[Senate Hearing 111-806]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-806
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2011
=======================================================================
HEARING
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
S. 3676
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING,
AND RELATED PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2011, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of State
United States Agency for International Development
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
54-986 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
PATTY MURRAY, Washington ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
JACK REED, Rhode Island LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
BEN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
JON TESTER, Montana
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Charles J. Houy, Staff Director
Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Professional Staff
Tim Rieser
Nikole Manatt
Janett Stormes
Paul Grove (Minority)
Michele Wymer (Minority)
LaShawnda Smith (Minority)
Administrative Support
Rachel Meyer
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Page
Department of State: Secretary of State.......................... 1
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
U.S. Agency for International Development........................ 73
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2011
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Leahy, Mikulski, Landrieu, Specter,
Gregg, Bennett, Bond, Brownback, and Voinovich.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Secretary of State
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON,
SECRETARY OF STATE
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY
Senator Leahy. Secretary Clinton, I commend you for your
unbelievable energy, not only in the work you do at the State
Department but around the world in representing the United
States. I understand this is one of four times you're going to
be testifying here on Capitol Hill and we appreciate it very
much, Madam Secretary.
The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request for the
Department of State and foreign operations totals $56.6
billion. It's a 10.6 percent increase over last year. Most of
the increase is for three countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan, and
Iraq.
For the remainder of the world, the increase is about the
rate of inflation and, as the President has pointed out, the
total request for foreign operations is about 1 percent of the
entire Federal budget.
If we cut all these programs, it wouldn't make a dent in
our deficit but it would cause many other problems around the
world, especially as it would affect America's leadership
position.
The funds are all we have, besides the U.S. military, to
protect the security and other interests of the American people
in an increasingly dangerous and divisive world.
That is not to say we can't do more to get full value for
our tax dollars, that's always been mine and Senator Gregg's
goal on this subcommittee. If there are programs that are not
effective or no longer necessary, then we will eliminate them.
As we listen to the complaints about broken Government or
paralysis in Washington, this is a bill that, over the past
number of years, has had overwhelming bipartisan support.
If anybody wants to see whether bipartisanship still exists
in Congress, they do not have to look any further than this
subcommittee. Every member of this panel, Republican and
Democrat alike, has a stake in what's in here. We work
together. For example, our global health programs help to
prevent outbreaks of deadly viruses and other infectious
diseases that are only a plane ride away. If such viruses
spread and become pandemics, they could kill millions of
people, including Americans.
Funding provided in this bill also addresses the continuing
need to stop terrorism, organized crime, and other
transnational crime that are growing threats to Americans and
the citizens and governments of other nations, especially
governments whose institutions are prone to corruption. There
are many other examples.
We know this budget is not going to solve every problem in
the world but at least it ensures that the United States is
equipped to play a leadership role.
The Secretary has done her part and, Madam Secretary, I
must say I appreciate the fact that you have been the face of
America around the world. I know that it is physically
strenuous, both for you and your staff, but it is important
that you are there.
Today, more than ever, we appreciate the need for fully
staffed and secure embassies, effective diplomacy, and strong
alliances. I want to commend the dedicated men and women of the
State Department and the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID), who are serving America here at home and
at posts around the world and, I should note, often at great
personal risk.
After Senator Gregg makes his opening remarks and the
Secretary testifies, we'll have 7-minute rounds for questions.
The Senators will be recognized in order of arrival,
alternating back and forth.
Senator Gregg.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JUDD GREGG
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
second your opening comments. I especially want to pick up
where you left off which is saying thank you to not only
yourself, Madam Secretary, but the extraordinary staff that
works for you at the State Department.
Those of us who've had a chance to travel to some more
severe regions in this world, such as Afghanistan, Syria,
Pakistan, of course Iraq, recognize that the men and women who
serve us in the State Department are on the frontlines and
doing an extraordinary job of trying to carry out American
policy and assist those nations in moving toward more
democratic forms of government and to be constructive citizens
in the world. They put their lives at risk as our military
people do, and we very much appreciate their service.
I also want to thank you personally for what you're doing.
Your presentation around the world has been extraordinary and
it's been very positive for us, for our Nation, to have you out
there as our spokesperson, along with the President, of course.
There are so many areas of concern that come to mind that
rather than taking them all up in my opening statement, I'd
rather hear your thoughts on them.
So I will turn to you, but I just want to highlight one
that doesn't get a lot of attention and that is an issue I've
had interest in for almost 15 years now which is to make sure
that you have the best technology and the best capability so
that the support is there for the people who do such wonderful
things for us in the field. I'd be interested in your thoughts
on where we stand in that area and also in the area of
facilities.
I'd like to spend some time on that. I'm especially
concerned about the cost of the Iraqi mission and the new
building and the complex there and how that's going to drain
away funds from other initiatives.
I'd rather hear from you than talk myself. So I'll turn it
over to you, Madam Secretary.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. Secretary Clinton, please go
ahead.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much, Chairman Leahy, and
Senator Gregg, and members of the subcommittee.It really is a
pleasure to be back here in the Senate and to be with all of
you today.
When I was last here to discuss our budget, I emphasized my
commitment to elevating diplomacy and development as core
pillars of American power. Since then, I have been heartened by
the bipartisan support of this subcommittee and the rest of
Congress and I want to take this opportunity to thank you on
behalf of the men and women who work every day around the world
at the State Department and USAID who put our foreign policy
into action, and I will certainly convey the very kind words of
both the chairman and the ranking member to them.
The budget we're presenting today is designed to protect
America and Americans and to advance our interests and values.
Our fiscal year 2011 request for the State Department and USAID
totals $52.8 billion. That's a $4.9 billion increase over 2010.
Of that increase, $3.6 billion will go to supporting efforts in
frontline states, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.
Other funding will grow by $1.3 billion and that is a 2.7
percent increase and with that money, we will address global
challenges, strengthen partnerships, and ensure that the State
Department and USAID are equipped with the right people, the
right technology, and the right resources.
Over the past 6 weeks in Haiti, I've been reminded again of
the importance of American leadership. I'm very proud of what
our country has done. We will continue to work with our Haitian
and international partners to address ongoing suffering and
transition from relief to recovery.
I'm also well aware that this is a time of great economic
strain for many Americans here at home. As a former Senator, I
know what this means for the people you represent. For every
dollar we spend, we have to show results. That is why this
budget must support programs vital to our national security,
our national interests, and our leadership in the world, while
guarding against and rooting out waste, redundancy, and
irrelevancy. I believe this budget achieves those goals.
These figures are more than numbers on a page. They tell
the story of the challenges we face and the resources we need
to overcome them. We are fighting two wars that call on the
skill and sacrifice of our civilians as well as our dedicated
military troops.
We've pursued a dual-track approach to Iran that has
exposed its refusal to live up to its responsibilities and
helped us achieve a new unity with our international partners.
Iran has left the international community little choice but to
impose greater costs and pressure in the face of its
provocative steps. We're not working actively with our partners
to prepare and implement new measures to pressure Iran to
change its course.
We have achieved unprecedented unity in our response to
North Korea's provocative actions, even as we leave the door
open for a restart of the Six Party Talks, and we're moving
closer to a fresh nuclear agreement with Russia, one that
advances our security while furthering President Obama's long-
term vision of a world without nuclear weapons.
With China, we are seeking areas of common purpose while
standing firm where we differ. We're making concrete our new
beginning with the Muslim world. We're strengthening
partnerships with allies in Europe and Asia, with our friends
here in the hemisphere, with countries from those that are
rising and emerging powers to those who have challenges, and
we're working hard every day to end the impasse and the
conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.
At the same time, we're developing a new architecture of
cooperation to meet transnational global challenges, like
climate change, the use of our planet's oceans, proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction, health problems which, as the
chairman said, are no respecter of boundaries.
In so many instances, our national interests and the common
interests converge and so from our hemisphere across the world
we are promoting human rights, the rule of law, democracy,
Internet freedom. We're fighting poverty, hunger, disease, and
we're working to ensure that economic growth is broadly and
inclusively shared.
Now our agenda is ambitious, I admit that, but I think the
times demand it. America is called to lead and we need the
tools and resources to exercise our leadership wisely and
effectively. We can bury our heads in the sand and pay the
consequences later or we can make hard-nosed targeted
investments now, addressing the security challenges of today
while building a more lasting foundation for the future.
Let me just highlight three areas where we're making
significant new investments. First, the security of frontline
states. In Afghanistan this past year, we've tripled the number
of civilians on the ground and this presence will grow by
hundreds more with the $5 billion in this budget. Our diplomats
and development experts are helping institutions, expand
economic opportunities and provide meaningful alternatives for
insurgents ready to renounce violence and Al Qaeda and join
their fellow Afghans in the pursuit of peace.
In Pakistan, our request includes $3.2 billion to combat
extremism, promote economic development, strengthen democratic
institutions, and build a long-term relationship with the
Pakistani people. This includes funding of the Kerry-Lugar-
Berman initiative. Our request also includes a 59 percent
increase in funding for Yemen to help counter the extremist
threat and build institutions there, as well.
In Iraq, we're winding down our military presence and
establishing a more normal civilian mission. Our civilian
efforts will not and cannot mirror the scale of the military
presence, but they, rather, should provide assistance
consistent with the priorities of the Iraqi Government and the
United States. So our request includes $2.6 billion for Iraq.
These are resources that will allow us to support the
democratic process, ensure a smooth transition to civilian-led
security training, and operational support. These funds will
allow civilians to take full responsibility for programs and
the Defense budget for Iraq will be decreasing by about $16
billion and that's a powerful illustration of the return on
civilian investment.
We are blessed, as we all in this room know, with the best
troops in the world and we've seen that time and time again in
today's wars, but we also need to give our civilian experts the
resources to do the jobs we're asking them to do and this
budget takes a step in the right direction.
It includes $100 million for a State Department Complex
Crisis Fund, replacing the 1207 Fund which the Defense
Department used to direct money toward crisis response. It also
includes support for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability
Fund which previously fell under the Defense Department, as
well.
The second major area is investing in development. So we're
making targeted investments in fragile societies which, in our
interconnected world, bear heavily on our own security and
prosperity. These investments are a key part of our effort to
get ahead of crises rather than just responding to them.
The first of these is in health. Building on our progress
treating HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis, our Global Health
Initiative will invest $63 billion over 6 years, starting with
$8.5 billion in fiscal year 2011, to help our partners address
specific diseases and build strong sustainable health systems.
The administration has also pledged to invest at least $3.5
billion in food security over 3 years and this budget includes
a request for $1.6 billion, of which $1.2 billion is funded
through the State Department. This will focus on countries that
have developed effective, comprehensive strategies where
agriculture remains central to prosperity and hunger is
widespread.
On climate change, we've requested $646 million to promote
the United States as a leader in green technology and to
leverage other countries' cooperation, including through the
Copenhagen Accord, which for the first time brings developed
and developing countries together. This is part of the
administration's total request of $1.4 billion to support core
climate change activities in developing nations.
Our request also includes $4.2 billion for humanitarian
assistance. Our efforts in Haiti have made clear that State and
USAID must be able to respond quickly and effectively, but we
believe these initiatives will enhance American security and
they will help people in need and they will give the American
people a strong return on this investment.
Our aim is not to create dependency but, rather, to help
countries learn to fish, as the old Proverb tells it, and what
we want to do is focus on equality and opportunity for women
and girls because we know that is the key driver of economic
and social progress.
And then, finally, our third area of investment. None of
what we intend to do can be accomplished if we don't recruit,
train, and empower the right people for the job.
The State Department and USAID are full of talented and
committed public servants, but we have too often neglected to
give them the tools they need to carry out their missions on
the ground and rather than building our own expertise, we have
too often relied on contractors, sometimes with little
oversight and often at greater cost.
This budget will allow us to expand the Foreign Service by
over 600 positions, including an additional 410 for the State
Department and 200 for USAID. It will also allow us to staff
the standby element of the Civilian Reserve Corps which is a
crucial tool in our efforts to respond to crises.
Now while deploying these personnel generates new expenses
in some accounts, it will reduce costs by changing the way we
do business. As we are ending our over-reliance on contractors,
we're actually showing we can save money, plus bringing these
functions inside and improving oversight and accountability.
So, Mr. Chairman and ranking member and members, one thing
should be clear from this budget, the State Department and
USAID are taking a lead in carrying out the United States'
foreign policy and national security agenda.
As we finish the first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and
Development Review (QDDR), we have a unique opportunity to
define the capabilities we need and to match resources with
priorities. This budget aligns our investments with the
strategic imperatives of our time.
The QDDR will also help ensure we are more effective and
accountable. As I have reported to you before, filling the
first-ever Deputy Secretary of State for Management and
Resources with Jack Lew, a former OMB Director, has given us an
extra advantage in developing this budget and reviewing it to
make sure that every item is economical and effective.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Now at this time of change and challenge around the world,
we need to make these investments and I believe that this
subcommittee understands why. I look forward to your questions,
but even more so I look forward to working with you in
partnership in the months and years ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hillary Rodham Clinton
Thank you very much, Chairman Leahy and Senator Gregg and members
of the subcommittee. It really is a pleasure to be back here in the
Senate and to be with all of you today. When I was last here to discuss
our budget, I emphasized my commitment to elevating diplomacy and
development as core pillars of American power. Since then, I have been
heartened by the bipartisan support of this committee and the rest of
Congress. And I want to take this opportunity to thank you, on behalf
of the men and women who work every day around the world at the State
Department and USAID who put our foreign policy into action. And I will
certainly convey the very kind words of both the Chairman and the
Ranking Member to them.
The budget we are presenting today is designed to protect America
and Americans and to advance our interests and values. Our fiscal year
2011 request for the State Department and USAID totals $52.8 billion.
That's a $4.9 billion increase over 2010. Of that increase, $3.6
billion will go to supporting efforts in ``frontline states''--
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. Other funding will grow by $1.3
billion, and that is a 2.7 percent increase, and with that money we
will address global challenges, strengthen partnerships, and ensure
that the State Department and USAID are equipped with the right people,
the right technology, and the right resources.
Over the past 6 weeks in Haiti, I have been reminded again of the
importance of American leadership. I am very proud of what our country
has done. We will continue to work with our Haitian and international
partners to address ongoing suffering and transition from relief to
recovery.
I am also well aware that this is a time of great economic strain
for many Americans here at home. As a former Senator, I know what this
means for the people you represent. For every dollar we spend, we have
to show results. That is why this budget must support programs vital to
our national security, our national interests, and our leadership in
the world, while guarding against and rooting out waste, redundancy,
and irrelevancy. I believe this budget achieves those goals. These
figures are more than numbers on a page. They tell the story of the
challenges we face and the resources we need to overcome them.
We are fighting two wars that call on the skill and sacrifice of
our civilians as well as our dedicated military troops. We have pursued
a dual-track approach to Iran that has exposed its refusal to live up
to its responsibilities and helped us achieve a new unity with our
international partners. Iran has left the international community
little choice but to impose greater costs and pressure in the face of
its provocative steps. We are now working actively with our partners to
prepare and implement new measures to pressure Iran to change its
course.
We have achieved unprecedented unity in our response to North
Korea's provocative actions, even as we leave the door open for a
restart of the Six-Party Talks. And we are moving closer to a fresh
nuclear agreement with Russia--one that advances our security while
furthering President Obama's long-term vision of a world without
nuclear weapons.
With China, we are seeking areas of common purpose while standing
firm where we differ. We are making concrete our new beginning with the
Muslim world. We are strengthening partnerships with allies in Europe
and Asia, with our friends here in our hemisphere, with countries from
those that are rising and emerging powers to those who have challenges.
And we are working hard every day to end the impasse and the conflict
between Israelis and Palestinians.
At the same time, we are developing a new architecture of
cooperation to meet transnational global challenges like climate
change, the use of our planet's oceans, proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction, health problems--which, as the Chairman said, are no
respecter of boundaries. In so many instances, our national interest
and the common interest converge, and so from our hemisphere across the
world, we are promoting human rights, the rule of law, democracy,
Internet freedom; we are fighting poverty, hunger, and disease; and we
are working to ensure that economic growth is broadly and inclusively
shared.
Now, our agenda is ambitious, I admit that, but I think the times
demand it. America is called to lead--and we need the tools and
resources to exercise our leadership wisely and effectively. We can
bury our heads in the sand and pay the consequences later, or we can
make hard-nosed, targeted investments now--addressing the security
challenges of today while building a more lasting foundation for the
future.
Let me just highlight three areas where we are making significant
new investments.
First, the security of frontline states. In Afghanistan, this past
year, we have tripled the number of civilians on the ground, and this
presence will grow by hundreds more with the $5 billion in this budget.
Our diplomats and development experts are helping build institutions,
expand economic opportunities, and provide meaningful alternatives for
insurgents ready to renounce violence and al-Qaida and join their
fellow Afghans in the pursuit of peace.
In Pakistan, our request includes $3.2 billion to combat extremism,
promote economic development, strengthen democratic institutions, and
build a long-term relationship with the Pakistani people. This includes
funding of the Kerry-Lugar-Berman initiative. Our request also includes
a 59 percent increase in funding for Yemen, to help counter the
extremist threat and build institutions there as well.
In Iraq, we are winding down our military presence and establishing
a more normal civilian mission. Our civilian efforts will not and
cannot mirror the scale of the military presence, but they rather
should provide assistance consistent with the priorities of the Iraqi
Government and the United States. So our request includes $2.6 billion
for Iraq. These are resources that will allow us to support the
democratic process, ensure a smooth transition to civilian-led security
training and operational support. These funds will allow civilians to
take full responsibility for programs, and the Defense budget for Iraq
will be decreasing by about $16 billion--and that's a powerful
illustration of the return on civilian investment.
We are blessed, as we all in this room know, with the best troops
in the world, and we have seen time and time again in today's wars. But
we also need to give our civilian experts the resources to do the jobs
we're asking them to do. And this budget takes a step at the right
direction. It includes $100 million for a State Department complex
crisis fund--replacing the 1207 fund which the Defense Department used
to direct money toward crisis response. It also includes support for
the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, which previously fell
under the Defense Department as well.
The second major area is investing in development. So we're making
targeted investments in fragile societies--which, in our interconnected
word, bear heavily on our own security and prosperity. These
investments are a key part of our effort to get ahead of crises rather
than just responding to them. The first of these is in health. Building
on our progress treating HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis, our Global
Health Initiative will invest $63 billion over 6 years, starting with
$8.5 billion in fiscal year 2011, to help our partners address specific
diseases and build strong, sustainable health systems. The
Administration has also pledged to invest at least $3.5 billion in food
security over 3 years, and this budget includes a request for $1.6
billion, of which $1.2 billion is funded through the State Department.
This will focus on countries that have developed effective,
comprehensive strategies, where agriculture remains central to
prosperity and hunger is widespread.
On climate change, we've requested $646 million to promote the
United States as a leader in green technology and to leverage other
countries' cooperation--including through the Copenhagen Accord, which
for the first time brings developed and developing countries together.
This is part of the Administration's total request of $1.4 billion to
support core climate change activities in developing nations.
Our request also includes $4.2 billion for humanitarian assistance.
Our efforts in Haiti have made clear that State and USAID must be able
to respond quickly and effectively.
But we believe these initiatives will enhance American security,
and they will help people in need, and they will give the American
people a strong return on this investment. Our aim is not to create
dependency, but rather to help countries learn to fish, as the old
proverb tells it. And what we want to do is focus on equality and
opportunity for women and girls, because we know that is the key driver
of economic and social progress.
And then finally, our third area of investment. None of what we
intend to do can be accomplished if we don't recruit, train, and
empower the right people for the job.
The State Department and USAID are full of talented and committed
public servants, but we have too often neglected to give them the tools
they need to carry out their missions on the ground. And rather than
building our own expertise, we have too often relied on contractors,
sometimes with little oversight and often at greater cost. This budget
will allow us to expand the Foreign Service by over 600 positions,
including an additional 410 for the State Department and 200 for USAID.
It will also allow us to staff the standby element of the Civilian
Reserve Corps, which is a crucial tool in our efforts to respond to
crises. Now, while deploying these personnel generates new expenses in
some accounts, it will reduce costs by changing the way we do business.
As we are ending our over-reliance on contractors, we're actually
showing we can save money, plus bringing these functions inside and
improving oversight and accountability.
So, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member and members, one thing should
be clear from this budget: The State Department and USAID are taking a
lead in carrying out the United States' foreign policy and national
security agenda. As we finish the first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and
Development Review, we have a unique opportunity to define the
capabilities we need and to match resources with priorities. This
budget aligns our investments with the strategic imperatives of our
time. The QDDR will also help ensure we are more effective and
accountable. As I have reported to you before, filling the first-ever
Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources with Jack Lew, a
former OMB director, has given us an extra advantage in developing this
budget and reviewing it to make sure that every item is economical and
effective.
Now, at this time of change and challenge around the world, we need
to make these investments. And I believe that this committee
understands why. I look forward to your questions.
But even more so, I look forward to working with you in partnership
in the months and years ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
IRAN
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Let me first ask
you about a country that concerns all of us: Iran.
We know that the Iranian people have relied on the Internet
and satellites to get news, often of the outside world, but
sometimes even of what's going on in their own country.
The Iranian Government has spent millions of dollars to
block Internet and social media connections inside of Iran. To
me that's a sign of a regime that is afraid of its own people
and that wants to hide its actions from the rest of the world.
In an earlier time, oppressive regimes trapped their people
behind an Iron Curtain. The Iranian Government is trying to
muzzle its people behind an electronic curtain, and I'm
troubled by what they're doing, not just to their own people
but also stopping the programs of other countries.
You made a recent speech, which I thought was superb, at
the Newseum spelling out principles of global Internet freedom
for the benefit of people everywhere and that was well received
around the globe.
It appears that Iran has broken international agreements by
doing this, is that correct?
Secretary Clinton. Yes.
Senator Leahy. We have worked with the State Department and
others on this issue. Beginning in fiscal year 2008, we
provided funds to facilitate Internet communication by people
around the world in closed societies.
I noticed an article in the Washington Post on February 18
that mentioned the National Security Council discouraged the
Broadcasting Board of Governors, the Board that oversees the
Voice of America (VOA) and other U.S. international
broadcasters, from signing a statement with the BBC and
Deutsche Welle denouncing Iranian jamming of their broadcasts.
In the end, VOA ended up signing that statement.
Is there disagreement in the administration of the need to
strongly protest internationally this violation of
international agreements by Iran?
Secretary Clinton. Mr. Chairman, there is no disagreement.
As I said in my Internet Freedom speech, the development of new
tools that enables citizens to exercise their rights of free
expression and virtual assembly, because I think it's rooted in
both, needs to be protected and advanced, and we need these new
tools, particularly in Iran but not only in Iran.
So the State Department is looking very closely at what
more we can do to try to work with the private sector in
partnership to unblock the Internet, to get information
flowing, to speak out against the kinds of abuses that we see
going on out of Internet.
We are providing funds to groups around the world to make
sure that these new tools get to the people who need them. We
are--we have been assisting in those areas for some time and
thanks to this subcommittee, which has helped to pioneer the
funding for these efforts, but there's so much more that we can
and should do and inside the State Department, I've created a
group of young tech-savvy diplomats.
We're doing what we call ``21st Century Statecraft'' and
they are working, again as I say, with the private sector, this
is not all just American government efforts, in order to be
able to unjam and circumvent with our technologies the kind of
blockades that the Iranians are using.
There's still a lot to be done and I think that the
discussion inside the administration is what are the most
effective ways of doing it. Some of the technology, for
example, that we would very much like to see used to unblock
Iran is very valuable technology. We have to be careful about
how it is utilized so it doesn't get into the wrong hands.
Senator Leahy. Sure.
Secretary Clinton. We're focused on this, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Leahy. But we also have to be working, I would
assume, with other countries if there's a violation of a
bilateral agreement.
I've heard that some of their blocking efforts not only
block satellite transmission into neighboring countries but in
one instance as far away as Italy.
Secretary Clinton. Well, when they bring down the cellphone
networks, that has broad ramifications.
Senator Leahy. The satellite is not just Voice of America.
I know we've tried to tighten bilateral sanctions against Iran,
targeting the Revolutionary Guard. We're seeking the support of
Russia, China, and other countries for U.N. sanctions.
Are there other things we should be doing? I know the House
and Senate have passed legislation imposing sanctions on
petroleum companies that do business with Iran. What about
that?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Mr. Chairman, we support the
purpose and the principles of the bills, both the bill in the
House and the sanctions bill that recently was passed by
unanimous consent here in the Senate.
We want to have as strong a partnership with the Congress
as possible. We need to enlist every possible tool that we can
bring to bear on this, and we look forward to working with the
Congress. What we're hoping for is that whatever sanctions
emerge from the conference committee have some flexibility that
will support our ongoing efforts because you rightly pointed
out, we are working very hard with our partners in the Security
Council.
We've already made it clear that we stand ready to do both
unilateral and multilateral sanctions on top of whatever comes
out of the Security Council, but while we're in the midst of
these negotiations, it would be very useful for us to be in
close consultation with the Congress so that whatever is done
here supplements and supports what we're trying to get done in
the Security Council.
ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUNDS
Senator Leahy. Let us follow up on that in another
discussion. The administration has requested increases in
Economic Support Fund assistance for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and
Iraq. I worry about the billions that were wasted in the years
past because there seemed to be an emphasis on burn rates more
than on results. I think you and I should discuss that more as
we go forward with the bill.
TRAVEL TO CUBA
I will also be talking to you about a group of Vermont high
school students who wanted to travel to Cuba to set up a sister
school relationship with Cuban students. After doing their own
research, and getting ready for the trip, they ran into U.S.
travel restrictions.
It seems so beneath a nation as powerful as ours to tell
kids they can't go back and forth and talk to students in Cuba.
They can go to Russia, they can go to China, they can go
everywhere else. Then there's Cuba. It makes no sense. You
don't have to answer, but we'll talk further about that.
Senator Gregg.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
JORDAN
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, one of our
closest allies in the Middle East is Jordan and they've really
borne the brunt of a lot of our policies in the forms of cost
of refugees and border security issues. They requested $300
billion additional assistance in the supplemental.
I was wondering if the administration supports this
request.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator Gregg, as you know, Jordan
is a stalwart ally and their work with us over the years has
been extraordinarily helpful.
We, in this budget, hit the targets that were set in the
memorandum of understanding that we--we certainly abide by
which gives us about over $600 million. The supplemental amount
is something that we are considering and looking at.
Obviously in this time of real budget constraints, it's--
it's a challenge, but we know how much Jordan has done. We just
have to try to see whether it's--it's doable within the
confines of the budget.
Senator Gregg. Well, considering what we're spending in
Iraq and Afghanistan, Pakistan, it would seem to me to be
dollars well spent and probably have a much better impact in
the area of stabilization in the region.
Let me ask you two specific areas that I'd be interested in
getting your thoughts on because they appear to be energizers
of most of our problems.
The first is the issue of where you think the Palestinian
issue is going and where you think Israel is going in
relationship to Palestine, and, second, the issue of the India-
Pakistan relationship and what we're doing to try to create
some comity there so that we can take advantage of our
friendships or participate with the friendships in both
countries.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator Gregg, those are two
issues that we spent a lot of time working on.
MIDDLE EAST
First, with respect to the Palestinians, there are really
two aspects of our engagement with the Palestinian Authority.
The first is our continuing effort under the leadership of
former Senator Mitchell for the Israelis and the Palestinians
to resume negotiations.
We hope that that will commence shortly. We think it's
absolutely essential that they begin to talk about the final
status issues that divide them, that have perpetuated the
conflict over all of these years, but we're well aware of the
difficulties that confront us on this.
At the same time, we continue to work with the Palestinian
Authority to support their efforts to build their capacity,
particularly in security. General Dayton has done a superb job
working with Prime Minister Fayed in creating a Palestinian
Security Force that is respected by the Israelis, that
demonstrates a capacity to perform under difficult
circumstances.
We have encouraged other countries to provide funding
directly to the Palestinian Authority so that they can help
build their judicial system, their prosecutorial system, their
corrections system. It's not enough just to have a good
security force, you've got to have the rest of the law
enforcement, judicial apparatus functioning, and we're getting
support to do that given directly to the Palestinian Authority.
So on both of those tracks, there are certainly challenges
ahead, particularly on the first, the political negotiation
track, but the progress that is being made on the second track
actually increases the leverage and the credibility of the
Palestinians in negotiations with the Israelis.
INDIA AND PAKISTAN
Second, with respect to India and Pakistan, we've
encouraged the resumption of the direct talks which were
suspended when President Musharraf left office. Those talks
between President Musharraf and Prime Minister Singh had
actually been quite productive, particularly in producing
results on the ground in Kashmir, but they've been in abeyance
now for I think slightly more than 2 years.
So we've encouraged both countries to begin a dialogue.
They are going to be doing so. There will be a meeting within
days, as I recall the date, and we are sensitive to the
concerns that they each have that it's--it's their issues that
they have to address, but we continue to raise it and make the
case to each separately as to why it's in their mutual
interests to proceed.
What's going on in Pakistan right now is very significant.
The increasing efforts by the Pakistani Military and
Intelligence Services to capture Taliban leaders, which they've
done, to work with the United States, both on the civilian and
the military side, better to assist in what they're doing to
reclaim territory from Swat to North Waziristan.
We're trying to create a new relationship with Pakistan
that is of longer duration and--and making the Pakistanis know
that we're in it for the long term.
With India, we've had a very successful start to this
administration building on, frankly, the success and the
investment of the prior two administrations in working with
India, creating more opportunities for investment, more
relationship-building between our two governments.
So I think that in these two areas, which are two of the
most significant areas for America's long-term security, we are
working very hard and, you know, trying to make even, you know,
very small but significant progress in any way we can.
SYRIA
Senator Gregg. Thank you. I noticed we just appointed an
Ambassador to Syria. There has been some slight opening, very
slight opening of dialogue there.
Can you tell us where you see that going?
Secretary Clinton. Senator, we have. We decided to return
an Ambassador. We've been without one since 2005. We have a
very experienced diplomat, Robert Ford, who has served in Iraq
as the political director, is fluent in Arabic, lots of
experience in the region.
I agree with your characterization that there's a slight, a
slight opening for us to build on. We've had high-level visits,
highly ranking Members of Congress have also gone to Syria in
the last year, but there are a lot of issues between our
Government and the Syrian Government, and we've been absolutely
clear about those issues.
Just recently Under Secretary Bill Byrnes had very intense
substantive talks in Damascus and we have laid out for the
Syrians the need for greater cooperation with respect to Iraq,
the end to interference in Lebanon, and the transport or
provision of weapons to Hezbollah, a resumption of the Israeli-
Syrian track on the peace process which had been proceeding
through the auspices of the Turks the last years, and generally
to begin to move away from the relationship with Iran which is
so deeply troubling to the region as well as to the United
States.
There are many specifics under each of those big ticket
items that we have discussed with the Syrians and, you know, we
are going to resume ambassadorial level representation, but
these issues have to be addressed continually.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Madam Secretary, it's so great to welcome
you back to the Senate. We miss you, and we know today you've
really presented an appropriations request representing your
role as the CEO of the State Department as well as America's
top diplomat.
Reading the budget, I see where the President, with your
advice and to us, meets compelling human need around the world.
It's in our strategic interest. It re-establishes relationships
with treasured allies, and I know I speak in a heartfelt way
that the focus on women and girls in development.
Also, I note the--your desire to reinvigorate and re-
establish the professionalism that once was the hallmark of
AID. So we appreciate that.
IRAN
Let me get right to my questions. One--one, I want to
associate myself with the remarks of Senator Leahy about Iran
and we would hope to discuss after this hearing how we could
follow up on that close alignment, but do you--I'm concerned
that there is a lack of intensity in the international arena as
we push or advocate for sanctions.
My concern is that Russia and China are slow walking us.
You might or might not want to comment on that, but is it your
view and the administration's view that we'll move with our own
sanctions after the international community acts or are we not
going to wait for them or is that yet to be determined?
Secretary Clinton. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for
your encouragement and support of our initiatives, particularly
around women and girls. I--I appreciate that very much.
With respect to Iran, I feel the intensity of our efforts
very personally because I have been out there engaged in
bilateral and multilateral diplomacy with countries that we are
moving toward an acceptance of the need for greater pressure on
Iran.
You know, when President Obama came to office, he very
clearly, and I think correctly, laid out what we needed to do.
He said, look, we'll extend our hand, but you have to unclench
your fist, and from the very beginning he said we will have a
two-track process. We will engage, but it's a two-way street.
There has to be something coming back and we will pursue
pressure and sanctions in order to change behavior and to send
as clear an international signal as possible that Iran's
pursuit of nuclear weapons will not be allowed.
Now, I believe that because of the President's policy of
engagement, we are in a much stronger position today than we
would have been in the absence of all of our efforts. We have
kept the so-called P5+1, which is the United Kingdom, France,
Germany, China, Russia, and us, united until now. We have
issued very strong statements, with both Russia and China
signing on, endorsing this dual track approach.
We have demonstrated to countries that are somewhat
ambivalent, to say the least, about going against Iran what it
is we are trying to achieve and pointing out the problems that
Iran poses to them.
So just in the last, you know, month, I've attended a
London conference on Afghanistan and Pakistan but spent an
enormous amount of time in bilateral negotiations with all of
the major parties about Iran. I went to Saudi Arabia and Qatar
last week. I'm on my way to Latin America next week, and Iran
is at the top of my agenda, and in the Security Council our
negotiations are very intensely under way.
There's been an enormous amount of work done by the
Treasury Department and the State Department to design
sanctions that will be aimed at the Revolutionary Guard. I
think we've made tremendous progress with Russia and I believe
it is due to the President's engagement with Medvedev and our
very clear, consistent message over this past year about the
way we see Iran which the Russians now are endorsing.
With China, because of their dependence on Iranian oil, our
arguments to them are somewhat different, that because of their
dependence, they, above all, should be supporting a sanctions
pressure track because an arms race in the gulf that would
further destabilize the major oil producers is not in China's
interests and I think we've made a lot of progress.
Now we don't come out and do a press conference every time
we have these meetings, but I have seen over the past year the
attitudes about Iran evolve. So even countries that are still
not sure they want to sign up to sanctions, they're not sure
they want to oppose them, they now understand why the United
States views Iran's behavior as a threat.
And, finally, Senator, I want us to work in tandem as a
United States Government. The administration and the Congress
together focused on what are the smartest, toughest sanctions
that can be legislated that will assist our efforts because we
want to make sure that we don't send wrong messages before we
get everybody signed up to whatever we can achieve
internationally.
Senator Mikulski. Well, thank you very much, Madam
Secretary. It's very clear we appreciate your personal hands-on
robust involvement in moving this agenda forward and we salute
you for identifying the risk of a lackluster response to Iran
that would not only endanger our security, treasured allies',
but also the rest of the world. So we thank you for that.
We also want to thank you for your speech on China and the
cyber world. Senator Bond and I are on the Intelligence
Committee. I'm on a task force on the--on the cyber terrorism
issue. We want to work--today, this is not the environment to
have this conversation. A more classified one would be
appropriate.
But I believe that cyber terrorism, cyber intrusion is
really one of the biggest threats facing the United States and
the free world. If the terrorists can attack and steal our
ideas or place our critical assets into jeopardy, it is--has
the potency that I believe is far more dangerous than even
nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. So that's a
topic for other discussion.
HAITI
But I'd like to just shift in my time left to a compassion
issue which is Haiti. We really want to salute the
administration and work with the Congress on our response to
Haiti as well as President Bill Clinton's Global Initiative.
I worry about compassion fatigue, not of our country but of
allies, and I wonder how you see that and, number 2, what do
you see are the future sustained efforts?
I represent a substantial number of NGOs that are
headquartered in Maryland, like Catholic Relief, and then
there's another issue that I'd like you to consider and follow
up with your staff. That is the issue of amputees.
Secretary Clinton. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. In all of the terrible tragedy, so much
of the population has suffered amputation. My colleague,
Senator Leahy, has been one of the leaders. I had the great
honor of being with him in Mozambique where he had created a
low-tech but highly effective industry where people who had
been victims of land mines, children, adults, the elderly, and
I saw where they could make their own products that could help
them sustain themselves in a very rugged environment.
I was so proud of what Senator Leahy did, and I really
bring this to the attention that Senator Leahy, with his
leadership as the Chair, your work in Haiti, that we take
special attention to that.
I've reached out to the Bloomberg School of Public Health.
I have a list of people who've done this around the world where
there are models and lessons learned, but again it was the
Leahy leadership in Africa and your work here because what I
fear is, after the TV cameras leave and we want to go rebuild a
country that's 80 percent agriculture, they won't be able to do
the work and also could that also be another source of
employment right there in country.
So you might not have the answer today, but I'd like to lay
that out as a policy direction that perhaps we could pursue.
Secretary Clinton. Could I take a little time, Mr.
Chairman, to respond because this is----
Senator Leahy. Sure.
Secretary Clinton. I was smiling because I had a meeting--
--
Senator Leahy. I should note that the Secretary, when she
was in----
Senator Mikulski. Are you all aware of this?
Senator Leahy [continuing]. The Senator supported me on
every one of these efforts to help with amputees----
Senator Mikulski. Well, he's been the leader.
Senator Leahy [continuing]. As has the Senator from
Maryland.
Secretary Clinton. Well, I was meeting with Dr. Roj Shah,
our new USAID Administrator, telling him about this work that
Senator Leahy has led and that so many of us supported for
exactly the reasons that you're pointing out, Senator Mikulski.
The amputation issue is going to be one we have to address.
We're trying to put together a plan now and I would like to
come back to all of you who are concerned about this to make
sure that you know what we're doing, that we have all the
information you have at your fingertips, the experience that
resides here on this subcommittee, and that we have adequate
funding to address it because I think that is a wonderful
compassion initiative for the United States.
But to your other point, Senator, I am very heartened by
what I see happening in the international community. Every
single country in the Western Hemisphere has contributed
something to Haiti and they have made a collective commitment
of money, plus individual countries, like Brazil and Mexico,
that have more capacity, but even poor countries, like
Guatemala. The Dominican Republic has been extraordinary in
what it has done for its neighbor.
We're having a conference that is co-hosted by the United
States, the United Nations, and major donor countries at the
United Nations on March 31 to really nail down these
commitments.
The United States is working very closely with the Haitian
Government to stand up a development authority that will be
supported to fulfill the reconstruction and recovery work now
that the relief phase is ending.
But I think this is an opportunity for us. Our military
performed admirably and just completely eliminated any of those
old canards about the United States military in our hemisphere.
We had a very robust public diplomacy effort.
Under Secretary Judith McHale, whom you know, drove this
and we basically looked at every press coverage in the world
about what we were doing in Haiti. If there was a story that
was inaccurate or unfair, we immediately responded and the net
result is that I think the United States is seen as the leader
that we have been in doing this work.
Senator Mikulski. Well, that's fantastic. My time is up. I
have--I have a constituent who's in a Burmese prison and I'd
like to talk to you. Your staff has been great, but I'd like to
talk with you about more, perhaps other avenues for his
release.
Secretary Clinton. Good.
Senator Leahy. And the Secretary's been wonderful in being
accessible to us. I want to make sure everybody gets a chance
before she has to leave.
Senator Bond has been one of the hardest-working members of
this subcommittee. I want to make sure he gets a chance to be
heard.
Senator Bond. Mr. Chairman and I join with you and Senator
Gregg in issuing a very warm welcome to the Secretary back to
the Senate and I certainly join them in applauding your
leadership at the State Department.
I personally am delighted with your active support of the
concept of smart power, particularly in nations where we see
the threat of extremist violent terrorism in Islamic lands
threatening not only their people, our interests, their
neighbors, but the United States, and smart power, through the
use of diplomatic efforts, personal visits, economic
cooperation, two-way trade, investment, and educational
exchanges can work.
But one of the things that I have seen as I've traveled
around the world is the great need for more of your personnel
on the ground and I join with Senator Gregg in supporting--and
the chairman--in supporting your budget to rebuild our civilian
foreign assistance capacity. That's very important.
ASSISTANCE TO INDONESIA
As you may know, as you know, I'm interested in Southeast
Asia which the 10 nations comprise our fifth largest two-way
trading partner, equal--exports equal almost what we send to
China, and the keystone of that whole area is Indonesia.
I thank you for recognizing Indonesia's importance. One of
your first official visits was ensuring that the President can
go there. No better--no better example of our friendship, and I
just visited with President Yudhoyono last month who was
interested in far more United States investment and
participation.
And I guess the first question is does the administration
support any conditionality at all on the foreign military
assistance, foreign aid and foreign assistance to Indonesia?
Secretary Clinton. Senator, thank you for those--those
comments, and as you know, President Obama will be going to
Indonesia----
Senator Bond. Right.
Secretary Clinton [continuing]. In March with his family,
and we have been working hard with the Indonesian Government to
be able to be in a position where we can resume support for
vital security functions and we are looking at ensuring that
the Indonesian democracy that has taken hold there will make
sure that there's no resumption of any human rights abuses or
other kinds of behaviors that we, you know, deplore.
This is an area where Chairman Leahy has been a real
leader. We hope to be able to come before the President's trip
and brief you on how we would like to be able to move into a
new era of cooperation because the Indonesians have been very
helpful to us on counterterrorism. I think a lot of what
they've done in their own--in dealing with their own threats
has really been first, you know, first-rate in the sense of the
results that they've gotten, but we just have to make sure that
we're complying with all the legislative criteria and we think
we can do that.
Senator Bond. Well, Madam--Madam Secretary, I believe
there's a new era. It's been totally changed.
Secretary Clinton. I do.
Senator Bond. President Yudhoyono has reformed the
military, a former general. He stepped out of the military.
He's working to establish--and we need much stronger
cooperation to make sure the military leaders understand that
they are under civilian rule. We need to fight corruption and--
and ensure continued support. They need our active support
militarily but they need the support of private businesses and
I--as I've visited those countries, I find that American
business people abroad are penalized, facing double taxation.
I visited Thailand. The American Chamber of Commerce, there
is probably one of the best public diplomacy outreaches we
have. They have adopted school programs. They're constructing
playgrounds, libraries, water tanks, water filtration, helping
children with dental deformities, but the problem is that our
system of taxation penalizes the CEOs, so all the American
companies that could be leading for America have to be
Australians, Brits, or Kiwis because of our extra-territorial
taxation.
I just--I know that's a sensitive subject. I've been
fighting it, but what's your view of the role that private
American businesses' investment and participation in developing
countries can do to strengthen our relationship?
Secretary Clinton. Well, I believe very strongly that
American business is critical to American interests and
American security and prosperity.
I met this morning with two of our leading company CEOs,
Indra Nooyi from Pepsico and Jeff Immelt from GE, talking about
how the State Department and our commercial diplomacy efforts
need to be more in support of what American businesses are
doing because the competition is so rough.
Senator Bond. Right. And we--if we--with the double
taxation, the punitive taxation, we penalize them putting
American CEOs in--in charge of it.
AFGHANISTAN
I have lots more questions, but on--I want to turn to
Afghanistan. My staff met with Joann Herring, who's founded the
Marshall Fund Charities and during Charlie Wilson's Days in the
1980s, she was working to help the people of Afghanistan. She
has some views on a comprehensive approach to reconstruction
and development bringing NGOs together, and I would ask, number
1, that you at least give a hearing to them. They would like
USAID dollars. I hope you'll consider that.
AGRICULTURE
Also, I hope that you will--that the additional funds for
USAID will help them take agricultural experts. For 2 years,
this subcommittee supported me in putting $5 million in the
budget to send agriculture extension agents several years ago
to Afghanistan. They never got one there. The Missouri National
Guard has the Agricultural Development Team which is making a
tremendous difference in Nangahar Province.
I hope that there can be continued cooperation and
providing military--military-civilian support for improving
agriculture, teaching them not only to fish but to grow crops.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, again, I mean, you are
singing my song here because we are absolutely committed to
agricultural exports.
I don't know if this subcommittee has gotten a copy of the
Afghanistan and Pakistan Regional Stabilization Strategy. If
not, we will get copies to you. But in the section on
Rebuilding Afghanistan's Agricultural Sector, just a few
highlights. Eight-ninety agricultural experts, 64 from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), 25 from USAID, on the ground
in Afghanistan, working in the south and the east sectors with
our PRTs, our district support teams.
We've got USAID issuing vouchers to farmers in 18
provinces, particularly in Helmand and Kandahar, for inputs
offering, you know, better fruits, assistance with irrigation
and the like, and, finally, we're doing a high-impact
irrigation initiative because all of our agricultural experts
have told us that's key.
But there's a lot more, Senator, that I would like you to
know about because you have been right about this for years and
I think finally we're getting around to implementing it and we
are looking for assistance from land grant colleges and asking,
as well, that as we embed our civilians in with our military,
which is how we're getting into these combat or post-combat
zones, that we have the support that is needed to be able to
get out there and deliver these services to farmers and we're
doing that.
Senator Bond. I look forward to talking with the
appropriate staffers on your team about that because there's
much that we can.
Thank you.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much. Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome,
Madam Secretary. It's wonderful to see you back, and let me
just begin by thanking you for the very admirable way that you
have represented our country. Many of us are extremely proud. I
know it's a very, very difficult job that you have and you do
it very well on our behalf.
I also want to follow up with what Senator Bond said, that
I specifically appreciate your partnership with Secretary Gates
to marry the hard power of our military with the smart power of
our diplomacy over the long run. I believe that is going to pay
huge dividends and it's been missing in the last several years
and you have really filled the bill there.
I also want to acknowledge, as Senator Mikulski said, thank
you for always putting women in the forefront of this debate
because, as you know, women can be the drivers of economic
growth and social stability around the world. They're often
left out at our peril because no plans really work without them
being at the table and I think often they're left out, but with
your leadership, they have not been.
ORPHANS
In one particular area, Madam Secretary, I wanted to ask
you some questions about something you and I have worked on for
many years together and that is the rights of the world's
children, particularly orphans. This has been in the news from
day one in Haiti, but it really should be news all over the
world because conservative estimates have about the number
pegged at somewhere about a 163 million orphans. We don't know
the real number. We know that there are some issues with those
definitions. UNICEF's definition is a little bit different than
other definitions.
But my point is this or my question is this. Senator Inhofe
and I and other members in a bipartisan way have introduced a
bill called The Families for Orphans Act which is pending
before the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate now. This
bill would establish in the State Department an opportunity to
focus on the plight of orphans and to promote the simple but
profound concept that children belong in families. They don't
belong in institutions. They can't raise themselves on the
streets. If we want to stop trafficking, if we want to stop
exploitation of children, prostitution of children, the best
thing to do would be to put them under the watchful eye and
care of a family. So that's what our bill attempts to do.
Could you give us your views about our efforts there, if
you're familiar with the specific aspects of this bill, please
comment, but what are your general views about what we could do
to focus our efforts and the world's efforts to really connect
orphans to families that need them or children that need
families?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, let me start by
acknowledging and thanking you for your passion about this. You
and I have both worked together on this and talked over many
years about it, but you've been the leader. You have really
demonstrated a heartfelt commitment to the world's children in
so many different aspects.
I share that commitment and I am looking for the best way
forward, how we can realize the positive results that we both
see, because I share your conviction that, you know, the best
place for a child is in a family and it may not be a family
with a mother and a father, it might be grandparents, it might
be older siblings, it might be aunts or uncles or even in some
societies extended families, and so there are three areas that
I think we have to focus on.
One, there is in many parts of the world no capacity for
absorbing orphans and no real sense of adoption or fostering in
any organized institutional way. So I think we need to up our
outreach to provide education, technical capacity, to help
countries because in some countries adoption is really against
the culture and so if they're not some blood connection, the
child has nowhere to go, and I think there's a slow change in
this but we have to do more in a public diplomacy outreach way
and I'd like to work with you on that.
Second, in times of crisis, we have to have our systems in
place, we certainly saw that in Haiti, because there's a lot of
misunderstanding, there's confusion in any disaster. So we're
working on kind of a lessons learned from--from disasters, from
conflict situations about what more can be done, and we need
high-level advocacy.
We have a Children's Office in the State Department. It
would be, you know, my preference that we sort of build that up
because I want it embedded. I don't want it to be--I don't want
this to be an add-on. I want it to be permeate what I'm trying
to do with women, is to permeate the Department so that women
are part of the policy. If you're serving in Europe or Africa
are part of the policy. If you're doing outreach in Angola, we
are just going to try to permeate.
I want the same attitude about children. So we need--we
need better education, more technical capacity, more direction
and support, and I'd like to work with you to make sure that
what we're doing will actually have the results that we both
seek.
Senator Landrieu. And I appreciate that, and I thank you
for pointing out that in many countries of the world there
isn't the same urgency or appreciation for the strength of
families that exists in America, but just because people can't
appreciate that doesn't necessarily mean that it's not the
right thing and I appreciate your commitment.
One figure that I want to throw out today because these
figures are hard to come by and some people throw up their
hands and say the problem is overwhelming, we can't address it,
but I want to leave you with these numbers. If you just took 50
percent of the estimated orphans, Senator, Secretary Clinton,
that would be roughly 70 million children.
There are 2.5 billion families in the world. So if only
2\1/2\ percent of families in the world, only 2\1/2\ percent
opened up their homes and their hearts, there would be no
orphans left in the world. So while these numbers seem
overwhelming, when you put them in perspective to how many
parents would adopt, how many families want to open up their
homes, how many churches, synagogues and mosques are willing to
step up, it's just the government enterprises have to get
themselves better organized.
So I know you're a great leader in this area. I look
forward to working with you, and I know that your position is
generally against institutional care and for care in families.
So thank you very much and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
your leadership on this issue, as well.
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much, Senator. We all know
the amount of time and effort you have spent on this issue and
I applaud you for it.
Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam
Secretary, I've got three areas that I'm going to mention and
I'm hopeful that you'll be able to respond to at least one of
them and if we don't get a second round, Mr. Chairman, I would
hope that the people that are here would respond to them to me
in writing.
First of all, I want to congratulate you on putting
together a great team. I don't know of any Secretary of State
that's had more on their plate than you have and I do
understand that you can't do it alone.
I also applaud the fact that you have created two Deputy
Secretaries, one for management and one for policy. As you
know, I've been critical of the former administration because
they didn't pay enough attention to management.
I want to tell you that the most important--one of the most
important things you've done for your people is the issue of
location pay----
Secretary Clinton. Yes.
Senator Voinovich [continuing]. And I hope that that is
reflected in this budget. The Foreign Relations Committee
hasn't yet set out their vision, I guess, for the next 5 years,
but that's important.
Second of all, I'd like to say that where the Visa Waiver
Program has worked, they have less work than they had before
because of that program.
