- FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

[Senate Hearing 107-283]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

S. Hrg. 107-283 Pt. 2

FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
=======================================================================

HEARINGS

before a

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

H.R. 2506

AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING,
AND RELATED PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2002, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES

__________

Agency for International Development
Department of State
Nondepartmental Witnesses
__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
70-754 WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS \1\

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
Terry Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
------

Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs

MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky, Chairman
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama TOM HARKIN, Iowa
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
TED STEVENS, Alaska MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
(Ex officio) ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
(Ex officio)

Professional Staff

Paul Grove
Jennifer Chartrand
Tim Rieser (Minority)
Mark Lippert (Minority)

Administrative Support

Candice Rogers
Angela Lee (Minority)

\1\ Committee and subcommittee memberships--January 25, 2001 to
June 6, 2001.

Note.--From January 3 to January 20, 2001 the Democrats held the
majority, thanks to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice
President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle became majority leader at
that time. Starting January 20, 2001, the incoming Republican Vice
President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to
the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority
leader. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced
his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6,
2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats,
changing control of the evenly divided Senate from the Republicans to
the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle became majority leader once
again on June 6, 2001.

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS \2\

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
TOM HARKIN, Iowa PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
HARRY REID, Nevada MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CONRAD BURNS, Montana
PATTY MURRAY, Washington RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
Terry Sauvain, Staff Director
Charles Kieffer, Deputy Staff Director
Steven J. Cortese, Minority Staff Director
------

Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
TOM HARKIN, Iowa ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
JACK REED, Rhode Island CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia TED STEVENS, Alaska
(Ex officio) (Ex officio)

Professional Staff

Tim Rieser
Mark Lippert
Paul Grove (Minority)
Jennifer Chartrand (Minority)

Administrative Support

Candice Rogers (Minority)

\1\ Committee and subcommittee memberships--July 10, 2001.

C O N T E N T S

----------

Tuesday, May 8, 2001

Page

Agency for International Development............................. 1

Tuesday, May 15, 2001

Department of State: Office of the Secretary..................... 47

Wednesday July 11, 2001

Department of State.............................................. 117
Agency for International Development............................. 130
Nondepartmental witness.......................................... 157
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................ 167

FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

----------

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2001

U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:04 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mitch McConnell (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators McConnell, Leahy, and Bennett.

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

STATEMENT OF ANDREW NATSIOS, ADMINISTRATOR

opening statement of senator mitch mc connell

Senator McConnell. Mr. Natsios, let me apologize in advance
for what I expect is going to be the most disjointed hearing
you have ever participated in, because the Senate at 10:15, is
going to go into a series of three votes. We are going to try
to tag team this in a way that does not take up your whole day.
It is a pleasure to welcome you to the Foreign Operations
Subcommittee. Your background makes you uniquely qualified to
take charge of the U.S. Agency for International Development,
and I have no doubt that your time on the ``Big Dig'' in Boston
will serve you well in your many tasks ahead.
In the past, I have been extremely critical of the Agency
for lacking a strategic vision, failing to establish concrete
goals, and failing to deliver assistance in a timely and
effective manner. I have repeatedly and publicly taken issue
with poor management and ineffective leadership in Washington
and the field. Although recently confirmed, you seem to have
wasted no time in trying to address these shortfalls.
You are off to a good start. Identifying management and
personnel reform as your first priority gives me hope that real
change at USAID is in the offing. I note that the fiscal 2002
budget request for your Agency's operating expenses has
increased $30 million over last year's request and I look
forward to hearing more about how you envision those funds
being spent.
Your testimony that foreign assistance programs should
serve U.S. policy objectives is on the mark. As I have often
said, U.S. foreign assistance is not an entitlement and our aid
must support U.S. economic, political and security goals. The
strategic reorientation of USAID to address the trends of
globalization and conflict give definable purpose to the
Agency. While time will allow more informed judgment on the
effectiveness of the four program pillars you have proposed,
the changes you are initiating at USAID are welcomed.
I want to comment briefly on the four pillars. As I
understand the Global Development Alliance, the GDA pillar,
USAID will seek partnerships with corporations, NGOs, and the
academic community, and ask that they contribute funding,
personnel and information to support development programs. I am
concerned that unless the Agency addresses its management
shortfalls, the GDA will be short lived. The strength of
corporations, NGOs and academic institutions is that they often
initiate and respond to program needs faster and better than
government bureaucracy. I am curious how the GDA will operate
and make decisions on funding priorities and would appreciate
your thoughts in this area.
Coming from a farm State, the pillar of Economic Growth and
Agriculture seems to make good sense. The linkages between
economic and agricultural development, and improvements in
local markets and the welfare of citizens is no different
whether in the United States, South Asia, or Africa. However, I
wonder if democracy and governance programs should also fall
under this pillar. I see a logical connection between economic
development and good governance.
The pillar of Global Health has received particular
attention in the budget request. The request for Child Survival
and Disease Program Fund reflects a $50 million increase over
last year's appropriated level, with HIV/AIDS programs
receiving a 10 percent increase. Many on Capitol Hill feel we
ought to be doing more on HIV/AIDS, as evident in the recent
Senate vote to double AIDS assistance to $1 billion. I look
forward to hearing your views on that subject.
The final pillar of Conflict Prevention and Development
Relief encompasses democracy and governance programs and
disaster relief. While I continue to have concerns with USAID's
democracy and governance programs, I applaud your efforts to be
proactive rather than reactive in responding to political and
natural crises.
The administration's fiscal year 2002 request for your
Agency is an increase of $129 million over last year's
appropriated level. The Child Survival and Disease Program
Fund, Development Assistance, International Disaster
Assistance, and funding for basic education programs have all
been increased under the President's request.

