[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2000
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED
PROGRAMS
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama, Chairman
JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois NANCY PELOSI, California
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia NITA M. LOWEY, New York
RON PACKARD, California JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia
JERRY LEWIS, California
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Young, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Charles Flickner, John Shank, and Christopher J. Walker, Staff
Assistants,
Lori Maes, Administrative Aide
________
PART 4
TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER
INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-751 WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman
RALPH REGULA, Ohio DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico JULIAN C. DIXON, California
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
TOM DeLAY, Texas ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
JIM KOLBE, Arizona MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
RON PACKARD, California NANCY PELOSI, California
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
JAMES T. WALSH, New York NITA M. LOWEY, New York
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
HENRY BONILLA, Texas JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan ED PASTOR, Arizona
DAN MILLER, Florida CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia CHET EDWARDS, Texas
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi Alabama
MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
Washington LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, SAM FARR, California
California JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee ALLEN BOYD, Florida
TOM LATHAM, Iowa
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
KAY GRANGER, Texas
JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2000
----------
TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND
ORGANIZATIONS
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
Chairman Callahan's Opening Statement
Mr. Callahan. Good afternoon. We are going to start off
with the members of Congress who we want to come ahead and
testify. Welcome to our Committee.
Mr. Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you for appearing before us. Good
morning.
TROPICAL FOREST CONSERVATION ACT OF FY 2000
WITNESS
HON. ROB PORTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Subcommittee, for letting me appearing before you and for your
help already on the Conservation Act.
This was the bill, Chairman Callahan knows, that John
Kasich, Lee Hamilton, and I introduced in November of 1997.
John Porter of this Subcommittee was very involved in the
development of the legislation and over the years, and the
development of the context in the legislation as well. It was
followed by legislation that was introduced in the Senate by
Senators Lugar, Biden, Chafee, and Leahy.
It expands on the Bush Enterprise for the Americas
Initiative, EAI. And it provides a creative market-oriented
approach to protect the world's most threatened tropical
forests on a sustained basis.
The legislation was overwhelmingly approved by the House
last March by a vote of 356 to 61, including, I believe, all
members of the Subcommittee and maybe all members of the
Committee. It was then signed into law last summer, on July
29th, 1998.
Although the bill authorized $50 million to be spent in
Fiscal Year 1999, you may recall, Mr. Chairman, that it was too
late in the process. The Subcommittee had already completed its
work by the time the bill was finally enacted into law in July.
And although the Subcommittee gave us a lot of suggestions in
the process, in the end, we were not able to have it included
in the Fiscal Year 1999 budget. It authorizes $50 million for
Fiscal Year 1999 and then $125 million in Fiscal Year 2000 that
you are looking at now.
The President's recent budget request is for $50 million
for this year, so, in essence, going back to the amount for the
first year of the program. I hope the Subcommittee will be
receptive to funding it because it is a very important
environmental issue that is market-oriented. It really makes
sense, and I think fits in with your overall approach that you
take in the Subcommittee.
As all of us are learning, these tropical forests do
provide a wide array of benefits, literally affecting the air
we breathe, the food we eat, and the medicines that cure
disease. They harbor, we believe, 50 to 90 percent of the
Earth's terrestrial biodiversity. Among other things, they act
as carbon sinks, absorbing massive quantities of carbon dioxide
from the atmosphere, thereby reducing in a cost-effective way
greenhouse gases.
They regulate rainfall, which is something those of you
from California, Mr. Packard and Ms. Pelosi, can appreciate.
And we know enough about that now to know that it has an impact
on our climate as well as reducing greenhouse gases.
They are also breeding grounds for new drugs that can cure
disease. And most of the new drugs that come from this
biodiversity we talked about earlier. Just since 1950, we are
told that half the rain forests have been destroyed, again just
since 1950. And between 1980 and 1990, there were, on average
every year, 30 million acres lost.
So rain forests the size of the State of Pennsylvania were
destroyed every year between 1980 and 1990. As far as we know,
that has continued into the '90s. So every year we are having a
huge amount of rain forests being destroyed, which affects all
of us.
This legislation builds on the success of the Enterprise
for the Americas Act, again enacted in the Bush administration,
because it links two important facts of life. One is that these
very important tropical rain forests are disappearing at a very
rapid rate. And, second, they happen to be located in countries
that have a lot of debt to the United States. They tend to be
less developed countries that have a real hard time repaying
that debt.
In fact, half the tropical forests are located in just four
countries: Indonesia, Peru, Brazil, and the Congo. And, in the
aggregate, these countries have over $5 billion of outstanding
U.S. debt. So it gives us an opportunity, and that is what we
are trying to seize upon in a constructive and conservative
way.
It does give the President authority to cancel U.S. AID or
Public Law 480 debt owed by an eligible country in exchange for
creation of a fund in local currency. And that would preserve,
maintain, or restore tropical forests.
It is different from Enterprise for the Americas because it
enables any qualified country of the world with PL480 and U.S.
aid debt to take advantage of this, which we think makes a lot
of sense and not just in Latin America or the Caribbean. It
also narrows the criteria of the Enterprise for Americas so the
protection of tropical forests is the primary focus. We want to
coordinate the resources as much as we can to protect what we
think is in all of our interests.
The Debt for Nature Exchanges achieves a number of
important goals. I will mention two of them. First--I think
this is very important as you look at the jurisdiction that you
had, which is so broad in development issues--it gets at the
underlying cause of so much of this deforestation by helping
their economies.
And just to go in and solve environmental problems that can
come up again and again is not as effective as actually getting
some of that debt off their books which helps them to relieve
some of the economic pressures that are enforcing this rain
forest deforestation that we talked about.
Second, it provides funds for tangible conservation efforts
in the eligible country. And it does so through leveraging. So
one dollar of debt reduction that we have to score based on the
1990 Credit Reform Act here in the Congress, one dollar of
subsidy from your Subcommittee, frankly, will end up with 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, up to 10 or 15 dollars of conversation effort
depending on how it is structured. We can talk about it later
if you are interested, but that is kind of the magic of this
approach. And you can get a much better bang for the buck.
The local governments end up putting in in local currency a
lot more to protect the forests than it costs to the U.S.
government. For a country to qualify, Mr. Chairman, it has to
meet the same criteria established by Congress under the
Enterprise for Americas Act so it cannot be a country that is
not democratically elected.
It has to cooperate on international narcotics control,
cannot support terrorism, or violate internationally recognized
human rights. We have taken care of that issue.
It also has to meet minimum financial criteria to meet its
new obligations under the new restructured terms of the debt.
And it must meet the same criteria in Enterprise for Americas
regarding progress on economic reforms.
In preparing the legislation, we looked a lot at the issue
of accountability because we wanted to be sure that these funds
would actually be used in an appropriate way.
There is a pretty good track record under the Enterprise
for the Americas. It facilitates debt matrix exchanges in 7
Latin American and Caribbean countries, providing up to $154
million in conservation efforts in, again, local funds. And
these funds had been used for reforestation, soil and water
conservation, and so on.
Overall we think it is working pretty well. The Tropical
Forest Conservation Act we think again is an accountable cost-
effective way to respond directly to the global crisis that we
face in tropical forests. And the groups that have had the most
experience in preserving these forests agreed.
This was supported by the Nature Conservancy, here today,
Conservation International, World Wildlife Fund, and so many
others who have worked on this effort for years. They will
benefit also from this in the sense that third parties are able
to buy down the debt as well as the direct subsidy on a country
by country basis, as done in Peru.
Mr. Chairman, I just again hope that you will consider the
request from the administration favorably and at least do what
they have done.
Mr. Callahan. We will give it certain rights. And I
congratulate you on giving this Committee some direction. It is
so seldom that we get legislation passed through the House and
Senate signed by the President that gives this Committee
direction that it is rewarding to see that you did take the
initiative to bring this matter to the attention of the House
and the Senate and to provide us with justification through
authorization.
Ms. Pelosi. Mr. Chairman, I know that we are on a tight
schedule, but I just want to commend this gentleman for his
leadership on this issue. I was pleased to speak on the floor
and commend you publicly for this important legislation. So
hopefully Mr. Chairman can help Mr. Portman on this.
Thank you, Mr. Portman.
Mr. Callahan. Any other questions?
Mr. Portman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Callahan. Mr. Visclosky? As you know, we have I think
20 to 25 witnesses and people wanting to get out of town. So we
are asking people to limit their appearances to five minutes.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
SOUTHERN CAUCASUS
WITNESS
HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
INDIANA
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, I am here to talk about your
favorite subject. And that is the South Caucasus. I understand
that my entire statement is entered into the record.
Mr. Callahan. Definitely.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Visclosky. I want to stress to you, Ms. Pelosi, and the
other members of this Subcommittee, the importance I attach to
not repealing Section 907. Armenia has been blockaded for ten
years, and it has been destructive. And I think it would not be
constructive as far as the peace process. It would send a
negative signal if we eliminated that program.
My testimony also refers to the funding levels. But, again,
I recognize that your time is limited. The entire statement is
entered into the record. But I do appreciate the fairness and
open-mindedness with which you have approached this issue in
the past. And I know you are very familiar with it, as is Ms.
Pelosi.
Mr. Callahan. We are familiar with it. And certainly 907
you and I disagree on, whether or not that has been
constructive to the peace process or not. We have done
everything as a Committee to facilitate that peace process,
even creating a slush fund, availability of monies, in the
event that we could finally reach some agreement that would
lift 907 and at the same time facilitate and have money
positioned for reconstruction efforts, primarily in Armenia, in
Karabach, but we will look very seriously at your
recommendations and certainly respect them. But I just
respectfully disagree that continuation of 907 is a way to
achieve peace.
Mr. Visclosky. I recognize----
Mr. Callahan. There will be ample time for debate on that
issue, I am sure, either in the full Committee or if a repeal
is put in there, there certainly will be opportunity, as there
was last year, for full debate on the----
Mr. Visclosky. I understand.
Mr. Callahan. We certainly respect your position and know
where you are coming from and appreciate very much your
appearing.
Ms. Pelosi. Mr. Chairman, do not think I am going to
respond on every witness because I am not, but 907 is an area
where we are in disagreement. And I support Mr. Visclosky's
position and thank him for his strong leadership on this on the
floor. And we make this fight in the Subcommittee, on the full
Committee.
And I think now that the price of oil is so low and the
premium that is being placed in oil in the Caspian Sea being
diminished, more than ever, it is necessary for us to continue.
Mr. Visclosky. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate your fairness.
You have been absolutely fair.
Ms. Pelosi. He has been very fair.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you.
Mr. Visclosky. Sure.
Mr. Callahan. Any other members of the panel?
[No response.]
Mr. Callahan. Thank you very much.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
Mr. Callahan. Mr. Walsh?
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
CHILD SURVIVAL PROGRAMS
WITNESS
HON. JAMES T. WALSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW
YORK
Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I always get nervous
when people say, ``I will be brief,'' but I will be brief.
Mr. Callahan. You are going to be brief. [Laughter.]
Mr. Walsh. That is a medieval instance of torture.
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to come
in and say what I always say when I come in before this
Subcommittee about certain issues. Let me also congratulate
you, sir, and ranking member Nancy Pelosi on the effort that
you put into this Child Survival Program. I think it is a great
investment. It has become a program that both of you are
recognized for, and it is very effective.
I also, as Chairman of the Friends of Ireland, would like
to put in a statement in support of the international fund for
Ireland. We are not out of the woods yet in Ireland on the
peace process. It is close. Hopefully within the next month or
so, we will see the final waltz in that long dance. But it is
not over yet. And these funds really have helped to create an
economic stability within the north. And it is critical to the
success of this process.
I would also like to put in a strong word of support for
UNICEF and for the work that they do and also for the Peace
Corps. I had the occasion to return to my village in Nepal this
past December and meet with some volunteers while I was there.
And it is really, really great to see a new generation with the
same level of altruism and idealism and commitment and to see
that they can make a difference.
We can see here in our own country when these folks come
back. They get involved. They roll up their sleeves. And they
help us solve problems here, too. I know you have budget caps
and priority difficulties. We all do. But if you would give
these programs consideration, I would appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. We certainly will. As you know, with our
child survival account, we now are very happy that the
administration is even recognizing----
Ms. Pelosi. The Callahan----
Mr. Callahan. If it will get more money, we will call it
the Bill Clinton----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Callahan. We are happy now that the administration
agrees with the Committee, which is where the Child Survival
Fund actually was born. And we certainly also agree with you on
the importance of the Peace Corps and UNICEF as well. And I do
not think you are going to be disappointed at all with how this
Committee handles your requests.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do not need to say anything more.
Ms. Pelosi. Ditto. I guess I should say I might put up with
the Chairman's remarks.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you very much.
Mr. Callahan. Martin, do you want to bring up Mr. Salzberg?
Mr. Sabo. Sure. Mr. Chairman, if I might put my statement
in the record. Let me introduce Mr. John Salzberg, who is here
representing the Center for Victims of Torture, which is
located in Minneapolis and they do great work. I will turn it
over to John so you can hear from him.
Mr. Callahan. Mr. Salzberg, you are very fortunate to be
introduced by a member of this Subcommittee. You have already
won, no matter what you say.
Mr. Salzberg. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Callahan. We will submit your entire statement for the
record.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE
WITNESS
JOHN SALZBERG, CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE
Mr. Salzberg. I want to thank Congressman Sabo for his kind
remarks. We feel at the center especially fortunate and proud
of him as our member of Congress. His support for our work is
very much appreciated.
Mr. Sabo's statement describes some of the work that we do
in Minneapolis. I would not, however, want you to think this
problem is peculiar to Minnesota. In fact, we estimate there
may be as many as 400,000 victims of foreign governmental
torture residing in the United States.
As Ms. Pelosi knows and Congressman Porter knows, these are
not abstract statistics. Ms. Pelosi has in her district a
treatment center Survivors International in San Francisco. Mr.
Porter has near his district the Kovler Center Chicago.
We know, however, that most victims of torture remain in
the country of origin. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture
states that torture exists in more than 70 countries.
Frequently governments target grassroots leaders who are
defending human rights and democratic practices. They single
out people, such as opposition party representatives, trade
unions, religious leaders, and human rights defenders.
Repressive governments seek to disable these courageous
leaders and, in addition, in still fear in the nation. Torture
is the single most effective weapon against democracy.
United States under both Democratic and Republican
administrations has been unequivocal in their opposition to
torture and their resolves to take measures to prevent its
occurrence. We believe that assisting foreign treatment centers
for victims of torture is not only morally right but is an
effective method to lessen the incidence of torture and promote
human rights and democracy abroad.
The centers provide irrefutable medical and psychological
evidence to tortures occurring. Domestic courts, international
human rights mechanisms, and diplomatic representations utilize
such efforts. Our own Department of State's annual country
reports is a good example. These reports help to shame
governments in relenting in their use of torture.
We also believe these centers provide a strategic purpose
of restoring faith in the principles of human rights and
democracy and the legitimacy of their leaders. These leaders
who have been tortured or threatened with torture are better
able to resolve their advocacy of human rights and democracy.
These views are not just our own. They are those of the
United States Congress. In the 105th Congress, you adopted,
those of you who were members of the 105th Congress, the
Torture Victims Relief Act, Public Law 104, 105-320, which
affirmed the principles I just described.
Bipartisan congressional sponsorship of this legislation
led to its enactment. I am pleased to say Ms. Pelosi and
Congressman Sabo were some of the members who sponsored that
legislation.
The act authorizes in Fiscal Year 2000 $7.5 million for AID
to support foreign treatment centers, $3 million as the
contribution to the U.N. voluntary fund for victims of torture,
and also $7.5 million for the Department of Health and Human
Services to support treatment services for victims of torture.
On October 30th, the President signed the legislation into
law and stated, ``This act authorizes continued and expanded
contributions to treatment centers, both in the United States
and around the world, for persons who suffer from the mental
and physical anguish of having been tortured.''
Furthermore, on Human Rights Day, December 10th, the
President committed $3 million in Fiscal Year 1999 money as the
U.S. contribution to the U.N. voluntary fund for victims of
torture.
Finally, in his budget for Fiscal Year 2000, the President
requested the full amount authorized by the act for the U.N.
Fund and for the Department of Health and Human Services.
At this time, it is unclear whether AID has requested funds
to implement the Torture Victims Relief Act. However, Congress
authorized funds to AID for this purpose because it knew that
the U.N. Fund would not bring sufficient resources to meet the
international need.
Our request is that this Subcommittee appropriate for
Fiscal Year 2000 the amount authorized in the Torture Victims
Relief Act: $7.5 million for AID to support foreign treatment
centers, and $3 million for the contribution to the U.N. Fund.
We also ask the Committee to ask the administration to file a
report by January 15th, 2000 on implementing these
appropriations.
While the $7.5 million to support treatment services in the
United States is under the jurisdiction of another
subcommittee, we urge each of you individually to support
request as well. By supporting those who have suffered so much,
we are affirming our belief in their efforts to achieve
democracy in their own countries.
I thank you for giving me your time and attention and
sincerely appreciate your consideration of our request.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. I thank you. Who has the $7.5 million
jurisdiction?
Mr. Salzberg. Which? For U.S. programs?
Mr. Callahan. Yes.
Mr. Salzberg. That is Mr. Porter's subcommittee.
Mr. Callahan. Porter's subcommittee?
Ms. Pelosi. Where he is holding forth there. And I may have
to run up in a little bit. I have mentioned that this came up
here.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you.
Well, once again we appreciate having some direction from
the Congress in the form of an authorization bill, but that
makes our decision a little easier. So we appreciate it very
much.
Ms. Pelosi. I would want to commend you, Mr. Salzberg, for
your leadership in all of this. As you know, they say that to
victims of torture the most excruciating form of torture is to
tell them that nobody cares; while they are being tortured,
nobody knows or cares; or nobody will care later on. And we
have to do everything we can to make sure that that is not
real. And so thank you for your leadership in all of this, Dr.
Salzberg.
Mr. Salzberg. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you.
Mr. Hall? We will receive your written testimony.
Mr. Hall. Good.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
UNITED NATIONS FUNDING
WITNESS
HON. TONY P. HALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Hall. It is rather long. Thank you for allowing me to
come before your Committee, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Pelosi, and
members of the Committee. I consider this Subcommittee one of
the most important committees in Congress.
Ms. Pelosi. We share that view.
Mr. Callahan. We agree so far, Congressman.
Ms. Pelosi. You are off to a good start.
Mr. Hall. And we have made great strides in the last 25
years alone. The number of people who know the pain of severe
hunger has gone from one in three to one in five. Citizens of
developing countries have added 20 years to their expected life
span, increased their literacy rate by one-third, and infant
mortality rates have been cut by more than half. And the
percentage of children immunized against killer diseases has
gone from 5 percent to 80 percent, saving 3 million lives each
year.
And it is not that we are doing such a great job. We are.
We have been a leader in the world. But many developing
countries are now doing much better at creating the economic
climate that is needed to ensure jobs and private investment.
We are the world's indispensable leader. There is no
question about it. Other nations follow what we do. And when we
cut, they cut, too. Ironically the World Bank has said
recently: Just as AID is poised to become its most effective,
the volume of AID is declining and is at its lowest level ever.
We are losing a tremendous opportunity I think in this
country by not funding the programs in the U.N., not funding
bilateral aid to the point that we used to.
I mean, this is one thing we know how to do. We know how to
feed people, shelter, immunize. We know how to create micro
enterprise, development assistance, all kinds of things. You
know, we might not know how to work on Kosovo or Middle East,
Iraq. We have not been able to figure that one out. But this we
know how to do. It is one of the easiest things we know how to
do, and it is a time when we could really step up to the bat.
I think that we need to really reassert our leadership
position in the world. And first I would say we need to
increase our overall foreign aid contribution significantly.
Our investment has dropped by half during this decade. And
we now contribute just eight-one hundredths of one percent of
our gross national product if we compare that with the full one
percent we contributed to fighting poverty and despair during
World War II.
Second, we need to pay our bills and our arrears to the
United Nations. And I know that this Committee is not in charge
of that appropriation, but I intend to really be involved with
this one. I know with many of you and with us for too long now,
we should be separating these issues, especially of population
and abortion. And we should have separate votes on these. And
hopefully we will get a clean bill on it this year.
I do not know. But because we do not pay our arrears and
our bills, it squanders this tremendous moral high ground that
America has won. And, yet, we are losing it. And it is
embarrassing that we do not pay our bills.
Third, we need to increase the amount of food we donate
through our Food for Peace and other programs. And we have
found a way to use American food to promote peace around the
world, even during recessions. And now when our economy is
really moving ahead, how can we do less?
I want to suggest a few places to start the crucial work of
restoring America's leadership. First, we should reinforce the
organizations on the front lines of our work with developing
nations. The administration's budget request proposes cutting
three of these, the only three U.N. organizations headed by
Americans--this makes no sense--UNDP, UNICEF, and the World
Food Program.
The 20 percent cut to our contribution for the UNDP comes
with no explanation and makes no sense. And I have seen the
UNDP at work. I have seen them recently in Burma just about a
month ago. It is one of the best UNDP projects I have ever
seen.
Shaving our support for UNICEF is just the opposite of what
we should be doing and because our World Summit for Children
commitments require sustained funding increases. And you
deserve special thanks, Mr. Chairman, for the increases you
have won for UNICEF, for child survival.
And we also do not need to cut the World Food Program and
funding it. It needs to monitor food and to make sure it is not
diverted by soldiers.
Second, I urge you to support and fund the targeted aid
that has proven it works by restoring a $40 million cut in the
child survival count. And you have done a tremendous job, this
whole Committee but especially the Chairman.
And hopefully you can add $32 million to basic education
funds, and invest in strategies to stop the spread of
infectious diseases, including adding 60 million to the fight
against TB, which is less than what we are spreading to help
the District of Columbia fight its Y2K computer program.
I also urge you to support the administration's $161
million request for debt relief. Two statistics say it all.
African nations now spend $12 billion a year repaying old debt,
and just $2 billion would school all African children. Heavily
indebted countries on average pay twice the amount they receive
in aid keeping current on their old debt.
And I would also urge you to add the $29 million needed to
fund the Peace Corps bill, certainly increase micro credit
funding to about $160 million, and follow up on our commitments
relative to Africa, the Seeds of Hope Act of 1998.
I know that you feel under-appreciated, but your work does
save lots of lives. And we could really, really be the leader
by far, I mean, surpass any country in the world. And we have
the opportunity now to do it. We have cut our appropriations in
half in this decade.
You know, as I look at the polls in America--and it is
interesting; I have seen polls the last couple of years--people
feel that our food and our programs are getting through. They
support it overwhelmingly.
So, with that, I submit my long, very long document that I
have before you. And I would be glad to try and answer some
questions.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. Thank you.
No one has to be told of your true involvement in making
life less miserable for millions of people throughout the
world, sacrifices that you have made, the extent that you have
gone to to educate yourself and this Congress with respect to
the need, with respect to the total amount of foreign
assistance.
I think under the circumstances, we have been as generous
as we can be. We have fulfilled all of the requests I think of
the administration, albeit most of it was done in the
supplemental last year.
You say that we cut it back, but the administration has
come to us with higher priorities with respect to foreign
assistance. For example, last year they thought $18 billion was
needed to provide financial relief for many countries in the
Far East through the International Monetary Fund.
And I think also the administration is very shrewd. They
submit to us a balanced budget. And they say: Here is a
balanced budget. And we are for a balanced budget. And then at
the same time, they say: Cut child survival or cut the
immunization programs, cut UNICEF, or cut the basic educational
part of child survival, you know, they are saying, because they
know full well we are going to fund them. We are going to do
the responsible thing there.
So then it is those of us who are responsible for
appropriations to bust the budget. So we are disappointed, as
you are, that the administration recognizes our vulnerability.
And that is we are not going to deny this historical assistance
to these agencies. We are going to fund them.
At the same time, we have to recognize that we are going to
be allocated only a designated amount of money which we are
going to have to live with. But I would say 90 percent of the
programs you mentioned are not going to be decreased, even
though the administration has requested the cuts.
We do have a disagreement over debt forgiveness. And
certainly Nancy and I have the same type of disagreement. But
what we do not want to do is to give these countries the
opportunity to have a clean financial statement to be able to
borrow more money to put in some Swiss bank.
