondly, their own personal courage is really quite striking
and remarkable.
What is very clear is that what is happening in Venezuela
is not simply a Venezuelan problem, as bad as it is in
Venezuela. It is causing potentially dangerous forces to sweep
across the region, Colombia, Brazil. I also had a chance to
meet with the CARICOM nations, and some of those leaders were
warning that they are starting to feel the impact of this surge
in migration. So I think it is of severe consequences.
So the $16 million that the vice president and I announced,
that was for humanitarian assistance for those who have fled
the country. We are also looking for--and it is on top of $2.5
million we had announced about a month ago. We are looking for
ways to try to help alleviate suffering in Venezuela. As you
know, that is an extraordinarily difficult task because of the
Maduro regime's rejection of such assistance. But again, the
suffering that we are all seeing is horrendous and is--I worry
that this is a problem that is going to be destabilizing and
damage the entire region's prospects.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Chairman, thank you. You have been
very generous. Let me just--and I appreciate--I think the
statement that you just made is a key statement. It is not just
a Venezuelan problem. Would you not agree, though, that that is
the same situation--because if you look at Venezuela and you
look at Cuba, in particular, that has been there even longer,
not only are they problems for the region and the hemisphere,
but they have close ties to Iran, to North Korea, to Assad in
Syria, and, you know, you are seeing an increase of--you
started seeing an increase of Russian presence in Cuba with
their spy ships.
So, again, it is so refreshing, Ambassador, to you and
frankly the administration understands the situation that just
because it is in this hemisphere that it is not less of a
threat to our national security, but obviously and to the
people who are struggling under those dictatorships. So, again,
it is refreshing, and I look forward to continue working with
you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership, sir, and I
apologize that I have to go next door. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We understand. Ms.
Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. Well, since my colleague
mentioned Cuba, let me just start by asking you about the
``democracy promotion activities'' and I know my views are just
the opposite of our colleague from Florida, because the greater
the void and the greater the gap that the United States allows
to take place in Cuba because of our lack of engagement, the
more it is going to be filled by Russia and other countries.
I also want to mention to you the situation with Alan
Gross, USAID contractor, and want to make sure that U.S.
dollars are not being spent in a way that would subject U.S.
subcontractors and employees for liability, for violating not
only Cuban law, but any laws of any country where we are doing
what we call democracy promotion work. That is the first
question.
Mr. Green. Thank you for the question. First, as you know,
we are legally obligated to ensure that assistance that is
provided to Cuba inure to the benefit of the people and not to
the regime or the military. And that is the overriding
restriction, legal restriction that is upon us.
So we support human rights. We support voices of democracy.
We have provided humanitarian assistance to political prisoners
in Cuba. That is a longstanding part of our work.
Ms. Lee. But it is not very transparent. And oftentimes, it
is perceived as being part of our undercover work.
Mr. Green. Well, if I may--and this is true in many parts
of the world--as you know, the Brownback amendment means that
in those areas where there is closed or closing space, we
balance our commitment to transparency to the security of those
with whom we work. So providing assistance to voices in--well,
pick your country, and many of the countries with closing space
in Russia, wherever it may be, could put them in severe risk.
And so we have to balance those important concerns.
Ms. Lee. Okay, but you didn't answer my question. With U.S.
contractors and employees such as Alan Gross, who got caught up
unfortunately in--according to the Cuban government--criminal
activity and who was incarcerated for 5 years, he was not aware
of Cuban law and so there were no, protection by the U.S.
government for him.
Mr. Green. It was obviously long before my time. But I
would be happy to come in with my team and brief you on
precisely what we are doing.
Ms. Lee. Yes, I would like to talk with you about that.
Mr. Green. Sure.
Ms. Lee. And let me ask you about the Kemp-Kasten amendment
as it relates to UNFPA. I was at the United Nations this week,
and I just have to tell you, the withholding of funds from
UNFPA is really devastating. I believe that it is $68 million
in funding that has been lost as a result of this policy. And
these are services--reproductive health care services,
maternity health care services, throughout the world, and
especially in humanitarian situations that are being
jeopardized.
So what I am trying to figure out is, what are you doing
with this money? Are you reallocating it to other
organizations? How are we filling in the gaps? Why was the
decision made to stop the funding? It is really tragic what is
taking place.
Mr. Green. Thank you for the question. The termination was
made by the administration that--funding to UNFPA was not
consistent with U.S. law and the provisions of protecting life
and global health assistance.
But to the first part of your question, which I think is
key, yes, we are in fact in the process of developing a plan to
reprogram that money towards maternal health, and it is not
finalized yet, but we would be very happy to brief your staff
on what it is that we are looking to do with the resources.
Ms. Lee. Yes, I think we need to know that, because the
organizations----
Mr. Green. Oh, and we will absolutely----
Ms. Lee [continuing]. That are doing this very important
work are really stuck.
Mr. Green. Absolutely.
Ms. Lee. And they don't know how to proceed. They don't
know what the U.S. is going to do. They are scrambling for
resources, and they need to know.
Mr. Green. First off, I know that other donors are
providing such resources. But in terms of the U.S. resources,
we are reprogramming it towards maternal health, and would
definitely appreciate the opportunity to come in and brief your
staff and let you know what we are looking at and what we are
trying to finalize putting together.
Ms. Lee. And finally, let me just say, I associate myself
with all the remarks made by my colleagues with regard to these
extreme budget cuts, because development and diplomacy seems
now to not be a priority. It is primarily defense, when you
look at the huge increase in the defense budget.
You are cutting the budget--you are zeroing out Title II
food for peace within, of course, ag appropriations. We look at
Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen facing extreme hunger
and famine. Treasury is requesting to eliminate the
contribution for the International Food and Agricultural
Development Fund. Are these cuts really necessary? I mean, how
are we going to justify cuts when, in fact, the need is greater
and we know the importance of development and diplomacy.
Mr. Green. Congresswoman Lee, you are a passionate advocate
and have been for a long time in the cause of development and
diplomacy. And, quite frankly, the agency owes you a great debt
for all that you have championed.
With respect to the famine response, as you know, the way
that the request has been made, IDA funds will be used in part
to provide such assistance and support that assistance. In
addition, again, I am not going to suggest to you that we can
meet every humanitarian need that is out there with this budget
request. That would not be truthful. It is not true.
We are trying to balance needs here at home with leadership
on the world stage. And my obligation is to do everything I can
to make these dollars go as far as I can possibly take them.
Leveraging the support of other donors, which is on the
increase, which is good news, working better with the private
sector, undertaking procurement reform, more effective
partners, new partners, refreshing our work, all of those are
obligations that we are undertaking.
Mr. Rogers. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, who has been a great member of this subcommittee
and chairs another one of the subcommittees. This is his last
hearing with the subcommittee. He is going into the private
sector in--is it May?
Mr. Dent. Middle of May.
Mr. Rogers. So the chair recognizes Charlie Dent.
Mr. Dent. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
thank you publicly for your good friendship and leadership and
mentorship to me when you were chair of the full committee,
and, of course, the chair of the subcommittee, as well. So
thank you, Chairman Rogers, for all you have done to help me in
my career here. It has been a great honor serving with you and
everybody else on this subcommittee, for that matter.
Administrator Green, I am excited that you are in the
position given your passion and interest and commitment to
these issues. I am thrilled that you are where you are. And I
do also want to talk about the budget cuts and the challenge
that I think you face and that--those who are concerned about
the development mission of this country that it seems to me
that we haven't done a very good job selling development in the
United States.