prepared statement

You have a unique opportunity to make a lasting mark on
this Agency and you are going to have my support and
encouragement in that effort.
With that, I call on my friend and colleague, Senator
Leahy.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Mitch McConnell
It is a pleasure to welcome you before the Foreign Operations
Subcommittee, Mr. Natsios. Your background makes you uniquely qualified
to take charge of the U.S. Agency for International Development, and I
have no doubt that your time on the ``Big Dig'' in Boston will serve
you well in your many tasks ahead.
In the past, I have been extremely critical of the Agency for
lacking a strategic vision, failing to establish concrete goals, and
failing to deliver assistance in a timely and effective manner. I have
repeatedly and publicly taken issue with poor management and
ineffective leadership in Washington and the field. Although recently
confirmed, you seem to have wasted no time in trying to address these
shortfalls.
You are off to a good start. Identifying management and personnel
reform as your first priority gives me hope that real change at USAID
is in the offing. I note that the fiscal year 2002 budget request for
the Agency's operating expenses has increased $30 million over last
year's request, and I look forward to hearing more about how you
envision those funds being spent.
Your testimony that foreign assistance programs should serve U.S.
policy objectives is on the mark. As I have often said, U.S. foreign
assistance is not an entitlement and our aid must support U.S.
economic, political, and security goals. The strategic reorientation of
USAID to address the trends of globalization and conflict give
definable purpose to the Agency. While time will allow a more informed
judgement on the effectiveness of the four program pillars you propose,
the changes you are initiating at USAID are welcomed.
I want to comment briefly on the four pillars. As I understand the
Global Development Alliance (GDA) pillar, USAID will seek partnerships
with corporations, NGOs, and the academic community, and ask that they
contribute funding, personnel, and information to support development
programs. I am concerned that unless the Agency addresses its
management shortfalls, the GDA will be short lived. The strength of
corporations, NGOs, and academic institutions is that they can often
initiate and respond to program needs faster and better than government
bureaucracy. I am curious how the GDA will operate and make decisions
on funding priorities and would appreciate your thoughts in this area.
Coming from a farm state, the pillar of Economic Growth and
Agriculture seems to make good sense. The linkages between economic and
agricultural development, and improvements in local markets and the
welfare of citizens are no different whether in the United States,
South Asia, or Africa. However, I wonder if democracy and governance
programs should also fall under this pillar. I see a logical connection
between economic development and good governance.
The pillar of Global Health has received particular attention in
the budget request. The request for the Child Survival and Disease
Program Fund reflects a $50 million increase over last year's
appropriated level, with HIV/AIDS programs receiving a 10 percent
increase. Many on Capitol Hill feel we ought to be doing more on HIV/
AIDS, as evident in the recent Senate vote to double AIDS assistance to
$1 billion dollars. I look forward to hearing your views on this
subject.
The final pillar of Conflict Prevention and Development Relief
encompasses democracy and governance programs and disaster relief.
While I continue to have concerns with USAID's democracy and governance
programs, I applaud your efforts to be pro-active, rather than
reactive, in responding to political and natural crises.
The Administration's fiscal year 2002 request for USAID is an
increase of $129 million over last year's appropriation. The Child
Survival and Disease Program Fund, Development Assistance,
International Disaster Assistance, and funding for basic education
programs have all been increased under the President's request.
You have a unique opportunity to make a lasting mark on USAID, Mr.
Natsios, and you have my support and encouragement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