And last but not least, the Embassies. I visited a couple
of countries and they're really pleased with those Embassies
and I think it's important to the countries because it
indicates to them that the United States is really interested
in them and their future.
ASSISTANCE FOR EUROPE, EASTERN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA
Last week I was in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia,
Kosovo, and Serbia with Senator Shaheen, and I know you're
focused on Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan, but probably more
than maybe some other Secretary of State, I know that you're
interested in that region. We have spent a lot of time, a lot
of money, and I'm concerned that if we don't pay attention to
it, all of the progress that we have made may be--may be for
naught.
The good news, when I visited these countries, they didn't
mention the FMA or IMET, but what they did mention was the
State partnership that they have with our states. This wasn't
in this trip but when I was in Latvia the last time, the
Latvian group going to Afghanistan had the Michigan National
Guard serving under it and I know that the Ohio Guard is doing
a fantastic job in Serbia today. Just to hear their Defense
Minister talk about that partnership, it just gives me goose
bumps.
Second of all, you know that their budgets are not very
good. They've got the same problems we have, but they're
helping us, many of them, in Afghanistan and Kosovo, and they
care about the regions.
It's interesting. Each of these countries, you know,
they're concerned about themselves, but they realize they have
a symbiotic relationship with the other countries that--that
are there and their vision is my vision, that they all get in
the European Union (EU), they become part of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO), and then become part of the
EuroAtlantic Alliance, and a couple of things they're concerned
about.
One is EU membership. They know that there's fatigue today
in the European Union and many of them were using it as an
incentive to get them to do some things they wanted to do but
they're afraid that they'll never in the European Union.
Most of them were concerned about Bosnia. Put in a
nutshell, the Butmir Process has not worked. No progress will
be made on that, they think, and this is the consensus, till
after the election, but what they're worried about is that in
the election, they'll poison the well so that after the
election, the issue of changing the Constitution to give it
more flexibility is not going to occur and they argue
strenuously for Bosnia getting into the European Visa Waiver
Program and they also think it's very important that some
indication of their getting IPMAP is--is--or MAP is going to--
is going to happen.
And their concern is that Dodik right now and his
president, one of the three presidents is in favor of--of NATO
membership, but after the election, they think possibly this
thing would just blow up and then we'll have a black hole there
in that part of the world.
In addition to that, they're all concerned about Kosovo
because you know the court's going to decide one way or the
other on Kosovo and when I talked with Prime Minister Thaci, I
said, ``You ought to be thinking about what's going to happen
here,'' and I talked to the Serbs. ``You've got to think about
what's going to happen on the ground,'' and I think it's real
important that the State Department encourage them to do that.
AFGHANISTAN
The last part of this deals with--with Afghanistan. I had--
I was honored that Holbrook spent a couple hours. I went over
there and spent--I was absolutely impressed with what they're
doing, but I don't think that we have been candid enough with
the American people about the commitment that we're going to
have to make in Afghanistan if we intend to be successful.
Now you've mentioned some of the things that you're doing,
but this is not going to be next year or the year after. This
is maybe 5 to 10 years. It could even be more than that if
we're going to create an environment where the Taliban, who--
you know, it's with them, you know, it's Alakbat, okay. That's
what you're dealing with and so you're going to have to really
do a lot of work there to counter that and get people to feel
good about it and you're also going to have to make--and you
should level with the American people. Okay?
The last time around, if you remember, we were there is
that we did not level with the American people about the
commitment that we're going to have to make. We're just kind
of--and we need to put it out. This is a commitment we're going
to have to make. The Europeans, by the way, also want to know
about the commitment in terms of military and in terms of
their--what do you call them--P----
Secretary Clinton. PRTs.
Senator Voinovich. PRTs, and I congratulate you on getting
them all together. They don't feel like we're just telling them
what to do. There's a consensus and you've got to keep doing
it, but I think it's really important that--that we level with
the American people and the world about what kind of commitment
we're going to have to make to be successful in Afghanistan.
And last but not least, I'm concerned about whether
Karzai's going to do his thing and if you recall in terms of
Iraq, we laid out a whole list of things they promised to do
and then we used metrics to see whether or not they did them or
not, and I would think that, rather than having it come from
Congress, that you'd give some serious consideration to saying
here's what they did, we're going to monitor their progress so
that you can keep us informed and the American people that
they're doing what they're supposed to do because if they don't
do what they're supposed to do, we're in--we're in big trouble.
ASSISTANCE FOR EUROPE, EASTERN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, I don't think there's a
thing you said that I disagree with and I thank you for your
interest and focus on southern Europe.
We are very concerned, as well, about the direction we see
Bosnia heading. We need to have more attention paid. We need to
partner with the Europeans so that they are committed. We are
obviously a strong supporter of the countries in southern
Europe going into the EU. We think it has a lot of benefits for
the countries but also the broader effort for integration in
Europe and the TransAtlantic Alliance. But we also think, with
respect to NATO, that we have to make clear what it would take
to get MAP and then move Bosnia forward.
I think, you know, Senator, that your attention to these
issues is something that I'd like to take more advantage of
because you have been consistently concerned and involved. I
share your wariness about what happens after the court decision
in Kosovo and I think I'd like to follow up with you to make
sure that we convey to our Serbian friends and our Kosovar
friends that this has to be managed in the right way.
AFGHANISTAN
And, finally on Afghanistan, I agree that we have to be as
candid as possible. We can't lay down a clear path forward and
say this is the way it's exactly going to be, but we can
certainly set the general direction and we have said
consistently that our, you know, our goal is to transition
military security to the Afghans and we've seen some real
progress under General McChrystal and General Caldwell in
improvements in Afghan security, both Army and police
recruitment and retention and performance, but we are going to
have a long-term civilian relationship and we think we need
that. We think that's going to be in America's interests, and I
agree with you that we need to make that as clear as we can,
and we want also to use the metrics that we've developed that I
would hope have been shared with you, but if not, we will, as
to how we're going to try to hold the Karzai Government
accountable.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Senator Specter.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary,
thank you for taking on the job and the hard work and
successful work you're doing. We miss you in the Senate but we
like to see you where you are.
SYRIA
Thank you for the call from your Deputy Bill Burns about
his trip to Syria.
The question on my mind that I alerted him to this
yesterday as to whether the stalemate might be broken between
Syria and Israel on negotiations if the President were to
invite them to the Oval Office.
Back in 1995, Senator Hank Brown and I were in India and
Prime Minister Rao brought up the subject of his interest in
having the subcontinent nuclear-free and asked us to convey
that message to Prime Minister Bhutto whom we saw the next day
and we made a recommendation to President Clinton to consider
calling them in.
I had recalled the tremendous success that President
Clinton had with Yassir Arafat and Shimon Peres and Rabin that
memorable day on the White House Lawn.
Would you give consideration to that process? I have gotten
to know the Assads, both the father and the current president,
and I think the right nudge could push them to the table. We
came very close in 1995, came very close in 2000. The Turks
have been in the process of mediating, but would you consider
that?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, I certainly will look at
anything that might break the stalemate. I'm not sure that that
would be acceptable or doable to all of the parties involved,
but certainly our goal is to help facilitate a resumption of
talks between Israel and Syria. We think it's absolutely
necessary for Israel's security and future to try to move the
whole region toward a more peaceful state. So we'll certainly
take--take any idea you have under consideration because you
have been--I don't know how many times you've been to Syria by
now.
Senator Specter. Eighteen.
Secretary Clinton. Eighteen. It's more than anybody else
that I personally know. So we take what you say and that's why
Under Secretary Burns called to report to you. We take what you
say, you know, very seriously and we'll certainly consider it.
Senator Specter. I have been concerned about the gridlock
in Congress for many reasons, but from what I have read and
heard, it has had an impact on our stature internationally.
The President came on with a great promise and, I think,
did materially change the world's view of the United States for
a number of reasons and I think not only has President Obama
been diminished but so has the presidency and for that matter
so has the ability of governance by the Congress of the United
States, very, very problem-some, and we ought to be backing up
the President on matters that he has to deal with of such
gigantic importance.
I read your statement across the board, Iran and North
Korea and the Mid East and Afghanistan and everywhere.
May the record show an affirmative nod? We trial lawyers
use that procedure sometimes not being sure what the answer
will be.
What do you--what do you think?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, I have great affection
and admiration for the Senate. The 8 years I was privileged to
serve here were extraordinarily meaningful to me, but
unfortunately I have to agree with you.
SENATE CONFIRMATION PROCESS
The gridlock over nominations is particularly troubling.
We're now, you know, what, more than 1 year into a new
administration and whether you agree or disagree with a
particular policy, a president deserves to have the people that
he nominates serving him and I would earnestly request the
attention of this committee to filling the USAID appointments.
We finally got Dr. Shah nominated and confirmed. There was no
delay on that, and I thank you for it, but he has no team and
we've got to get that moving as quickly as possible.
But I--I have to confess that when it came to some
Assistant Secretary positions, some ambassadorial positions, it
became harder and harder to explain to countries, particularly
countries of significance, why we had nobody in position for
them to interact with.
So I--I think that, as we move forward, there are many
things to argue about and I am the strongest advocate of
people, you know, arguing out positions in a civil way that
hopefully sheds more, you know, light than smoke, but on the
question of nominations, I hope that we all can move more
quickly and particularly on the AID front and the ambassadorial
front.
Senator Specter. Well, I will help you with that, but,
Madam Secretary, beyond the confirmations, is my perception
right or wrong that what has happened on gridlock goes beyond
that? The weakening of the President? Everybody reads the
public opinion polls. He's not able to project the same kind of
stature and power that he did a year ago because we're--because
he's being hamstrung by--by the Congress and it has an impact
on foreign policy which we really ought to do everything we can
not to have partisanship influence.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, I think there is
certainly a perception that I encounter in representing our
country around the world that supports your characterization.
People don't understand the way our system operates. They just
don't get it, and their view is--does color whether the United
States is in a position, not just this President but our
country is in a position going forward to demonstrate the kind
of unity and strength and effectiveness that I think we have to
in this very complex and dangerous world, and, you know, we're
always going to have differences between the executive and the
legislative branch.
Having served on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, that's
par for the course. That's democracy. You know, we're not going
to do anything that will undermine that, but I do think we have
to be attuned to how the rest of the world sees the functioning
of our Government because it's an asset. It may be an
intangible asset but it's an asset of great importance and as
we sell democracy and we're the lead democracy in the world, I
want people to know that we have checks and balances, but we
also have the capacity to move, too.
So it is--it is a concern of mine, and I--I hope that we
can figure out a better way to address it.
Senator Specter. No more questions, Mr. Chairman, but a
comment.
IRAN
On Iran, I hope you will figure out something that we can
get the Chinese to go along with, which is tough enough, to get
some sense out of Iran because that boiling pot is not going to
simply boil forever.
And the final comment is I know you've done a great deal on
the three hikers in Iran, one of whom lives in the Philadelphia
suburbs, Joshua Fattal, but whatever in addition can be done,
it would be greatly appreciated in many quarters.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you, sir.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. I'm going to yield back to
Senator Bennett, but on Iran, I'm going to leave with you and
your staff an op-ed in the New York Times by Roger Cohen about
what we prevent from going to Iran. One of the things he
suggests we shouldn't be preventing is the equipment they might
need to get on the Internet. That's kind of a layman's
description of it.
I would look at that especially as they're working so hard
to block the Internet, anything we can do there which will get
around the government's censorship would be helpful.
Secretary Clinton. If I could, Mr. Chairman, I just want to
respond to Mr. Cohen's column. It references a pending license
that was held up in the Treasury Department. That has now been
moved, perhaps there's a cause and effect there, and it is now
in the State Department and we intend to act on it
expeditiously.
Senator Leahy. As the old serials on radio would say, my
work here is done.
Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
join, Madam Secretary, my colleagues in welcoming you back to
your old stomping grounds. Seeing you on the other side of the
table is a different kind of reaction, but we're always happy
to see you, regardless of the circumstance.
Coming as late in the questioning as I do, I won't rehash
many of the things that have been said by my colleagues, but I
will not let the opportunity to mention Iran and the Iran
Sanctions Act go unchosen. I won't have to add anything to the
things that have been said, but I believe that's extremely
important, whatever you can do to see to it that the Russians
and the Chinese are helpful to us here. I won't go into
territory about what I think may be happening with both Russia
and China because I don't want to say anything that makes any
particular headlines.
But I understand from reading history that Ronald Reagan
used to drive Mikhail Gorbachev crazy by quoting the old
Russian aphorism ``Trust but verify,'' and Gorbachev finally
said to Reagan in an outburst, ``You keep saying that,'' and I
think he did keep saying that and we should keep saying that.
So with respect to Iran and what the Russians and the
Chinese are doing, just remember the Russian proverb that an
American president enjoyed so much.
So I will turn to two subjects that have not been raised,
both of which are enthusiasms of mine that I've been involved
with in the subcommittee while I've been on it. The first one
is the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the second one is
micro lending and micro enterprise.
MICROLENDING AND MICROENTERPRISE
If I can start with the second first, just I'm very proud
of the fact that as long as I've been on this subcommittee, the
pressure for micro lending has always been strong and the
number has always gone up and I don't think there's anything we
can do that makes more sense in the poor parts of the world
than encourage micro lending.
I have some of the articles that have been produced by
women who have received micro loans. They offered to make me a
deal. I said no, I don't want a discount, I'll pay the full
price for this because it's still very low and I want you to be
as encouraged as you can.
Would you talk to Secretary Geithner to talk about
increasing U.S. support at the World Bank? I've talked to the
World Bank about this and I get lots of encouraging words back,
but I'm not sure there's been as much movement at the World
Bank as perhaps there should be and I hope that the State
Department will continue to be as supportive and increase as
much as they possibly can in these budgetary times support for
micro lending.
Do you have a comment on that before we turn to the
Millennium Challenge Corporation?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, I share your enthusiasm.
I've worked in micro enterprise since 1983 in Arkansas. I
championed it when I was First Lady and I supported programs,
along with you and others, when I was a Senator and we are very
focused on micro enterprise and we're also looking at some new
ways of accomplishing the goals of the Micro Enterprise Results
and Accountability Act of 2004.
We are looking at how we can fund institutions more
effectively, leverage the money, and the World Bank is a big--
has a big role in this. So I will gladly pass on your comments
to Secretary Geithner.
Senator Bennett. Yeah. My own experience with the World
Bank, as I say, is they talk a good fight but they get carried
away with, well, we can do this, we can do that, and all these
other things with respect to financial services, and--and
that's wonderful, but in the meantime make the loans.
Secretary Clinton. Right.
Senator Bennett. Don't study this thing to death----
Secretary Clinton. Right.
Senator Bennett [continuing]. And look at possibilities. I
want the possibilities to come true, but in the meantime let's
make the loans.
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION
All right. The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), I
met with the new CEO whom I find very impressive, and the
concern that many of us have with respect to the Millennium
Challenge Corporation is that the current administration might
take steps to curb its independence and one of its values, I
think, has been that it is an independent agency with strong
guidance from a board of directors which you chair.
But can it maintain its independence or is there still
conversation about folding it into something else that would
make it more part of the State Department bureaucracy or the
AID bureaucracy, and the budget is the lowest request that
we've had since it began. I'd like you to address those two
issues.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, I do chair the board and
I'm very, very proud and happy to do so and I have publicly
applauded the Bush administration for both MCC and PEPFAR which
I think were significant advances in how we think about and do
development.
There have been no conversations that I have been part of
or that I'm aware of about curbing the independence of the MCC.
I think that there are, as you know, some legislative fixes
that need to be done so that compacts can be extended, so that
money can be rolled over, and that the mission of the MCC
really focused on the kind of conditions-based aid that will
change behaviors and increase capacity can be supported more
effectively.
So I--I am a strong advocate of the MCC. I think actually
some of the lessons that we have learned from the MCC are part
of our QDDR process and will be influencing how we do aid
elsewhere, but, you know, it won't surprise you, I'm not
telling you anything you don't know, that there is a division
of opinion within the Congress concerning the MCC. There are
very strong supporters and there are very strong detractors.
But I think that on balance the MCC has proven itself. I
think its--its independence has been beneficial, but I do want
it to be seen as part of our overall efforts, not that it's
going to be in any way undermined, but that it is part of how
we deliver aid. It's not, you know, some add-on that is stuck
out in left field. It is something that is integral to what the
United States Government is doing and it's a model that I
happen to hold in high regard.
Senator Bennett. Well, I recognize there are some strong
supporters and some strong opponents. Put me down as a strong
supporter, and my--my goal is--is not to fund monuments
overseas. We go overseas and we see U.S. money going to create
something which then isn't maintained or doesn't provide any
long term. I want to fund movement, movements toward the kinds
of developments that are long term and become sustaining, and I
think the MCC has that particular vision.
So I applaud your support and if you need any support on
this side in this subcommittee, why, put me down as one who's
available.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, I just want to make sure
that the record accurately reflects, thanks to the good
information from my team here, we're actually increasing the
MCC budget. We have a 15 percent increase over fiscal year
2010. We've asked for $1.279 billion. That's a $174 million
over fiscal year 2010. So we're increasing the MCC budget by 15
percent.
Senator Bennett. Oh, I'll get back into that then. Thank
you. I appreciate that.
Secretary Clinton. If you have any questions, please call
us.
Senator Bennett. I will.
Secretary Clinton. We'll walk through them with you.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Senator Bennett. Senator
Brownback.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Madam Secretary. Appreciate you being here, appreciate the way
you represent us around the world and your high energy levels.
I'm sure it takes every bit of it.
Secretary Clinton. Yes, it does, Senator.
Senator Brownback. I've got a couple of items I want to run
through with you, all of which you're familiar with, but a
couple really need your action.
INTERNET FREEDOM
We've appropriated to the State Department I think it's $20
million for Internet firewall, getting through the Internet
firewall. I was at your speech that you gave on this recently
over at the Newseum. Congressman Wolf and I wrote you about
this in 2009. Senators Specter, Casey, Kauffman, Kyl, and I
wrote you about this.
We've allocated the money to the State Department but State
Department hasn't given any of it to the Global Internet
Freedom Consortium. This is the group I found the most
effective in doing this. They believe they could get a capacity
in the anti-firewall area from 1.5 million now people that can
get through these firewalls to 50 million users a day with the
amount of money we put forward.
I got two letters here to you from basically Chinese
dissident groups and Iranian dissident groups saying would you
please allocate this money to the Global Internet Freedom
Group?
There's a recent Washington Post report from an unnamed
senior administration spokesman saying the reason they're not
going to the Global Internet Freedom Consortium is because the
Chinese Government would ``go ballistic'' if this were done.
These are--a number of these are Chinese dissidents that are
operating in these firewall items but they've been very
successful on rudimentary, no help from the U.S. Government and
with it, they can smash through the Iranian firewall and
probably the Chinese firewall, as well, and I just would really
urge you to look at it.
I'm going to give you these two letters----
Secretary Clinton. Good. Thank you, sir.
Senator Brownback [continuing]. From those groups because
that's in your wheelhouse already. You've spoken about it.
You've got the money. We need to get it to a good group.
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
Second, I know you've been to Congo a few months back.
That's been a personal interest of mine and Senator Durbin's,
as well. I think we have the chance here to defund the militias
that are--that are really just wreaking havoc all over Eastern
Congo but the key is the--the minerals, conflict commodities.
It's the--it's--it's the blood diamonds issue, only got four
commodities you're dealing with, and I think at the core of the
issue is that--that we require companies that are going to sell
products into the United States, they've got to have a license
on the products, a license on the minerals coming out.
We want you to sell the minerals, Congo. We want you to be
able to get the income, but on an item like coltan that's in
cellphones that Congo has 80 percent of the African coltan and
then it comes out and these militias, this is the way they fund
themselves is they kind of operate the concessions or let
people come and go, and then that funds the soldiers.
If we could just require licensing on minerals that come
out of Congo, I really think--and this by the big companies, I
really think it would defund the militias and much of this goes
away, not all of it but a lot of it. In the blood diamonds case
in West Africa, this thing mostly defunded the militias which
is what we got to do. We got to get the money away from the
militias and there's a bill in both the House and the Senate.
We have companion bills in each House that would do this.
We've worked for several years to work with the companies,
with the government, you know, that--that this is a way that
could do this without hurting Congo and without hurting the
businesses. So I think we've found how to do it, but we really
need your backing and support and I don't know of anything that
could--could help that war-weary place and it's--it's
probably--it's hard to say, but this probably is the worst
suffering in the world right now, is in--is in Eastern Congo
and it's big, it's big. I mean, it's 60 million people in
Congo.
SUDAN
The third item is Sudan. I was pleased to see this recent
agreement signed on Darfur. I'm going to watch and see if it--
if it actually holds, but Southern Sudan, as you know, is going
to be voting fairly soon on whether to move out of the Union
with Northern Sudan. They've been--you know they've had a
conflict for a long period of time.
I would really hope that State Department and the White
House could start working with Southern Sudan more like a
country and helping them get established and visible. I've
thrown out, you know, that if the President or if you could
meet with the leadership of Southern Sudan, the President could
meet in the White House with them as a statement of support for
them.
They've got--I've been urging them, saying why don't you
get a basketball team together and start traveling in America
with the Southern Sudanese. They've got--you know, the Dinka
Tribe dominated and they're very tall. They've got 10 guys, Mr.
Chairman, over seven feet tall playing basketball in Southern
Sudan.
So I'm saying just show up. You may get beat up by 40
points but everybody's going to say where did these guys come
from and I thought--I told them, I said, ``I don't know of a
better way to get on the view screen in America faster than
showing up with four guys over seven feet tall playing
basketball.''
MIDDLE EAST
Anyway, just if you could work with them, I think it's
really an important phase, and I want to finish my comments
with you on this. This is--this is a really tough one, I know,
but I think it's time for us to review our Embassies in Israel
and review again with the depth of review moving it from Tel
Aviv to Jerusalem. Long issue, old issue. I know all of the
thorns that are around it, but it seems to me that now is a
good time to do this, that we're starting to talk about a two-
state solution, have for a couple years.
Another key issue is the final status of Jerusalem. This is
a negotiation just between us and the Israeli Government. I
think it would be a very strong statement. It's the only
capital in the world where we don't put our Embassy in the
capital city. It would be obviously well received by the
Israelis. It might irritate the Iranians. I'm okay with
irritating the Iranians right now with everything that they're
doing. I realize it has broader impact, but I think, you know,
these things have timings to them, as you know better than
anybody, and I think this is ripe now for a discussion to
begin, particularly when we've had now a couple years of
discussion about a two-state solution.
I think we need to be clear that we believe Jerusalem's the
capital of Israel and we're going to--we're going to act that
way.
So I thank you for considering these comments and would
love to work with you on any of them.
Secretary Clinton. Well, we will get back to you on all of
them, Senator, because each and every one of them is very
important. I appreciate your concerns about them.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Leahy. The hearing record will remain open until
Monday, March 1, for the submission of any written questions
for the Secretary. I know we've gone beyond the time that was
allocated for the hearing.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. I was surprised that the budget recommends a cut of $87
million from the fiscal year 2010 level for aid for refugees. Given
what we know about the pressures on this account, aren't you
essentially forcing us to rob funds from other accounts to be sure that
the most vulnerable people are not disproportionally hurt?
Answer. Supporting humanitarian assistance to and the protection of
refugees, internally displaced populations, other conflict victims,
stateless people, and vulnerable migrants remains a top Administration
priority. While the President's fiscal year 2011 MRA request of $1.605
billion is lower than the fiscal year 2010 appropriated level of $1.693
billion, it represents a 9 percent increase over the fiscal year 2010
MRA request of $1.48 billion. To assist in meeting humanitarian
requirements in fiscal year 2011, the Administration also requested $45
million in the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) Fund
to meet urgent and unexpected needs. The Administration will continue
to monitor worldwide humanitarian needs closely.
Question. You have requested another $25 million to support Jewish
migrants to Israel, which is the only instance in which we carve out an
amount of funds for a designated group of refugees. The Congress has
consistently supported this. Would you support similar carve outs for
other designated groups of migrants, for example, Somalis who seek
refuge in Yemen, and if not why not?
Answer. The Humanitarian Migrants to Israel program provides a
critical service to Jewish migrants to Israel. While the Administration
appreciates congressional support for this program, we would not
support similar carve outs for other populations that we assist. The
Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account is a humanitarian
contingency account that serves the needs of refugees and conflict
victims worldwide. Given the fluid and ever-changing nature of
humanitarian situations, the flexibility provided within the MRA
account to respond to needs as they arise is critical to ensuring the
effectiveness of this assistance.
Question. You are requesting a $25 million cut in aid for Europe,
Eurasia and Central Asia. These include the former Soviet republics,
where democracy is being threatened every day. Given the importance of
strengthening our relationships with the people of these countries, why
does cutting these programs make sense?
Answer. We agree with you that strengthening our relationships with
the people of the countries of Eurasia and Central Asia is critically
important to the people of the United States. We recognize the
backsliding that has occurred in the establishment of democracy in
these countries--from flawed elections to stifling of media outlets.
We believe that the Administration's request for AEECA funding is
appropriate and reflects the needs of this region relative to critical
priorities in other parts of the world. The fiscal year 2011 request of
total assistance (all accounts) for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia
reflects only a 2.5 percent reduction (compared to the fiscal year 2010
estimate). The proposed allocations for fiscal year 2011 programs in
the democracy and governance area in the Assistance to Europe, Eurasia,
and Central Asia (AEECA) account represent only a 2.3 percent reduction
from the fiscal year 2010 estimate--slightly less than the overall 3.4
percent reduction in the account as a whole.
Though some needs in the region have increased, other areas require
fewer resources. Some nations in the region are beginning to make real
progress on economic and political reform. In addition, other nations
have significant energy wealth which they are applying to support their
own development, and which require our continued diplomatic efforts--
but not much more money--in order to try to bring human rights and
other important issues to the fore. Thanks to prior U.S. investment
some non-governmental organizations and legacy institutions are now a
sustained presence supporting democratic and economic reform in many
countries.
Finally, past investments in building the capacity of local
organizations have allowed us to utilize indigenous expertise for
program implementation, thereby permitting some cost savings within the
fiscal year 2011 level. Moreover, we are using our experience to be
more strategic in selecting the most cost-effective interventions and
are leveraging more sources of other USG and donor funding to
complement our assistance. In short, we believe that the levels of
funding in the fiscal year 2011 AEECA request will permit us to
continue to promote the transformation of these countries into market-
based democracies respectful of human rights and committed to the rule
of law.
AFGHANISTAN-PAKISTAN CIVILIAN SURGE
Question. You are requesting an increase of $1.4 billion for the
Economic Support Fund. The bulk is it is for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and
Iraq, which is separate from the $1.8 billion you have requested for
Afghanistan, $344 million for Pakistan, and $517 million for Iraq in
the supplemental.
I understand the motivation to increase aid to these countries
given what is at stake, but we have seen how difficult it is to spend
money effectively. The previous Administration wasted billions in top-
down programs, and measured results by the so-called ``burn rate''--how
fast money was spent, often through big contractors and corrupt
governments. You are asking for a lot more money, and that means
spending bigger and faster. Shouldn't we spend less, go slower, work
from the ground up--in other words, fundamentally change the way we
spend money in these countries?
How much are we spending through Afghanistan's central government,
and given press reports that top Afghan officials, including President
Karzai's family, are getting rich and buying mansions in Dubai, are
these the people we should be working with?
Answer. We have provided over $700 million to the Karzai government
between fiscal year 2002-2009. We are using this assistance to build
Afghan government capacity, which will help the Afghan government gain
the trust of its people through the delivery services. This direct
assistance is also transferring ownership and responsibility of our
assistance to Afghanistan to the Afghan people.
The Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF) is our primary
vehicle for channeling resources through the Government of the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan's (GIRoA) budget. This mechanism, which we
monitor carefully, strengthens GIRoA's capacity to prioritize, direct
and allocate resources. The ARTF also improves aid effectiveness by
serving as a collective platform for donor funding, reducing the need
to deal with all donors bilaterally. The governance and fiduciary
framework for the ARTF has strict systems in place to increase
accountability, transparency, and safeguards to ensure proper oversight
of U.S. taxpayer (and donor) resources.
We review the financial management, procurement and expenditure
systems of key ministries to help them increase their capacity to
accept U.S. direct assistance. Assessments (financial and procurement)
to determine Ministries' ability to account for and manage funds and
execute services are conducted at Ministries we intend to fund with
direct assistance. Ministries are recertified every 3 years. The USAID
controller leads this effort.
At the same time, we are taking a multi-pronged approach to
tackling corruption in Afghanistan. The U.S. government, with the
broader international community, is prepared to help the Afghan
government implement its strategy with programs designed to: (1)
improve the transparency and accountability of Afghan government
institutions to reduce corrupt practices; (2) improve financial
oversight; (3) build Afghan capacity to investigate, prosecute,
sanction and/or remove corrupt officials from power; and, (4) help
Afghans educate the public about efforts to reduce corruption and
improve the resources available for the public to demand and
participate in transparent and accountable governance. Initiatives
already underway include the Major Crimes Task Force, the Anti-
Corruption Unit at the Attorney General's office, and new programmatic
support for the High Office of Oversight. We are also working with the
Afghan Parliament to ensure ethics training is part of orientation for
new members of parliament, and oversight assistance training is
provided for members working on the national budget.
Strengthening the Government accountability and service delivery is
a key component of our larger strategy for stabilizing Afghanistan.
Along with our diverse counter corruption initiatives, our programs to
provide qualified civilian technical advisors and put in place sound
auditing and payment transmission systems will be an important step
toward stemming corruption and achieving our larger national security
goals in Afghanistan.
Question. Talking about ground up approaches to development, you
have probably read or at least heard of Greg Mortenson's book ``Three
Cups of Tea'' about building schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan. His
schools, with the support of local villagers, cost a fraction of the
schools we build and they are not destroyed by the Taliban. His
approach may not be the answer for everything we are trying to do, but
what have we learned from Mortenson's experience and how are we
applying those lessons?
Answer. Two key components of Greg Mortensen's approach to building
schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan are community buy-in and long term
investment. Both concepts continue to ground USAID education
programming in Afghanistan and Pakistan as we move forward implementing
USG strategy in this politically strategic region. The involvement of
the community is a critical aspect of sustainable development in the
education sector; USAID provincial programs in education incorporate
input of local leadership and provide support for school management
committees and parent teacher councils. In addition to fostering
community involvement, USAID/Afghanistan and USAID/Pakistan demonstrate
a long-term commitment to education by building capacity of government
agencies on the district, provincial, and Federal levels and of
nongovernmental organizations. These combined efforts to improve access
to, quality, and governance in education throughout both countries,
particularly in underserved areas and those vulnerable to extremism.
I would also like to provide you with a bit of background on
USAID's construction of schools in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Since
2002, USAID, in conjunction with the Ministry of Education (MoE), has
built or refurbished over 680 schools throughout Afghanistan, at a
total cost of $58 million. The preferred school design of the MoE is an
eight-classroom school. As a Government agency, USAID follows the
direction of the host government's MoE.
The MoE estimates that an eight-classroom primary school costs
approximately $160,000, while the cost of high schools differs greatly
based on their size and the equipment to be provided. Construction
costs can vary significantly depending on a number of factors,
including remoteness of location, difficulty of terrain, land
availability and the security environment.
Without knowing the particulars--including size and location--of
Greg Mortenson's schools, it is difficult to compare construction
costs. One of the key factors could be that Moretnson may be using
local materials, such as mud or brick, and that the school may not be
earthquake-resistant. Indeed, traditional Afghan construction is very
inexpensive but does not produce the types of buildings that will last
over time nor stand up to earthquakes. To the extent possible, USAID
uses local materials if they meet International Building Code (IBC)
standards, however, some traditional materials are often not long-
lasting and not of a high quality.
As of 2008, all USAID-funded buildings must be constructed to IBC
standards. We are not aware of any other donor in Afghanistan requires
these higher standards, but we believe it is essential that U.S.
Government funded buildings adhere to these international standards in
areas that are prone to earthquakes, and so we accept the higher costs
and longer timeframes necessary to construct high quality buildings for
school children and their teachers.
The cost of construction for USAID-funded schools in Pakistan
ranges from 2,100-5,600 Pakistani Rupees per Square foot (U.S. $25-
$66). USAID-constructed schools are built to the Zone Four Earthquake
Rating (the highest possible) and apply the internationally accepted
Uniform Building Code.
Question. There have been articles in the New York Times and
Washington Post about secret prisons in North Korea. It described
horrific conditions, where prisoners--mostly critics of the regime or
their relatives--are worked and tortured to death. That was disturbing
enough, but the article also said that U.S. policy is focused on the
nuclear issue, and that human rights and specifically the treatment of
political prisoners is not a significant part of the discussion. Is
that correct?
Answer. The United States remains deeply concerned about the human
rights situation in North Korea, including its labor and political
prison camps. Human rights are a top priority and addressing human
rights issues will have a significant impact on the prospect for closer
U.S.-DPRK ties.
The State Department's annual Human Rights Report reports that an
estimated 150,000 to 200,000 persons, many of whom die from torture,
starvation, disease, and exposure, are held in a type of political
prisoner camp known as the kwan li so. As noted in both the
Department's Human Rights Report and Trafficking in Persons Report, the
North Korean regime reportedly continues to use forced labor as part of
an established system of political repression.
The Department currently funds a number of programs which seek to
increase the free flow of information into and out of North Korea,
document human rights abuses, including those occurring in political
prisoner camps, and build the capacity of defector-led organizations to
protect the human rights of all North Koreans. Additionally, the
Department of State will allocate approximately $3.5 million in fiscal
year 2010 for programming to promote democracy, rule of law, and human
rights in North Korea.
We also continue to work though multilateral organizations, such as
the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC), and bilaterally with other
governments, including our regional partners, to improve human rights
in North Korea. We are currently cosponsoring a resolution at the U.N.
HRC, which specifically censures the use of torture and political
prisoner camps. We see human rights as an integral part of the United
States' North Korea policy, and will raise our concerns at every
appropriate opportunity in the Six-Party Talks framework.
Ambassador Robert King, the Special Envoy for North Korean Human
Rights Issues, oversees North Korean human rights issues as a part of
the Office of the Special Representative for North Korea Policy and
participates in all relevant discussions in accordance with
congressional intent.
Question. I think there is a lot of concern that despite Senator
Mitchell's efforts, negotiations on a peace agreement between Israel
and the Palestinians have not produced the results we had hoped for. A
year has passed, and Israel continues to expand settlements in the West
Bank and the Palestinians continue to fight among themselves.
Are those of us who believe a peace agreement is necessary to the
success of our broader foreign policy goals in the region overstating
its importance? If real progress is not made this year, do you think we
should rethink our approach?
Answer. Comprehensive Middle East peace remains important to
broader American foreign policy goals in the region. When Prime
Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas met in Washington on September
2, 2010 to launch direct talks, they agreed to pursue a framework
agreement within twelve months. That remains the goal.
Unfortunately, we have not made as much progress as we or the
parties would have liked. We knew this effort would be difficult and
that we would hit hurdles; and we are always assessing the merits of
our approach and seeking ways to promote progress toward the two state
solution in the most realistic way possible, knowing the risks and
constraints of the environment in which we operate. Both parties have
asked for continued U.S. engagement with the parties and that is what
we intend. Moving forward we will engage both on the core issues of the
conflict and with a deepened commitment to Palestinian state-building,
and step up the American approach including by offering new ideas and
bridging proposals as necessary.
Question. The Administration is putting together a supplemental
request for relief and reconstruction in Haiti. A lot of people here
will want to support that. The American people have shown tremendous
generosity in helping the Haitian people during this disaster, and we
want to help Haiti rebuild--hopefully to a better place than they were
before the earthquake.
But money, without effective leadership, will not solve Haiti's
problems. While the current government is an improvement over the past,
it was barely functional before the earthquake and will be unable to
play a leadership role for the foreseeable future. There is a need for
effective leadership, whether by the United Nations, United States, or
some coalition of international donors and agencies. Given the amount
of foreign aid wasted or stolen in Haiti, any long term reconstruction
strategy, for Congress to support it, needs to be credible. The Haitian
Government obviously needs to be consulted and involved, but a strategy
whose success depends on the performance of the government would not be
credible.
Do you agree or disagree, who is in charge of rebuilding Haiti, is
there a strategy, and how do we avoid the mistakes of the past?
Answer. A key guiding principle of the USG strategy in Haiti is
that the ultimate responsibility for rebuilding the country rests in
the hands of the sovereign nation of Haiti and the Haitian people. It
is our responsibility to see that U.S. Government resources spent
toward accomplishing the reconstruction of Haiti are effectively
managed, and transparently administered with proper oversight while we
are helping Haiti to rebuild. There are a number of proposed mechanisms
being discussed among Government of Haiti officials, multilateral
institutions and bilateral donors for the management of reconstruction
resources that would entail Haitian leadership along with credible
systems of transparency and accountability. The United States strongly
supports the development of mechanisms for oversight and management of
the reconstruction program that will promote the effective, transparent
and accountable use of resources.
Question. There have been reports that funds have been cut from
other disaster relief programs in order to support the Haiti relief
operation. Is this correct, are funds for Sudan or other humanitarian
crises being cut?
Answer. Since IDA is a contingency account used to respond to
natural and complex disasters world-wide, its flexibility allows OFDA
to program funds as necessary to meet emergencies. While a significant
amount of IDA funding is being directed to respond to the devastation
from Haiti earthquake, the impact to other OFDA programs can be
minimized if a supplemental is approved in a timely fashion (no later
than the third quarter of the fiscal year).
Humanitarian needs in Haiti can be met with current IDA resources,
but funding availabilities for other programs world-wide may be
temporarily reduced. USAID is hopeful that the IDA account will be
replenished by a supplemental, which will allow OFDA to restore other
programs to originally planned levels. In the mean time, OFDA will work
with partners to meet critical needs with currently available funding
and avoid programming gaps.
However it should be noted that if a supplemental does not
materialize, or is not available until late in the fiscal year, there
will unfortunately be major impacts to OFDA's programs world-wide.
Question. The $1.4 billion Merida Initiative, which Congress
funded, was to be for 3 years. But for fiscal year 2011 you are
requesting another $292 million for Mexico for the same purposes. Is
this part of a longer term strategy with Mexico--sort of ``Merida
Plus'', and if so, where can we get a copy of the strategy, who was
consulted about it, how many years is it for, how much will it cost,
and what results do you predict if the demand for illegal drugs in the
United States, and the flow of guns from the United States, continues?
Answer. The Merida Initiative was announced in 2007 as a
partnership among the governments of the United States, Mexico, and the
countries of Central America to confront the violent national and
transnational gangs and organized criminal and narcotics trafficking
organizations that plague the entire region. To date, Congress has
supported this Initiative with $1.324 billion in funding for Mexico.
The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $310 million for Mexico--
$292 million in INCLE, $10 million for ESF, and $8 million in FMF.
Following extensive Department discussions, including within the
interagency community, and especially with Congress, we have now
broadened our focus to include the Caribbean under the Caribbean Basin
Security Initiative, renamed our Central America efforts as ``CARSI''
(the Central America Regional Security Initiative), and are refocusing
on ways to improve citizen safety--something consistently ranked high
among societal concerns in all countries of the region.
Beginning with the Merida Initiative and moving ``Beyond Merida''
in Mexico, the United States is forging strong partnerships to enhance
citizen safety in affected areas by fighting drug trafficking,
organized crime, corruption, illicit arms trafficking, money-
laundering, and demand for drugs on both sides of the border.
At bilateral working group meetings leading up to the March 23rd
Merida U.S.-Mexico High Level Consultative Group, the governments of
the United States and Mexico agreed on new goals to broaden and deepen
our cooperation to effect lasting change. As a result of these new
goals, we are accelerating our efforts to support and strengthen
democratic institutions in Mexico (especially police and judicial
institutions) and civil society organizations. We are also expanding
our border focus beyond interdiction of contraband to include
facilitation of legitimate trade and travel; and we are cooperating in
building strong communities resistant to the corrupting influence of
organized crime. As discussed in recent briefings with congressional
staff, future programs to increase Mexican capacity and to
institutionalize our partnership will focus on four goals:
--Disrupt Organized Criminal Groups.--The United States and Mexico
will continue to collaborate to disrupt and dismantle organized
criminal groups. We will do so by focusing our efforts on
intelligence collection and analysis, training and equipping
special units, enhancing investigative capacity, conducting
targeted work against money laundering, improving interdiction
capability, building effective command and control centers
across Mexico, and developing effective task forces.
--Institutionalize Reforms to Sustain Rule of Law and Respect for
Human Rights.--The United States will partner with Mexico to
help institutionalize justice-sector reforms to sustain the
rule of law and respect for human rights. We will continue
large-scale institution building projects with security and
judicial institutions at the Federal level and expand these
efforts to include additional Federal agencies and to State and
local institutions. The goal of these efforts is to support
sustainable changes in the judiciary to strengthen the rule of
law, promote respect for human rights, and engage with civil
society.
--Create a 21st Century Border.--Our goal is to create efficient,
economically competitive border crossings along the U.S./
Mexican border that ensure ``secure two-way flows'' of
travelers and trade. We will also work to improve enforcement
cooperation between ports of entry. Our immediate law
enforcement challenge is to greatly reduce the flow of drugs to
the north, and guns and bulk cash to the south.
--Build Strong and Resilient Communities.--Mexico will take the lead
to enhance the rule of law, promote respect for human rights,
and create a culture of lawfulness by targeting specific areas
for building community organizations, reducing demand for
drugs, encouraging civil society participation, creating
sustainable economic opportunities, and promoting community
cohesion and violence reduction strategies. The United States
will support specific, geographically focused programs that
advance these goals.
The United States and Mexican governments agree in principle to
this framework for cooperation and are working together closely to
determine the scope of action within each programmatic area. Broadly,
and within this context, we are moving away from equipment purchases,
such as aviation, and into an engagement that reinforces progress by
institutionalizing Mexican capacity to sustain the rule of law and
respect for human rights, build more responsive and transparent
institutions, promote full civil society participation, transform the
nature of our borders, and provide intensive technical assistance and
training. We will also encourage enhanced cooperation with regional
partners, including along Mexico's southern border with Guatemala and
Belize. The $310 million fiscal year 2011 request for Mexico, along
with considerable GOM efforts in these areas, complements the
comprehensive and balanced USG strategy on our side of the border to
reduce drug demand by focusing on prevention, treatment, and
enforcement, and expanded efforts stop illegal arms and bulk cash
flowing south into Mexico.
We are hopeful that we can strengthen U.S. national security by
helping the Calderon Administration break the power of the drug
trafficking organizations and institute lasting institutional reforms
that will continue into future Mexican Administrations. Assistance
under the Merida Initiative, and other regional efforts throughout the
Hemisphere, is strategically targeted to make an impact on the need for
improved citizen safety and security. As we move forward, we will
continue to assess progress and the impact of our assistance. We
especially look forward to continued and regular dialogue with Congress
as an integral part of this ongoing review.
Question. I and other Members of Congress, and the Administration,
have urged the Mexican Government to conduct a credible, transparent,
and thorough investigation of the murder of American citizen Bradley
Will, and the 17 other Mexicans who were killed in Oaxaca in 2006.
Instead, the Mexican Government arrested and accused an innocent man of
killing Mr. Will, and he languished in prison until a court finally
ordered his release. Can you assure me that you will insist that these
cases be thoroughly and credibly investigated?
Answer. The Department of State has and will continue to raise the
case of the death of American citizen Bradley Will with the Government
of Mexico. We have made it clear to the Mexican Government that we
expect a thorough and credible investigation of all evidence by Mexican
authorities with a view to identifying and prosecuting the individual
or individuals responsible for this heinous act.
On the issue of other Mexican citizens who were killed in Oaxaca in
2006, we have raised these as part of our regular dialogue regarding
human rights issues with the Government of Mexico.
Question. For years, there has been talk about the need to reform
the foreign aid budget. There has been any number of commissions,
studies, reports and countless recommendations, all with little effect.
This Administration has its own studies underway, at least one at the
NSC and your Quadrennial Diplomatic and Development Review (QDDR).
Given the strong views in Congress and the special interests with a
stake in the status quo, what do you hope to accomplish this year to
make foreign aid more efficient and effective?
Over the years, USAID has seen its autonomy decrease, as it lost
control of its budget and no longer has a policy office. Whole pieces
of foreign aid have been shifted to the State Department or the
Millennium Challenge Corporation. In my opinion, USAID's effectiveness
has been weakened as a result. I will also ask USAID Administrator Shah
this question when he testifies next month, but what steps do you plan
to rebuild USAID and restore some of its autonomy?
Answer. To make foreign aid more efficient and effective, State and
USAID work closely with other agencies in the field, under the
direction of the Chief of Mission, to coordinate our assistance
activities. In Washington, we are taking specific steps to ensure close
coordination. For example, under our Global Health Initiative, we are
working collaboratively with USAID and Health and Human Services to
review all of our associated health programs in a number of countries.
We will enter into new long-term partnerships building on prior U.S.
international health programs and work with our 80 partner countries to
strengthen health systems and improve sustainable health outcomes, with
a particular focus on women, children and newborns.
The fiscal year 2011 request is critical to helping USAID become
the world's premier development agency. The request includes resources
for hiring an additional 200 officers at USAID and--under the strong
leadership of Administrator Shah--for building a robust policy,
planning and evaluation capacity. USAID is playing a leading role in
the management of priority development initiatives such as working to
improve global health and food security around the world. In each of
these areas USAID will show that it can have impact, make tough choices
about how resources are used to get the most bang-for-buck, and serve
as a whole-of-government platform that invites in other partners to
maximize efforts against specific goals and outcomes.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Question. The Administration committed at Copenhagen to
contributing a total of $1 billion over 3 years in new funds to protect
tropical forests, improve forest management, and increase carbon
sequestration in tropical forests. I strongly support this, and it
builds on what this subcommittee has been doing for years to protect
tropical forests. How do you plan to meet the $1 billion commitment by
fiscal year 2012?
Answer. In Copenhagen, the United States and five other developed
countries collectively pledged $3.5 billion over the 2010-2012 periods
for REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation)
activities, with the United States pledging $1 billion as its share of
the total. We are on a path to meet that commitment.
The fiscal year 2010 appropriation included $233 million in
``Sustainable Landscapes'' for forest-related climate change funding
for State, USAID, and Treasury. This includes a ``core'' allocation of
$153 million, as well as $80 million in USAID biodiversity funding that
has direct climate benefits. The fiscal year 2011 request for State,
USAID, and Treasury includes $347 million for sustainable landscapes.
In addition to this fiscal year 2010 and 2011 ``core'' funding from
State, USAID, and Treasury, additional USAID activities, as well as
assistance activities by MCC and possibly other USG agencies,
contribute to our climate change goals. We are currently reviewing
those assistance portfolios to identify other existing or planned
fiscal year 2010 and 2011 assistance activities that meet the REDD+
criteria and contribute toward our Copenhagen REDD+ pledge.
We are confident the Administration's fiscal year 2012 budget
request, still to be formulated, combined with the fiscal year 2010-11
assistance mentioned above, will allow us to meet the $1 billion
commitment.
Question. The budget request proposes adding American Centers,
expanding English language programs, increasing public diplomacy
programs to Muslim-majority countries, expanding the initiative
specifically for Pakistan, and increasing the Department's efforts with
the Internet and other electronic media tools. This subcommittee has
been very supportive of the Department's public diplomacy programs,
particularly the educational and cultural exchange programs. What are
the Department's priorities for public diplomacy programs, what gives
you confidence that these programs are working and should be expanded,
and how can we be sure that educational and cultural exchange programs
will continue to grow?
Answer. First of all, thank you and the rest of the committee
members for your continued support of public diplomacy.
The core mission of public diplomacy is to support the achievement
of U.S. foreign policy goals and objectives, advance national interests
and enhance national security by informing and influencing foreign
publics and by expanding and strengthening the relationship between the
people and government of the United States and citizens of the rest of
the world.
To that end the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public
Affairs, Judith McHale, after an 8 month review of the current state of
public diplomacy and public affairs, has just recently rolled out a
strategic framework for public diplomacy. After consulting with members
of the hill, NGOs, representatives from academia, and Public Affairs
Officers, Under Secretary McHale found that in significant ways our
public diplomacy was working well to advance America's interests. But
the review also revealed a great degree of consensus about what needs
to be changed to align it to current priorities and guide our efforts
going forward.
As part of this review, we identified five strategic imperatives:
to pro-actively shape global narratives; expand and strengthen people-
to-people relationships; counter violent extremism; better inform
policy-making; and, redeploy resources in strategic alignment with
shifting priorities. Moving forward, we are taking steps to ensure that
all our activities support these requirements.
Creating or maintaining American Centers, increasing English
language training, appropriately using Internet technology and social
media and increased engagement in Muslim majority countries are all
means by which we can better achieve the strategic imperatives laid out
above.
As noted in your question, a great deal of our public diplomacy
efforts have been focused on Pakistan. Last summer, Under Secretary
McHale, working closely with our Embassy in Islamabad, Special
Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, USAID
and DOD, drafted the Pakistan Communications Plan, a copy of which will
accompany this response.
The Pakistan Plan has four broad goals: expand media outreach,
counter extremist propaganda, build communications capacity, and
strengthen people-to-people ties. Our plan links elements of
traditional public diplomacy with innovative new tools. For instance,
recognizing that extremist voices dominate in some of Pakistan's media
markets, we instituted a rapid response unit and a 24-hour multilingual
hotline for the Embassy to respond to attacks, threats, and propaganda
from the Taliban, al Qaeda, and their sympathizers. This approach
reversed a previous approach of not actively countering such
propaganda. It has been an uphill battle but, as our voice gets more
frequent play, the impact on the discourse in Pakistan's media has been
noticeable.
As we strengthen our people-to-people ties with Pakistanis, our aim
has been to increase positive American presence on the ground in
Pakistan. To do this we are focusing on more exchanges, more presence,
more Lincoln Centers, more face-to-face meetings with engaged citizens
in Pakistan, and more non-official contacts between Pakistanis and
Americans in Pakistan.
A key component of face-to-face engagement is our educational and
cultural exchange programs for which I have every confidence that these
programs will continue to play an increased role in the success of our
foreign policy objectives. Exchange levels have increased significantly
in the last couple of years and we are looking to increase that trend
while ensuring that resources are being placed strategically and
appropriately and that proper oversight and evaluations are being
carried out.
Under Secretary McHale and I agree that in this day and age it is
critical that we engage with foreign publics like never before. It is
the relationships built upon year after year that matter and that
ultimately help us to better realize our foreign policy objectives.