Frankly, we haven't done a very good job selling
development to the budget director, apparently, at OMB. And
that is why there is a 30 percent or 33 percent proposed
reduction. And I suspect that this subcommittee and the full
committee at the end of the day will pull USAID's chestnuts out
of the fire and restore some of that--a significant portion of
that funding.
But I just wanted to get your thoughts about how USAID does
a better job--can do a better job selling its mission to the
people of the United States. The great work you do overseas is
appreciated, certainly, by all of us. But if it doesn't have
the support of the people at home, and particularly in the
budget office, it is pretty hard to sustain the mission.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Congressman Dent, for that thoughtful
question. I will just for a moment say as I was walking in the
jungles of Peru 10 days ago looking at some of the new cacao
plants that were there, I couldn't help but think of your
district and all the work that you have done around that issue
and that crop.
To your question, as we undertake our redesign efforts, an
important part of that is trying to build the agency around the
notion that I think is at the heart of America. And that is
that we are not providing handouts. We are providing literally
hands up.
We are looking to help countries on their journey to self-
reliance because we believe in human dignity, we believe that
every human being, man, woman, young, old, wants to lead their
family, their community, wants their nation to have what we
call the American dream. I would argue it is universal.
And so we are trying to build around that notion. And I
know, I come from flyover country in the Midwest. When I talk
to people back home about how we are trying to help countries
rise, to take on their own challenges, to build their own
capacity, and that we are requiring them to commit to do these
things in order to do that, what I generally get is, yes, okay,
that makes sense to us.
I think they have this notion that we are providing buckets
of money to bad guys. As you know, we fund largely NGOs. We
don't fund governments. There are very few places where we are
actually funding governments, and where we are it is for
capacity-building purposes. Shame on us. We have simply not
been doing a very good job of describing that.
I would go further and argue that we have another choice or
comparison to lay out, and that is the different models of
development that are out there. China now does development.
They provide a lot of money upfront. But what they do is the
opposite of self-reliance. They essentially impose servitude.
What they do is they lock up countries for long-term debts,
lines on extractives, and they are looking to essentially push
back on all the things that we stand for.
So both here at home and I think around the world, we need
to be open and say, look, we want to help you rise. You have
got to do it yourself. You are sovereign. You lead. We will
help you get there. You are going to have to make tough
choices, but we believe in freedom, we believe in market
economies. That is what we stand for.
We simply haven't done that very well. And that is on me.
That is a job that I need to undertake better.
Mr. Dent. And in my remaining time--though thank you for
that very thoughtful answer--I am just going to quickly ask you
what USAID is doing to elevate the discussion about your
mission towards global nutrition programs. That is very
important. And also global health security. And finally just a
quick update on Nicaragua. Sorry. Not much time left.
Mr. Green. Thank you for those questions. I will provide
quick, brief answers, then welcome the chance to come in and
talk with you further and brief you further.
On nutrition programs, we are working to build on I think
the tremendous success of Feed the Future and its nutrition
programs. As I have said readily, that is the most important
advancement I have seen in development since I was in the field
back in my day as an ambassador in Tanzania. We didn't have
these tools. Fabulous. They are really remarkable tools.
Secondly, on global health security, it is an area that I
have a personal interest in. I have spent some time talking to
Dr. Tedros from the World Health Organization, as well as
meeting with some of the pandemic experts at a conference at
Texas A&M.
I think a number of you have pointed to the need to connect
this for the average taxpaying American. I think Zika and Ebola
do that in spades. What happens in terms of pandemics on far
shores is not simply somebody else's problem. It is a real risk
to us.
And so developing the frontline capacity in these nations
to be able to respond and defeat these pandemics overseas
before they reach our shores is obviously in our interest.
In the case of Nicaragua, we obviously call for the
immediate release of political prisoners, an end to the
violence. We are trying to support civil society and
independent media. I thought Vice President Pence was very
eloquent at the Summit of the Americas when he called for a
hemisphere of freedom. Obviously, Nicaragua is not there. It is
moving in the opposite direction.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Dent. Before I recognize Mr.
Ruppersberger, I am going to ask Mr. Dent if he would take the
Chair. I am going to go next door to the Attorney General's
hearing, and I shall return, as they say.
So, Mr. Dent, if you would take the Chair. Mr.
Ruppersberger, you are recognized.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Ambassador, thank you for being here
today. USAID is so important to the world and our influence in
the world. I want to talk to you about China and Russia's
influence from a national security strategy.
You know, today the United States must compete for positive
relationships around the world. China and Russia target their
investments in the developing world to expand influence and
gain competitive advantages against the United States. China is
investing billions of dollars in infrastructure across the
globe. Russia, too, projects its influence economically through
the control of key energy and other infrastructure throughout
parts of Europe and Central Asia.
The United States provides an alternative to state-directed
investments, which often leave developing countries worse off.
I appreciate you mentioning China's growing influence in your
written testimony. They are spending a lot of money and have
great ambitions, like the Belt and Road Initiative that will
open markets and create strategic hubs for China.
I was--maybe 8 years ago I was in Yemen. And there looked
to be community centers that were built by the Chinese. The
only positive news is that the president said, you know, those
Chinese, they come in, they spend all this money, but we still
don't like them. So I don't know what that experience is with
the Chinese throughout, but we also have Russia doing the same
thing.
Can you discuss how our budget competes against the Chinese
development ambitions? How do we ultimately win the influence
game when China is throwing around a lot more money than we
are, they have more money? What is the impact of U.S. national
security and our strategic interest in terms of spreading
Chinese influence? And if we have time, Russia influence, also?
And does your agency provide advice to countries to make sure
they don't succumb to bad, unsustainable Chinese debt
commitments?
Mr. Green. Congressman, thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay.
Mr. Green. You have touched upon issues that I think are of
vital strategic importance, very, very much so. My experience
in Africa when I served as an ambassador with respect to
Chinese investment was actually similar to yours. At least
farsighted leaders understood exactly what they were getting
and not getting with Chinese investment. I worry that perhaps
not all leaders recognize until it is too late the long-term
indebtedness that they carry and what it can mean for the
natural resources that belong obviously to their people, not to
anyone else.
So we are trying to compete in a number of ways. The Indo-
Pacific Strategy is based upon incentivizing and capacity-
building in the area of rule of law, level playing field. I
think we all believe that American businesses can more than
compete if there is a level playing field, if there is respect
for rule of law, protection of intellectual property, and other
such matters. We are looking to build out that work even more.
Mr. Ruppersberger. But as you know, there are so many
countries that are so poor that they take what they can get.
Mr. Green. And there is an interesting study that I have
seen from the Center for Global Development that is talking
about the level of indebtedness that a number of countries are
carrying and its long-term potential consequences. And it is
very, very worrisome, absolutely.
I think we need to develop new tools. I think we are doing
a better job in development in leveraging the private sector.
It is the genius of entrepreneurship and the private sector
that is our competitive advantage. And provided that they have
those rule of law protection, intellectual property
protections, I think we will do extraordinarily well.
But not everywhere provides those protections. And that is
work that we have to do.
With respect to countering Kremlin influence, I used to
lead an organization that under my tenure was declared
undesirable by Vladimir Putin, so it is a personal cause for
me. I think one of the best ways that we can counter the
influence and strength of the Kremlin is success in all the
bordering countries. I think the success of Ukraine as it
rises, pushes back against corruption, but grows its economy,
is energy independent, and has free and independent media, that
is the best rebuke that we can possibly provide.