Senator Leahy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
going to put most of my statement in the record, and I ask Mr.
Natsios to take a minute to read it. But let me just say to
you, Mr. Natsios, that we are very fortunate to have you as the
new Administrator for USAID.
I think it is very fitting that you are the first one to
testify before us on the budget. I remember your tenure as head
of USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, where you did
a fine job on some of the most distressing but urgent
humanitarian disasters. As head of World Vision, you developed
strong ties with the NGO community, and I think that's very
necessary.
And I will give you one bit of advice, and that is to use
the expertise that is so abundant on the AID professional
staff, because they will provide support for your Agency. Do
not keep them hidden, because you know as well as anyone how to
build relationships with Members of Congress and those who
support foreign aid, as well as those who have not supported
it. And so it is not just the Legislative and Public Affairs
Office that is the only face we see, no matter how fine a job
they do. There is so much expertise there that we should know
about.

prepared statement

Mr. Chairman, so we can move on, I will submit the rest of
my statement for the record, but I am very very pleased that he
is here.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Mr. Chairman, we are very fortunate to have Andrew Natsios as the
new Administrator of the Agency for International Development, and it
is fitting that he is the first witness to testify before this
Subcommittee in this session of Congress.
I remember Mr. Natsios' tenure as the head of AID's Office of
Foreign Disaster Assistance, where he did a fine job responding to the
most urgent humanitarian disasters. As head of World Vision, he
developed strong ties with the NGO community which we increasingly
count on to implement foreign aid programs.
AID needs a new kind of leadership. It needs someone who knows the
trenches, who recognizes that AID's staff are by far its greatest asset
and who trusts their judgment. AID has many very talented staff who
make life better for millions of people.
AID also needs a leader who doesn't tolerate incompetence,
mediocrity or staff telling him what they think he wants to hear,
rather than the facts.
There have been too many programs that failed by any objective
standard, and yet the money kept flowing. Just as AID should take
risks, it also needs to recognize when the conditions are not right,
and to stop throwing good money after bad.
Mr. Natsios can provide that leadership. He knows from past
experience that AID has been in dire need of reform for years. I was
very pleased to see in your written testimony that your first priority
will be fixing AID's broken procurement, budgeting and information
management systems.
This is absolutely essential for AID's staff to be able to do their
jobs, for AID's grantees and contractors, and for the millions of
people in developing countries who benefit from our foreign aid
programs.
Mr. Natsios, if you accomplish nothing more than fixing these
problems, you should be given a medal. I am confident that this
Subcommittee will do everything possible to help you succeed.
I have questions on several topics, but let me close with two
pieces of advice. Use the expertise that is so abundant in AID's
professional staff, to build support for your agency. Don't keep them
hidden, as has been the custom.
Encourage them to build relationships with Members of Congress--
those who support foreign aid and those who have not but may not know
what AID is doing.
It is not enough for the Legislative and Public Affairs office to
be the only face of AID we see, and the only voice we hear. Your whole
agency should be that face and voice, and not just for the Congress,
but for the public at large.

Senator McConnell. Thank you, Senator Leahy. We also have
Senator Bennett here this morning. Senator Bennett, do you have
any comments for Mr. Natsios?
Senator Bennett. I was just going to say, I did not.
Senator McConnell. Would you like to summarize your
statement, and we will put the full statement in the record?