EFFECTIVE OVERSIGHT OF CONTRACTORS
Question. Over the past several years, the Department's Inspector
General and the Special Inspectors General for Iraq and Afghanistan
have identified systemic problems in the Department's contract
management, including inadequate oversight of the contractor's work,
overpayments to contractors, and delayed project completion.
What changes, within what timeframe, is the Department implementing
to address these problems, which are responsible for the waste of
millions of dollars?
Answer. The Department of State is committed to strengthening our
contract management processes. In the last 2 years, the Office of
Acquisitions Management (A/LM/AQM) created a strategy and established a
business process for audits of A/LM/AQM contracts. We developed a close
and professional working relationship with the Defense Contract Audit
Agency (DCAA) and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) which
are the Department's audit agencies for major programs. We also issued
an A/LM/AQM operational policy pertaining to audit services to ensure
staff is aware of the policy. This strategy ensures that the Department
meets contract administration responsibilities required by the Federal
Acquisition Regulations (FAR). During fiscal year 2009, the Department
initiated 12 external audits of significant programs. In addition to
financial audits, we initiated a series of business system audits to
review contractor accounting and internal controls, billing systems,
estimating systems, labor system controls, subcontractor systems, and
property management systems in conjunction with audits of specific
contracts on a pre-award and post-award basis. The Quality Assurance
Branch works closely and successfully with contracting officers, the
Office of Inspector General, and program offices to obtain
documentation, provide answers to audit related questions, support
negotiations, and reach settlement agreements.
Since 2008, A/LM/AQM has also significantly improved our contract
close-out process. A/LM/AQM designed an effective business process and
formed a team of close-out specialists, trained to identify contractual
and budget issues, perform contract analysis, and to reconcile and
document obligations and payments. This team is developing standard
operating procedures for all of our contract managers to follow and is
training their colleagues in A/LM/AQM on our new business process. In
fiscal year 2010, as of February 24, 2010, nearly 500 contracts have
been closed out, with $16.5 million in deobligations of unliquidated
funds.
The Department is continuing to examine other improvements to
contract oversight through the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development
Review with USAID acquisitions offices.
Question. The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $3.1 billion
for Department of State operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
This includes a significant increase in civilian staff throughout these
countries. Given the severe security constraints on State Department
and other U.S. Government civilians in these countries, how are you
going to use these people effectively and at the same time ensure their
safety?
Answer. Achieving progress in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq will
require continued dedication and sacrifice not only by our military
personnel, but also by the more than 2,000 U.S. government civilians
currently serving in those countries. While security remains a concern
in many parts of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, the civilian increase
can still be used effectively, without compromising civilian safety or
our mission. For example, the increase in Afghanistan, coordinated by
the Office of the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan
and the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources,
includes top experts from 10 different U.S. government departments and
agencies. Many have previous experience in Afghanistan or Iraq. In
Afghanistan, these experts contribute to the mission in the field,
especially in the East and South where a majority of U.S. combat forces
are operating and many of the additional 30,000 forces announced by
President Obama are deploying. They work alongside our military forces
in critical districts where ISAF is focusing its efforts in 2010, and
partner with Afghans to enhance the capacity of national and sub-
national government while helping to rehabilitate Afghanistan's key
economic sectors.
In Afghanistan, U.S. civilians move into dangerous areas only after
ISAF has completed clearing operations, which allows the Afghan
government, U.S. civilian experts and ISAF to deliver an integrated
package of basic services.
Question. I held a hearing in the Judiciary Committee recently
about the roles of State Department, the Department of Homeland
Security, and Federal Bureau of Investigation in the Christmas Day
bombing attempt, and what changes are needed to prevent a similar
incident from occurring again. At that time, the Department of State
indicated that the visa process was under review to determine what
improvements and changes are needed.
What is the status of the Department's efforts to improve the visa
process, and what if any improvements are included in the fiscal year
2011 budget request?
Answer. We took immediate action to improve the procedures and
content requirements for Visas Viper cable reporting that will call
attention to the visa application and issuance information that is
already part of the data that we share with our national security
partners. All officers have been instructed to include complete
information about all previous and current U.S. visa(s) when a Visas
Viper cable is sent. This instruction includes guidance on specific
methods to comprehensively and intensively search the database of visa
records by conducting a wide-parameter, ``fuzzy search,'' leveraging an
existing search capability, when searching our comprehensive repository
of visa records in the Consular Consolidated Database (CCD). Searches
conducted in this manner will identify visa records despite variations
in the spelling of names as well as in dates of birth, places of birth,
and nationality information. Visas Viper cables sent after December
2009 contain this more complete information.
Since the Presidentially ordered Security Review, there have been
exigent changes in the thresholds for adding individuals to the
Terrorist Screening Database, No Fly, and Selectee lists. The number of
revocations has increased substantially as a result. As soon as
information is established to support a revocation, an entry showing
the visa revocation is added electronically to the Department of
State's Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS) and shared in real
time with the DHS lookout systems used for border screening.
The State Department has broad and flexible authority to revoke
visas and we use that authority widely to protect our borders. Since
2001, we have revoked more than 57,000 visas for a variety of reasons,
including over 2,800 for suspected links to terrorism. Currently, we
are reviewing the procedures and criteria used in the field to revoke
visas and will issue new instructions to our officers. Revocation
recommendations will be added as an element of reporting through the
Visas Viper channel. We have provided additional guidance to the field
on use of the broad authority of visa officers to deny visas on
security and other grounds. Instruction in appropriate use of this
authority has already been a fundamental part of officer training for
years.
We have been actively using this revocation authority as we perform
internal reviews of our data against watchlist information provided by
partner agencies. We are reviewing all previous Visas Viper submissions
and cases that other agencies are bringing to our attention from the No
Fly and Selectee lists, as well as other sources. In these reviews, we
have identified cases for revocation and also confirmed that
substantial numbers of individuals in these classes hold no visas and,
of those few who did, a great many were revoked prior to the current
review.
We are implementing a new generation of visa processing systems
that will further integrate information gathered from domestic and
overseas activities. We have enhanced our automatic check of CLASS
entries against the CCD as part of our ongoing process of technology
enhancements aimed at optimizing the use of our systems to detect and
respond to derogatory information regarding visa applicants and visa
bearers. We are accelerating distribution to posts of an upgraded
version of the automated search algorithm that runs the names of new
visa applicants against the CCD to check for any prior visa records.
This enhanced capacity is available currently at 83 overseas posts,
with the rest to follow soon.
We are deploying an enhanced and expanded electronic visa
application form, which will provide more information to adjudicating
officers and facilitate our ability to detect fraud. We are working
with our interagency partners on the development and pilot-testing of a
new, intelligence-based Security Advisory Opinion (SAO) system that
will make full use of the additional application data.
The fiscal year 2011 budget for Consular Affairs includes
significant resources to fund ongoing and new activities for the Visa
Office. All activities will be funded with fee revenues included in the
new schedule of fees. These activities include: Global Visa System
creation, advanced biometric search capabilities, datasharing with
relevant agencies and other advancements.
Question. Do you think that adding Department of Homeland Security
Visa Security Units at overseas embassies would improve the security of
the consular visa issuance process?
Answer. The Department of State has a close and productive
partnership with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including
the Visa Security Program (VSP) of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE). Over the past 7 years both agencies have increased resources
significantly, improved procedures and upgraded systems devoted to
supporting the visa function. We support the assignment of Visa
Security Officers to selected overseas posts where they work together
with Consular Officers and Assistant Regional Security Officer-
Investigators (ARSO-I) to advance the nation's border security
initiatives in the following areas: extending the border overseas;
capitalizing on the visa process to identify national security threats;
identifying unknown threats; sharing information and conducting liaison
activities; providing training and advice; and investigating terrorism,
human trafficking, alien smuggling, marriage fraud.
We work closely with the ICE Visa Security Units (VSUs) established
abroad and with domestically based Visa Security Program supporting
those units. VSUs currently operate at 14 visa adjudicating posts in 12
countries. Since January 19, 2010, we have received requests from ICE
to open four additional VSUs and to augment staff at two existing VSUs.
The Chiefs of Mission have approved the four new VSUs and one request
for expansion with one request for expansion pending.
Question. An article in the February 23rd Washington Post describes
problems in moving forward with the planned Security Training Facility
in Maryland. The most troubling issues mentioned in the article include
missteps by Federal officials, poor communication with the local
communities affected by the Training Facility operations, and the State
Department's acknowledgement that there hasn't been adequate analysis
on whether building a single facility is more cost-effective than the
current leasing of various different sites.
The article also questions the economic impact of the project for
the local community and States that the Department acknowledges that
there may be delays due to the public opposition and possible legal
challenges.
What is the State Department doing to address these problems and
have you determined whether building a single facility is the most
cost-effective approach to providing security training to its
employees? If not, shouldn't that have been done well before this
point?
Answer. The Department of State (DoS) and General Services
Administration (GSA) recognize and understand the concerns of Queen
Anne's County residents regarding this proposed project. It is our goal
to work in conjunction with the citizens of this community to ensure
that the proposed facility benefits the surrounding area and any
adverse impacts are minimal.
To that end, project overview and public scoping meetings were held
in early January, marking the beginning of the public participation
process. Additional public meetings were conducted on February 16 and
February 23, and the public comment period was extended from January
15, 2010 until March 12, 2010. In those meetings, we shared the
evaluation criteria guiding the selection of a preferred site, provided
general background information about the purpose and need of the
project, and requested feedback from local residents and community
groups about what issues should be studied and what areas may need to
receive a greater level of attention during the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) process.
The NEPA process is the tool by which the public is invited to
comment and identify impacts that they believe may result from the
proposed development. The comments will be part of the NEPA analysis
that will be published in the draft Environmental Assessment (EA). Upon
publication of the EA, the public will have another opportunity to
participate in a 30-day comment period. The findings will be used to
modify the plans and operations for the facility to avoid or mitigate
any impact. Development of the site cannot, and will not, begin until
the NEPA process is completed.
Additionally, the DoS and GSA accepted numerous invitations from
local organizations and community groups for open discussions, and are
also working to establish community liaison positions that will
strengthen the dialogue with the local community and continue it on a
more regular basis. We also invited the public to submit feedback on
the proposed training center at any time, by calling the dedicated
phone line at (215) 446-4815 or emailing [email protected].
According to a 2007 DoS Office of the Inspector General report, the
Bureau of Diplomatic Security's (DS) training facilities are not
adequate to accommodate the Bureau's training. The dispersal of
instructors and students among different facilities throughout the
greater Washington, DC, metropolitan and surrounding areas is a barrier
to effective team building, communication, and operational efficiency.
The operating cost to conduct training at the current patchwork of 19
facilities exceeds $19 million annually. Students and instructors
shuttle between facilities that extend from West Virginia to the
Maryland suburbs at a significant productivity cost to employees.
Several off-site annexes used for training are sub-standard facilities.
The Department, over a 15-year period, has pursued possible
locations for a consolidated training facility in Maryland, Virginia,
and Washington, DC. DS collaborated extensively with other agencies
(Drug Enforcement Agency, Customs and Border Protection, Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Department of Defense and others) to discuss facility sharing and
opportunities for co-location. During this process, DS learned that
these agencies were training at maximum capacity, and could not offer
exclusive scheduling opportunities. Furthermore, they could not
accommodate our highly specialized programs or our diverse and
voluminous student population (Foreign Service Officers, Foreign
Service Nationals, etc.) and unique curriculum (i.e., aggressive
driving/ambush/kidnap scenarios, weapons of mass destruction and
medical courses, explosives, heavy firearms, etc.).
DS also vigorously explored expanding existing facilities. DS
concluded that existing facilities have been expanded to capacity and
unable to meet the demands of an increase in Foreign Service and other
personnel who will serve in high/critical threat environments based on
an expected augmentation of U.S. foreign affairs reconstruction and
stabilization efforts in failing or transitioning states/regions.
Question. Were existing sites, including local military facilities
with excess space capacity, considered and evaluated as part of the
decisionmaking process? If so, which sites were considered and what
were the reasons for deciding to instead build a new site? If existing
sites were not considered, why not?
Answer. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) has been pursuing
space for a consolidated training facility for more than 15 years. This
search has included seeking available land for purchase or exclusive
use from other Federal agencies, operating military bases, and military
bases scheduled to close as a result of the 2005 Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) recommendations, as well as facility sharing and
opportunities for co-location. Other agencies with whom DoS has
approached over the years to share their facilities include the Drug
Enforcement Administration, Customs and Border Protection, the Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Department of Defense, and others.
In addition to seeking new land, DS also vigorously explored
expansion of existing facilities, but concluded that those facilities
are already at full capacity. Over the past several years, some of the
following Federal/military/or commercial facilities have been
investigated as potential sites for a consolidated DS hard skills
training center:
--Camp Dawson, WV;
--National Conservation Training Center, WV;
--Summit Point Raceway Associates, WV (Privately owned land-lease
with DoS-owned buildings);
--Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD;
--Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, MD;
--Indian Head Naval Surface Weapons Center, MD;
--Fort AP Hill, VA;
--Quantico Marine Base, VA;
--Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Cheltenham, MD;
--Fort Pickett, VA; and
--U.S. Army Research Facility, Blossom Point, MD.
None of the agencies or locations listed above were able to
accommodate the highly specialized programs (i.e., driving tracks,
firing ranges and mock-urban environments), student populations
(Foreign Service Officers, Locally Employed Staff, etc.), and
relatively unique curriculum and mission needs of DS.
Therefore, during the summer of 2009, a search for other available
land was initiated by the General Services Administration (GSA), Region
3/Philadelphia, on behalf of the Department. Following a search of
declared excess Federal property and commercially listed private lands,
both GSA and the Department concurred additional site options were
needed. GSA posted an announcement seeking interested parties on the
Federal Business Opportunities website (www.fbo.gov) on June 29, 2009.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Question. Madame Secretary, as briefly mentioned, Hawaii will have
the great honor of hosting the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC) 2011 Leader's Meeting. My constituents have expressed some
concerns about anticipated security-related expenses that will be
associated with this event. It is my understanding that last year's
Group of Twenty Summit, which was hosted by Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
resulted in cost overruns incurred by the State and local governments.
The APEC 2011 Leader's Meeting will be quite an undertaking, and it is
my hope that the State of Hawaii can look forward to the full
cooperation of the Department of State and all the other coordinating
Federal agencies. Would you please speak to the interagency
cooperation, coordination, and cost-sharing anticipated between the
various Federal agencies and Hawaii's local government?
Answer. The Department of State is the lead coordinating agency for
U.S. participation in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum
(APEC), and will work with a strong interagency team to arrange the
hosting of APEC in 2011. Of the $89 million anticipated spending by
State in fiscal year 2011, we expect that over one-half will be spent
in Hawaii. The majority of the APEC 2011 meetings will take place
during fiscal year 2011, and much of the Hawaii costs will also be
incurred in fiscal year 2011. However, Leaders Week security costs will
fall in the fiscal year 2012 budget period. Diplomatic Security
officers have briefed officials in Hawaii on obtaining National
Security Special Event Status and have requested that Hawaii prepare a
budget of anticipated costs. Governor Lingle has also discussed the
matter with Secretary Napolitano, and the Departments of State and
Homeland Security will coordinate closely in this matter. The State
Department looks forward to working closely with Congress, the
interagency team and officials in Hawaii to ensure successful meetings
in 2011.
Question. The East-West Center was created by Congress 50 years ago
to promote the relationship between the United States and its neighbors
throughout and across the Pacific Ocean. I appreciate the support the
Department has expressed for public diplomacy, and a commitment to
promoting the concept of citizen diplomacy. These are key concepts
promoted by the East-West Center and facilitated by its exchanges and
educational programs. The Center is a key stakeholder and participant
planning and preparing for the APEC 2011 Leader's Meeting. As the
Center looks forward to its next 50 years, how do you see the Center's
extensive alumni network throughout Asia and the Pacific region,
exchange programs, capacities, and partnerships complementing efforts
by the Department, and how might its tremendous resources be further
utilized?
Answer. The Department of State greatly values the East-West
Center's achievements in strengthening relationships between the United
States and the Asia-Pacific region, and in addressing global issues.
The Center is providing important support to our efforts to prepare for
the United States' hosting of APEC in 2011, particularly preparations
for the 2011 APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting.
For 50 years, the East-West Center has played a vital part in
bridging cultural, educational, political, economic and social
distances between the United States and the Asia-Pacific region. I
appreciated the opportunity to speak at the Center as part of its
anniversary celebrations, and to engage with students who will be among
the next generation of leaders in promoting stronger U.S.-Asia-Pacific
relations.
The East-West Center has served as an important forum for meetings
between senior U.S. officials and leaders from the Asia-Pacific region,
including the Heads of State of many Pacific islands nations. It also
brings together journalists, security experts, educators and other
professionals in many fields that are important to our relationship.
Its 58,000 alumni, organized into 50 chapters, form a significant
international network of influence, and our Embassies help to support
the efforts of these alumni overseas.
As the United States further develops our partnerships in the Asia-
Pacific region, the East-West Center offers a unique venue and
expertise to foster cooperation and encourage the sharing of ideas. The
Center's efforts to promote broader systemic and globalized thinking in
the Asia-Pacific region helps build a common understanding of issues
and values among publics and professionals, facilitating the State
Department's work. We anticipate that the Center will become an even
more valuable part of the overall U.S. public diplomacy effort in East,
South, and Southeast Asia and the Pacific in the coming years, and we
look forward to continued collaboration with this important
institution.
Question. The Asia-Pacific region continues to gain more attention
in the media, whether due to economic, trade, or security matters. With
the benefit of having a year in your position as the Secretary, I am
curious how you see the U.S. role in the region growing, adapting, and
changing in the next few years?
Answer. The United States' revitalized relationship with the Asia-
Pacific region will continue to grow in the next few years. We have a
strong interest in continuing our economic and strategic leadership,
and Asia has a strong interest in the United States remaining a dynamic
economic partner and a stabilizing influence.
We will remain a resident power in the region contributing to the
stability that makes economic progress possible. Our economies will
remain inextricably linked. American companies export $320 billion in
goods and services to the Asia-Pacific region every year, creating
millions of jobs. We will continue to work through APEC with other
regional economies to foster free and open trade and investment and
growth that is more inclusive, balanced, and secure.
We will enhance our partnerships with our friends in the Asia-
Pacific region to meet global security and humanitarian needs. We will
continue to work together to help prevent nuclear proliferation,
support our common interests in Afghanistan, combat piracy off the Horn
of Africa and more.
Our people-to-people links will continue to grow with more than 13
million Americans tracing their ancestry to that part of the world.
Hundreds of thousands of students from the Asia-Pacific region study in
the United States, and the number of American students is increasing at
universities in Asia.
The next few years will present the possibility for greater
regional cooperation. We are building the architecture to meet the
challenges faced by the region. Our alliance relationships with Japan,
South Korea, Australia, Thailand, and the Philippines are among the
most successful bilateral partnerships in modern history and will
remain the cornerstone of our regional involvement. We are building
toward launching a Comprehensive Partnership with Indonesia and will
continue to strengthen relationships with other key players, including
China. We are also exploring strengthened multilateral cooperation
across the region.
Question. Last April I shared with you my concerns regarding the
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and
specifically, the importance of bigeye tuna (BET) to Hawaii's economy.
The Hawaii longline fleet has been under limited entry regulation
for 15 years while other nations (including China and Taiwan) have
increased their number of boats by 50 percent and increased their
fishing exponentially by entering into multiple charter agreements with
other nations--which are not closely tracked. The WCPFC established a
BET quota of 4,200 metric tons for the U.S. longline fleet for 2006-
2008. For 2009-2011 that quota was reduced to 3,750 metric tons. The
purse seine industry in the United States also catches BET, often
taking more as unwanted bycatch than the longline industry takes as a
target species.
Our longline industry has informed us repeatedly about the
challenges associated with operating within this quota, particularly in
light of the fact that China and Taiwan do not appear to be honoring
the quota limits. To that end, the fishermen in Hawaii have taken the
initiative to map out potential charter agreements with Guam, American
Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in order to
legally take additional catch and ensure a steady supply to the
American market. However, the WCPFC has not adopted mutually agreed
upon parameters for charter agreements, and there is currently no
governing mechanism for how they are entered into or agreed upon, which
is something we encourage the WCPFC to take up at future meetings.
Our challenges are twofold: How do we secure meaningful enforcement
measures to ensure that all WCPFC signatories abide by their quota
while supporting the efforts of our domestic industry to provide a high
quality, reliable supply of fresh seafood to the American market? Even
though the Regional Fishery Management Organizations such as the WCPFC
focus on international issues, I urge State to work with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to take into account the effect
of international negotiations on domestic industry. How can State
assist with moving this forward?
Answer. The Department of State works closely with NOAA on issues
related to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission
(WCPFC). Both agencies take seriously the responsibility of making
decisions that affect U.S. economic interests, and our negotiators work
diligently to balance those interests with the conservation imperatives
and priorities in the most equitable manner possible. In particular, in
recognition of the special circumstances surrounding the operation of
the Hawaii-based U.S. longline fleet, our negotiators, on two separate
occasions, fought for and secured special accommodations for that
sector of the industry, which were described in detail in a May 4, 2009
letter to you from Assistant Secretary Verma. Together, these
provisions ensure that reductions in the quota for the U.S. Hawaii-
based fleet are significantly less than the cuts faced by the fleets of
other developed States.
Even so, we fully recognize the challenge in working to ensure that
all WCPFC participants abide by the quotas for bigeye tuna pursuant to
WCPFC Conservation and Management Measure 2008-01. At this time, we
have no evidence to indicate or to suggest that other WCPFC members,
including those mentioned in your question, are exceeding their
established quotas. At the same time, we recognize that the process for
monitoring of catches and collection of information is still under
development and the information available to us to assess the current
situation is imperfect. A large part of our response to the challenges
you have identified must be to continue to strengthen the programs
within the WCPFC for monitoring, control and surveillance of fishing
activities to ensure a greater level of transparency in fishing
operations in the region.
The WCPFC took an important step in this direction at its December
2009 meeting with the adoption of a measure to monitor and regulate the
transshipment of fish caught in the WCPFC Convention Area. Under this
measure, all transshipments of fish by longline vessels will be
observed and recorded by an observer on board either the fishing vessel
or the carrier vessel receiving the fish. (Similar provisions apply to
other fleets.) In our view, this measure closes a significant gap in
our ability to monitor catches and ensure compliance with agreed
measures. Unreported transshipment of fish is one way that vessels can
avoid having catches counted against their national quotas. We will
also continue to push for higher levels of observer coverage on foreign
longline fleets, recognizing the U.S. fleet operates with the highest
level of coverage of any fleet in the region.
The issue of charter operations is one that we are considering
carefully. Under certain circumstances, charter operations can provide
an effective and legitimate means for small island developing States
and territories to develop their domestic fisheries without incurring
large capital expenditures. At the same time, we are concerned that,
without clear rules and guidance on the nature and extent of allowable
charter operations, such operations could allow some fishing States to
increase their catches without having that catch count against their
national quota, but instead against the quota of a small island
developing State or territory, with little direct link to the
development of the domestic fishery in the State or territory in
question. Under this latter scenario, the catch limits for some distant
water fishing nations would have little meaning and the conservation
benefits of CMM 2008-01 would be significantly diminished.
Finally, another way to address concerns about the status of bigeye
tuna, is to explore ways to reduce catches of juvenile bigeye tuna in
the tuna purse seine fishery, especially the fishery associated with
fish aggregating devices or ``FADs.'' At present, different groups are
exploring various options with respect to the development of different
fishing gear and techniques to reduce catches of juvenile bigeye tuna.
WCPFC members are looking to the United States for leadership in this
endeavor. In our view, although this work is expensive and would
require a multi-year funding commitment, the United States should seek
to join these ongoing efforts and contribute to them in a material way.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Question. Madame Secretary, as you are aware, on April 1, 2008, the
Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption went into full force in the
United States. Since that time, the number of intercountry adoptions
has decreased dramatically from over 22,000 in 2004 to just over 13,000
last year. For the most part, this is because countries of origin have
shut adoption processes down due to concerns of fraud and abuse. It has
been my experience that governments in these countries are both willing
and wanting to receive guidance from the United States in building a
system of intercountry adoption that is both safe and effective. What
is the State Department currently doing to meet this need?
Answer. The reasons for the decline in numbers of intercountry
adoptions vary from country to country. The United States is only one
of several receiving countries experiencing such a trend. However,
since the United States adopts on a greater scale than all other
countries, the decline in raw numbers is larger. The majority of
intercountry adoptions into the United State occur from a handful of
countries of origin. When those few countries of origin alter their
intercountry adoption practices and requirements, the impact on our
overall numbers is disproportionately large.
Over 70 percent of the reduction in fiscal year 2009 was in the
number of children adopted from Guatemala, where the Guatemalan
National Council on Adoption announced in September 2008, that it would
not accept any additional adoption cases, because, among other things,
the Government of Guatemala has not yet met its obligations under the
Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption (the Convention) and has not
yet put into place the required safeguards. This year, due to our
strong interest in encouraging Guatemala's efforts to reform its
adoption system, and pending a determination about whether the program
is consistent with Convention standards, the United States has asked to
participate in a limited 2 year Guatemalan pilot program to allow for
the adoption of a number of special needs children.
Nearly 20 percent of the fiscal year 2009 reduction in intercountry
adoptions was from China, which is making fewer children eligible for
intercountry adoption, while the numbers of prospective adoptive
parents from traditional receiving countries has been increasing. As a
result the wait time for healthy young children is increasing. However,
the wait time for older children and those with special needs remains
low. Russia and Vietnam also registered notable declines. The
Department remains in close contact with the governments of Russia and
Vietnam on adoption matters.
The United States takes a multi-faceted approach in working with
other countries on adoption issues. The Convention is an important tool
in helping the United States promote intercountry adoption practices
that focus on the best interests of each child. The accreditation
process for adoption service providers who wish to operate in
Convention countries establishes clear, strong, enforceable standards.
Although the accreditation process is only a few years old, it is our
judgment that U.S. efforts in accreditation have ``raised the
performance bar,'' and helped to improve the standard for services
provided in non-Convention as well as Convention adoptions.
As the U.S. Central Authority for the Convention, the Department of
State encourages and supports implementation of best practices in child
protection and welfare in order to achieve Convention goals of
incorporating intercountry adoption in an integrated child protection
and child care system. As a matter of policy, we take every opportunity
to encourage all countries to take the necessary steps toward joining
and properly implementing the Convention. For example, the Kyrgyz
Republic, which is not party to the Convention, halted intercountry
adoptions in 2008 over concerns of corruption and fraud in the adoption
process. The Department has engaged the Kyrgyz government at the
highest levels on numerous occasions to encourage the strengthening of
safeguards in the adoption process and accession to the Convention. In
addition to these efforts, we have advanced the issue through outreach
programs that included sending a U.S. adoption expert to the Kyrgyz
Republic last year, and sponsoring an adoption-themed study tour to the
United States for senior Kyrgyz officials.
Another country not party to the Convention is Vietnam. Adoptions
from Vietnam were suspended in 2008. However, the United States remains
in frequent contact with the government of Vietnam on adoption matters.
Discussions have focused on the broad range of child welfare
responsibilities encompassed by the Hague Adoption Convention, the
principles underlying the Convention, and the practical requirements
for implementing procedures that the Convention requires.
Cambodia is a member of the Hague Adoption Convention, but due to
fraud, irregularities, and an insufficient legal framework to provide
safeguards for the protection of children, the former Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) suspended adoptions from Cambodia on
December 21, 2001. Despite accession to the Convention in 2007, the
Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) has been unable to implement Hague-
compliant procedures necessary to meet its treaty obligations. Working
in cooperation with the Hague Permanent Bureau (HPB), as well as with
several receiving countries, the United States has sought to provide
assistance for Cambodia's establishment of implementing legislation
necessary for an ethical and transparent adoption program that meets
Convention standards. The United States has supported efforts by the
HPB and joined a receiving country Working Group comprised of
Convention states to provide coordinated input on Hague law and
procedures to the RGC. The United States also supports UNICEF's
continuing work with the RGC to implement law, as well as improve and
strengthen the child welfare system in Cambodia. As part of a multi-
country assistance grant to UNICEF, the USAID Displaced Orphan's and
Children's Fund (DCOF) is providing approximately $1 million for this
purpose.
Finally, the United States supports the work of the Hague Permanent
Bureau as it responds to inquiries from countries on intercountry
adoption issues. The Department has an ongoing and active record of
sponsoring and participating in the work of the Hague Conference on
Private International Law's Inter-Country Adoption Training and
Technical Assistance Program (ICATAP). Created in 2007, ICATAP provides
assistance directly to governments that are planning to ratify or
accede to the Convention, or have already done so but are experiencing
difficulties with implementation. The United States contributed
$200,000 in 2008 to the Hague Permanent Bureau's Supplementary Budget,
which funds ICATAP and other child welfare programs.
Question. As you know, one of the founding principles of the Hague
is that children are best served in a family. Under what is called its
principle of subsidiarity, convention countries agree to pursue family
reunification and domestic adoption before allowing a child to be
adopted by a family in another country. Convention countries also agree
that institutionalization and long term foster care are not considered
permanent and should therefore not be used as long term solutions.
Madam Secretary, I am concerned that while it appears to be U.S. policy
that intercountry adoption should take precedence over long term foster
care and institutions, our practice appears to be quite the opposite.
Can you confirm that it is in fact the U.S. policy that long term
foster care and institutionalization are not long term solutions and
should therefore not be given preference over intercountry adoption?
Answer. Yes, that core Convention principle reflects our policy as
well. In situations where children will not be reunited with their
families, permanency planning should be undertaken as quickly as
possible. Long-term foster care or institutionalization is not in the
best interests of children. The principle of subsidiarity as expressed
in the Convention stands for the principle that national adoption be
given precedence over intercountry adoption. However, the practice of
stopping intercountry adoptions pending the development of a viable
national adoption system or enactment of long-term child care reform,
in most cases runs contrary to the core ``best interests of the child''
principle of the Convention.
Question. As you know, one of the many challenges in addressing the
needs of orphan children in Haiti is the lack of a universally accepted
definition of what is an orphan. In fact, the often cited estimate that
there were 380,000 orphans in Haiti prior to the earthquake include
children who had one living parent and/or extended family. What can the
United States do to assist the Government of Haiti in developing the
data necessary to better understand what children's precise needs are?
Answer. The United States is actively assisting the development of
the data necessary to better understand children's precise needs by
providing expert technical assistance to the U.S. mission child
protection team, technical assistance and transport for GOH/UNICEF
assessments of the needs of children in hundreds of orphanages in the
Port au Prince area, and by supporting nationally representative
surveys such as periodic Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and a
recent survey of child trafficking, restaveks, and child victims of
violence.
The figure of 380,000 is the UNICEF estimate of the number of
children under 18, before the earthquake, who had lost one or both
parents. Of this number, 330,000 children had lost one parent and
50,000 had lost both parents. The great majority of these children were
living with the surviving parent (if a single orphan) or with extended
family members, usually a grandparent or aunt or uncle.
Prior to the earthquake, only 67 of an estimated 600 residential
care centers (referred to as ``orphanages,'' though many of the
children have one or both parents living) had been registered with the
Government of Haiti (GoH). Because a majority of these centers were
unregistered, there is little official data or statistics on children
living in these conditions. Approximately 300 of these centers were
located in Port-au-Prince and the surrounding earthquake-affected area.
The USG is supporting the GoH and UNICEF to map and build a
database of children's residential care centers to facilitate stronger
oversight through registration and monitoring in the future. As of
March 1st, the UNICEF-led Child Protection Sub-cluster (CPSC) had
completed assessments in 280 residential care centers. More than 17,000
children were residing in 205 of the assessed centers. The remaining
assessed centers were found to be no longer hosting children.
With USAID support, Haiti carried out Demographic and Health
Surveys in 1994-1995, 2000, and 2005-2006. The 2005/6 survey included
information for children under 18 about whether the parents are alive,
whether the children live with their parents and the relationship to
other members of the household. The United States can assist the
Government of Haiti to conduct another such survey as soon as possible,
preferably with additional questions about the changes in these
relationships following the earthquake. If possible, the survey should
be accompanied by special data collection on children who live in
residential care centers.
Question. The UNHCR stipulates 2 years as a ``reasonable period''
for the tracing of and reunification with parents or other surviving
family members. Understanding the detrimental effects of prolonged
institutionalization, particularly for children ages 0 to 5, what is
the United States plan for ensuring that children are not placed in
institutions for significant portions of those 2 years?
Answer. The duration of the tracing process varies per child and is
largely influenced by prospects for success, as well as the age and
specific needs of the child and the circumstances of the child's
interim care placement. It is the USG's view that it would be
inappropriate to mandate 2 years of tracing before decisions about
long-term placement and care are made, particularly for young children.
With adequate resources, we believe that the GOH capacity could be
developed so that, when a child is identified as currently not living
with a family, a ``best interests of the child'' determination (BID)
could be made for each child. Once a BID is completed, then placement
decisions about short and long-term care could be made concurrently.
The following are priorities that USAID aims to address for child
protection in Haiti:
--Assist reunited families to remain intact and viable through social
and economic support;
--Reduce the number of children abandoned (as measured by new
admissions to orphanages);
--Increase the number of children in family-based interim and long-
term care in communities (e.g. family reunification, kinship
care, foster care, small group homes, supervised independent
living for older children, adoption);
--Reduce the number of children living in orphanages; and, improve
the quality of care for children living in orphanages awaiting
a family placement; and
--Strengthen the capacity of the Government of Haiti to build and
lead a national child protection program based on international
standards, robust monitoring and evaluation, an expanded cadre
of professional social and child welfare workers.
Question. As you are well aware, U.S. Federal law requires that
State and local officials who place children in foster care are to
pursue the primary goal of family reunification, while at the same
time, developing an alternative permanency plan for the child. If the
family reunification efforts fail, then the alternate plan will already
be in place and well on its way to completion. This practice, which is
called concurrent planning, is intended to reduce the total period of
time a child will remain in out of home care before being permanently
placed with a family. Is this an approach that the United States might
encourage its international partners to consider adopting so that
children in Haiti are not spending unnecessary time in non-permanent
situations?
Answer. Yes, we are aware of and support the concept of concurrent
planning for children in care. We note that the main problem in Haiti
before and after the earthquake is that the GOH does not have a
functioning child welfare system, including the sophisticated social
work capacity required to engage in case-by-case analysis of each
child's situation and needs so that, if needed, a concurrent plan could
be written, approved, and executed. Now that so many children are in
need of emergency care, such as food and shelter, the immediate
priority has been to focus on those needs first.
Question. Long term solutions to the issues facing Haiti's orphan
children will undoubtedly require the mobilization and coordination of
both traditional and non-traditional partners. Have you given any
thought about how you might mobilize faith based, corporate and
professional partners around the goal of providing families for orphan
children?
Answer. Yes, a great deal of thought has been given to the
mobilization of such partners. Faith-based partners in particular have
long played a central and seminal role in assisting children and are
well positioned to scale-up such services. USG agencies are currently
working with a variety of faith-based partners in Haiti to address the
needs of orphans and vulnerable children.
Question. This year will mark the third year of the 10-year
memorandum of understanding between Israel and the United States on
important military assistance to Israel. The President's budget request
for FMF to Israel--$3 billion--is the amount noted in the MOU and we
are appreciative of the President's ongoing commitment to ensure Israel
has the tools it needs to defend itself. What do you perceive to be the
security threats Israel faces today? How will this assistance help to
enhance security and stability in Israel and throughout the region?
Answer. Support for Israel's security is a cornerstone of our
Middle East policy. Israel faces potential threats from a number of
sources, including terrorist organizations such as Hizballah and Hamas,
as well as states including Iran. Our Foreign Military Financing (FMF)
memorandum of understanding is intended to contribute to Israel's
ability to defend itself from these regional threats by committing the
Administration to seek congressional approval to provide Israel $30
billion in FMF over a 10-year period, beginning in fiscal year 2009.
The United States provided Israel with $2.55 billion for fiscal year
2009, and forward-funded $555 million of Israel's $2.775 billion fiscal
year 2010 FMF allocation via the fiscal year 2009 Supplemental
Appropriations Act.
Israel uses this assistance both to procure U.S.-origin defense
articles, ranging from ammunition to advanced weapons systems and
training, and to develop and support its own defense industry. U.S.
assistance will help ensure that Israel maintains its qualitative
military edge over potential threats, preventing a shift in the
security balance of the region, and safeguarding U.S. interests. Our
assistance is also aimed at building Israel's confidence to make
historic concessions necessary for comprehensive regional peace.
Question. The President's request included $400.4 million in
economic assistance for the West Bank and Gaza ``to strengthen the
Palestinian Authority as a credible partner in Middle Eastern peace and
continue to respond to humanitarian needs in Gaza.'' The request also
states that this assistance ``will provide significant resources to
support the stability of the PA, economic development of the West Bank,
and increase the capacity of the PA to meet the needs of its people.''
Can you tell us how these funds will be disbursed? What specific
projects will be funded and through what specific mechanisms? What
portion of these funds will be used for humanitarian assistance in
Gaza? Are you confident that there are safeguards in place to ensure
this assistance reaches its intended recipients and does not land in
the hands of Hamas or benefit Hamas? If yes, can you please provide an
explanation of the safeguards in place?
Answer. The Department's $400.4 million request in fiscal year 2011
for the West Bank and Gaza Economic Support Funds (ESF) program
supports the Palestinian Authority's (PA) development and institution-
building priorities through the following bilateral economic support:
--Up to $200 million in direct budget support to the PA.
--$72.5 million for the delivery of basic education, health, and
water services.
--$81.4 million in programs to help develop the environment for
growth in the Palestinian private sector.
--$15.5 million in food, medical, and other humanitarian assistance
for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
--$31 million to enhance democratic reform, respect for human rights
and the rule of law, and increase civic engagement.
The more than $400 million ESF requested in fiscal year 2011 will
continue support for priority reform and institution-building
priorities identified by the PA, and will be disbursed primarily
through either new or existing USAID and MEPI contracts or grants with
international organizations, U.S. non-governmental organizations, and
local vetted organizations. As noted above, the Administration has
requested $15.5 million for humanitarian assistance in the West Bank
and Gaza for fiscal year 2011. At this stage, USAID cannot predict the
exact amount that will be spent on humanitarian assistance in Gaza
versus the West Bank. The decision on funding for Gaza will be based on
the changes in the situation and the evolving needs.
The United States has installed safeguards that will ensure that
our funding is only used where, and for whom, it is intended, and does
not end up in the wrong hands. USAID and MEPI provide all project
assistance through International organizations, U.S. non-governmental
organizations and local vetted organizations. Before making an award of
either a contract or a grant to a local NGO, USAID or MEPI, as
appropriate, checks the organization against information in U.S.
government databases. USAID and MEPI also check these organizations and
the organization's principal officer, directors, and other key
individuals through law enforcement and other systems accessed by
USAID's Office of Security. All NGOs applying for grants from USAID and
MEPI are required to certify, before award of the grant will be made,
that they do not provide material support to terrorists. These
organizations also work with local organizations through sub-grants.
All local sub-grantees are likewise vetted to ensure no terrorist
connections.
Once an award has been made, USAID and MEPI have established
procedures to safeguard U.S. investments and ensure the transparency
and integrity of U.S. assistance. In order to ensure that funding
through local and U.S. NGOs is used only for agreed upon purposes, all
NGOs are required to submit quarterly financial reports on how funds
are spent. Also, all direct USAID grantees, contractors, and
significant sub-grantees and subcontractors' local costs are audited by
USAID's Inspector General on an annual basis. In addition, the
Mission's vetting procedures are the subject of regular GAO audits.
Before transferring U.S. taxpayer dollars to the PA as budget
support, the Secretary of State certifies that the PA maintains a
Single Treasury Account; has eliminated all parallel financing
mechanisms outside of the treasury account; and established a single
comprehensive civil service roster and payroll. The PA is only
authorized to use budget support funds for purposes approved by USAID.
In 2008 and 2009, U.S. budget support was tied to specific PA
expenditures, i.e., payment of debt to Israeli energy or utility
companies and private sector financial institutions providing credit
for purchases from these companies. Vetting of specific private sector
creditors is a prerequisite to disbursements of funds. Funds are
transferred into a separate local currency sub-account of the PA's
Single Treasury Account, and USAID had access to all information
pertaining to the separate sub-account in order to monitor funds. The
PA must notify USAID in writing when disbursements are made from the
separate sub-account, including the amount disbursed and the recipient.
The Regional Inspector General also audits each cash transfer. We
anticipate using the same process for fiscal year 2011 budget support.
In addition to tight USG procedures and controls, the PA, under
Prime Minister Fayyad, has undertaken substantial economic and fiscal
reforms that have increased transparency and accountability. The PA's
budget, including revenue sources and actual expenses and commitments,
is publicly available on the Ministry of Finance's website. In
addition, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) has taken a number of
additional steps to increase fiscal oversight and streamline budget
execution, including by establishing a General Accounting Department
and a Computerized Accounting System to link the MOF to line ministries
and ensure that funds are used for their intended purpose.
Question. The President also requested $150 million for security
assistance for the Palestinian Authority, indicating these funds will
support reform of the Palestinian security sector. This is an increase
of $50 million over last year's funds. Please explain the reason for
this increase.
Answer. The Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement
(INL) will use most of the $50 million increase in funding over fiscal
year 2010 levels to train, equip and garrison an additional Special
Battalion of the Palestinian Authority's (PA) National Security Force
(NSF). The total fiscal year 2011 request of $150 million provides
enough funds to train, equip, and garrison three Special Battalions.
This level of funding will bring us to our goal of training and
equipping a total of 10 battalions (including one in reserve) and
garrisoning nine.
INL will direct a portion of this additional request to provide
training, equipment, infrastructure, and technical assistance to
prosecutors, investigative police, and prison officials in the Justice
and Corrections Sectors to complement our security force programs.
Question. In December, you acknowledged that efforts to engage Iran
in negotiations on its nuclear program had not had the desired results,
saying, ``I don't think anyone can doubt that our outreach has produced
very little in terms of any kind of positive response from the
Iranians.'' Iran continues to enrich uranium, test missiles and work on
its heavy water reactor. The global community cannot sit idly by as
Iran continues to build a nuclear weapons capability. Can you provide
us with an overview of the Administration's strategy to prevent Iran
from obtaining and using a nuclear weapon?
Answer. The Administration remains committed to its dual-track
strategy to address Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability,
which ultimately presents Iran with two choices: It can fulfill its
international obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
and to the U.N. Security Council and International Atomic Energy
Agency, or it can face increasing international pressure and
condemnation for its activities.
At the moment, our focus is on getting the international community
to consider new multilateral sanctions, while also implementing all
existing U.N. Security Council resolutions through national measures.
We believe that these kinds of multilateral pressures can most
effectively underscore to the Iranian government the cost of defying
the international community. They are also the most difficult for Iran
to evade.
We also continue to work independently and with our allies to take
measures to deny Iran access to the technology and know-how it needs to
develop further its nuclear program, while underscoring our continued
support for a peaceful nuclear energy program in Iran. We are also
working with our partners to prevent Iran from abusing the
international financial system to facilitate its proliferation
activities.
Finally, we are working with our counterparts on the IAEA Board of
Governors to support the IAEA's investigation into Iran's nuclear
program and compliance with its obligations. Through the IAEA's
investigation, we have learned much concerning Iran's activities and
many questions have been raised that reinforce our concern regarding
the nature of Iran's nuclear intentions. We support fully the IAEA's
efforts to address those questions.
Question. As part of the administration's sanctions effort, will
the State Department begin to implement the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) by
making determinations about companies investing in the Iranian
petroleum sector?
Answer. The Department of State takes its obligations under the
Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) very seriously and we have reviewed many
reports of potentially sanctionable activity under the Act. In addition
to this ongoing process, we recently conducted a preliminary review of
a number of reported activities that were mentioned in a letter sent
from 50 Members of the House to President Obama in October and a letter
sent to me by Senator Kyl and 10 other Senators in November. During the
course of this review, we found the activities of some companies to be
problematic and therefore warranting more thorough consideration under
the standards delineated in the ISA. We are continuing to collect and
assess information on these cases.
We work aggressively on three fronts to ensure that our review of
such reports is serious and thorough and that we have a rigorous
process in place for implementation of the ISA. First, we raise in our
bilateral engagement with numerous countries the need to strengthen our
cooperation in promoting a united front for restricting investment in
Iran's energy sector. Second, we supplement our efforts by working with
our Embassies overseas to collect information on potentially
sanctionable activity. Finally, we review with the intelligence
community reports of activities of some companies that warrant further
scrutiny under the ISA. Through these mechanisms we ensure that
credible reports are examined fully while reports with no substance are
put to rest. It is worth noting that the Iranian government, in its
efforts to deny its increasing international isolation, promotes and
publicizes all manner of transactions and purported investments that
may or may not have any truth to them.
If the Secretary makes a final determination that sanctionable
activity has occurred, Congress will be notified promptly.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
Question. We saw with the Sean Goldman case that international
parental abduction is a major problem. Although we were able to secure
a positive outcome in that case with your help, many other parents are
still struggling to bring their children home and it is clear that the
current system falls short. What are you doing to improve the
Department's ability to locate and help safely return American children
who are victims of international parental abduction?
Answer. The Department has designated the Office of Children's
Issues (CI) in the Bureau of Consular Affairs as the U.S. Central
Authority for the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction (Hague Abduction Convention) and to work
with parents and our posts abroad on cases of international parental
abduction to countries that are not Hague partners. CI works to reunite
parents with abducted children and has expanded in size as the number
of international parental child abductions has grown. In the last year
alone, the Department has hired 21 new employees in the Office of
Children's Issues to work exclusively on abduction cases, bringing
total staff for the issue of abduction to over 70 employees spread
among five issue-specific and geographic branches. In addition, the
management structure of CI has been expanded and a number of new
higher-graded positions have been introduced. The CI Director is a
member of the Senior Foreign Service. A Senior Advisor will also be
added to provide senior management with analysis and policy
recommendations. Additionally, in the fall of 2009, CI added a
Diplomatic Security officer to its staff to strengthen its cooperation
with law enforcement authorities. These additional resources will
enable CI to continue to broaden its prevention-related activities,
improve its ability to locate abducted children abroad, ensure
consistently high levels of service among case workers, improve
training, and carry out more vigorous bilateral and multilateral
engagement with countries that are parties to the Hague Abduction
Convention, and those that are not.
These bilateral and multilateral efforts are critical to resolving
cases of international parental child abduction. As the Goldman case
with Brazil demonstrated, complying with the Hague Abduction Convention
and returning children remains an ongoing challenge for some countries.
When countries fail to comply with the Hague Abduction Convention, the
Department, in coordination with other treaty party countries and the
Hague Conference on Private International Law, offers technical
assistance and guidance. The Department participates in and helps to
sponsor judicial seminars on the Convention in party countries across
the globe. In the last few years alone, the Department has participated
in judicial conferences or training in Argentina, Brazil, Chile,
Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, France,
Israel, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, and Spain.
The Department has seen how its diplomatic efforts can produce
positive results. As recently as 2007, for example, Germany was one of
the most difficult countries from which to recover an abducted child.
But active engagement with Germany through quarterly bilateral meetings
has resulted in consistent and prompt action by German courts. Germany
has returned 17 children to the United States over the past 2 years.
Intensive cooperation with other Convention countries has also been
critical to enhancing our ability to stop abductions before they
happen. When the Department becomes aware that a parent may be in the
process of abducting a child from the United States to another country,
it works with U.S. law enforcement to stop the departure from the
United States. Once the abductor is on the way to another country, the
Department works with officials in other Convention countries to
intercept the taking parent, if possible. In 2009, these efforts
resulted in the prevention of 147 abductions from the United States to
61 different countries.
The Department is engaged in multilateral efforts to obtain better
cooperation from countries that are not parties to the Convention. In
Japan, for instance, our ambassador has recently joined his
counterparts from Australia, Canada, France, Italy, New Zealand, Spain,
and the United Kingdom in a persistent effort both to encourage Japan
to recognize foreign custody orders and to adjust its laws so that
Japan can join the Hague Abduction Convention. The Department will
continue and increase these efforts with Japan and around the world in
the coming months.
The Department's abduction staff is expert in the field, speaks 21
different languages, and works closely with embassies and consulates
around the world to do everything the Department legally can to assist
parents in preventing abduction and recovering their children. CI has
developed resources for left-behind parents that are easily accessible,
regardless of a parent's immigration status, English-language
capability, or financial situation. These include: information on our
website at travel.state.gov; a 24-hour toll-free number for parents;
lists of attorneys abroad and in the United States; a language line for
parents who do not speak English; law enforcement liaison; and victim
assistance resources. The CI Staff are available to assist 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week, worldwide. An improved website focused on
international child abduction and intensified outreach programs in
domestic and international fora are contributing to public awareness of
both the problem and of resources to combat it.
The Department assisted in the return of 422 children to the United
States from other countries during fiscal year 2009. During the same
period, 132 children were returned from the United States to their
countries of habitual residence. More detailed information about
international parental child abduction cases and the Department's work
to resolve longstanding cases will appear in the Department's upcoming
2010 Report to Congress on Compliance with the Hague Convention on the
Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Previous reports can be
found online at www.travel.state.gov/childabduction.
Question. Eighty-five years ago, Haiti's tropical forest covered 60
percent of the country. Today, that number has fallen to less than 2
percent. As we work to fight global warming, this environmental
degradation has serious implications for Haiti and the world. What role
will environmental issues such as reforestation play in the long-term
recovery plan for Haiti?
Answer. Root causes of environmental disaster in Haiti include
acute poverty, rapid population growth and unplanned urbanization. In
the short term, it is critical to convert hillsides to tree-based
perennial agriculture to improve soil conservation. Lessons learned
from decades of reforestation programs demonstrate that, if a tree has
value, a farmer is likely to maintain and manage it; if not, it will
likely disappear. Therefore, strengthening tree crop value chains is an
approach with proven ability to restore degraded landscapes.
USAID/Haiti's Watershed Initiative for National Natural
Environmental Resources (WINNER) Project, an agricultural and watershed
management program, applies best practices such as this. WINNER is
already active in the Cul-de-Sac watershed where Port-au-Prince is
located, as well as the Cabaret, Mirebalais, Archaie and Gonaives
regions of Haiti. Prior to the January 12, 2010 Haiti earthquake
disaster, the United States planned to invest $126 million in the
project over the next 5 years. WINNER is strengthening the value chains
for tree crops and focusing on tree crops with high value (such as
mango) as these are effective incentive to hillside farmers to plant
and manage perennial crops.