So I think we have a great interest in strengthening the
democracies, governing capacity, transparency, and civil
society of all those countries in the countries in the region.
I think it is one of the most important things that we can do.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Based on everything you just said, do
you feel you have enough in your budget to take on that
mission?
Mr. Green. I have----
Mr. Ruppersberger. You also talked about Venezuela. Are
China or Russia involved there at all?
Mr. Green. I am not the expert to be able to speak on that
with authority. I want to be careful on that front. I recognize
that there are tradeoffs in the budget. I will never have all
the resources that I need to take on every opportunity that is
out there. We will make the dollars go as far as they can. And
we are working on ways to advance our tools in these causes.
I think also our voices in multilateral and international
flora are very important. I think we need to work hard at
building our alliances. There are a number of----
Mr. Ruppersberger. You have a lot on your plate. But my
reason for this question, when you are managing and looking at
all the issues and all the countries, please make this--the
issues I raised here a priority, especially with respect to
China and Russia.
Mr. Green. You have my word. I agree with you.
Mr. Dent [presiding]. Okay, Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Administrator, welcome. First of all, let me say how fortunate
we are to have you in this essential position, given your
background and your passion and your previous leadership in
this space of international development and economic
regeneration and leadership in human rights areas, as well. So
thank you for your service.
Throughout your written testimony, you talked about the
word transformation with a big T. You also talked about
developing the metrics that are going to be applied across
programs. And I think this begs a big question, and I want to
touch on that for a moment and ask you a specific about
northern Iraq and the process you have undertaken to assure the
possibility that those affected by genocide may be able to
return to their homes.
In regards to development, I think we--I am glad to hear
you are rethinking some fundamentals here, because I think we
have to ask ourselves, what does that actually mean? If it
means that we are going to try to bring some order and harmony
and prosperity where there is death and misery and poverty,
beautiful, perfect. I think that is the fundamentals of this
mission.
If it means that we are going to have good intentions, plus
more money, that may just result in fragmentation or the
imposition of unsustainable initiatives. And I think we may be
somewhere in between.
So whatever you can do in regards to the specifics of the
metrics of how you are going to measure the outcomes toward the
fundamental goals, which I just outlined which I think are
consistent with your mission, I would like to understand that
process more deeply. And when will you have those? And what is
currently in the works?
And then, secondly, if you could give us an update on those
who have been so heinously affected by ISIS's attempt to wipe
them out, particularly in northern Iraq, the Yazidis, the
Christians, and others who have throughout a time claimed that
as their ancestral home, as well, and have provided a pluralism
that is absolutely necessary for the long-term stability of
greater Iraq, as well.
Mr. Green. Thank you for those questions. First, in the
area of metrics, again, since I looked to join USAID, I talked
about my philosophy and the journey to self-reliance. And I
have lived in Africa twice in my life, and I have always been
struck by the innate desire of everyone I met to shape their
own future. Over and over again, people want the chance to
shape their own future.
Everything that we are doing is designed towards helping
people do just that, is giving people, giving leaders the tools
they need, the information they need--yes, some of the
resources they need to be able to do that. Some months back, as
we began to look at the opportunity to re-posture the agency
around that vision, I turned to my experienced staff, I turned
to people in the field, career professionals here at D.C., as
well as some of the outside observers that have been working in
this field for a long time, and I ask them to help me
determine, help me identify those metrics that can help measure
a country's capacity and their commitment in the major sectors
where we are working.
I think commitment is as important, if not more important
than capacity, because if a country is not willing to put its
own skin in the game, if it is not willing to make some of the
tough choices, all the money in the world is not going to get
there in terms of their rise.
And so we do ask them, we say, look, we don't have all the
answers, but based upon our experience, these are things that
you need to do.
Mr. Fortenberry. And commitment flows out of leadership.
Mr. Green. Absolutely.
Mr. Fortenberry. Virtuously oriented leadership.
Mr. Green. Absolutely. So civil society, as well as
governing leadership. With respect to minorities in northern
Iraq, I have to give you a great deal of the credit. As I was
going through my confirmation process, and we sat down and we
met, you were one of the most passionate voices for helping
Christians, Yazidis, and other religious and ethnic minorities
who want to return to northern Iraq, helping them along the
way, making sure that they had some of the assistance necessary
to return to some semblance of normalcy. So we were able to
mobilize modest resources almost immediately.
Secondly, the money that had been previously pledged
towards UNDP, we worked out an MOU with the United Nations
Development Programme to ensure that $55 million of the first
$75 million tranche of a larger $150 million would be aimed at
that area to do some restoration of essential services. And on
top of that, again, I think inspired by what you brought
forward, we have launched something called a broad agency
announcement, which is a process--we already had on the books,
just we don't use it all that often, and it basically said
everyone who cares about this issue and area and has some
experience, what are your ideas? We don't have all the answers
sitting back here, either, at the agency or in DC. What are
your ideas?
And it is a relatively low bar for participation. I think
it is a two-page statement of interest. Gets the process going.
And the input and interest we got was, quite frankly,
overwhelming.
So we are moving to a point in the process where we hope to
be able to announce what the outcome will be and how that
programming will go. But we think it offers real hope for
making sure that we are able to tailor some assistance that
protects that diversity.
Mr. Fortenberry. Do you have a time--Mr. Chairman, a
timeline on that?
Mr. Green. Well, I had forgotten I am actually going to
Iraq soon myself in a matter of weeks.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay.
Mr. Green. And at that point, we are hoping to be able to
make an announcement.
Mr. Fortenberry. In those areas?
Mr. Green. Yes.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you very much.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
Before I recognize Ms. Meng, I would like to recognize
Ranking Member Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. I just wanted to welcome these wonderful young
people who are here for their day--I don't know if it is the
whole day in Congress, but this gentleman who is talking with
us about the whole world, and he is very smart, so you really
should listen to him carefully. And maybe you will join one of
these organizations as you grow older. Thank you very much for
coming today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I cannot resist----
[Applause.]
So the Ranking Member was nice enough to say I am smart. So
I will just say she is nice enough to also display her
diplomatic skills.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Dent. Yes, welcome to our young visitors. Thank you for
joining us today.
Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman, may I introduce them?
Mr. Dent. Absolutely. Sure, please do.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. Yes. First of all, I was
going to do this on my time when hopefully I get it back, but
thank you very much, Congresswoman Lowey. Talea Frost, why
don't you stand up, who is 12 years old, and Talea lives in
Brownstown, Michigan.
[Applause.]
Her father was in the Navy, passed away in 2010. It is good
to see you.
Also we have Tysea Frost, who is 9 years old, and Arabella
Wilson, who is also 9 years old.
[Applause.]
And who lives in Pennsylvania, Parker, Pennsylvania?
Because our chairman lives in Pennsylvania and represents
Pennsylvania. So thank you--it might be one of your
constituents.
Mr. Dent. Where in Pennsylvania do you live?
Ms. Lee. Is it Parker, Pennsylvania?
Mr. Dent. Oh, Parker. Okay, I am sorry.
Ms. Lee. Parker, Pennsylvania. And they have one brother.
So thank you all very much. You are representing us very well.
And glad to see you today.
[Applause.]