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. ANDREW NATSIOS

Mr. Natsios. Thank you, Senator. I would request that the
voluminous text of this address which I am not going to read to
you be placed in the record. Having been a legislator myself
for 12 years at the State level, I know that the most important
part of this hearing is in the questions and answers, but given
that this is my first appearance, I might make some brief
opening remarks.
I want to first say how pleased I am, Mr. Chairman, to be
asked to testify on behalf of my new Agency's budget for fiscal
2002. I told the staff that the only request I made for a
position in the new administration was USAID. People at the
White House said you must have some other second or third
choice, and I said actually I do not, that is the only thing I
am really interested in doing.
This is for me the climax of my career. The work that USAID
does around the world is of central importance from a
humanitarian and ethical perspective, but also for American
foreign policy. I was a military officer for 23 years in the
reserves, I served in the Gulf War. If you talk to a lot of
soldiers who served in many of the peacekeeping operations,
they will tell you that the best force protector is not our
tanks in these countries, or that we send peacekeeping forces,
it is USAID's programs. If the programs are well run, and if
they are administered in a visionary way working with the NGO
community, it creates a lot of goodwill toward the United
States and toward our troops, and stabilizes the society. This
reduces the anger level and increases employment so that the
young men, who are the ones usually causing trouble, are
working instead of hanging around not clear in what their
future looks like.
So I think there is a direct connection between foreign
affairs and foreign policy of the U.S. Government and USAID's
programs. I think that in helping countries that have decided
to move toward democratic capitalism as a system of economics
and a system of governance, we do a lot to stabilize the world
and create an international system that is more civilized and
decent, with more protections for human rights and individual
freedoms.
Let me also say that one of the two central characteristics
of the post cold war world are globalization and conflict. In
effect, you would say they are almost moving in opposite
directions. One, you have an integrating function of the world
where the world is being tied together, and at the other hand
you have countries which are what we call in the political
science community ``failed states,'' countries that are
collapsing.
I wrote a book about this some 4 years ago, and at the
time, I counted 24 countries that could be qualified as failed
states. The CIA now puts out an unclassified chart every year
listing all the complex humanitarian emergencies, and it is
disturbing how many of them there are; how severe they are.
There was a report done by the Carnegie Commission on Ending
Deadly Violence, I believe it is called, and they estimated the
total cost of our response to the Bosnian civil war as $52
billion, including peacekeeping operations for everyone, not
just the United States but the Europeans as well, and for all
the humanitarian assistance over more than a decade.
It is clear to me that it is better to prevent these states
from failing than to clean up the mess after the catastrophes
have taken place. We are facing serious challenges even now in
some very large countries that are on the edge of dissolution
politically and economically. I told our staff to begin to
focus not just on the long-term, but on the short-term. If a
country looks like it's heading down that slope, see what we
can do to reprogram money in our aid budget to stop the
collapse of these countries, because all of our aid, all of our
programs, however successful they may be in these countries,
can disappear overnight. When a country goes into civil war,
the economy collapses, hyperinflation occurs, there are
atrocities that are committed, there are militias that are
formed, any systems of government collapse, there are no public
services.
So it is in our interest not just from a purely financial
point of view, but also from an ethical and humanitarian point
of view, to insure that we do all we can, within the
constraints that we operate under, to prevent these countries
from falling into the abyss.
We should be humble, though, in understanding that in some
cases we cannot, no matter how hard we may try, prevent these
forces from taking over. But even if we succeed in the next 4
years in a couple of cases in taking countries that are on the
edge and move through skillful diplomacy and the use of
military-to-military diplomacy, and through USAID's programs at
the grass-roots level to prevent some of these countries from
collapsing, it would be a great service to American foreign
policy and to the world.
Globalization is also important, though, because the world
is being tied together in a way that has never existed before,
and that can be good and it can be bad. There are many
instances where globalization has in fact increased the
prosperity of developing countries, but there are other cases
where there are unanticipated and unintended consequences of
globalization that are not terribly good.
In some cases, countries just do not get drawn into the
global trading system. So one of the things that we are looking
at is a new emphasis on economic development and agriculture. I
am a very very strong advocate of agriculture because three-
quarters of the poor people in the world live in rural areas.
If you want to deal with the poverty problems of the world, you
have to deal with agriculture.
Our agriculture budget has gone from $1.3 billion 15 years
ago to $300 million this year, $1 billion drop. We had almost
250 agronomists working for us in 1985; we have 46 left. That
has been particularly devastating because in my view, the
importance of rural development, we need to rebuild that
capacity.
In order for countries that are moving into the trading