In addition to tree crops, the USG strategy in Haiti also includes
plans to promote cleaner and more efficient cooking technologies, such
as liquid petroleum gas (LPG), to decrease charcoal consumption and
reduce the rate of deforestation and environmental degradation. After
completing a rigorous assessment of the potential market for improved
cooking technologies, the USG will implement a program that will
address market barriers such as high upfront costs or lack of awareness
and achieve large-scale reduction of charcoal consumption over a 5-year
period. Beneficiaries are likely to include households, food vendors
and energy-intensive businesses such as laundries and bakeries.
Finally, a Programmatic Environmental Assessment will be conducted
for proposed earthquake reconstruction activities, which will pay close
attention to addressing these issues across the mission's portfolio of
projects.
Question. I applaud President Obama's immediate rescission of the
Mexico City Policy, also known as the Global Gag Rule, upon taking
office. What impact did the previous 8 years of this policy have on
women's health? What impact does uncertainty surrounding this policy
have on organizations' ability to address these critical health
challenges?
Answer. During the period in which the Mexico City Policy (MCP) was
in place, all family planning funds were successfully programmed with
an emphasis on the countries with the greatest need. This included
funds that might have otherwise gone to international non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) that chose not to work with USAID while the policy
was in place.
More than 450 foreign NGOs elected to accept assistance subject to
the MCP and received USAID funding. USAID programs demonstrated
continued success during this period--shown by an increase in modern
family planning use among married women from 33 to 39 percent between
2001 and 2008 in 38 countries with USAID-assisted family planning
programs which have data over this period. Since the rescission of the
MCP, the USG has had the opportunity to reengage with additional
experienced and qualified family planning providers working at the
grassroots level, furthering our work to meet the growing demand for
voluntary, safe family planning and other critical health services. We
expect that should this situation change, these organizations would
reassess their decision to work with USAID.
Question. Aid programs too frequently focus on one problem and fail
to provide the integrated approach necessary for successful
development. What is the Administration doing to better integrate U.S.
development programs on food security, health, the environment, and
family planning?
Answer. USAID has made great strides in establishing mechanisms to
ensure that its development activities are undertaken within the
framework of a comprehensive and integrated development approach, which
employs strategic multi-sector synergies for improving performance and
producing greater results. For example, the Agency's new USG Global
Hunger and Food Security Initiative (GHFSI) is multi-disciplinary and
being developed and undertaken with a cross-cutting sector approach
that includes the direct participation of development experts from a
wide variety of sectors--including agriculture, environment, nutrition,
maternal and child health, education, infrastructure, gender, and
family planning and reproductive health. Similarly, one of the
principles of President Obama's new Global Health Initiative (GHI) is
integration with other sectors to ensure a cross-cutting sector
approach that will benefit from the development linkages within USAID
and across the USG. In addition, USAID's Global Climate Change Agency
Policy Coordinating Committee (APCC) is working closely with the GHFSI
APCC, the GHI Interagency Team and the Agency's Extended Water Team to
identify integrated approaches to the four programs. Designed to
address the unique settings of each development and humanitarian
challenge, this comprehensive integrated management structure
strengthens USAID's development efforts, and particularly, the Agency's
new initiatives both in Washington and the field.
Under the GHI and in the Agency approach generally, USAID is
engaging in smart integration to maximize gains from development funds.
Using an increasingly integrated and coordinated approach, several
principles derived from experience serve as a guide. These principles
focus on:
--Country-led coordination and strategic decisionmaking on
integration of services is required for the sustainability of
development;
--All partners--public and private--are important in maximizing
achievement of outcomes in limited resource settings;
--Integration of U.S. programs must be based on specific country
circumstances;
--Integration and coordination have a cost--they add a level of
complexity and administrative burden to programs that must be
weighed against the urgency of rapid results;
--Resources are required to research, monitor and evaluate the
expected causal relationship between increased integration and
outcomes;
--In order to build country capacity for integration, systems and
structures (such as the health system) should be a deliberate
focus of U.S. assistance with documentation on the impact on
outcomes; and
--Critical assessment of other multilateral and bilateral investments
and increased coordination will be essential to the achievement
of ultimate success.
Question. I was pleased to see the increase in funding for the
Clean Technology Fund and the Strategic Climate Fund. How will these
two programs address the national security threats caused by global
warming?
Answer. Climate change poses a significant threat to the national
security of nations around the globe. Variations in weather patterns
caused by rising temperatures threaten to create dangerous changes in
the climate system, increasing floods and droughts, altering natural
resource availability, and creating conditions likely to cause regional
conflict and destabilize security situations throughout the world.
Given the urgency of the climate challenge and the threats it poses to
national security, it is essential to be able to mobilize and disburse
climate assistance quickly and effectively. The CIFs, which were
launched just 2 years ago as a partnership of developed and developing
countries, are doing just that.
The Clean Technology Fund and the Strategic Climate Fund (together,
the Climate Investment Funds or ``CIFs'') have become an essential
pillar of the international community's effort to mobilize funding to
help developing countries mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions and
adapt to the effects of climate change. With $6.3 billion pledged so
far, the CIFs constitute the largest multilateral fund dedicated to
climate assistance. Funds mobilized under the CIFs are being utilized
to help those countries which are most vulnerable to the effects of
climate change increase their resilience and capacity to adapt to its
effects which will in turn reduce national security concerns caused by
effects like changes in natural resource availability. Those funds
mobilized to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions are working to directly
address climate change by limiting the increase in temperature rise and
reducing the source of the problem which poses such extensive national
security concerns throughout the world.
Question. As you have stated, the Middle East Peace process has
effectively stalled. How do you plan to reestablish the trust of the
parties and move the peace process forward?
Answer. We are pursuing a two-pronged approach toward comprehensive
peace based on the two-state solution: first, to encourage the parties
to enter direct negotiations to reach an agreement on all permanent
status issues; and second, to help the Palestinians build their economy
and the institutions that will be necessary when a Palestinian state is
established. The two objectives are mutually reinforcing. Our goal is
to re-launch direct, bilateral negotiations between Israel and the
Palestinians as soon as possible with a 24-month timeline for their
successful conclusion. We expect that all concerned will demonstrate
the leadership to make bold commitments and take bold actions to make
peace possible.
Question. We saw with the Sean Goldman case that international
parental abduction is a major problem. Although we were able to secure
a positive outcome in that case with your help, many other parents are
still struggling to bring their children home and it is clear that the
current system falls short. What are you doing to improve the
Department's ability to locate and help safely return American children
who are victims of international parental abduction?
Answer. The Department has designated the Office of Children's
Issues (CI) in the Bureau of Consular Affairs as the U.S. Central
Authority for the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction (Hague Abduction Convention) and to work
with parents and our posts abroad on cases of international parental
abduction to countries that are not Hague partners. CI works to reunite
parents with abducted children and has expanded in size as the number
of international parental child abductions has grown. In the last year
alone, the Department has hired 21 new employees in the Office of
Children's Issues to work exclusively on abduction cases, bringing
total staff for the issue of abduction to over 70 employees spread
among five issue-specific and geographic branches. In addition, the
management structure of CI has been expanded and a number of new
higher-graded positions have been introduced. The CI Director is a
member of the Senior Foreign Service. A Senior Advisor will also be
added to provide senior management with analysis and policy
recommendations. Additionally, in the fall of 2009, CI added a
Diplomatic Security officer to its staff to strengthen its cooperation
with law enforcement authorities. These additional resources will
enable CI to continue to broaden its prevention-related activities,
improve its ability to locate abducted children abroad, ensure
consistently high levels of service among case workers, improve
training, and carry out more vigorous bilateral and multilateral
engagement with countries that are parties to the Hague Abduction
Convention, and those that are not.
These bilateral and multilateral efforts are critical to resolving
cases of international parental child abduction. As the Goldman case
with Brazil demonstrated, complying with the Hague Abduction Convention
and returning children remains an ongoing challenge for some countries.
When countries fail to comply with the Hague Abduction Convention, the
Department, in coordination with other treaty party countries and the
Hague Conference on Private International Law, offers technical
assistance and guidance. The Department participates in and helps to
sponsor judicial seminars on the Convention in party countries across
the globe. In the last few years alone, the Department has participated
in judicial conferences or training in Argentina, Brazil, Chile,
Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, France,
Israel, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, and Spain.
The Department has seen how its diplomatic efforts can produce
positive results. As recently as 2007, for example, Germany was one of
the most difficult countries from which to recover an abducted child.
But active engagement with Germany through quarterly bilateral meetings
has resulted in consistent and prompt action by German courts. Germany
has returned 17 children to the United States over the past 2 years.
Intensive cooperation with other Convention countries has also been
critical to enhancing our ability to stop abductions before they
happen. When the Department becomes aware that a parent may be in the
process of abducting a child from the United States to another country,
it works with U.S. law enforcement to stop the departure from the
United States. Once the abductor is on the way to another country, the
Department works with officials in other Convention countries to
intercept the taking parent, if possible. In 2009, these efforts
resulted in the prevention of 147 abductions from the United States to
61 different countries.
The Department is engaged in multilateral efforts to obtain better
cooperation from countries that are not parties to the Convention. In
Japan, for instance, our ambassador has recently joined his
counterparts from Australia, Canada, France, Italy, New Zealand, Spain,
and the United Kingdom in a persistent effort both to encourage Japan
to recognize foreign custody orders and to adjust its laws so that
Japan can join the Hague Abduction Convention. The Department will
continue and increase these efforts with Japan and around the world in
the coming months.
The Department's abduction staff is expert in the field, speaks 21
different languages, and works closely with embassies and consulates
around the world to do everything the Department legally can to assist
parents in preventing abduction and recovering their children. CI has
developed resources for left-behind parents that are easily accessible,
regardless of a parent's immigration status, English-language
capability, or financial situation. These include: information on our
website at travel.state.gov; a 24-hour toll-free number for parents;
lists of attorneys abroad and in the United States; a language line for
parents who do not speak English; law enforcement liaison; and victim
assistance resources. The CI Staff are available to assist 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week, worldwide. An improved website focused on
international child abduction and intensified outreach programs in
domestic and international fora are contributing to public awareness of
both the problem and of resources to combat it.
The Department assisted in the return of 422 children to the United
States from other countries during fiscal year 2009. During the same
period, 132 children were returned from the United States to their
countries of habitual residence. More detailed information about
international parental child abduction cases and the Department's work
to resolve longstanding cases will appear in the Department's upcoming
2010 Report to Congress on Compliance with the Hague Convention on the
Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Previous reports can be
found online at www.travel.state.gov/childabduction.
Question. According to the Justice Department, Teodoro Nguema
Obiang, the forest and agriculture minister of Equatorial Guinea and
the son of its president, has accumulated most if not all of his wealth
through corruption while the people of Equatorial Guinea live in severe
poverty. Nonetheless, Mr. Obiang has been granted multiple visas to
enter the United States in violation of U.S. law and reportedly
purchased a $35 million home in Malibu. Why has Mr. Obiang continued to
receive visas despite U.S. anti-kleptocracy laws? What are you doing to
enforce those laws and commitments?
Answer. The Department of State is committed to combating
kleptocracy and corruption internationally and to use Presidential
Proclamation 7750 and other provisions to deny entry to corrupt foreign
government officials. We are aware of the concerns you raise and of
ongoing congressional interest in Mr. Obiang. Under Section 222(f) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act visa records are considered
confidential, and therefore I cannot comment on any individual case.
The Department would be happy to share such relevant information in a
closed setting.
Combating corruption is a foreign policy priority for the
Department. We coordinate and cooperate with other Departments to
foster a comprehensive approach including by law enforcement and other
agencies. In our overall international anticrime strategy we recognize
the central role of corruption, as the ``grease'' that facilitates
virtually all transnational illicit activities, from drug trafficking
to terrorist financing. We take the role of Presidential Proclamation
7750, which allows for denial and revocation of corruption foreign
government officials and their families, very seriously. However, it is
only one part of our Anti-Corruption Policy Framework.
The United States has been a leader on anticorruption issues
globally:
--With the passage of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in 1977, the
United States was the first country to criminalize foreign
bribery.
--In 1999 the USG developed and launched the premier government-to-
government event, the Global Forum, the first-ever
international conference on corruption and how to combat it.
--The first multilateral enunciation of the No Safe Haven policy for
kleptocrats and their ill-gotten assets occurred at Evian in
2003. Each G-8 summit since then has sought to deepen political
commitment and foster concrete action. The G-20 has also
undertaken similar anticorruption commitments.
--The U.S. International Anti-Kleptocracy Strategy was promulgated in
2006, in part to spur greater interagency cooperation in taking
concrete action against kleptocrats and their assets.
--Denial and revocation of the visas of kleptocrats continues to play
an important role in both of the preceding initiatives.
--The United States supported the negotiation and implementation of
the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), which
entered into force in December 2005, and was ratified by the
Senate in 2006. It now has 143 States Parties.
--The United States supported the UNCAC as the first truly global
anticorruption treaty and the most comprehensive anticorruption
instrument. It has chapters on criminalization and law
enforcement, prevention, recovery of stolen assets,
international legal cooperation, and technical assistance. In
November 2009, the United States helped lead its Conference of
Parties to establish a comprehensive review mechanism, a
significant and rare accomplishment for a United Nations
instrument.
--Another key treaty is the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. The United
States was a leader in the OECD's push to tackle foreign
bribery. The OECD Convention has many similarities with the
U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and targets the
supply side of the corruption equation. The United States is an
active participant in the treaty's peer review process and the
Working Group on Bribery.
--The United States also supports and participates in regional
treaties or initiatives in the Americas (Inter-American
Convention), Western and Eastern Europe (Council of Europe/
GRECO), Middle East/North Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region.
These are useful to bring together countries to press each
other on progress and to share good practices.
--The USG is one of the largest donors of technical assistance in
anticorruption and good governance. In fiscal year 2009, the
Department of State and USAID provided a total of over $1
billion in anticorruption and related good governance
assistance.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
Question. Last September, Secretary Clinton announced the
administration's new strategy of engagement with the Burmese regime. We
are now 6 months into the new strategy, what tangible benefits have
come about as a result of the new approach? Has the denial of Aung San
Suu Kyi's appeal led to a reevaluation of the engagement policy?
Answer. Last year the Administration launched a review of Burma
policy, acknowledging that neither sanctions nor engagement alone had
succeeded in influencing Burma's generals to adopt a course of reform.
The conclusions of the policy review reaffirmed our fundamental goals
in Burma. We want a democratic, prosperous Burma that respects the
rights of its people. To achieve that end, the administration decided
to engage Burmese authorities in a senior-level dialogue while
maintaining the existing sanctions regime and expanding humanitarian
assistance.
We understood at the outset that this process would be long and
difficult, in particular given the regime's focus on this year's
planned elections. We have not yet achieved concrete progress on our
core concerns and with respect to the electoral process, the regime has
taken a step backwards. However, our new approach has helped advance
the interests of the United States, both in Burma and in the wider
region. Through our senior-level dialogue, we have been able to get our
message in directly to senior leaders in Nay Pyi Taw and we have had
been able to meet with imprisoned democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi for
the first time in years. The channels of communication we developed
through our dialogue were instrumental in securing the release of Kyaw
Zaw Lwin (aka Nyi Nyi Aung), a U.S. citizen imprisoned on politically
motivated charges. More broadly, our outreach to Burma and our
determination not to allow Burma to be an obstacle to a strong U.S.-
ASEAN relationship has strengthened the position of the United States
in Southeast Asia. We were able to hold the first ever meeting between
the United States and ASEAN at the leaders' level and to sign on to the
Treaty of Amity and Cooperation.
We continue to monitor and evaluate events in Burma carefully and
have and will continue to adjust our strategy as necessary to advance
our policy goals.
Question. What is the Department of State's understanding of
Burmese nuclear capabilities and ambitions?
Answer. We closely follow Burma's pursuit of nuclear technology,
ostensibly for peaceful scientific applications, as well as reports
that Burma is pursuing a clandestine nuclear program.
Burma joined the IAEA in 1957, acceded to the NPT in 1992, and
signed a Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA in 1995. Burma is also a
Party to the 1995 Treaty of Bangkok that established the South-East
Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone. In 1997, Burma established a Department
of Atomic Energy and in 1998 passed an Atomic Energy Law. The IAEA
provides training to Burmese nuclear researchers through a number of
Technical Cooperation projects, most involving nuclear applications in
medical research, food, and agriculture.
After several years of bilateral discussions between Burma and
Russia, Moscow agreed in 2007 to provide a small pool-type research
reactor to Burma, conditioned on the reactor being under IAEA
safeguards. While there has been little or no movement on implementing
this agreement, Burmese students have been studying nuclear science at
several Russian universities and institutes for several years.
It is incumbent on Burma, as a signatory to the NPT and the Bangkok
Treaty and as a member of the IAEA, to be transparent in all its
nuclear undertakings and live up to its international obligations. In
addition, we urge Burma to modify its Small Quantities Protocol (SQP)
with the IAEA and implement the IAEA's Additional Protocol.
Question. Please characterize the relationship between North Korea
and Burma.
Answer. Burma and North Korea have clearly both been subject to
substantial international scrutiny for numerous aspects of their
behavior, including disregard for human rights and for international
standards on nonproliferation. We are concerned, in particular, about
the military relationship between North Korea and Burma. U.N. Security
Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874 requires all member states to
prohibit the procurement by their nationals, or using their flagged
vessels or aircraft, of conventional arms and related materiel,
nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related, and other WMD-related items
from North Korea. The UNSCRs also prohibit any associated technical,
training, advice, services, or assistance. The Burmese government has
publicly committed to enforcing UNSCR 1874 fully and transparently, and
we have reminded the Burmese of their obligations under both UNSCRs
1718 and 1874. We have encouraged all states, including Burma, to be
vigilant and transparent in their dealings with North Korea.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
Question. Does the Administration support any conditionality on FMF
assistance for Indonesia?
Answer. Indonesia is the world's third-largest democracy. Over the
last decade, it has undergone a democratic transformation to become a
stable and peaceful nation. It is committed to democratic reform and
has become an ally in promoting democracy and human rights in the
region, including through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
As part of its transformation, the Indonesian government has taken
significant steps to reform its military, emphasizing respect for human
rights, and generally maintained effective civilian control of the
military. Indonesia is also an important partner of the USG on a broad
range of issues, including combating terrorism and addressing maritime
security threats in the region. The Department supports Indonesia's
efforts to address these security-related areas that are of mutual
concern to both our countries, including by providing FMF assistance.
Given Indonesia's progress in promoting and protecting human rights
and our close collaboration on security issues, we believe FMF
assistance to Indonesia is warranted without conditionality.
Question. Can you describe for us the role our International
Affairs programs play in helping spur economic growth here at home and
creating American jobs? How do these programs help U.S. businesses and
entrepreneurs to remain competitive in the global market place?
Answer. The State Department supports the efforts of U.S. companies
and farmers to expand their business through exports. As flourishing
international trade requires at least two parties, our efforts support
U.S. businesses wishing to export and also help our trading partners
develop so that those countries will have a healthy demand for those
exports. The Department promotes U.S. exports by providing advocacy on
behalf of U.S. companies, urging enforcement of intellectual property
rights, and helping to develop high-potential overseas markets. State
Department officers manage the commercial function at 96 U.S. missions
worldwide that have no U.S. Commercial Service presence. State
Department officers also provide vital political and economic insight
to U.S. companies about foreign countries. U.S. Embassies and
Consulates are key advocates for U.S. business overseas. Embassies can
offer U.S. exporters critical country-specific insight on markets,
assist in commercial and investment disputes, and provide expertise on
local judicial systems. Our advocacy efforts are to ensure that
exporters of U.S. goods and services get fair and equitable treatment
in foreign markets.
On the other side of the trade equation, State and USAID foreign
assistance programs help developing country economies grow, resulting
in increased demand for U.S. goods and services over time. More
directly, some U.S. Trade Capacity Building (TCB) programs help
countries streamline customs and other import administration procedures
and improve trade-related infrastructure, thereby lowering the cost of
U.S. products in those markets and opening up new export and job
opportunities for U.S. suppliers. Other TCB programs help countries
comply with their trade commitments under bilateral Free Trade Area
agreements and the World Trade Organization, such as their commitments
to ensure that agriculture and food safety standards are based on sound
science.
Question. I note with concern that funding overall for Southeast
Asia took a $22 million cut below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
Can you provide me with an overview of where some of these cuts were
made and why a reduction in overall funding?
Answer. The United States must have strong relationships and a
strong and productive presence in Southeast Asia. This region is vital
to the future of not only the United States and each of the ASEAN
countries, but to the world's common interests: a significant and
trade-oriented regional economy; a critical strategic location; and a
set of countries that will be key to any solutions we pursue on climate
change, counterterrorism, global health, and so much else. Our fiscal
year 2011 request for Southeast Asia increased by $65 million (11.2
percent) over our fiscal year 2010 request. While there are always more
assistance needs in the region than we are able to fund, given current
budget realities, this increase strongly reflects the importance of
Southeast Asia to the Administration. Not all regions in the Department
experienced an increase, or even a straight-line; some were reduced
from the fiscal year 2010 request level. The Department faces difficult
choices in allocating limited foreign assistance funding, and the
ability to fund Frontline States necessarily requires trade-offs in
funding in other regions, including Southeast Asia.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Sam Brownback
Question. The French government has recently announced its plans to
sell several Mistral-class helicopter carriers to Russia and a French
company is reportedly negotiating to sell tanks as well. A Russian
admiral, Vladimir Vysotsky, stated recently that if Russia had had a
Mistral ship during the Georgia war in 2008 it could have won the
conflict in 40 minutes. Baltic States such as Estonia are furious over
the ship sale and it is a direct threat to Georgia and our national
interests, as well as our billion dollars in rebuilding assistance. Do
you share the concerns raised by our NATO allies? Most importantly,
does the sale violate the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls as
well as the European Union Code of Conduct for Arms Exports?
Answer. We understand that reports of this potential sale have
raised concerns among some of Russia's neighbors. Inflammatory comments
from a senior Russian military officer added to this anxiety. We would
urge all parties to focus on efforts to promote stability in the region
and avoid actions that could escalate tensions. I made these points
when I met with President Sarkozy in January.
Export control decisions in the Wassenaar Arrangement are left to
national discretion. The European Union Code of Conduct for Arms
Exports, to which the United States is not a party, sets criteria under
which EU countries are obligated to assess arms export licenses.
Implementation is an internal matter for each EU party.
Question. As of today, Russia is continuing to build military bases
and station elite troops in regions of Georgia not under the Georgian
government's control. What concerns does the United States have toward
the sale of advanced weapons to Russia that could be used in a future
conflict against Georgia or a NATO ally?
Answer. The United States supports Georgia's sovereignty and
territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders. We
are concerned about recent Russian announcements to introduce
additional military facilities and troops into the Georgian regions of
Abkhazia and South Ossetia. We would regard such actions to be in
violation of the August and September 2008 ceasefire agreements and the
principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and host nation
consent for the stationing of foreign forces. We support the ongoing
Geneva talks, which established the Incident Response and Prevention
Mechanisms (IPRMs) to increase communication and transparency among the
parties to the conflict and decrease the escalation of tension along
the ceasefire lines. We continue to emphasize the importance of re-
starting the South Ossetian IPRM.
Russia's possible procurement of a French Mistral-class helicopter
carrier has raised concerns among some of Russia's neighbors. While we
recognize that arms sales are a sovereign decision for individual
countries to make in keeping with international law and treaty
obligations, we continue to follow these developments closely, and we
urge all parties to focus on efforts to promote stability in the region
and avoid actions that could escalate tensions. These points have been
raised at high-levels with the French government.
Question. A recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee report
determined that the United States should move forward and rearm the
Georgian government with the weapons it needs to defend its territory.
Do you support this step? If not, why? If so, when will the United
States begin the sale of arms to an ally that is deploying 1,000 troops
to Afghanistan?
Answer. The Administration remains committed to supporting
Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Our security
assistance and military engagement with Georgia is focused on
rebuilding Georgia's defense and security architecture. This approach
is consistent with Georgia's objectives in its NATO Annual National
Program. It also helps Georgia advance toward NATO membership by
supporting Georgian defense modernization and reform and improving
Georgia's ability to contribute to international security operations.
Our focus in the near term is enhancing self-defense capabilities
through an emphasis on doctrine, personnel management, education, and
training.
Additionally, the United States is assisting the Georgian Armed
Forces by training and equipping four infantry battalions for
successive deployment to Afghanistan, around twice a year for 2 years.
Georgian forces will sustain this rotation without caveats, and will
fight alongside the U.S. Marines as part of NATO's International
Security Assistance Force in Regional Command--South, Helmand Province,
to conduct distributed operations in a counter-insurgency environment.
The first Georgian battalion of approximately 750 troops began training
September 1, 2009 and will deploy to Afghanistan in April for six
months. Three follow-on battalions will be trained and deployed to
Afghanistan in 7-month rotations.
Question. In a letter exchange between Secretary Clinton and
Senators Feingold, Brownback, and Durbin, the State Department stated
that it had begun mapping the mineral rich zones controlled by armed
militias in the Congo. When will this map be made available to the
public and/or Members of Congress? The letter also indicated that the
State Department is considering additional efforts to address conflict
minerals in the Congo. What are these ``additional efforts'' that the
State Department is exploring to address conflict minerals in the
Congo?
Answer. The map of mineral-rich zones and armed groups in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), which was mandated in Public
Law 111-84, will be made available to the appropriate congressional
committees and the public shortly.
In terms of additional efforts, we plan to strengthen our public
diplomacy to draw attention to the conflict minerals challenge; to
enhance diplomatic outreach with the DRC, in the region and with
countries in the supply chain; to intensify engagement with the private
sector to discourage illegal minerals trade; to continue examining and
further expand reporting on the link between illegal exploitation of
natural resources, corruption, and human rights abuses in the State
Department's annual human rights report on the DRC; and to contribute
to the work of the United Nations Security Council's Democratic
Republic of the Congo Sanctions Committee's Group of Experts (UNSC DRC
Group of Experts) on due diligence guidelines for importers, processing
industries and consumers of mineral products.
Question. What are the current programs within both the State
Department and USAID to improve the livelihood prospects of communities
affected by human rights abuses in eastern Congo, particularly victims
of sexual and gender based violence?
Answer. USAID social protection programs in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo (DRC) include economic strengthening activities for
survivors of sexual and gender-based violence and their families.
Economic assistance is also provided to other highly vulnerable women.
Current programs include:
--Program for Psychosocial Support and Reintegration of Survivors of
Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Eastern DRC.--Implemented
by Cooperazione Internazionale (COOPI), operating in Ituri
District, Orientale Province and Maniema Province, funded at
$4,945,045 (December 15, 2008, to December 14, 2011). COOPI and
its local partners are providing medical, psychosocial, socio-
economic, and legal support to 24,000 survivors of sexual and
gender-based violence. Through this project, 4,000 survivors
benefit from income generating activities each year through
self-help groups and women's NGOs.
--ESPOIR: Ending Sexual Violence by Promoting Opportunities and
Individual Rights.--Implemented by International Rescue
Committee, operating in North and South Kivu Provinces, funded
at $7,000,000 (September 17, 2009, to September 30, 2012). IRC
and its local partners are providing medical, psychosocial,
socio-economic, and legal support to 14,500 survivors of sexual
and gender-based violence. IRC's sub-grant to Women-for-Women
International is supporting more than 6,000 women in income-
generating activities and vocational training.
--Program for Assistance and Reintegration of Abducted Girls and Boys
and Other Gender-based Violence Survivors.--In partnership with
UNICEF (COOPI is the implementing partner), operating in Ituri
District, Orientale Province, funded at $1,511,644 (July 20,
2006, to December 31, 2009). This program assists girls and
boys formerly associated with armed groups, many of whom are
affected by sexual and gender-based violence, with social and
economic reintegration. Community-based reintegration includes
returning to school and engaging in income-generating
cooperatives for vulnerable children (children who have been
separated directly from armed groups, as well as children who
encounter challenges in reintegrating with their families,
particularly girls and girl mothers).
--USAID Food for Peace programs in the DRC provide livelihood
assistance to displaced and other highly vulnerable people in
North and South Kivu, areas most affected by insecurity, human
rights abuses, and sexual and gender-based violence.
Development food aid programs support individuals and small
farmers' associations to increase agricultural productivity
through training and food-for-work programs.
--USAID Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance programs support
livelihood activities for vulnerable individuals in eastern
DRC. In fiscal year 2009, USAID's Office of U.S. Foreign
Disaster Assistance provided $33 million for agriculture and
food security, economic recovery and market systems,
humanitarian coordination and information management, health,
logistics and relief commodities, nutrition, protection,
shelter and settlements, and water and sanitation programs.
--The Department of State Office of Population, Refugees, and
Migration provided more than $45 million in fiscal year 2009
for humanitarian programs for refugees and internally displaced
persons from and in DRC. Funding includes programs for
agriculture and food security, education, emergency food
assistance, health, protection for refugees and internally
displaced persons, livelihoods, psychosocial services, refugee
integration, sexual and gender-based violence protection and
response, shelter, and water and sanitation programs.
Question. What resources, including personnel, are dedicated both
within the State Department and USAID to the issue of conflict minerals
in the Congo?
Answer. The United States dedicates significant financial and
personnel resources to address illicit mining in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. We have supported incorporation of the mining
issue into the mandates of both the U.N. Mission in the Congo (MONUC)
and the U.N. Group of Experts on the DRC. Through USAID, we support
livelihoods programs for Congolese artisanal miners who are the great
majority of miners nationwide. Through the U.S. Department of Labor, we
fund programs to remove child laborers from the mines and enroll them
in school. Embassy Kinshasa is working with the DRC Ministry of Mines
to support the implementation of the country's 2002 Mining Code, and
the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs is
training Congolese border and customs police in interdiction
techniques.
Question. Please explain the decrease in the State Department's
budget request for peacekeeping operations in Sudan, an account that
among other things is used to professionalize the SPLM and provide
communications and other equipment for the military.
Answer. The State Department's $42 million budget request for non-
assessed peacekeeping operations in Sudan is the same in fiscal year
2011 as it was in fiscal year 2010. Congress appropriated $44 million,
$2 million more than the Administration's request, for voluntary
peacekeeping operations in Sudan in fiscal year 2010. At this time, the
request of $42 million will be sufficient to advance the Department's
fiscal year 2011 programs for supporting the Government of Southern
Sudan's (GoSS) goals and objectives to transform its military, the
Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), into a professional military
body.
Question. Can the United States include radar for the SPLM capable
of detecting aerial attack within its peacekeeping operations budget
request or as part of another State Department funding vehicle?
Answer. Section 7070(f)(5) of the fiscal year 2010 Department of
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act
authorizes the provision of ``non-lethal military assistance, military
education and training, and defense services controlled under the
International Traffic in Arms Regulations'' to the Government of
Southern Sudan (GoSS), provided that the Secretary of State provides
Congress 15-days advance notice of her determination that the provision
of such items is in the U.S. national interest. Deputy Secretary
Steinberg made this determination on February 3, 2010, with respect to
fiscal year 2010 funds. As a general matter, a radar system would be
considered non-lethal assistance, although the exact configuration of
radar and its integration into a weapons system could change this
conclusion.
Currently, the priority use of peacekeeping operations (PKO) funds
supporting the development of the SPLA is as outlined in the fiscal
year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 congressional budget justifications--
namely the transformation of the SPLA into a professional military--and
does not include providing a radar system to the SPLA.
Question. What resources, including personnel, is the State
Department employing to monitor and report on human rights conditions
throughout Sudan?
Answer. The human rights situation in Sudan is poor, and human
rights abuses continue to be wide-ranging. The Obama Administration is
committed to improving the situation.
The State Department monitors human rights abuses through a
collaborative process that involves personnel both in the field,
including at Embassy Khartoum and Consulate Juba, and in the United
States. Our staff has regular contact with human rights activists,
victims of abuse, and non-governmental organizations in Sudan. Special
Envoy Gration also travels extensively in Sudan, and he regularly
raises human rights issues with his high-level counterparts in Khartoum
and in Southern Sudan. Finally, United States Government (USG)
personnel based in Washington, DC, meet regularly with a variety of
Sudanese diaspora, civil society, and advocacy groups to discuss human
rights issues. We place a high value on these discussions, and we work
to ensure that we follow-up on the information and concerns presented
to us by these constituencies.
The USG, through the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor, issues Country Reports on Human Rights Practices and
the International Religious Freedom Report. The Department's Office to
Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons issues the annual Trafficking
in Persons Report. Taken together, these reports provide detailed
information on human rights issues in Sudan. The State Department also
continuously collaborates with the United Nations on its efforts to
monitor the human rights situation. We have successfully worked to
ensure that the U.N. Human Rights Council maintains a reporting and
monitoring mechanism focused on Sudan, through the establishment of the
independent expert on the situation of human rights in Sudan. We also
continue to closely follow the work of the U.N. Panel of Experts on
Sudan.
Question. As we've seen in Darfur, many non-Arab Sudanese Muslims
have longstanding grievances against the central government in Khartoum
that can lead to conflict. What is the State Department doing to help
prevent new crises among marginalized peoples and regions in Sudan?
Answer. The United States government (USG) has a long standing
commitment to the people of Sudan. The central Sudanese government in
Khartoum has marginalized many groups of non-Arab Muslims throughout
various regions within Sudan, and we have long been greatly concerned
about the marginalization of these populations. We continue to pursue
policies and implement programs that will help to mitigate the effects
of marginalization by the government and promote peacebuilding and
conflict resolution within marginalized communities. Additionally, the
USG continues to work tirelessly to achieve the goals of the Sudan
Strategy, including full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement (CPA) that ended the North-South civil war and a definitive
end to violence, gross human rights abuses, and genocide in the Darfur
region.
Since the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in
2005, the people of Sudan have made progress in developing a stable
political environment where residents can work and live without the
overt threat of violence. However, parts of Darfur, Southern Sudan, the
Three Areas and Eastern Sudan remain volatile and are flashpoints for
destabilization. The U.S. Government is working with international
partners to support Sudanese communities to prevent or moderate
conflict in these flashpoints so that problems do not escalate and
interfere with Sudan's higher political processes. The State Department
and USAID will implement complementary programs. USAID efforts focus
primarily on supporting state and local governments, organizations, and
communities to manage conflict, to provide economic alternatives to
raiding and banditry, and to implement reconciliation processes
important to a sustainable peace in Sudan. State Department activities
focus primarily on building state and local capacity to stabilize the
security and political situation.
Question. Revenue-sharing from the oil sector is a key element of
the CPA. What is the State Department doing to ensure Khartoum lives up
to its promises to share oil revenues with the South?
Answer. Over the course of 2009, the United States Government (USG)
brought together the National Congress Party (NCP) and the Sudan
People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) to address outstanding
Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) implementation issues, including
issues related to the sharing of oil revenues. Due to this U.S.-led
Trilateral initiative, the two parties signed 10 Points of Agreement in
August 2009, one of which was devoted to wealth-sharing and oil
revenue. Following this agreement, the Government of National Unity
(GoNU) returned approximately $52 million to the Government of Southern
Sudan (GoSS), a sum that was incorrectly deducted from monthly oil
revenue transfers to finance election activities. While in the past,
GoNU payments to the GoSS had been late or partial, as of December
2009, the parties broadly agreed that the GoNU shall transfer the full
oil revenue amount allotted to the GoSS. As a result, all agreed-upon
arrears have been paid to the GoSS by the GoNU.
During the Trilateral Process, the two parties also agreed to an
independent audit of the oil sector, to determine whether the payments
made to the GoSS represented the full amount due under the CPA. While
progress has been slow in obtaining approval from relevant government
bodies for the audit to move forward, it is hoped that the audit can
proceed after the formation of new national and regional governments in
the wake of April's elections.
Question. What is the State Department doing to persuade Khartoum's
economic partners, particularly those with major investments in the oil
sector such as China, India, and Malaysia, to use their influence to
encourage Khartoum to implement the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA)
fully and to avoid the resumption of a destructive, and economically
disruptive, North-South civil war?
Answer. A key part of the U.S. Sudan strategy is reinvigorating and
strengthening international attention to outstanding Comprehensive
Peace Agreement (CPA) implementation issues. The United States
Government (USG) continues to work with all international stakeholders
to bring attention to remaining CPA issues such as demarcation of the
North/South border and appointment of commissions for the Southern
Sudan and Abyei referenda. Central to this is the promotion of
sustainable economic development and stability in both Northern and
Southern Sudan. This is an area in which China, other major investors
in Sudan, and the United States have the same objectives. We continue
to urge all countries, especially those with key interests in the oil
sector, to advocate for continued attention to this matter as a central
part of CPA implementation. U.S. officials discuss these issues
regularly with their foreign counterparts. Additionally, we are
engaging with all international stakeholders to coordinate
international support for negotiations on post-referendum arrangements,
an important component of which will be oil sector development and
continued North/South oil revenue sharing.
Question. The State Department's Office of International Religious
Freedom has been without an Ambassador for International Religious
Freedom for over a year. Given both President Obama's remarks in Turkey
and Egypt and Secretary Clinton's remarks in Qatar regarding the
importance of addressing religious freedom, when can we expect someone
to be nominated for this post?
Answer. A candidate for the position of Ambassador at Large for
International Religious Freedom has been identified and is in the
vetting process. We look forward to the announcement from the White
House.
International Religious Freedom remains a top focus for both the
President and the Secretary of State. The Office of International
Religious Freedom continues to pursue a robust agenda of monitoring and
promoting religious freedom under the leadership of a Senior Foreign
Service Officer. Religious Freedom issues are regularly raised by the
Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor,
Michael Posner, as well as other State Department principals.
Question. There continues to be severe and ongoing religious
freedom violations in Vietnam, including the active suppression of
independent religious activity and the detention and arrest of members
of particular religious organizations for their religious freedom
advocacy. As the State Department makes Country of Particular Concern
(CPC) designations under the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA)
this year, what criteria, specific to Vietnam, will be used to
determine whether Vietnam will be re-designated a CPC?
Answer. The State Department applies the statutory standard found
in IRFA Sec. (3)(11) to determine whether a country should be
designated a CPC, and will consider CPC designations, as warranted, for
all countries found to be, in the words of the Act, committing
``systematic, ongoing, egregious violations'' of religious freedom.
We are concerned about a number of religious freedom violations in
Vietnam, including treatment during the past year of Buddhist monks and
nuns of the Plum Village Order who were evicted from two pagodas, as
well as the use of force against Roman Catholics in property
restitution disputes. We are also watching closely whether the
Government of Vietnam will fulfill its commitment to register more
religious congregations.
After being designated a CPC in 2004, Vietnam addressed its most
serious violations (religious prisoners, church closings, forced
renunciations, and the lack of a transparent registration system) and
instituted policies and practices to protect religious freedom. The
State Department removed Vietnam from the list in 2006 because it no
longer fit the criteria of a CPC under the IRFA. Each year, we
carefully monitor the status of religious freedom in Vietnam and
reevaluate whether it merits designation as a CPC. We will report on
further developments in Vietnam in our next International Religious
Freedom Report, due in September.
Question. Secretary of State Clinton has publicly spoken about the
importance of freedom of worship. Is the Administration prioritizing
the freedom of worship as a matter of diplomacy and if so, in what way?
Does the Administration see any distinction between freedom of
religion, as defined by international standards such as the ICCPR, and
freedom to practice or worship?
Answer. International religious freedom remains a central component
to our promotion of human rights around the world. Promoting all
aspects of freedom of religious belief and expression remains a high
priority in our diplomatic efforts, as reflected in President Obama's
Cairo speech in June, where he emphasized that ``freedom of religion is
central to the ability of peoples to live together.'' In meetings with
government leaders around the world, State Department officials
consistently raise concerns regarding violations of religious freedom,
and the annual International Religious Freedom Report is an important
tool in that effort.
As a matter of international human rights law, there is a
difference between the terms ``freedom of religion'' and ``freedom of
worship,'' and one encompasses the other. Article 18 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights describes the
right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as including
freedom to manifest one's religion or belief ``in worship, observance,
practice and teaching.'' Freedom of worship is a component of the
broader freedom of religion. As an informal matter, the terms ``freedom
of religion'' and ``freedom of worship'' have often been used
interchangeably through U.S. history, including in this Administration.
Question. International NGOs continue to report on periodic violent
attacks against Burmese Rohingya refugees in Thailand and Bangladesh.
What resources are the State Department and USAID employing to offer
assistance to the Rohingya refugees? How is the State Department
engaging the governments of Thailand and Bangladesh regarding the
protection of Rohingya refugees?
Answer. We are closely following the situation of Burmese Rohingya
refugees and asylum seekers in Bangladesh, Thailand and elsewhere in
the region. The State Department and USAID are very concerned by
credible reports of a growing humanitarian crisis among the
unregistered Rohingya population residing outside of Kutupalong refugee
camp in Bangladesh and the increased numbers of arrests and push-backs
to Burma at the border. We are urging the Royal Thai Government to
provide assistance to Rohingya ``boat people'' distressed at sea who
are encountered in international waters near Thailand or within Thai
waters, in accordance with international maritime law and practice.
In fiscal year 2009, the State Department provided more than $2
million in funding to several international humanitarian organizations
to provide assistance and protection activities to both the registered
and unregistered Rohingya populations in Bangladesh, Malaysia,
Indonesia and elsewhere in the region. These organizations include
ActionAid, Handicap International, Action Contre La Faim and the
International Organization for Migration. Humanitarian assistance
includes the provision of healthcare, water and sanitation, education,
vocational skills training, conflict resolution, community
mobilization, mental health and psychosocial support, gender-based
violence prevention and response, and access to essential services for
Persons with Disabilities. USAID implements development programs in
Southeast Bangladesh on sectors that include population, health,
energy, natural resource management, and democracy and governance.
PACOM is constructing seven multi-purpose cyclone shelters and schools.
Given the sizeable Rohingya population in Southeast Bangladesh, these
programs also indirectly benefit the unregistered Rohingya.
We are urging the Government of Bangladesh (GOB) to allow UNHCR to
properly document the unregistered Rohingya population to ensure its
protection. We also urge the GOB to respect the principle of non-
refoulement, to investigate allegations of abuse, and take actions as
necessary. UNHCR has also gained agreement with the Government of Burma
to expand operational space in Northern Rakhine State. Third-country
resettlement remains an important strategic durable solution for some
Rohingya refugees in the region. The eventual voluntary repatriation of
refugees from Burma in safety and dignity and when conditions allow is
also another solution. Both the registered and unregistered Rohingya,
recognized as Persons of Concern by UNHCR, need freedom of movement and
access to opportunities for work, which would enable them to become
self-reliant and improve their chances for voluntary repatriation.
The issue of the Rohingya is complex with a strong international
dimension that requires a concerted effort by affected countries in the
region. Thailand and Bangladesh have an important role to play in the
Bali Process, where the Rohingya situation is being addressed
regionally, to help combat people smuggling, trafficking in persons,
and related transnational crimes in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond.
The State Department continues to urge UNHCR to work in close
coordination with IOM through the Bali Process in developing a
coordinated regional response and comprehensive plan of action with
affected countries to address the plight of the Rohingya.
Question. How is the State Department engaging Japan in diplomatic
discussions regarding International Child Parental Abduction (IPCA)
issues? At what level are these discussions occurring? What has been
the outcome of these discussions thus far?
Answer. For several years, IPCA has been a high priority as the
number of children abducted to Japan has steadily increased. Japan has
consistently opposed signing the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil
Aspects of International Child Abduction. This places United States
left-behind parents of abducted children to Japan at a great
disadvantage given Japan's family law system and traditions.
The Embassy and the Bureaus of Consular Affairs and East Asian and
Pacific Affairs continue to raise this issue during meetings with
Japanese officials at all levels. Japanese officials have consistently
stated that:
--The Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Justice are studying the
Hague Convention.
--Japanese family law is not consistent with the Hague Convention.
--The Diet would have to pass the required legislation to change
domestic law.
However, as Japanese officials have recently begun to take IPCA
more seriously, we have been more actively engaged on a number of
fronts. On October 16, 2009, U.S. Ambassador to Japan Roos, and the
Ambassadors of Canada, France, Italy, New Zealand, Spain, the United
Kingdom, and the deputy head of mission of Australia, demarched the new
Minister of Justice about IPCA. They urged Japan to accede to the Hague
Convention and take measures to improve access for parents separated
from their children. A joint press statement was issued by the eight
embassies following the meeting. On January 22, 2010, American Citizen
Services Chief William Christopher and staff from the Office of
Children's Issues met with officials from Ministry of Justice to
discuss Japan's legal statutes as they relate to IPCA, in particular
the legal definition of domestic violence, how courts determine custody
in divorce cases, and mechanisms used to enforce court orders.
On January 30, 2010, Ambassador Roos, accompanied by the same six
ambassadors and one deputy head of mission from other embassies in
Japan, demarched Minister of Foreign Affairs Katsuya Okada about IPCA.
The Ambassadors urged Japan to accede to the Hague Convention and to
take measures to improve access for parents separated from their
children. Minister Okada expressed appreciation for the meeting and
stated that the new government must decide how to deal with IPCA. There
was good media coverage of the meeting and the statement in both Japan
and overseas.
The third annual symposium on IPCA was held from March 17-18 in
Tokyo. The symposium brought together key stakeholders and professional
counterparts from the co-hosting nations in an expert level forum. The
event was in response to Japanese Justice Minister Keiko Chiba's
October 2009 expression of interest in learning about the experiences
of Hague signatory nations.
Our joint efforts have encouraged Japanese officials to more
seriously consider the issue of child abduction and look for ways to
address both accession to the Hague Convention and resolution of
current cases. We are encouraged by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs'
decision to establish the Division for Issues Related to Child Custody,
and we expect this to be an avenue for discussion of individual cases.
Question. The budget request to combat Trafficking in Persons seems
inadequate. If the State Department and USAID were to have more
resources devoted to combating trafficking, how would they be used?
Answer. The Department of State (DOS) uses foreign assistance funds
to stimulate governments to take action to combat trafficking in
persons (TIP) through criminal justice sector improvements, trafficking
prevention programs, and support for protection and assistance services
to victims. Funds for these anti-trafficking programs are critical to
fulfilling the mandate of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA)
of 2000 and our bipartisan policy priorities.
Since 2006, the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons
(G/TIP) which manages a portion of the State Department's anti-TIP
funds has funded a mere fraction of the requests received, which is
approximately $21 million of the over $288 million requested. G/TIP has
seen a 325 percent increase in requested funds for anti-trafficking
projects in a 4 year period from $45 million in fiscal year 2006 to
over $288 million in fiscal year 2010. G/TIP's most recent solicitation
resulted in 531 Statements of Interest for fiscal year 2010 funding,
which is a significant increase from the previous year's 372 proposals.
If an increase in funding to combat TIP were appropriated, DOS and
USAID would look to:
--Fund a greater percentage of the proposals received for
international anti-TIP projects;
--Increase the number of innovative TIP prevention programs,
including TIP-specific development projects;
--Increase the number of TIP research projects to promote greater
understanding of the scope of the problem and increase efficacy
of USG anti-TIP resources;
--Create dedicated training and technical assistance program to
include recruitment and deployment of experienced counter-
trafficking professionals in areas of victim assistance and
protection, rule of law, and investigation and prosecution.
Question. How is the Senior Policy Operating Group, which the State
Department chairs, ensuring the coordination of anti-trafficking
funding across the State Department and United States government per
the mandate established in the TVPRA?
Answer. The Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG) coordinates
programs and policies at several levels:
--Quarterly SPOG meetings.--G/TIP chairs quarterly, interagency
meetings involving every USG agency involved in anti-
trafficking programs--DOS, DOL, DOJ, DHS, and others. The
quarterly meetings provide a forum for agencies to coordinate
anti-trafficking policies and programs.
--SPOG Committee meetings.--The SPOG created working-level committees
to further its work, one of which is focused on grant-making.
--SPOG Programs Review Process.--Before issuing anti-trafficking
grants or contract funds, all USG agencies submit their
proposed anti-trafficking actions for review by the other key
SPOG members. Anti-trafficking program proposals are subject to
a 7-day comment period, during which SPOG member agencies
provide comments on whether the project will duplicate other
USG activities, whether the project presents opportunities for
cooperation with other USG activities, and whether the project
is consistent with USG anti-trafficking policy.
--Fiscal Year Chart on USG Spending.--At the end of each fiscal year,
SPOG staff gathers and organizes data on USG funds obligated in
that fiscal year for TIP projects.
Question. India has arguably the world's largest Trafficking in
Persons population, with its millions of bonded laborers. Given the
importance of our bilateral relationship, is the State Department
ensuring that combating trafficking in persons is conveyed as a
strategic priority for the United States throughout all diplomatic
discussions with the Government of India?
Answer. The Department places great importance on the need to build
a stronger partnership with the Government of India on addressing
shared human trafficking concerns. We encourage the Indian government
to research the phenomena of sex trafficking and bonded labor within
India. Over the last year, Secretary Clinton and other senior officials
have raised the issue of human trafficking with the Indian government
and the Department continues to convey the priority the Obama
Administration places on this human rights issue. We believe the
Government of India is committed to combating human trafficking and in
achieving faster progress against this global problem.
Question. How is the State Department leveraging U.S. trade to
further encourage other nations to actively combat trafficking in
persons?
Answer. The State Department is committed to expanding trade and
market opportunities in developing countries to help create an
environment not conducive to trafficking. Economic pressures make more
people susceptible to the false promises of traffickers. Embassy
employees worldwide provide country-specific data for the annual
Trafficking in Persons report, as well as the Department of Labor's
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) list of
products made by forced labor and child labor in violation of
international standards. Products on the TVPRA list are not permitted
to be imported into the United States.
Question. As Haiti has shown us all too clearly, disasters in
general (and Haiti in particular) often necessitate expertise and
resources specific to combating trafficking in persons in our
protection response. What can the State Department learn from Haiti and
how can the U.S. government best ensure preplanning is done such that
the United States is ready to meet that need when the next disaster
strikes?
Answer. As past natural disasters have proved, commandeering the
appropriate response on a wide-range of issues takes absolute
coordination, communication, resources, and resolve.
Specifically to trafficking in persons, the Department was actively
involved in anti-trafficking efforts prior to the January 2010
earthquake in Haiti. The Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in
Persons funded efforts in fiscal year 2008 by its non-government
partners to: increase public awareness; create a whole of community
efforts with targeted interventions, economic opportunity, and
psychological support; and address the ``restavek'' issue in country.
We were able to translate our pre-existing efforts into response in
the immediate aftermath of the earthquake. The Office to Monitor and
Combat Trafficking in Persons was involved with the Child Protection
Subcluster and it participated in a host of task forces and working
groups to ensure a whole of government response that was both
coordinated and concerted against trafficking.