Mr. Dent. Well, thank you for those introductions. And we
will be happy to be able to provide formal excuses to school
today to explain why you were not there today. So delighted you
are here.
Ms. Lee. They are in school here, believe me. We learn a
lot every day.
Mr. Dent. This is better than a doctor's excuse. Okay. I
would like to recognize Ms. Meng for 5 minutes.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Administrator
Green, for your service. I applaud USAID for its recent
guidance, ensuring that aid delivered and funded by the U.S.
government is labeled in the appropriate language with the
message from the American people. There are USAID commission
reports and ample anecdotal evidence demonstrating that this
fosters goodwill and positive views of Americans abroad.
You know, Mr. Dent referred to this and Chairman Rogers
alluded to what is often the American people's overestimation
of U.S. aid, foreign aid to other countries, and the
underestimation of the return on our investment. So I was
wondering, what are other examples in which USAID has pursued
policies showcasing that the good work it is doing is supported
by the American people? And on the other end, how can we better
advocate for that development with the American people here in
the United States?
Mr. Green. Thank you. First, I was reminded that it is take
your child to work today day also at USAID. Because I am here,
I caught a video in advance swearing in a number of visiting
members of USAID who are back running the place probably better
than I ever could.
If I can, you ask a very important question. I will give
you my honest opinion that dates back to my days as an
ambassador. I just don't think we do this very well. From the
American people I think is the right tagline. Quite frankly, I
think it should be across the board.
It doesn't matter to someone receiving food aid in Yemen
that it is from USAID versus another part of the U.S.
government. None of this is from the government. It is all from
the American people. I think we need to do a better job of
pushing that out.
We are also making sure, to be very honest, sometimes I
worry that our implementing partners, the way that they brand
the assistance that we provide, sometimes it implies that it is
actually their assistance as opposed to coming from hard-
working taxpayers. We are actually undertaking an effort right
now to tighten that up a little bit. We are delighted at the
work that they do as partners, but this comes from hard-working
families all across the United States of America who give
generously. We want to make sure that they receive credit.
But it goes further than that. I personally believe that we
do best when our programs--we don't tie them to an
administration, we don't tie them to an individual. We just
say, look, it is from the American people to the people of
Tanzania or the people of Yemen. I think we need to constantly
remind those that we are trying to assist that this really is
part of the American character. This is who we are as
Americans.
And we just don't do that often enough. Specifically, we
have revamped our website I think to make it easier to use and
to help us push out the messages more often. Secondly, I am
trying to push out more voices within USAID. We have a tendency
to use my face and voice way too often. We have wonderful,
talented people from all over the world, from all walks of
life, and I want to push those voices out. And I think that is
a better way of demonstrating who we are as a people, what we
stand for, and that this is entirely broad-based. So that is
something that we need to do a better job of.
And I think also our youth work, we are really working hard
at providing modest seed money to reinforce youth groups in
civil society to essentially foster the next generation of
partners, allies, implementing partners. We think that is the
other way to make sure that everybody understands that this is
literally a people-to-people enterprise.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. And just really quickly--I know I am
running out of time--just wanted to change gears and talk about
concern about the spread of mosquito-borne diseases in certain
areas where previously they did not even exist. Just go
straight to the question. I know we have previously touched on
this, but can you describe or guarantee how global health
security will be prioritized with all these budget cuts?
Mr. Green. I am a malaria survivor from my days as a
teacher in Kenya a long time ago now. So it is personal to me,
and I have had students pass from malaria back from those
teaching days. So mosquito-borne illnesses in particular are
near and dear to my heart, and it is the work I did when I
first came back to Washington, D.C.
Global health security, quite frankly, thanks to the
generosity of this committee, there is a reserve fund for what
we do against pandemics, and it is terrifically important. It
is a priority to us, priority to me personally. I have got to
tell you that need is outstripping resources.
We look at the cholera challenges in Yemen, the cholera
challenges in Haiti and elsewhere. There are just a lot of
challenges that we need to meet. The President's Malaria
Initiative, that program is one of the most successful programs
that we have in global health. And I would like to build on
those lessons, which is the mobilization of resources, the
focusing on individual countries and making sure that you have
clear metrics to measure progress, and also enhancing the
capacity of frontline health care workers, because the disease,
the afflictions may change, but if you have skilled nurses and
health care workers and laboratory facilities, obviously, that
helps you not simply with the particular cause through which
the funding may flow, but for other causes which undoubtedly
will come.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Dent. Thank you. I would like to recognize Mr. Price
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Ambassador
Green, to our subcommittee. We are glad to see you. And I want
to congratulate you on hitting the ground running, as they say,
at the agency, and particularly on some of these very promising
and overdue reorganization efforts, which we are eager to
collaborate on with you.
We work hard on this subcommittee to enact bipartisan
appropriations bills, and we worked in a cooperative fashion to
reject and correct the last year's budget proposal coming from
the administration in major ways. I am afraid that the 2019
budget, though, looks like more of the same. It is alarming,
the degree of these cuts and how much damage they would do.
I want to ask you to comment in general on that, but I do
want to focus on something you know a great deal about and have
a passion for, and that is the support we give to governance
and democracy in some of the most unstable and dangerous parts
of the world. And this is basic. If government fails,
everything fails.
I serve as the ranking Democrat on the House Democracy
Partnership (HDP), as you know. It is a congressional
commission that works to strengthen parliaments in emerging
democracies. We have worked hand in glove with USAID, in
supporting development assistance programming on the ground. I
think it has been a good complementary relationship.
USAID and its contractors such as IRI under your
leadership, NDI, RTI--these organizations have been
instrumental in improving democratic practice in countries
otherwise challenged by financial hardship and dangerous
conflict. I am sure you are aware that our subcommittee
directed in each of the last few years that legislative
strengthening programs be conducted in every country HDP is
operating in.
Yet this budget proposal cuts assistance to various HDP
partner countries by more than 70 percent. These are countries
we have identified as emerging democracies in critical regions
whose governments are eager and ripe for democratic reform. Sri
Lanka, cut by 74 percent. Liberia's development assistance cut
by 84 percent. Georgia's overall assistance cut by 76 percent.
And a cut almost that large in Ukraine, Ukraine of all places.
Guatemala, development assistance cut by 41 percent.
Former U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron chaired a much
touted commission recently and noted that poverty alleviation
and assistance in teetering countries is needed because, half
the impoverished people of the world will live in fragile
states by 2030. That is not far off.
Yet the administration's request proposes to cut democracy
and governance assistance by 40 percent overall, and to cut
USAID programs by over 30 percent. So I would like you to
comment on a couple of things, first, to give us your
interpretation of where governance and democracy assistance
stands with respect to U.S. security interests and other aid
priorities. How would a 40 percent cut to governance and
democracy assistance affect the work USAID is doing in fragile
democracies?
And then remark particularly on what happens when we leave
a country prematurely. We have seen a lot of that in HDP. We
have made investments, and yet we are quick to move on to other
priorities, other countries. How is USAID working to ensure
that we do not prematurely abandon USAID's mission in a country
where we have made investments and where the full promise of
those investments has not yet been realized?
Mr. Green. Thanks, Congressman. Good to see you again. And
as you know, I am a big supporter of HDP and the work that HDP
does around the world.
The importance of democracy and responsive governance, as
you alluded to, is important to me personally. We are, as we go
through our redesign, our transformation process, we will be
working with you because one of our key metrics as we measure
country capacity is around democracy. It is around democracy
and also the health of civil society.