We are disappointed that some of the leaders of these
countries whose people are suffering are the ones responsible
for the suffering because they borrowed money and now they
cannot show any tracks as to how the money was spent. Now we
are saying have the United States forgive all of this debt and
give them an ability to borrow more money. So we have some
issues that are going to have to be debated with respect to
debt forgiveness.
I think when we come before your Committee for an hour, the
route we are going to take with respect to rules, 90 percent of
the things that you are interested in are going to receive very
favorable consideration by this Committee.
Ms. Pelosi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Three quick points. First I want to commend Mr. Hall for
his tremendous leadership. He is indeed the conscience of this
Congress, and he is so respected that his suggestions carry a
great deal of weight.
Second, I want to say how pleased I was to hear his
courageous statement that he thought we should separate the
vote on family planning, et cetera, from our funds paying our
dues to the U.N. and the other international obligations that
we have. I think that was a very courageous statement for Mr.
Hall to make knowing where he is coming from on that issue.
And, third, I want to say that so many times I have said in
Labor-HHS, my other committee, to the people coming from the
NIH: What are you doing internationally? And we have U.S. AID
in here. We say: What are you doing to collaborate with the NIH
and CDC about these international health issues?
This morning in the hearing on the National Institute for
Allergies and Infectious Diseases, we had some breakthroughs
announced about rotovirus, which kills approximately 130
million infants and babies a year. The numbers affected are so
staggering.
What Mr. Porter who is the chair of that committee, and I
were suggesting is that perhaps in a child survival account, we
could take recognition of the scientific breakthroughs that are
happening with some of these infectious diseases so that we can
suggest, propose, whatever, to U.S. AID that although they said
the scientific breakthroughs were a miracle, if we cannot get
this out to the children, it is really a moral failure on our
part.
So hopefully this Committee can be the vehicle, and
similarly for tuberculosis and others. There have been at least
two major breakthroughs scientifically where the only obstacle
now is to spread it out to the children in need in the
developing world. Fifty thousand people in the United States
die of one of the rotoviruses alone, matching what it is in the
developing countries.
Mr. Hall. You know, part of the program is to fund a good
portion of the AID and the relationship of the drugs that they
have helped fund relative to research. And some of our jungles
and rain forests have really gone to save a lot of lives. And
there has been tremendous breakthrough.
I mean, my son had leukemia. And he received a lot of those
breakthrough drugs. I wish I could say it did him some good,
but I do know that they have saved many, many children.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Callahan. Terry Peel?
Mr. Peel. Thank you.
Mr. Callahan. Terry, you have sat on this side of the
table. You know the five-minute rule and what it means.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
UNICEF
WITNESS
TERRY PEEL, SENIOR ADVISOR, U.S. COMMITTEE FOR UNICEF
Mr. Peel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Pelosi. It
is nice to be back here again. I feel rather nostalgic being
back on the other side of the table, though. I appreciate you
letting me testify this morning in my role as a senior adviser
to the U.S. Committee for UNICEF.
I want to thank this Committee for the role it has taken
over the years in making UNICEF a very important issue. Because
of your leadership last year, for the first time since 1993,
there was an increase in funding for UNICEF. Funding was
increased by $5 million.
I am disappointed to say that the administration did not
follow through on that and they have actually come in with a
request for $101 million, or a $4 million decrease. I am hoping
that during this process, you will rectify that problem, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Callahan. Probably will.
Mr. Peel. Good. I am glad to hear it.
A week ago today I was getting off a plane coming back from
Colombia. I went down to Colombia to see what were the results
of what UNICEF is doing down there in terms of the earthquake
disaster. If I can just take a second, I will show you some
pictures that I took. I probably should have kept my daytime
job as an appropriator, instead of a photographer, but we will
try it.
[Photograph.]
Mr. Peel. You can see here this is a boy who is on top of
what used to be his house. This is in the town of Armenian in
Colombia. Two hundred, fifty thousand people are homeless in
this area in Colombia. A hundred thousand of them are children,
1,000 people are dead, 5,000 people were seriously injured.
What really UNICEF has been able to do is to come in early
with projects like this water project here and sanitation. And
because of the sanitation and water projects, people have not
come down with cholera, have not come down with other diseases.
So the good part of this emergency situation is that UNICEF has
quickly stepped in here.
[Photograph.]
Mr. Peel. This is Maria and her brothers and sisters in
front of a clean water fountain. This is their house in the
background. But at least they do have clean water.
One of the projects UNICEF is dealing with is children who
have been traumatized by this earthquake. They have seen
families and friends destroyed and killed as buildings came
down. This photograph shows a program that UNICEF has working
with these traumatized children.
[Photograph.]
Mr. Peel. This is Christian. Christian has drawn a picture
here that shows a police station across from his house that
collapsed, killing 40 people; a firehouse that collapsed on a
woman walking by, killing her; and his vision for a new
tomorrow, which is the sun and a heart. There is a better life
ahead for the people in Colombia. Quite a smart kid. And he was
also working with a UNICEF education project. All of the
schools were destroyed in that area.
[Photograph.]
Mr. Peel. This was a little girl, Sunyiata, who is having
some milk and bananas. This is a nutrition program that UNICEF
has. And they are getting supplemental feeding here. It is
necessary during this disaster period when there is not enough
of the right kind of food that is available every day.
[Photograph.]
Mr. Peel. UNICEF is working with teen volunteers in this
disaster area. And this happens to be a picture of two Boy
Scouts. These Boy Scouts are helping to take care of a baby
that was born in a temporary shelter just a few days before the
picture took place. And these teens are working with the little
kids in the area, education, and all kinds of different things
on a volunteer basis.
The Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, and volunteer teenagers wear
T-shirts, that say, ``Return to Happiness''. So they are trying
to get people in the right frame of thinking about what happens
after this disaster is over.
Well, the reason I brought these pictures to tell you about
these things is because this is the kind of work that UNICEF is
able to do because of the United States contribution to UNICEF.
Without a solid contribution to the general fund for UNICEF,
UNICEF would not be able to do the kind of operations that you
see here.
Mr. Chairman, the American people do not want to see
children dying of preventable diseases. And even though UNICEF
has been able to save 2.5 million children a year from diseases
that are preventable and tens of millions of children have
better health, the situation is still very dangerous.
Twelve million children a year die of preventable diseases.
A hundred, sixty million children are malnourished around the
world. That is the situation that we need to take care of. And
that is why I urge you today to consider and to provide UNICEF
with $110 million this fiscal year so they can move toward
obtaining the goals of the World Summit for Children. If we
work together with UNICEF, we can help the most disadvantaged
children around the world.
And I think if we do that, we will, in fact, do what these
teens are saying on their t-shirts. It will give us the
opportunity to ``return to happiness.''
Mr. Callahan. I do not know that we can pursue your request
for 110, but we are going to facilitate your request more
favorably than the administration did.
You mentioned Colombia. Just roughly, how much money did
UNICEF spend in Colombia----
Mr. Peel. Well, I think----
Mr. Callahan [continuing]. As a result of the earthquake?
Mr. Peel. I think that they probably spent less than a
million dollars on all of these things.
Mr. Callahan. What about Nicaragua and Honduras?
Mr. Peel. I do not know how much. I would have to find that
out.
[The information follows:]
As of May 1, 1999, UNICEF had expanded the following
amounts: Nicaragua $2,800,000; Honduras $1,972,174.
Mr. Callahan. Were they active there?
Mr. Peel. Yes. They are active in all locations. In
Colombia, they were particularly active because they were the
first people in because they have a very active program in this
area of Colombia. And they were able to bring in portable
sanitation facilities and water pipes and help with the housing
situation.
People are living in cattle barns there. Whole towns that I
saw were just completely flat. Just drive into town. It is just
crumpled buildings.
Mr. Callahan. Well, we appreciate your testimony and sure
know you still have great respect, have more respect now than
you had when you were there. [Laughter.]
Mr. Peel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Ms. Pelosi. Thank you, Terry, for your beautiful
presentation. Last time, remember, Mr. Chairman, when we went
to the luncheon, he had the pictures from Africa. I think there
is going to be a book at the end of this, ``Terry Peel:
Children of the World.'' It speaks so eloquently to your
compassion and your great leadership and effectiveness.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you, Terry.
Mr. Peel. Thank you.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
MICRO CREDIT
WITNESS
HON. BILL LUTHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA
Mr. Callahan. Mr. Luther? Welcome. As you probably heard,
we do enforce the five-minute rule, but we are a little bit
more generous with members. But we do have a long agenda. We
will accept your written statement for the record.
Mr. Luther. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will be as
brief as possible. And thank you very much, members, for all of
the good work that you do on this Committee. I am aware of
that, and I enjoyed listening to some of the testimony here
today.
[Photograph.]
Mr. Luther. I am here today to voice my support for an
initiative which is funded within this budget. As you know
better than anyone, micro credit is the process of providing
very small loans to very poor people for the start-up or
expansions of small business ventures. And I know you have
heard it, high repayment rates, 95 percent and above, that
micro enterprise programs enjoy. And the cost efficiency of the
program says they recycle previous foreign aid dollars.
What I want to do is emphasize the fact that micro credit
allows borrowing families to protect and provide for their
children, much as child survival funds do. Most micro credit
borrowers are women who reinvest the money they have saved from
their micro credit ventures in their family's health and basic
education.
Micro credit is a proven method of ending the worst aspects
of poverty in some of the most destitute places in the world.
Unfortunately, despite its proven track record, micro credit
has not been utilized to its full potential.
Funding for micro credit within the United States Agency
for International Development has not kept pace with the
growing capacity to lend. According to a number of
practitioners, capacity for expanded micro credit work exists
in Latin America, Asia, and, especially Africa.
In addition, despite the fact that U.S. AID set the goal in
'94 of directing half of all overall micro enterprise funds to
programs serving the poorest people in loans of 300 or less by
the end of '96, only about 41 percent is currently reaching
this target population.
I know you are in a difficult position on this Committee,
but I ask that you consider protecting and expanding funding
for micro credit in Fiscal Year 2000 and especially that you
protect micro credit funding for the very poor in loans of 300
or less. Specifically, I would ask that you set aside 160
million for micro credit next year with at least half of that
amount, again, 80 million, directed toward programs that serve
the poorest people in the world.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members, for considering my
request.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. Thank you, Bill.
What did the administration request for micro credit this
year?
Mr. Luther. Similar to last year.
Mr. Callahan. One thirty-five? What did we do last year?
Mr. Luther. One thirty-five.
Mr. Callahan. One thirty-five last year?
Mr. Luther. That is correct.
Mr. Callahan. And then the administration has requested 135
this year?
Mr. Luther. That is correct.
Ms. Pelosi. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Callahan. Yes?
Ms. Pelosi. If I may say that the gentleman's request is,
an excellent one and a reasonable one because I do believe that
there is the absorptive capacity among the NGOs serving the
countries and continents that were suggested to absorb and to
make these loans. I hope that we could get a higher figure than
135.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you.
It certainly is a program that this Committee is very
supportive of.
Mr. Luther. Yes. I am aware of that. And I thank you for
that. And I think that 50 percent target for the poorest of the
poor if that could be employed again----
Ms. Pelosi. Very important.
Mr. Luther. I appreciate that so much. Thank you.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you.
Any questions?
[No response.]
Mr. Callahan. Thank you very much.
Mr. Luther. Thank you.
Mr. Callahan. No other members are here. All right. We will
go first to Ms. Austin, Joyce Austin with Helen Keller
Foundation. Ms. Austin? Good morning to you.
Ms. Austin. Good morning.
Mr. Callahan. We will accept your statement for the record.
Ms. Austin. Thank you very much.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
FUNDING FOR BLIND CHILDREN AND VITAMIN A PROGRAMS
WITNESS
JOYCE AUSTIN, MEMBER, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, HELEN KELLER INTERNATIONAL
Ms. Austin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am
pleased to be here today representing Helen Keller
International. The specific purpose of my appearance before the
Subcommittee is twofold. First, I want to encourage you to
include language supporting funding for blind children in your
Committee report. And, second, I want to encourage continued
funding for Vitamin A programs.
As a member of the Board of Trustees of Helen Keller
International, I am also here to illustrate some of the
important work that we are doing to help blind children around
the world and to prevent others from going blind.
Helen Keller International is a United States-based
private, voluntary organization once guided by and now
dedicated to the spirit of Helen Keller. It has been a world
leader in blindness prevention and rehabilitation since 1915
and currently manages activities in over 30 countries
throughout Asia, Africa, and the Americas.
In addition to my service with Helen Keller International,
I am a lawyer and a retired executive with the NAFTA Process
Planning and Coordinating Organization in New York City, where
I still reside.
Moreover, through my earlier city, state, and federal
government experience, I have seen great strides in the
appropriation process. And I am aware of how important it is
for private citizens to become involved.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Committee for the
dedication it has displayed on behalf of children. Your
previous support of child survival and of blind children, in
particular, has had a lasting impact on many lives.
Specifically, as a result of cataract funding received by Helen
Keller, over 1,000 children have benefitted from sight-
restoring surgeries, which means that you have helped avert
over 50,000 years of blindness. This important work must
continue.
According to the World Health Organization, there are 1.5
million blind children, 7 million children suffering from low
vision, and 10 million children with refractive errors
throughout the world. It is estimated that 500,000 more
children go blind each year. That is one child for every minute
of every day. Unfortunately, many of these children also die
before they reach maturity. The causes of childhood blindness
vary from place to place and change over time.
Cataracts and Vitamin A deficiency are among the major
culprits. Thanks to the Committee's recommendation in previous
years, progress has been made. For example, Helen Keller
International was able to help the Ministry of Health in
Morocco establish two childhood blindness centers. These
centers have served as a model for 13 additional centers that
have been established in Mexico, the Philippines, South Africa,
and Bangladesh, thus serving children on three continents.
Surgical technology and expertise offer children afflicted
with cataracts a chance to progress from darkness into the
light. As parents and their children see the surgical
interventions and consistent followup care can open up doors to
mainstream schools and improve quality of life, demand for
these services will increase.
In addition to our work fighting cataracts in children,
Helen Keller also has a long history of partnership and success
working with U.S. AID to combat nutritional blindness, an
enormous problem that is prevalent in the developing world.
It is estimated that 250 million children of preschool age
around the world lack sufficient Vitamin A in their diet. Two
million of these children will die each year, and 350,000 will
become blind.
This tragedy can be combatted either by distributing
capsules of Vitamin A, fortifying foods or promoting the
consumption of Vitamin A-rich foods through gardens and
education. Restoring adequate Vitamin A stores to these 250
million children will not only prevent blindness, but it will
also reduce the numbers who subsequently die of infectious
disease by almost one-quarter.
Helen Keller International was instrumental in the effort
that demonstrated the relationship between Vitamin A, saving
sight, and saving lives. As a result, we began capsule
distribution in the 1970s and since 1987 have distributed over
12 million Vitamin A capsules. Helen Keller International
continues to remain at the forefront of the development of
innovative programs to help children save their sight.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Committee for your
attention to this important issue. Together through the
implementation of these simple, cost-effective health
interventions, we can dramatically improve the vision and save
the lives of many children around the world.
As a member of the Board of Trustees of Helen Keller
International, I am acutely aware of the need for support of
blind children. In the past, you have recommended one million
dollars in child survival funds to be used for children who are
blind. I respectfully urge you to support that level of funding
in your Committee report for the year 2000.
Thank you for your consideration.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. Thank you, Ms. Austin.
And thank you for volunteering to serve on this board. As
you know, Helen Keller has strong roots in Alabama, my home
state. And this Committee, as you are well-aware, is very
sympathetic to the causes that you represent. And I see no
reason why the Committee will not continue to do as it has in
the past to make the recommendations as to child survival.
Ms. Austin. Thank you. It is an honor to serve on the Board
of Helen Keller and an honor to be present today. Thank you.
Mr. Callahan. I sleep well at night knowing all of these
people who would be suffering for years to come now have sight.
And with such rapid advancement of technology and research now
to correct vision deficiencies, your work is going to be even
more rewarding in the near future.
Ms. Austin. Thank you.
Mr. Callahan. Any questions?
[No response.]
Mr. Callahan. Thank you very much.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
GLOBAL CAMPAIGN TO ERADICATE POLIO
WITNESS
HERBERT A. PIGMAN, ROTARY INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Callahan. Mr. Pigman, welcome. Good to see you, sir.
Rotary International. We will accept your statement for the
record and tell you that I talked the other night with your
Rotary people in Mobile and former chairman of I guess the
national Rotary there. And we also have communications
occasionally with one of your predecessors, Mr. Herb Brown of
Tampa.
The Committee is very supportive of your program. It is a
model for other service organizations to copy. We congratulate
you.
And I mentioned the last time I spoke to the Rotary Club in
Mobile when they gave me the Paul Harris Award, every year you
come before my Committee you give me a map. And every year, the
map gets greener and greener because those are the areas where
you have helped to eliminate polio.
So welcome to the Committee.
Mr. Pigman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee.
I did bring my map.
Mr. Callahan. Yes, you did. It is not green now; it is red.
Mr. Pigman. It is diminishing red.
Well, the global campaign to eradicate polio continues to
be one of the great success stories in public health. And the
funding which this Committee has provided to U.S. AID for the
past three years has played a very significant role in that.
And I am here on behalf of Rotary and its 400,000 members
in the United States as well as a coalition here in the United
States comprising UNICEF, Committee for U.S. AID, March of
Dimes, Academy of Pediatrics, and the Task Force for Child
Survival to express the hope that your Committee can provide
that level of funding for Fiscal Year 2000.
[Chart.]
Mr. Pigman. This was the situation in 1988 when the global
campaign to eradicate this disease was launched, the only polio
virus circulated on all continents at that time. And after
concerted effort, here is the picture today with polio
confined, essentially, to South Asia and to sub-Saharan Africa
and just one part of Europe, the border at Iran, Iraq, Syria,
and Turkey. So if the necessary resources are provided on a
timely basis, it looks very probable that the target year of
2000 can be achieved.
[Chart.]
Mr. Pigman. Here is a brief time line for that. We are
dealing with some 39 to 50 polio-endemic nations at the moment.
We expect that by June of this year, polio will be eliminated
from the last European focus. And that means that the Americas,
the Western Pacific, China, and all of Europe will be free of
this virus.
By the end of '99, we expect it to be eliminated from East
Africa; by June 2000, West Africa, French-speaking Africa,
free; and then by December 2000, which is the target date, the
countries in question are Nigeria, Democratic Republic of
Congo, and Angola, two of those because of conflict situations.
[Chart.]
Mr. Pigman. The major reservoirs today are shown here. They
are South Asia, Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Democratic Republic of
Congo. In addition, there are about eight conflict countries.
But the record shows that in conflict countries, it has often
been possible to establish cease fires. That has been done on
15 different occasions, enabling polio vaccine to be
distributed through national immunization days across the front
lines. Last year 450 million children were reached by
immunization days, three-quarters of the world's children under
5.
The funding picture for the next three critical years shows
the very substantial input by the United States. The United
States is fueling this program from a donor nation standpoint.
It has provided 40 percent of the external funding needs for
the past 3 years.
We expect this shortfall of $370 million to be made up
through a combination of sources, including the possibility of
a global appeal to the private sector, corporations,
foundations, individuals.
I will leave for you, Mr. Chairman, this chart of polio-
specific grants.
[Charts.]
Mr. Pigman. It shows the 40 percent United States
contribution but also shows that Australia, Belgium, Canada,
Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Netherlands,
and about six other countries are buying into this global
strategy.
There are also very strong indications by the new Director
General of WHO, Harlem Brundtland, that this is one of her
priorities, along with malaria and tobacco. And that new
leadership is having a very positive effect on the accelerated
strategy to defeat this disease.
The United States is spending $230 million a year to
protect its infants against the importation of this virus. That
money will be saved when we can cease immunization, which is
expected to be sometime after certification of the demise of
the virus about the year 2005.
It will be the second disease to be eradicated from the
planet. And the first one was smallpox, as you know, 1979. The
savings from that eradication now approach $20 billion.
So this is an excellent investment. And we commend to you
and your Committee continued wonderful support through the U.S.
AID, which is doing an excellent job deploying its money in
Asia and in Africa.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. We thank you, Mr. Pigman. And you may write a
note to your 400,000 Rotarians and tell them that Mrs.
Kilpatrick, Mr. Porter, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Callahan guarantee
them that continued funding is coming.
Mr. Pigman. That is very good news.
Mr. Porter. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Callahan. Thank you.
Yes?
Mr. Porter. Could I ask Mr. Pigman if any decision has been
made by Rotary regarding what they are going to target after
2003, when this long, long project to eradicate polio has been
finally completed?
Mr. Pigman. Well, we have been at polio now for 20 years.
And that question often arises, Mr. Porter. We have diverted it
because we want to keep our focus on eradicating polio, a
position which is supported by the medical experts.
Let us get this job done. Let us establish this victory,
which is very much needed. I would hope that the tremendous
volunteer army that Rotary deploys on this will not be disarmed
after polio is defeated, but I am not prepared at this time to
say what the new salient will be.
Mr. Callahan. I am optimistic that it will be.
Mr. Pigman. Well, there are many challenges out there.
Mr. Callahan. Yes.
Mr. Pigman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you.
Mr. Pigman. One further thing. Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee, we would welcome your participation and observation
at one of the national immunization days, which there will be
some 40 in the world. I will provide you with a copy of that
schedule. I think nothing is more convincing than to see one of
these.
In India last January, 133 million children were immunized
in a single day in a volunteer army that was ten times greater
than the force that landed on Normandy in one day.
Mr. Callahan. We welcome the information. I am sure some of
us would like to attend.
Mr. Pigman. Thank you.
Mr. Porter. That was in India?
Mr. Pigman. In India, yes.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you very much.
Mr. Siemens with Kiwanis International.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
IODINE DEFICIENCY DISORDERS
WITNESS
STEPHEN SIEMENS, KIWANIS INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Siemens. Thank you very much.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Siemens. The sun is shining, and it is a beautiful day.
And we are glad to come and share for a couple of minutes the
international work beings done by Kiwanis International. I am
happy, Mr. Chairman, to appear before the Subcommittee today in
support of programs to eliminate the causes of preventible
mental retardation of children.
Because of the actions taken last year by this
Subcommittee, Kiwanis International in partnership with UNICEF
has been able to take new steps in our efforts to virtually
eliminate iodine deficiency disorders around the world.
I am Steve Siemens from Des Moines, Iowa. And I am the
Chairman of the Kiwanis International Worldwide Service
Project. Seated beside me today from Natchitoches, Louisiana is
the President Elect of Kiwanis International, Nettles Brown.
Mr. Brown is the incoming President of Kiwanis
International, which has a quarter of a million members in the
United States, more than 600,000 clubs in every state in the
nation.
Today nearly 600,000 young and adult members of the Kiwanis
family have declared the world their community and have joined
in partnership with the United Nations Children's Fund to help
virtually eliminate iodine deficiency disorders around the
globe.
In my lifetime I do not know that I will ever have an
opportunity to change the world. This project is an opportunity
for me along with others to virtually make a difference. That
excites me.
More than 500 million children in more than 115 countries
are estimated to be at risk of a lack of iodine. Iodine
deficiency disorder, or IDD, results in high levels of
stillbirth, mental retardation, physical disabilities, thyroid
problems, and the prevalence of goiters in children and in
adults.
Recent studies have indicated that a lack of iodine in the
diet can reduce by 15 points the IQ of whole populations. Yet,
the solution to the iodine deficiency disorder is simple. It
has been available since the 1920s. IDD was virtually
eliminated in the United States by iodizing salt.
Iodization of salt prevents these disorders, reverses many
existing conditions, and will improve mental capabilities and
productivity in iodine-deficient populations. For a few pennies
per person, we are able to iodize salt in other parts of the
world.
Kiwanis' contributions to this date have prevented over
eight million children from being born mentally disabled each
year. Thousands of Kiwanis clubs have already worked together
to make gifts totalling--and this has happened in the last five
years--half of the $75 million that we are committed to raise.
Countries that eliminate IDD not only help their children
but also reduce the dependency on the country and foreign
assistance. It has been estimated that every dollar invested in
the elimination of IDD will reduce social costs more than $20.