One of the challenges we face in combating human trafficking in
post-natural disaster areas is the fact that many of these nations
already are facing an uphill battle against modern slavery before the
whole new set of post-disaster challenges emerge. We can learn from
every experience in disaster response. Perhaps the greatest lesson in
post-earthquake Haiti is recognizing that trafficking in persons must
be interwoven in the disaster-response in the immediate, interim, and
long-term plans. From the beginning, the United States Government must
train itself to translate human trafficking and be mindful of the
cultural contexts that increase vulnerability to TIP as a subset of the
protection pillar of disaster response, whether it is child protection,
protection against gender-based violence, or overall security issues.
It cannot come days later, or after a news story breaks, but should be
in pre-planning efforts across the board.
Fortunately, we were aware of the increased likelihood of human
trafficking in the days following the Haiti earthquake and worked
around the clock to make sure we could supplement and strengthen our
efforts. However, it is vital to ensure that the first boots on the
ground are fully aware of the warning signs and the trends of human
trafficking and are readily equipped to properly address this issue.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator George V. Voinovich
Question. I am concerned about--and would appreciate your thoughts
on--the pace of constitutional reform in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I am
particularly worried that the Presidential/Parliamentary campaign
rhetoric in Bosnia this Fall will ``poison the well'' for the extension
of NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) to Bosnia. I know you agree that
we must continue to push Bosnia towards NATO and the EU, and not allow
it to become an economic and political black-hole in Europe. I'm
heartened that, in the Republik of Srpska, Prime Minister Dodik has
stated his support for Bosnia's membership in NATO despite great public
opposition within his entity.
What is your view on the possible extension of MAP--or a
declaration by NATO of an intention to grant MAP--to Bosnia before the
Fall elections? Senator Shaheen and I met with the leaders and foreign
ministers of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia,
and Serbia during our visit to the region last week, who all believed
that such a step would be a positive signal to Bosnia's leaders that
NATO is serious about Bosnia's future.
Answer. The United States continues to support Bosnia and
Herzegovina's aspirations for NATO and EU membership and we are working
in Sarajevo and Brussels to encourage Bosnia along its Euro-Atlantic
integration path.
At the December 2009 NATO Foreign Ministerial, Allies noted that
Bosnia and Herzegovina has made substantial progress in cooperation
with NATO and urged its leaders to work together to pursue national
integration and improve the efficiency and self-reliance of state-level
institutions. Allies expressed support for Bosnia and Herzegovina's
participation in MAP once it achieves the necessary progress in its
reform efforts, and pledged to keep its progress under active review.
In order to successfully participate in MAP, a country needs to
have the institutional structures in place to make timely decisions and
implement difficult reforms. We have made clear to the leaders of
Bosnia and Herzegovina that they must demonstrate concrete evidence of
a sufficient capacity for political decisionmaking and a level of
government functionality to meet the commitments under MAP.
The next opportunity to assess Bosnia and Herzegovina's
preparedness for MAP will come at the meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers
in Tallinn on April 22. We will continue to encourage Bosnia's leaders
to intensify their reform efforts and to demonstrate their commitment
to advancing their aspirations.
Question. The Iranian regime remains the single greatest threat to
the peace and security of the Middle East. The neighboring nations of
the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which include the United Arab
Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, and Kuwait, are valuable
allies for the United States and have forged an important strategic
partnership with us. The GCC represents an important bulwark against
Iranian aggression.
What other forms of cooperation can the United States pursue with
the GCC to further strengthen our partnership and to enhance the
regional security?
Answer. The United States is actively working to strengthen our
partnership with the GCC states via significant engagement on regional
security, non-proliferation, alternative energy development (including
nuclear energy and renewables), and support for economic
diversification.
On the political front, we consult with our Gulf partners to
coordinate efforts to manage regional political, diplomatic, and
security challenges, including threats posed by Iran. With respect to
Iran, these consultations have resulted in Gulf country support for
five U.N. Security Resolutions on Iran, increased vigilance and action
against Iranian efforts to evade sanctions, active participation in a
GCC-plus-3 forum (with Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq), and increased U.S.
security and military cooperation throughout the Gulf.
Our political dialogue is complemented by a robust security
relationship among the U.S. and Gulf States. Using multilateral
exercises, training, and Foreign Military and Direct Commercial Sales,
the United States strengthens the GCC nations' capacity to defend
against regional threats, thereby limiting their vulnerability to
Iranian pressure.
Similarly, we cooperate with Gulf States on counterproliferation
issues. This growing cooperation is best exemplified by our cooperation
with the UAE. In 2006, we initiated a senior-level bilateral
counterproliferation dialogue (Counterproliferation Task Force or
``CTF''). The CTF meets annually in addition to supporting working
groups that meet throughout the year. Since 2006, we have seen the UAE
make significant progress on counterproliferation issues by actively
enforcing United Nations Security Council Resolutions related to Iran
and North Korea, participating in the Proliferation Security Initiative
and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, passing and
implementing an export control law, and preventing transshipments of
sensitive items from going to countries of proliferation concern such
as Iran.
Moreover, the United States is taking active steps, along with our
Gulf allies, to provide a counterweight to Iran's energy strategy. We
have encouraged our regional partners to help us reduce international
reliance on Iranian natural resources as a way to sharpen the choice
for Iran--opt to comply with nuclear obligations or face further
isolation. On civil nuclear energy issues, we concluded a landmark 123
Agreement on civilian nuclear energy with the UAE in 2009 which
includes the highest nonproliferation standards and a commitment by the
UAE to forgo enrichment and reprocessing on its soil. This civil
nuclear energy agreement represents a powerful countermodel to Iran in
demonstrating how a country can pursue civil nuclear energy and still
meet its international obligations.
We are also actively engaged in building commercial ties with the
GCC nations. Using tools such as our Free Trade Agreements with Bahrain
and Oman, proactive commercial advocacy and technical assistance on
commercial law development, the United States is encouraging expanded
American commercial ties in the region. Not only does this expand U.S.
business opportunities, but it also supports Gulf States' efforts to
diversify their economies.
Question. The Conference Agreement for the fiscal year 2010
Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act includes specific language stating
that ``The Conferees support the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)'s initiatives to combat anti-Semitism in
Europe and Eurasia and expect the Coordinator for United States
Assistance for Europe and Eurasia to provide adequate funding to ensure
continued leadership within the OSCE.''
Madam Secretary, can you provide me in writing with specific
details of your team's fiscal year 2010 work toward compliance with the
expectations of the House and Senate conferees concerning U.S.
financial support for OSCE efforts to combat anti-Semitism in Europe
and Eurasia--including support for OSCE extra-budgetary programming
efforts?
Answer. The OSCE is committed to combating all forms of racism,
xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and discrimination in the 56 participating
States (pS). The United States supports efforts to ensure that OSCE
commitments in the fields of tolerance and non-discrimination and
freedom of religion or belief are implemented effectively. We believe
the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR)
projects should focus on those countries where the gap between
commitments and practices is the greatest. The United States has
successfully insisted that ODIHR treat freedom of religion as a
fundamental freedom as well as an issue of promoting mutual respect (as
demonstrated during the Supplemental Human Dimension Meeting on Freedom
of Religion in July 2009). We have successfully lobbied Chairs-in-
Office to appoint or re-confirm the three special representatives on
anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim discrimination, and discrimination against
people of other religions including Christianity, who track government
activity to promote respect for religious differences and ensure the
rights of people of all faiths in the OSCE region.
The fiscal year 2010 appropriation levels approved by Congress will
enable the State Department will meet all U.S. financial obligations to
the OSCE and will also provide voluntary contributions for elections
support, U.S. personnel on secondment to the OSCE, and extra-budgetary
projects. OSCE funding comes from a combination of the Assistance for
Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia (AEECA), and Diplomatic and Consular
Affairs Program (D&CP) accounts. We expect to provide significant
financial and extra-budgetary contributions to the OSCE in support of
the efforts of ODIHR and the OSCE Personal Representatives on tolerance
to combat anti-Semitism throughout Europe and Eurasia. We continue to
encourage the OSCE and the ODIHR to attach a high priority to combating
anti-Semitism and we will continue to support the organization's
pioneering efforts in this area. We look forward to sending a
delegation to a planned OSCE high-level conference on mutual respect
and non-discrimination issues this summer and to engaging on a robust
agenda there.
Question. I would also appreciate from your team during the next 30
days a written strategic plan outlining the Department of State's
policy initiatives to combat anti-Semitism, including milestones,
metrics, and expected future financial resource requirements from
Congress.
Answer. To effectively combat anti-Semitism, we are building strong
channels of communication and collaborating with nongovernmental
organizations. This includes greater engagement in interfaith efforts,
active outreach among Muslim leaders, as well as reaching out to other
groups that experience discrimination.
The President has appointed Hannah Rosenthal as the new Special
Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism. Special Envoy Rosenthal
joined the Department of State in late November. Since that time she
has traveled extensively both overseas and in the United States to
advance her mandate.
One of Special Envoy Rosenthal's goals is to work more closely with
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Enclosed
please find her strategic outline to elevate and increase the
visibility of the work that the OSCE does to combat anti-Semitism.
On January 27, Special Envoy Rosenthal was part of the President's
delegation to the 65th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz
commemoration in Poland. Prior to the actual ceremony at Auschwitz-
Birkenau, she met with the Education Ministers from 29 countries to
learn more about their Holocaust and anti-discrimination education. All
29 countries reported that they are implementing curriculum and
activities to educate about the Holocaust and to confront intolerance.
However, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
(ODIHR) was not present at this gathering and none of the countries in
attendance mentioned use of the ODIHR curriculum or expertise.
Immediately after the ceremony, Special Envoy Rosenthal stayed on in
Poland for several more days to better understand this situation. She
went to Warsaw and had an excellent meeting with the staff at ODIHR,
where she learned that ODIHR representatives had tried unsuccessfully
to get invited to that Education Ministers' meeting. She discussed how
we can ensure that does not happen again, how to increase ODIHR's
visibility, and how best to get ODIHR the credit that is its due.
ODIHR has virtually no funds for public relations and clearly needs
people with higher visibility to talk about its mission, expertise, and
accomplishments. To assist with this challenge, Special Envoy Rosenthal
planned three major actions upon her return to Washington from Poland:
a trip to Lithuania in April to discuss with the U.S. Embassy in
Vilnius a proposal to develop a ``training the trainers'' approach to
tolerance education; clearance for all her speeches in the United
States and abroad to highlight the work of OSCE-ODIHR; and a new
initiative to be rolled out at the OSCE high-level conference on
tolerance and non-discrimination in Astana, Kazakhstan June 29-30.
These are included in the attached outline.
The outline was created after Special Envoy Rosenthal consulted
with Rabbi Andrew Baker; ODIHR; Human Rights First; the
Interparliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism; the Co-Existence
Trust of England; and several human rights NGOs in Poland, the United
Kingdom, and domestically.
Increasing the Visibility of the OSCE
Hannah Rosenthal Speech Highlights
Meetings with over 10 NGOs in Warsaw January 28-29, 2010.
Jewish Council for Public Affairs annual conference February 22,
2010.
Community Security Trust in London March 8, 2010.
Yale Institute of Research on Anti-Semitism April 12, 2010.
Testimony HFAC April 14, 2010.
University, Kaunas, Lithuania April 27, 2010.
ADL Leadership Conference May 3, 2010.
Graduation speech Madison, Wisconsin May 15, 2010.
Maryland Jewish Council May 27, 2010.
Canadian Interparliamentary Council to Combat Anti-Semitism
November 2010.
Partnerships--promote to their members and activities,
cover on websites
Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
American Jewish Committee.
B'nai Brith.
Anti-Defamation League.
Human Rights First.
Joint Distribution Committee.
Simon Wiesenthal Center.
Reiterate recommendations to governments
Acknowledge and condemn anti-Semitism and hate crimes.
Enact laws that address hate crimes.
Strengthen enforcement and prosecute offenders.
Train law enforcement.
Undertake interagency, parliamentary and other special inquiries.
Monitor and report on hate crimes, and ensure delineation for anti-
Semitism.
Strengthen anti-discrimination and human rights bodies.
Reach out to NGOs.
Speak out against official intolerance and bigotry.
Encourage international cooperation and joint statements.
OSCE to publicize
Help countries to meet obligation to collect and report hate crimes
data to ODIHR.
Make more visible three personal representatives.
Expand administrative resources to support three representatives
and provide public affairs capacity.
Support ODIHR's Tolerance and Non-Discrimination unit
--Ensure law enforcement program participation;
--ODIHR convene national points of contact and NGOs to build trust
and cooperation between law enforcement agencies, civil society
groups, and victims;
--Distribute materials and reports widely; and
--build funding through regular OSCE budget and extrabudgetary
contributions.
High-level conference on Tolerance and Non-Discrimination--June
2010.
Develop a ``side event'' at the OSCE high-level conference in
Kazakhstan June 29-30 to roll-out the ``ART Initiative: Acceptance,
Respect and Tolerance.'' SEAS and USOSCE will bring 8-10 NGOs that work
with governments to move beyond tolerance and advance acceptance and
respect. Highlight their ``best practices'' with easy-to-share
demonstration models. The proceedings will be both videotaped and
transcribed for official documents and websites for broad dissemination
at conferences, country visits, State Department website, OSCE website,
partners' websites, etc.
US Government and leadership
ART promotion.
Bilateral discussions.
Funding and TA expertise.
Human Rights Report and International Religious Freedom Report
annually.
Clearly state our freedom of expression issues.
Clearly state our definition of anti-Semitism (and where it is part
of anti-Israel rhetoric and activities).
Award/Recognition program
Develop an annual nomination and selection process for high
visibility recognition to individual and organizational work to advance
ART (acceptance, respect and tolerance).
Question. Secretary Clinton, I understand that the Department of
State recently entered into a contract with a new provider of crystal
stemware to be used at all American embassies.
Could you please explain the circumstances surrounding this award
and the process by which the new vendor was selected?
Answer. The Department of State had a new departmental requirement
for lead-free crystal ware design, production, inventory management and
fulfillment services for U.S. embassies. Department officials met with
SDI, a company that had earlier been introduced to the Department of
State by the Small Business Administration (SBA), to discuss the
company's capabilities in fulfilling the contract requirements.
In accordance with complying with FAR 6.302-5, ``Other Than Full
and Open Competition, Authorized or Required by Statue,'' the
Contracting Officer sent an offer letter to SBA to negotiate and award
a contract under the 8(a) program with SDI, an 8(a) program
participant. SBA accepted the requirement into the 8(a) program and
authorized DOS to negotiate a contract with SDI on May 18, 2008. A
solicitation was released to the firm who then submitted a proposal.
SDI subsequently informed the Department that they could not find a
U.S. manufacturer of lead-free crystal, and planned instead to
subcontract manufacturing to Orrefors/Kosta Boda, USA located in New
Jersey. Market research conducted by the Department indicated there was
no company that manufactured lead-free table top crystal ware in the
United States. The Department evaluated SDI's proposal, determined it
to be technically acceptable and that the price was fair and
reasonable. An award for a base year and four option years was made to
SDI on September 24, 2009, for a total ceiling for the contract of $5.4
million (total for 12-month base year, and four 12-month option years).
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Madam Secretary. This hearing is
recessed.
[Whereupon, at 12:21 p.m., Wednesday, February 24, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2011
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:35 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Leahy, Landrieu, Gregg, Bond, and
Brownback.
U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
STATEMENT OF DR. RAJIV SHAH, ADMINISTRATOR
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY
Senator Leahy. I know there are several other hearings
going on and people are at different places. Dr. Shah, welcome
to the subcommittee. We'll talk about your budget request, and
I might say and I've told you this privately, I sincerely
appreciate the fact that a person of your intellect and
enthusiasm has taken on this job.
I think I told you one of the first times we talked, I
wasn't sure whether to offer you congratulations or
condolences, but on behalf of the country I'm glad you're
there.
I don't envy you the job because USAID is in urgent need of
reform and it is a formidable task and if it's not fixed, there
are those who are going to ask whether USAID as it is should
continue. I think every member of this subcommittee supports
USAID's mission in one way or another, but I've heard on both
sides of the aisle increasing concern about the performance of
the agency.
That doesn't diminish in any way the many extraordinary
USAID staff or ignore the important and often life-saving work
which they and USAID's implementing partners around the world
do to help improve the lives of people in some of the world's
poorest countries.
We provide billions of dollars for USAID's programs and
operations. So it stands to reason that a lot of that money is
being used to positive effect. But I don't think USAID is
living up to its potential of what--and I can say this to you
directly because you have the task of fixing what was done
wrong before--the U.S. taxpayers and this subcommittee expect
it to do.
Like many government bureaucracies, USAID suffers from a
culture of arrogance that it knows best. Too often, it seems
more comfortable dealing with elites of foreign countries than
those people who have no voice. There is a disturbing
detachment between some USAID employees in missions overseas
who spend much of their time in comfortable offices, behind
imposing security barriers, living in relatively high style,
and the impoverished people they're there to help, so much so
that it's hard to wonder how you can make a connection.
I have nothing against suitable working and living
conditions. We provide the funds for that. What concerns me is
the way in some places USAID has become an ivory tower, distant
from the trenches, writing big checks for big contractors and
high-priced consultants and churning out self-serving reports
filled with sometimes incomprehensible bureaucratic jargon.
I've read them and I've sometimes wondered what did they
say and, you know, English is my first language and they are
written in English and I can't understand them.
Now there are many USAID staff and often they're former
Peace Corps volunteers who love to be out in the field doing
hands-on work implementing, overseeing programs, but that's
become more the exception, not the rule.
I also often hear the frustration of creative people who
want to help, have so much to offer, but then they end up
facing a closed door, and a closed mind, at USAID. They face a
labyrinth of reporting requirements that are burdensome or
almost a way of saying we don't need you.
I think USAID has to change its culture, change the way it
does business, if it wants the kind of money that you're here
asking for. If it doesn't change I will not vote for money for
USAID and if I'm not going to vote for it, there are a lot of
other people who may not.
I'll have some questions about your budget and I say this
in this subcommittee, in the Senate, Republicans and Democrats,
you will not find stronger supporters of your mission among the
men and women on this subcommittee than anywhere else in the
Senate and we want nothing more than for you to tell us how you
plan to reform USAID.
So here's your chance, in plain English. Put your full
statement in the record. But just tell us how are you going to
make these changes and how are you going to restore USAID's
image on Capitol Hill?
So over to you, Dr. Shah.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DR. RAJIV SHAH
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Senator, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to first start by recognizing your deep commitment
to USAID's mission. I've had the opportunity to participate in
some of your trips abroad from a distance when I was in a
different role and I know the commitment you have to this
mission supersedes any commitment to an institutional
arrangement or a particular bureaucracy. I look forward to
working with you to put a change agenda in place so that USAID
does live up to your aspirations and mine and those of the
thousands of people that are still involved in USAID programs
around the world.
I think this is an important opportunity. In many ways I
consider this a once-in-a-lifetime or once-in-a-generation type
of opportunity. The President, the Secretary, members of this
subcommittee, yourself, and other Members of Congress have all
called for a more effective, transparent, and capable
development enterprise. I think that is a legitimate call in an
environment where our world is more interconnected and people
care more about the development mission.
I'm excited about being at USAID because the agency has a
rich legacy of successfully introducing the green revolution,
of bringing oral rehydration therapy and other health solutions
to millions of children, and of creating higher education
institutions in parts of the world. I was just in Pakistan and
met graduates that were proud to have been supported by U.S.
generosity.
I also fully understand the need for change in the way we
do business. The examples are really everywhere. I was just in
Afghanistan where some of our staff reported errors in their
paychecks during a pay period. That's one example where our
human resources system failed. There are others, but I think
this highlights how acute the need is for performance
improvement in many of our core operating functions.
The planning, measurement, and capability to put together
ideas and articulate them across the agency and, as you put it,
relate to the reporting capabilities of the agency are very
weak today. Having been here for a few months with a big
interagency focus on Haiti, it took extraordinary measures for
us to be able to produce the kind of data reporting and
information on a daily and weekly basis so that our interagency
colleagues could understand what's working and what's not
working in the Haiti relief effort and try to fill gaps in
assistance in a rapid way. We need to build better systems in
that space.
Our contracting model, as you highlight, needs real reform.
I visited an institution just last week where we've provided
about $4.5 million over probably 3\1/2\ years and have done
wonderful work in supporting thousands of students to gain
access to technical training in Afghanistan. At a cost of about
$1,000 a student per year, they will graduate from a 2-year
course and earn incomes of $300 to $500 a month in areas like
the construction trades, electrical wiring, ICT, and computer
programming, but we probably spent 35 percent more than we
needed to in order to get that result. Having come from a place
that had far fewer bureaucratic processes to address, I've seen
development happen in a more efficient and a more direct way
and think it can be done at USAID.
You asked very specifically about a reform agenda that
would better serve U.S. taxpayers and that is what we deeply
believe in. Before the end of this month, we hope to roll out a
new policy, planning, evaluation and budget capability at USAID
that will allow us to be more accountable and make smarter
decisions and real resource trade-offs, so that we're not just
chasing every need in an environment where needs are endless.
We've all been to settings where we are overwhelmed by the
extent of needs, but we are focusing on those areas where we
can get the most cost-effective impact and results for our
investment.
This summer I hope to launch a series of procurement
reforms. This will not be easy because the agency has come to
outsource a huge amount of work, including basic program design
and program oversight activities, but we have a team in place
to work on this issue. We've already put a Board of Acquisition
and Assistance Review in place to review all contracts over $75
million. We will take that further by developing specific
detailed guidelines for procurement reform that are based on
the premise that we should be doing much more work in-house,
especially related to program design and oversight.
PREPARED STATEMENT
And finally, we will focus on human resources and
evaluation in a very substantive way over the course of the
summer and the fall. I think if we do these things, sir, we
will be a more accountable agency, a more transparent agency,
and a more effective agency. I share your passion and urgency
around these points and appreciate your guidance and your
opening comment.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Rajiv Shah
INTRODUCTION/HAITI
Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Gregg, Members of the Subcommittee,
I am honored to join you here today in support of the President's
fiscal year 2011 foreign operations budget request.
It has been less than 4 months since I was sworn in as
Administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development. As you
know, just days after my swearing-in, the people of Haiti were struck
by a tragedy of almost unimaginable proportions. The United States--and
the American people--responded swiftly and aggressively to this
unprecedented disaster--a response that reflected the leadership and
compassion of our nation.
In the immediate aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti, President
Obama designated me as the Unified Disaster Coordinator and charged our
government with mounting a swift, aggressive and coordinated response.
In that capacity, USAID coordinated the efforts of the Departments of
State, Defense, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services. We
worked collaboratively with the Government of Haiti and a host of other
governments, the United Nations, other international organizations,
NGOs, the private sector, and with thousands of generous and concerned
individuals. Together we have provided a comprehensive response to a
complex disaster whose scope far exceeds any other that the
Administration has faced internationally and one that requires a
continued aggressive and unique approach.
Our unprecedented level of coordination in response to these
challenges has shown results on the ground. With our partners, we
launched the largest, and most successful international urban search-
and-rescue effort ever--with more than 135 lives saved by over 40
countries' search and rescue teams in Haiti. In coordination with
Haitian authorities, our military, the United Nations, and NGO
colleagues, we created a fixed distribution network to surge food
distribution to nearly 3 million people--the most robust urban food
distribution in recent history. Within 30 minutes of landing on the
ground, the U.S. military secured the airport, and in the hours that
followed, rapidly expanded its capacity to well beyond pre-earthquake
levels. The United States also helped to restore a critical sea port,
thereby scaling up the delivery of essential goods and restoring
commercial capacity. And our partners at the Department of Health and
Human Services provided medical assistance that enabled an additional
30,000 patients to receive treatment.
Nevertheless, we all know that Haiti faces a long and steep road to
recovery. Reconstruction will take time and will require the shared
commitment and resources of our international partners, working in
concert with the Government and the people of Haiti.
We are requesting a total of $1.6 billion for the Department of
State and USAID in supplemental funding for efforts in Haiti. Of that,
approximately $501 million will be used to reimburse USAID for the
emergency humanitarian response already provided through International
Disaster Assistance and Food for Peace Title II. Of the funding
requested in the supplemental for reconstruction , $749 million is
requested for the Economic Support Fund to support Haiti's critical
recovery and reconstruction needs, including rebuilding infrastructure,
supporting health services, bolstering agriculture to contribute to
food security, and strengthening governance and rule of law. Finally,
we have requested an additional $1.5 million for USAID's Office of the
Inspector General to ensure greater oversight of these funds.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND OVERVIEW
Recovery in Haiti will continue to be a major focus for the
foreseeable future. But we will not lose sight of the important work of
strengthening USAID and helping other countries achieve their
development goals. Investment in development has never been more
strategically important than it is today. Even in the midst of
difficult economic times domestically, helping nations to grow and
prosper is not only the moral obligation of a great nation; it is also
in our national interest. The investments we make today are a bulwark
against current and future threats--both seen and unseen--and a down
payment for future peace and prosperity around the world.
As Members of this Subcommittee know very well, development is an
essential pillar of our foreign policy. As President Obama said in Oslo
last December, ``Security does not exist when people do not have access
to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need
to survive.'' Building the capacity of countries to meet these basic
needs--and in turn, increasing dignity and opportunity for their
people--is what guides our work and the resources we put behind it.
While the scope and complexity of the world's challenges have
grown--from the food crisis to the global financial crisis, terrorism
to oppression, climate change to pandemics--we have never had the
technology, tools and global imperative for action that we have today.
Together with other government departments and agencies, USAID is
examining our policies, resources, and capabilities to determine how
best to achieve our development objectives through the Presidential
Study Directive on U.S. Development Policy and the Quadrennial
Diplomacy and Development Review. And already, we are moving to face
these challenges, guided by the following important principles:
--Working in partnership, not patronage with the countries we serve;
--Coordinating across U.S. agencies and among donors and partners for
maximum impact;
--Ensuring strategic focus with targeted investments in areas where
we can have the greatest impact with measurable results and
accountability;
--Embracing innovation, science, technology and research to improve
our development cooperation; and
--Enhancing our focus on women and girls.
The fiscal year 2011 budget request will support development
priorities that contribute directly to our national security.
Specifically, our request is focused on three priority areas:
--Securing Critical Frontline States.--$7.7 billion in State and
USAID assistance will support U.S. development efforts in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.
--Meeting Urgent Global Challenges.--$14.6 billion in State and USAID
assistance will support local and global solutions to national
and transnational problems, including global health, food
security, poverty, disasters, and threats of further
instability from climate change and rapid population growth.
--Enhancing Aid Effectiveness and Sustainability.--$1.7 billion will
support the ongoing rebuilding of USAID personnel and
infrastructure.
securing critical frontline states: afghanistan, pakistan, and iraq
By far the largest component of our requested budget increase is
dedicated to the critical states of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. We
have made some progress in each of these countries, but we realize that
significant challenges remain.
Over the past several years, our focus in Afghanistan has been
achieving greater stability and security. Working within a fully
integrated civilian-military plan, our goal is to create space for
economic investment and to lay the foundation for a more
representative, responsible and responsive government. We believe these
investments are key to providing sustainable security and stability in
Afghanistan.
We are gradually delivering more of our resources through public
and private Afghan institutions and these efforts have been successful
so far. We are performing careful and diligent oversight and directing
resources to local institutions and partners who perform well.
We are beginning to see major improvements in the Afghan healthcare
system. In 2002, just 8 percent of the population had access to some
form of healthcare, but by 2009, that number had increased to 84
percent.
We have also made significant strides in education. Under the
Taliban, only 900,000 boys and no girls were officially enrolled in
schools. As of 2009, more than 6 million children were enrolled, 35
percent of whom are girls. One of our biggest economic accomplishments
in Afghanistan has been to begin to rejuvenate the agricultural
industry. In November of last year, with USAID support, Afghan
provincial farmer associations sent to India the first shipment of what
is expected to be more than 3 million kilograms of apples this season.
USAID has also been active in developing a coordinated Afghan
energy policy, and helped advance new electricity generation capacity
and provide 24-hour power for the first time in cities including Kabul,
Lashkar Gah, and Kandahar City. With additional resources, we expect a
half million people will benefit from improved transportation
infrastructure.
In Pakistan, our request supports ongoing efforts to combat
extremism, promote economic development, strengthen democratic
institutions, and build a long-term relationship with the Pakistani
people. We are focusing on programs that help demonstrate the capacity
of local civilian governance to meet the Pakistani people's needs, and
channeling assistance to less-stable areas to rebuild communities and
support the Government of Pakistan's counterinsurgency efforts.
USAID and our partners in Pakistan have made progress in several
areas. In 2009, we expanded educational opportunities, rebuilt schools
and increased support for higher education. We trained 10,852
healthcare providers, 82 percent of whom were women, and provided
essential care to nearly 400,000 newborns. Over the life of our
program, we have helped treat 934,000 children for pneumonia, 1.6
million cases of child diarrhea, and provided DPT vaccines to 731,500
babies through training programs for healthcare workers.
We have also focused on generating economic opportunities for the
people of Pakistan, contributing to the country's stability. USAID
programs generated more than 700,000 employment opportunities in 2009,
including training more than 10,000 women in modern agricultural
techniques.
The funding increase in fiscal year 2011 for Pakistan will help
USAID reach approximately 60,000 more children with nutrition programs,
increase enrollment in both primary and secondary schools by over 1
million learners, and support 500,000 rural households to improve
agricultural production.
Finally, turning to Iraq, we have transitioned to a new phase in
our civilian assistance relationship--shifting away from reconstruction
toward the provision of assistance to bolster local capacity in line
with Iraqi priorities. Indeed, we are working in partnership with the
Government of Iraq whose investment in their own development matches or
exceeds at least 50 percent of U.S. foreign assistance funds.
Specifically, USAID is promoting economic development,
strengthening the agricultural sector, which is the largest employer of
Iraqis after the Government of Iraq, and increasing the capacity of
local and national government to provide essential services. For
example, USAID is strengthening public administration, strategic
planning and project management in critical Iraqi ministries by
supporting 180 international post-graduate scholarships in programs
related to public administration for Iraqis at universities in Cairo,
Amman, and Beirut. The additional funding requested will also promote
small and medium enterprise growth, strengthen the Iraqi private
banking sector and increase access to lending for entrepreneurs engaged
in new market opportunities resulting from improved stability.
MEETING URGENT GLOBAL CHALLENGES
In addition to supporting these critical frontline states, we are
targeting investments to assist with urgent global challenges that--if
unmet--can compromise the prosperity and stability of a region or
nation.
First, global health, where we are requesting $8.5 billion in State
and USAID assistance. Our request supports President Obama's Global
Health Initiative, which builds on the President's Emergency Plan for
AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), launched by the Bush Administration, and other
U.S. global health programs and will help our 80 partner countries
strengthen health systems and sustainably improve health outcomes,
particularly for women, children and newborns. This initiative will be
carried out in collaboration with the Department of State and the
Department of Health and Human Services to ensure our programs are
complementary and leave behind sustainable healthcare systems that are
host-country owned.
With additional funding, we will build on our strong record of
success in HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria, and achieve results where progress
has lagged, in areas such as obstetric care, newborn care and
nutrition. The initiative will include a special focus on up to 20
countries where we will intensify efforts to ensure maximum learning
about innovative approaches for working with governments and partners,
accelerating impact and increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of
U.S. government investments.
Second, to support global food security, we propose investing $1.2
billion for food security and agricultural programs, in addition to the
$200 million set aside for nutrition programs that support the goals of
improved global health and food security. These funds are in addition
to the emergency and non-emergency food assistance we provide. There is
a strong link between security and hunger, made clear in 2008 when the
global food price crisis led to a dramatic rise in food riots in more
than 30 countries around the globe. With these additional funds, we
will work in countries in Africa, Central America, and Asia to combat
poverty and hunger. Our work will draw upon relevant expertise across
the United States government to deliver the most effective programs
possible.
Our third principal challenge is climate change. We propose to
invest $646 million in our programs, part of the Administration's
overall request of $1.4 billion to support climate change assistance.
USAID will support implementation of adaptation and sustainable
landscape investments, as well as low-carbon development strategies,
market-based approaches to sustainable energy sector reform and
emission reductions, capacity-building and technologies to enhance
adaptation and local resilience to climate change in partner countries.
We plan to expand renewable energy programs in the Philippines,
improving electric distribution systems in Southern Africa, and support
high-level bilateral climate change partnerships with major economies
like India and Indonesia.
Finally, we remain focused on humanitarian assistance, including
emergency and non-emergency food aid, where USAID and the Department of
State propose to use $4.2 billion. The tragedy in Haiti brings clarity
to both the critical need for America's leadership on humanitarian
assistance and the strong support from the American people that such
efforts enjoy. This funding allows us to assist internally displaced
persons, refugees, and victims of armed conflict and natural disasters
worldwide.
With the combined investments proposed in global health, food
security, climate change and humanitarian assistance, we will build the
capacity of countries to save lives and, through economic growth, help
make people less vulnerable to poverty and the threat of instability
that extreme poverty can represent. In so doing, we honor our basic
values, strengthen our national security and promote our national
interests.
ENHANCING AID EFFECTIVENESS AND SUSTAINABILITY
All of the priorities I have outlined require well-trained
personnel and robust infrastructure. We must treat development as a
discipline. This requires strong capacities in evaluation, planning,
resource management, and research to ensure we are incorporating best
practices. At the same time, we must be able to recruit, hire and
retain best in class development professionals.
As we build our workforce, we must reclaim the Agency's historical
leadership in science and technology. We must also strengthen USAID's
capacities to identify, implement, and rigorously evaluate new and
existing approaches that reward efficiency, effectiveness, and
sustainability. We must have the capacity to analyze, plan, and invest
strategically for the long term. And most important, we must stay
relentlessly focused on results--which means establishing baseline
data, measuring progress, being transparent about both our successes
and our failures--learning from both and improving our approach as we
go forward.
Our fiscal year 2011 budget request represents a vital investment
in our human resources, and I want to thank the Committee for its
foresight and support for the Development Leadership Initiative. The
additional resources requested will allow us to bring on 200 new
Foreign Service Officers, furthering our goal of doubling the size of
our Foreign Service Corps. Fields of particular focus are education
officers, economists, agriculturalists, stabilization, governance and
reconstruction officers, global health officers and evaluation experts.
This long-term investment in human resources is critical to help
fill a shortage of experienced middle- and senior-level technical
experts and managers. Equally important, by reducing our reliance on
contractors to design and evaluate programs, we will not only save
taxpayer dollars but also enable greater oversight and more effective
program implementation.
Through these critical investments, we can achieve the development
goals we have set around the world and restore USAID's standing as the
world's premiere development agency.
CONCLUSION
Our objective each day is to seek out these best practices, learn
from them, and adapt them to everything we do. We are committed to
transparency in both our successes and our failures--viewing both as
opportunities to learn and improve.
I know this is a time of great economic strain for so many
Americans. For every dollar we invest, we must show results. That is
why this budget supports programs vital to our national interests. The
United States must be able to exercise global leadership to respond to
crosscurrents of a complex world. This requires the effective use of
all instruments of our national security--including development. We
agree strongly with President Obama and Secretary Clinton's vision of
embracing development as indispensable to American foreign policy and
national security.
It is through this relentless dedication to results that we do
justice to our motto, ``from the American people.'' We do this not just
by extending a helping hand, but by sharing the hopefulness of the
American dream in places where hope remains shrouded by poverty,
oppression and despair.
In many cases, the balance between a future filled with fear and a
future filled with hope is fragile. Every day, USAID tips the scale
toward hope and opportunity.
Thank you very much.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. I, and I believe most people
here, want USAID to succeed, but you talked about outsourcing
and some of the other things that are being done.
You said local hires are not being paid, but I'm sure that
USAID employees, their paychecks came, and--no?
PAYROLL ISSUES
Dr. Shah. There were problems with payroll for the Foreign
Service Limited (FSL) employees--differentials not paid, pay
caps imposed, among other issues. The Foreign Service National
staff and other employees are being paid and have not had
payroll issues.
Senator Leahy. So that, it was a mechanical thing, this was
not a case of money that ran out. Am I right?
Dr. Shah. Correct. It was entirely related to our internal
process and we've already made that fix for that particular
problem.
POLITICAL APPOINTEES
Senator Leahy. How many of your political appointees and
other top positions are still waiting for final approval by the
White House? What are you hearing as far as getting them
approved?
Dr. Shah. We've made 36 political appointments that have
joined and are currently working at the USAID. We've submitted
62 names to the White House. A number of the Senate-confirmed
individuals are through an initial process where I believe
they're on to the second stage of review and vetting. For me
it's an incredible priority to make sure we get a series of
names up to the Senate so we fill the slate, but those are the
numbers in terms of the progress we've had.
Senator Leahy. So you still have some that haven't gone
through the vetting at the White House?
Dr. Shah. Thirty-six have joined and are onboard. Of the
Senate-confirmed, roughly one-half of them are through an
initial vetting process but that only gets concluded when the
White House, of course, announces the formal appointments.
AFRICA
Senator Leahy. There was an Op-Ed in last Sunday's New York
Times by Bono entitled ``Africa Reboots.'' Did you have a
chance to read that?
Dr. Shah. I did, sir.
Senator Leahy. For the others, it described his
conversation with different African political leaders, artists,
and entrepreneurs during a recent trip around Sub-Saharan
Africa focused on aid and trade, governance, corruption,
transparency, enforcing the rule of law, rewarding measurable
results, and so on.
I know the trip was exhausting but one that he found very
worthwhile, and he and I talked about it.
Is there anything in that, in his comments that would have
relevance for USAID and the way you do business in Africa and
other parts of the world?
Dr. Shah. Yes, sir, I believe so. The fundamental point he
was making in that Op-Ed was that he believes Africa is in a
place where there is strong innovative and capable leadership
in government, in the private sector, and in civil society, and
what I took away from the article was that it is incumbent upon
us to find those change agents and those leaders and do the
types of things that empower them to be successful and build on
their capacity to offer real leadership.
We've seen that in a number of ways. The article talked
about the Mo Ibrahim Prize that essentially does that for very
high-level African presidential leadership. I was at the Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation for nearly 8 years and we
certainly got a lot of credit in that setting for finding
innovative leaders and empowering them to be successful.
One of the things I noted, and I shared this with part of
the USAID team that runs a program called the Development
Credit Authority, is in many cases the initial organization
that found and supported the leaders that we were then helping
to take to the next level, was USAID and USAID programs, USAID
missions, and networks that had developed over many, many years
of being present in countries. I think there is a base of
capability and leadership and knowledge regarding who's capable
of offering real leadership, no matter what sector they come
from. USAID has connections and networks that we can build on
using some of the tools that are already at our disposal, like
the Development Credit Authority, and other tools to support
private sector and civil society organizations.
USAID'S PROCUREMENT SYSTEM
I think our procurement process almost systematically
excludes a lot of local leaders from being real participants in
our efforts and that needs to be fixed in order to really help
us be successful.
Senator Leahy. Well, in fact, there's been a lot of delays
in launching the USAID's worldwide procurement software and
system. This predated you being there, but it was scheduled to
be completed in March 2008. I think now it has a completion
date of June 2011 at a cost of around $100 million.
Are you confident it's going to be completed?
Dr. Shah. That's what I'm told. Part of what we're doing is
looking at the full range of procurement tools we have as part
of this procurement reform that I hope to announce in June.
Senator Leahy. Well, let me pick up on that.
If you call a mission abroad and they say, well, Dr. Shah's
on the phone, get the mission director, you say how are things
going, and you're told everything is fine.
To what extent can you get objective information? Do you
have confidence that you can get that kind of feedback if
something isn't working, whether it's procurement, which
obviously didn't work with your predecessor because it wasn't
completed, but what's your level of confidence that you can
hear bad news as well as good news?
Dr. Shah. Well, you know, this may be surprising, sir, but
it is high in the sense that I do hear regularly a fair stream
of bad news. Some of it is related to mistakes that were made
in following process and some of it is externally created
mishaps that result in a poor outcome.
My goal is to give people the space to come to me sooner
with an identification of when those kinds of problems are
likely to happen, as opposed to coming to me with ``we screwed
up'' after the fact. Even in that area, I'm encouraged.
I was recently in Afghanistan and we built a series of what
I call data dashboards, which sector by sector identify four to
five key metrics that would allow us to track our spending in
that context, and whether it is having the impact we expect and
having--and I know this is very mechanical, a small red,
yellow, or green light indicator against each metric so you can
see if we're spending x amount of money in the education
sector, are we improving the attendance rates for girls,
educational quality and building capacity in the ministry in
the sector that needs to sustain this effort. I found the
dialogue there was very rich, very honest.
People want to come forward with what they're struggling
with. If we can create the space for that and if we can create
a culture that celebrates identifying what's tough and coming
up with innovative ways to address it head-on, I think the
people and the staff are ready to stand up and participate in
that.
HAITI
Senator Leahy. Well, one good example would be how
objective a response you can get on our response in Haiti.
There are a number of things that went right. There are a
number of things many of us feel went wrong, and I would like,
once you've had an evaluation of knowing what went right and
what went wrong, I would like to sit down with you and see how
objective a picture you got because we're going to also have
questions in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere, different
problems, of course, different situations, but I want to know
how objective the reports are that you receive.
Dr. Shah. Sir, I would look forward to the opportunity to
do that. We're engaged in a number of after action reports in
that regard.
I would just add that during the crisis and, of course,
it's an ongoing one, on a daily or weekly basis we were having
the dialogue around which sectors were working more effectively
and which ones were not. Areas like sanitation and hygiene in
particular, efforts to move and resettle individuals who were
at risk of the floods and the rains, and we were able to
rededicate ourselves and bring additional resources to help
address some of those sectors that were going slower.
So I appreciate the reporting that took place in that
context, but I understand your point is a more fundamental one
and I look forward to that opportunity.
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much. We've been joined by
Senator Gregg. I'll yield to you and then we'll get to Senator
Landrieu.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Unfortunately, I apologize, Dr. Shah, I'm going to have to
leave quickly for another meeting.
But, first, I want to associate myself with the chairman's
opening remarks. I think he's raised a number of very
significant and important red flags for the agency, and this
subcommittee has a very deep interest in making sure those are
addressed. It's a bipartisan interest and I hope you'll respond
to those concerns aggressively.
FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET
Second, just a quick question: I look at the resources that
are available and everything you folks want to do and they
don't match. Let's even assume that you get significant
increases--which is going to be difficult in the climate that
we're functioning in--but you've got the Millennium Challenge
Corporation (MCC), you've got the Feed the Future Initiative
(FTF), and you've got the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for
AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), and I don't see how you do any of those
three in as robust a way as you're suggesting under the
resources that are going to be available.
So I'd like to get a sense of how you think you're going to
do that.
Dr. Shah. Well, thank you, Senator. I would just say in a
generic sense we recognize the need to do a better job of
setting priorities and especially country by country, narrowing
the number of sectors we might work in so that in each of those
sectors we can build real technical excellence, stay committed
for 5 or 10 years, and see the kind of big transformative
outcomes we hope to see.
So part of my leadership, I hope, over time is to narrow
our focus in countries to those specific sectors that we think
are most important in those particular countries and in a way
that is consistent with how our resources are provided to us.
Senator Gregg. Take, for example, PEPFAR and MCC. They're
supposed to be 10-year-type initiatives and yet I look at your
budget and I'm wondering, well, they're just sort of being
atrophied a bit and replaced with this FTF Initiative.
Dr. Shah. Well, sir, with PEPFAR in particular, I could
talk through how we're approaching that because we have
launched, as you know, the global health initiative and it's
our real aspiration to try and get much more efficiency out of
the aggregate U.S. Government global health spending.
So when we add up PEPFAR and CDC spending and USAID
spending in the global health sector, I think the total budget
request is a little bit over $8 billion for 2011.
You know, I just saw data coming out of Ethiopia and 12
other countries where we did a substantive data call. There are
real opportunities to be more efficient in getting this work
done. There are environments where we'll buy a viral load
analyzer and put it in an environment where we're serving very
few patients and there's a better way to do that.
There are opportunities for us to integrate our work and by
integrating our work across these various programs, to do a
better job of providing skilled attendants at birth and
reducing maternal mortality or do a better job of providing
those specific prioritized interventions, like rotavirus and
pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, for children to go after the
big categories of unyielding child mortality.
So I think our goal is to sort of look at the whole
portfolio and identify how we can be more efficient in spending
those resources while also achieving the direct disease
outcomes.
Senator Gregg. Dr. Shah, unfortunately, I have to leave.
What I'd like to get from you, if you possibly can do this, is
take your four or five biggest categories and you've just
listed two of them, throw in MCC and FTF, and tell me what's
the 2 year, 3 year, 5 year, 7 year, and 10 year projection for
what you expect those categories to accomplish, how you expect
them to be funded, and how you expect the funding of the
categories to interrelate with each other in the context of the
very stringent budget that we're facing. I'd appreciate that.
I apologize for having to run.
Dr. Shah. We will do that. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Largest Funding Categories
Most USAID programs, as well as independent agencies such as MCC,
do not have firm multi-year budget plans beyond the amount requested
for fiscal year 2011. Such plans are of course subject to the
availability of funding provided in the annual appropriations process.
In the case of major development assistance initiatives, the President
has committed to seek predictable multi-year funding, which will be
critical to achieving those initiatives' goals. USAID is currently
implementing the majority of funding in three of these--the Global
Health Initiative, the Feed the Future Initiative, and the Global
Climate Change Commitment.
--Global Health Initiative (GM).--The President committed to provide
$63 billion over 6 years to this expanded and comprehensive
global health effort. Enacted appropriations from the GHCS
account (both State and USAID portions) for fiscal year 2009
and 2010 and the President's budget request for fiscal year
2011 total $23.6 billion, leaving $33.4 billion to be funded
over the remaining 3 years of the initiative (fiscal year 2012-
2014) ($6.4 billion is to be funded from other accounts).\1\ By
2015, the GHI aims to reduce mortality of mothers and children
under five, saving millions of lives; avert millions of
unintended pregnancies; prevent millions of new HIV,
tuberculosis and malaria infections; eliminate some neglected
tropical diseases; and strengthen local health systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Roughly 60 percent of the PEPFAR budget allocated to State is
implemented through USAID.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Feed the Future Initiative.--The President committed at least $3.5
billion to this initiative over 3 years (fiscal year 2010
through 2012). The enacted appropriation for fiscal year 2010
and the President's budget request for fiscal year 2011 total
$2.7 billion, leaving $0.8 billion to be funded over the
remaining year of the initiative. Additional funding would be
required in fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2015 in order
to achieve the goals of significantly reducing global poverty,
hunger and under-nutrition laid out in the Administration's
``Feed the Future Guide,'' released by Administrator Shah on
May 20.
Global Climate Change Initiative.--The President committed, along
with other developed countries, to provide approaching $30 billion in
international climate finance over fiscal year 2010-2012. As part of
this commitment, the USG also committed to provide $1 billion to REDD+
(Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Plus)
between 2010-2012, and we are working to meet that goal. The enacted
appropriation for fiscal year 2010 and the President's budget request
for fiscal year 2011 total $2.4 billion in direct climate funding, plus
additional funding from other agencies and co-benefits from other
assistance programs. Because the United States did not commit to a
specific percentage of this total amount, future international climate
funding will be determined through the fiscal year 2012 and subsequent
budget processes. The USG also committed with other developed counties
to jointly mobilize $100 billion per year in international climate
finance by 2020 in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and
transparency from developing countries; this funding is intended to be
a mix of public and private funding streams, and our out-year budgets
will contribute toward the public finance portion of that goal.
Senator Leahy. Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Shah, thank
you so much for being present this morning and for being so
accessible. I've enjoyed our conversations on several
opportunities since you've been in your current position and
I'm impressed with your background and your enthusiasm for what
you're doing.
I do have, though, some questions and issues I'd like to
raise before I get into the specifics on Haiti which you and I
spoke about on my return just last week.
I'd like you to clarify for me and, Mr. Chairman, if the
staff here can help, I'm having a little difficult time with
the numbers in front of me understanding what exactly is your
budget entailing. I see different figures. Is it $21 billion
out of the total $52 billion? Could you just say what your
understanding is of the amount of money under the control of
USAID in this budget for this coming year 2011?
Dr. Shah. I believe it is approximately in that area.
Senator Landrieu. $21 billion, roughly $21 billion out of
$52 billion?
Dr. Shah. Correct. And I think one of the things we're
doing as part of putting in place a slightly reformed budget
process is we will be able to do a better job of identifying
those resources that are specific to USAID programs.
The current process for budgeting doesn't break it out that
way. So it's been difficult for me to get an answer to that
question in a way that's valid. That figure doesn't necessarily
include resources that might come to us through an MCC
threshold program or PEPFAR or other funding streams.
Senator Landrieu. Well, then I'm glad it's not just me, Mr.
Chairman, because my staff and I have been working on this for
weeks and I'm glad that the head of the agency is having
difficulty. Well, I'm not happy that the head of the agency is
having difficulty understanding the budget that he's tasked to
manage, but it makes me feel better because we've been trying
to break these numbers out to no avail.
But I think, Mr. Chairman, it's extremely important for
this subcommittee, in order for us to continue our focus on
helping to reform USAID and working for it to become a more
effective agency as it is our primary arm of bilateral support
to our allies and friends around the world, to really get a
handle on it and to be able to break it down so we ourselves
can understand where our focus needs to be.
Senator Leahy. It might also help with the State Department
to let them know exactly where their money's going, too.
Senator Landrieu. Well, absolutely.
Senator Leahy. I say this in defense of Dr. Shah.
Senator Landrieu. You know, absolutely. I think it's just
critical, which brings me to my questions about Haiti.
ORPHANS AND VULNERABLE CHILDREN
There's no question that there were some important steps
taken. The government and the officials that I met with down
there were very appreciative of everything that the United
States and the international partners had done in terms of life
saving and distribution of food, et cetera, but as you are
personally aware, the challenges to Haiti are just enormous,
from just basic delivery of services, water, sanitation,
housing, education, and I went down there with several Members
particularly focused on children, all children but particularly
vulnerable children, potentially orphaned children, and came
away with a couple of thoughts about how we might want to
proceed and wanted to ask you if you had some knowledge of the
work going around the effort to provide for the first time in
Haiti a universal free pre-K through 12 school system which may
be shocking for people to know doesn't exist in Haiti today.
It might be one of the reasons why they're the poorest
nation in our hemisphere because they virtually have no
fundamental school system accessible to most families and that
the families that are sending their kids to school are sending
them to inadequate, poorly staffed, non-certified teachers in a
private setting which isn't in itself a problem, except when
it's inadequate, and using a great deal of their small salary,
which may be $2 a day, if that much, to fund the education of
their children.
Does USAID have a position about the importance or priority
of this, and could you comment on your interest in potentially
maybe targeting this as an area that we could see some real
improvement?