I share your point of view. Our investments are not
sustainable unless we also foster responsive governance. One of
the changes that I am trying to bring to USAID is a renewed
emphasis on responsive governance. Sometimes in the development
sector we see an emphasis on governance, which is very
important, but authoritarians may be good at governance. It is
responsive governance, obviously, that is the key.
And so that is what we are trying to measure and foster as
we go. So we are working on these metrics.
Secondly, we certainly take note of what the committee and
what the Congress has allocated in the omnibus bill, the 2018
omnibus towards democracy and governance, and the important
priority that has been placed with that earmark. And our job
will be to utilize those funds as best as we possibly can.
Finally, you ask a really important question about leaving
a country. In the journey to self-reliance, as we talk about
it, we talk about strategic transitions towards--I won't say
the end of the journey, but perhaps the final phases. And I
don't see that as leaving or turning off the lights.
I look at a place like India in which we have a robust
presence there, but our work is fundamentally different than it
was just a few years ago. Decades ago, India was a country that
received food aid. If we mentioned food aid, they would be
quite insulted these days.
Instead, what we are doing in India is helping to catalyze
private investment. We are helping them to pilot new
technologies with the understanding that we can help them test
and they scale them up. And so that to me is a transition--it
is a new relationship, but it is a fundamentally important
relationship and it is not walking away.
We do have a tendency, the U.S. government over the last
number of decades, where we get some irrational exuberance and
we tend to look at an election as democracy, and therefore we
can walk away. And it is almost always a mistake. We almost
always regret it.
So we--for us, a transition is the beginning of a
conversation about what a relationship can look like. In most
cases, it is a private-sector-driven one, because that is what
the country is looking for. But it is very important to me that
we continue to have a close working relationship based on
shared experiences and shared values and shared ideals.
And so we are looking in a few countries like an India as
to what that can look like. I will give you another example--I
was just down in Peru, and in the jungles of Peru, I was
looking at a very successful program that we have--our partner
is DEVIDA, Spanish for our counterpart there, working around
coca eradication, together with alternative economics. What
they have discovered, what we have discovered is you can pull
up coca plants all day long, but if you don't bring anything
behind them, if you don't work with communities to create
alternative livelihoods and some sense of an infrastructure
that allows for progress, the coca will come back.
That program that we have going in Peru, there was a day in
which we almost funded it entirely. We are now the minority
funder. It is the government of Peru and private business that
are doing most of the funding. Ours is relatively small and my
guess is it will get smaller as it goes. And it is a great
thing. It is helping to foster something based upon our skills,
our experience, our capacities, and then having them take it
over so that it is theirs and they are leading it.
That to me is the model for what we should be aiming to do.
In some countries, those days are not far off. In other
countries, it is a long way off. But in every case, it is
working with those countries to help them lead their own
future.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers [presiding]. Thank you. I think we--if you have
time, Mr. Administrator, I would like to do a second round.
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I always have time for you.
Mr. Rogers. That is why he is paid the big bucks. He has a
feeling. Let me ask you about Central America and what we are
getting for our investment there. That southwest border
entryway for all of the drugs that are ruining the nation, our
country, as well as illegals and law enforcement problems, we
have invested heavily in Colombia, well, all across Southern
and Central America.
Tell us about what good it is doing and what are the
prospects. I mean, we have invested tons of money, $2.5
billion, for the so-called U.S. Strategy for Central America.
Over half that funding is managed by USAID. What can you tell
us that we could raise some hopes on?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Some of the first work
that I took a look at and examined upon arrival at USAID was
the work that we are doing in the northern triangle. I took an
early trip down to Mexico City to meet with all of our mission
directors from the region, as well as AMEXCID, which is our
Mexican counterpart, a younger development agency, but looking
to partner with us.
And it is challenging work. But we are seeing progress
being made where we are able to invest dollars to push back
against some of the growth in gangs, as challenging as it is.
Some of the alternative economic programs that I describe with
respect to Peru is bearing some fruit. But part of what we need
to do in these countries is to help build the capacity of local
mayors, local police chiefs, community leaders to create safe
places for families so that you don't have unaccompanied minors
out of desperation driven miles through some of the worst
conditions on the face of the Earth to head north for security
and safety. And so it may seem like slow going, but the work
is, we believe, terrifically important.
We also have tremendous economic interests there. And so if
we are able to foster rule of law, governing capacity, work
around fighting corruption, and it is uneven work. It is
challenging work. It is in our economic interests. It helps to
create commercial opportunities for American business and also
stronger ties between the U.S. and that region of the world.
So the work is bearing fruit, but we have much more to do.
We have pulled together across the interagency some ideas to
enhance the work, to work together around developing disaster
response capacities, and I am hopeful that we will be able to
pull something together and brief you on it in coming months.
But we think it is very much in the U.S. interest to continue
our engagement there.
Mr. Rogers. Well, the unrest and corruption and general
malaise in Central America and on into South America has led to
a flood of drugs coming to us, principally out of Colombia, but
by way of Central America and by way of Mexico, and into this
country, speeded along the way by the huge, brutal cartels in
Mexico.
I know that is a law enforcement matter, but the conditions
that allow that problem to fester is something that you have
been working on for a long and we have been working on for a
long time, apparently without too much success. Would you agree
with that or not?
Mr. Green. What I can say is that in areas where we have
been able to focus resources, an example would be San Pedro
Sula in Honduras, we have seen a dramatic reduction in crime, a
dramatic reduction in the activities of gangs. And so we see
that the work succeeds and makes progress, but it is certainly
uneven.
We are working with at-risk youth to try to prevent the
growth and spread of gangs. Going forward, I think a key part
of our work is good governance. And as you know, the monies
that you generously provided in the last--in the omnibus bill
toward the Central America strategy requires certifications and
progress in fighting corruption, in strengthening the work of
the attorneys general, in battling against some of the
corruption that has led too easily to some of the conditions
that you are talking about.
You know, we support those requirements, and we support
helping to enhance the capacity of those nations to meet the
requirements, to push back against the conditions that I think
too easily foster what you are rightly pointing to.
Mr. Rogers. Let me switch gears briefly here before
yielding on metrics. I don't know whether that has been covered
in the testimony so far or not.
Mr. Green. A little bit.
Mr. Rogers. And my definition roughly of the metrics matter
is, how do we objectively measure the need in one of these
programs in a particular part of the world? And how do we also
then measure whether or not it is working? An objective
analysis of the money we are spending, how can we grade that,
judge it?
Mr. Green. Thanks for the question. And I think you point
to a very important distinction that I probably have not done a
very good job of enunciating. So we use metrics in two
different ways.
There are the metrics that we have around every program,
every grant, third-party monitoring, the monitoring and
evaluation that we do to actually measure what the program
delivers, how the program is working, to ensure that there
isn't lost resources, diversion of resources, vitally
important, and I think USAID has led the world in doing that.
We are well-known for it, and we will absolutely continue. It
is important. Along with that, of course, is the work of the
inspector general.
Secondly, there are the metrics that we have been talking
about earlier today, and these are the metrics that have been--
that are being pulled together to help us think through long-
term priorities, helping to assess where countries are in their
own development progress.
MCC has metrics that we all helped to develop that are
designed to say when a country is eligible to receive any
funding. This is not that. These are countries with whom we are
already working, but it is aimed at seeing where they are as
they build the capacities that we all believe are necessary to
advance and also making sure that there is commitment that they
are putting resources in so that we know that this is not
something that is being forced upon them, but that we are
sharing this journey.