Mr. Chairman, we have a true working partnership with
UNICEF. UNICEF has made it possible for Kiwanis members and
their supporters to demonstrate what the private sector can do
for children. And because of the actions taken by this
Subcommittee last year, we are able to welcome the U.S. Agency
for International Development as another partner in our effort.
U.S. AID has followed your Committee's recommendations and
will be announcing shortly that they will provide $2 million
towards the Kiwanis-UNICEF effort to eliminate IDD. It is also
my understanding that the U.S. AID is looking at a high-
priority IDD UNICEF-Kiwanis project in the former Soviet Union.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Committee to consider taking
three actions in support of eliminating the cause of
preventable mental retardation in children.
First of all, continue the efforts that were begun last
year to make it known to the American people the importance of
eliminating this disorder.
Second, support our partner, UNICEF, by providing them with
110 million in funding for their overall programs for the
upcoming fiscal year.
Finally, I encourage you to recommend that the U.S. Agency
for International Development continue to provide additional
funding to support the Kiwanis-UNICEF iodine deficiency
program. The more funds that are available for this program,
the faster we can solve the problem. This year U.S. AID is
providing two million from the Child Survival and Disease
Programs Fund.
Mr. Chairman, I urge you to support the continuation at the
$2 million level of funding for this project. I also hope that
you will recommend an additional one million be made available
from the accounts for the former Soviet Union to provide urgent
IDD needs in that area of the world.
You have sitting on the table here a visual. It is a gavel
that if you use might inflict some pain. I want to show you a
visual that motivates me. It is children. And it is a person
that we have been able to make a difference for in her life.
This is because of the opportunity to iodize some salt and to
do a very, very simple thing that is within our hands, within
our grasp.
I know there are lots of other issues, but that is a legacy
that we at Kiwanis International want to leave in the lives of
people. And it is a legacy that you are a part of. I know that
you and the members of your Committee will share our joy in
being a part of eliminating the single largest preventable
cause of mental retardation in the world.
I thank you very, very much for your consideration and the
opportunity to share these thoughts.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. We thank you, Mr. Siemens; you, too, Ms.
Rosen, for joining us today. And, as you are aware, the
Committee has in the past been very supportive of your program.
And we encourage the Kiwanians worldwide to expand their
program and also encourage other service organizations to join
with you and Rotarians in providing these worldwide services to
relieve human misery.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Callahan. Yes, sir?
Mr. Lewis. I want to say that I have been off the Committee
for some time, as you know, and it is a pleasure to be back.
Picking up on a note that was made by my colleague, John
Porter, privately a while ago, Rotarians, on the one hand, had
133 million children in India, the last battle or steps to win
the battle against polio in this effort to deal with children
and mental retardation. I wonder why the media just will not
pay a little bit of attention to these fantastic things that
Americans like you are involved in.
I want you to know I appreciate it very much.
Mr. Siemens. Thank you. And that is a good question and a
good comment.
I was governor of our district in Kiwanis. We raised $2
million in one day to eliminate iodine deficiency disorder from
the world. We could not get one newspaper, one television
station to come and to give us any press. Point well-taken.
Mr. Porter. Mr. Chairman? You say that the goal is
preventable mental retardation in children. I assume that IDD
is one part of that goal.
Mr. Siemens. That is the focus. That is the goal.
Mr. Porter. What is your timetable?
Mr. Siemens. Right now we have $20 million worth of
requests that we would fund today if we had the money. Our goal
is to raise 75 million by the end of 2000 and virtually get
it----
Mr. Porter. And that would do it by the end of 2000?
Mr. Siemens. Yes.
Mr. Porter. Are there not other areas where you have
preventable mental retardation in children besides iodine
deficiency?
Mr. Siemens. Probably, but we believe this is one that is
of utmost importance. It is the leading cause, but it is also
something that we can do something about that immediately
changes the lives of those kids.
Mr. Porter. Well, I commend you for a wonderful job. And we
should give you all the help we can.
Mr. Siemens. Thank you.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you, Mr. Siemens.
Mr. Hinchey is here. We normally let members, especially
when we have adjourned for the week. Is he here now? Are you
here?
Mr. Hinchey. Yes.
Mr. Callahan. Yes, sir?
Mr. Hinchey. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Callahan. We are enforcing the five-minute rule, but
for you, Maurice, we will expand it but hope you understand
that a lot of other members have got to get out of town today.
Mr. Hinchey. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman, and I will hopefully
be less than five minutes.
Mr. Callahan. Good.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
UKRAINIAN DEMOCRATIZATION
WITNESS
HON. MAURICE D. HINCHEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
NEW YORK
Mr. Hinchey. I very much appreciate the opportunity to be
able to come before you today and the other members of the
Committee and talk about an issue that is important to me and I
think important to the country and important to the world. And
I do so on behalf of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, of
which I am a member. It is a bipartisan caucus here made up of
members primarily who have traced their ancestry to the Ukraine
or who are interested in it for other reasons.
During the past year, Ukraine has taken a number of
significant steps toward reforming its economy and establishing
a strong and stable democratic government. Most recently the
Ukrainian Parliament adopted a state budget for the year, which
included the lowest annual budget deficit since Ukrainian
independence.
In October of last year, a three-year plan was approved by
the cabinet ministers to modernize the nation's accounting
standards. This achievement will remove a major impediment to
foreign investment to the Ukraine.
In addition, Ukraine is working to broaden its tax base,
lower rates on its current system, while at the same time
legislation has been completed to provide for a comprehensive
new tax code, which will be presented to the Rada this spring.
In addition, Ukraine has undertaken a number of efforts to
streamline its public administration, establish a fully
functional treasury, increase the number of private
enterprises, and reform its commercial markets.
Despite this encouraging progress, I, along with my
colleagues in the caucus, am fully aware that much still needs
to be done. Combatting corruption, which persists as a remnant
to the former Soviet Union, remains a substantial challenge for
the current Ukrainian government.
I believe that continued support from the United States
will provide the best mechanism for addressing these concerns.
The United States should play a key role in assisting Ukraine
to further establish a pluralistic and democratic society based
upon the principles of law and a free market system.
Last year, Mr. Chairman, as you know, Congress earmarked
$195 million in foreign assistance to Ukraine. In addition to
the economic reforms facilitated by this funding, Ukraine has
reaffirmed its role as a vital strategic partner of the United
States; evidenced by its refusal to participate with Russia in
providing nuclear technology to Iran, for example.
This action along with its history of demilitarization and
peacekeeping efforts allowed Ukraine to sign the agreement on
peaceful nuclear cooperation with the United States, thereby
allowing American companies to consider contracts in Ukraine's
nuclear fuel industry.
By continuing our support for Ukraine, we will enhance its
ability to address many of the remaining issues inherent to
establishing a solid investment climate in that country. This
includes public administration reform, which is necessary to
streamline many of the largely bureaucratic institutions in
Ukraine, as well as the ability to reform government structures
which operate to provide services to the population.
In addition, U.S. foreign assistance will facilitate
further reform of Ukraine's civil code and commercial law. By
identifying laws which address the needs of Ukraine's business
environment, these policies will help to encourage an
investment climate that attracts foreign as well as domestic
investors.
Finally, our actions will be instrumental in developing
anti-corruption programs, which will provide governmental
integrity and reduce corruption through initiatives in regional
and local governments.
The objectives of peace, stability, and democracy in
central and eastern Europe have been enhanced particularly
because our country remains actively engaged through our
foreign assistance in a bilateral relationship with Ukraine.
As the Subcommittee continues to work on the Fiscal Year
2000 foreign operations bill, I and the rest of the
Congressional Ukrainian Caucus encourage you, Mr. Chairman, to
demonstrate your continued strong support for Congress'
successful foreign assistance policy toward Ukraine for an
additional year.
Let me just say on my own behalf, Mr. Chairman, I have had
the opportunity to visit Ukraine. I have been to Kiev. I was
there, in fact, as an observer during the first election that
took place. This is a country that has come out of communism,
come out of communist domination, domination by the tsar and by
other countries, the Hapsburg empire, in part, before that, and
is now for the first time having an opportunity to fully
realize a democratic system.
It has carried off now successfully two elections. And it
has been able to do so I think primarily because of the fact
that we have been behind them, that we have been there, that
our strong force has been there for them to rely upon. And if
we take it away, I fear for what might happen.
Ukraine is a country that can go either way right now. It
can emerge from this as a strong partner to the United States,
helping us to stabilize central Europe, or it can just fall
asunder. It can fall to pieces. And that would not be in our
interest or the interest of the world.
So, for these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I appeal to you and
the other members of the Subcommittee to do what you can to
help us in this regard.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. Thank you, Maurice.
Certainly if we do not, the Senate does through the efforts
of Senator McConnell. I understand there is also something to
be submitted for the record by an official of the Ukraine.
Mr. Hinchey. I thought there was, yes.
Mr. Callahan. Well, whenever it is, we will accept it for
the record.
Thank you.
Mr. Porter. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hinchey ought to recognize
your new gavel.
Mr. Hinchey. It is very impressive.
Mr. Callahan. Those people who violate the rule, we are 25
minutes behind now. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hinchey. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Callahan. You are welcome.
Dr. Chaisson? Dr. Chaisson, we will accept your entire
statement for the record and ask that you abbreviate your
statement to the Committee.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
GLOBAL TUBERCULOSIS CONTROL
WITNESS
DR. RICHARD CHAISSON, INTERNATIONAL UNION AGAINST TUBERCULOSIS AND LUNG
DISEASE
Dr. Chaisson. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a
pleasure to be back here to talk to you again very briefly
about global tuberculosis control.
I am Richard Chaisson. I am Director of Tuberculosis
Control for the City of Baltimore and a professor at Johns
Hopkins. We heard a lot about a number of diseases today. I
would just like to make a couple of brief points about the
tuberculosis epidemic.
Tuberculosis, despite having the tools for control for the
last 50 years, remains the leading infectious cause of death in
the world. One out of every 25 deaths from any cause in the
world is from tuberculosis, and a quarter of all premature
deaths in the world are the result of tuberculosis. It is an
extraordinary global epidemic.
Recently the global situation has gotten much worse, not
better, with the emergence of AIDS-related tuberculosis and
drug-resistant tuberculosis, particularly in Latin America, the
former Soviet Union, and Asia.
Tuberculosis control remains one of the most cost-effective
approaches to public health. Yet, the global effort has
faltered. The result of that is here in the United States, is
quite apparent. We have had success in the last decade in
turning around our tuberculosis situation, and now we see that
a growing proportion, 40 percent last year, of all TB in this
country is from people born in other countries who migrate
here, this has more than doubled in the last 8 years.
And foreign cases of tuberculosis are increasing
dramatically and will soon represent most TB in the United
States. This is a particular problem in cities with large
immigrant populations, in states with migrant populations, and
states along the border with Mexico.
So there is a clear-cut need to control tuberculosis
globally if we hope to control it locally. Thanks to the vision
and forceful leadership of this Committee with this emerging
and reemerging infectious disease initiative, USAID has made an
outstanding start to controlling tuberculosis.
The tools that have worked in this country, which include
leadership, coordination of a response of the application of
known principles and innovation, are now being applied to the
global situation through a global plan that USAID has
spearheaded, which now other organizations in other nations are
contributing to.
So the funds from USAID have leveraged a tremendous
response from the international community, and a global plan is
now underway. Perhaps in a few years we will be able to tell
you success stories such as you have heard with the polio
eradication.
To be very specific, what we would like to suggest is that
a TB-specific appropriation in the amount of $60 million be
included in the USAID budget to allow for the continued support
of the global control program in collaboration with the CDC,
the NIH, and the World Health Organization that additional
funds be available for country-specific control plans in these
high-incident countries that surveillance be continued,
particularly surveillance for drug resistance, and that the
continued support of training of foreign and domestic TB
control experts, Fogarty International Center at the NIH, be
supported.
And, finally, I will say in answer to a question that came
up earlier that we have a very good idea of what the Rotary
International can do in 2003, which is to turn their attention
from the polio campaign to tuberculosis.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. That is a good idea also. If they are as
successful with their experience, maybe we could eradicate it
worldwide. We certainly will entertain your suggestions and
appreciate very much you coming forth.
Dr. Chaisson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Callahan. Mr. Kohr. Welcome. We are running short of
time, and we are requesting that everyone submit their written
statement and address the Committee. And we will accept your
written statement.
I am sure this is not the last interaction we will have
from you. So there is no need to get it crammed all into today.
Howard, good afternoon.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
U.S.-ISRAEL RELATIONSHIP
WITNESS
HOWARD KOHR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE
Mr. Kohr. Good afternoon, members of the Subcommittee. It
is a privilege once again to be here before the Subcommittee to
speak in support of a strong U.S.-Israel relationship and the
assistance the United States provides Israel each year to
advance our shared goals.
I speak as the Executive Director of the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee, a nonpartisan membership organization
of American citizens interested in promoting a close
partnership between our nation and Israel.
In my brief remarks, I want to focus on three key areas of
concern today: the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, the peace process, and aid to Israel in the Wye
River supplemental.
In this post-Cold War world, each year is tragically more
dangerous than the one before. Each passing year means rogue
states in the Middle East and elsewhere are closer to acquiring
and developing weapons of mass destruction and the missiles
needed to deliver them.
As DIA Director Lt. General Patrick Hughes recently
testified, and I quote, ``The proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction technologies and missiles constitutes the single
greatest threat to the United States vital national interest.
Over the next years, several states will likely join the
nuclear club. Chemical and biological weapons will be widely
proliferated. And the numbers of medium-range theatre,
ballistic, and cruise missiles will increase significantly,
particularly in the Middle East,'' end quote. Those are
frightening prospects.
Particularly with the assistance of Russia, China, and
North Korea, Iran's active nuclear missile program gets that
much closer to becoming reality. As dangerous as that reality
is to United States troops and interests in the Middle East,
imagine what that reality means to Israeli military planners,
who do not yet have an operational missile defense system in
place.
We hope to continue working with you and other members of
this Subcommittee in trying to find ways to slow down Iran's
unconventional weapons program and in making sure that Iraq's
program is not reconstituted.
On a more positive note, it is important to step back and
assess all that has been achieved over the past several years
in advancing peace between Israel and her neighbors. There is a
real peace between Israel and Jordan marked by close diplomatic
ties, trade, and tourism.
With the Palestinians, although the process is slowing down
for now, a tremendous amount has already been accomplished.
There is today a vibrant Palestinian Legislative Council, a
Palestinian Authority which has jurisdiction over 98 percent of
the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, a
Palestinian airport, a Palestinian Broadcast Corporation, a
Palestinian stamp, to mention just a few. Twenty nine percent
of the West Bank is under the full civil administration of the
Palestinian authority.
And under the Wye Agreement, after full compliance by the
Palestinians, Israel has agreed to cede an additional 11% of
West Bank land, thus agreeing to provide the Palestinians with
either full or joint control of over 40% of the West Bank even
before the beginning of the substantive final status
negotiations.
The one disappointment throughout this process has been the
Palestinian unwillingness to take its security obligations more
seriously. Five and a half years after Prime Minister Rabin and
Chairman Arafat shook hands on the White House lawn, when
Israel agreed to give up land for security, Israel has signed
several agreements to give up more and more land, while the
Palestinians keep promising to live up to the same commitments
that they have routinely been ignoring.
Finally, a few words about the importance of the U.S. aid
program to Israel's security and well being, and to the United
States' vital national interest.
The threats of war and the promise of peace that Israel
faces each day come at a substantial cost. The annual U.S. aid
package to Israel is a key pillar to help maintaining peace and
stability in the Middle East by providing Israel with the
wherewithal to defend itself and maintain its qualitative edge.
U.S. aid directly strengthens our national security while
improving the prospects for peace in the region. Economic aid
has helped Israel repay the large number of military loans she
had to take out as a result of the Camp David Accords; loans
which, unlike those of other countries in the region, were
never forgiven by the United States.
I want to publicly thank and commend you, Mr. Chairman, for
the leadership role you took last year in helping to craft and
implement Israel's aid restructuring proposal. Last year this
subcommittee took the first step in realizing this ten year
plan which, as the Prime Minister Netanyahu pledged to
Congress, will eventually lead to the elimination of the United
States' economic assistance.
While Israel will require less and less economic aid over
time, this package provides additional military assistance to
Israel, one-quarter of which may continue to be spent for the
research and development of weapon systems in Israel in
recognition of its growing and more costly security demands.
As you well know, this was not an easy or risk-free
decision for the government of Israel to take, but it did so in
large part because of its confidence in you, Mr. Chairman, and
the members of this Subcommittee, that once an agreement was
reached, it would be adhered to.
And we believe strongly that the agreement should continue
to be adhered to. We look forward to working with you to ensure
this agreement's continued and completed implementation.
Since that agreement was reached, of course, another
unexpected agreement was signed last October as a result of the
Wye River Summit. The so-called Wye River Memorandum was an
important milestone in getting the stalled peace process back
on track.
The United States, in addition to playing a central role in
negotiating the Wye Memorandum, took a forthright obligation to
help defray the risks and costs associated with its
implementation.
Those risks and costs for Israel are considerable and are
expected to far exceed the $1.2 billion that the Administration
has requested. This aid, in additional to fulfilling a
commitment made by the United States, will be critical to
ensuring that the peace process is sustained.
United States diplomacy in the Middle East has been most
successful when backed up by our financial support, especially
when helping former adversaries adapt to a new, but risky
relationship. We hope you will find a way to support the Wye
package to provide an extraordinary, one shot infusion of
assistance to those taking risks for peace.
In conclusion, the world, unfortunately, has not become a
safer place with the end of the Cold War. In some respects, it
is now more dangerous than ever. The Middle East, in
particular, is one of the world's most dangerous areas, and yet
one of the most important for U.S. interests.
Each member of this Subcommittee should share in the pride
we all feel as Israel is completing her 50th year of
independence because each of you has made a critical
contribution to ensuring that Israel not only survives, but
thrives, despite all the odds against her.
As we look ahead to the next 50 years, your support and
understanding will be even more important as Israel, together
with the United States, rises to meet threats and challenges
far beyond those envisioned by her founding fathers.
We look forward to working together with you to help
address those common threats.
Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. Thank you. I do not have any questions.
Thank you very much, sir.
Ms. Miller. As you know, we are pressed for time and way
behind, so we will accept your entire statement for the record,
but we ask you to abbreviate it.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
SEEDS OF PEACE
WITNESS
LINDSAY MILLER, VICE PRESIDENT, SEEDS OF PEACE
Ms. Miller. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Lindsay Miller. I'm Vice President of Seeds of
Peace. I want to thank you and the other members of this
committee for the opportunity to talk to you briefly about an
extraordinary organization.
Seeds of Peace promotes understanding and peace by bringing
together Arab and Israeli teenagers and youth from other
turbulent regions for a unique conflict resolution program in
Maine. In this safe and neutral setting, these youngsters, age
13 to 15, overcome prejudice, fear and anger and learn to live
together.
Seeds of Peace has no political agenda other than to form
bonds of trust and friendship between young people who have
been separated by conflict and war. We do not take positions on
the Arab/Israeli conflict and we are a nonpolitical, nonprofit
organization.
Seeds of Peace is changing the future. It is changing the
attitudes of teenagers caught up in a bitter and historic
conflict that has persisted for too long and taken too many
lives. But unless the attitudes and experiences of young people
are changed and the barriers of suspicion and mistrust are
broken down, peace will remain elusive.
Created in 1993 by author and journalist John Wallach,
Seeds of Peace brought 40 Israeli, Palestinian and Egyptian
Israeli youth to summer camp in Maine that first year. The
youngsters lived together, shared their meals, played on the
same teams and argued with each other.
Under the guidance of professional facilitators, this first
group participated in daily two hour sessions of conflict
resolution. During this process, these youngsters broke down
the barriers of mistrust and suspicion. They began to see one
another as people, not as enemies.
From that modest beginning, Seeds of Peace has established
itself as an innovative and recognized program for teenagers
from the Middle East and other conflict areas, including Bosnia
and Cyprus.
In the last six years, Seeds of Peace has graduated more
than 1,000 youngsters from Israel, the Palestinian authority,
Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia and Qatar.
But let me stress, above all, the experience at camp is not
just about singing songs around the campfire. What goes on at
the facilitation sessions is often painful and reflects the
rawness, hatreds and stereotypes which fuel the conflict.
But what emerges is something quite remarkable. Arabs and
Israelis who are willing to listen to one another learn from
one another and to respect one another. The transformations
that take place during this summer are only the first steps
towards educating and nurturing a new generation of
peacemakers.
Seeds of Peace is committed to expanding our modest
regional program to reach as many youngsters as possible. In
order for Seeds to grow, we need your support. Seeds of Peace
is seeking $800,000 in U.S. Government funding to expand our
existing program into a year-round, comprehensive program in
the region.
In short, Seeds of Peace is infusing the peace process
between governments with something that is too often left out:
the human dimension. For real peace to take root, a new
generation must be prepared to make it possible.
Seeds of peace gives the next generation the tools to
create a better and more secure future. It empowers them to
lead. It creates hope instead of despair. It plants the seeds
of peace, real peace, in the real world.
I could continue to talk about Seeds, but I would never be
able to convey what we really do. For that, you would have to
come to camp in Maine. I know that is not possible, so I
brought a little bit of camp to you.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Ms. Miller. I would like to introduce Shoug Tarawneh, a
freshman at Georgetown University School of Foreign Service and
a Jordanian graduate of Seeds of Peace.
Welcome to the committee.
Ms. Tarawneh. Thank you.
I was 14 years old when I first went to Seeds of Peace. I
was really excited about the idea of meeting an Israeli for the
first time in my life. But, at the same time, I was a little
bit scared. I remember really well the first discussion group I
went to.
Actually, I wrote my college essay about it. We had to play
a game called Human Knot where each one of us had to hold the
hand of the person in the front of them and the person on their
side and form a knot and we had to solve it.
It took us a while to solve it, but then we realized that,
in order to solve it, one of us had to sacrifice and we had to
step on them and move around in a certain way to solve it.
Eventually it was solved. But afterward, when we started
discussing the theme of this game, I don't really remember
whether it was a Palestinian or an Israeli who jumped up and
said, ``Enough is enough. I am the one who is suffering right
now and it is your time to sacrifice.''
As a Jordanian sitting in this discussion group I watched
Palestinians and Israelis discussing it. They are the people
who are living the suffering. It helped me so much understand
where I stand as a Jordanian in this conflict.
It took us a couple of discussion groups to calm down and
start listening to each other because, believe me, in the first
discussion groups none of us wanted to listen to the other. We
only wanted to convince the other side, whether it was an Arab
or an Israeli, that I suffer the most and I have the right to
rule everything right now.
And I think trying to reach this understanding never ended
when the camp was over. Because a week ago I was at the Seeds
of Peace office in D.C. and I was looking at some of the
pictures. I am 18 years old right now, so most of my Israeli
friends are in the Army.
And I saw a picture of a really good friend of mine wearing
his Israeli Army suit, which always symbolized to me a person
who wants to take my land and kill my people. This idea would
never have crossed my mind that I know the individual who is
wearing this Army suit.
And I think this is what Seeds of Peace helped me to do. It
gave me the chance to get to know the other side of an
individual and to understand their position and why they are
doing that and understanding why I am doing that and try to
explain it to them.
And I understood, and I am sure that my colleague Seeds
understood that too, that peace is not only the absence of
hostility, but it is more like understanding and appreciating
the concept of coexistence and living with each other.
Mr. Callahan. Well, maybe there is hope for the future
because there has been a lot of fighting in the Middle East for
centuries. Maybe the Seeds of Peace can ultimately bring the
leaders of the countries together as it has students.
Mr. Knollenberg. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I wanted to
commend Ms. Tarawnch for being here and talking about the real
side of this thing. I have had some experience with Seeds of
Peace. When Ms. Miller made her presentation she made it clear
that this is really a study in conflict resolution. And I do
believe the youth is the answer here. It may not be the only
answer, but it is one that should be advanced.
And I have been supportive of this in my home area. I do
not know, Mr. Chairman, if you met this gentleman when you were
there. I do not think you did. But it is a gentleman who is
very much involved in the progress of this organization with
over 1,000 graduates now.
So I think it is something that deserves attention, and
obviously we appreciate both of you coming today.
Thank you.