system, or want to move into the international trading system,
reforms are required frequently; they need to invest in in
their own countries, whether it be in infrastructure in terms
of port facilities or airports, whether it be in their exchange
rates, because if your exchange rate is screwed up, there is no
way you are going to effectively join the global system. If you
have hyperinflation, it is very difficult to be a serious
trading partner. If you develop markets and there is so much
political instability that your supply of materials is
interrupted or your exports to new markets are interrupted, you
make it very difficult in the future for people to trade with
you, because a very important thing is stability in trading
relationships, as I am sure you know.
So, we will put a new focus in USAID on economic
development, on agriculture, and on drawing countries into the
international trading system.
We have been leaders in the global health community for a
very long time and I propose that we maintain that leadership.
Now, we are facing the most visible challenges of current
periods, particularly in Africa, but also increasingly the
alarming growth rates of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the former
Soviet States. That is the place where the infection is
spreading the fastest. We are very concerned. It is mostly
through drug use that the former Soviet states are threatened
with this.
But in Africa as you know, we have four countries that will
shortly begin experiencing a drop in population, they will be
below maintenance in their population growth rates. And
another, I think it is six countries, within 5 years, that will
be at zero population growth because of the catastrophic nature
of the AIDS epidemic.
I talked to business people in Africa 10 years ago, health
ministers, who said that even then, let alone now, had in their
work force planning a certain number of people who would simply
die from AIDS every year. This tends to be a disease that is
more prevalent among the upper income and educated classes, it
is a higher prevalence rate that, for example, the rural areas.
And as a result of that, it means that the devastation to the
economy in Africa is unimaginable, because the elites are so
thin in size, the educated elites, to begin with, that this is
destroying what little infrastructure in terms of human capital
Africa has. So there is a large effort within USAID on the AIDS
epidemic right now.
I might add that the U.S. Government spends more money,
internationally on AIDS than all other countries of the world,
donor and recipient, combined. Take all of the AIDS budgets in
Africa and in Europe, and count in the other developed
countries like Japan, we spend more money than all of them
combined. And our budget is inadequate to deal with this
epidemic.
What we have done is to experiment over a period of years
as to what works and what does not work in terms of stopping
the spread of this disease, and we have reached some very
important conclusions. Our strategies in the 20 or 25 countries
that we focus our attention on intensively are in the areas of
prevention that we have had the most success in.
I want to also say that one of my great interests is in
nutrition, obviously connected to agriculture, but there is a
lot of research that has been done in last 10 or 20 years that
shows that micronutrient interventions in our programs can have
a profound effect on a child's likelihood of getting a
particular disease, of blindness, of all sorts of disorders and
illnesses that children and adults are faced with in the
developing world simply by improving diets.
And so, micronutrients, micronutritional intervention is
appropriate and is something I intend to put some real stress
on, because we know that the payout on the other end in terms
of benefit is so high.
Senator McConnell. Mr. Natsios, just for your information,
the three of us are going to have to leave here in about 3 or 4
minutes, so I do not know if you can wrap up your opening
statement.
Mr. Natsios. I can, yes. I mentioned conflict prevention
before, but I also would like to introduce the idea of
developmental relief. Developmental relief means that we merge
into a humanitarian relief program as we are in the middle of a
disaster, be it famine or a war or a flood, interventions that
will develop the country later on. We have done this very
successfully in the NGO community. We use that term, we do not
use it publicly, but it is something I want to introduce in a
more systematic basis.
Finally, let me talk about the Global Development Alliance.
We know, if you look at the flow of money into the developing
world, that the biggest source of revenue is not ODA anymore,
it is in the area of private capital markets, foundation money.
We need to, in my view, in a more systematic and a much larger
scale than we have ever done before, develop alliances with
these new high-tech foundations, many of which do not want to
develop large staffs. We have the staff, the experts in the
field that can help them spend their money. If we can take
their objectives and our objectives, along with the primary
capital markets, there are a lot of companies, I have talked
with some about seeing if we couldn't do things together in
countries where they had an interest that overlapped, and try
to do a coordinated series of development efforts.
What our objective would be in the first year is to choose
two or three very large projects, not a couple million of
dollars, tens of millions of dollars, maybe even more than
that. We would make these agreements and announce an attempt to
use government money as leverage to increase two or threefold
the amount of money that might be available for these sorts of
programs. This recognizes the reality of where money is coming
from in the developing world, and uses our particular expertise
in our 75 missions and among our technical staff, which remains
very very good in terms of our health specialists, our
environmental specialists, with tax dollars being saved in
terms of what we can do to invest in these areas.