Those metrics are long-term. They don't define when we work
with a country. Hopefully we come to you and we all talk about
how these metrics can help us think through where funding
priorities should be in the long run. And those are metrics
about development.
But the very important metrics that you are pointing to,
the monitoring and evaluation, that absolutely continues. It is
enshrined in our redesign effort. The learning that we get from
every program, every place we work is vitally important to not
just USAID, but the development community.
Mr. Rogers. That kind of information is critical for us in
trying to design a bill and fund what is working and not fund
that which is not working, but also selling that idea to our
brothers and sisters in the Congress, as well as the
countryside. So proof that what you are doing is working is
important.
Quickly, rescissions. We hear a lot of talk about a
possible rescission bill. Some of us are concerned that a
possible rescission might seek to take away monies from 2017
and perhaps earlier that are unobligated balances. If that
should happen, tell us what the practical result of that would
be.
Mr. Green. Sorry. Mr. Chairman, I think you have more
information than I do, quite frankly, on the process. I would
refer you to the White House. What we have been instructed to
do is to continue on as we normally do in the planning process
coming out of 2018. Obviously, we will spend--we will move the
money that is appropriated for us. The needs are out there.
As we have talked about, there are needs on the
humanitarian front everywhere we look around the world. There
are also some important development opportunities, strategic
and economic. So I can't tell you we have excess resources,
because we don't. The money that you have generously provided,
the needs are great.
Mr. Rogers. The normal process of these funds being
obligated is a multiyear matter, is it not? So that if you go
back and rescind, say, 2017 monies that were programmed into
the normal process, it would not be spent for a couple of years
under normal circumstances, if you cut that off at the neck,
you are running the real risk of a problem, aren't we?
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I didn't fully appreciate until I
arrived at USAID just what it is that you are laying out in
terms of how long that arc is, in terms of moving from when
funds are appropriated and allocated to when they are fully
obligated. In some cases, it does take some time. But, again,
you know, we don't have access funds. The funds that we
receive, we push out as prudently, as efficiently as we
possibly can.
Mr. Rogers. It is an arcane process.
Mr. Green. It is your words, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.]
Mr. Rogers. Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I apologize.
There are many hearings going on.
But getting back to the issues at hand, thank you again.
The White House is currently conducting two assistance reviews,
one on stabilization efforts in Syria, one on assistance to the
West Bank and Gaza. While there are sensitive issues and these
are sensitive areas where assistance should support our foreign
policy objectives, I am worried that these reviews may have
consequences like breaks in programming and negative outcomes.
First, what is USAID's role in these reviews? And when can
we expect them to conclude? And in the case of West Bank and
Gaza, why is all assistance to the region being held even for
programs that do not directly impact the peace process? And at
what point will these reviews compromise programs through
delays or expiration of funds?
So, first, if we can discuss USAID's role in these reviews,
and when can we expect them to be concluded?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Congresswoman. Actually in both
cases, our understanding is that the reviews should be
completed soon. I don't have a precise date, but we are, like
you, eagerly anticipating their completion.
With respect to West Bank, Gaza, we have been in discussion
with all of the affected partners in the interagency. We have
been in touch with the World Food Programme, as well. Part of
what I think our role is, is to explore with partners what
needs are, how gaps are being filled, so that is our role in
this process.
With respect to the Syria funding that you made reference
to, as you know, I don't believe that humanitarian assistance
is affected, so we continue to provide humanitarian assistance,
and as we always have, that is as to need, not as to whether
the area is controlled by the regime or another force. We
continue to do that work.
But the stabilization assistance has been--the $200 million
has been held pending a review by the White House. And I know
the interagency process is working on it literally as we speak.
Mrs. Lowey. I would appreciate any information on both
issues, but I am very concerned that in West Bank and Gaza, all
assistance is being held. And as you know, we are all focused
on the peace process, but in the meantime, I worry about the
schools, I worry about feeding programs, and this is not a
healthy response. And I think it could really put children,
families in jeopardy.
So can you tell me again on that issue, when will these
reviews be completed? Do you have any idea? And will they
compromise these programs through delays or expiration of
funds?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Congresswoman. First off, some of the
accounts to which you are referring are not actually
administered by USAID. UNRWA, for example, is administered by
the State Department, so I would refer you to them.
Mrs. Lowey. That is right. And you have no input into that?
Mr. Green. Well, again, we talk about needs all the time.
But, no, it is a State-managed account. In terms of the precise
timing, I honestly don't have any more information. What we
will do is I will make sure my staff follows up with yours and
as much information as we are capable of providing, we will
provide. We are watching the situation, obviously, closely, as
well. Our humanitarian obligations are such that we pay close
attention to it and are watching.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. Let me just make one comment
with regard to the promotion of the good things we are doing
abroad which quite frankly U.S. taxpayers should get credit
for. UNFPA, for example, I saw pictures of cribs that prior to
the cuts, the $68 million, cut to UNFPA, there was a USAID
little sign on a crib. Now that USAID presence is missing on
that crib and throughout the world.
The more we cut back and withdraw, the view of our country
as it relates to our commitment to development and diplomacy is
beginning to diminish.
I want to ask you--and this is not a question as it relates
to your personal views, Mr. Ambassador, because I think we met
when you were in Africa. And so don't take this personally. But
I want to ask you about the ``s-hole'' countries that the
president talked about and look at this budget, because as I
look at this budget, the ''s-hole'' countries are getting a
large--they are getting large cuts from our accounts.
And I can't--and I haven't been able to go through every
country right now, but each one that I have been able to go
through on the continent of Africa are receiving some huge
cuts, which makes me wonder, are these budget cuts the result
of the attitude about the continent of Africa? And are the
policies following this general attitude about the continent?
Because China is on the move on the continent. We are
disengaging and divesting from the continent.
And it does reflect an attitude of this administration, not
yourself personally, but this administration, that they do
believe these countries really--are ``s-hole'' countries.
Mr. Green. Congresswoman, I would just say, first off, we
remind ourselves, we are the largest donor of humanitarian
assistance in the world, and nobody else is even close. Even
under the reduced budget amounts in 2019, we are far and away
the largest contributor.
Ms. Lee. Sir, we are the wealthiest country in the world,
also.
Mr. Green. Yes.
Ms. Lee. And, what, 1 percent of our total, but--so, Mr.
Ambassador, we need to be up at least to 25 percent before I
can even agree that that is even something we can accept.
Mr. Green. But I think it is important to realize that we
are still the leading donor of humanitarian assistance in the
world, and I think that is a point of pride, and it is
something that we should be very much proud of.
Ms. Lee. But we are cutting it every year.
Mr. Green. We are still the leading donor and number-two
and-three put together don't equal what we are doing. As you
know, I am an advocate for--you know, we have humanitarian
needs in many parts of the world. But to be fair, we are the
largest donor of humanitarian assistance. We are asking others
to do more. And I think they are doing more, and that is all a
good thing. I think we all think that that is a good thing to
do.
We recognize that tough choices are being made. You know,
we continue to be--and I am very proud of this--we are the
leading development assistance country in the world. I believe
that USAID is the premier international development agency in
the world. And I believe that our humanitarian assistance is
second to none. And I don't say that as an argument for doing
less. I say it as a point of pride and, quite frankly,
gratitude to all of you.