Ms. Kilpatrick. I, too, have visited the Gaza Strip, the
West Bank, and Israel and Egypt. I want to thank Seeds of Peace
for the work that you do--particularly the young people. I
think that when our young people across the world have the
commitment to understanding other people's culture, the world
is better by it.
So I want to thank you for your work. In working and
listening to those young people during my visit, I've seen that
they really are the key to the American crisis and the world
crisis as we look to respect one another's culture.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you.
Congressman Schaffer.
Bob, we are letting you jump ahead because we know some of
you all have to catch a plane, but we are still hoping you will
respect the fact that we are 20 minutes behind schedule.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
U.S. FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE
WITNESS
HON. BOB SCHAFFER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
COLORADO
Mr. Schaffer. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
I thank you for the opportunity to address you regarding U.S.
foreign assistance to Ukraine for fiscal year 2000. As co-chair
of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, my goal is to build a
strong relationship between the United States and Ukraine.
The United States is well positioned to play a key
leadership role in assisting Ukraine to further establish a
pluralistic and democratic society based on the principles of
law and the free market system.
Your support for funding for Ukraine will greatly encourage
the needed progress. During the past year, Ukraine has taken a
number of significant steps on its path toward reforming its
economy and establishing a strong and stable democratic
government.
Most recently, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted a state
budget for the year which included the lowest annual budget
deficit since Ukrainian independence. In October of 1998, a
three year plan was approved by the Cabinet of Ministers to
modernize the nation's accounting standards, and this
achievement will remove a major impediment to foreign
investment in Ukraine.
In addition, Ukraine is working to broaden its tax base,
lower its interest rates in its current system, while, at the
same time, legislation has been completed to provide for a
comprehensive new tax code which will be presented to the Rada
in the spring.
Finally, Ukraine has undertaken a number of efforts to
streamline its public administration, establish fully
functional treasury, increase the number of private enterprises
and reform its commercial markets.
Congress has played a key role in positive Ukrainian
developments. The assistance given to Ukraine by the United
States has led to historic gains for democracy and stability.
In the past year alone, despite the near collapse of the
Russian and Asian financial markets, U.S. foreign assistance
programs helped Ukraine avert a major crash of its economy.
Ukraine undertook a successful effort to avoid hyper
inflation, increase budget revenues, raise reserve requirements
for commercial banks, and introduce a new currency exchange
court ordered to prevent dramatic devaluation in the Ukrainian
currency.
Discontinuation of the foreign assistance earmark could
defeat years of progress in this important democracy and weaken
the aspiring partnership between our two nations.
And despite these encouragements, we are aware that much
still needs to be done.
The Caucus shares the committee's concern over the legacy
of corruptions throughout the entire former Soviet region.
Combatting corruption remains a substantial challenge for the
current Ukrainian government.
However, earmarking assistance to Ukraine provides the best
mechanism to address this concern. For example, the House
Foreign Operations Subcommittee can introduce provisions
targeting Ukraine's judicial and legal system to help combat
corruption, as well as to include U.S. law enforcement agencies
in the fight against it.
And your support of these proposals will greatly encourage
the need to reform Ukraine's developing legal and business
environment. The objectives of peace and stability and
democracy in Central and Eastern Europe have been enhanced
particularly because the United States remains actively engaged
through U.S. foreign assistance in a bilateral relationship
with Ukraine.
As Ukraine government continues to reform its internal
structures and introduce further economic reforms, it is vital
for U.S. foreign assistance to continue.
And that concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. Thank you. That was a nice presentation. We
appreciate very much your views as well as those of your
Caucus.
Mr. Schaffer. Thank you.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you very much.
The Ukrainian Congress Committee, Mr. Sawkiw.
Mr. Sawkiw. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee.
Mr. Callahan. We will accept your statement for the record.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
U.S. FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE
WITNESS
MICHAEL SAWKIW, JR., UKRAINIAN CONGRESS COMMITTEE OF AMERICA
Mr. Sawkiw. Yes, please.
The organization that I represent is the Ukrainian Congress
Committee of America, the umbrella organization of Americans of
Ukrainian descent. Mr. Chairman, in my capacity as the director
of the UCCA's Washington bureau, I would like to commend the
subcommittee, under your leadership, for its commitment in last
year's appropriations bill that led to an increased funding in
the Freedom Support Act.
This engagement increases America's leadership role in
sustained economic development and strengthening democratic
principles throughout the states of the former Soviet Union,
most notably Ukraine.
As regards the democratic processes in Ukraine, Ukraine has
been both a champion and pioneer with a model human rights
record and, since independence, Ukraine has held four free and
fair elections with an upcoming presidential election to be
held in October of this year.
The exemplary behavior which first manifested itself in
Ukraine's denuclearization and peace keeping efforts has
continued during the past year, as illustrated by Ukraine's
evolving relationship with NATO and its recent refusal to join
in Russia's ill conceived nuclear cooperation with Iran.
Progress has been achieved in Ukraine in the reformation of
the judicial and legal systems as government structures have
been modified to spur investment opportunities for foreign and
domestic businesses alike.
This commitment, however, remains a time consuming process,
one that deserves the continued support of the United States.
Corruption, as we all know, was an endemic part of the former
Soviet governmental system which Ukraine subsequently
inherited.
Instead of condemning Ukraine, Congress should mandate
continued assistance programs to cooperate with Ukraine to
address the generic problem associated with the resolution of
most business problems in Ukraine, that being corruption.
For two years now Ukraine has undergone a certification
process which has enmeshed U.S. and Ukrainian government
officials in the arduous process of resolving various
individual U.S. business disputes in Ukraine.
To once again enact legislation with certification based
upon the resolution of business disputes for several American
investors would paint a distorted picture of Ukraine's
political and economic landscape.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we are in a
race against time. Will the forces of corruption overwhelm
Ukraine's economy before the rule of law can be
institutionalized as the guiding principle? I should hope not.
Let us think of U.S. foreign assistance to Ukraine as an
investment with a strategic partner in a safe, stable and
secure democracy in Central Europe. As one of Europe's largest
countries, the assistance that Ukraine receives from the United
States would instill economic viability in that country, thus
eliminating tendencies in neighboring Russia to restore its
lost empire.
The Ukrainian Congress Committee of America urges the
subcommittee to support the Administration's request to provide
assistance to Ukraine, thus remaining engaged in targeting
programs in the following areas:
Legal infrastructure reform with an independent judiciary,
assistance for the struggle against crime and corruption,
sector revitalization, as well as the promotion of programs
geared towards the citizens to actively participate in
agricultural restructuring and the building of a civic society.
I thank the subcommittee for your attention and look
forward to any remarks or questions.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. We thank you very much. We see some progress
in the Ukraine, but not with respect to your election process
and some other areas as well. As you know, we have had some
problems with American businessmen who are concerned primarily
about corruption on the local level and more so on the national
level.
But the leaders of the Ukraine tell us that they are trying
to make legislative progress on that regard and we certainly
hope they succeed because the Ukraine was what we hoped would
be a shining star.
Mr. Sawkiw. Still can be.
Mr. Callahan. Still can be, but you have to make some
progress.
Mr. Sawkiw. I agree.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you very much.
Mr. Baaklini.
He is not here?
Mr. Baaklini is not here, but you are welcome to--we are
trying to limit our testimony to five minutes per witness
today, and we will accept your entire statement for the record.
We ask that you respect that time limitation.
Mr. Epperly. Thank you, sir.
Ready?
Mr. Callahan. Yes, sir.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
FREEDOM FOR LEBANON
WITNESS
DAVID EPPERLY, AMERICAN LEBANESE INSTITUTE
Mr. Epperly. Well, my name is David Epperly and I am
testifying on behalf of the American Lebanese Institute. We are
a member of the Council of Lebanese American Organizations. The
institute reflects the interests, sentiments of the three
million Americans of Lebanese descent.
We work to further the cause of freedom and sovereignty in
Lebanon commencing with the immediate and unconditional
withdrawal of all foreign forces, particularly those of Syria,
from Lebanon. Both the Institute and the Council act to promote
ties of friendship, and cooperation between the United States
and Lebanon based on the principles of democracy and human
rights.
With this background information, let me summarize what I
have stated. We have come here year after year and basically
said the same thing. Lebanon is an occupied country, occupied
by Syria.
Syria is in the process of annexing Lebanon, and it is
pretty much a known fact throughout the world that nothing is
being done about it. That annexation is creeping and becoming
more and more real.
The Lebanese had a so-called election this year in which
was nothing more than a changing of the pro-Syrian guard in
Lebanon. The new president, or so-called president of Lebanon,
is named Emile Lahoud. He was the former commander of the Army.
Lebanon is occupied by, as I said, about 40,000 plus Syrian
troops and an undetermined number of intelligence operatives.
We see the problems in Lebanon basically as being the four
areas starting with the Syrian occupation of Lebanon; human
rights violations, which are rampant in the country; censorship
of and lack of freedom of the press; and economic
mismanagement.
The national debt in Lebanon hovers about $21 million
dollars and is rising. The gross domestic product is about $15
billion, so there is a pretty big gap there. They are in the
process of trying to borrow over $2 billion dollars.
The basic necessities such as clean drinking water,
reliable electricity, modern telecommunications and so forth
are being neglected. There is the--I am painting a pretty bad
picture, but the picture is pretty bad, obviously.
The middle class is being squeezed with increased taxation
and there are huge amounts of corruption and robbery and kick
backs to the government.
There are about 1.5 million illegal Syrian workers in
Lebanon. That is roughly equal to half of the population of
Lebanon. So with all that in mind, we strongly advise--we
recommend that the committee not send any taxpayer money to the
Beirut government, that any aid be funneled through
nongovernmental organizations, private institutions such as the
American University of Beirut, other universities and medical
institutions, Red Cross, Catholic Welfare Society.
We recommend that Lebanese Army be supported, but as long
as it is well monitored, any support. And we know that it is
not your place to do so, but we are advocating and recommending
that free elections be held in Lebanon in nearest term.
And we also believe that, as gloomy as the picture may
appear today, Lebanon's embattled but still resilient civil
society will undoubtedly be the ultimate salvation of the
country. All it needs is continued support of the outside
world, especially the United States.
I hope that you take this into consideration in your
deliberations on aid to Lebanon.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. Well, we certainly will and we support the
free elections in Lebanon. And certainly it is the wishes of
all of this committee that--in fact, the entire Congress, that
Lebanon return to a free state and that the occupation of Syria
and Israel as well be removed and that they come back to their
own countries.
I am sorry to see the problems that have cropped up between
some groups in Lebanon and the Israeli Army here in the last
couple of weeks. But it is our dream and goal that someday we
do see or witness a free election and a free state of Lebanon
without occupation by any country.
Mr. Epperly. And the unfortunate thing is, you know, all of
this is occurring at the expense of the average citizen in
Lebanon. You know, the average person in Lebanon just wants to
live and breath just like anybody else and see their children
have an opportunity to have something a little bit better than
they did.
And that is becoming increasingly difficult there,
particularly for the middle class. There is an upper class in
Lebanon that seems to be living okay. And if you would take a
look at what is going on over there behind the scenes, there is
an awful lot of poverty and hardship occurring there.
So that is what we try to do. We try to, you know, bring
that message out and make sure that everybody does not forget
the average person.
Mr. Callahan. We will take your advice. And any assistance
given to Lebanon probably will be through, for example,
American University or private volunteer organizations.
Mr. Epperly. Appreciate it, Congressman.
Thanks for having us again here. Thank you.
Mr. Callahan. Give my regards to our mutual friends.
Mr. Epperly. I will. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Callahan. Chris Hekimian. We will accept your written
statement for the record, which we already have, and ask that
you respect our five minute----
Mr. Hekimian. I will do my best.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
SECTION 907 RESTRICTION ON AID TO THE GOVERNMENT OF AZERBAIJAN AND U.S.
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR NAGORNO KARABAKH
WITNESS
CHRIS HEKIMIAN, ARMENIAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
Mr. Hekimian. Thank you, Chairman Callahan, for your
principal leadership of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee and
for this opportunity to appear before your panel on behalf of
the Armenian National Committee of America, the Nation's oldest
and largest Armenian American grassroots advocacy organization.
I have submitted my full testimony for the record outlining
our committee's views on a range of issues under the
jurisdiction of your subcommittee. Today I would like to focus
on just two of these issues.
First I would like to discuss the necessity of maintaining
the Section 907 restriction on aid to the government of
Azerbaijan. As you are well aware, last September Congress
debated this issue on the House floor for almost three hours
and voted decisively to maintain this ban until Azerbaijan
lifts their blockades.
Since that vote, Azerbaijan has continued down the path of
autocratic rule. Presidential elections held last October were
roundly derided by international election observers as being
undemocratic and below international standards.
As an example, 855,000 ballots, roughly 25% of all the
ballots cast, were considered spoiled by election officials and
were not included in the final vote count. Three percent is
considered normal in developing nations.
Immediately following these elections, the Aliyev
government implemented a severe crackdown on all opposition
groups. Soon thereafter, the Azerbaijanian government rejected
the OSCE peace plan, effectively stalling the peace process and
hindering the prospects for long term stability and economic
development.
It should be clear that the reasons for the ban on U.S.
assistance to the government of Azerbaijan continues to exist
as compellingly as ever. Any effort to circumvent the intent of
this provision of law, particularly during the ongoing
negotiations, will be viewed by the Azerbaijan government as a
clear signal for renewed aggression.
This is particularly true given Azerbaijan's refusal to
agree to the OSCE peace plan. And let me just note very
recently, within this past week, President Aliyev, in a news
story, was quoted as threatening to again solve the conflict
militarily rather than at the negotiating table.
The other issue I would like to focus on is the U.S.
assistance program for Nagorno Karabakh. Let me begin by
thanking you and your colleagues on this subcommittee for
allocating U.S. assistance to Nagorno Karabakh for fiscal years
1998 and 1999.
Until this decisive action on your part, Nagorno Karabakh
was the only population in the Caucasus to have been denied any
United States assistance. Unfortunately, fiscal year 1998 ended
without any of the $12.5 million dollars of aid allocated by
Congress having been spent in Nagorno Karabakh.
As a result, Congress recommended that a total of $20
million dollars of assistance be spent in Nagorno Karabakh as
part of the fiscal year 1999 Foreign Aid Bill. As of today,
USAID has obligated only $8.3 million dollars for projects in
Nagorno Karabakh.
The remaining $11.7 million has yet to be obligated,
despite the fact that, according to the fiscal year 1999
Congressional Report language, USAID should request all
proposals for funding by March 30th of 1999.
We are deeply troubled by the slow pace of implementation
and the efforts by some in the Administration to divert funds
allocated by Congress from their intended purpose. As a result,
we ask that Congress once again include language recommending
$20 million for the people residing in Nagorno Karabakh.
During a visit to the U.S. one year ago, Nagorno Karabakh's
Foreign Minister, Minister Naira Melkumian, who met with
yourself, Mr. Chairman, and, in fact, the other members present
here on the committee, stressed during a speech at CSIS, the
Center for Strategic and International Studies, that, quote,
``the people and the government of the Republic of Nagorno
Karabakh are committed to peace, and that they remain willing
to reach a settlement based on realistic compromises and mutual
concessions.''
Having accepted, together with Armenia, the most recent
proposal by the OSCE, the people and the government of Nagorno
Karabakh have shown that they are truly willing to make
compromises in an effort to find peace.
Azerbaijan, unfortunately, has rejected this plan,
insisting instead on unilateral concessions and one-sided
compromises by Nagorno Karabakh.
Mr. Chairman, you have often stated the importance of both
sides being willing to compromise in order to achieve peace. As
you can see, Nagorno Karabakh and Armenia have proven their
willingness to do so, just as Azerbaijan has proven its
willingness not to.
I hope both Congress and the Administration take note of
this fact and urge Azerbaijan to reconsider their intransigent
position and work in good faith to bring an end to the conflict
which has already claimed too many lives.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. We thank you for your testimony. I guess much
of the thanks you gave to the committee must go to Congressman
Knollenberg because he has been our resident expert on that
region, as well as Congressman Porter and Ms. Pelosi.
They, more so than anyone else, are responsible for the
huge amount when you consider the--I guess Armenia just last
year was the third in line or the fourth in line for U.S.
assistance simply because of the interest on the part of
members of this committee.
I do not know why the Administration is dragging their feet
on the balance of the money that could be spent. We hate to
tell them in what month the money must be spent. We want them
to be responsible programs so we can continue to fund them.
It is difficult for us to say spend it all in October or
spend it all in January. I am pleased to see that at least a
great portion of it is now obligated. And I am optimistic there
will be full obligation of the funds before the end of the
fiscal year.
Mr. Hekimian. Would that--according to the report language,
they are supposed to obligate it all by March 30th. Is there
some delay----
Mr. Callahan. That report language is report language,
precisely that. That is the suggestion of the committee. We are
sending them a message that we think they should obligate this
money.
But at the same time, we do not want to unnecessarily
burden them. We want them to be responsible. And rest assured
that Mr. Knollenberg stays on top of them as well.
Mr. Hekimian. Well, I would share your concern that the
programs that are implemented are good programs, and we are not
trying to actually push, you know, those programs more quickly
ahead. More that it took about a year and a half before any of
the money actually ever got obligated.
And a lot of these programs had been planned in the past,
and for some reason it took a very long time for them to
actually ever get their funding.
Ms. Pelosi. If I may, Mr. Chairman. I want to join you in
commending our colleague, Mr. Knollenberg, for his leadership
in dealing with this issue because it has been a challenge to
our committee.
I will say that if the Administration repeatedly and
continually does not heed the report language of the bill, then
the committee may have to, at some point, speak in stronger
language to that----
Mr. Callahan. I guess what we have to do is wait until
closer to the end of the year to see if, indeed, there is a
plan. Maybe we can make an inquiry and find out what is in the
pipeline and what is their intention.
So maybe we can contact them and ask them what their
intentions are to fulfill the suggestions of the report.
Mr. Knollenberg. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we intend to
oversight them very, very closely. And obviously I want to
commend everybody on the panel here who has been helpful in the
original architecting of the idea of the funding for Nagorno
Karabakh.
And there is a problem. We know it is there. It has been a
foot dragger from way back. We will continue to watch that and
hope that they can put more dollars in the field where it
belongs rather than just having it available, which is kind of,
you know, the story.
Mr. Hekimian. The programs that are scheduled are actually
very good programs, but just one concern. The State Department,
as an example, very recently threatened to stop all programs
because of a tax issue problem. Karabakh had yet to exempt all
organizations from taxes in Karabakh.
This is the first time that monies had been spent there--
they had not been made aware that this was an issue they needed
to work on. I do not understand why it was not made an issue
back in October of '97 when AID knew they were going to be
implementing, in the near future, programs in Karabakh and tell
them you need to address this issue, you need to, exempt all
organizations from taxes.
They have done that, but it got to the point where they
actually were threatening to, within a week's time, to stop all
programs.
Mr. Callahan. Well, we do not want to discourage or to
direct USAID when and how to spend the money. We do not want to
tell them how to spend it, and we want them to utilize this
availability of money on programs or directions that the United
States feels is in the long term interest of the region.
I can assure you that the money will be spent. But we want
them to be able to go to the government, to the leaders of
those communities, and say we want to spend this money that
Congress has given us, but you are going to have to comply with
some of our wishes to promote democracy.
Mr. Hekimian. Of course.
Mr. Callahan. But we appreciate very much your testimony.
Mr. Hekimian. Thank you.
Mr. Callahan. Congressman Lewis, we know you are in route
to Alabama and we do not want to delay you.
Mr. Lewis. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
Ranking Member----
Mr. Callahan. First of all, I know he is from Georgia, but
he is going to Alabama this weekend.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S PROGRAMS
WITNESS
HON. JOHN LEWIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Lewis. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You are
very kind. Thank you and Ranking Member Pelosi and other
members of the committee for allowing me to come before you and
to testify.
I want to thank you for your support of international
children's programs including children's survival activities
such as immunizations, the work at Unicef and other critical
health education and nutrition programs.
Mr. Chairman, I am here today to urge your continued
support for the Children's Survival Programs, as well as the
Microcredit Program, and to urge an increase in U.S. investment
in tuberculosis control.
As you well know, these programs can make a critical
difference in the end of poverty and promoting peace and
prosperity worldwide. I know that many members want to testify,
and so I will briefly summarize my written testimony.
I ask that my written testimony be added or included to the
record.
Mr. Callahan. It shall.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Lewis. On the issue of tuberculosis control, I want to
thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Pelosi for leading
this effort. I urge your continued support. As you know,
tuberculosis is the biggest infectious killer of adults in the
world.
TB is the biggest killer of people with AIDS and a great
killer of women and mothers. TB rages countries from South
Africa to Thailand, from Ethiopia to the Philippines. And as we
know, TB has recently had a resurgence here in the United
States where it has had a disproportionate impact on the poor
and minorities.
Second, Chairman Callahan, I know you are very much aware
of the effectiveness of the Microcredit Program which provides
loans to the very poor to help start or expand small
businesses. U.S. Microcredit helps tens of millions of very
poor families worldwide.
It helps poor families lift themselves out of poverty,
which has strengthened economic stability, health, education
and democracy in the developing world.
I know this subcommittee has many competing priorities.
However, I believe that we must find a way to increase funding
for this worthwhile and needed program.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the subcommittee's
work in strengthening and protecting international children's
programs. I can tell you that I have long shared your strong
support and your compassion for children who suffer or perish
needlessly as a result of preventable diseases and hunger.
It is a travesty that more than 12 million of the world's
children die every year from these causes. As a wealthy and
powerful Nation, we can and we must do more to advance
international efforts to combat child mortality worldwide.
I agree with many of you that regardless of pressures to
limit foreign aid spending, we must never, never cut spending
at the expense of children, children struggling to eat, to be
healthy, and to survive in developing nations.
To this end, I urge the subcommittee to support an increase
in funding for the child survival and disease programs.
Mr. Chairman, Ms. Pelosi, thank you once again for making
children a priority, for combatting worldwide poverty and for
targeting resources toward the eradication of preventable
diseases such as tuberculosis.
I look forward to working with you and other members of
this committee in the 106th Congress to advance these goals.
And Mr. Chairman, I look forward to going to our native
state sometime tomorrow.
Mr. Callahan. I thought it was this weekend.
Mr. Lewis. It is this weekend.
Mr. Callahan. Yes, I thought it was.
Mr. Lewis. It is this weekend.
Mr. Callahan. Well, we look forward to you coming there.
And you can look forward to our bill coming out which will
facilitate most of the requests you have made. We are very
disappointed that the Administration has requested a reduction
in child survival.
And we want to assure you that we are going to ignore that
portion of the President's request and we are going to
adequately provide for child survival worldwide.
Mr. Lewis. Well, I would appreciate it very much, Mr.
Chairman. You will have my support in anything I can do to be
helpful.
Mr. Callahan. I appreciate that very much. Thank you.
Ms. Pelosi. I, too, Mr. Chairman, want to join you in
thanking the distinguished Mr. Lewis for his testimony and
adding considerable authority to those requests. Certainly they
are priorities the committee has shared.
Our Chairman, as you know, has been the champion for this
Child Survival Account in the bill. But we want more than what
the Administration asks for, so we will need your help to get
that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis. Well, you will have my help. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Ardouny. We will accept your full written statement for
the record and ask that you abbreviate your address to the
committee and contain it to the five minutes or less.
Thank you very much.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
ARMENIA AND NAGORNO KARABAKH
WITNESS
BRYAN ARDOUNY, ARMENIAN ASSEMBLY OF AMERICA
Mr. Ardouny. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Pelosi and
Congressman Knollenberg, I want to thank you for the
opportunity to be here on behalf of the Armenian Assembly. The
Armenian Assembly is a national, nonprofit, nonpartisan
organization, which promotes public understanding and awareness
of Armenian issues.
Our primary purpose is to strengthen the U.S. relationship
with Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. I realize that time is
limited, so I will be brief.
First, in order to facilitate greater cooperation, regional
cooperation, the Assembly strongly encourages the committee to
embrace the current OSCE compromise peace plan and to encourage
parallel confidence building measures via legislative language
in the fiscal year 2000 Foreign Operations Bill.