prepared statement

Those are my comments. I will not go into depth in the
management area, but my testimony has indicated that I am going
to focus on four areas of management, the personnel system, the
procurement system, the budgeting and financing system, and the
information management system, all of which are dysfunctional
at this point in various phases and various ways, and in my
view need to be corrected. I will spend my first year focusing
on those four areas, because if those are not fixed, our people
in the field cannot get their work done. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andrew Natsios
introduction
Chairman McConnell, Senator Leahy, Members of the Committee, good
morning. Thank you for inviting me here today to present the
Administration's budget request for foreign assistance programs for
fiscal year 2002. I would like to take this opportunity to lay out my
priorities for the Agency.
foreign assistance and foreign policy
As a great power, I believe America's foreign assistance both
serves to accomplish our foreign policy objectives, and expresses the
deep humanitarian instincts of the American people.
Foreign assistance is an important tool for the President and the
Secretary of State to further America's interests. In fact, foreign
assistance is sometimes the most appropriate tool, when diplomacy is
not enough or military force imprudent. In general, foreign assistance
works hand-in-hand with other foreign policy tools. Foreign assistance
implements peace agreements arranged by diplomats and often enforced by
the military; foreign assistance supports peacekeeping efforts by
building economic and political opportunity; foreign assistance helps
developing and transition nations move toward democratic systems and
market economies; foreign assistance helps nations prepare for
participation in the global trading system and become better markets
for U.S exports. All of these activities help build a more peaceful,
stable, and prosperous world--which is very much in the interest of the
United States.
Foreign assistance does work, but it takes years of investment and
hard work. I am asking for your support today to let me continue that
work.
globalization and conflict prevention
USAID's fiscal year 2002 budget marks the beginning of a new
strategic orientation and the incorporation of a new way of doing
business to ensure that USAID's long-term development assistance and
humanitarian/disaster relief programs better respond to U.S. national
interests.
The two most distinctive trends in the world since the fall of the
Berlin Wall have been globalization and conflict. The rise of the
internet, of a more open international trading and financial system,
the spread of democratic capitalism as the preferred model of political
and economic development, contrast remarkably with the increase in the
number of failed or failing states and the increasing number of civil
wars, many of enormous brutality.
In many ways, globalization has meant demolishing barriers to the
exchange of information, technology, finance, goods and services with
startling speed over the past decade. With appropriate and timely
assistance, the spread of information and technology can foster
increased productivity, economic prosperity and political stability in
developing countries--and ultimately lead to secure markets for U.S.
exports and investments. Conversely, if developing countries and their
people are left out of the information age, and do not realize any real
benefits from the international trading system, then the promise of
globalization will be squandered. In stead of prosperity and stability,
we will likely see increased gaps between rich and poor, extremism of
increasing violence, and acceleration of global health problems like
HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases. These problems contribute to
human suffering, instability and conflict.
The increasing number of states that are unable to deal with
problems that are potential sources of conflict is of grave concern to
the United States. The ensuing regional instabilities, complex
humanitarian emergencies and, in some cases, chaos are threatening
USAID's development objectives and broader U.S. foreign policy goals.
Nearly two-thirds of the countries with USAID field missions have been
ravaged by civil conflict over the past five years, in some cases
destroying years of economic and political progress. I have witnessed
the horror of these conflicts, the widespread starvation of civilians,
terrible atrocities, the collapse of governments and national
economies.
usaid's program pillars
While many of USAID's programs already respond to these challenges
individually, in order to improve the Agency's effectiveness as a key
foreign policy instrument this Administration intends to coordinate and
focus Agency resources and capabilities to address globalization and
conflict.
We will bring together USAID programs and activities into three
program pillars that cut across all USAID funding accounts. By
aggregating current and new programs that are mutually reinforcing into
these pillars USAID will be able to use scarce budget and human