Dr. Shah. I do. Thank you, Senator. I think, in part based
on our conversation, we also are trying to identify specific
budget line items that sit in sectors that are called housing
or social services that would be education-related and pulling
that out to back up what I'm about to say with the budget
numbers.
But the reality is we are committed to an education
strategy in Haiti. We have for a number of years been working
against a single multi-donor strategy that has really pulled
the resources of donors together against a strategy that was
primarily focused on primary education and the number of kids
that had access to primary education and then secondarily
focused, although many of our resources went into this, on
teacher training and a number of other efforts to improve the
quality of education in those environments.
That was between $12 and $20 million a year, depending on
which funding streams we count and we had every intention of
continuing that going forward pre-earthquake.
Given the earthquake, there's obviously a huge need for
reconstituted infrastructure and schools and we have built the
budget for that into the housing budget and I do think that's
an area where we want to share with you the assumptions we used
in the budget planning but we really do recognize the need and
our capacity to help fill the current gap by engaging in
building schools that could serve as a platform for a broader
range of services.
Senator Landrieu. Well, I would just suggest, Mr. Chairman,
the members of our subcommittee, that as we look out into the
reconstruction of Haiti, that helping the Haitian Government
and working with international partners, I understand Canada
and France want to help lead this effort, to put down as a
cornerstone a free universal education system for Haiti
accomplishes many goals, one of which, high on my agenda, is to
prevent childhood abandonment.
The hundreds of thousands of orphans, Mr. Chairman, that
are in Haiti is because families in many instances give their
children up hoping they can get an education at one of these
over-crowded orphanages. They're both maybe as familiar as they
should be with the horrific circumstances, even in the best run
of orphanages, that that's not happening.
So that's, you know, one point, and if I could make my
second point, I'm also concerned about USAID budget generally.
In thinking about serving children, Dr. Shah, separate from
their families, thinking about the importance of feeding
children, providing their health, their education in and
through families as opposed to sort of separate revenue streams
that don't support the permanency issue that are so important
to children, either to stay with the families to which they're
born or to try to promote through the international laws that
we now have developing adoption, both domestic and
international.
So I'd just ask you when you look at your budget think
about if you're serving children separate from their families,
which is not the way we do this in the United States. Our
system isn't perfect, but our programs serve children in and
through families which keeps our abandonment rate relatively
low, keeps our adoption rate relatively high, okay, and so
that's just my final point about the way we structure our
programs is serving children in and through families, and I'll
come back to a second round.
Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Senator Brownback.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Shah, good
to have you here, and, Mr. Chairman, my last appropriations
cycle, I want to recognize you and your longstanding commitment
to these difficult issues around the world. You've hung in here
for years and done a great job of it and I really want to
recognize and acknowledge that.
Senator Leahy. Well, Senator Brownback, on my time, I
appreciate that very much. You've worked with me on landmines
and on so many other issues and on issues of poverty, of health
around the world, something that you don't see in Kansas, I
don't see in Vermont, but part of our common humanity, we
respond to and I applaud you for what you've done on that.
Senator Brownback. Thanks. Thank you. Dr. Shah, I want to
raise a couple issues, if I can with you.
SUDAN
This is the watershed year for Sudan on the Comprehensive
Peace Agreement. They had the vote. It seemed like some
questionable issues happened on the presidential vote, but as
you know, the referendum on the south happens in January 2011.
I mean, this is the big deal and my sense is that you probably
will see the south separate from the north and they're going to
need a lot of help if they're going to sustain it.
This Comprehensive Peace Agreement's been one of the great
successes, I think, of foreign policy for the last decade or so
for us that took a 20-year conflict in Africa and has ended.
I've been involved in the issue. I'm sure you have. Yet you've
cut the economic support funding for Sudan going into this
watershed year and I really hope you look at other ways you can
support that.
I don't know if you've been in the south of Sudan yet
yourself. If you haven't, I would sure urge you to put it high
on your priority list. Great people, wonderful folks, but this
is the big one and they're going to need you guys' help and
focus.
I've got a couple of other issues I want to raise with you,
but I hope that's something you can do. Have you been into the
south of Sudan yet?
Dr. Shah. Not yet, sir, but I am planning to visit there in
about 1 month.
Senator Brownback. Good, good. You need to and they need
us.
NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES
On neglected diseases, this is an area that Senator Sherrod
Brown and I have worked a lot on on getting a priority review
process so that you can get some of the neglected diseases that
so hit the Third World countries and this is kind of building
off of Senator Gregg's comment about where are you--how are you
going to do all this with the money you've got, and I like your
heart and I like your attitude, but there is a resource issue
here and it's unlikely to get a whole lot bigger just in the
near term.
Having said that, I'm the ranking member on the Agriculture
Subcommittee which has Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and
we're pushing FDA to do a shortened pathway for neglected
diseases as a way of reducing the cost of these things and
trying to get more investment in them.
I hope you can take a look at that and back this cause
because this is the way we can get our marketplace to help fund
these neglected diseases that typically hit the Third World and
have very small markets. We can't afford to have a process that
costs $700 million to develop a drug that has a market
potential of a $150 million. I'm pulling that number out of the
air but not the first number and that is being pursued by FDA
now and if you were to get and your agency backing of that and
get involved in this review process, we've got a special
committee that's set up to do this, good people on it, that can
be a big help and I think it's one where we can start to
whittle away at some of these neglected diseases that cost us
so much.
AGRICULTURE
A final issue I wanted to throw out to you was the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and USDA is building a
National BioAgriTerrorism Facility. That may sound like a long
ways away from your work but a good portion of the diseases
they're going to study are animal diseases that come out of the
Rift Valley. I think actually maybe as many as 10 of 12 are
their primary targets.
I think this is a chance for us to network with
veterinarians trained in Africa and that region to scale up
their ability or help train them because it helps us and then
you're off of somebody else's budget, as well, and Department
of Homeland Security's which is a great place to be because
that's one we tend to think, well, okay, let's put more money
in this one and I think there's a good chance that we could
build some upscale programs of training better veterinary
medicine people in Africa to be eyes and ears for us and help
develop awareness of when some of these things are breaking out
or what's coming because the Rift Valley has been such a deadly
zone for some really nasty things coming out.
But we can use it to train up a level of people that can go
back and do great things in a country. Part of the Green
Revolution was Norman Borlaug training a generation of plant
geneticists in the Third World. Why can't we do that toward
animal agriculture, particularly in Africa, that is a source of
their wealth and revenue for so many people and do it under our
security umbrella so it helps leverage your dollars?
I point these out as ones that I think are key for us
moving forward on some really meaty areas and I'm hoping in
particular you can help us out with Sudan. I said I was going
to end with that, but there's one final thought.
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
Senators Durbin, Feingold, and I sent you a letter on
Congo, Eastern Congo. We've been involved in the conflict
commodity issue in that area. I think it's at the core of
stabilizing Congo and probably four countries in that region if
we can get the conflict commodities out of the means of
commerce that funds the rebels in the regions. Similarly, it's
the blood diamonds of east Africa is what this amounts to.
We asked you to look at putting on a mining specialist to
really help track some of these issues and work on them. I hope
you can look at it because I think it's really key for us to
get Congo and probably, as I mentioned, four countries in that
region more stabilized so we get less money going to the
protagonists that are in that region.
That's a lot, but I wanted to throw that out to you.
Dr. Shah. Thank you. Should I address that?
Senator Brownback. Go ahead.
Senator Leahy. Please. I know you've also had some
firsthand experience with the Green Revolution. So please go
ahead.
Dr. Shah. Well, thank you. On Sudan, I appreciate the
comments. I look forward to getting out to our offices there as
soon as possible. We've provided, as you know, sir, $95 million
in support for the election and the referendum activities,
including some of the monitoring activities that have been more
visible in recent days.
We are very focused on expanding support for local
governance and local service delivery in the south in
anticipation of how important such activities will be in the
future, and I would just use this as an opportunity to
highlight the fact that our mission in Juba, as you know, has
nearly 17 U.S. direct hires and PSCs and 75 Foreign Service
Nationals--professional and support staff, which makes us
really the largest organized donor presence in that
environment.
We recognize the responsibility that comes with that to
work with partners, including the World Bank and other donors,
to try to mobilize efforts in a very connected way to those
local leaders that have capacity there.
NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES
On neglected tropical diseases, I completely agree with
your point about a shortened development and approval cycle. I
will follow up directly with Administrator Hamburg on that and
I think there are also opportunities to work with the World
Health Organization which has the mandate for those types of
governing regulations for most of the countries where we would
introduce those.
The only thing I would add is that often the firms we work
with in this space benefit from having simple market
introduction plans, a thoughtful demand analysis, and a
forecast for how product would get to needy populations and so
sometimes small investments in those types of activities can
unlock real private sector innovation and activity and we will
follow up on that.
FOOD SECURITY
And finally, on the question with respect to USDA and DHS,
I'm actually quite familiar with that particular facility and I
agree. I think there are tremendous opportunities with Rift
Valley livestock diseases and with veterinary training which,
of course, large vet gaps are a big gap here in the United
States and abroad.
As part of our Food Security Initiative, we've allocated
$145 million for agricultural-related research for fiscal year
2011. A significant proportion of that would be executed in
partnership with USDA and used in the livestock area where they
do some unique work, both related to this facility and more
broadly. So I look forward to moving that forward. I think that
is a critical and completely unaddressed opportunity in the
food security space.
And finally, on Congo, I agree and, in addition, we've been
working on following up based on that letter and will continue
to share information with your office, but thank you.
Senator Brownback. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the extra
time.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Senator Brownback.
PROCUREMENT
The thought occurred to me when we were talking earlier
about how you evaluate these contracts. What's your largest
contract? Say $10, $50, $100 million?
Dr. Shah. I think significantly larger than that, sir. I
don't know which ones are the largest, but I've seen several
that are several hundred million dollars.
Senator Leahy. Then I would keep the pressure on to get
that. The system that was supposed to be ready in 2008, long
before you were there, to get it ready, and I hope you
understand when I ask these questions, I think you are and will
be an inspiration to the people in USAID. There are some superb
men and women working at USAID. There are many who worry about
the mission being overwhelmed by bureaucracy. They want you to
give them the direction. They want to break through. They want
to do the things that inspired them to come to USAID in the
first place and so we're putting in your lap years of neglect
and problems and say please fix it.
And you will have the support here to fix it. Senator
Brownback mentioned neglected diseases, something that this
subcommittee actually started focusing on about 5 years ago and
now it has become, both in the last administration and this
administration, an important priority and please keep it a
priority.
You're being asked to increase your staff and programs in
Afghanistan, Pakistan. Both countries face severe security
threats. They have weak governments, endemic corruption,
inadequate housing and office space for USAID personnel. And
you can't get USAID staff out in the field to monitor programs
because of the obvious security problems.
We learned in Iraq that spending lots of money quickly can
end up withy a lot of fraud and waste. Now Afghanistan, the
tribal areas of Pakistan, I can see the potential and I'm sure
you can for enormous corruption and waste.
How do you get a handle on that and protect the men and
women who have to manage these programs?
AFGHANISTAN
Dr. Shah. Well, thank you, sir. Having just returned from
Afghanistan, I can attest to the fact that our more than 400
USAID staff there that are working as part of the overall
mission experience, all of the things you just described,
threats to their personal security, challenge around their
ability to be mobile in areas where programs are active, and to
some degree challenging housing situations, to say the least,
but they are very committed to the work. In general, I think
the way to address this is to break down our work into core
sectors.
In each sector, we are in the process of refining and
developing a coherent strategic approach that clearly
distinguishes between things we might do to achieve short-term
security and stability objectives in the context of an active
military campaign and how one builds a bridge to sustainable
long-term development in those settings.
To give you an example, I was in Arghandab, an area outside
of Kandahar City, and in a 6-month period of time, through a
combination of agricultural vouchers for inputs, some technical
training, cash for work, short-term jobs programs,----
Senator Leahy. Irrigation.
Dr. Shah [continuing]. And improvements in roads and
irrigation, we've seen a huge improvement in agricultural
productivity in that particular area, an area that covers about
35,000 people. Over a 6-month period those improvements have
led, by all accounts, to significant improvements in the
security and stability situation in that region, so much so
that our military colleagues believe fewer kinetic operations
will be required in that particular space as a result.
But we know that we have much more to do to track those
resources that are getting spent and to make sure that we have
a glide path where over 2 or 3 or 4 years we can take that
spending to an appropriate per capita level of investment so
that the Government of Afghanistan and other partners can
sustain it over the long run and that's been the focus of how
that team is planning to take those programs forward.
So I think it is doable. We just have to be focused on the
right metrics as opposed to annual or monthly spend rates or
something like that.
Senator Leahy. Well, yes, I don't consider success based
just on what the spend rate is, especially when you're in an
area where so much can be stolen. I wish we could go to a
website and find that x number of dollars has gone to this NGO
near Kandahar or wherever it might be and here's what they're
spending it on.
Dr. Shah. I don't believe I can find that online today. I
do think we ought to get to that point. Part of what we try to
do is----
Senator Leahy. I want to avoid what happened in Iraq where,
you know, cargo planes full of money came in. Now we're still
searching for the hundreds of millions of dollars that were
stolen, probably billions of dollars, some by Americans, but
certainly a lot by the people in the country we're helping.
Dr. Shah. That's certainly a risk, sir, and I think we are
trying to put in place a system whereby whenever we invest
directly in a ministry or a local institution, we put in place
a significant certification process and reserve auditing
capabilities that allow us to track resources as they're spent
in the health sector. The Ministry of Health in Afghanistan is
perhaps a good example of that, where it took a number of years
to build the actual financial disbursement and contracting
mechanism in a transparent and accountable way and now we're
able to flow more resources through that system. I think that's
a model for what we're trying to do.
Senator Leahy. Nothing would bring about more effort to cut
off money if it turns out that it wasn't spent well and I'm
not--and, Dr. Shah, understand that I'm not expecting you to
have total success in everything you try.
When I was a prosecutor, I used to tell the assistants in
my office who would tell me they'd never lost a case, I'd say
then you're not trying enough cases, and if you say we've never
had a failure on any program, you're not taking enough risks.
Imagine the number of things Dr. Borlaug tried before he got
where he was. You worked for the Gates Foundation and they set
some pretty tight controls about what's going to be successful,
but they'll be the first to admit that sometimes things don't
work.
So keep trying. We're going to be coming back on Haiti and
again I really want to see when you have more material on what
worked, and what didn't. I will have more questions on
Afghanistan and Iraq. I've been there and to Pakistan. I know
the need, you've got some real, real problems there, and I look
at, of course, Africa where we can do so much, provided the aid
can get to the people.
Senator Landrieu, you've been waiting patiently.
Senator Landrieu. That's okay, Mr. Chairman. I'm very happy
to follow your line of questioning and agree with your points
and comments, and I, too, am very anxious for USAID to be
reformed in a way that we can be effective, it can be
expression of the values of the American people and their deep
desire to be helpful and generous, but also their hesitancy to
throw good money after bad, to not account for the millions of
dollars they're contributing, and it's discouraging to them.
This agency should operate in the most transparent,
accountable way possible and when it operates that way, it
encourages, I think, literally billions of dollars of private
donations that Americans and American corporations and
individuals, faith-based communities are willing to contribute
to the effort, if they believe that it's being done in a
comprehensive and strategic way, which brings me to one of your
strategic efforts I want to commend and ask you to commend and
that is coordinating across U.S. agencies and other donors and
partners country to country.
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
My experience in visiting not nearly as many countries as
the chairman but at least a half dozen, is the common complaint
that USAID does virtually no coordinating among its own
agencies, let alone other NGOs, and you must be aware, Dr.
Shah, that there are somewhere between 900 and 1,000
independent NGOs and IGOs operating in Haiti with virtually
little coordination and again if USAID isn't stepping up to do
that coordination, my question is is Canada or is, you know,
France?
If we are not trying to coordinate, is there a country in
the world that is tasked with coordinating so that these public
and private monies in every country can be spent more
strategically, and is that a role that you want USAID to take
on?
Dr. Shah. Well, thank you for those comments. I think in
Haiti, in particular, I'd just share one anecdote, that 2 days
into the crisis and the earthquake we made a small grant to
InterAction in order to help them set up a hub to coordinate
the activities of NGOs through that context. I think it was a
good first step and it made a big difference, both because it
brought especially the largest international NGOs that are the
conduit for large streams of funding from a range of partners
to a single point of coordination and it gave us someone to
engage with when we wanted to address the NGO community
specifically.
Through that effort they were also able to identify certain
NGOs that, frankly, were doing things that were
counterproductive, and relatively irresponsible in terms of the
way they were distributing food or doing other things that
didn't meet best practices.
So I think that helped and that is an example of how USAID,
through leveraging partners in that community, can do a better
job of helping NGOs organize among themselves.
The other comment I'd like to make on that is the Global
Health Initiative, I think, is a good example of where we're
actually trying to turn the coordination point into the
relevant country ministry. So if you look at Ethiopia or
Tanzania, what we would ultimately like to do is have the
Ministry of Health in those places (a) be aware of what their
NGOs and our implementing partners are doing in countries, (b)
take some responsibility for offering direction to those NGOs,
and (c) develop a financial sustainability plan so that there's
some sense of who's going to provide these services in a
sustained long-term way over 5, 7, or 10 years. I think if we
can do those types of things, it will start to improve the
coordination of those NGOs and, frankly, it will improve our
partnership with countries who regularly complain that they
don't know where our money is going and they don't know what
we're doing in their country.
Senator Landrieu. Well, I appreciate that and I heard in
your answer that, yes, you're committed to organization and
coordination and even more importantly or equally importantly
trying to build capacity within the countries the appropriate
ministries to be able to identify and coordinate some of those
activities, and I know that would be very important to the
Haitian Government that, frankly, in their view expressed to me
feels overwhelmed with just identifying the number of different
groups and NGOs and coordinating that effort and you want NGOs
to be helpful but they're not a substitute for effective
governance in country.
UNICEF
Number 2. I have been over the years getting more and more
concerned about UNICEF which is one of our--I think we
contribute, Mr. Chairman, over $100 million to UNICEF and
despite my personal conversations with leaders of UNICEF over
time, Carol Bellamy when she led the organization, Ann Veneman,
and now the incoming director, Tony Lake, I'm concerned about
UNICEF's position seemingly to be, despite comments to the
contrary, their position against adoption, both in country and
international.
I want to know if you've come across any conversations with
UNICEF or thoughts that you might have about ways that we could
encourage UNICEF to understand the extraordinary capacity among
families in the world, excess capacity, literally excess
budgets within families, excess rooms within homes to take in
orphans in an appropriate way when children are truly orphaned
to give them a chance at a permanent nurturing family.
Are you willing to maybe express some of these views to
UNICEF or to work with me to kind of change a little bit of
their outlook in this direction?
Dr. Shah. Yes, Senator, I am, and we had a chance yesterday
to meet with Tony Lake and I think he's also open to exploring
what we can do differently to be more effective across the
broad goal of child protection and using a broad range of
strategies.
I will say in Haiti, we had experiences where we worked
effectively with UNICEF and experiences where things were
challenging, but I do want to credit them with conducting a
data collection exercise across the different institutions that
were labeled orphanages that provided some basic data in what
was otherwise a numbers-deficient environment to determine
where the kids were, in which institutions, and how would we
provide them with services. That sort of work did allow us,
together with our military colleagues, to target those
institutions for distribution of food and water in the early
days of the crisis.
So, you know, I think there are areas where they've done
effective work and there are probably areas where there could
be an expansion of the thinking.
Senator Landrieu. Okay. Well, I'll look forward to working
with you on that and just to finalize, the first lady of Haiti
is extremely enthusiastic and excited and, of course, is a
graduate of George Washington right here. The University
Collaborative has really come together to support her and her
work, really focused on this education opportunity for children
in Haiti and for long-term development of Haiti, Mr. Chairman.
I couldn't think of a better way to invest U.S. dollars and
I think our taxpayers would agree to give a free quality
universal education to the 4.5 million children in Haiti that
really have no access today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. There are so many opportunities
and sometimes with the simple things.
Dr. Borlaug and I were friends and I admired him greatly
and I look at what he accomplished, but also I had mentioned
earlier the Op-Ed piece by Bono. In fact, without objection,
I'll put that in the record at the end of this hearing.
[The information follows:]
[From The New York Times, April 17, 2010]
Africa Reboots
(By Bono)
I spent March with a delegation of activists, entrepreneurs and
policy wonks roaming western, southern and eastern Africa trying very
hard to listen--always hard for a big-mouthed Irishman. With duct tape
over my gob, I was able to pick up some interesting melody lines
everywhere from palace to pavement . . .
Despite the almost deafening roar of excitement about Africa's
hosting of soccer's World Cup this summer, we managed to hear a
surprising thing. Harmony . . . flowing from two sides that in the past
have often been discordant: Africa's emerging entrepreneurial class and
its civil-society activists.
It's no secret that lefty campaigners can be cranky about business
elites. And the suspicion is mutual. Worldwide. Civil society as a rule
sees business as, well, a little uncivil. Business tends to see
activists as, well, a little too active. But in Africa, at least from
what I've just seen, this is starting to change. The energy of these
opposing forces coming together is filling offices, boardrooms and
bars. The reason is that both these groups--the private sector and
civil society--see poor governance as the biggest obstacle they face.
So they are working together on redefining the rules of the African
game.
Entrepreneurs know that even a good relationship with a bad
government stymies foreign investment; civil society knows a resource-
rich country can have more rather than fewer problems, unless
corruption is tackled.
This joining of forces is being driven by some luminous
personalities, few of whom are known in America; all of whom ought to
be. Let me introduce you to a few of the catalysts:
John Githongo, Kenya's famous whistleblower, has had to leave his
country in a hurry a couple of times; he was hired by his government to
clean things up and then did his job too well. He's now started a group
called Inuka, teaming up the urban poor with business leaders, creating
inter-ethnic community alliances to fight poverty and keep watch on
dodgy local governments. He is the kind of leader who gives many
Kenyans hope for the future, despite the shakiness of their coalition
government.
Sharing a table with Githongo and me one night in Nairobi was DJ
Rowbow, a Mike Tyson doppelganger. His station, Ghetto Radio, was a
voice of reason when the volcano of ethnic tension was exploding in
Kenya in 2008. While some were encouraging the people of Kibera, one of
the largest slums in Africa, to go on the rampage, this scary-looking
man decoded the disinformation and played peacemaker/interlocutor. On
the station's playlist is Bob Marley and a kind of fizzy homespun
reggae music that's part the Clash, part Marvin Gaye. The only
untruthful thing he said all evening was that he liked U2. For my part,
I might have overplayed the Jay-Z and Beyonce card. ``They are friends
of mine,'' I explained to him, eh, a lot.
Now this might be what you expect me to say, but I'm telling you,
it was a musician in Senegal who best exemplified the new rules.
Youssou N'Dour--maybe the greatest singer on earth--owns a newspaper
and is in the middle of a complicated deal to buy a TV station. You
sense his strategy and his steel. He is creating the soundtrack for
change, and he knows just how to use his voice. (I tried to imagine
what it would be like if I owned The New York Times as well as, say,
NBC. Someday, someday . . .).
In Maputo, Mozambique, I met with Activa, a women's group that,
among other things, helps entrepreneurs get seed capital. Private and
public sectors mixed easily here, under the leadership of Luisa Diogo,
the country's former prime minister, who is now the matriarch in this
mesmerizing stretch of eastern Africa. Famous for her Star Wars hairdo
and political nous, she has the lioness energy of an Ellen Johnson
Sirleaf, a Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala or a Graca Machel.
When I met with Ms. Diogo and her group, the less famous but
equally voluble women in the room complained about excessive interest
rates on their microfinance loans and the lack of what they called
``regional economic integration.'' For them, infrastructure remains the
big (if unsexy) issue. ``Roads, we need roads,'' one entrepreneur said
by way of a solution to most of the obstacles in her path. Today, she
added, ``we women, we are the roads.'' I had never thought of it that
way but because women do most of the farming, they're the ones who
carry produce to market, collect the water and bring the sick to the
clinics.
The true star of the trip was a human hurricane: Mo Ibrahim, a
Sudanese entrepreneur who made a fortune in mobile phones.
I fantasized about being the boy wonder to his Batman, but as we
toured the continent together I quickly realized I was Alfred, Batman's
butler. Everywhere we went, I was elbowed out of the way by young and
old who wanted to get close to the rock star reformer and his
beautiful, frighteningly smart daughter, Hadeel, who runs Mo's
foundation and is a chip off the old block (in an Alexander McQueen
dress). Mo's speeches are standing-room-only because even when he is
sitting down, he's a standing-up kind of person. In a packed hall in
the University of Ghana, he was a prizefighter, removing his tie and
jacket like a cape, punching young minds into the future.
His brainchild, the Ibrahim Prize, is a very generous endowment for
African leaders who serve their people well and then--and this is
crucial--leave office when they are supposed to. Mo has diagnosed a
condition he calls ``third-termitis,'' where presidents, fearing an
impoverished superannuation, feather their nests on the way out the
door. So Mo has prescribed a soft landing for great leaders. Not
getting the prize is as big a story as getting it. (He doesn't stop at
individuals. The Ibrahim Index ranks countries by quality of
governance.)
Mo smokes a pipe and refers to everyone as ``guys''--as in,
``Listen, guys, if these problems are of our own making, the solutions
will have to be, too.'' Or, in my direction, ``Guys, if you haven't
noticed . . . you are not African.'' Oh, yeah. And: ``Guys, you
Americans are lazy investors. There's so much growth here but you want
to float in the shallow water of the Dow Jones or Nasdaq.''
Mr. Ibrahim is as searing about corruption north of the Equator as
he is about corruption south of it, and the corruption that crosses
over . . . illicit capital flight, unfair mining contracts, the aid
bureaucracy.
So I was listening. Good for me. But did I actually learn anything?
Over long days and nights, I asked Africans about the course of
international activism. Should we just pack it up and go home, I asked?
There were a few nods. But many more noes. Because most Africans we met
seemed to feel the pressing need for new kinds of partnerships, not
just among governments, but among citizens, businesses, the rest of us.
I sense the end of the usual donor-recipient relationship.
Aid, it's clear, is still part of the picture. It's crucial, if you
have HIV and are fighting for your life, or if you are a mother
wondering why you can't protect your child against killers with
unpronounceable names or if you are a farmer who knows that new seed
varietals will mean you have produce that you can take to market in
drought or flood. But not the old, dumb, only-game-in-town aid--smart
aid that aims to put itself out of business in a generation or two.
``Make aid history'' is the objective. It always was. Because when we
end aid, it'll mean that extreme poverty is history. But until that
glorious day, smart aid can be a reforming tool, demanding
accountability and transparency, rewarding measurable results,
reinforcing the rule of law, but never imagining for a second that it's
a substitute for trade, investment or self-determination.
I for one want to live to see Mo Ibrahim's throw-down prediction
about Ghana come true. ``Yes, guys,'' he said, ``Ghana needs support in
the coming years, but in the not-too-distant future it can be giving
aid, not receiving it; and you, Mr. Bono, can just go there on your
holidays.''
I'm booking that ticket.
In South Africa, with Madiba, the great Nelson Mandela--the person
who, along with Desmond Tutu and the Edge, I consider to be my boss--I
raised the question of regional integration through the African
Development Bank, and the need for real investment in infrastructure .
. . all the buzzwords. As Madiba smiled, I made a note to try not to
talk about this stuff down at the pub--or in front of the band.
``And you, are you not going to the World Cup?'' the great man
chided me, changing the subject, having seen this wide-eyed zealotry
before. ``You are getting old and you are going to miss a great coming-
out party for Africa.'' The man who felt free before he was is still
the greatest example of what real leadership can accomplish against the
odds.
My family and I headed home . . . just in time, I was getting
carried away. I was going native, aroused by the thought of railroads
and cement mixers, of a different kind of World Cup fever, of opposing
players joining the same team, a new formation, new tactics. For those
of us in the fan club, I came away amazed (as I always am) by the
diversity of the continent . . . but with a deep sense that the people
of Africa are writing up some new rules for the game.
Senator Leahy. But one of the things that really struck me,
he was talking with women in Mozambique. That's the first place
we used the Leahy War Victims Fund.
He quotes a woman who said, ``Roads. We need roads.
Today,'' she added, ``we women, we are the roads carrying
things.'' And I hear this over and over again. Don't ship us
huge containers of food and agricultural products from the
United States. Help us build some simple roads. If you raise
produce on a farm but to sell it, the market is 12 miles away,
15 miles away, but it's going to take you 3 days to get it
there, then it doesn't do you any good to raise it. You can't
sell it. If you have a simple road, that 15 miles, you can get
there in an hour's time.
JUSTICE REFORM
One last thing or last two things I'd like to talk about.
One is justice reform. We spend tens of millions of dollars,
maybe hundreds of millions of dollars to reform dysfunctional
justice systems around the world. You can't have a democracy, a
real democracy without a functioning justice system. Honest
prosecutors, honest and independent judges.
Look at Central America and we see places where people get
away with murder literally or where judges are bribed or
intimidated. Haiti is another example. There's never been the
political will at the top.
Is that an area where you will watch and evaluate because
we'll spend the money if you think it's going to accomplish
something, but I've been so disappointed seeing how little has
been accomplished.
Dr. Shah. Yes, sir. We will watch that. I think you're
right to point that out and I would just highlight that it is
both a combination of programmatic activity, training and
supporting judges and prosecutors. There are some efforts. I
was just part of the rehearsal concept drill in Afghanistan
where there was a really substantive conversation about what it
would actually take to support the informal justice system and
the transition to more formality in that system, as well. We're
trying some unique things in our program there.
But I think you're absolutely right and it often is
understated that the political will to create space for that to
be effective is a precondition to success at scale.
Senator Leahy. Well, I remember a group came here from one
country to talk to me and they said, we want to look at your
justice system and we talked about that. They asked, is it true
that in the United States people actually sue the government on
occasion? I said, yes, it happens often, and they said, and is
it true that sometimes the government loses? I said, yes. They
said, and so you then replace the judge? And then when I
explained that, no, we don't, they finally began to understand
what an independent judiciary is, and we have so many people in
this country willing to take the time to go to these countries
and work with them and help them, but too often they get lip
service while they're there and then the bribes continue or the
replacement of a judge who rules against the government or so
forth.
CLIMATE CHANGE
The administration plans to spend about $1.4 billion on
climate change programs in fiscal year 2011, $646 million is
through USAID and the State Department, part of it's to protect
forests. Of course, the Amazon is the largest and the most
threatened from large hydro projects and agribusiness and
logging and mining, a lot of it illegal.
How much are you planning to spend for forest protection
programs in Brazil or in the other Andean American countries?
FOREST PROTECTION ACTIVITIES IN SOUTH AMERICA
Dr. Shah. In Brazil, USAID plans to spend 100 percent of
the $14 million in Biodiversity and Sustainable Landscapes
funds for forest protection programs in fiscal year 2010.
The USAID Regional Program's Initiative for Conservation in
the Andean Amazon will spend $7 million this year on forest
protection in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia.
USAID plans to spend the following amounts for forest
protection programs in other South American countries in fiscal
year 2010: Bolivia: $2.5 million in Biodiversity funds;
Colombia: $3 million in Biodiversity and Sustainable Landscapes
funds; Ecuador: $3.1 million in Biodiversity funds; Paraguay:
$1 million in Biodiversity funds; and Peru: $7.5 million in
Biodiversity and Sustainable Landscapes funds.
In summary, USAID plans to spend the following amounts for
forest protection programs: $14 million in Brazil, $7 million
on the Regional Program, and $17.1 million in other South
American countries.
Total planned expenditures on forest protection programs is
$38.1 million in fiscal year 2010.
I'd also add that in the context of this, we're also
exploring certain private sector partnerships to see if we can
partner with private foundations and other institutions that
have an interest in this area and might partner with us in some
of these initiatives in Indonesia and other parts of the world.
Senator Leahy. Well, of course, at the same time the State
Department and others are going to have to bring some pressure
on some of the governments to actually do the things necessary.
The Millennium Challenge Corporation requires governments
to commit to do certain things if they want our aid, like
reducing corruption or increasing their own budgets for
healthcare and education.
Do you think USAID should be doing the same thing? In other
words, a quid pro quo, or is that naive to think that you can
do that in some areas?
Dr. Shah. I think, in general, the efforts to have long-
term effective sustainable development that's broad enough that
it reaches a large percentage of a population in country does
require some significant degree of country ownership. MCC, of
course, encapsulates that in a very specific set of indicators
that then gives them a go/no go against a very large program in
countries.
I think the approach we're taking, especially in the Food
Security Initiative, is a little bit more specific. If a
country is meeting its obligations to increase its domestic
spending in agriculture, and they are signing up to bringing
together all of the stakeholders and private sector partners
against a country plan, then we will stand with them and help
them build the capacity to be successful over the long run.
So it's a different, I think, interpretation of the
concept, but the underlying concept that country ``skin in the
game'' and country ownership is a precondition to long-term
success I think was probably a shared one.
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much. I'll put the rest of my
questions in the record.
I'll yield to Senator Bond.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Dr.
Shah, I apologize to you both for arriving so late. I had a
visit from a high White House official talking about a rather
pressing issue that went on and one and on.
Senator Leahy. Aren't they all?
Senator Bond. Well, yeah, and I--but to me, this is
extremely important and I'm delighted to welcome Dr. Shah today
because we believe on--I know the chair and I agree that your
leadership is critically important at this time.
USAID may not get all the glory on TV but when you get out
and help the world's poorest people with global issues, clean
water, child mortality, HIV, malaria, it's integral to, I
think, a broader national policy, smart power, which Secretary
Clinton has advocated so strongly and I believe in, and I know,
having traveled around the globe extensively, I've seen where
USAID can be a tremendous force for winning the hearts and
minds of the people in other countries and dealing with those
problems that are a concern to us as good neighbors or people
in my case Christians should do.
But a key to expanding that service is getting enough
Foreign Service officers in USAID. We want to do that. We need
to see USAID build a core capacity and lessen its over-reliance
on contractors, to increase accountability and effectiveness.
Now, as you know, biotechnology is an important component
of smart power. Not only does it contribute to food security
and better nutrition now, but it's absolutely essential if
we're going to feed a global population of 9 billion people. We
cannot get there without the most modern farming techniques and
biotechnology.
Dr. Shah, I know you've been a longstanding supporter of
plant biotechnology. I want to--I can spend until early
afternoon talking about that, but obviously I would not.
ENERGY
I need to turn to another subject that's of high priority.
A couple weeks ago I visited India to discuss energy and a
number of other matters. Energy, of course, is important in
India as it is in the United States and they are overwhelmingly
dependent upon coal to fuel their growth, to supply the energy
to bring 1 billion population with tremendous poverty up to
basic living standards and given the abundance and
affordability of coal on their country, as ours, we have to
make it cleaner, more efficient, and I was very impressed about
an initiative USAID has undertaken in India.
Over the course of the USAID-India Greenhouse Gas Pollution
Prevention or GGPP Project, it has cumulatively avoided
CO2 emissions from USAID-supported coal activities
nearly a 100 million tons in the last 10 years. However, I was
very concerned when U.S. and Indian officials told me that
those efforts are no longer possible under constraints
contained in a 2010 funding bill.
The constraints direct that no funds shall be utilized for
any nuclear, coal, or other fossil fuel technology or
production and without that, India's going to go back to
burning coal without the reduction in emissions. They have made
progress and I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts on
this and hope that we can work together with the chairman and
the ranking member to find an appropriate solution that will
allow us to resume making CO2 emission reductions
and making coal more energy efficient and cleaner for the
people of India.
Where do you stand on that?
Dr. Shah. Well, thank you for mentioning that, Senator, and
for highlighting some of the efforts that have been undertaken
there.
The low emission growth strategies for countries and
especially mid-level economies is an important part of our
overall Climate Change Program and will be a larger component
of what we do going forward. We, of course, have, as part of
the Climate Change Initiative, a broader approach but that's an
important piece.
I'd have to look more specifically at the 2010 funding
constraints that preclude us from being able to work----
Senator Bond. Would you look at that and get
recommendations because I heard a very, very strong objection
from both sides, both Indian and the people working for us in
that country about the benefit that that project that was just
cut off had provided. So if you would get back to me and
obviously to the subcommittee, but I would like to see a copy
of whatever you transmit to the chair and ranking member.
[The information follows:]
2010 Funding Constraints for the USAID/India Greenhouse Gas Pollution
Prevention Project
To comply with fiscal year 2010 guidance from Congress,
USAID is unable to use climate change funds to continue
supporting activities under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution
Prevention Project. USAID is reviewing whether other funds can
be identified outside of the funds appropriated for Global
Climate Change clean energy program to support the project
which is designed to introduce cleaner coal technologies and
better operating and maintenance equipment and practices to
make coal-fired electricity plants more energy efficient and
cleaner. The project also reduces CO2 emissions with
respect to a business-as-usual situation where no interventions
are made.
To support the goals of the October 2009 Memorandum of
Understanding to Enhance Cooperation on Energy Security, Energy
Efficiency, Clean Energy and Climate Change between the United
States and India, USAID is in the process of designing a new
clean energy program to help India promote end-use energy
efficiency and deploy renewable energy technologies that will
reduce the need to build as many CO2 emitting coal-
fired powerplants. The new program will support India's efforts
to transition to an economy that produces lower volumes of
greenhouse gases while meeting their poverty reduction goals.
Senator Bond. Let me jump back into my favorite area,
biotechnology. You're familiar with the Donald Danforth Plant
Science Center and Roger Beachy. They've been improving crop
yields even though Roger's decamped to Washington and Cassava,
for example, is a root crop that's primary food for 750 million
people. It's a poor nutritional content, susceptible to many
pathogens, particularly in Asia. One-third is lost every year
to viral diseases and the Danforth Center has been the lead on
two major projects to address nutritional content, have been
focusing on increasing Casava's zinc, iron, protein, vitamin A
and E content, lowering the level of naturally occurring
cyanide which we would think would want to be reduced, and
reducing spoilage, and it's also done research to increase
folic acids and minerals in sweet potato and to develop more
protein, enhance sorghum and peanuts, and they have research
partners in Africa.
Now, a lot of people normally talk about biotech and you
can see a lot of people yawn, but this to me is key to feeding
people, hungry people in the world, and I think projects like
this will be critical in applying the most significant business
thinking.
I urge you to continue supporting plant biotech research in
Global Hungry and Security Initiative, particularly in places
like Africa and Southeast Asia. I'd like to hear your comments
on USAID's priorities in the area of plant biotechnology
development.
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Senator. I'll start by just
acknowledging your leadership on this issue. I've had the
chance to work with both the Danforth Center and Roger Beachy
over the years and appreciate the unique leadership that those
institutions and he brings.
I think there's been a false distinction in choice set up
between overall sustainability and core productive agriculture
productivity and I think we have an opportunity to be
significant advocates for using the broad range of
technological solutions against those core constraints that are
holding back productive agriculture in much of the world and
disproportionately in some of the poorest parts of the world
where rain-fed production is the predominant form of production
and where small holder producers suffer from hunger and
starvation when they don't have enough productivity.
We've identified and gone through a process of identifying
a set of core traits and core crops in which we want to work.
As you would acknowledge, cassava is, of course, the second
highest source of calories in Africa and is a very important
crop and on that list and traits, like improved
biofortification, improved drought tolerance, improved use
characteristics, like lower cyanide content, in cassava are all
priorities in that----
Senator Bond. Sounds good to me.
Dr. Shah [continuing]. Context.
We're right now in the process of trying to ascertain what
that means for our existing CRSP programs that fund U.S. land
grant universities to work on a range of crops, peanuts,
soybeans, sorghum, et cetera, and trying to take those CRSP
programs and move them forward in a way that is more aligned
against the set of priorities that have been identified by crop
and by constraint and that unlock the broad set of tools and
technologies that could be used to create advances.
And I'd say the final piece is that we will remain
committed to working with countries on regulatory systems and
in country testing and training. What we have found, of course,
is in areas like drought-tolerance maize, when a country, like
Uganda, builds a testing facility on their own agriculture
research station and invests in training their own scientists,
that seems to unlock the political energy to put in place a
regulatory system that allows their people to have access to
those technologies. So we think that's an important part of
this, as well.
Senator Bond. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Shah. Mr.
Chairman, if you'd indulge me one more minute, talking about
the regulatory matter is very important.
I talked with the Secretary of Agriculture in India and
other leaders. I talked to Secretary Bahsu and he understands
the importance of transgenic seeds. Right now Aubergine, what
you call eggplant, is the high controversy. I understand from a
very good friend of ours that right now the Aubergine crop
requires a 120 pesticide spray and the farmers won't even eat
the darn vegetable because there's so much pesticide on it.
I've talked with the Ambassador and others in India and
they say, oh, well, we need to listen to our people who are
concerned about it. They're listening to NGOs who make their
living off of raising fear about GMOs and as a result they are
missing the opportunity to increase the harvest of a very
important vegetable that can be produced with far less chemical
pesticides.
Mr. Chairman, again, please accept my sincere thanks and my
apologies for this.
Senator Leahy. We've worked together on so many of these
things and this will be your last hearing with the Director of
USAID.
Senator Bond. That's why I wanted to get several bites, but
I'm going to be--I hope he will contact me. We look forward to
working with him because I----
Senator Leahy. As I said before you came in, I'm delighted
that he's there because there have been problems at USAID that
you and I have discussed before.
Senator Bond. Oh, yes, I remember those.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Leahy. But I think Dr. Shah's the right person at
the right time and the right place and there are many, many
very dedicated men and women at USAID and I think they breathed
a sigh of relief when he arrived, and with that, we'll stand in
recess.
Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Shah.
Dr. Shah. Thank you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Agency for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
TRANSITION INITIATIVE MODEL
Question. Although we often hear about how slow and bureaucratic
most of USAID is, we hear the opposite about the Office of Transition
Initiatives. That office focuses on conflict-prone countries, and
countries making the transition from crisis to stability. The office is
relatively small but agile, with flexibility to target resources
quickly at the local level. Why can't more of USAID function like that
office?
Answer. I am pleased that our Office of Transition Initiatives
(OTI) is recognized for effectively and efficiently managing in very
difficult and fluid situations. OTI is charged with responding to a
particular set of countries that are conflict prone, are in conflict,
or those in transition to stability.
OTI's business model involves flexible planning and management
structures, including short-term strategies geared to short-term
objectives along with systems for procurement, staff and monitoring/
reporting developed for those purposes. These structures rely on
constant innovation, rapid procurement systems, and intensive, hands-on
management tailored to dynamic, fluid environments enabling OTI to
react quickly to evolving situations on the ground. OTI fosters a
culture of entrepreneurism while placing more authority in the field.
Staff are encouraged to seek alternate solutions in program design and
execution, and to support small-scale, rapid, and tactical investments
in community or national projects that address a country's transition
or momentum toward recovery from conflict.
The Agency does take OTI's experience into account in its larger
programming response. These include a greater focus on the use local
implementing organizations, more rapid program monitoring and feedback
systems, and flexible planning where authorities are in the field,
which permits rapid programming responses. Additionally, having
Indefinite Quantity Contracts (IQCs) in place as rapid response
mechanisms will continue to be an important component to the Agency's
ability to respond more efficiently.
As part of our Agency's reform process, I am closely looking at
OTI's business model and lessons learned and will identify other
elements which can be replicated to the rest of the Agency. I
acknowledge that not all tools are applicable to longer-term
development, but in a changing world, we must consider and integrate
all the innovative approaches we can.
USAID EFFECTIVENESS
Question. You have said that restoring USAID's effectiveness is
your top priority and that this will require USAID to make significant
changes in the way that it is organized and operates. What do you mean
by ``restoring USAID's effectiveness'', what do you see as most needing
change, and what changes are you making?
Answer. I have recently outlined a new approach to high-impact
development which will lie at the center of restoring USAID's
effectiveness. In four core areas we're already putting this approach
into practice.
First, USAID is contributing to the U.S. commitment to the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), not simply by delivering services
to those in need, but through building sustainable systems that will
transform healthcare, education, food security and other MDG areas.
Second, we are strengthening our ability to invest in country-owned
models of inclusive growth and development success. USAID will promote
these outcomes in a focused set of areas in countries that are
reasonably well-governed, economically stable, globally connected and
market oriented. We will undertake these enhanced efforts in a whole-
of-government context using complementary assets like trade, private
investment and diplomacy to increase the effectiveness of our
development cooperation and increase the chances of success.
Third, we are identifying new ways of leveraging science and
technology to develop and deliver tools and innovations which we
believe can be transformational. I am proud of USAID's past support for
the Green Revolution, and this is the time to recalibrate our current
science and research portfolio around today's set of grand challenges
such as climate change, global health, and food security.
Finally, we need to continue to bring USAID's expertise to bear on
some of the most daunting national security challenges we face as a
Nation including stabilizing countries like Afghanistan.
Restoring USAID's effectiveness requires more than these new focus
areas. We have to transform the way we do work. USAID's development
experts will provide increased support to encourage innovation and
entrepreneurship. USAID staff will be encouraged to take risks in a
smart and calculated way to achieve greater returns in international
development. To support this, we're putting in place a range of policy
reforms and new business models that will help our operations improve
and enable our people to be development entrepreneurs.
USAID is establishing a new policy bureau and resource planning
capacity that will be instrumental in managing coherent development
approaches and strengthening accountability for our work. In addition,
USAID is planning to roll out a meaningful set of procurement reforms.
These will involve doing a better job of building local capacity and
investing in local institutions where we work overseas. This summer we
will launch a set of talent management and human resource reforms that
are key to our future as an effective Agency. This will include doing a
better job of leveraging the skills and knowledge of USAID's Foreign
Service National staff. Finally, in the fall we will launch a major
monitoring, evaluation and transparency initiative.
I am convinced if we can re-establish a rigorous program evaluation
function and be the most transparent development agency in the world,
that the American people will increase their support of our work. I
believe this package of reforms will restore USAID's effectiveness and
provide the means to restore the Agency to a world-class institution.
PSD-7/QDDR
Question. What impact do you anticipate the White House's
``Presidential Study Directive on U.S. Development Policy'' and the
Secretary of State's ``Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review''
will have on USAID?
Answer. I anticipate that both exercises, which are closely
coordinated, will have a very positive impact on USAID and U.S. global
development efforts. Both the PSD and QDDR are premised on the strong
belief in the importance of international development and of
strengthening USAID. I am gratified by the support of President Obama
and Secretary Clinton in this regard.
GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT
Question. One of the Administration's new initiatives includes a
request for $100 million for a new ``Global Engagement'' account. My
understanding is this account would provide economic growth, academic
exchanges and partnerships, and other education-related assistance to
partner countries with mainly Muslim populations, and would likely be
administered by USAID.
These are all things that USAID and the State Department already
do. Why does a new account need to be created instead of providing
support for these activities through existing mechanisms? Which
countries are likely to receive this assistance?
Answer. President Obama's vision of Global Engagement is that the
U.S. Government engages the world in a spirit of respect and
partnership to achieve shared goals. One of his priorities in this area
is to broaden the relationship between the United States and Muslim-
majority countries around the world. The Department of State and USAID
requested a separate line item to catalyze the start-up and initial
tracking of funding for a cohesive set of activities to address the
objectives of Global Engagement.
This is not a request for a separate account, but rather a separate
line item within the Economic Support Fund account. This will allow us
to track the activities that are started-up with these funds, and these
new activities will complement and strengthen ongoing foreign
assistance efforts. In future years, we may incorporate these
activities into ongoing program and country budgets.
The countries to receive this assistance are still to be
determined, and but will be regionally-diverse with significant Muslim
populations.
AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN
Question. USAID is dramatically increasing its staffing and
programs in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Both countries suffer from severe
security threats, weak governments and corruption, and inadequate
office and housing space for USAID personnel.
We hear frequently how difficult it is for USAID staff to get out
into the field to monitor programs. We also learned in Iraq that
spending lots of money quickly in places like Afghanistan or the tribal
areas of Pakistan is a recipe for waste, fraud and abuse.
How are you dealing with these challenges, and are you trying to
spend too much money too fast--as was the case in Iraq and Afghanistan
by the previous administration?
Answer. The issue of adequate oversight for and thoughtful
expenditure of resources in an environment such as Afghanistan and
Pakistan is a challenge that we face on a daily basis. In order to
tackle that challenge and protect U.S. taxpayer funds, we are engaging
in several concurrent efforts in both countries. I will mention them
briefly here and provide additional detail below. Specifically, we are
increasing our staffing (both program and oversight) in both countries;
we are developing alternative mechanisms of oversight in those
situations where direct access to activities is not yet possible; and,
through the provision of technical assistance, we are increasing the
capacity of local institutions to provide services to the population
and make assistance efforts more sustainable.
While USAID is increasing our staffing and programs in both
Afghanistan and Pakistan, you are correct that it has been historically
difficult for us to get out and monitor projects. As you are aware, we
are working intensively with Missions in both countries to adequately
plan, recruit, and retain qualified staff to be present both in the
capital cities and throughout the countryside. These new personnel have
a wide variety of backgrounds including financial management,
agriculture, governance, and engineering and add much needed
development assistance to these countries, while at the same time
providing the essential oversight element to our activities.
From a security perspective, Afghanistan and Pakistan will provide
us with significant challenges for the foreseeable future insofar as
access to activities is concerned. In light of that fact, we have
developed alternative mechanisms of providing oversight to our
activities in situations when direct access is not possible. In
Afghanistan we are developing ``movement agreements'' with our military
colleagues in order to enable our civilian PRT representatives to
regularly access project sites within their respective provinces
instead of being confined to their PRT. Furthermore, in both countries,
we rely extensively on our locally engaged staff, Quality Assessment/
Quality Control (QA/QC) contractors--the staff of which is largely
locally employed, and implementing partners to provide oversight
functions when direct access by United States direct hire personnel is
not possible.
As you are aware, we are working to change our business model to
include increased implementation through local entities (government and
private sector) that have been or will be assessed and certified to
receive USAID funding directly. A large portion of requested funds for
the fiscal year 2010 supplemental and fiscal year 2011 will be
dedicated to that effort. This will serve to increase the capacity of
national, provincial and local entities while making assistance more
sustainable.
Finally, I would also like to note that we work collaboratively
with our Inspector General communtiy in both countries, who provide the
needed audit and investigative review of activities to provide
assistance in a well directed manner.
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Question. A recent survey about the State Departments ICASS
process, which consolidates agency administrative operations overseas
like motor pools, warehousing, supplies, maintenance and other
functions, was a logical idea to improve efficiency and save money. But
the survey suggests that for USAID, ICASS has caused more problems than
it has solved.