Mr. Chairman, despite serious reservations, Armenia and
Nagorno Karabakh accepted the current OSCE compromise peace
plan as a basis for direct negotiations among the three
conflicting parties. However, Azerbaijan summarily rejected it.
To date, the Assembly has seen no evidence of U.S. pressure
to reverse Azerbaijan's rejection of the proposal. On the
contrary, the Administration has requested an increase in U.S.
aid for Azerbaijan and a decrease in aid for Armenia.
The Administration also continues to push for the Baku-
Cehyan pipeline, despite continued reluctance of major U.S. oil
companies to finance it and the precipitous downward revision
of oil reserve estimates in the Caspian Basin.
Finally, the Administration has renewed its request to
repeal Section 907, the only U.S. instrument in place to
address Azerbaijan's continuing blockade of Armenia and Nagorno
Karabakh.
Based on the above, Azerbaijan has no reason to conclude
that the United States Government is serious about its desire
for peace in the region. It is imperative that U.S. policy
goals regarding this region specifically address Azerbaijan's
continued intransigence in the peace process and refusal to
open its borders with Armenia.
Second, the Assembly recognizes the current budgetary
restraints under which the committee must operate. Therefore,
we recommend that the committee ensure that the NIS account
receive the same percentage of funding as it did in fiscal year
1999.
And as for the South Caucasus generally and Armenia
specifically, we request that the percentage received in fiscal
year 1999 be maintained for fiscal year 2000.
Third, we strongly oppose any efforts to weaken Section 907
of the Freedom Support Act. In its current form, Section 907
constitutes a focused, appropriate message to the government of
Azerbaijan that the U.S. will not support efforts to
marginalize, via blockade, entire populations of neighboring
states.
The blockade by Azerbaijan to the east and Turkey to the
west leave Armenia with only north-south options. This is
contrary to Armenia's stated multi-polar foreign policy.
Armenia recognizes that it lies at the crossroads of three
large powers.
Since independence, Armenia has consistently sought east-
west relations and has been rebuffed. Any attempt to repeal or
further weaken Section 907 legitimizes Azerbaijan's blockade
and rewards its rejection of the compromise peace plan.
Finally, the Assembly strongly encourages the committee to
include last year's House report language recommending $20
million for the people of Nagorno Karabakh in the fiscal year
2000 Foreign Operations Bill.
As a de facto and not a de jure government, Nagorno
Karabakh lacks access to, and hence cannot fully engage in,
traditional international markets and mechanisms established
for recognized states.
Therefore, continued U.S. assistance to Nagorno Karabakh is
critical to ensure that all subsets of the Caucasus develop
generally at the same time and in the same direction. Winners
and losers in the Caucasus will increase instability.
In addition, late implementation by the Administration
should not be visited upon the U.S. PVOs contracted by USAID to
implement the $8.3 million in obligated funds. These
humanitarian organizations should not be held accountable to
play catch up for the Administration's delays.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Armenian-
American community, I would like to express our deep and
sincere gratitude to Congress for its steadfast support of U.S.
assistance to Armenia. With the support of the United States,
Armenia will be able to accomplish its objectives: regional
peace and stability, a successful transition to a pre-market
economy, and a flourishing democracy.
We appreciate your attention to these matters and look
forward to working with all members of the committee.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. I assume you were here when we talked earlier
about Armenia?
Mr. Ardouny. Yeah.
Mr. Callahan. The committee has expressed, and probably
will continue to express, our hope that there is a peace. Some
of us have different views as to the best route to take, but
all of us want to get to the same exact destination, and that
is peace in the area and prosperity and democracy.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Ardouny. Thank you.
Mr. Callahan. Mr. Manatos.
Andy, we will accept your entire statement for the record,
but we must ask you to please respect the five minute rule
since we are way behind.
Mr. Manatos. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. And I
do not see any red lights this year, but I did notice the mace.
Mr. Callahan. Did you see this, Andy?
Mr. Manatos. I did see that. And it is the first thing I
noticed when I entered the room, Mr. Chairman.
Congresswoman Pelosi.
Ms. Pelosi. Mr. Manatos.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
UNITED STATES, GREECE, AND TURKEY RELATIONS
WITNESS
ANDREW E. MANATOS, THE NATIONAL COORDINATED EFFORT OF HELLENES
Mr. Manatos. I would like to just bring you up to date on
an issue I know that you are interested in, and that is the
situation in the Eastern Mediterranean. There have been some
very unique developments that are very positive.
The first, I think, that you would be interested in is what
the government of Cyprus did recently. As you know, it was
exercising its defensive right, as any country can, and had
ordered defensive missiles to be put in to protect themselves
against the Turkish overflights they had had which were a
problem.
Because the government of Turkey had indicated that it
would strike these missiles if they were put in, even though
they were strictly of a defensive nature, in cooperation with
the United States, the government of Cyprus decided to remove
these missiles.
Many people, as you can imagine, many of the Cypriots, were
very concerned and very upset about this, as any Americans
would be if we were to remove defensive missiles of ours.
The government of Greece worked very closely with the
American Government to move those missiles from Cyprus, and
this was all done as an effort to get the Cyprus negotiations
moving and I think it has had some success.
I am sorry to report that the government of Turkey has,
even though these missiles are now on the Island of Crete,
which is where my family comes from in Greece, the government
of Turkey has again threatened to strike the missiles even on
Crete or has threatened military action.
The second dramatic event that occurred was in the United
Nations where two resolutions were adopted very recently which
address exactly the Cyprus issue. And they reiterate that
Cyprus has to be solved in a way that has a sovereignty and
international personality--not only a single sovereignty, but a
single citizenship, independence, territory integrity on a bi-
communal, bi-zonal federated nation.
They also, in another resolution, specified some
suggestions as to how this could move forward and presses for
the new sides to refrain from the threat or the use of force,
to substantially reduce all levels of armaments, to take
measures aimed at reducing tensions and for substantial
progress toward the core aspects of the Cyprus problem, and
additionally to build trust and cooperation.
As you know, on the build trust and cooperation issue, the
President's emissary, Richard Holbrooke, after an extended
period of time and effort to try to solve the Cyprus problem,
identified very dramatically and publicly the Turkish side as
the roadblock to the problem.
And in that regard, you will notice that the second point I
mentioned in the U.N. resolution talks about armament levels.
And our Government has recently discovered, and they are going
to be reporting to the Congress very soon, that unfortunately
the government of Turkey has directly violated a law that was
passed by the Congress in the late 80s specifically prohibiting
American military equipment that we send to Turkey from being
transferred to Cyprus.
And those arms have been transferred, in large amounts, as
you will see, so large that the Secretary General described the
northern part of the island as ``one of the most heavily
militarized areas in the world.''
Now, Greece, which has a contingent legitimacy and legally
on Cyprus, may also have had a small amount of arms go. And, if
that is the case, they are happy to withdraw any of these minor
amounts. The focus here is to get Turkey to withdraw its
armaments.
And I say that--if I were a Turkish American, I would say
the same thing. And I should tell you that I know many Turks in
that country and in this country who feel that the best thing
for them is to move away from this policy and to move forward.
On another subject, the Patriarchate,--as you know, the
Pope of the three hundred million Greek Orthodox around the
world--I use that analogy very loosely--our Patriarch in
Istanbul, Turkey has had terrible problems.
And as you recall two and a half three years ago, there was
a bomb that was defused just before it went off. Had it gone
off, the Patriarch would have been killed and the Patriarchate
destroyed.
Well, in October of this year, you and the Congress passed
legislation which expressed the sense of the Congress that the
Patriarchate should be appropriately treated in Turkey, and
that was very helpful.
The fourth point of that legislation was to reopen the
Ecumenical Patriarch's Halki Patriarchal School of Theology in
Istanbul. That was in October. In November, the government of
Turkey, we are sorry to say, moved and summarily removed the
Board of Trustees from the Theological Seminary.
But I have to tell you, I have got a positive report that
the American Government, working with international agencies
and very closely with the people in Turkey, were able in a few
weeks to reverse that decision and the Board of Trustees were
put back in the Halki Seminary.
And so we are still hopeful, and we have a number of people
in our government who are working very hard to try to get the
seminary reopened.
As you know, the Patriarch, who visited the Congress
relatively recently, speaks eight languages. He is a tremendous
force for peace in the world. You may recall that Congress gave
him the Congressional Gold Medal.
His Congressional Gold Medal received more co-sponsors than
any other gold medal in history. He is an extraordinary person.
And to focus and enhance the Patriarchate does as much good for
Turkey and the people of Turkey as it does for anyone.
And finally, if I might close, Mr. Chairman--uh, oh, I just
realized I better keep my eye on the mace. [Laughter.]
If I might close very quickly, Mr. Chairman, by saying
Ambassador Burns is in town, U.S. Ambassador Nick Burns to
Greece, and can tell you that relations between the United
States and Greece are probably as positive as they have ever
been.
And as you know, Greece is one of only three countries
beyond the British Empire that has been an American ally in
every war this century. So that is saying a great deal.
In summary, in one sentence, things are in pretty good
shape. We have a real opportunity for a breakthrough on Cyprus
this year. And whatever this committee can do in its
legislative report to press for such a settlement will be of
great value to everyone concerned.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. I hope too that the situation in Cyprus soon
will be resolved. We expressed our disappointment to the
Turkish government, even though we recognize they are an ally
of the United States. And currently they are being very helpful
to us in some of our maneuvering in the Middle East to protect
Greece, to protect Cyprus, to protect Israel, to protect all of
the other countries from Iraq.
But we share your views. When the subcommittee was in
Constantinople--I think that is the correct word--we met with
the Patriarch and we expressed to the Turkish president and to
the leadership there our concern about inability of the church
to fully operate in that area of the world.
We are distressed to hear the problems that came up. We are
glad to hear today they are being relaxed somewhat. But thank
you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Manatos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Pelosi. I want to join you in thanking Mr. Manatos, Mr.
Chairman, for his excellent efforts to keep us informed on some
of what is happening there because we are all at the mercy of
the news media and we hear different, differing views.
I, too, am pleased about Resolution 1218, if we can only
really and truly enforce it. Thank you once again for your
testimony and your leadership.
Mr. Manatos. Well, thank you. We are very lucky to have a
talented subcommittee like this one, as I think anyone would
agree with me. [Laughter.]
Mr. Callahan. Mr. Rossides.
I suppose you heard my directions to your predecessor.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
UNITED STATES, GREECE/CYPRUS, AND TURKEY RELATIONS
WITNESS
EUGENE T. ROSSIDES, AMERICAN HELLENIC INSTITUTE
Mr. Rossides. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Pelosi, I am pleased to be
here to present testimony to the subcommittee on behalf of the
organizations listed in my written statement.
We support the amount of $15 million as humanitarian aid
for Cyprus. The 1999 Greek American Policy Statements highlight
the positive contributions and opportunities deriving from the
close U.S. relationship with the vigorous and stable
democracies of Greece and Cyprus.
Greece is a member of the European Union and NATO. It is
the economic and strategic key for the U.S. in Southeastern
Europe. And at this time currently, NATO troops are passing
through Greece on their way to a peacekeeping mission.
Now contrary to some other's views, my view regarding the
role of Turkey, is sharply different. Turkey contrasts the
positive contributions of Greece and Cyprus and plays a
negative role in the area and is the prime cause of many of the
region's problems, including those dealing with Azerbaijan and
Nagorno Karabakh.
The kidnapping of the Kurdish leader, Abdullah Ocalan, has
put Turkey's oppression of its Kurdish citizens on the front
page and illuminated the anti-democratic role of the Turkish
military under its constitution.
Military control leads to lawlessness. Turkey's violations
of international law exceed those of Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
It is also a government wracked with corruption. The State
Department's country report on Turkey issued just last week,
Mr. Chairman, to read that paragraph is just devastating
regarding Mr. Yilmaz stated commitment that human rights would
be his government's highest priority in '98.
Serious human rights abuses continue, according to the
report. ``Extra judicial killings including deaths and
detention from excessive use of force. Mystery killings and
disappearances continue. Torture remains widespread.''
This horrific account of oppression of its own citizens
pains us, as we have no quarrel with the Turkish people. Our
dispute is with the Turkish military. And Mr. Chairman, we have
to confront the grisly reality that in their 15 year war
against its Kurdish minority, the Turkish military has killed
over 25,000 Kurds.
Death squads have assassinated hundreds of Kurdish leaders.
Military campaigns have destroyed 3,000 villages creating over
two million Kurds forced from their homes. The terrible part of
this is that the Turks have done so, in large part, using U.S.
supplied arms such as attack helicopters and armored personnel
carriers.
These horrors far exceed anything that has happened in
Kosovo.
Mr. Chairman, our Nation's involvement in these terrible
acts is an affront to American values which we fought for in
World War II and against Soviet communism. This is a scandal
far exceeding those with which we in Washington have been so
narrowly concerned over the past year.
A critical review of U.S. policy needs to focus on the two
prime determinants: the career officials and Turkey's U.S.
agents of influence. While the President has the final
authority, of course, he does not drive this policy.
It has been driven by a handful of career foreign service
officers together with their counterparts in defense and NSC.
Instead of open government, we have witnessed a cover up of the
State Department's accessory role in Turkey's 1974 invasion of
Cyprus and its pro-Turkish tilt.
It has led to an overwhelming denial that the Cyprus
problem is one of aggression and occupation by Turkey. Mr.
Holbrooke was over and starts to talk about we are going to be
the honest broker, instead of the fact that the State
Department caused the problem and continues to be the problem
with its pro-Turkish tilt.
And it is lack of political will to solve it. The problem
is in the State Department. It is a failure of the United
States' clear moral responsibility to address the problem. It
has made our country a direct accessory in Turkey's aggression,
crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and genocide.
And Mr. Chairman, it has cost the U.S. Treasury billions of
dollars in wasted military and economic aid to Turkey. The
second determinant of this policy is Turkey's paid U.S. agents
of influence on whom Turkey has spent three to four million
annually for over a decade.
I urge the members of this committee to take the lead in
congressional action to mandate a halt to arms sales and
transfers to Turkey, to freeze any loan programs for Turkey, to
eliminate any trade preferences to Turkey, and to instruct U.S.
representatives and international agencies to vote against aid
to Turkey.
Cyprus and in the rule of law. My written statement points
out that it is the lack of political will on the State
Department's part to get this problem settled. The idea of
saying--the President says we are having trouble getting Greece
and Turkey together.
Turkey is the aggressor. Cyprus is the victim. My written
testimony cites 11 examples of the State Department's not
applying the rule of law to Turkey, all to the detriment of
U.S. interests.
You remember, Mr. Chairman and Ms. Pelosi, 35,000 troops
invading northern Iraq. It got Senator Pell so upset that he
introduced a Congressional resolution condemning the genocide
against the Kurds by the Turks.
NATO can play an extraordinarily important role. We have
called for NATO peacekeeping force on Cyprus. Only the U.S. can
do it, but no one seems to want to push that. Demilitarize,
have the NATO force come in, and no one--everyone sits around
because of the Turkish military.
Now NATO's toleration, Mr. Chairman, of the aggression
against Cypress and violation of its own treaty, together with
its silence on Turkey's oppression of the Kurds while it is
supporting Albanian autonomy in Kosovo is a stain on NATO's
honor and a double standard pure and simple.
Mr. Chairman, as I've said, Turkey is the main threat to
U.S. interest and to Greece and Cypress in the region. A close
U.S. relationship with Greece and Cypress represents the best
counter to this threat to U.S. interest.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. We thank you for your testimony and remind
you this is the Appropriation Subcommittee. We do not dictate
foreign policy. We try to fulfill the request of the
Administration's request for money for foreign policy, but we
do appreciate very much your testimony.
Mr. Rossides. Right. I appreciate those comments, sir. But
on the suggestion regarding congressional actions on freezing
loans and trade preference, is that----
Mr. Callahan. We suggest that you go to the International
Relations Committee.
Mr. Rossides. We will, we will. But we know that this
committee has played a great role in human rights, particularly
with yourself, Ms. Pelosi and----
Mr. Callahan. Not our responsibility. We are sometimes
forced to.
Ms. Pelosi. Thank you, Mr. Rossides, for your important
testimony.
Mr. Rossides. Thank you.
Mr. Callahan. Mr. Lucas. Mr. Lucas, we are running far
behind schedule and we would ask you to limit your testimony to
five minutes. We will accept your entire statement for the
record.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
FUNDING FOR UNDP
WITNESS
C. PAYNE LUCAS, U.S. COMMITTEE ON UNDP
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congresswoman
Pelosi.
I am not going to read my testimony. I am going to give you
back a couple of minutes.
Mr. Callahan. I will read your testimony.
Mr. Lucas. I do want to say I am here not so much as an
expert witness, though I have worked at the Peace Corps for 12
years since the beginning--I was there at the beginning and 30-
some years working for Africare in some 40-some African
countries, and now on the new U.S. Committee for UNDP, which
I'm sure this committee can understand because the U.S.
Committee for UNDP is out looking for money that we have not
been able to get from the donor countries.
And the reason that I asked today to come is because we
have asked this committee for $110 million dollars and the
Administration has asked for only $80.
And I am not here to speak for the Administration, but we
are terribly disappointed about that because, at the end of the
day, when you are talking about Africa where we work and where
most of UNDP's money is spent, unless UNDP is supported, all
the talk about foreign trade and stability and bringing Nigeria
to some sort of sense and finding some sort of stability in the
Congo is really not going to happen.
Because at the end of the day, UNDP is the coordinating
agency abroad that prevents all the duplication. It is the
principal agency involved in governance and democracy in
Africa. It is the principal agency which is motivating the
private sector development and the privatization of the African
economies which was reflected in the GAO report and which, by
the way, Senator Helms endorsed wholeheartedly.
So we have a track record and we have reduced the cost of
running--all the criticisms about UNDP not being run properly
may have been corrected through the outstanding, stellar
leadership of Gus Speth. So it is this agency which has paid
its dues, which is working on democracy, which is rooting out
corruption all across Africa, which is pushing good governance,
which is pushing the rule of law.
It is every reason why we ought to support UNDP. And we are
talking about $110 million dollars for UNDP, which is not a
large sum given its mandate of working in 167 countries. And I
think it would be a national tragedy if we did not restore this
$20 million dollars.
And by the way, this is less money than we had in the old
days of--during the Reagan Administration when they said that
President Reagan was not even supporting you and we were
getting $137 million back in those days.
And I am not satisfied with the $800 million that the
committee is--we hope will entertain for our whole aid program
for Africa. And I hope that will stand. I am not arguing for
any cuts anyplace because we need every nickel we can get in a
continent where there are 55 countries, 800 million people.
And now, Mr. Chairman, when we start to talk about oil and
oil resource, when we look along the west coast of Africa, most
of the oil is there. And for these countries to be stable has a
lot to do with the future of our trade and development with
Africa, which I want to compliment you for the support you have
given our Trade Bill.
So whatever you do when you are divvying up the pie, please
restore the $20 million.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. I wish you had had the opportunity to present
your case to the President before he made his request. We do
not know why the Administration did not fulfill what we think
is something that should be funded, but we know the President
was anxious to submit a balanced budget.
And you know Senator Helms' position on this. You know this
committee's position and so does the President. So he says
well, what can we do? We know they are going to go in and fund
these X, Y Z program. We know they are going to give money to
child survival.
We know they are going to do all those things no matter
what we say. So he balances the budget and then he tells me you
break the budget. Because he takes money away from your program
and is giving it to someone else.
So we have to take it away from someone else, which is what
we are going to do.
Mr. Lucas. I hope you do not--I really hope--I really hope
that you do not take it from Africa.
Mr. Callahan. We have to take it from somewhere.
Mr. Lucas. Do not take it from Africa, please, whatever you
do. This is a desperate situation. You see what is going on in
Sierra Leone. We see what has to happen in Nigeria.
Mr. Callahan. Would you suggest that I take it from Israel?
Mr. Lucas. No, I would not do that because--I cannot
recommend that because some of our strongest supporters----
Mr. Callahan. Neither will Bill Clinton. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lucas. Well, but there are some places--if you want me
to send you a little letter, a private letter where I think you
can take that money, I will be happy to do that. Do you see
what I mean?
Mr. Callahan. We hear your message and we are disappointed,
too, that the President did not make the request. But we will
entertain your suggestions.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Pelosi. Thank you, Mr. Lucas, very much for your
eloquent testimony.
Mr. Callahan. Mr. Lowman.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
FUNDING FOR MIGRATION AND REFUGEE ASSISTANCE ACCOUNT
WITNESS
SHEP LOWMAN, REFUGEES INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Lowman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Pelosi. I
appreciate the opportunity to be here and to present Refugees
International's suggestions for the President's proposal on the
migration and refugee assistance account.
And maybe to put the bottom line summary at the top and say
that we urge you to consider an increase in the President's
recommendation of $660 million for migration and refugee
assistance to $700 million, an increase of $40 million, of
which we would suggest $25 million to be added to the overseas
assistance part of that account.
And in particular, to focus that additional amount on
repatriation programs since those are the part of that activity
that is going unfunded or insufficiently funded by the
international community, and yet it is a vital part of sort of
the end of solving a refugee crisis.
The other $15 million we suggest be added to the refugee
admissions side to include a number of different groups that
need to be considered for admission, including additional
Bosnians.
And also including our former U.S. Government employees in
Vietnam who have had a rather badly handled resettlement
situation for quite a number of years and that is now being at
least discussed in Washington and there is some possibility of
some action being taken, but they are going to need some
admission numbers as well.
Now, Refugees International is an advocacy organization and
we do our work by sending our advocates to many parts of the
world to take a look at situations that we find there, refugee
emergencies, and to try to recommend how to help these folks'
situation.
In doing that job, we have brought to us everyday the depth
of the misery that exists out there in this post-Cold War world
and the extent of the need. Now, the President has suggested
$463 million for overseas assistance.
That seems like a generous amount. It is a generous amount.
But when you really look at it, it ends up that it is working
on refugee problems on the cheap. That is what it comes down
to. And when you do that, like in most other areas of human
endeavor, it is not cost efficient.
It is not humane efficient either, by the way.
One of the most important parts of dealing with the refugee
crisis is getting folks home. If the situation in their home
country changes and they can finally go home, you want, maybe,
you hope you will have funds for this--the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees has been operating on about a two-
thirds level, two-thirds steam, for the last few years, year
and a half.
Contributions have gone down, and yet the need has stayed
up. They have been able to fund refugees in the camps. They get
shelter and food and some medicine. But when it comes time to
go home, the repatriation programs are not well funded.
A couple of quick examples. In both Cambodia and Burundi
recently, there were returns in which the returnees found that
there was very little--if anything, in the way of rural health
or water. In Rwanda recently, this past year, I guess, there
were something like 300 school rooms with no roof. No roof, no
funding. Not cost efficient and not humane efficient.
Now if these folks come back into that kind of a situation
and there is not the infrastructure or the ability to come back
into the mainstream of society, they remain an indigestible
lump in the body of politic and they sit there. It is bad for
them; but they also form, and too often become, the source of
conflict and tension, renewed violence and renewed waves of
flight.
So it is not a cost efficient way to deal with it. And we
urge that you consider an increased appropriation that would
focus on that part of the problem.
Another piece of repatriation is particularly important,
the situation of the child soldiers. Mr. Chairman, there is
something like 250,000 child soldiers, many of them under the
age of 15 fighting in 33 wars around the world.
We recently read of some of these kids in the low teens
doing really terrible things in Sierra Leone. Now what they did
was horrific, but the effect on them is also horrific. And
there are programs to help them, and they have to be brought
back into the society both in humane and humanitarian terms for
them, but also in prudential terms.
Because if they are not brought back in, they are going to
remain a serious element of violence in that society for the
rest of their lives. And yet, in Liberia where this is an
important problem, UNICEF has some well regarded programs to
work on this problem.
But they are only working in two out of four areas that
they wanted to work. Question of funding. Not cost efficient,
not humane efficient.
Briefly, with respect to admissions, the President's budget
will fund 80,000 admissions. That is a level--33% below the
beginning of the Clinton Administration. In 1993 they had
132,000 admissions. There is no real reason for this drop.
New programs have come along. The Bosnian program is the
biggest program now; in the biggest element of the U.S. Refugee
Program. Many members of Congress, on a bipartisan basis, have
suggested a range of refugee admissions between 90,000 and
110,000.