Ms. Lee. Mr. Ambassador, okay, granted, everything you said
is true. Still a very small portion of our federal budget, 1
percent less than, 1.5 percent is foreign and finance.
Secondly, the question I ask is, the budget as it relates to
the continent of Africa, in terms of the divestment and the
budget cuts, I would like to look at and find what cuts and the
proportion of cuts of this overall 30 percent cut are directed
to the continent of Africa.
And I have a special understanding of the continent of
Africa and its challenges. And I know for a fact that you would
not support the ``s-hole'' country framework that this
administration has, but when I look at the budget and these
cuts, these cuts are disproportionately affecting the continent
of Africa.
Mr. Green. The allocations that are made on the development
side are made on the basis of need and opportunity. That is how
the Feed the Future countries are chosen, target countries. It
is based upon opportunity and commitment of our partners. Our
PEPFAR programs are obviously disproportionately in Africa,
because that is where the greatest need is.
So I am very proud of the work that we do in Africa and the
tools that we provide. I think we do more than anyone else. I
do think we need to be careful in terms of the rise of China
and the rival model it presents. But we don't take a backseat
to anyone, in terms of the investments that we make, the
humanitarian assistance that we provide.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, but I hope that one day
you will understand what I am saying in terms of the budget and
framework, and the impact i that this administration's views
about continent of Africa has on our presence there. Thank you
again.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And while you had
been out of the room, Mr. Chairman, we did discuss the issue of
metrics, as well, so I am glad that you highlighted and put an
accent mark on it. And I do think that this is very important,
and I want to return to it in just a moment.
I think it would be helpful to all of us as you work
through defining that more clearly you actually keep us
informed, because metrics are based on certain premises, as
well. And then you have to have space for judgment. So if we
over-objectify everything, you don't have the flexibility and
malleability that is needed that can never be quantified based
upon all the variables that are out there.
So this is a complicated task. Without objectives or
metrics, you can get fragmentation and chaos. With too much of
it codified, you can have a paralysis of analysis. So there is
a balance here. And I think that also necessitates ongoing
communications with us so that we can help identify, again, the
working premises, whether they are based upon intensity of
poverty, intensity of diplomatic or military missions that rise
unpredictably, and other variables.
The other is, again, committed leadership. Now, the
chairman mentioned Central America. And then you mentioned San
Pedro Sula. I had visited there several years ago, went to a
place called Dos Caminos, suburb of there, near there, where
the highest murder rate in the world exists, or existed. You
gave me some new information.
And we looked at an NGO, USAID project where a bakery run
by women received a little bit of subsidy. One of the women who
was a principal in this, her husband had been killed 3 weeks
earlier by the violence. But to see both younger women and
older women coming together in a collaborative business
initiative, beaming with pride, being successful, making plans
to scale this regionally, combatting despair and poverty and
disorder, very courageously, was quite moving to me, and I am
gratified to hear that these efforts, among others, have now
reduced this murder rate substantially. That is very helpful.
But the bigger issue here is, again, scalability. So what
did we do? We took a little bit of resource, working with
partner agencies who are out there, and we took the limited
capacity that existed where the risk profile, if we just use
business terms, is too great for any business to start up, and
we subsidize that, provide some technical expertise, and then
let it potentially succeed.
I think that this actually is the way forward to--if we can
combine the best of what we traditionally call private market
initiative with some public subsidy where it cannot exist
simply because the structures aren't there, then we move from
false economic expectations that are based upon certain
premises that we have that we don't even take for granted,
namely structure, trust, contracts, enforcement of contracts,
property rights, and the rest of it, and then we start to
create those systems in a parallel way to actually helping
attack the structures of poverty that exist in so many places.
You also mentioned--so I love the name of this place, by
the way, Dos Caminos, two pathways. One of poverty, despair and
death, or one of brightness and hope and opportunity. And
again, one of those scalable ideas that is out there that I
think is a part of what we ought to really integrate--and you
have been touching on it all throughout your testimony.
Another example, Haiti to our south, our own background,
our own neighborhood. We have so many interactions with Haiti.
It is so strategic. It is so proximate. The long-held
relationship, the volatility, the poverty, and yet the
beautiful depth of spirit of the people there and the number of
Haitians who have migrated to our country, all necessitates a
particular emphasis there that we do have, and yet we have to
be very guarded against creating an aid-dependent culture,
because we haven't built the systems necessary for continuity.
When we can leverage the best of the private market system
with what might be an initial public subsidy or a necessary
initial public subsidy, with committed leadership that is based
in virtue, and certain metrics, social metrics that are
defined, the return on that is huge, versus writing checks that
create unsustainable problems.
I am sorry there is not really an embedded question there.
I am kind of editorializing out loud and affirming some of what
you are doing in order to encourage you in this task, but also
to suggest that you have a lot of heart here on this
subcommittee and a lot of investment of time and energy. And so
as you work through these metrics, I think pulling us in,
seeing----
Mr. Green. We will--all of these, your staff will be
briefed and consulted. We are looking for your input very much.
Mr. Fortenberry. Yes, seeing us as partners in this. The
other quick point, re-examining language. I challenged us a
little bit the word development. What does that really mean? It
is an old word in the old days. It used to imply something. It
may not anymore.
Direct foreign investment I think should become investment
partnerships. It is not about us doing this. It is about
finding committed leadership elsewhere for continuity and
sustainability. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. I am going to recognize Mr. Price next, but
briefly, Ms. Lowey, do you have a question you want to get----
Mrs. Lowey. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. You are recognized.
Mrs. Lowey. Okay. Actually, before I get to my question,
because I think it is very related to what my colleague was
saying, I can remember a visit to Tanzania--I hope it is still
there--several years ago, with Land O'Lakes. Were you with us,
Craig? No, with Jim Kolbe. And Land O'Lakes partnered with the
women in Tanzania. They stood taller. They were so proud of
their success and the profits they made. These partnerships
between the private sector are absolutely essential.
But I will get to my questions very quickly. And you can
just answer yes or no. Women are more than half of the world's
population. Research shows that they are key to more stable
communities and healthy families. Our national security and
development objectives will not be achieved if we de-prioritize
women.
Okay, yes or no. Cutting support to GAVI, eliminating
vulnerable children programs, cutting funding for maternal and
child health programs by 25 percent will harm women, children
and babies. You could just say yes or no, because I know our
hearing is about to close.
Mr. Green. We continue to make huge investments in all
those areas. With the 2018 budget, as you know, we fulfilled
our pledging obligation to GAVI. We are continuing to fund
GAVI. We think the innovations that we are getting from GAVI,
we being all of us, are extraordinarily valuable.
You will see in our redesign efforts and in our programming
enshrining the principles that you are talking about, making
sure that we have women's empowerment, making sure that we have
obviously gender equity in our programs. We agree with all of
those sentiments.
In terms of specific dollar amounts, I readily admit that
tough tradeoffs are involved and difficult choices have been
made. And we are not meeting every need that is out there that
we see.
Mrs. Lowey. Okay, another quick question. 131 million girls
are out of school. 131 million girls around the world are out
of school. Can a 50 percent cut to basic education programs
improve girls' access to education?
Mr. Green. Congresswoman Lowey, as you know, I started off
as a teacher in Africa. That is how I started in all of this
process. It is near and dear to my heart. We do not have enough
money, nor could you get for us enough money to meet every
education need that is out there to provide enough teachers, to
provide access for every girl and every boy in Africa in
education. It is simply true.