The overwhelming majority of USAID overseas employees reported that
their work had become harder and more costly. There were complaints
about access to vehicles, billing mistakes, time consuming reporting,
and an increase in tension between USAID and the State Department. Have
you looked at this? Is it time to review the consolidation and
determine whether it really makes sense for USAID?
Answer. The Agency is working in collaboration with the Department
of State to jointly review our experience with administrative
consolidation through the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review
(QDDR). The QDDR leadership formed a Joint USAID/State Task Force to
survey and examine the impact of consolidation overseas recognizing
that problems exist. The review is focusing on the 21 posts where USAID
missions overseas are collocated on secure Embassy compounds and where
functions have been substantially consolidated for 3 years.
During the course of the QDDR Task Force review, the American
Foreign Service Association (AFSA) sent out its own survey worldwide to
all USAID employees of all employment categories, and the results show
that the implementation of consolidation caused significant confusion
and highlighted several support services and procedures that have been
problematic at many Embassies.
State Department and USAID management are addressing these problem
areas in a systematic manner. Areas for improvement are being
identified, and the Task Force will recommend measures to strengthen
joint State/USAID support platforms within ICASS. Both the Department
and USAID have affirmed that the goal of this review is to achieve
optimum consolidation of overseas administrative services provided to
State and USAID under the ICASS platform based on the principles of the
most cost efficient, and effective service provision to support our
respective diplomatic and development missions.
The Task Force has reviewed existing consolidation data and annual
ICASS Satisfaction Surveys, and detailed questionnaires were completed
by both the USAID missions and the ICASS Service Providers (Embassy
Management Officers). Existing cost data in Washington also is being
reviewed, and USAID missions are providing updated cost information on
post-consolidation operations.
The interim data collected by the Task Force shows that
improvements can be made that will result in a higher quality and more
effective shared platform overseas that serves State and USAID as well
as the many other U.S. Government ICASS customer agencies. The keys to
making those improvements and to success in optimizing consolidation
appear to be: (1) recognition that consolidation has been successful
for most services at most posts, but that problems must be actively
addressed; (2) improved accountability by the service provider; (3)
communication on best practices, roles, and responsibilities; (4)
incorporating additional flexibilities for USAID when necessary to meet
the Agency's mission-critical needs; and (5) addressing individual
posts directly where broad service issues may exist.
The Task Force study will help USAID and State reach agreement on
shared principles for consolidating services in the future, and the
QDDR operational plan will also seek to identify opportunities to
enhance and optimize consolidation efforts at all posts.
NGO TRANSPARENCY
Question. Budget transparency is a big issue these days, in an
effort to reduce opportunities for corruption. USAID gives a lot of
money to NGOs--nongovernmental organizations--for projects to promote
transparency in other countries, but what about the NGOs themselves--do
they have to make public their own project budgets so people can see
what they are doing with the money they receive from USAID?
Answer. U.S. NGOs (PVOS) that receive grants from USAID are awarded
funding based on budgets submitted with their applications. Project
budgets are part of grant agreements which, in turn, are public
documents. Expenditures are reported quarterly and are subject to
audit. As 501(c)(3) organizations, each must file an annual Form 990
with the Internal Revenue Service. PVOs registered with USAID must
submit audited financial statements annually to the USAID Registrar.
These include all funding received from USAID whether as grants or
contracts.
Question. If I want to know what NGO ``x'' is doing with money from
USAID for a ``rule of law'' project, or a ``budget transparency''
project, or some other project, in the Philippines, or Mozambique, or
El Salvador, can I go to a website and find a breakdown for how the
funds are being spent--does USAID require this kind of transparency
from its own grantees? If not, should it?
Answer. At present there is no website where you can find out
expenditure information for NGOs that have received funding from USAID.
USAID does have an internal capacity for accrual reporting but this
information only provides amounts obligated and gross expenditures, not
budget details. For USAID to collect and enter detailed expenditure
information for each contract and grant for website use would require a
major investment in software development as well as staff time.
Project budgets are part of grant agreements which, in turn, are
public documents. The Agreement Officers' Technical Representatives
responsible for the awards receive quarterly financial reports and can
request more detailed information on expenditures. All grants and
contracts are subject to audit.
While we would agree that to model the transparency they are
encouraging through USAID-funded projects, PVOs and others should make
their financial reporting under our grants available to the public.
USAID's present grant agreements do not require this. This requirement
could be added to all grant agreements but limitations exist on
financial reporting requirements per U.S. Federal regulations (22 CFR
226.52). Should a member of the public request this information from
USAID, it could be made available.
Working with the Department of State, USAID is committed to
increasing the ease of access by the public to information about
foreign assistance expenditures and performance. While there are limits
to the level of detail for individual grants and contracts that we will
be able to provide to the public, we are aggressively working to
improve our ability to respond to in-country information needs about
USAID activities, and to provide more real-time, complete, and
understandable information to the general public.
In line with USAID's demonstrated commitment to transparency, the
agency supports NGOs adhering to similarly high standards in making
expenditures public. A coalition of diverse international humanitarian
and development NGOs is currently working to identify common principles
of development effectiveness, including budget transparency. USAID is
very supportive of this process and the desired outcome for greater
downstream transparency \1\. NGOs are in the best position to establish
common reporting standards amongst their peers and we are supportive of
their efforts in this area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While USAID supports greater transparency, there is recognition
that the release of information may at times undermine other U.S.
government priorities and interests. For this reason, the agency
supports principled exceptions in line with FOIA guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GLOBAL HUNGER AND FOOD SECURITY INITIATIVE
Question. The President's ``Food for the Future'' initiative calls
for $3.5 billion over 3 years to combat hunger through agricultural
development and improved nutrition. The Administration has requested $1
billion for agriculture programs and $200 million for nutrition
programs in fiscal year 2011 to support this initiative.
I have seen many anti-hunger initiatives over the years, all well
intentioned, and most have had positive impacts. But hunger remains a
global problem. Assuming you get the funds you have requested and
everything goes as planned, can you predict what portion of the world's
hungry people will no longer be hungry after this 3 year initiative?
Answer. As there is no fully agreed-upon number of the ``world's
hungry,'' even though the figure of 1 billion is commonly used, it is
difficult to predict what portion of this population will no longer be
hungry after the 3-year Feed the Future initiative. However, an
international investment of $22 billion pledged by L'Aquila partners,
which includes the Feed the Future initiative, invested in country-led,
evidence-based strategies, will help to raise incomes, improve
nutrition, and enhance food security in several ways:
--Based on detailed cost-benefit analysis, we estimate that as a
baseline level, donor programs can directly increase the
incomes of at least 40 million people in developing countries,
including 28 million people who are currently living on incomes
of less than $2 per day and 13 million people living in extreme
poverty on less than $1.25 per day.
--We can amplify these returns through significant increases in
investments in agricultural research, as well as its adaptation
and dissemination. Through ``game changing'' innovations like
improved crop varieties, the direct benefits of other
assistance programs can be extended to many millions of other
beneficiaries.
--These gains will be further amplified by the complementary
investments by host country governments, and by private sector
investors, both domestic and international. Our investments in
infrastructure, extension services, and other areas,
complemented by government public investments, will make
private investments more attractive, adding to the impact of
the program.
--Based on our preliminary analysis, we can reach 25 million children
in developing countries with a package of nutrition
interventions that has been demonstrated to reduce child
mortality, improve nutrition outcomes, and protect human
capital. These interventions are projected to reduce the number
of stunted children by nearly 10 million, and the number of
underweight children by more than 4 million.
Specifically, with regard to the U.S. Government's Feed the Future
initiative, our development and diplomatic support for game-changing
policy reforms that expand opportunities for widespread private
entrepreneurship--including full participation by women--can also
accelerate a process of sustainable country-driven development that
extends the benefits of this initiative to millions more consumers who
cannot be reached directly with project-based assistance as food
supplies increase, prices decline and markets become more stable.
Question. Is the President's plan part of something bigger,
coordinated with what other donors and governments in developing
countries are doing?
Answer. Yes, the Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative, also
known as ``Feed the Future,'' is part of the larger L'Aquila Global
Food Security Initiative (AFSI). G8 and other donor countries have
pledged $22 billion to increase investments in agriculture and
nutrition to improve the lives of the world's hungry. The USG has
pledged $3.5 billion as its part of AFSI. That pledge is contingent on
the availability of appropriated funds.
The Feed the Future initiative has been developed to accelerate
progress toward Millennium Development Goal #1 (MDG 1) in countries
committed to achieving that goal of halving hunger and poverty by 2015.
It is designed to improve the coordination and integration of USG
resources capable of contributing to global food security now and in
the future. Five principles will guide our common approach: Invest in
country-owned food security plans; strengthen strategic coordination
among key stakeholders; ensure a comprehensive approach; leverage the
benefits of multilateral institutions; and deliver on sustained and
accountable commitments.
Further evidence of a larger effort is the Administration's
commitment to multilateral engagement through the Global Agriculture
and Food Security Program (GAFSP), a new trust fund administered by the
World Bank. The United States contributed approximately $67 million to
the Fund in 2010. Other donors who have made commitments to the fund to
date include Canada ($230 million), Spain ($95 million), South Korea
($50 million) and the Gates Foundation ($30 million).
DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
Question. You request $2.9 billion for Development Assistance, a
$460 million increase from last year. The bulk of the increase is for
agriculture and food security, climate change, and education programs.
More money is one thing, and I strongly support these programs as I
believe many others do. But using money effectively is another,
especially in a time of budget constraints. What steps do you plan to
take to get better results from the money you already have, before
spending more?
Answer. To achieve better results from existing resources, the Feed
the Future (FTF) and the Global Climate Change (GCC) initiatives as
well as USAID Basic and Higher Education programs will include robust
monitoring and evaluation systems, as well as results frameworks that
are underpinned by rigorous analyses. An expanded set of performance
indicators will include the collection of baseline data for both
initiatives that will focus on impact. The United States is working
with other donors to ensure that we do not duplicate efforts. Within
the U.S. Government, initiatives are being coordinated to leverage the
technical expertise of various agencies providing more efficient
delivery of assistance. Internally, USAID is aligning efforts to
achieve far greater integration across its global, regional and
country-focused programs.
Furthermore, focusing on achieving better results includes not only
an emphasis on monitoring and program evaluations, but also on
communications, knowledge management and training for staff and USAID
counterparts.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Question. How much are you requesting globally for programs to
protect biodiversity (the Congress provided $205 million in fiscal year
2010)?
Answer. The Administration requested $113.9 million in fiscal year
2011 for biodiversity conservation. This request was developed through
a bottom-up request process. USAID Missions faced a constrained budget
scenario, requiring difficult choices in their budget requests for
fiscal year 2011.
MICROCREDIT LOANS
Question. The New York Times ran an article recently about lending
institutions that charge exorbitant interest rates on micro-loans and
reap big profits (see attached article, ``Banks Making Big Profits from
Tiny Loans''). One bank in Mexico is cited as charging poor
entrepreneurs an incredible 125 percent annual interest rate on its
micro-loans. Your fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $230 million
for micro-enterprise and micro-finance programs, which have
consistently received support from this subcommittee.
What is the average interest rate of loans charged by micro-lending
institutions that receive USAID support, and how does this rate compare
to the global average for micro-loans? How frequently does USAID
receive information on changes in the rates of interest these
institutions charge?
Answer. USAID does not currently collect information on the
interest rates of its partners around the world; rather, it focuses its
efforts on promoting development of sustainable microfinance sectors
across the developing world, which requires that microfinance
institutions be allowed to set competitive interest rates. USAID
guidelines for its microfinance programs require responsible practices
regarding interest rates and other lending policies.
Recognizing that the need to ensure sustainability of micro-finance
services in economic environments where investment risks are high often
requires MFIs to establish relatively high interest rates, USAID
provides a range of support to MFIs designed to improve efficiency,
reduce risk and, thereby, to reduce the interest rates required for
sustainable cost recovery. For example, USAID helps MFIs overcome the
challenges of attracting a broad base of funding, introducing
alternative delivery mechanisms to reduce operational costs, and
identifying more efficient ways to reach remote, poor populations while
keeping operating costs low. USAID also employs guarantee programs
through the Development Credit Authority (DCA) to increase access to
low-cost commercial funds for MFIs.
USAID recognizes that competition works best when interest rates
are presented to borrowers in clear and transparent terms, so that they
have the ability to rationally choose among lenders. For this reason,
USAID will be providing support this fiscal year to the ``Smart
Campaign'' led by the Center for Financial Inclusion at ACCION
International. As part of this initial pilot, the Campaign will work
with MFIs around the world to ensure they provide transparent,
respectful and prudent financial services, including transparency
surrounding their interest rate. Therefore, while USAID does not
currently collect information on the interest rates of its partners
around the world, support for the Smart Campaign movement--as well as
the anticipated push from donors, practitioners, and investors in the
years to come--will help USAID continue to promote development of the
microfinance sector, including competitive interest rates.
According to USAID policy, before signing an agreement to provide
assistance to any microfinance institution, the Mission must determine
that the institution has full and effective latitude to set interest
rates and fees at full cost-covering levels; the institution's
management is prepared to charge interest rates and fees on loans that
are high enough to cover the program's full long-run costs; the
institution can attain full financial sustainability on the MFI's
financial service activities within no more than 7 years of the initial
provision of USAID assistance; and the institution will use USAID
assistance to expand the availability of financial services to
microentrepreneurs and other poor people.
Also, the MFI must have a plan to reach full financial
sustainability, including a timetable and benchmarks to track its
progress. USAID's annual Microenterprise Results Report (MRR) tracks
the financial sustainability of the MFIs supported by our funds. In
fiscal year 2008, 75 percent of institutions were reported as fully
sustainable.
[From The New York Times, April 13, 2010]
Banks Making Big Profits From Tiny Loans
(By Neil MacFarquhar)
In recent years, the idea of giving small loans to poor people
became the darling of the development world, hailed as the long elusive
formula to propel even the most destitute into better lives.
Actors like Natalie Portman and Michael Douglas lent their boldface
names to the cause. Muhammad Yunus, the economist who pioneered the
practice by lending small amounts to basket weavers in Bangladesh, won
a Nobel Peace Prize for it in 2006. The idea even got its very own
United Nations year in 2005.
But the phenomenon has grown so popular that some of its biggest
proponents are now wringing their hands over the direction it has
taken. Drawn by the prospect of hefty profits from even the smallest of
loans, a raft of banks and financial institutions now dominate the
field, with some charging interest rates of 100 percent or more.
``We created microcredit to fight the loan sharks; we didn't create
microcredit to encourage new loan sharks,'' Mr. Yunus recently said at
a gathering of financial officials at the United Nations. ``Microcredit
should be seen as an opportunity to help people get out of poverty in a
business way, but not as an opportunity to make money out of poor
people.''
The fracas over preserving the field's saintly aura centers on the
question of how much interest and profit is acceptable, and what
constitutes exploitation. The noisy interest rate fight has even
attracted Congressional scrutiny, with the House Financial Services
Committee holding hearings this year focused in part on whether some
microcredit institutions are scamming the poor.
Rates vary widely across the globe, but the ones that draw the most
concern tend to occur in countries like Nigeria and Mexico, where the
demand for small loans from a large population cannot be met by
existing lenders.
Unlike virtually every Web page trumpeting the accomplishments of
microcredit institutions around the world, the page for Te Creemos, a
Mexican lender, lacks even one testimonial from a thriving customer--no
beaming woman earning her first income by growing a soap business out
of her kitchen, for example. Te Creemos has some of the highest
interest rates and fees in the world of microfinance, analysts say, a
whopping 125 percent average annual rate.
The average in Mexico itself is around 70 percent, compared with a
global average of about 37 percent in interest and fees, analysts say.
Mexican microfinance institutions charge such high rates simply because
they can get away with it, said Emmanuelle Javoy, the managing director
of Planet Rating, an independent Paris-based firm that evaluates
microlenders.
``They could do better; they could do a lot better,'' she said.
``If the ones that are very big and have the margins don't set the
pace, then the rest of the market follows.''
Manuel Ramirez, director of risk and internal control at Te
Creemos, reached by telephone in Mexico City, initially said there had
been some unspecified ``misunderstanding'' about the numbers and asked
for more time to clarify, but then stopped responding.
Unwitting individuals, who can make loans of $20 or more through
Web sites like Kiva or Microplace, may also end up participating in
practices some consider exploitative. These Web sites admit that they
cannot guarantee every interest rate they quote. Indeed, the real rate
can prove to be markedly higher.
Debating Microloans' Effects
Underlying the issue is a fierce debate over whether microloans
actually lift people out of poverty, as their promoters so often claim.
The recent conclusion of some researchers is that not every poor person
is an entrepreneur waiting to be discovered, but that the loans do help
cushion some of the worst blows of poverty.
``The lesson is simply that it didn't save the world,'' Dean S.
Karlan, a professor of economics at Yale University, said about
microlending. ``It is not the single transformative tool that
proponents have been selling it as, but there are positive benefits.''
Still, its earliest proponents do not want its reputation tarnished
by new investors seeking profits on the backs of the poor, though they
recognize that the days of just earning enough to cover costs are over.
``They call it `social investing,' but nobody has a definition for
social investing, nobody is saying, for example, that you have to make
less than 10 percent profit,'' said Chuck Waterfield, who runs
mftransparency.org, a Web site that promotes transparency and is
financed by big microfinance investors.
Making pots of money from microfinance is certainly not illegal.
CARE, the Atlanta-based humanitarian organization, was the force behind
a microfinance institution it started in Peru in 1997. The initial
investment was around $3.5 million, including $450,000 of taxpayer
money. But last fall, Banco de Credito, one of Peru's largest banks,
bought the business for $96 million, of which CARE pocketed $74
million.
``Here was a sale that was good for Peru, that was good for our
broad social mission and advertising the price of the sale wasn't the
point of the announcement,'' Helene Gayle, CARE's president, said. Ms.
Gayle described the new owners as committed to the same social mission
of alleviating poverty and said CARE expected to use the money to
extend its own reach in other countries.
The microfinance industry, with over $60 billion in assets, has
unquestionably outgrown its charitable roots. Elisabeth Rhyne, who runs
the Center for Financial Inclusion, said in Congressional testimony
this year that banks and finance firms served 60 percent of all
clients. Nongovernmental organizations served 35 percent of the
clients, she said, while credit unions and rural banks had 5 percent of
the clients.
Private capital first began entering the microfinance arena about a
decade ago, but it was not until Compartamos, a Mexican firm that began
life as a tiny nonprofit organization, generated $458 million through a
public stock sale in 2007, that investors fully recognized the
potential for a windfall, experts said.
Although the Compartamos founders pledged to plow the money back
into development, analysts say the high interest rates and healthy
profits of Compartamos, the largest microfinance institution in the
Western Hemisphere with 1.2 million active borrowers, push up interest
rates all across Mexico.
According to the Microfinance Information Exchange, a Web site
known as the Mix, where more than 1,000 microfinance companies
worldwide report their own numbers, Compartamos charges an average of
nearly 82 percent in interest and fees. The site's global data comes
from 2008.
But poor borrowers are often too inexperienced and too harried to
understand what they are being charged, experts said. In Mexico City,
Maria Vargas has borrowed larger and larger amounts from Compartamos
over 20 years to expand her T-shirt factory to 25 sewing machines from
5. She is hazy about what interest rate she actually pays, though she
considers it high.
``The interest rate is important, but to be honest, you can get so
caught up in work that there is no time to go fill out paperwork in
another place,'' she said. After several loans, now a simple phone call
to Compartamos gets her a check the next day, she said. Occasionally,
interest rates spur political intervention. In Nicaragua, President
Daniel Ortega, outraged that interest rates there were hovering around
35 percent in 2008, announced that he would back a microfinance
institution that would charge 8 to 10 percent, using Venezuelan money.
There were scattered episodes of setting aflame microfinance
branches before a national ``We're not paying'' campaign erupted, which
was widely believed to be mounted secretly by the Sandinista
government. After the courts stopped forcing small borrowers to repay,
making international financial institutions hesitant to work with
Nicaragua, the campaign evaporated.
A Push for More Transparency
The microfinance industry is pushing for greater transparency among
its members, but says that most microlenders are honest, with experts
putting the number of dubious institutions anywhere from less than 1
percent to more than 10 percent. Given that competition has a pattern
of lowering interest rates worldwide, the industry prefers that
approach to government intervention. Part of the problem, however, is
that all kinds of institutions making loans plaster them with the
``microfinance'' label because of its do-good reputation.
Damian von Stauffenberg, who founded an independent rating agency
called Microrate, said that local conditions had to be taken into
account, but that any firm charging 20 to 30 percent above the market
was ``unconscionable'' and that profit rates above 30 percent should be
considered high.
Mr. Yunus says interest rates should be 10 to 15 percent above the
cost of raising the money, with anything beyond a ``red zone'' of loan
sharking. ``We need to draw a line between genuine and abuse,'' he
said. ``You will never see the situation of poor people if you look at
it through the glasses of profit-making.''
Yet by that measure, 75 percent of microfinance institutions would
fall into Mr. Yunus's ``red zone,'' according to a March analysis of
1,008 microlenders by Adrian Gonzalez, lead researcher at the Mix. His
study found that much of the money from interest rates was used to
cover operating expenses, and argued that tackling costs, as opposed to
profits, could prove the most efficient way to lower interest rates.
Many experts label Mr. Yunus's formula overly simplistic and too
low, a route to certain bankruptcy in countries with high operating
expenses. Costs of doing business in Asia and the sheer size of the
Grameen Bank he founded in Bangladesh allow for economies of scale that
keep costs down, analysts say. ``Globally interest rates have been
going down as a general trend,'' said Ms. Javoy of Planet Rating.
Many companies say the highest rates reflect the costs of reaching
the poorest, most inaccessible borrowers. It costs more to handle 10
loans of $100 than one loan of $1,000. Some analysts fear that a
pronounced backlash against high interest rates will prompt lenders to
retreat from the poorest customers.
But experts also acknowledge that banks and others who dominate the
industry are slow to address problems.
Added Scrutiny for Lenders
Like Mexico, Nigeria attracts scrutiny for high interest rates. One
firm, LAPO, Lift Above Poverty Organization, has raised questions,
particularly since it was backed by prominent investors like Deutsche
Bank and the Calvert Foundation.
LAPO, considered the leading microfinance institution in Nigeria,
engages in a contentious industry practice sometimes referred to as
``forced savings.'' Under it, the lender keeps a portion of the loan.
Proponents argue that it helps the poor learn to save, while critics
call it exploitation since borrowers do not get the entire amount up
front but pay interest on the full loan.
LAPO collected these so-called savings from its borrowers without a
legal permit to do so, according to a Planet Rating report. ``It was
known to everybody that they did not have the right license,'' Ms.
Javoy said.
Under outside pressure, LAPO announced in 2009 that it was
decreasing its monthly interest rate, Planet Rating noted, but at the
same time compulsory savings were quietly raised to 20 percent of the
loan from 10 percent. So, the effective interest rate for some clients
actually leapt to nearly 126 percent annually from 114 percent, the
report said. The average for all LAPO clients was nearly 74 percent in
interest and fees, the report found.
Anita Edward says she has borrowed money three times from LAPO for
her hair salon, Amazing Collections, in Benin City, Nigeria. The money
comes cheaper than other microloans, and commercial banks are virtually
impossible, she said, but she resents the fact that LAPO demanded that
she keep $100 of her roughly $666 10-month loan in a savings account
while she paid interest on the full amount.
``That is not O.K. by me,'' she said. ``It is not fair. They should
give you the full money.''
The loans from LAPO helped her expand from one shop to two, but
when she started she thought she would have more money to put into the
business.
``It has improved my life, but not changed it,'' said Ms. Edward,
30.
Godwin Ehigiamusoe, LAPO's founding executive director, defended
his company's high interest rates, saying they reflected the high cost
of doing business in Nigeria. For example, he said, each of the
company's more than 200 branches needed its own generator and fuel to
run it.
Until recently, Microplace, which is part of eBay, was promoting
LAPO to individual investors, even though the Web site says the lenders
it features have interest rates between 18 and 60 percent, considerably
less than what LAPO customers typically pay.
As recently as February, Microplace also said that LAPO had a
strong rating from Microrate, yet the rating agency had suspended LAPO
the previous August, 6 months earlier. Microplace then removed the
rating after The New York Times called to inquire why it was still
being used and has since taken LAPO investments off the Web site.
At Kiva, which promises on its Web site that it ``will not partner
with an organization that charges exorbitant interest rates,'' the
interest rate and fees for LAPO was recently advertised as 57 percent,
the average rate from 2007. After The Times called to inquire, Kiva
changed it to 83 percent.
Premal Shah, Kiva's president, said it was a question of outdated
information rather than deception. ``I would argue that the information
is stale as opposed to misleading,'' he said. ``It could have been a
tad better.''
While analysts characterize such microfinance Web sites as well-
meaning, they question whether the sites sufficiently vetted the
organizations they promoted.
Questions had already been raised about Kiva because the Web site
once promised that loans would go to specific borrowers identified on
the site, but later backtracked, clarifying that the money went to
organizations rather than individuals.
Promotion aside, the overriding question facing the industry,
analysts say, remains how much money investors should make from lending
to poor people, mostly women, often at interest rates that are hidden.
``You can make money from the poorest people in the world--is that
a bad thing, or is that just a business?'' asked Mr. Waterfield of
mftransparency.org. ``At what point do we say we have gone too far?''
WATER
Question. The Administration has requested $255 million for water
sanitation and supply projects in fiscal year 2011. USAID funds water-
related activities in various program areas such as agriculture,
economic growth, nutrition, and health. Approximately how much will
USAID spend on water-related activities in fiscal year 2011, across all
programs?
Answer. The Administration's request for water programs in fiscal
year 2011 is $260 million. Each year, additional amounts for all water
activities normally include portions of other programs that help to
improve water supply, sanitation and hygiene (WSSH), water resources
management (WRM); water productivity (WP), and water-related disaster
risk reduction (DRR). Those additional programs may include Disaster
Assistance for WSSH (normally $90-$100 million), natural resources
management programs contributing to WRM, agricultural sector
productivity contributions to WP and broader disaster response and
preparedness contributions to water-related DRR. Based on current
projections, the total fiscal year 2011 USAID water expenditures, once
all attributions are included, can be expected to be between $500-$600
million.
Question. The fiscal year 2010 State and Foreign Operations bill
requires the relevant USAID bureaus and offices that support cross-
cutting programs such as water to coordinate on a regular basis. In the
case of water, how does USAID plan to better coordinate water
activities and programs across bureaus?
Answer. The Administration has now formed a new High-level Steering
Group on Water that will be responsible for coordination of diplomatic
and development activities related to water within State, USAID and the
wider U.S. Government. As part of early actions on coordination,
efforts are underway to better integrate water into the
Administration's fiscal year 2012 budget request, and to identify
water-related aspects of the Administration's new initiatives in Global
Climate Change, Food Security and Global Health. Beyond these new
efforts, USAID has been engaged in a vigorous ongoing coordination and
communication process within the Agency's Water Team, which is an
informal coordination group with membership from all USAID functional
and regional bureaus in Washington and all USAID missions overseas who
are engaged in water sector activities, whether in health, economic
growth, environment, energy, gender integration, agriculture, private
sector business and finance or in other areas where water figures in
development programs.
WOMEN AND GIRLS
Question. For years, the Congress has tried to get USAID and the
State Department to pay more attention to the needs of women and girls
in our foreign aid programs. It has not been easy. This Administration
seems to be more receptive, but good intentions do not always produce
good results. How do you plan to address this issue?
Answer. USAID is placing renewed emphasis on addressing the needs
of women and girls throughout our foreign aid programs. Three areas in
particular relate to staff training, new gender analysis and planning
requirements, and the incorporation of gender considerations into new
Administration initiatives, all reflecting USAID's renewed commitment
to women and girls.
With regard to USAID's new gender analysis and planning
requirements, the Agency adopted new regulations in November 2009 that
require gender analysis and the inclusion of gender within all of the
Agency's program planning, monitoring, contracting, and evaluation
processes. In 2010, guidance on these new regulations was created to
ensure staff is familiar with the regulations and understand how to
comply with them. USAID is now also training program officers,
contracts officers, and field staff in these new regulations. The new
regulations also require USAID Missions to conduct gender analyses. In
2010, 20 gender assessments have been completed, are in process or
planned, as compared to three completed in 2009, two in 2009 and three
in 2007.
In 2009, USAID also made it mandatory that all incoming Foreign
Service Officers (FSOs) receive gender training. To date, 264 of
USAID's junior FSOs have been trained. USAID also conducted gender-
based violence and trafficking in persons training for field staff from
19 countries in February 2010 and several more field-based trainings
are scheduled. USAID is reviewing ways to improve measuring performance
toward achieving gender equality as part of our renewed focus on
monitoring and evaluation.
Finally, all of the Administration's new initiatives, Global
Health, Global Climate Change, Global Engagement, and Feed the Future,
have explicitly incorporated gender concerns. For example, the Feed the
Future guide published in May 2010, emphasizes gender integration into
all proposed food security investments. Global Climate Change
Initiative (GCC) investments are being designed to promote women's
participation in the development of community-level strategies to
increase community resilience to climatic risks. The Global Health
Initiative (GHI) includes significant increases for programs that serve
women and girls, including maternal and child health, family planning,
nutrition and HIV/AIDS. The GHI will also support long-term, systemic
changes to remove economic, cultural, social and legal barriers and to
expand opportunities to increase the participation of women and girls
in decisionmaking in the health sector.
JUSTICE REFORM
Question. USAID has spent many tens of millions--probably hundreds
of millions--of dollars in what has often been a futile effort to
reform dysfunctional justice systems around the world. We recognize
that justice is fundamental to democracy and stability. One need only
look at Central America today to see what happens when people know they
can get away with murder, or where judges can be easily bribed or
witnesses intimidated, to see the consequences. Violent crime and
organized crime are flourishing.
But without the political will to reform, we end up throwing away
good money after bad. Haiti is another example. There has never been
the necessary political will at the top and frankly, there still isn't.
Do you agree that in order to reform a country's justice system the
country's own Ministry of Justice needs to be serious about reform?
Answer. Indeed, reform of the justice system requires a commitment
to reform by the Ministry of Justice as well as the political will to
reform other parts of the government. The justice system is an
important element of a functioning, transparent and accountable
government. The Ministry of Justice, along with other ministries and
agencies responsible for advancing the rule of law, are keys to
success; while civil service reform is also necessary to ensure that
government workers--including police, prosecutors, judges, and prison
officials--are paid a living wage. If governments do not undertake this
type of reform, thus reducing incentives for corruption, corruption
will destroy developmental gains that might otherwise be realized.
Even in places where democracy is in its infancy or is struggling,
it is possible to foster momentum for change. There will be those in
the business, academic, faith, media and even government communities
who can be rallied to support the necessary changes in the justice
system. In some places, it may be that facilitating this momentum is
``Job #1'' for USG representatives and other donors interested in the
same result.
One of the best ways to convince leaders that reform is in their
best interest is through the empowerment of civil society. As civil
society becomes stronger and civic education expands, citizens begin to
understand the services that their governments should be providing and
they are thus more likely to hold leaders accountable for their
actions. This is not a quick process, but rather something that must be
pursued with local change agents over a period of many years. Civil
society empowerment should be a lynchpin for the USG's promotion of
democracy, good governance, and the rule of law.
COUNTRY OWNERSHIP
Question. USAID is using the term ``country ownership'' more and
more. What does this mean in practice, and how does USAID's concept of
country ownership differ from that of the Millennium Challenge
Corporation?
Answer. For USAID, in practice, there have been three main aspects
to ``country ownership'': (1) host country commitments to good
governance and policy reform; (2) the extent to which the host country
is a partner in the selection, orientation and design, implementation,
and monitoring and evaluation of the assistance program; and (3) the
extent to which the host country invests in cost sharing arrangements
to ensure the sustainability of the program. All of these aspects are
relevant to both USAID and the MCC approaches to the delivery of
foreign aid and are consistent with the growing body of knowledge on
the link between country ownership and aid effectiveness.
The MCC defines country ownership of an MCC compact as being ``when
a country's national government controls the prioritization process
during compact development, is responsible for implementation, and is
accountable to its domestic stakeholders for both decisionmaking and
results''. Their model emphasizes country ownership from the selection
process, through compact design and implementation, using host nation
systems at all stages of the compact.
For USAID, the concept of country ownership--focused on host nation
participation in formulating and designing aid programs--has always
been an integral part of its program planning. For example, USAID's
programming guidelines state that country development cooperation
strategies which aim to promote transformational development must
``align with host country strategies coordinated with a broad cross
section of stakeholders, including the socially and economically
disadvantaged.'' Importantly, USAID's historic operating model
emphasized country presence specifically to work in collaboration with
host country leaders and national stakeholders to build country
capacity for development reforms. Bilateral Assistance Agreements have
been used to set forth mutually agreed upon understandings between
USAID and the host government of the timeframe, results expected to be
achieved, means of measuring those results, resources,
responsibilities, and contributions of participating entities for
achieving defined priorities, goals and objectives.
In light of our new approach to high-impact development and
emphasis under the PSD-7 and QDDR exercises, USAID is currently
reviewing its policies and business model to align them more
intrinsically with aid effectiveness principles, including that of
country ownership. We expect reforms in the way we do business to
result in greater use of host country development strategies, planning
and financial management systems, and accountability to their own
citizens for results from development investments.
SELECTIVITY
Question. One of the things I like about the MCC is that it
requires governments to commit to do certain things if they want our
aid, like taking specific steps to reduce corruption, or increase their
own budgets for heathcare and education. Do you think USAID should
require governments to meet these types of benchmarks of progress in
return for our aid?
Answer. In accordance with its charter, the MCC uses ex-ante
indicators of performance as the basis for selection of country
partners--a principle known as ``selectivity.'' Given the relatively
limited set of partner countries in which MCC operates, this
``selectivity'' has been useful as an incentive for potential partners
to undertake their own reforms as a step toward eligibility for MCC
assistance. USAID also considers ``selectivity'' to be important for
the success of its transformational development programs, but works
with a larger, more diverse universe of partners, and with a broader
set of criteria. Key among a number of factors for selecting USAID
partner country investments are: need, U.S. foreign policy interest,
and the country's own development priorities and commitment to reforms.
As such, USAID's approach to ``selectivity'' primarily informs
decisions about how to engage, rather than whether to engage.
As you know, the Obama administration is close to putting in place
an overarching development policy. The policy is intended to focus
strategically our goals and aspirations so that we can most effectively
achieve them. We're already putting a new approach to high-impact
development into practice in a number of core areas, including
strengthening our ability to invest in country-owned models of
inclusive growth and development success. We have learned from recent
country examples, the experience of MCC and from efforts like the
Spence Commission of the value of focusing on a set of areas critical
to inclusive growth in countries that are reasonably well-governed,
economically stable, globally connected and market-oriented. We
anticipate working with MCC, State and others to identify such
countries where the foundations for progress are in place. In this new,
more focused approach, USAID may consider the use of additional policy
benchmarks to help more reliably identify a recipient country's
location along the development continuum. We may also learn from MCC's
approaches to monitoring and evaluation and ex-ante cost benefit
analyses to help achieve greater transformational impact.
GLOBAL HEALTH
Question. One of the four main components of the Administration's
Global Health Initiative is ``doing more of what works and less of what
doesn't.'' One would hope that would be a requirement of every Federal
program. Since the GHI began in 2009, has USAID ended any programs or
activities that were not working, that has resulted in significant
savings? Have any new initiatives achieved better results?
Answer. Learning and accountability are critical to the success of
the GHI, and we are increasing the rigor and transparency of monitoring
and evaluation, with an emphasis on using data to help us identify
critical problems and improvements throughout our programs. This lens
will apply for both new and innovative approaches, as well as for those
existing programs that may benefit from adjustments and improvements.
We place strong emphasis on close tracking and evaluation because
that ongoing process, in close dialogue with the country teams, will
permit us to learn, respond and ultimately have tailored programs that
are ``smarter,'' with greater country ownership, more partners, and
more efficient and effective approaches than we would have designed in
a ``blueprint'' manner. In GHI, as across this Administration's
development agenda, the findings from evaluations will be shared with
decisionmakers in ways that are intended to create the best information
for effective programming in the future.
As part of our efforts to ensure country-led programs, we expect
and welcome programs that are designed at the country level to best
respond to the specific disease and health systems priorities in that
country. Since the GHI's inception, we have not ended programs or
activities, but as we continue to work on the country-level roll-out,
we will work with our country colleagues to hone and sharpen our
existing efforts while learning from new and innovative approaches.
MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH
Question. The European medical journal The Lancet recently reported
that global maternal mortality deaths have decreased by 40 percent
since 1980. But there are still about 350,000 cases of preventable
maternal deaths annually around the globe.
There are some who want to cut foreign aid. This is one area where
those who care about women, children, and families can point to life-
saving results. The Administration has requested $700 million for
maternal and child health programs in fiscal year 2011, a significant
increase of approximately $225 million over the fiscal year 2010 level.
What do you plan to do, and what do you expect to accomplish, with this
additional money?
Answer. The additional funding will allow USAID to:
Advance coverage of life-saving interventions in up to 31 countries
\2\ that are a priority for USAID MCH programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ India, Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Nepal,
Pakistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Yemen, Ethiopia, Sudan
(southern), Uganda, Rwanda, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, Liberia, Ghana,
Benin, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zambia, Mozambique, Malawi,
Tanzania, Madagascar, Kenya, Haiti, Guatemala and Bolivia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence suggests that focusing on the major causes of
maternal, newborn and child mortality with simple interventions could
prevent about two-thirds of child deaths, up to two-thirds of newborn
deaths, and a large fraction of maternal deaths globally.
--Some longstanding proven interventions need reinvigoration. For
example, USAID will focus on increasing oral rehydration
therapy (ORT) for diarrhea, including the use of zinc as an
adjunct to ORT, in those countries where ORT use rates are
stagnant or falling.
--Other interventions need to be introduced or are ready to be scaled
up, such as:
--Active management of the third stage of labor (AMTSL) to prevent
postpartum hemorrhage (PPH): USAID will expand full
provision of this intervention (that can reduce PPH by up
to 60 percent) to 75 percent of facility-level births in
Mali, Mozambique, Malawi, Nigeria, Kenya, Mali, Tanzania
and Bolivia. (In a multi-country survey of 10 countries in
2008, full application of AMTSL ranged from <1-31
percent.);
--Management of severe preeclampsia/eclampsia with magnesium
sulfate in facilities.--USAID will apply this life-saving
intervention in up to 10 countries (with possible expansion
to community level in 2 or 3 countries);
--Essential newborn care and resuscitation.--These life-saving
interventions will be introduced and a phased-in scale up
will be launched in up to 13 countries, with substantial
potential for public-private partnership with a
manufacturer of innovative low-cost equipment for newborn
resuscitation in several;
--Integrated community case management (CCM) of malaria, diarrhea
and pneumonia.--USAID will introduce or scale up case
management in Cambodia, Nepal, Benin, the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Mozambique,
Rwanda, Senegal and Zambia. In five of these countries,
USAID will introduce rapid diagnostic tests for malaria to
increase appropriate treatment of children with fever; and
--Community-led total sanitation and sanitation marketing.--USAID
will support these new behavior-focused approaches to
improving sanitation in health programs in up to five
countries.
Increase coverage of care by frontline healthcare providers,
especially midwives and community health workers, to provide the
evidence-based interventions essential for mortality reduction.
Gaps in human resources for health, in terms of numbers, skill mix
and distribution, continue to pose a challenge for effective service
delivery, particularly in underserved rural areas. While the human
resource deficit is serious, there has been progress, particularly in
Asia, but the problem in Africa is more challenging. USAID will:
--Disseminate evidence on the effectiveness of alternative financing
approaches, such as community-based health insurance and
waivers of fees to increase the use of skilled birth
attendants. USAID's contribution to this dynamic field will
influence key policy decisions by governments for use of their
own and donor resources to reduce the financial barriers for
families to access skilled care;
--Accelerate the training and supervision of community health workers
(CHWs), who can be extremely effective in providing preventive
and curative care that saves lives. USAID expects to apply the
newly developed and pilot-tested CHW Functionality Tool in
approximately five countries to catalyze policies and focus
effort on the weakest components of national CHW programs; and
--Expand support to midwifery pre-service education programs in five
to seven sub-Saharan African countries, initiating or
strengthening accreditation systems, to unlock the unending
cycle of need for in-service training to develop basic skills.
Invest in health systems that advance rational policies and improve
individual and organizational capacity for sustainable development.
USAID will selectively strengthen components of the health system
critical to delivering the high-impact interventions needed to reduce
child and maternal mortality. USAID will:
--Expand support for the effective implementation of systems of
procurement, storage and delivery of key pharmaceuticals and
other essential commodities;
--Rapidly expand quality improvement systems, including standards-
based management and collaborative approaches in 15 countries--
including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malawi and Tanzania--as well
as other innovative approaches to increase incentives to
improve service delivery such as pay-for-performance; and
--Expand activities to address the long-term sustainability of
national health systems by strengthening the capacity of
national and sub-national ministries of health to ensure
services that are effective, non-discriminatory and responsive
to local needs.
Target the most vulnerable as maternal and child health programs
are expanded, many of whom give birth and are treated for illness in
the community setting.
USAID will expand delivery of evidence-based interventions into
communities where the poor and vulnerable face death outside of formal
healthcare facilities. This will include enhancing the advocacy,
policy, planning and budgeting capacity to support a basic package of
integrated services that emphasizes the MCH needs of vulnerable women
and children, while also--in line with Global Health Initiative (GHI)
core principles--fostering women's leadership, empowerment and access
to these critical services. USAID will:
--In six countries, introduce misoprostol, an effective uterotonic,
to prevent post-partum hemorrhage in home deliveries where
AMTSL cannot be provided by a skilled birth attendant;
--Promote the management of newborn infections with antibiotics by
trained CHWs in seven countries; and
--Disseminate and promote examples of effective CHW programs--such as
in Nepal where maternal mortality declined by 48 percent within
10 years and where antibiotic treatment for pneumonia by CHWs
has contributed to dramatic reductions in child mortality--to
policymakers and programmers in other countries and supporting
development of national programs adapted from effective models.
Expand monitoring and evaluation to ensure that results of USG
investments are documented in a transparent way and lessons learned
incorporated into our programs.
Investing in regular, as well as intermittent, independent
monitoring and evaluation of MCH programs is essential to improve
health outcomes by tailoring approaches based upon evidence. USAID will
enhance health information systems to:
--Improve tracking of availability and stock-outs of drugs and other
critical commodities;
--Improve routine and periodic systems for measuring progress in all
priority countries;
--Better assess the quality of care being delivered; and
--Monitor access to services and health outcomes, as an input to
formulate sound policies and as a means to ensure
accountability for results to donors.
Expanded and accelerated monitoring will take place in all priority
countries so that key indicators for tracking progress will be
available for all 31 emphasis countries on an annual basis.
Continue to support major international research and the
advancement of new technologies and approaches to enhance MCH program
effectiveness.
To improve programs in the long run and to tackle some of the key
problems facing health programs in diverse environments, it is
essential to find and test innovations. New technologies and approaches
are needed. Importantly, many of the most vulnerable choose to avoid or
are geographically and culturally distanced from modern medicine. USAID
will expand its work in finding innovations--both technological and
human--to reach these vulnerable people. Additional funding will allow
for a new generation of approaches to be investigated and further
developed, such as:
--Cell phone and other communication technology (for communicating
health messages, enhancing client care at a distance, improving
the functioning of the referral system for obstetric and
newborn emergencies, etc.);
--New diagnostics and preventive approaches, such as a simple test to
detect risk for impending eclampsia and other risk
identification for pregnant women and newborns;
--Improved therapeutic approaches, such as starting preeclampsia and
eclampsia treatment in the community with a loading dose of
magnesium sulfate before transfer to a hospital for definitive
care; and
--Effective behavior change strategies for client behaviors, such as
stopping harmful infant nutrition practices, and for provider
behaviors, such as eliminating demeaning and abusive behavior
toward childbearing women.
In all countries, regions, and global programs--consistent with the
principles of the GHI--USAID will expand coordination and strategic
integration of MCH programs with malaria, HIV/AIDS, and family planning
programs, as well as strengthen partnerships with multilateral
organizations, and other international and in-country partners. USAID
will strengthen existing and build new public-private partnerships for
the development and introduction of innovative health technologies and
approaches, such as oxytocin Uniject to prevent postpartum hemorrhage,
new methods of delivering chlorine-based drinking water disinfectants,
and promotion of hand washing among caregivers as an important measure
to prevent severe newborn infection.
Ultimately, the impact of this work, along with investments prior
to and after fiscal year 2011, will be measured in terms of mortality
and lives saved by many countries in 2015 to document progress or
attainment of Millennium Development Goals 4 and 5. In the interim,
USAID will provide evidence from all countries of improved policies to
promote evidence-based practices, better quality of care, increased
uptake of services by the poor, and increased use of life-saving
interventions.
H1N1
Question. At the beginning of the H1N1 outbreak there was
difficulty in obtaining antivirals in desired quantities. Does USAID
currently have any plans to acquire antivirals to help combat H1N1
globally and in places like West Africa where the virus is currently
spreading? If no, please explain. If yes, how will USAID determine the
proper amount of antivirals to acquire? Does USAID have long-term plans
to acquire antivirals to distribute to affected countries to combat
future pandemics?
Answer. At present, USAID does not have any plans to stockpile
antivirals. Because the World Health Organization (WHO) was able to
independently establish a stockpile of more than 10 million doses of
Tamiflu, it was determined that this stockpile was adequate for the
current global needs and no USAID funds were required for this purpose.
We are in constant contact with WHO and we monitor the situation very
closely to determine if any USAID assistance in the stockpiling of
antivirals is required. If assistance is required, USAID would support
WHO's ability to procure the needed antivirals. USAID stands ready to
assist WHO in drug distribution, should that be necessary. We have
played a major role in the area of vaccine and ancillary commodity
distribution and can expand that role to antivirals if needed. USAID
will continue to work with the other USG agencies and international
organizations to determine the appropriate measures needed and how to
best meet those needs.
With respect to sub-Saharan Africa, USAID is working very closely
with countries and international organizations to support improved
surveillance of influenza through the provision of laboratory equipment
and supplies, as well as supporting vaccination programs for health
workers and pregnant women. By the end of May 2010, USAID will have
supported the delivery of more than 40 million doses of the H1N1
vaccine and ancillary materials to more than 60 countries worldwide.
Additionally, USAID is supporting a global laboratory network to
monitor the impact of the H1N1 virus as it spreads around the world,
with a special focus in upgrading the surveillance and laboratory
capacities of 26 countries in West and Central Africa and Central and
South America--where such capacities were previously non-existent.
While we are watching the situation in Africa very closely, sub-Saharan
Africa only constitutes about 3 percent of the total number of H1N1
cases worldwide and less than 1 percent of the deaths attributed to
H1N1. Strengthening the ability of countries to accurately detect H1N1
cases and monitor any changes in the trends of these cases is critical
to rapid and effective response. USAID is constantly monitoring the
trends in all regions and is prepared to mobilize support should the
situation change significantly.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
WHEAT STEM RESISTANCE WHEAT VARIETY
Question. This appropriations cycle I have requested additional
funds for USDA to develop a Ug99 wheat stem resistance wheat variety.
Can you tell me how agriculture programs at USAID complement the
research conducted at USDA? Ug99 would be devastating to my South
Dakota producers, as well as producers throughout the world. What is
your plan for developing a Ug99 wheat resistant variety?
Answer. USAID has been the lead international development agency in
responding to the wheat stem rust alarm first raised by Dr. Norman
Borlaug some 5 years ago. After almost 50 years of durable resistance
to this most dreaded disease of wheat, Ug99 appeared as a virulent new
strain that threatened food security in Africa, the Middle East and
South Asia, but ultimately could greatly harm America's farmers as
well. The disease has not yet reached an epidemic stage, but with the
right environmental conditions in South Asia, a food security disaster
could result, including setting the stage for a global pandemic of Ug99
that would probably reach the U.S. wheat belt.
To prevent this from happening, USAID has provided some $20 million
in the last 5 years for wheat research by the Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), in partnership with U.S.
universities and USDA's Agricultural Research Service, to identify and
rapidly deploy resistance genes. USAID also supported expanded efforts
by USDA's Cereal Disease Laboratory in St. Paul to identify new sources
of resistance to the pathogen. USAID and USDA also supported screening
trials in disease hot-spots in East Africa, where global wheat
varieties--including those from the United States and Canada--were
screened for both susceptibility and resistance. It is estimated that
over 80 percent of the world's wheat varieties are susceptible, a fact
that underscores the severity of the threat. In addition, the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation established the Borlaug Global Rust
Initiative, which links to both USAID and USDA, to respond to this
threat and put in place expanded ability to monitor and control wheat
rust pathogens in the future.
CGIAR wheat breeding efforts have made excellent progress. Using
the latest molecular techniques and genetic information from
international partnerships, new varieties of wheat that are resistant
to the new strain have been developed, forming a first line of defense
against a potential epidemic. Over the last 2 years, USAID has deployed
over $5 million in specially authorized ``Famine Funds'' to rapidly
multiply and scale up production of resistant wheat seed in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, Egypt and Ethiopia. We also have a
partnership with India, which brings its own considerable resources to
the effort. In addition, we also are working with global partners as
part of a disease-surveillance effort to monitor movement of the
disease, which has now moved as far as east Iran.
It is important to recognize that, while we have taken vital steps
and made good progress, more work is needed to build back the ``durable
resistance'' that Dr. Borlaug achieved in the Rockefeller Foundation's
wheat program in Mexico in the 1950s--the forerunner of CGIAR. USAID
has worked closely with USDA's Agricultural Research Service, U.S.
universities and researchers in Australia, India and elsewhere around
the world to ensure that resistant varieties are developed and food
security protected. All of the resistant materials and genetic
information about the disease and resistance to it are freely available
from the various partners, especially the CGIAR, which has an explicit
focus on sharing its products and information. These new sources of
resistance are being used in USDA and U.S. university wheat breeding
programs to develop varieties adapted to U.S. growing environments.
Taken together, our overseas work aimed at protecting food security in
the developing world is also helping to ensure that U.S. farmers
continue to have access to high-yielding, resistant wheat varieties
with the qualities our markets demand. Similarly, U.S. scientific
capabilities are being shared through research collaborations around
the globe, helping to strengthen food security.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
HAITI RECONSTRUCTION
Question. In the reconstruction process in Haiti, what is being
done to enable local, community-based organizations to access funds?
Answer. USAID recognizes that its work in the longer-term recovery
and reconstruction phase must be both transparent and participatory.
Therefore, USAID is developing a procurement strategy that will support
transformational change in Haiti.