We are suggesting that you add 10,000 to that 80,000
budgeted by the President, which would cost an extra $15
million. We believe that that would take care of some important
pieces. Maybe not every piece, but especially our former
employees and some additional Bosnian members.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. Thank you, Mr. Lowman, for your testimony.
Mr. Lowman. Thank you.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hartke.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
WITNESS
JAN HARTKE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, EARTH VOICE
Mr. Hartke. As you said, my name is Jan Hartke. I am
Executive Director of Earth Voice. I also serve as the co-
chairman of the Alliance for United Nations Sustainable
Development Programs which now--since my last time to testify
in front of you, it now has over 70 national organizations to
do education and monitoring.
Not lobbying, but education and monitoring on those issues.
And in our membership of constituents, we are over eight
million people in this country. So we have tried to gain some
public support for the kinds of leadership that this
subcommittee is taking.
And I just want to say that your leadership, Congressman
Pelosi's leadership, and the subcommittee's leadership on these
matters is tremendously appreciated.
In the communities that I work with, the nongovernmental
organization community, it is sincere. Your steady support for
the kinds of things that need to be done are affecting real
situations around the world.
So I want to turn to three examples, if I could.
Earth Voice now, with our partner organizations, operates
in 110 countries. I want to give you three examples. When I am
in a country, among other projects, I always have made an
effort to try to stop in to see the projects of three different
institutions that my testimony relates to today and I would
like to have incorporated into your record.
First is the United Nations Development Program which Mr.
C. Payne Lucas has already alluded to and I want to concur with
all of his remarks on that. Second, the Global Environment
Facility. And third, the International Fund for Agricultural
Development.
First let me direct your attention to Central America. In
Belize, the Prime Minister Said Lusa has been very supportive
of an effort to try to help create a corridor from the sea near
the Port of Honduras in the southern part up into the Maya
Mountains, and connecting up to the Meso-American Biological
Corridor for all of Central America.
In that country, the United Nations Development Program
resident representative proposed that we try to create this
corridor with everybody weighing in to help: government,
private sector people, nongovernment people, community people.
And they said that the multilateral institutions could help
do a lot of sustainable development work, but they were not
allowed to buy land, which was at the hub of this particular
corridor. And so I said well, how much do we need? They said a
million dollars.
In the course of that last year, we have now raised a
million dollars to buy that land to work in conjunction with
multilateral institutions. A million dollars is not a lot
necessary to Congress, but it is hard out there in the world
for folks like us to raise land for--money for Belize.
So what has happened? Why are we buying this land? It is
one of the principal lowland tropical forest regions left in
Belize, number one. Number two, we come from a perspective that
the biodiversity of the world is an extraordinary thing to
lose, and I would hate to stand and watch while the great
creatures of the world disappear.
In that region we have the largest concentration of jaguars
in Central America, for example, pumas, marges, tapirs, howler
monkeys, unbelievably rich wildlife. So this whole concept was
created by the United Nations Development Program, an on the
ground program working with peoples and communities.
We participate as a partner of this Congress, an
extraordinarily minor partner, but a partner nonetheless. We
get no money from the United Nations Development Program, nor
do we ask for any.
Second area of concern in the Central Asian area. Half of
the Aral Sea, the fifth largest sea in the world, is gone. It
is disappearing from the map. If you take your own globe and
look at it and put your thumb on it, there it is.
And it is disappearing, an area that size. Now, of course,
everybody in the world blamed it on the--and properly so--on
the old Soviet Union, who took the two rivers that fed the sea
and diverted them to be able to plant cotton in a desert.
Well, it has become a disaster. The whole world condemned
it as an old failure of communism. But the question is now that
communism doesn't prevail: Are we going to be able to start to
save the sea and be able to do something about it?
In that region of the world again, it is the United Nations
Development Program that is spearheading the only leadership in
terms of trying to pull together the region to, one, push the
rivers back into the sea so it does not disappear in our
lifetime.
Restore a fishing industry that used to be vibrant and
powerful and fed Russia and now has collapsed. So here again,
we have an area where UNDP's leadership on the ground I have
seen is absolutely crucial.
The third region of the world, and I would just share this
with you, is about the second institution I mentioned, the
Global Environment Facility. Down in Patagonia off the coast of
Argentina, you stand on the beach and you look at an area from
that end of the room to this end of the room and you see great
southern right whales lolling off the shore with their calves.
This is their breeding ground. This is where they take
their calves. Without a Global Environment Facility plan, those
southern right whales would all be destroyed. Not only are we
saving the whales, but they are creating an economic future for
the people because the tourism industry is growing in the
region.
In the International Fund for Agricultural Development, my
last comment would be they are doing an extraordinary effort of
trying to save half of the continent of Africa from becoming a
desert. They and the UNDP are the best in the world at that.
That is a significant effort.
C. Payne Lucas has already talked about that. I very much
appreciated your remarks and your leadership. I do not see how
America can expect to become and stay as a leader in the world
if we are going to let our guard down and only adhere to the
Administration's $80 million request.
It simply is not worthy of a U.S. power. And I hope that
the Congress here will continue the leadership you have
manifested in the past.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. Thank you for your testimony. How is that
tree coming along?
Mr. Hartke. It is still growing, sir. It is coming along in
wonderful shape. And we are hoping to have leaves in it in a
month. [Laughter.]
Mr. Callahan. Mr. Watson.
Mr. Watson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you, sir. I guess you have heard my
admonition to the panelists today. We are going to have to
request that you submit your testimony for the record and limit
your remarks.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
WITNESS
ALEXANDER F. WATSON, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
Mr. Watson. Thank you very much, sir. Thanks for the
opportunity to present the views of The Nature Conservancy on
assistance for fiscal year 2000.
The Nature Conservancy's mission is to protect plants and
animals that make up the natural world, primarily by protecting
their habitat. Our budget is approximately 92% from private
sources.
Our operations in the United States center on creating and
running the world's largest system of private park reserves and
also working with local communities and government
organizations at every level to try to find the most efficient
ways to protect valuable areas.
We also work in more than 30 foreign countries in Latin
America, the Caribbean, now in Canada, Asia and the Pacific.
Overseas we help local organizations improve the effective
level of biodiversity protection mainly in existing parks and
protected areas by strengthening local institutional
capacities, building infrastructure and engaging local people
in community-based conservation.
We help protect more than 74 million acres in Latin America
and the Caribbean alone. And we are also working at critical
sites in Asia and the Pacific like Indonesia and Papua New
Guinea.
It has become increasingly apparent, I think, that the
destruction of natural ecosystems can be a major threat to
political and economic stability in the developing world, and
hence the concern not only to environment--to conservationists
and environmentalists, but also to the broader public.
In the Convervancy's international program, we receive the
support of the Agency for International Development. It is the
primary instrument by which the U.S. Government contributes to
biodiversity conservation globally.
The Conservancy's Parks in Peril Program, which is the
flagship of our efforts in Latin America and the Caribbean,
helps of paper parks--that is to say parks that exist only on
maps become genuinely protected areas with assistance from
multi-year cooperative agreement with AID.
We are certainly grateful for that support. Currently,
while continuing to implement the Parks and Peril Program, we
are designing an improved program which we are calling at this
point Parks and Peril 2000, for want of a better term.
And the core of that program is projected to be to work at
a number of large platform sites from which we expect to
influence conservation practices in the broader system level by
national park authorities and others and private citizens as
well in the countries where we work.
Aid commitment to international conservation leverages
resources from non-U.S. Government sources. For example, the
$32 million that Parks and Peril has received since 1990 from
AID has leveraged more than $180 million from a wide range of
donors, including the multilateral banks, the GEF as well as
private donors in the U.S. and local governments and local in-
country partners.
This committee traditionally has a record of recognizing
the importance of defending biodiversity and approving funding
for it. We certainly appreciate these past endorsements and
urge the committee once again to strongly support funding for
Parks in Peril, as well as the rest of AID's biodiversity
programs in the fiscal year 2000 appropriations process.
In recent years, biodiversity funding has typically totaled
between $50 and $70 million annually. We recommend that it be
continued at the high end of that range.
We also endorse the proposed appropriations to two other
items of great potential for international conservation. First,
we strongly support full funding of the Administration's $50
million request level for the Tropical Forest Conservation Act,
which is an innovative measure that emerged from a bipartisan
consensus in the Congress last year. I believe Congressman
Portman has already testified before this committee today on
that issue.
I would assume the leverage of about two or three to one in
these kinds of debt-for-nature swap deals. So this could
leverage between $100 and $150 million in the first year of
activity to protect tropical forests around the world.
And, secondly, we endorse appropriation at the $143 million
level requested by the administration of the Global
Environmental Facility (GEF). It is projects to help
biodiversity conservation in developing countries that are the
largest single beneficiary of GEF funds.
We have appended to the statement submitted for the record,
with your permission, some report language, suggested report
language that may be useful, we hope, in your consideration of
these matters.
That concludes my statement.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. Thank you, Mr. Watson. We appreciate very
much your testimony.
Ms. Pelosi. I want to thank Mr. Watson also for his
leadership and his excellent testimony.
And he did not use up all of his time, let the record show,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Callahan. Certainly, we will give you some money.
Mr. Watson. Thank you very much.
Ms. Pelosi. Thank you, Mr. Watson.
Mr. Callahan. The less time they take, the more money they
get, is that----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Callahan. Ms. Fitzhugh.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
WITNESS
ESTRELLITA JONES FITZHUGH, WORLD WILDLIFE FUND
Ms. Fitzhugh. I represent World Wildlife Fund, known
worldwide by its panda logo. WWF is the largest international
conservation organization with 1.2 million members. We work in
over 100 countries to protect and save the earth's rich
biological diversity.
Today we are witnessing a conservation crisis. During our
tenure as the dominant species on this planet, we are causing
the loss of plants and invertebrates at an extraordinary rate.
We are losing forest cover at an astounding rate of over an
acre a second. This loss of species and their habitat is our
loss. Some 950 million people depend on fish as a major source
of protein, yet 60 percent of the world's major fisheries are
overfished. As forest destruction and degradation increase, our
protection against CO2 emissions decreases. The
Central African chimpanzee being hunted into extinction, is now
potentially an important source of the AIDS cure.
This disturbing stress on biodiversity goes largely
unnoticed in our daily lives. Societies have second chances to
bail themselves out of financial crises. We do not get second
chances when plants, animals, and their habitats disappear.
WWF believes the subcommittee can help address this
conservation crisis in four ways:
One, direct USAID to adequately fund its conservation
programs, and, where appropriate, restore funds to these
programs. Why is this necessary? Mounting anecdotal evidence
suggests that AID's commitment to conservation and natural
resource management has been seriously compromised in the last
few years.
This is distressing, given the fact that USAID has been the
world's premier bilateral agency in integrating biodiversity
conservation and sustainable use of natural resources in its
development programs. Yet, in the past few years, USAID has
whittled down its funds for biodiversity and natural resource
management, seriously undermining the staff's ability to carry
out initiatives noted above.
The reasons for those reductions are unclear. Some at AID
argue that faced with congressionally-mandated overall budget
cuts they are forced to cut conservation funding to fulfill
congressional priorities in other areas.
On the other hand, some in Congress contend that the
agency, in its rush to be responsive to this legislative body,
overreacts by slashing other programs' budgets. A strong
subcommittee directive to USAID, as noted above, would
considerably clarify this situation.
I have attached to my testimony examples of AID's proposed
budget cuts in biodiversity conservation.
The subcommittee's directive to USAID is critical and
timely. Why? Many countries today facing fiscal crises are
tempted to accelerate environmental degradation for quick
financial gain. The subcommittee, therefore, must make clear to
AID it is especially vital at this time to stay engaged in
these countries.
Two, urge AID to update its action plan on biodiversity.
Three, support full U.S. contributions to the global
environment facility. WWF urges both the Congress and the
administration to remove GEF as a hostage to the Kyoto Protocol
debate and allow the facility to continue its valuable work in
conservation.
Four, provide full funding for the Tropical Forest
Conservation Act.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, we
urge you all and your staff to visit these natural resource
management projects around the world. It is the only real way
to really experience the world's great natural systems and to
understand the programs that are there to address the threats
to those systems.
Thank you very much. I hear you are taking a plane, Mr.
Chairman. So for your reading pleasure, I would like to give
you a copy of our annual report, and National Geographic's
February Publication. [Laughter.]
The February issue was entirely devoted their whole issue
to biodiversity. I would like to also give copies to the
gentlewoman from California as well.
Ms. Pelosi. Thank you.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you very much.
Ms. Fitzhugh. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. David Nemtzow.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
U.S. AID ENERGY PROGRAMS
WITNESS
DAVID NEMTZOW, PRESIDENT, ALLIANCE TO SAVE ENERGY
Mr. Nemtzow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. I am here to testify in strong
support of the administration's fiscal year 2000 request for
USAID's energy programs. And if time permits, Mr. Chairman, I
will respond to the question you asked to Mr. Lucas about how
you can find some money, as well as how to spend some. So stay
tuned.
I am David Nemtzow. I am President of the Alliance to Save
Energy. We are a bipartisan nonprofit coalition of business,
government, environmental, and consumer leaders dedicated to
energy efficiency. We were founded by Senator Charles Percy in
1977. We are chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman today and co-
chaired by your colleagues, John Porter and Ed Markey. Over 70
companies participate in the Alliance to Save Energy's
programs.
I am here today, Mr. Chairman, to testify in strong support
of USAID's energy efficiency programs, and to thank you for
your past support of these invaluable activities. We believe
that USAID plays a vital and a unique role in promoting the
development of sustainable and rational energy policies in
developing countries.
These are countries, of course, that typically lack
reliable supplies of electric power and other forms of energy
AID spurs the transfer of U.S.-made energy efficiency
technologies and services to the countries. AID is also helping
to leverage millions of dollars from The World Bank, from
foundations, corporations, and other agencies.
By working with the private sector, AID has also been
instrumental in expanding markets for U.S.-made products. You
know, Mr. Chairman, from your service in Congress that energy
is an international issue. It is inherently international, and
we all learned that from the Arab oil embargo and the Gulf War.
And a barrel of oil saved in Bombay helps world oil
markets, much as a barrel saved in Birmingham. It helps
decreased world demand keep prices down. So by helping the
international environmental equation, we are helping our own at
the same time.
And we have had a lot of success working at the Alliance
with AID in Ghana, Mexico, Russia, Hungary, India,and elsewhere
to get this message across of creating jobs, reducing energy
costs, and protecting the local and global environment.
So, in short, Mr. Chairman, energy efficiency is a very
attractive approach in the developing world to solve energy
problems. There are lower costs in building power plants in
many cases, and they reduce the risk of electric shortages
throughout the developing world.
I would like to offer four concrete suggestions for your
consideration and for the subcommittee's consideration as you
work on the AID budget.
First, I strongly and respectfully urge you to provide
continued support for USAID's energy programs. And I ask you to
ensure that the agency continues to include efficiency
prominently throughout all its work. This can only succeed if
efficiency is fully integrated into their work.
This is really the heart of the problem with the agency,
Mr. Chairman. For the different bureaus and missions, energy is
rarely at the top of the list. Hunger or population or these
other issues are at the top of the list. But energy is always
on the list. And unless this subcommittee continues to provide
direction to the agencies, energy will get cut off. It is never
at the top, but it is always on the list, and you need to
remind them of that.
Secondly, I urge you to work with the agency to undertake
the same kind of bold initiatives in the energy sector that you
have done in child survival and in biodiversity and the other
areas. With direction from this subcommittee, the agency can
raise the profile of energy and infrastructure issues, and that
is very important to the missions in the bureaus.
Three, we see disasters increasing worldwide, Hurricane
Mitch being the most recent example. And to rebuild from those
disasters is, of course, a terrible burden to the local
population and to governments who want to help. But at least it
provides us an opportunity to rebuild sustainably, to use
energy wisely for future generations. And our chairman, Jeff
Bingaman, recently wrote to USAID asking that efficiency in
renewable and coal technologies be built into redevelopment
efforts.
And, fourth--and this is the area, Mr. Chairman, where you
can save some money, not just spend it--AID, as well as the
State Department, for that matter, and other agencies under
your jurisdiction, have a great opportunity to provide
leadership in this area by incorporating energy efficiency into
the construction and retrofit of their own buildings.
The missions overseas, the embassies, should be built
energy efficiently for two reasons. It helps showcase U.S.
technologies. And we are rebuilding in Nairobi and Dar es
Salaam, of course, as well as a new AID mission in Cairo. But
it also helps to cut the agency's utility bills.
The Alliance to Save Energy recently did a study. I do not
know if you know, but the Federal Government owns 500,000
buildings worldwide--Army barracks to embassies abroad. The
U.S. Federal Government spends $8 billion a year on energy
bills. At least a billion and a half of that is wasted.
So by directing the agency--I know you will have Secretary
Albright, Administrator Atwood before you. I hope you will ask
them what they are doing to cut their own energy bills, so you
can spend the money on UNDP or biodiversity or Israel or
whatever the subcommittee's higher priorities are.
And so while I recognize that AID's broad mission makes
your challenge so great about finding support for their
different activities, I hope you will continue your work in the
past to send a message to the agency that energy matters. And
by helping nations cut their energy bill, they will help
promote their local development, they will help promote the
sale of U.S.-made products and services, and they will help
protect the local and global environment.
So I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for providing us the
opportunity to testify before you today.
Mr. Callahan. We thank you for coming.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. Mr. Derrick.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
INTERNATIONAL ENERGY PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
WITNESS
JOHN DERRICK, VICE PRESIDENT AND TREASURER, U.S. ENERGY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Derrick. Good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity
to appear before you to represent the United States Energy
Association, of which I am First Vice Chairman and Treasurer,
and I am also the President and Chief Executive Officer of
PEPCO.
I would like to first begin by stating that our
association, the U.S. Energy Association (USEA), considers the
International Energy Partnership Program to be one of the most
effective and cost efficient foreign assistance programs of any
sector. Evidence of this fact is that the Europeans have
replicated this program in the energy sector specifically, as
well as other sectors.
Perhaps most compelling is the continued participation of
the United States private sector participants, electric
utilities, and others who contribute their time and expertise
toward meeting the partnership goals. None of these companies
would continue to invest their time and resources if they were
not convinced of the value of our program.
USEA's partnerships are also recognized as being in the
strategic interest of the United States by promoting economic
stability, democracy, environmental protection, and market
economies. Our very national security is enhanced by these
efforts.
In 1992, utilizing the experience and resources of the U.S.
energy industry, USEA launched our International Energy
Partnership Program. To date, USEA has established 45 utility
and regulatory partnerships in 22 developing countries or
countries in economic transition. Over 5,000 utility and
regulatory executives have participated in USEA partnerships
since 1992.
Since the inception, 35 U.S. electric and gas utilities and
eight U.S. regulatory commissions have participated. Examples
of these include the Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia Power
companies, the California Public Service Commission, Public
Utilities Commission, Pacific Enterprises, Sacramento Municipal
Utility District, and the Independent System Operator of
California. And from Texas, Central Southwest, Houston Power
and Light, and Texas Utilities. And there are many, many more.
USEA receives funding support from three sources--first,
the USAID Office of Energy, Environment, and Technology of the
USAID Global Bureau; secondly, the USAID Bureau for Europe and
New Independent States; and, thirdly, the Overseas USAID
Missions.
The goal of these partnerships is to promote more
efficient, environmentally sound supply and use of energy by
transferring commercially viable, market-oriented approaches to
overseas electric and gas utilities. Additionally, these
partnerships help to enhance opportunities of U.S. investment
and trade in international energy markets.
The partnerships are very cost effective. On average, every
dollar of USAID funding leverages two to three dollars from the
U.S. and overseas utility partners.
We understand that in last year's report this subcommittee
urged the USAID to stress particular matters in its energy
programs, including power sector and energy use efficiency,
collaboration with U.S. Industry, host country institutional
capacity building, legal or regulatory reform, trade and
technology transfer.
From the following abbreviated list of results emanating
from USEA's International Energy Partnership Program, I believe
you will see the usefulness of this collaborative approach to
foreign assistance. In India, the Southern Company of Atlanta,
Georgia, has been short-listed to participate in a joint
venture with their partner, Calcutta Electric Supply Co., to
build, own, and operate a 700-megawatt independent power plant
in India.
The Columbia Gas Distribution Company helped its Russian
utility partner establish an automated customer information
system and direct access payment centers that is projected to
save $61 million.
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation's international subsidiary
has signed a joint venture to market solid state electric
meters, made under a Niagara Mohawk patent, in India to replace
the unreliable mechanical meters used by most utilities.
And moving to modern technology, microchips, and so forth,
we essentially are able to take a system like India's and just
leapfrog several generations that America has gone through to
reach this point. So it is a great leap forward kind of an
approach. Plus, it provides business for U.S. companies.
USEA established the U.S. Caspian Oil and Gas Environmental
Program to join U.S. oil and gas companies with the nations
bordering the Caspian Sea to solve critical environmental
problems.
In India, Pennsylvania Power and Light helped its partner
to improve the generation efficiency of coal-fired power plants
and utilize fly ash waste. in Senegal, GPU--General Public
Utilities--from New Jersey helped to redraft the electricity
laws and regulations to permit private sector participation in
its power generation and distribution system.
It seems like a bureaucratic thing to do, but I have come
to learn how fundamentally important it is to get the laws and
regulations in these evolving overseas economies straight, so
that there can be maximum opportunity for others to help out.
USEA would like to thank you for this opportunity the
subcommittee has given us, and for USAID for supporting our
International Energy Partnership Program, and we would like to
make three requests.
The first request is that the Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations support continued or increased funding for the
energy programs of USAID Global Bureau and USAID Bureau for
Europe and the New Independent States, especially for the
international energy partnerships.
Secondly, we would urge your support for the lifting of
sanctions on India to enable our program to continue to
assisting the electric utilities and regulatory commissions of
that important nation.
And, finally, we would urge you to encourage USAID to
support a Central American utility partnership to enable U.S.
utilities to provide management assistance to the utilities in
Central America that were devastated by the impact of Hurricane
Mitch.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you, Mr. Derrick. And your entire
statement shall be inserted into the record.
Mr. Derrick. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. Dr. Guthrie.
Good morning, Doctor. I guess you heard me admonish people
about taking more than five minutes?
Dr. Guthrie. I caught on. [Laughter.]
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
DR. RICHARD L. GUTHRIE, INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
GROUP
Dr. Guthrie. Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the
committee, thanks for letting me speak today about
international agriculture and rural development. I am speaking
on behalf of an informal coalition of universities that are
interested in international agricultural development and
research.
The group is led by Peter McPherson, President of Michigan
State University and a former administrator of the Agency for
International Development.
And so I think you know I represent one of the 22
universities that are involved--Auburn University in Alabama.
And there are 22 universities informally involved in this
coalition, 22 of the finest land-grant universities in the
United States.
Let me briefly explain why we think agricultural
development is a key to overall economic development, including
our own in the U.S. As the per capita incomes rise above the
subsistence level in many of the developing countries, people
spend more of their income on goods and services other than
food.
Resources have to be shifted out of the agricultural sector
to produce the goods and services, as that demand is
increasing. Modernization of agriculture--obviously,
introduction of new technologies, enhancing productivity--
accelerates that process, while at the same time inducing
broad-based growth.
A food system that produces nutritious, safe, and
reasonably priced food is essential to addressing health
problems, especially for children in the developing world. Two-
thirds of all of the children in developing countries live in
rural areas, and their families primary source of income comes
mainly from agriculture.
Agriculture production patterns, processing, marketing,
educational efforts, and increasing purchasing power are all
keys to improving the nutritional status of people in
developing countries. Therefore, it is essential that
agriculture and food systems development be a primary concern.
We live and work back home, in your districts. How does
international ag development help the farmer in your district?
For example, we believe that assistance provided from
agriculture development in developing countries is one of the
best ways to boost U.S. farm exports. We have seen it
happening.
It tends to generate the broad-based income growth that
those countries need to become better customers--customers for
agricultural products, but not limited to agricultural products
by any means, and enhances the exports of many other U.S.
commodities.
What about universities? I know you are familiar with the
Collaborative Research Support Program, the CRSP program, which
was developed and supported by USAID and land-grant
universities in the U.S. There are nine of them--nine--
involving about--a number of universities in 35 states and
land-grant universities and the District of Columbia.