Although I will say I think that the monies you have
generously provided we will put to good use. You have my word
on it. You have been a champion. We are fulfilling the
principles that you have enshrined in the READ Act. And we will
do everything we can to make these programs go as far as we
possibly can.
Mrs. Lowey. And lastly, you can just say yes or no, has
USAID determined the impact that a 25 percent cut to water and
sanitation programs would have on women, given in most cultures
they bear the primary burden for collecting clean water? Also,
how will the cut impact women's abilities to pursue the
economic opportunities that you and I all recognize to be so
important?
Mr. Green. Well, I can honestly say, I have not seen that
analysis or determination done. What I can say is the amount
requested for the WASH program is the largest amount ever
requested for the WASH program. It exceeds what was requested
last year and the previous year. It is not as much as you
generously provided in the 2018 appropriations omnibus bill.
Mrs. Lowey. It is a 25 percent cut. And I know that the
chairman and I and this committee, as you can see, there is
really bipartisan support for these programs. And we look
forward to being your partner. And we thank you very, very
much. We are thrilled to have a leader who cares and has the
knowledge to fulfill the important challenges. So, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Administrator, I
want to touch on a couple of points from earlier discussions
and then move to a critical question about Burma and
Bangladesh. But this metrics discussion I think is important.
We have all struggled with it. It is especially challenging, I
think, when you think about aid to governance efforts.
The Frost-Solomon Commission in Eastern Europe years ago
struggled with it. When does a country graduate? When do you
think the work is over? And of course, we struggle with it now
with HDP. I think your observation that sometimes one does not
just cut off, one moves to a different kind of support. With
the India example, that is a useful point.
I think it also goes without saying that budget cuts of the
magnitude we are talking about in this budget--Sri Lanka, 74
percent, Liberia, 84 percent and so forththose cuts are not
based on any kind of metric. I know that without asking. There
is no metric proving or showing success that would justify
those kinds of cuts.
I do think the plea for consultation from both sides of the
aisle here is important. These are subtle matters. These are
not easily reduced to simplistic measures. And we need to be
sharing the best information we have about the state of play in
these countries before these decisions to terminate or to shift
the kind of aid are made.
I would also like to underscore also the importance of the
West Bank-Gaza matter, the humanitarian assistance there. It is
a matter of desperation. As you know, these programs are
running out of money. USAID ought to be a part of this White
House review, and I would hope that in Syria, too. I mean,
there is some ambiguity here today about exactly what has been
cut off in Syria, and how much humanitarian aid is still
flowing in Syria. I can't imagine that whatever the disputes
might be that they would justify holding this assistance up any
longer.
Now, finally, to Bangladesh and Burma, you of course know
the statistics about the number of Rohingya who have fled from
Burma. More than seven hundred thousand is the latest number I
have seen. There is an awful campaign of ethnic cleansing and
crimes against humanity in Rakhine state. Bangladesh is to be
applauded, I think, for opening its borders and receiving the
huge influx of refugees and working to protect the Rohingya.
I have heard, though, that there are significant
bureaucratic constraints that are impeding the delivery of aid
to the Rohingya refugees in Cox's Bazar, from U.S., and other
international NGOs. What are you doing to ensure that American
NGOs and other international organizations are able to operate
effectively to meet the needs of these refugees?
And in regard to assistance to Burma, it has been
documented that the Burmese are bulldozing and building on top
of Rohingya villages under the guise of international
development. It makes repatriation nearly impossible. I know
that USAID does not provide assistance to infrastructure
projects in Rakhine state, but are you working with the
development partners, like the Japanese, like the World Bank,
to ensure that assistance provided takes into account such
human rights issues?
Mr. Green. Thank you. You raise a number of very important
points. First, on metrics, to be very clear, we--first off, we
will consult. It is our obligation, just as we have on the
structural piece. We did more than 40 consultations with your
staff and the Congress, absolutely have my commitment we will
be doing the same thing on metrics.
Our metrics are not our own. We have tapped into the
brightest minds in the development community, many of the
outside groups, our own advisory council, and we will continue
to show you what we are looking at. These will not be metrics
for purposes of cutting off aid. This is not MCC. These are not
a report card. It is instead very broad-based indicators that
help us understand what a country's capacities are and where
their weaknesses may lie, so that we can be sure to help them
address challenges so they can continue to rise. So that is how
we use metrics.
Secondly, I am planning to go to Burma and Bangladesh
myself in the next couple of weeks. One of the great challenges
that we have is access as the rest of the development and
diplomatic community have been having. It is a great challenge
in getting there. I know in the U.N. Security Council is
going--is attempting to go to Rakhine soon, is the plan, as in
days from now. We will be taking note of that. I want to get
there myself.
I agree with your assessment on Bangladesh. Again, I think
challenges--they are not so much bureaucratic challenges as
challenges of access. But we want to make sure that we continue
to provide humanitarian assistance, which we have been and we
will continue to do. But also there are long-term development
needs that need to be addressed, as well.
But we have been providing humanitarian assistance and
support on the global health side, and we will continue to do
that. And we are in constant touch with our multilateral
partners. I met with the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees
just last week to talk at greater length about Burma and
Bangladesh. I have met with Amnesty International. I have met
with a number of figures.
I just spoke to the ambassador to Burma, as well, to make
sure that we have accurate information before we go to better
prepare the trip to make it as effective as possible. I hear
all of your concerns.
The State Department has, as you know, reached a conclusion
that ethnic cleansing has taken place in northern Rakhine. They
have not gone final in their determinations at this point. But
it is clear that a human rights catastrophe has taken place
there, and it is of great concern to obviously every single one
of us.
But I want to go and have eyes on myself. It is something
that I need to understand and make sure that our programs are
as effective as they can be and they are getting to where they
need to go and having the outcomes that obviously you desire.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Price.
Mr. Ambassador, thank you again for your time this morning
and for your testimony. You have set forth some ambitious goals
for this agency, which we welcome. You have faced humanitarian
and development challenges across the world. In the weeks
ahead, this committee will closely examine the budget request,
assess its impacts, recommend funds that we can pass on to the
full House that enable us to achieve your goals and ours to
further our nation's economic and security interests.
I think I speak for the whole subcommittee when I say we
are thrilled that you are the leader of this organization. We
think you are doing a great job with it under difficult
circumstances. And I was thinking here a while ago as we were
talking about some of the hot spots around the world that that
is all you deal with. You are----
Mr. Green. I don't read the newspaper as innocently as I
used to.
Mr. Rogers. But there must be times when you become
disappointed. There must be times when some of these conditions
that you see every day around the world cause you great mental
pain. And so we want to encourage your spirit, and we want you
to keep up your commitment. We know you will. You have. But we
wish you all the best. And we are here to help in any way that
we can. Thank you.
Mr. Green. Thank you. And I am very grateful for the
support that you have shown, and I really appreciate the
partnership. I would just close with this, Mr. Chairman. Every
trip that I have taken--I haven't taken that many--but every
trip that I have taken as administrator I come across at least
one moment in which I encounter someone that just lifts
everything up.
When you see the spirit of the people with whom we work,
things that they have done, that makes it all worthwhile. We
do--we being the U.S. people--I think we make a difference. And
I think our leadership matters. But I am very grateful to all
of you for your support. I really am.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Mr. Green. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. The subcommittee stands adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]