This procurement strategy will support the humanitarian response as
well as the recovery and reconstruction phases in a way that is both
country-led and builds local capacity. The following outlines
procedures that are designed to ensure transparency, efficiency and
broader outreach to attract new partners.
For example, our New Partners Initiative: The USAID procurement
strategy encourages and provides for greater use of local NGOs, and
U.S. small, minority and women-owned businesses, and seeks to tap the
expertise and energy of the Haitian-American community. Assessments of
local NGOs are conducted and technical assistance provided to build
their organizational capacity to receive direct awards. Direct
engagement with the U.S. Haitian-American community helps the Diaspora
understand the U.S. foreign assistance strategy and how to do business
with USAID. Set-asides for U.S. small, minority and women-owned
businesses will be maximized and public-private partnerships will be
promoted.
Question. How are you making certain that the large majority of the
recovery and reconstruction funds for Haiti are going to services,
supplies or other direct benefits and not organizational administrative
costs?
Answer. USAID shares Congress' intent to get as many resources as
possible into the hands of Haitian organizations and communities to
achieve the goal of ``building Haiti back better.'' We are committed to
working with a variety of organizations in the recovery and
reconstruction effort, including local Haitian, Diaspora, American and
international organizations.
Working successfully toward results in difficult environments takes
deliberate planning and considerate amounts of coordination at all
levels. For this, development programs require some level of
administrative support that provides for an effective and efficient
infrastructure, designed to allow the program to reach its end goals.
Salaries for local Haitian employees, for example may be considered an
administrative cost. Yet, these costs also directly benefit the economy
of Haiti.
USAID is working diligently to maximize resources going directly to
benefit the people and country of Haiti through careful negotiation of
our grants and contracts and continuous oversight during
implementation. USAID makes every effort to minimize fixed
administrative costs when negotiating new mechanisms so that USG
resources reach the maximum number of beneficiaries possible. This
includes requesting mandatory cost share contributions and leveraging
resources with the private sector to offset administrative costs.
Question. What role will environmental issues such as reforestation
play in the long-term recovery plan for Haiti?
Answer. Root causes of environmental disaster in Haiti include
acute poverty, rapid population growth and unplanned urbanization. In
the short term, it is critical to convert hillsides to tree-based
perennial agriculture to improve soil conservation. Lessons learned
from decades of reforestation programs demonstrate that, if a tree has
value, a farmer is likely to maintain and manage it; if not, it will
likely disappear. Therefore, strengthening tree crop value chains is an
approach with proven ability to restore degraded landscapes.
USAID/Haiti's Watershed Initiative for National Natural
Environmental Resources (WINNER) Project, an agricultural and watershed
management program, applies best practices such as this. WINNER is
already active in the Cul-de-Sac watershed where Port-au-Prince is
located, as well as the Cabaret, Mirebalais, Archaie and Gonaives
regions of Haiti. WINNER was underway prior to the January 12, 2010
Haiti earthquake and was modified to immediately address post-
earthquake needs. The United States will continue to invest a total of
$126 million in the project over the next 5 years. WINNER is
strengthening the value chains for tree crops and focusing on tree
crops with high value (such as mango) as these are effective incentive
to hillside farmers to plant and manage perennial crops.
In addition to tree crops, the USG strategy in Haiti also includes
plans to promote cleaner and more efficient cooking technologies, such
as liquid petroleum gas (LPG), to decrease charcoal consumption and
reduce the rate of deforestation and environmental degradation. After
completing a rigorous assessment of the potential market for improved
cooking technologies, the USG will implement a program that will
address market barriers such as high upfront costs or lack of awareness
and achieve large-scale reduction of charcoal consumption over a 5-year
period. Beneficiaries are likely to include households, food vendors
and energy-intensive businesses such as laundries and bakeries.
Finally, a Programmatic Environmental Assessment will be conducted
for proposed earthquake reconstruction activities, which will pay close
attention to addressing these issues across the mission's portfolio of
projects.
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION
Question. Do you plan to add emergency contraception to the list of
contraceptive commodities available for purchase by USAID missions and
to make funds available to do so?
Answer. USAID-supplied oral contraceptive pills are among the FDA-
approved formulation that can be used for emergency contraception (EC).
While USAID does not currently procure a dedicated EC product as part
of its contraceptive commodity procurement program, USAID supplies
information about the use of EC in a variety of its technical and
training materials and supports sharing information about this
contraceptive option with family planning clients in countries where EC
is an approved contraceptive method. USAID has supported biomedical
research on the mechanism of action, use, and effectiveness of EC, and
in some countries supported operations research programs to determine
EC use and need.
While there is no current plan to add EC commodities to the list of
commodities available for purchase by USAID, the Agency is currently
reviewing its procurement policy and guidelines with respect to
programming EC.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Arlen Specter
INFLUENZA PANDEMIC PREPARATION
Question. I have been a consistent proponent of aggressive
preparedness efforts at the Federal, State and local levels to reduce
the threat of an influenza pandemic, and have worked with a series of
HHS Secretaries--Secretaries Thompson, Leavitt and now Sebelius--to
ensure that Congress provides the adequate resources to defend our
country against a pandemic. As pandemics are global by definition, I
know that USAID plays a major role in our preparation efforts.
With regard to H1N1, in late February 2010, the World Health
Organization elected to hold at the phase 6 pandemic alert level rather
than move to a post-peak phase. As I understand it, the WHO experts
based this decision on evidence of new spread of the H1N1 virus in West
Africa, and the possibility of a second wave of illnesses as the
Southern Hemisphere enters its winter months. I am also still keeping
my eye on H5N1, which has already claimed lives in Egypt and Vietnam
this year and has been reported in several other countries.
I know USAID has taken steps to acquire pre-pandemic vaccines to
combat these viruses on a global scale, and I applaud this effort.
However, I am also aware of the important role of antivirals, such as
Tamiflu, in combating influenza pandemics. It is my understanding that
last year, USAID considered acquiring antivirals for the purpose of
distribution to countries affected by the pandemic, but did not move
forward because of a sense that H1N1 had waned.
LONG-TERM PLANS TO COMBAT SPREAD OF PANDEMICS
What actions is USAID taking to counter the spread of H1N1 in
regions seeing growing incidence of H1N1, such as West Africa? Does
USAID currently have any plans to acquire antivirals to help combat
this spread? If not, why?
Answer. In fiscal year 2009, USAID programmed a total of $85
million to address the H1N1 virus, of which $50 million was
appropriated as an emergency supplemental and $35 million was
reprogrammed from USAID's regular fiscal year 2009 Avian and Pandemic
Influenza (API) appropriation. USAID worked closely with other USG
departments to coordinate efforts. USAID funds were allocated to
activities that were best suited for USAID's comparative advantage and
in support of activities that were being conducted by other government
entities. These funds have been used to support three lines of H1N1
related work:
--Deployment of the H1N1 vaccine and related ancillary materials
(syringes, needles, etc.). By the end of the May 2010 we expect
to have supported the delivery of more than 40 million doses of
the H1N1 vaccine and ancillary materials to more than 60
countries;
--Support for a global laboratory network to monitor the impact of
the H1N1 virus as it spread around the world, with a special
focus on upgrading the surveillance and laboratory capacities
of 26 countries in West and Central Africa and Central and
South America--where such capacities were previously non-
existent; and
--Support for community-based, non-pharmaceutical interventions in 28
countries through a coalition of the International Federation
of Red Cross Societies, UN partners and NGOs.
Because the World Health Organization (WHO) was able to
independently establish a stockpile of more than 10 million doses of
Tamiflu, no USAID funds were used for this purpose. We are in constant
contact with WHO and monitor the situation very closely to determine if
any USAID assistance in the stockpiling of antivirals is required. At
present no USAID funds are required for this purpose.
Question. How does the acquisition and stockpiling of antivirals
fit into USAID's long-term plans to combat future pandemics?
Answer. At present, USAID does not have any plans to stockpile
antivirals in fiscal year 2011. The WHO stockpile is determined to be
sufficient for combating future outbreaks. If this situation should
change, USAID will work with the other USG agencies to determine the
appropriate measures needed and how to best meet those needs.
In fiscal year 2011, USAID plans to support the global laboratory
network for continued monitoring of the H1N1 virus; these laboratory
platforms would also be supported for monitoring of the emergence of
other new dangerous pathogens. USAID is also continuing to focus on
community based preparedness and non-pharmaceutical interventions that
can be put into practice in the event of a pandemic.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Sam Brownback
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO
Question. I sent you a letter in February about USAID's programs
and capacity to help address the underlying causes of conflict in the
Democratic Republic of Congo, specifically the exploitation of minerals
by armed groups. Your reply to that letter mentioned that your staffing
resources ``may not be sufficient to cover the complex minerals
situation'' and that USAID was considering hiring a ``senior mining
specialist.'' First, does USAID's Mission in the DRC have sufficient
capacity and resources to focus on the resource dimensions of the
conflict? And if not, does USAID's budget request for the DRC reflect
these needs? Also, has USAID hired a senior mining specialist and is
this position reflected in USAID's budget request?
Answer. The USAID Mission is currently exploring options to add a
dedicated senior mining expert. At the same time, our fiscal year 2011
budget request for DRC focuses on post-conflict programming to
strengthen institutions of democracy and governance (notably justice
reform), economic growth (with an emphasis on agriculture and food
security), basic education and responding to sexual and gender-based
violence.
LORD'S RESISTANCE ARMY
Question. What USAID programs and resources are currently dedicated
to addressing the violence perpetrated by the Lord's Resistance Army
and assisting affected communities? Does USAID's fiscal year 2011
budget request include resources to assist communities affected by the
LRA?
Answer. USAID programs in Haut and Bas Uele Districts (Orientale
Province) currently fall in the realm of humanitarian assistance, due
to limited access and a security situation that precludes
stabilization, recovery, and development programming. USAID has
responded favorably to the World Food Program's Emergency Operation of
LRA-affected areas of Orientale Province, with a nearly $4 million
contribution in fiscal year 2010 funds.
Current programs of USAID's Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster
Assistance include:
--Premiere Urgence, Agriculture and Food Security, $2,105,085;
--Mercy Corps Economic Recovery and Market Systems Orientale
Province, $980,920; and
--WHH Agriculture and Food Security, Economic Recovery and Market
Systems Orientale Province, $1,998,755.
USAID anticipates the need to program additional food and non-food
humanitarian assistance from fiscal year 2011 FFP and OFDA
appropriations. USAID's constraints in responding to LRA-affected
populations are directly related to security and access. It remains
virtually impossible to implement programs in LRA-affected areas
without putting the beneficiaries and implementers at serious risk of
being targeted.
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO
Question. What specifically is USAID doing to address the conflict
minerals problem and how does this fit within USAID's budget request
for the DRC? What are the current programs within USAID to improve the
livelihood prospects of communities affected by human rights abuses in
eastern Congo, particularly victims of sexual and gender based
violence?
Answer. Illicit trade in minerals is a diplomatic and strategic
challenge. Armed groups and renegade elements of the Congolese army
control many of the mining sites and transit routes, while other
militias are tied to elements in nearby countries. The ``U.S.
Government Strategic Action Plan on Conflict Minerals in the Eastern
Democratic Republic of the Congo'' includes diplomatic and strategic
responses as well as use of foreign assistance to strengthen
institutional and regulatory capacity to formalize trade in minerals
and socio-economic activities for affected communities.
USAID's analytical work contributed to the knowledge base around
this complex set of issues and our programming supports key sectors
such as improved governance, rule of law and economic development which
are all essential to addressing the underlying vulnerabilities which
allow conflict to be fueled through the rich resource base of the DRC.
A number of USAID programs in southern and eastern DRC have sought to
address issues, such as reintegration of ex-combatants and community-
based economic recovery in conflict-affected areas as well as improved
local governance of resource revenues. Comprehensive reintegration
programs reduce the likelihood that ex-combatants will be recruited
into illicit enterprises or re-recruited into armed groups that control
much of illegal minerals trade.
In support of the Strategic Action Plan on Conflict Mining, State
and USAID are currently considering program options to: (1) strengthen
trade route monitoring, through police training, to secure borders and
track movement of resources; (2) develop safe transit routes through
construction and rehabilitation of key roads; and (3) promote
strategic, regulatory, and institutional reforms to formalize minerals
trade and develop systems of traceability.
In communities affected by human rights abuses, USAID promotes
humanitarian assistance programs and supports stabilization and
recovery through the use of Economic Support Funds and Public Law 480
developmental food aid programs.
USAID's fiscal year 2011 budget request does not specifically
request funding to combat illicit mining. The ESF request, which
includes funding for agriculture, microenterprise, water, and
education, focuses on post-conflict programming to strengthen
institutions of democracy and governance (notably justice reform),
economic growth (with an emphasis on agriculture and food security),
basic education and responding to sexual and gender-based violence.
With respect to livelihoods for affected communities, USAID has
requested fiscal year 2011 funding for stabilization and recovery ($2
million), Sexual and Gender Based Violence ($2.5 million) and Public
Law 480 Development Food Aid ($30 million).
Humanitarian Assistance
In fiscal year 2010 to date, USAID has provided more than $6.3
million in humanitarian assistance, for agriculture and food security,
health, nutrition, protection, and water and sanitation programs in the
DRC. In fiscal year 2009, USAID provided nearly $34 million for
humanitarian programs, many of which remain ongoing and include
activities such as agriculture and food security, economic recovery and
market systems, humanitarian coordination and information management,
health, logistics and relief commodities, nutrition, protection,
shelter and settlements, and water, sanitation, and hygiene program.
Stabilization and Recovery
Programs to improve livelihoods are an integral part of USAID's
stabilization and recovery programs, which support the return,
reintegration and recovery and extension of state authority components
of the International Security and Stabilization Support Strategy for
Eastern DRC. International efforts are focused around six strategic
axes, which include vital links to key mining areas.
In fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009, USAID received
supplemental appropriations which allowed us to support the following
two projects:
--The Promote Stabilization and Ex-Combatant Reintegration in North
and South Kivu project ($8.2 million), which is in its early
stages, targets 30 communities for peace-building and
reconstruction activities.
--The Support to the Stabilization Strategy along the Rutshuru-
Ishasha Axis project ($5 million) has completed rehabilitation
of 63 kms of road on one of six strategic axes (Rutshuru-
Ishasha), allowing freedom of movement, trade and economic
opportunity for at least 1 million people. The construction or
rehabilitation of 13 administrative buildings, which will allow
Congolese local government officials to deploy and provide
services to the population, is ongoing. The construction has
created 550 short term jobs, and direct cash inflows into
communities from these workers of approximately $200,000.
Development Food Aid
--Three Publicl Law 480, Title II, Multi-Year Assistance Programs
($42 million) provide employment and support recovery of
livelihoods in eastern DRC. In South Kivu, USAID funds a
program to reduce food insecurity, focusing on female-headed
households and returnees.
--In Northern Katanga, we manage a program to reduce food insecurity
and in Goma, North Kivu, our program is designed to improve the
food security status of vulnerable households and improve
access to potable water.
Social Protection
--USAID is providing 6,000 women with income generating and vocation
training through our 3-year project called ESPOIR (Ending
Sexual Violence by Promoting Opportunities and Individual
Rights, $7 million).
--A different project ($4.9 million) is providing income generating
activities and professional training for almost 4,000 women
affected by SGBV.
--A third project ($3.2 million) helps several hundred abducted
children (who are often victims of sexual violence) per year
return to school and engage in income generating activities.
USAID also assists communities with food insecurity issues with
particular attention given to female-headed households.
Livelihoods in the Mining Sector
--Good examples of programs addressing these underlying
vulnerabilities are our comprehensive reintegration programs
that reduce the likelihood of recruitment of ex-combatants into
illicit enterprises or re-recruitment into armed groups that
control much of illegal minerals trade. Additionally, USAID has
implemented an innovative program to improve governance and
reduce conflict associated with the exploitation of mineral
resources. The program, a public-private partnership which
leverages USAID funds, coupled with a larger private sector
contribution by reputable mining companies operating in Katanga
and focused on fostering corporate social responsibility and
supporting alternative livelihoods for artisanal miners, who
were operating in some cases illegally on private company land.
The program also addresses critical human rights issues around
the mining sites and strengthens conflict resolution mechanisms
among artisanal miners. In addition, the program creates local
development funds, which are in line with Congolese local
government reform processes, in order to ensure that taxes
gleaned from legal mining are invested back into community-
driven development programs thus supporting economic and social
development objectives as well as good governance objectives.
--The success of this intervention led to the establishment of a
joint U.S.-DRC Development Credit Authority activity ($378,000)
to provide up to $5 million in loan guarantees for small and
medium-scale enterprises in the key mining province of Katanga,
where access to credit was practically nonexistent.
--In Bafwasende, Orientale Province, where U.N. peacekeepers, the
FARDC, and Mai Mai rebels all operated on a nature reserve rich
with valuable minerals, USAID supported a program based on
community-driven anti-corruption committees. The program
focused on conflict resolution and succeeded in getting the Mai
Mai to disarm, demobilize and stop pillaging the resources of
the reserve. The lessons learned from this project are
applicable to eastern DRC.
--In addition to work with artisanal miners through the public-
private partnership, USAID has also supported stand-alone
programs focused on the unique challenges of artisanal miners.
For example, in the town of Kolwezi in the southern Katanga
copper belt, one project ($597,000) seeks to (1) promote
reconciliation, cooperation, and understanding among artisanal
and small-scale mining-related institutional actors; (2)
prevent conflicts and risks to communities over resource access
and use; (3) improve access to, and awareness of, pertinent
mine legislation; and (4) establish a conflict resolution
mechanism for disputes and conflicts. The lessons learned and
best practices distilled from this and other innovative
programs have been used to inform the design of a new multi-
million dollar, multi-donor, multi-year program focused on the
mining sector in the East. Called PROMINES, it is supported by
the World Bank and the UK's Department for International
Development (DfID). USAID is currently not contributing funding
to this project, but is exploring options for future support.
ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND FOR SUDAN
Question. Can you please explain why there is a decrease in the
budget request for the Economic Support Fund for Sudan, an account that
among other things is used for programs to promote basic education and
help build infrastructure in Southern Sudan?
Answer. The decrease in the Economic Support Fund (ESF) account
from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2011 is primarily due to the
decreased need for resources in fiscal year 2011 to fund activities
that support the remaining major power-sharing benchmarks of the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) such as public administration,
civic participation and international observation. The overall decline
in ESF however, does not signify a decrease in highly-needed programs
to increase access to education or improve infrastructure.
Per the CPA, the national elections, popular consultations and
referenda processes in Sudan were to take place sequentially and be
completed by January 2011. Originally scheduled for July 2009, the
election was delayed four times before the April 2010 schedule was
announced and implemented. USAID supported electoral activities with
ESF from fiscal year 2008 regular appropriations, and fiscal year 2008
and fiscal year 2009 supplemental funds. At the moment, the timeline
for the referenda in January 2011 is holding. The timeline for popular
consultations in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states is less clear,
due to postponed legislative and gubernatorial elections in Southern
Kordofan which have yet to be implemented. However, we presently
anticipate that these processes will be completed before fiscal year
2011 resources will be available for programming.
SUDAN
Question. What resources and staffing needs has USAID incorporated
into the fiscal year 2011 budget request that are dedicated to assist
Sudan in all possible outcomes of the referendum, including a Southern
Sudanese government that will need resources and technical assistance
to begin a new chapter as a sovereign nation or the possibility of a
failed referendum renewing a civil war in Sudan?
Answer. Fiscal year 2011 will be a critical year for Sudan as it
continues on the path toward peaceful democratic transformation. It
will also be a year in which flexibility in U.S. assistance is
required, pending outcomes of the referenda on the future status of
southern Sudan and Abyei and popular consultations in Blue Nile and
Southern Kordofan States. There will be an urgent need to support the
outcomes and build consensus for these processes and the outcome of the
general elections in April 2010 that are adjusting the power- balances
in the national, regional, and State governments.
The fiscal year 2011 budget request represents a joint USAID and
State Department estimate of program resources needed to assist Sudan
in all possible outcomes of the southern Sudan referendum, whether
southern Sudan votes for independence or chooses to remain part of a
unified Sudan. To support these outcomes, USAID has worked closely with
the State Department to plan for an immediate, expanded presence in
Juba to implement programs critical to stabilizing the South in the
critical pre-referenda period and immediate aftermath. The additional
staff will bolster USG diplomatic functions and capacity for State-
managed peace and security and rule of law programs which complement
USAID's robust programs and presence on the ground. USAID currently has
65 staff assigned to Juba, including both U.S. staff and foreign
service nationals.
Future USAID staffing requirements will vary depending on political
events. USAID is reviewing multiple scenarios and analyzing associated
staffing requirements for 2011 and 2012.
USAID will continue to deploy staff, respond to humanitarian
emergencies and support traditional development programs, such as
investing in human capacity and health and expanding infrastructure and
economic opportunities. In coordination with other donors, State and
USAID will jointly implement resources to strengthen the capacity of
the Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS), bolster rule of law
institutions and capacity, and to mitigate and respond to conflict
throughout Sudan.
Transition and development programming
USAID's assistance will be geared toward addressing the threat of
new or renewed conflict in the Three Areas, as well as a potential
increase in tension between the north and the south in the run-up to
the 2011 referenda. Consequently, a higher proportion of resources will
be dedicated to conflict prevention and mitigation.
USAID will continue to work on the extension of state authority
throughout southern Sudan aiming to prevent conflict. Funding will also
be directed at mediating and preventing conflict around post-2011
issues including cross border development; security and movement; and
inter-ethnic relationships. USAID's transition and conflict management
program provides a quick and flexible mechanism for direct technical
and material support to reinforce diplomatic efforts to address these
issues.
Supporting the development of democratic governance in southern
Sudan and the Three Areas will continue to be critical regardless of
the outcome of referenda and popular consultations. USAID assistance
will build on efforts made since the signing of the CPA to strengthen
capacity in core government functions to enable expanded service
delivery, and deepen the accountability, transparency and
responsiveness of key institutions in the GOSS and the Three Areas.
Additionally, strengthening the legislative assembly that is inducted
after the elections; enhancing government understanding of public
views; building consensus between leaders and constituencies;
strengthening the capacity of political parties to conduct outreach to
and represent their constituents in the newly elected legislative
assembly after the April 2010 elections; and, strengthening civic
participation, bolstering civil society and expanding access to free
and independent information will all continue to be elements of USAID
assistance. Technical assistance and southern Sudan capacity-building
will also align with post-2011 arrangements.
USAID will monitor developments regarding Sudan's subsequent post-
CPA arrangements, which may include elections and other political
processes. USAID, in coordination with the State Department, will
program fiscal year 2011 ESF funding to begin supporting these
processes.
Humanitarian Assistance
As with natural and complex disasters throughout the world, USAID
remains prepared to respond to pre- and post-referendum deterioration
in the humanitarian situation in Southern Sudan. USAID humanitarian
programs are flexible and able to reallocate resources to meet emerging
humanitarian needs.
USAID has taken the following concrete steps to proactively prepare
for potential post-referendum humanitarian needs in southern Sudan:
--In order to rapidly respond to population displacement in southern
Sudan, USAID supports an international organization to
stockpile emergency relief supplies and to rapidly provide safe
drinking water and dispatch mobile health clinics, as needed.
--USAID supports strong local and international partners operating in
rural areas of southern Sudan to provide assistance to recently
returned populations and to prepare to respond quickly to
potential outbreaks of violence in the months leading to and
following the January 2011 referenda. Ongoing USAID support
allows partners to continue to deliver essential basic
services, with a focus on health, agriculture and food
security, and water, sanitation, and hygiene in areas of
highest population movement or IDP return depending on the
scenario.
--Depending on the magnitude of the deterioration, USAID remains
prepared to rapidly deploy USAID humanitarian personnel to
southern Sudan, ranging from regional advisors and field
officers to assessment teams or a disaster assistance response
team.
The combination of these three capacities will ensure that USAID is
able to respond to the immediate humanitarian impacts of the referenda
in either scenario and within the current budget request.
Independence Scenarios
In a steady-state scenario where the referenda results in a
peaceful separation, USAID expects humanitarian needs across Sudan to
be roughly similar to 2009. USAID will continue to maintain both World
Food Program (WFP) and private voluntary organization (PVO) food aid
supplies, with PVO partners engaged in recovery activities in southern
Sudan.
However, populations could initially experience violence
surrounding the results. The scale and scope of the humanitarian need
will be proportional to the level and duration of violence. Should the
resulting conflict be short-term in nature, the situation would require
an immediate surge in humanitarian resources closely followed by
complementary transition and/or development investments as has occurred
in southern Sudan over the course of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement
implementation (CPA), for example, following the violence in Abyei in
May 2008 and in Akobo, Jonglei state, in early 2009.
A longer-term conflict may result in the need for protracted
humanitarian engagement requiring substantial financial and human
resources. As conflict surrounding the referenda subsides, or if no
violence occurs, humanitarian agencies can expect returns to increase.
An increase in returns will necessitate a shift in the focus of
humanitarian programming to ensure that returns are adequately
supported, resulting in additional resource requirements for
humanitarian activities in the near-term and development activities in
the medium- to long-term.
Return to war Scenarios
A return to war will require a significant increase in humanitarian
resources to address mass displacements. The scale and scope of
resources required to address a return to war will depend on the level
and geographic spread of the violence and on the access our
humanitarian partners have to populations in need. With respect to
food, USAID would increase contributions, and partners would be
positioned to expand beneficiary caseloads and programmatic coverage.
In either case, USAID would plan to increase staff to bolster capacity
on the ground, to include local staff for food security program
monitoring.
HUMAN RIGHTS CONDITIONS IN SUDAN
Question. What resources and personnel is USAID employing to
monitor and report on human rights conditions throughout Sudan?
Answer. Human rights monitoring and reporting is currently not
within USAID's mandate in Sudan. As presently structured, U.S.
Government long-term development assistance in Sudan to monitor and
report on human rights is done by the Department of State.
ASSISTANCE TO BURMESE REFUGEES
Question. International NGOs continue to report on periodic violent
attacks against Burmese Rohingya refugees in Thailand and Bangladesh.
What resources is USAID employing to offer assistance to the Rohingya
refugees?
Answer. USAID follows closely the situation of Burmese Rohingya
refugees and asylum seekers in Bangladesh, Thailand, and elsewhere in
the region. We are concerned by credible reports of a growing
humanitarian crisis among the unregistered Rohingya population residing
outside of Kutupalong refugee camp in Bangladesh, and the numbers of
arrests and push-backs to Burma at the border.
U.S. Government efforts to address protection and assistance needs
of the Rohingya refugee population are led by the Department of State's
Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (State/PRM). In fiscal
year 2009, State/PRM provided funding of more than $2 million to
several international humanitarian organizations to assist both
registered and unregistered Rohingya populations in Bangladesh,
Malaysia, Indonesia, and elsewhere in the region. Humanitarian
assistance for the Rohingya includes healthcare, water and sanitation,
education, vocational skills training, conflict resolution, community
mobilization, mental health and psychosocial support, gender-based
violence prevention, and access to essential services for Persons with
Disabilities.
Cox's Bazar, the southeast district where most Rohingya residing in
Bangladesh live, is one of the poorest districts in the country. In
addition to high levels of illiteracy and malnutrition, 73 percent of
the population lives below the poverty line. Much of the conflict is
the result of host-community and Rohingya competing for the region's
limited resources. The problems facing the Rohingya cannot be solved
without addressing the issues of the broader host-community.
USAID programs benefit the sizeable unregistered Rohingya
population living in the Cox's Bazar region of southeast Bangladesh.
Health programs focus on low-cost family planning services, maternal
and child healthcare, and treatment for tuberculosis through a network
of non-governmental clinics. USAID environment programs protect natural
resources and help people use resources sustainably, particularly those
from tropical forests. Governance activities support greater
transparency and citizen participation in the management of public
resources at the local level. Additionally, USAID's new 5 year, $210
million Public Law 480 Title II program throughout the country will
support projects in Cox's Bazar to promote economic development of the
entire southeast portion of the country. U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM)
is also constructing multi-purpose cyclone shelters and schools in
southeast Bangladesh.
With respect to USAID programs for vulnerable Burmese populations,
USAID has not provided funds to assist Rohingya refugees as an
identifiable subset of its programs. However, USAID implements
humanitarian assistance programs for vulnerable Burmese along the
Thailand/Burma border, and within Burma for people affected by Cyclone
Nargis. Rohingya refugees living in these locations benefit from this
assistance.
TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
Question. The budget request to combat Trafficking in Persons seems
inadequate. If USAID were to have more resources devoted to combating
trafficking, how would they be used?
Answer. The Administration is deeply committed to combating
trafficking in persons. The President's request for anti-trafficking
programs increased from $31.5 million for fiscal year 2010 to $35.8
million for fiscal year 2011. Between 2001 and 2009, USAID spent nearly
$145 million on anti-trafficking projects in more than 70 countries as
part of the coordinated U.S. government effort to eradicate
trafficking. USAID programs focus on prevention, protection, and
prosecution and address both sex and labor trafficking of women,
children, and men.
Nearly 90 percent of USAID anti-trafficking programs over the last
3 years have focused on prevention and protection. While a focus on
prevention and protection remains essential, increased focus on
prosecution in coordination with other USG efforts and efforts to
address labor trafficking require additional attention. Forty-four
percent of 2009 USAID anti-trafficking projects strengthen prosecution
by helping foreign governments draft anti-trafficking legislation and
train police and prosecutors. However, USAID evaluations and the TIP
Report have demonstrated a need to increase law enforcement capacity to
combat trafficking. Incorporating this type of capacity building into
foreign assistance programs would be coordinated through the inter-
agency Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG). Likewise, Agency
assessments, the TIP Report, and the Department of Labor's 2009 TVPRA
list indicate a need for increased global attention to labor
trafficking. Sixty-eight percent of our anti-trafficking programs since
2001 have addressed both labor and sex trafficking.
AGRICULTURE
Question. How will USAID use the resources it has, such as programs
like the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR), to help develop wheat variety resistant to Ug99 wheat stem, a
disease that is destroying Africa's wheat crop? Will that research be
available to U.S. producers? How could USAID's efforts on food security
be improved?
Answer. USAID has been the lead national development agency in
responding to the wheat stem rust alarm first raised by Dr. Norman
Borlaug approximately 5 years ago. After almost 50 years of durable
resistance to this most dreaded disease of wheat, Ug99 appeared as a
virulent new strain that threatened food security in Africa, the Middle
East and South Asia. While the disease has not yet reached an epidemic
stage, it poses a significant threat to Africa's farmers, and with the
right environmental conditions in South Asia, a food security disaster
could result.
To prevent that from happening, USAID has provided over $20 million
in the last 5 years for wheat research by CGIAR, in partnership with
U.S. universities and USDA's Agricultural Research Service, to identify
and rapidly deploy resistance genes. USAID also supported expanded
efforts by USDA's Cereal Disease Laboratory in St. Paul, as well as
screening trials in disease hot-spots in East Africa, where global
wheat varieties--including from the United States and Canada--were
screened for both susceptibility and resistance.
USAID is pleased to report that CGIAR wheat breeding efforts have
succeeded. Using the latest molecular techniques and genetic
information from international partnerships, new varieties of wheat
that are resistant to the new strain have been developed, forming a
first line of defense against a potential epidemic. Over the last 2
years, USAID has deployed over $5 million in specially authorized
``Famine Funds'' to rapidly multiply and scale up production of
resistant wheat seed in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, Egypt and
Ethiopia. USAID also has a partnership with India, which brings its own
considerable resources to the effort. In addition, the Agency works
with global partners as part of a disease-surveillance effort to
monitor movement of the disease, which has now moved as far as Iran.
More work is needed--and will be supported through the Global
Hunger and Food Security Initiative--to build back the ``durable
resistance'' that Dr. Borlaug achieved in the Rockefeller Foundation's
wheat program in Mexico in the 1950s--the forerunner of CGIAR. More
seed multiplication support will also be needed. We are working with
our overseas missions to ensure that all partners--national
organizations, international NGOs like Catholic Relief Services, CARE
and others, work together to ensure farmers get access to resistant
seed. All of the above efforts have been carried out in close
partnership with USDA, U.S. universities and partners in Australia,
India and elsewhere around the world. All of the resistant materials
and genetic information about the disease and resistance to it are
freely available from the various partners, especially the CGIAR, which
has an explicit focus on sharing its products and information.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator George V. Voinovich
MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS
Question. In September, world leaders will gather at the United
Nations to assess the Millennium Development Goals and re-commit to
achieving the MDGs by 2015. What are your plans in preparing the U.S.
position at the U.N. session and any proposals President Obama might
announce?
Answer. As President Obama underscored in his address to the U.N.
General Assembly last year, the United States fully embraces the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The MDGs are a core principle for
USAID, and we are pleased to be playing a leading role in the
interagency process to develop U.S. positions for the September MDG
High Level Plenary (Summit). The interagency process has been working
for the past few months to define U.S. strategies and approaches toward
accelerating progress in achieving the MDGs.
The 2010 Summit is an important opportunity to take stock of the
progress made so far in achieving the MDGs. In fact, significant
progress has been made in many MDG areas, although progress has varied
dramatically across countries and regions. In developing its position
for the U.N. process leading up to the September Summit, the United
States will acknowledge and highlight this progress, while considering
ways to replicate and scale up successes. At the same time, the
challenges ahead in making further progress on the MDGs are formidable.
In that regard, the United States will be considering the need for new
approaches.
Our preparations for the September MDG Summit provide an
opportunity to build support for a more determined, strategically-
minded and analytically-focused approach to the MDGs. We see four
elements as critical for making more rapid progress in the next 5
years: first, the need to focus on development outcomes, not just
development dollars; second, the need to enhance the principle and
practice of national ownership and mutual accountability; third, the
need to invest in making development gains sustainable; and fourth, the
need to make more effective use of innovation and other force-
multipliers to maximize the impact of our efforts.
The interagency process is continuing to consider the best strategy
and approaches to advance the MDGs. Recent Presidential initiatives,
for example, including the Global Health Initiative (GHI) and Feed the
Future (FTF), provide opportunities to accelerate and sustain progress
in these important MDG areas.
SCALE-BACK EFFORTS
Question. Dr. Shah, looking at the areas of growth in your budget--
particularly for health, agriculture and USAID's own capacity--it is
evident what the Administration's priorities are for development. Can
you tell me where you think USAID could scale back, even eliminate or
radically reform our current efforts?
Answer. I have recently outlined a new approach to high-impact
development which will lie at the center of restoring USAID's
effectiveness. The approach is premised on greater focus and
selectivity, and includes four core areas.
First, USAID is contributing to the U.S. commitment to the
Millennium Development Goals (MDG), not simply by delivering services
to those in need, but through building sustainable systems that will
transform healthcare, education, food security and other MDG areas.
Second, we are strengthening our ability to invest in country-owned
models of inclusive growth and development success. Third, we are
identifying new ways of leveraging science and technology to develop
and deliver tools and innovations which we believe can be
transformational. Finally, we will bring USAID's expertise to bear on
some of the most daunting national security challenges we face as a
Nation--including stabilizing countries like Afghanistan.
Focusing on these core areas will allow a concentration of USAID's
resources and its efforts rather than spreading our efforts and
resources over the many other technical areas that relate to broad-
based and sustainable development. Other areas of development
engagement will be scaled-backed if they do not support the core
objectives.
On June 8, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and OMB Director
Peter Orszag sent a letter to the heads of all executive departments
and agencies asking them to identify those programs that have the
lowest impact on each agency's mission, and that constitute at least 5
percent of each agency's discretionary budget. I fully support this
effort, and USAID will meet or exceed the 5 percent target set by Chief
of Staff Emanuel and Director Orszag. By identifying those areas where
we can scale back or eliminate projects and programs, this exercise
will help USAID further focus our financial and human capital on the
four core areas described above.
PSD-7/QDDR
Question. Dr. Shah, could you give us an update on the multiple
efforts going on right now on reforming and improving our aid
processes, including the QDDR and PSD? How do initiatives such as the
Global Health initiative and Food security initiative fit within the
proposed reforms?
Answer. I anticipate that the QDDR and PSD exercises, in which we
are actively participating, will have a very positive impact on USAID
and U.S. global development efforts, including the Global Health (GHI)
and Feed the Future/Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative. Both
exercises are looking at how the initiatives could be affected by
possible reforms. For example, a joint USAID-State QDDR task force is
examining how to increase our capabilities around the issue of aid
effectiveness, and in doing so is explicitly looking at how the
effectiveness principles (country ownership, alignment, harmonization,
managing for results, and mutual accountability) should be applied to
both initiatives.
A focus on factors that improve aid effectiveness, such as
promoting country ownership, learning, cost-effective and streamlined
processes, a whole-of-government approach, and donor coordination are
key principles of both the GHI and the Food security initiative. These
same principles are the focus of work under both QDDR and PSD.
For example, through the GHI we will help partner countries improve
health outcomes through strengthened health systems. A core principle
underlying the GHI business model in support of reaching these
ambitious health goals is to encourage country ownership and invest in
country-led plans. The GHI works closely with partner governments, as
well as civil society organizations, to ensure that investments are
aligned with national priorities, and to support partner government's
commitment and capacity so that investments are maintained in the
future. Further, our efforts to strengthen country efforts will be
coordinated across USG agencies and other partners to ensure efficient
use of resources and effective results.
CIVILIAN RESPONSE CORPS
Question. One of the concerns our military commanders have shared
with us and others over the years is the lack of civilian follow up
operations in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. As the USAID
Administrator, how do you intend to build a cadre of dedicated staff at
USAID that can move into post-conflict regions and begin long-term
civilian stabilization and reconstruction (S&R)?
Answer. USAID is dedicated to assisting in follow-up stabilization
and reconstruction efforts in post-conflict regions. To accomplish
this, we have built up a cadre of both immediate, rapid response
networks and longer-term staff.
To address immediate stabilization and reconstruction issues, USAID
is responsible for a large contingent of Civilian Response Corps (CRC)
personnel, managed by the Agency's Office of Civilian Response. The CRC
focuses on restoring rule of law and stabilizing war-torn societies as
a precursor to sustained economic growth.
The CRC currently has two components: the Active and the Standby.
The Active Component (CRC-A) will ultimately be comprised of 250 U.S.
Government (USG) members, 91 of which will be from USAID. CRC-A members
are direct-hire employees who form a team of first responders available
to deploy within 48 hours of call-up for up to 12 months. CRC members
within USAID are mostly senior-level, highly experienced personnel with
S&R experience. They receive 3-4 months of training to prepare them for
S&R operations. The Standby Component (CRC-S) interagency target is
2,000 members, with a USAID target of 744 members. CRC-S is comprised
of current USG employees who sign up for and are accepted to the CRC.
They receive 2-4 weeks of S&R training and can be deployed within 30-45
days.
USAID CRC-A and CRC-S staff have already successfully deployed to
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Kenya, Somalia, Democratic Republic of
Congo, Yemen, Sri Lanka, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Nepal, Kazakhstan, and
Haiti. In addition, they have participated in exercises with the
Defense Department's European Command (EUCOM) and Africa Command
(AFRICOM). Deployments differ in length from a few months to a year.
The Agency is also building its Foreign Service cadre through the
Development Leadership Initiative (DLI). The initiative, introduced in
2008, is aimed at increasing USAID's ability to meet its development
and national security objectives through a strong workforce. The goal
of DLI is to double the USAID Foreign Service workforce by hiring 1,200
junior and mid-level Foreign Service officers by 2012. To date, 483 new
officers have been sworn in and oriented under this initiative; 89 will
specifically focus on Crisis, Stabilization and Governance issues. This
cadre of new Foreign Service officers will strengthen the Agency's
capacity to provide leadership overseas to develop, carry out, and
integrate programs that bring peace, prosperity, and security to the
world.
LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA
Question. Africa, as you know, remains a continent which suffers
not just from extreme poverty, but from disease, lack of basic needs
like clean water and food, and a dearth of educational and economic
opportunities. Some nations in Africa even face the increasing
influence of corrupt governments, terrorist organizations, drug
traffickers and other destabilizing influences. One of the key ways
these issues can be addressed is through strong, comprehensive and
long-term development strategies that are designed to offer solutions
to these destabilizing forces. What resources will USAID need to
address these problems and how would you convince the American people
that such expenditures would serve the national interests of the United
States?
Answer. Africa is vital to U.S. interests. Home to approximately
800 million people, Africa is increasingly linked to global markets,
holds vast natural resources, and will soon provide 25 percent of U.S.
oil imports. There has rarely been a more critical time to consolidate
the progress and promise of Africa. Although wars in Liberia, the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Angola, Burundi, Uganda, and
Sierra Leone, and the North-South conflict in Sudan have ended or
dramatically abated, sub-Saharan Africa has recently experienced
significant stagnation and challenges to its progress toward democracy
and good governance. Most worrying have been the democratic setbacks in
countries that have historically been considered ``good performers,''
but that are at risk of political instability. Regional bodies such as
the African Union have a growing potential to provide leadership and
share best practices, but the influence of poorly governed and
autocratic states on these multilateral institutions complicates and
stifles the evolution toward better governance in Africa.
It is in the interest of the United States for Africa to be stable,
well-governed, and economically self-sufficient with healthy and
productive populations. Poor governance, conflict, and corruption
contribute to the need for billions of dollars per year in food and
non-food emergency assistance from the United States and other
bilateral and multilateral donors that could be used to solve other
global problems. Lacking any sustained political and economic
improvements, and with Africa's population expected to double by 2050
to 1.8 billion, the continent's humanitarian needs will only escalate.
The stakes are extremely high. However, strategic use of USG foreign
assistance resources, combined with those from other bilateral and
multilateral donors, can make a meaningful difference in Africa by
creating tangible improvements in quality of life and building momentum
toward political and economic progress.
Our programs have already made significant contributions, including
contributing to reducing mortality among children under five by 14
percent since 1990, and increasing the number of children enrolled in
primary school by 36 percent since 1999. To sustain and consolidate
these gains in the face of current projected population growth requires
a multi-pronged approach that addresses the key issues for the
continent and can produce visible impacts at the country and regional
level. The Africa Bureau's fiscal year 2011 foreign assistance request
of $7.606 billion, which includes $3.728 billion of HIV/AIDS funding,
directly advances key Administration policy priorities in the areas of
democracy and governance, peace and security, economic growth and food
security, health and education (including HIV/AIDS and malaria), and
transnational challenges, including global climate change.
When combined with the $3.9 billion currently committed to Africa
through Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Threshold programs and
Compacts to date, and the annual average of $25.67 billion in other
bilateral and multilateral donor assistance to Africa, the
international community has the ability to effect real change. Within
the United States, close coordination between the major U.S. agencies
(MCC, State and USAID) has facilitated optimal use of funding. For
example, USAID implements all the Threshold Programs for MCC in Africa,
and is implementing some portions of the Compact in Burkina Faso. MCC
Compact Teams coordinate closely with Ambassadors at post, and with
USAID staff as appropriate. Another example is Senegal, where starting
in July 2003 (even prior to the formal creation of the MCC), USAID
provided $500,000 to enable the Government of Senegal to assess and
strengthen its systems for managing development resources and developed
a methodology that could be used in future MCC-eligible countries to
accelerate start-up of MCC programs.
PROMOTING GOOD GOVERNANCE
Question. We all recognize that corruption and weak governance are
challenges in many of the poorest nations. What are some of the
strategies USAID uses to promote good governance through our assistance
programs? Is there legislation that could enhance these efforts?
Answer. USAID's overall objective in governance is to provide
assistance and training to promote greater transparency,
accountability, effectiveness and participation in governing
institutions and public policy processes at all levels.
Specific Anticorruption Initiatives promote accountable and
transparent governing institutions, processes and policies across all
development sectors. For example, USAID programs:
--Promote corruption prevention and education while also supporting
prosecution and enforcement through rule of law programming.
--Focus on regulatory and procedural reform, increasing management
capacity within the executive branch, and strengthening the
oversight capacity of the judicial and legislative branches of
government.
--Strengthen public financial management, procurement reform, audit
and internal controls, and transparency and accountability in
budget processes.
--Support anticorruption commissions, ombudsman offices, civil
society, media oversight and advocacy capacity building.
--Support host country multi-stakeholder initiatives such as the
Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative to improve
governance and public oversight in resource-rich countries.
Executive offices, ministries, and independent governmental bodies
are advised and trained on development and implementation of policies,
procedures, and skill sets (including leadership, strategic management
and communications). Assistance promotes linkages between different
branches, levels and functions of government, including across
development sectors such as health, education and economic growth, and
enhances financial management and civil service reforms, public-private
partnerships, and outreach to citizens.
Security sector democratic governance programs focus on how
component parts of the security system (e.g., policy, military, justice
system, legislature, civil society) are linked and must all perform
effectively and in a coordinated manner to achieve effective,
legitimate security systems governed by law and accountable to the
population. Program examples include reforming the justice system, the
civil service and public management; enhancing strategic planning,
policy and budget formulation; increasing civilian oversight of the
security sector. As police are an important face of the government to
citizens, USAID supports civilian police assistance programs.
National and sub-national efforts support democratic
decentralization of political, financial, and administrative authority,
ensuring all levels are capable of effecting democratic and accountable
local governance. Technical assistance and training strengthen
development of budgets, local revenue raising, provision of public
services, community planning, participation, and implementation of
laws, regulations, policies and programs.
Assistance to legislatures supports more democratic practices
within legislative bodies, improves legislative processes, and
increases the quality of legislation or constitutional reforms.
Programs increase the legislature's capacity to be responsive to
constituents, engage in policy-making, hold itself and the executive
accountable, and oversee the implementation of government programs,
budgets, and laws.
Media freedom and access to Information legislation are promoted to
improve enabling environments for the existence and operations of NGOs
and to increase transparency and accountability in the public sector
while strengthening democratic practices and enabling civic engagement.
The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) is
reviewing all foreign assistance programs. As part of this process,
legislative requirements to improve the effectiveness of governance
assistance programs are being considered. We look forward to consulting
with the Committee and others in Congress as we formulate
recommendations and next steps on this critical issue.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Leahy. If there is nothing further, the
subcommittee was stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., Tuesday, April 20, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Bond Senator Christopher S., U.S. Senator From Missouri,
Questions Submitted by......................................... 58
Brownback Senator Sam, U.S. Senator From Kansas, Questions
Submitted by..................................................59, 122
Clinton, the Honorable Hillary Rodham, Secretary of State,
Department of State............................................ 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 7
Summary Statement of......................................... 3
Gregg, Senator Judd, U.S. Senator From New Hampshire, Statement
of............................................................. 2
Inouye Senator Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 44
Johnson, Senator Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota, Question
Submitted by................................................... 119
Landrieu Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 46
Lautenberg Senator Frank R., U.S. Senator From New Jersey,
Questions Submitted by........................................52, 119
Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont:
Questions Submitted by....................................... 32
Statements of................................................ 1, 73
McConnell Senator Mitch, U.S. Senator From Kentucky, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 57
Shah, Dr. Rajiv, Administrator, U.S. Agency for International
Development.................................................... 73
Prepared Statement of........................................ 76
Summary Statement of......................................... 74
Specter, Senator Arlen, U.S. Senator From Pennsylvania, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 121
Voinovich, Senator George V., U.S. Senator From Ohio, Questions
Submitted by..................................................68, 129
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Secretary of State
Page
Additional Committee Questions................................... 32
Afghanistan..................................................19, 23, 24
Afghanistan-Pakistan Civilian Surge.............................. 33
Agriculture...................................................... 19
Assistance:
For Europe, Eastern Europe and Central Asia..................22, 24
To Indonesia................................................. 17
Climate Change................................................... 38
Democratic Republic of the Congo................................. 31
Economic Support Funds........................................... 11
Effective Oversight of Contractors............................... 40
Haiti............................................................ 15
India and Pakistan............................................... 12
Internet Freedom................................................. 30
Iran..........................................................9, 14, 27
Jordan........................................................... 11
Microlending and Microenterprise................................. 28
Middle East......................................................12, 32
Millennium challenge Corporation................................. 29
Orphans.......................................................... 20
Senate Confirmation Process...................................... 26
Sudan............................................................ 31
Syria............................................................13, 25
Travel to Cuba................................................... 11
U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Additional Committee Questions................................... 103
Afghanistan...................................................... 91
And Pakistan................................................. 105
Africa........................................................... 81
Reboots...................................................... 95
Agriculture.....................................................88, 128
Assistance to Burmese Refugees................................... 127
Banks Making Big Profits From Tiny Loans......................... 109
Civilian Response Corps.......................................... 130
Climate Change..................................................98, 108
Country Ownership................................................ 114
Democratic Republic of the Congo................................89, 122
Development Assistance........................................... 108
Economic Support Fund for Sudan.................................. 125
Emergency Contraception.......................................... 121
Energy........................................................... 100
Enhancing Aid Effectiveness and Sustainability................... 79
Fiscal Year 2011 Budget.......................................... 83
Food Security.................................................... 90
Forest Protection Activities in South America.................... 98
Global:
Engagement................................................... 104
Health....................................................... 115
Hunger and Food Security Initiative.......................... 107
Guiding Principles and Overview.................................. 77
H1N1............................................................. 118
Haiti............................................................ 82
Reconstruction............................................... 119
Human Rights Conditions in Sudan................................. 127
Influenza Pandemic Preparation................................... 121
Interagency Coordination......................................... 93
International Cooperative Administrative Services................ 105
Introduction/Haiti............................................... 76
Justice Reform..................................................97, 113
Largest Funding Categories....................................... 84
Long-term:
Development in Africa........................................ 131
Plans to Combat Spread of Pandemics.......................... 121
Lord's Resistance Army........................................... 122
Maternal and Child Health........................................ 116
Meeting Urgent Global Challenges................................. 78
Microcredit Loans................................................ 108
Millennium Development Goals..................................... 129
NGO Transparency................................................. 106
Neglected Tropical Diseases......................................88, 90
Orphans and Vulnerable Children.................................. 86
PSD-7/QDDR.....................................................104, 130
Payroll Issues................................................... 80
Political Appointees............................................. 80
Procurement...................................................... 90
Promoting Good Governance........................................ 132
Scale-back Efforts............................................... 129
Securing Critical Frontline States: Afghanistan, Pakistan, and
Iraq........................................................... 77
Selectivity...................................................... 115
Sudan...........................................................87, 125
Trafficking in Persons........................................... 128
Transition Initiative Model...................................... 103
2010 Funding Constraints for the USAID/India Greenhouse Gas
Pollution Prevention Project................................... 101
UNICEF........................................................... 94
USAID Effectiveness.............................................. 103
USAID's Procurement System....................................... 81
Water............................................................ 112
Wheat Stem Resistance Wheat Variety.............................. 119
Women and Girls.................................................. 113
-