It is a very efficient research--collaborative research--
program that has been leveraged, really, because of the
contribution from the universities themselves--a minimum of 25
percent cost sharing or matching, and contributions from host
government institutions in other countries, too. We linked
together our scientists through the CRSPS.
Our bottom line is really simple. Ag development is very
important, benefitting institutions and people here in the
U.S., as well as in developing countries. It deserves adequate
funding.
We have been working through this coalition since 1997,
following the '97 appropriations process. By fiscal year 1997,
the funding for ag development had dropped to about $240
million, and I know you know these numbers--a major decrease
from a decade earlier; in fact, a 75 percent decrease.
We worked with your subcommittee and Mr. Atwood and AID,
and we are pleased to see that there has been some recent
increase over the past two years to about $305 million for
overall ag research and development. And we are certainly very
appreciative and grateful for the support of this subcommittee
for what has happened there.
And in the fiscal year 1999 foreign ops bill,
appropriations bill, there was some strong language there
directing the agency to, you know, keep on track here. We
welcome that increased funding; however, we do not really
believe that it has come that close to where it should be. And
we are saying we believe these activities should be funded at a
minimum of $500 million a year--ag research and development--up
from the $305 million.
We do not yet know exactly what is in the USAID's fiscal
year 2000 budget request but have some reason to believe that
that number has gone back down again instead of increasing.
Furthermore, we really believe--in the universities that we
are directly involved in in CRSPs--we would like to see the
funding for those CRSP programs go to $34 million a year. It
would be, you know, an increase of $17 million. That would put
it back close to where it was quite a few years ago, and it
certainly is no major increase.
Thanks for the time, and the opportunity. It has been a
privilege for me to be able to be here and make this
presentation, and we certainly want to thank the subcommittee.
Mr. Callahan. We certainly hope that our messages will have
had some impact on their decision. My daughter Kelly graduates
March 19th. You lose your number one lobbyist. But if she
graduates cum laude, you will have a strong lobby in the form
of----
[Laughter.]
Dr. Guthrie. I will bet she does. [Laughter.]
Mr. Callahan. She has a 4.0 at this point. Do not mess her
up this last week. [Laughter.]
Thank you, Doctor.
Dr. Guthrie. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. Mr. White. Peter, it is good to see you. I
guess you have been here long enough to hear me admonish
everyone else about the time constraints. We are glad to have
you here.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
THE SOUTHERN CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
WITNESS
PETER C. WHITE, THE SOUTHERN CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
Mr. White. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a little difficult
to be threatened with a death sentence if you run over five
minutes. [Laughter.]
I will do the best I can.
I just wanted to say that The Southern Center for
International Studies is a nonprofit, non-partisan educational
institution that is now 38 years old whose purpose is to try to
broaden the knowledge of Americans about international affairs.
Through the years, we have done hundreds of conferences and
seminars and meetings. Sixteen years ago, we began convening
for the first time in American history the former secretaries
of state. Twelve years ago, we did the same with the
secretaries of defense. Those programs continue.
We have also organized meetings with the secretaries of
education, treasury, world leaders. These meetings have been
held around the United States and overseas. All of them have
been televised by PBS. We edit and produce our own television
programs.
Some years ago it became apparent that there was an
interest and a need in the educational world to supplement
courses in international affairs because of the growing lack of
interest among Americans in foreign policy. We, as a result,
developed a teaching package entitled ``The End of the Soviet
Union,'' tested it in Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia,
and got such a positive response we expanded the program to
include several more additions, one on the Middle East, one on
Latin America, Asia, and there is one on Africa coming out
soon.
What has happened is that Americans have never been very
knowledgeable about international affairs. At no time since the
period before the second World War have Americans been, in
fact, disinterested, as they are today. We conclude that this
disinterest is the result of a lack of opportunity for learning
about international affairs at the elementary and secondary
levels of our schools.
We are finding, for example, that social studies teachers
are not necessarily people who have even studied social studies
in college as undergraduates. And, in fact, with the boom in
educational enrollments, uncertified teachers are being added
to the teacher core every day in very large numbers, who have
not had any courses in any of the social studies i.e.
economics, politics, at all. So you have got a real problem.
It is compounded by the fact that 80 percent of all
Americans get all of their news from television, and the
television people only devote on a daily basis two and a half
percent of their domestic broadcasts dealing with international
affairs. So we have got a problem to address.
We have developed these educational materials, we have
tested them in states like North Carolina, Alabama, Florida,
Virginia, Georgia, South Carolina. We now have major university
centers that are designed to distribute these materials. The
idea is to train a core of master teachers in each of these
states who then go out and train other teachers. These are
multi-media packages, which you have seen so I do not have to
describe them to the committee.
We have had now a very encouraging report from North
Carolina. The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill has just
completed--is completing a Ph.D. study on the impact of these
materials, and they are finding that they improve teaching,
teacher morale, and what the students are learning about these
issues.
Interestingly enough, one of the things that is coming out
of this is that students are becoming more interested in
economics, politics, foreign cultures, and that sort of thing,
but they are also showing great interest and curiosity about
their own country, until you get to the point of civics, as you
have mentioned a few times, about being something that
Americans are not very much interested in or informed about.
By the end of next year, we expect to have a similar study
from the State of Alabama. As you know, we have a very well-
defined program in Alabama through UAB-Birmingham. These
materials are designed to educate people about the world, and I
think that they are being very effective. They are updated, by
the way, on a quarterly basis on our web site.
I think that if the United States of America is to be
successfully competitive in the global economic environment,
our high school graduates have got to know more about world
affairs. And that is what the end purpose of the project is.
To date, this project has been supported exclusively with
funds from the private sector, private foundations,
corporations, and states. And my purpose here is to really
inquire as to whether or not we could possibly find funding for
this project in other states. Currently, we are involved, as I
have said, in Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Florida, and Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for allowing me to come
here today.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. Well, thank you very much. And as you well
know, in Alabama, as far as Brian Rich had knowledge, he
briefed me before I had the opportunity to meet with you to be
briefed on your program. You know, you were not specific in
your request. I think you were rather general. Have you
discussed this with USAID?
Mr. White. No, I never have. I have discussed it with the
Department of Education and found that the only money available
in the Department of Education budget is through the Eisenhower
grants, which were designed after Sputnik, basically, and they
have been pretty much centered toward the education of people
in science and mathematics.
States can get an exemption from it, but the reality is
that it is difficult, if not impossible, for social studies
people to get any help from that area.
AID people, I do not know. I have not contacted them.
Mr. Callahan. Well, you know, I do not even know that it
would come under the purview of the USAID, or even the State
Department. But, certainly, there would be an association
there.
Part of the problem with getting adequate funding for
international affairs is a lack of understanding on the part of
the American people. I get very few people in my district who
call me and tell me, ``Give more money to foreign assistance.''
You know, they are all telling me just the opposite. That is
simply because they are not educated because there is no way
they can be adequately educated on the needs of foreign
assistance.
We have been over the studies that have been made, and the
lack of knowledge that they have, not only in foreign affairs
but in basic civics as well.
I still encourage you to look at basic civics and continue
to look at that, because I think that that is a shortage that
we have here in this country.
Thank you very much.
Mr. White. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Callahan. Congressman Pallone, you are late.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Pallone. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Callahan. Well, we are going to let you testify anyway.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Mr. Callahan. Provided you do not take more than five
minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Oh, no, I am going to be very brief and
summarize my testimony, which I have submitted for the record,
if that is okay.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
ARMENIA, INDIA, CYPRUS AND ISRAEL
WITNESS
HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to just briefly go over
Armenia, India, Cyprus, and mention something also about
Israel. You have been--you and the committee have been very
cooperative, as you know, with regard to assistance to Armenia.
And, basically, what I am asking is that the amount provided--
or the percentages that are indicated for the newly independent
states in the former U.S.S.R. stay the same.
I know that you are probably going to tell me that the
amount of the allocation overall is less than last year, but
what I just do not want to see is an increase in the amount of
aid that goes to Azerbaijan and the decrease that goes to
Armenia, which I know the administration has requested, because
I think that sends the wrong signal.
If we had the same percentages as we did last year, you
know, I would be very happy. And, you know, I leave that to you
because I know that, you know, things are getting tougher all
the time with the numbers.
I also wanted to mention that I appreciate your continued
support of assistance to Nagorno Karabakh. There was language
in last year's bill that says that over the two-year period
that ends in September of 2000 that $20 million in humanitarian
assistance be provided to the victims of the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict residing in Nagorno Karabakh.
If that is not reinstated, then, theoretically, it would
expire at the end of this fiscal year. We want that to be a
two-year program, as it was stated in the last year's bill.
I have to be a little critical of the State Department
because they really have not moved on this very much, which is
why we need this two-year period. And, you know, we maybe even
could put some language in there recommending that the deadline
be extended for U.S. aid for initial requests of funding,
because, frankly, a lot of this funding just has not gotten
through.
But I want to thank you for your support on that.
Mr. Callahan. You have many allies on the committee who
share your views, and we have instructed the staff to contact
the administration to find out why more of the money has not
already been allocated.
Mr. Pallone. And you have had some hearings on it--not
hearings, but briefings on it.
Mr. Callahan. We do not want to tell them to spend the
money immediately. We want them to spend it responsibly.
Mr. Pallone. Sure.
Mr. Callahan. But at the same time, we want to make certain
that they do have pipeline ideas at least.
Mr. Pallone. Exactly. I appreciate that.
The other thing, of course, is with regard to Section 907
of the Freedom Support Act. I would, obviously, like to see no
change in that--you know, no--I know that there are some
exemptions that are put in there, and they are likely to be put
in again. But I did not want to see it extended any more with
any other exemptions.
And I was hoping we could get some language in the bill
calling on the administration to report to Congress on what
steps it is taking to ensure that Azerbaijan complies with the
conditions of 907. If you would consider that.
The Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, you always put that in
every year. I would like to see continued strong enforcement of
that.
And the last thing on Armenia--if we could get some
language supporting the Minsk Group negotiations. I know you
are very supportive of that, and you have constantly pushed the
parties to try to do more to come to an agreement on Karabakh.
But if we could put something in there urging the State
Department to stay the course and press Azerbaijan to come back
to the negotiating table--as you know, they have not been
supportive of the latest proposal on the common states, which I
think is a good idea. And if they could come back and consider
that again, and get the committee to say, ``Look at that
again,'' that would be helpful.
I wanted to mention briefly about India. Last year, there
were major efforts that were successful to ease the sanctions
against India as a result of the nuclear tests. And there has
been a lot of progress. The Prime Minister of India went to
Pakistan. There has been a lot of good feeling that has come as
a result of that.
Both parties have made statements about trying to not
conduct nuclear tests and possibly sign the test ban treaty. I
think it is time to just basically eliminate these sanctions
that are not military related.
We still have some sanctions, for example, where the U.S.
is opposed to lending by international financial institutions,
which I think makes no sense. So if you would consider using
the appropriations bill as a vehicle to try to eliminate some
of those sanctions, I would appreciate it.
And on Cyprus, I am asking for $15 million in aid to
Cyprus, also to insulate that from the politics of the
situation. I know there was an effort in the past to link this
aid to a resolution of the dispute over these missiles that
were coming from Russia. But those missiles are not going to
Cyprus now, and so I really do not see any reason why we have
to link the aid to anything--any kind of political statement
like that.
And finally, just, again, to urge the subcommittee to
approve the $2.88 billion in assistance to Israel, which is
actually a decrease in economic aid, but that, of course, is
something that the Israeli government is willing to go along
with in their ongoing efforts to try to, you know, be more
helpful in terms of the amount of assistance that we provide.
But thank you again for all of your efforts.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. Thank you.
Mr. Pallone. Loved working with you.
Oh, let me ask you one more thing. I know that after me
there is going to be testimony by my medical school. They have
a proposal, and I just want you to know that I am very much
supportive of that. They are going to be up here later.
Mr. Callahan. Well, they do not need to testify, if you
request it. I give it the numbers----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Pallone. Thanks.
Mr. Callahan. As long as they do not vote against any
amendments to cut back in my bill and provided----
Mr. Pallone. You will not see that from me. [Laughter.]
Mr. Callahan [continuing]. Provided they do not offer any
amendments to cut----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Pallone. Take care.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you.
Former Congressman Moody. How are you, Jim?
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS
WITNESS
JIM MOODY, INTERACTION
Mr. Moody. How are you, sir? Mr. Chairman, nice to see you.
I admire your stamina and patience and good humor.
Thank you for having me today.
I wanted to just not come up here and ask for more money
for NGOs for AID. That is what usually happens. I thought I
would just share with you a couple of concepts I have that I
think may be more helpful.
I would like to relate the work we do with the NGO
community and with the wider concept of security, global
security. Most of the likely and frequent threats to global
security in today's world, go far beyond the reach of our
traditional military security apparatus. And I think we need to
integrate our foreign policy objectives around that new
reality.
As we struggle to put together a foreign policy framework
in the post-World War period, I think we need to realize that a
number of issues impinge on each other, and that there is a
sort of continuum of issues which I think are particularly
relevant to developing countries where our members work, and I
think therefore, relevant to American NGOs working overseas.
Let me mention points that I think are relevant. One,
economic prosperity worldwide. I think that has to be a key
economic and foreign policy objective. Poor countries with
large populations produce huge future markets for U.S.
products, and, therefore, affect our own prosperity. For this
to happen, the economic growth must be equitable, not
concentrated in a few families, so that a middle class emerges.
Number two, the marketization of human rights. Democratic
societies are better at resolving social and ethnic conflicts,
at distributing food supplies more equitably, and at protecting
the citizens and Americans, visiting and working in these
countries from politically motivated violence. We have seen
that in the last few days.
Further, Democracies seldom, if ever, start wars with their
neighbors and are better at protecting human rights. And
democratically-governed societies with transparent rules of law
and accountability make better decisions that affect us all,
including Americans.
A third point, I would say, is that another goal of our
foreign policy perhaps should be the absence--strive,
specifically, for the absence of social, economic, and
political turmoil. We have seen the fruits of ethnic turmoil in
the Middle East, the causes in the Balkans.
We have seen the results of economic turmoil in Indonesia,
Malaya, and other Asian countries, and on our own farm economy
right here at home, as farm prices plummet for items that used
to be exported to that region.
Prospering democratically-governed countries that allow
space for a vibrant civil society are better able to make
transitions required in the rapidly changing global economy.
Therefore, that I think should be high on our list.
Number four, containment of infectious diseases with
exponential growth in global travel, exchanges, migration,
etcetera. This will become increasingly important.
Number five, and lastly, protection of the global
environment. From protecting the oxygen-producing forests in
the Amazon, Africa, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere, to
protecting the coral reefs, which start the food chain for rich
fish resources, to combatting growing dryness and the spread of
the desert--in all three continents, American citizens,
consumers, and taxpayers all have a stake in that battle.
I recently attended a teleconferencing event with five
former secretaries of state, Mr. Chairman--George Schultz, Mr.
Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, Jim Baker, and Madeleine Albright also
spoke. And they all agreed on one thing--that the threats
facing America post-Cold War are not predominantly military but
are predominantly in political turmoil, economic turmoil,
transnational crime, terrorism, drugs, poverty, and the spread
of infectious diseases.
All of those things are not well suited to what we spend a
lot of our money overseas on, combatting those and dealing with
those. Those are the challenges.
I think it is fair to say that from several decades of on-
the-ground experience in these countries--I myself have served
in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Tunisia, Yugoslavia, and Central
America--that NGOs can make a vital and, in fact, an
indispensable contribution on these fronts, often in
partnership with AID or other forms of U.S. Government
assistance.
I think our NGOs have some advantages, special advantages.
Primarily, American NGOs are very good in this way. They tend
to have low overhead, they have flexibility, a lot of
dedication, and people work for very low or almost no wages.
Also many of them are religiously- or morally-based, and that
gives them a moral credibility. And they reach out for local
partners to work with, which often extends the effect and
impact, and leaves lasting institutions which remain behind
them as they go.
So a final thought would be that we should think of the 150
account, including humanitarian, environmental, human rights,
and democratization accounts as separate from our global
security accounts, export promotion accounts.
I think they all work together, and they all need each
other. They are complementary and reinforcing of our military
spending, our military security, our export promotion, and our
other accounts for global security. They are, in effect,
investments in our children's future.
And, perhaps even more importantly, they are reinforcing
America's traditional and historic commitment to fairness,
human rights, dignity of the individual, and prosperity that is
equitably shared. So I am very proud of what the NGOs have
done, and I think they are well positioned to continue that
work.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. Thank you, Jim. I think you know the feeling
on this committee about the effectiveness of NGOs and they do a
great job.
Mr. Moody. Thank you, sir. And thank you for your support.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you.
Cyrus Jollivette.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
DANTE B. FASCELL NORTH-SOUTH CENTER, AND THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR
HEALTH RESEARCH
WITNESS
CYRUS JOLLIVETTE, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
Mr. Jollivette. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
very much for letting me appear. It is good to see you again.
And I am very mindful of the time constraints that you
have, and I just want to present a brief statement today and
ask that the testimony that I submitted be included in the
record.
And I wanted to talk with you today about two important
nationally recognized centers housed at the University of
Miami--the Dante B. Fascell North-South Center, and, at our
School of Medicine, the International Center for Health
Research.
The Dante B. Fascell North-South Center is permanently
authorized in Public Law 102-138, and it is the only research
public policy study and information center of its type that is
exclusively dedicated to finding practical solutions to
problems in policy issues facing the Americas.
The center works to carry out a congressional mandate to
promote better relations among the United States and the
nations of Canada, Latin America, and the Caribbean. The
Fascell North-South Center combines programs of public policy,
cooperative study, research, and training.
The Fascell Center's priority research agenda focuses on
what we consider to be vital American issues such as trade and
investment, migration, security, democratic governance, civil
military relations, corruption, institutional reform, civil
society participation, and sustainable development.
The findings of the center's research reach scholars, the
policymakers, and opinion leaders in the nation and throughout
the hemisphere through a variety of publications, including
scholarly books and monographs.
We have a wide amount of expertise at the center, and it
has distinguished itself as an invaluable national resource for
identifying, analyzing, and understanding the myriad of issues
that have the potential to impact the United States' future
prospects in a region of growing importance or economic
competitiveness and security.
We believe that the Dante B. Fascell Center is a vital
national resource, and it is uniquely positioned geographically
and academically to create constructive input and play an
important role in these processes.
With a firm research base, and an ever-widening network of
public and private partnerships in the U.S. and the rest of the
hemisphere, the Fascell Center is uniquely placed to facilitate
the constructive development and evolution of cross-border
relationships among the nations and peoples of the Americas.
Respectfully, Mr. Chairman, we are seeking $1.75 million to
ensure that the Dante B. Fascell North-South Center can fulfill
its mandate.
I would like to take a moment, too, to commend you for your
leadership and significant and invaluable efforts in providing
continuing support for the communicable disease initiative in
USAID. Like the subcommittee, my colleagues at the university
believe that it is imperative that the U.S. address the threat
of infectious diseases by responding to the dramatic increase
in the resurgence of communicable diseases affecting children
and adults.
And we need to assist developing countries to strengthen
their ability to protect and care for their people and to stop
the spread of communicable diseases.
For a long time, we thought that emerging and reemerging
diseases would sharply decrease around the world, but the
increase now is for multidimensional reasons, including
population growth and increased mobility, environmental and
climate changes, urbanization, the evolution of microbes, drug-
resistance organisms, modern travel and trade, and
international commerce, travel, migration within the Americas,
which are creating new opportunities for disease reemergence
and greater spread.
The University of Miami is uniquely located in Miami, the
major gateway city to Latin America and the Caribbean. And the
major goals of the International Center for Health Research are
to investigate the biological characteristics of cognitive
microbiologic agents to study the risk factors related to the
spread of these infections, including interactions between the
nutritional status and susceptibility, as well as to develop
innovative, preventive strategies.
One of the important roles of the Health Research Center
involves collaborative infectious disease control and
prevention efforts to broaden the expertise of indigenous Latin
American and Caribbean health professionals, and to link
laboratory science and epidemiology with public health
strategies and policymaking processes.
Our health center's priority is to strengthen programs for
the control of major infectious diseases, particularly malaria,
dengue, TB, and cholera. We also place emphasis on programs
aimed at preventing the spread and reducing the impact of HIV
infection and other sexually-transmitted diseases.
We believe that there is an urgent need to strengthen the
existing research infrastructure and a close collaboration
between U.S. and Latin American and Caribbean scientists and
policymakers. This enhanced research will lead to development
of new effective strategies for control and prevention of the
emerging and reemerging diseases in the Americas.
We hope, Mr. Chairman, that the subcommittee would
encourage USAID to expand its resources beyond its traditional
outlets. And, respectfully, we seek $1 million in order to play
an even far more active role in the necessary and continuing
fight against infectious disease.
I want to thank you very much for allowing me to appear
here today on behalf of the University of Miami.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. Thank you, sir. Former Congressman Larry
Smith stopped by and said that you would be coming and told me
to treat you nicely. Commerce/Justice funds the Dante B.
Fascell Center----
Mr. Jollivette. Yes.
Mr. Callahan [continuing]. We fund infectious diseases
through USAID. But in any event, we appreciate very much your
testimony.
Mr. Jollivette. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you, sir.
All right. Mr. Robert Manoff. How are you this morning,
sir?
Mr. Manoff. Mr. Chairman, it is good to see you again.
Mr. Callahan. Nice to see you.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
NATIONAL PRESS INSTITUTE OF RUSSIA
WITNESS
ROBERT MANOFF, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
Mr. Manoff. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am
the Director of the Center for Peace and News Media at New York
University, which runs the National Press Institute of Russia,
NYU's flagship initiative in that country. I would like to
thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee, for your previous
support for our work and for your support for independent media
in Russia and the NIS, in general.
I am submitting written testimony, and I would like today
to underline and draw attention to five specific points which
have been included in that testimony.
First, even before the crisis, the Russian independent
media were in jeopardy. They faced daunting political,
economic, professional challenges, and renewed government
efforts to restrict their independence and their ability to
operate as a tribune of the people.
However, there was progress being made, partly through the
efforts of NGO's like the National Press Institute, and largely
through the efforts of the journalists and the publishers
themselves, especially in Russia's regions where the oligarchs
had not yet successfully penetrated and bought up the newspaper
system, as they have in Moscow. That was the circumstance on
the eve of the crisis.
The second point I would like to make is that the crisis
that began on August 17th, and in which we still find
ourselves, has been devastating for the independent media in
Russia, and notably for the independent newspapers with which
we mostly work.
Circulation has plummeted. Subscription income, which is
the main source of support, has evaporated in many cases.
Advertising revenue has fallen 70 percent. (And, as you know,
in the United States, and in all systems where commerce and not
state subsidies support newspapers, advertising is the primary
source of revenue.) Paper and printing costs have increased by
100 or 200 percent in some cases. I could go on. The list is
stunning.
The consequences for citizens and Russian democracy are
also very fateful. Papers have become smaller. They have
shrunken in the number of pages. They come out less frequently,
if at all. Staff cuts have been made, cuts in news budgets,
wire services.
In a nutshell, there is less news and less serious
reporting at a time when a crisis in the country and the
economic and political issues really require the informed
consent and participation of the Russian public and policy
elites.
Regional newspapers that once circulated widely now only
circulate within individual cities, leaving much of the country
in an information black hole. News quality is down. The
aggressiveness of reporting is down. Therefore, the role that
newspapers can play in ensuring government accountability is
not being played.
Finally, there is now more government control of the news
media, more government control of all of the information that
flows to the public.
Third--and I want to underline this point--newspaper
publishers and journalists belong to the emerging class of
Russians who neither seek nor expect assistance from the state.
Their confidence has been shaken by the crisis, but their
determination remains strong. In fact, they merit our support--
we might say--a new post-Leninist anti-communist vanguard. They
are really leading the way.
Fourth, the independent print media in the regions are
responding rationally and effectively to the crisis. But they
do not have the resources or know-how to survive on their own.
They are resisting government subsidies. The newspapers with
which we work do not want to be subsidized.
They understand the strings that come with government
funds. They are cutting costs. They are rationalizing
circulation. They are seeking advertising aggressively. They
are improving the quality of their product, which is ultimately
the point of the whole exercise.
Fifth, assistance to the independent media in Russia is a
great investment for this country. The independent media are
the backbone of democracy and free markets, as you know. The
media provide extraordinary leverage and a multiplier effect
that impacts all aspects of American policy. A little bit of
help to the media goes a long way. Media assistance funds are
not wasted funds.
Finally, assistance, however, cannot be piecemeal,
halfhearted. As we argue in the written testimony, it needs to
be sectoral. It needs to be strategic. It needs to be long-
term. Just as it is said that a woman cannot be half pregnant,
it might also be said that the media sector cannot be half
fixed.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you very much for your testimony, sir.
Your entire testimony will be submitted for the record.
Mr. Manoff. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Callahan. We thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. Dr. Feldman. How are you, Doctor?
Dr. Feldman. Fine. How are you?
Mr. Callahan. Fine. Thank you.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY OF NEW JERSEY
WITNESS
DR. LAWRENCE A. FELDMAN, UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY OF NEW
JERSEY
Dr. Feldman. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully present testimony
of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey,
UMDNJ, the largest public health sciences university in the
nation.
The UMDNJ statewide system is located on five academic
campuses and consists of three medical schools and schools of
dentistry, nursing, health-related professions, graduate
biomedical sciences, and our newest school, the School of
Public Health.
UMDNJ also comprises a university-owned acute care
hospital, three core teaching hospitals, an integrated
behavioral health care delivery system, a statewide system for
managed care, and affiliations with more than a hundred health
care and educational institutions statewide.
UMDNJ is the home of the International Center for Public
Health and the Center for Disease Control's Center for
Tuberculosis Research, Education, and Training, both of whom
have established major international collaborations in
infectious diseases research.
No other institution in the nation possesses resources
which match our scope in higher education, health care
delivery, research, and community service initiatives with
state, federal, and local entities.
I appreciate this opportunity to bring your attention to a
priority project of UMDNJ that is consistent with the mission
of this committee to counter the threat of chemical and
biological terrorism.
In our complex world of instant communication and ease of
global transportation, disaffected individuals or political
groups have access to highly destructive weapons of terror.
With our open society, the United States is particularly at
risk to an individual with a grudge, a band of ideologically
motivated fanatics, or to nations seeking revenge.
The possibility of the employment of weapons of mass
destruction on an innocent population has already become a
reality with the Sarin nerve gas attacks in the subways of
Tokyo. State and local governments and health organizations
need reliable information upon which to develop and coordinate
response plans for contingencies due to weapons of mass
destruction. They need programs to educate planners and
response teams on the public health aspects of these threats
and how to recognize and respond to them.
In addition, they need to understand both the short- and
long-term implications for human and ecologic health. Such a
plan requires a broad base of scientific and educational
expertise which has an international scope in order to devise
approaches or to early detection and treatment of biological
and chemical weapons of terror.
As citizens of the nation's most densely populated state,
we in New Jersey have a particular concern about being targets
of violent chemical terrorist activities. Our communities abut
each other, and our traffic patterns are statewide, making us
especially vulnerable to infectious diseases.
There are no obvious geographical boundaries to readily
institute a quarantine. Our central location as a
transportation hub for the populous northeast also makes us a
prime target.
Terrorists have three types of weapons available to them.
For the first, explosive devices, although increasingly deadly
we have developed responses and have become all too familiar
with their form of terror and chaos. The other two types of
terrorist weapons are relatively new and present particular
challenges to our normal response processes.
These are chemical weapons of terrorists, such as nerve
gas, and biological weapons of terror, such as anthrax
bacillus. Chemical and biological weapons differ dramatically
from explosions in that for these newer threats early
recognition and diagnosis is crucial for both those initially
infected and for others who might yet be affected through the
spread of infection or contact with the chemical.
Education of emergency responders to correctly identify
these threats, whether they occur here or abroad, is crucial to
minimize the impact of biological and chemical weapons, as well
as to protecting the emergency responders themselves.
Compounding our problems is the need for a better understanding
of the effects of likely chemical and biological agents of
terrorism, development of the means to prevent their spread,
and to rapidly treat their victims.
We respectfully make four recommendations for the
committee's consideration. One, provide funding for a major
program aimed at improving the recognition of the effects of
chemical and biological terrorism weapons by community
emergency response elements.
Two, unify the approaches to educating emergency responders
about chemical and biological terrorism.
Three, provide multi-agency funding to force the
international research efforts to identify, understand the
pathogenicity, and learn how to neutralize agents being
developed by terrorists intent on using biological and chemical
agents.
Four, provide funding for research designed specifically at
understanding the health effects of chemical and biological
agents on large populations, so that early diagnosis and
treatment becomes more likely.
The nation's foremost program in education and training
concerning chemical and physical threats is headed by a UMDNJ
faculty member, Dr. Audrey Gotsch, who is currently President
of the American Public Health Association. Among her programs
is the Center for Education and Training, which provides
training concerning chemical and physical agents to more than
1,600 police, firefighters, municipal and state employees, as
well as to physicians, nurses, and industrial hygienists.
Because of its scientific expertise, UMDNJ is uniquely
qualified to develop a program to educate state and municipal
governments, emergency responders, and health and hospital
professions on planning for response to terrorism and training
personnel to deal with threats of terrorism and how they affect
the public.
UMDNJ also has the international collaborative studies in
infectious disease and health education, and is uniquely
positioned to study these problems and to provide solutions. We
respectfully seek $1.5 million through the USAID to expand our
research, education, and training programs in response to
threats of chemical and biological terrorism.
A more detailed statement has been submitted to the
subcommittee. I would like to commend the committee on the
important work they are doing into looking into these very
complex and potentially devastating biological threats to our
society.
Thank you on behalf of all us, and my personal thanks for
allowing me to testify today.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you, Dr. Feldman.
Dr. Feldman. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. John A. Donnelly. We will submit your entire
statement for the record. There is no real need to read it to
us.
Mr. Donnelly. Okay. I was not intending to.
Mr. Callahan. I appreciate that. [Laughter.]
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES
WITNESS
JOHN A. DONNELLY, CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES
Mr. Donnelly. I am John A. Donnelly, and I am a
representative of Catholic Relief Services, the international
relief and development agency of the United States Catholic
Conference of Bishops. We are positioned in approximately 83
countries around the world for over 50 years. We have developed
meaningful, interactive relationships with communities, which
has generated sustainable success stories, and, equally
important, has affected a high degree of accountability.
We believe that the money spent on development today does
have success when used properly. In our written statement, we
have made adequate comments about that, and I would really just
like to add a few additional points or highlights, if I may.
One of the, I think, great success stories among the PVO
community today is small enterprise development. Anyone who has
visited these sites, read these reports, and I know some
members of this committee have merited this as a documented
success. CRS, for example, is reaching over 150,000
participants who otherwise would be shut out from any
opportunity to start small businesses.
The criteria that CRS employs is using loans in the area of
$100 to $300. On the face of that, that is almost
insignificant. But it actually does create small capital to
start build--to start businesses. This leads to additional
jobs, and does not create a debt service problem on the part of
the participant.
We would ask this committee to continue to support
legislation on behalf of small enterprise development, and we
are suggesting in the area of $160 million. We would also ask
special consideration be given to targeting a portion of that
money to the poorest countries, so that the small-type loans
that the PVOs are employing can continue to be.
I would also like to talk a bit about child survival, which
also has been another proven winner. It is documented so by the
World Health Organization. And, again, anybody who has visited
these sites, the difficulty with child survival to date has
been--from a PVO perspective, has been that less than three
percent of the overall monies flow through PVO communities.
This is despite the fact that PVOs make a matching
contribution to any Federal Government monies that flow through
the PVO. The requirement is 25 percent. Since the inception of
this program, PVOs have contributed over 50 percent. They do
this voluntarily, and I think it speaks to the deep commitment,
not only of the voice but also of the pocketbook.
We would ask this committee, as it has in the past, to look
carefully at this and see if a higher percentage of the money
could not be earmarked for the PVO community.
Debt relief is an issue that we all agree must be faced,
and the administration and the Congress is certainly taking a
leadership role in that, and we applaud that. We would only
ask, as a thought now, that following Hurricane Mitch special
consideration be given to put increases into the Central
American trust fund.
Finally, CRS would request that special consideration be
given to the basic humanitarian assistance to the very poor.
The efforts of community development through child survival,
small enterprise, education, cannot truly be considered a
success, if a segment of that population is being left behind.
Pope John Paul II, on his visit to St. Louis, reminded us,
once again, that the responsibility of leadership and
compassion falls to those with the power and the resources.
With this in mind, we would ask that the committee seek to
not lose sight of this segment of the population, take the
necessary steps to ensure that there is room in the budget for
those who are simply in need.
I have got a lot of time left over, do not I? [Laughter.]
I was so concerned on getting through my five minutes and
what I wanted to say that I----
Mr. Callahan. Not if you want to hear from me. [Laughter.]
Mr. Donnelly. Mr. Chairman, I do want to hear from you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Callahan. Well, I just want to say, with respect to the
small enterprise fund, the committee is very supportive of that
and will continue to be. With respect to the $100 to $300
loans, that is what it is all about. And we should hope that
the priorities would be given to the smaller, poorer countries.
We assume that is taking place.
Child survival is going to survive. It is going to probably
increase, even though the administration, just as they did for
the small enterprise fund, have requested less. Both are going
to be given more, not less.
PVOs are favored by me and this committee because we get
more bang for the buck out of PVOs. I mean, you can take monies
from them. Catholic service organizations can do more with $10
than any government can do with $100. So we are supportive of
that.
Debt relief--I disagree with you there, but that is not
bad. You are doing pretty good to get----
[Laughter.]
Central American trust fund--I do not know where you all
came up with that, but we are going to look closely at that
request. But I am not real sure about it.
Nevertheless, all of those things that you mentioned that
there is a direct humanitarian relief capability through
Catholic services you are going to get.
Mr. Donnelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Callahan. Now you can give me absolution. [Laughter.]
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. Tim Dickinson.
Mr. Dickinson. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Callahan. Good afternoon.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
WITNESS
TIM DICKINSON, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
Mr. Dickinson. My name is Timothy L. Dickinson. I am the
immediate past Chair of the Section of International Law and
Practice of the American Bar Association. On behalf of our
President, Phillip Anderson, I want to thank you for providing
me the opportunity to testify today.
The American Bar Association, with its over 400,000
members, is the largest professional organization in the world.
Over the last decade, the ABA has participated in pro bono
projects around the world with the goal to strengthen democracy
and free market economies.
We believe as a result of these programs, U.S. foreign
policy objectives have been advanced in the most cost-effective
manner.
The events of the last decade verify that one of the most
crucial aspects of democratization is the development of
credible and dependable legal institutions rooted in the rule
of law. It is the objective of the American Bar Association to
embrace these views, and these are the bases for all of our
programs.
All ABA programs are guided by three principles. First, the
projects are designed to be responsive to the needs and
priorities of the host countries. The countries, not the ABA,
define these needs.
Second, the design of these programs recognize that the
U.S. legal experience and traditions offer only one approach
that participating countries may wish to consider.
Third, these projects are for public service endeavors, not
devices for business development. The goal of these programs
has always been to take a modest grant and leverage those sums
to yield a much greater benefit for the host government and its
people.
The most comprehensive technical assistance project of the
ABA is the Central and Eastern European Law Initiative, CEELI.
Shortly after the fall of the Berlin wall in 1990, CEELI was
organized by our section to provide technical assistance to the
emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe, and, later,
to the newly-independent states.
To date, CEELI has conducted over 500 technical assistance
workshops, assessed approximately 400 draft laws, placed over
200 long-term liaisons and 200 legal specialists in the region,
hosted almost 50 Central and Eastern European law school deans,
sent dozens of U.S. legal reform experts to assist in law
school reform, and placed a variety of students from the NIS
and LLM programs in the U.S.
These programs have involved over 5,000 U.S. attorneys from
across the country and has yielded over $55 million of pro bono
service by ABA members.
In conjunction with the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, our section has undertaken a three-phase U.S.-Africa
legal exchange. The program focuses on Malawi, Tanzania,
Uganda, and Zambia, and seeks to assist these countries in
creating a legal environment conducive for investment and the
provision of efficient legal services.
In addition to this program, the ABA has a number of other
programs in Africa under various stages of development,
including a legal exchange in West Africa, a new project in
Liberia, and, with funding from USIA, the ABA continues to
assist 12 law schools and eight African countries with over 30
U.S. law schools participating.
The ABA has also provided leadership in fulfilling the
agreement between President Clinton and President Zemin, with
cooperation in the field of law. The ABA signed an agreement
with the All China Lawyers Association last May, which will
provide for lawyer training, bar organization and management
continuing legal education, legal information exchange, and law
practice management.
And the ABA recently completed a large trial demonstration
hosted by the National Judges College of the Supreme Peoples
Court in Beijing, comparing the common law and the civil law
systems.
I would also like to take a moment to talk about the ABA's
collaboration with the UNDP. The ABA and the UNDP share the
common belief that sustainable development must be based on the
rule of law that fosters democratic institutions, respect for
human rights, and a vibrant private sector.
The ABA and UNDP have recently agreed to establish a
jointly funded legal resource unit to provide advisory
assistance to UNDP's 132 country offices on the legal dimension
of good governance and adoption of sound macroeconomic
policies.
I have great respect and admiration for UNDP and hope that
the subcommittee will be able to support UNDP at the level it
has also requested.
In conclusion, the ABA encourages continued support for
global rule of law projects that promote democracy around the
world. Our programs encourage respect for the rule of law and
build free markets, free trade, combat corruption, which, in
turn, supports the ability of emerging markets to purchase U.S.
products, thus also supporting our own economy.
I believe that all of these projects that I have described,
and all of those under consideration, we believe that these
provide the bedrock of development, and we hope that the
Congress will continue to support our programs, which, in turn,
support U.S. foreign policy to bring peace and sustainable
development to the world.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you very much. I agree with your
testimony on this educational process of law, and it is so
needed in many of these countries that are having trouble
establishing democracy. It is a vast undertaking to begin with,
but we appreciate the ABA's involvement with that process.
Mr. Dickinson. And we appreciate your support.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you.
Mr. Dickinson. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. Dr. Lintner. According to my list, you are
the last one. Maybe we left someone out.
----------
Thursday, March 4, 1999.
FAITH ACTION FOR PEOPLE-CENTERED DEVELOPMENT
WITNESS
REV. DR. JAY LINTNER, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON OFFICE UNITED CHURCH OF
CHRIST, OFFICE FOR CHURCH AND SOCIETY
Reverend Lintner. Your powers of endurance are
overwhelming. I have been sitting here saying I do not believe
this.
Good afternoon. I am----
Mr. Callahan. Good afternoon.
Reverend Lintner [continuing]. The Reverend Jay Lintner. I
am the Director of the Washington Office for the United Church
of Christ, Office for Church and Society. I am speaking today
on behalf of Faith Action for People-Centered Development,
which is an informal working group of about 20 religious
denominations and faith-based groups who have a long history of
working all around the world for many years.
We are deeply disturbed by public debate that characterizes
foreign aid as an unaffordable luxury. We see a troubling
tendency to justify foreign aid in terms of the narrow and
immediate economic and security dividends that it provides the
U.S.
Since the psalms were written almost 3,000 years ago, we in
the religious community keep trying to point out that
governments define security too narrowly. Chariots alone will
not protect us and give life to the people. Producing justice
is the first task of government.
We now know a great deal about what produces workable
development for people. We know what programs work--I have been
watching this for 25 years, helping to shape our testimony in
different ways, and we know what programs I am not sure we did
25 years ago, but we have learned a lot in the past 25 years as
to what really works to make gains against global poverty and
end starvation. And we know that it is in our long-term self-
interest to do this.
It is also clear over the 25 years I have been watching
this that we are in a zero-sum game, pitting humanitarian and
development assistance against economic and security
assistance. And the interests of the church keep losing out to
the interests of military and economic leaders.
As a result of these trends, the U.S. is now dead last
among the donor countries in official development assistance as
a percentage of GNP. We are not the most generous country among
rich nations. We are the least generous, and only the U.S.
public seems to think otherwise.
Allow me to highlight several areas which we think deserve
priority attention this year. I really appreciate your comments
to Catholic Relief Service.
However, my main point is the one you dismissed. The
biggest priority for us this year is debt cancellation. The
development prospects of many of the world's poorest countries
are being mortgaged to a crushing debt burden. As we, in many
different denominations, have our missionaries come back to
this country, or we talk to partner churches overseas, or we
have the World Council of Churches or the Anglican world
meeting, everyone is clear that this is the number one
priority.
It is the common perception among our partner churches and
people overseas--that this is the essential thing that needs to
be changed, that this is what is killing their people. That is
the perception, and we really believe it needs to be addressed.
Therefore, we are urging the committee to appropriate
sufficient funds to cancel the bilateral debt owed to the U.S.
by all of the highly indebted IDA-only countries by the end of
the year 2000. And this is spelled out in greater detail--to
provide funding for the HIPC trust fund at a level commensurate
with our nation's compassion, wealth, and influence; to direct
the administration to use its voice and vote in the multi-
lateral lending institutions to reform the HIPC process, so as
to provide deeper and more rapid debt relief for many more
heavily-indebted poor countries without current forms of
structural adjustment and conditionality.
Our second priority, the thing we would stress the
heaviest, is to give priority to sub-Saharan Africa and Central
America. Faith Action believes that support for people-centered
development in sub-Sahara Africa and reconstruction in Central
America should be the top priorities for U.S. assistance.
Inasmuch as Central America reconstruction efforts are
being dealt with elsewhere, we will focus our comments here on
programs primarily related to Africa, except for one brief
comment, which is that if the money for Central America is not
taken out of supplemental aid, we would really urge that
tradeoffs not be made which pit the poor of Central America
against the poor of this country.
Last year Congress recommitted the U.S. Government to
strengthen Africa agriculture and food security and to follow
people-centered principles in the process of passing the Africa
Seeds of Hope Act. We applaud Congress. This is the kind of
development we know works, and we urge you to watch what it can
do.
We continue to call for transfer of resources from the
Middle East to regions where human development needs are
greater. We commend the committee and you personally for
establishing a ceiling earmark on fiscal year 1998 for funding
for the Middle East region.
Additionally, we are encouraged by the decision of Israel
and Egypt to accept annual reductions of economic assistance
over the next nine years, and by the administration's proposal
this year to accelerate this process.
However, we would like to see the full amount of these
reductions rededicated to development programs and oppose the
proposal that half of Israel's reduction in economic assistance
be redirected into military assistance for that state. We do
not need more chariots.
Specifically, here are some programs that work. Let me
mention them just very briefly. The Development Fund for
Africa--the administration request for $745 million, and
reestablished Development Fund for Africa, and support the
International Development Association.
We think that the International Fund for Agricultural
Development, IFAD, is very worthy and are disturbed that it has
been challenged. We think the African Development Foundation
deserves more support and would urge you to increase that
funding up to $17 million, which was the 1995 levels.
We also want to thank you for support in Congress for
eliminating land mines, and we want to register our concern
about the anti-narcotic programs, which we think are not
producing what they should.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
Mr. Callahan. Thank you very much. I cannot believe that
your organization prioritizes debt forgiveness at such a high
level when you must recognize that the debt was created by
corrupt politicians and did not go into services for citizens.
And what they are attempting to do is to eliminate the debt
for one purpose--so they will be financially, sufficiently
stable enough to borrow more money to go into Swiss banks. And
you must know that takes place. You must know that Haiti is a
classic example of the billions of dollars we have spent where
there has been no significant evidence of improvement.
To recommend that we relieve their debt so they can borrow
more money is not going to bring one loaf of bread to a
starving person in any country. It is just going to enable them
to borrow more money to do the same things they did with the
last money they borrowed that created the debt. So----
Reverend Lintner. We believe that----
Mr. Callahan [continuing]. I respectfully disagree with----
Reverend Lintner. No. We believe that that is true in
certain circumstances.
Mr. Callahan. Well, I do not know--where you are talking
about debt forgiveness, it might not be the current regime. But
it was their predecessor, and you cannot put safeguards in
there to say----
Reverend Lintner. We do think you can have criteria which
will be----
Mr. Callahan. Well, I think if you said they could never
borrow any more, that would be all right. But when you simply
are opening up the door for them to borrow more, by forgiving
debt, it costs me money. I get allocated a certain amount of
money every year. And you want me to feed the starving and to
provide medicine and care and educational opportunities and
health care opportunities for the world.
And yet you are telling me to take part of the money I am
going to use for child survival, for example, to eliminate
polio, for example, and forgive debt of corrupt politicians. I
do not think that should be a priority, and I think your
organization ought to look again at what you are saying,
because you have to take away from the needy in order to score
it to the point that it has to be scored in order to forgive
debt.
Reverend Lintner. I can appreciate your anger at past
regimes which were corrupt which borrowed the money. The poor
in many of these countries have the perception that they are
now being penalized for those past corrupt regimes.
Mr. Callahan. They are.
Reverend Lintner. They are being penalized, and they are
very angry about it, and they feel that their educational
needs----
Mr. Callahan. But most of the ones that owe money are still
not sufficiently honest, in my opinion. Haiti is a classic
example.
Reverend Lintner. We want criteria. We want criteria, and
we are not in favor of giving it to the corrupt regimes.
Mr. Callahan. Thank you for your time.
Reverend Lintner. Yes.
Mr. Callahan. All right. The subcommittee is adjourned.
[Statements for the record follow:]
[The official Committee record contains additional information here.]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Andrews, Hon. Robert............................................. 464
Ardouny, Bryan................................................... 161
Austin, Joyce.................................................... 51
Bonior, Hon. D. E................................................ 460
Brown, Hon. Sherrod.............................................. 458
Buteiko, Anton................................................... 544
Chaisson, Dr. Richard............................................ 88
Crow, Dr. M. M................................................... 515
Daulaire, Nils................................................... 510
Derrick, John.................................................... 316
Dickinson, Tim................................................... 420
Donnelly, J. A................................................... 412
Drinan, Father Robert............................................ 465
Epperly, David................................................... 137
Feldman, Dr. L. A................................................ 398
Fitzhugh, E. J................................................... 290
Fornos, Werner................................................... 546
George, Father W. L.............................................. 473
Gilman, Hon. B. A................................................ 460
Giulietti, Father Julio.......................................... 473
Guthrie, Dr. R. L................................................ 335
Gutierrez, Hon. L. V............................................. 460
Hall, Hon. T. P.................................................. 24
Hartke, Jan...................................................... 242
Hekimian, Chris.................................................. 145
Hellman, R. A.................................................... 524
Hinchey, Hon. M. D..............................................84, 460
Horn, Hon. Stephen............................................... 460
Jollivette, Cyrus................................................ 368
Kaptur, Hon. Marcy............................................... 460
Kohr, Howard..................................................... 96
Levin, Hon. S. M................................................. 460
Lewis, Hon. John................................................. 156
Lintner, Rev. Dr. Jay............................................ 443
Lowman, Shep..................................................... 231
Lucas, C. P...................................................... 218
Luther, Hon. Bill................................................ 47
Manatos, A. E.................................................... 176
Manoff, Robert................................................... 386
Marvin, M. L..................................................... 520
Miller, Lindsay.................................................. 109
Moody, Jim....................................................... 358
Nassif, T. A..................................................... 501
Nemtzow, David................................................... 308
Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr.......................................... 349
Pascrell, Hon. Bill, Jr.......................................... 460
Peel, Terry...................................................... 37
Pigman, H. A..................................................... 62
Portman, Hon. Rob................................................ 1
Quinn, Hon. Jack................................................. 00
Rossides, E. T................................................... 186
Sadik, Nafis..................................................... 551
Salzberg, J. P................................................... 18
Sawkiw, Michael, Jr.............................................. 128
Schaffer, Hon. Bob.............................................124, 460
Siemens, Stephen................................................. 73
Slaughter, Hon. L. M............................................. 460
Stabenow, Hon. Debbie............................................ 463
Visclosky, Hon. P. J............................................. 8
Walsh, Hon. J. T................................................. 12
Watson, A. F..................................................... 260
White, P. C...................................................... 344
Worthington, B. K................................................ 333