resources more effectively, and to describe its programs more clearly.
The program pillars are: Economic Growth and Agriculture; Global
Health; and Conflict Prevention and Developmental Relief.
economic growth and agriculture
More than 1.2 billion people live on less than a dollar a day; more
than 800 million people continue to go to bed hungry; and more than 113
million children are not in school. The Economic Growth and Agriculture
pillar will strengthen U.S. efforts to ensure that these people are
able to take advantage of the potential of globalization, rather than
becoming its victims. It highlights the interrelationship and
interdependence of economic growth and agricultural development,
environmental sustainability, and the development of a country's human
capital--with the ultimate goal of creating and cultivating viable
market-oriented economies. Programs in this pillar will encourage
economic opportunity, agricultural development, education and training,
and effective management of natural resources.
Without economic growth and food security, no development effort is
sustainable. We will increase support for economic growth and
agriculture programs that reduce poverty and hunger, while finding
better ways to mobilize and partner with the private sector.
Microenterprise development plays an increasingly important role in
job creation and economic opportunity. This budget guarantees that
USAID will remain the world's leader in microenterprise programs that
provide microloans to the world's poorest microentrepreneurs
(especially women), services to help improve their businesses, and
policy changes to improve business climates.
It's been said that the most important and rewarding investment any
country can make is in the education of its children, and especially
young girls. The President believes that. For fiscal year 2002, USAID
plans to increase its support for basic education for children from
$103 million to $123 million.
The Economic Growth and Agriculture pillar will incorporate $3.383
billion of fiscal year 2002 funds from all accounts.
global health
I intend to include in this pillar maternal and child health,
nutrition, women's reproductive health, HIV/AIDS, and programs that
address other infectious disease such as malaria and tuberculosis.
These are global issues with global consequences: the health of a
population directly affects their productivity, and unchecked
infectious diseases in other countries pose threats to our own.
USAID will maintain its international leadership in health. Our
programs in women's reproductive health, children's health, HIV/AIDS,
infectious diseases, and nutrition are among the best in the world. As
a nation, we can be proud of our successes in global health. Over the
past 15 years USAID, with Congress's support, has spent over $3.5
billion on child survival programs. Over this same period, we have seen
a 20 percent reduction in under-five mortality, from 145 deaths per
1,000 live births in 1985 to about 116 per 1,000 today. Deaths from
measles have been cut in half, from some 2 million in years past to
about 970,000 in 1998. Increased access to Vitamin A, which USAID helps
to distribute in about 20 countries, improves vulnerable children's
chances of survival by up to 30 percent. Americans can be proud of the
leadership role our country has played in eradicating polio around the
world; the number of reported cases in the world dropped from 350,000
in 1988 to fewer than 7,000 in 1999, a year in which 470 million
children were immunized against polio.
However, many problems remain. Immunization levels for children in
some countries are stagnating or declining, and millions of children
continue to suffer from malnutrition. Women continue to die in
childbirth from preventable causes.
One major and ongoing effort is to address the spread of HIV/AIDS.
The HIV/AIDS pandemic is devastating many nations in Africa, and
transmission is escalating in other regions. The HIV/AIDS epidemic is
now reaching such catastrophic levels it is decimating entire
societies, creating negative population growth rates: we are beginning
to see famine-like conditions developing in some particularly hard hit
countries. Up to 40 million children will be orphans because of AIDS in
the next decade. This Administration pledged a 10 percent increase in
USAID's HIV/AIDS funding for fiscal year 2002 to a total of $369
million from all accounts, with the emphasis on preventing transmission
of the disease.
Because of our nation's efforts, we have also made great progress
in addressing family health, reducing maternal deaths last year and
abortions. More than fifty million couples in the developing world make
more educated and informed decisions about having children and taking
care of them as a direct result of USAID-supported programs. But again,
our work is far from complete. More than 580,000 women die annually
from preventable pregnancy-related causes. Because of the importance of
women's reproductive health programs in helping cut child mortality
rates and improve maternal health, the Administration requests a total
of $475 million from all accounts for these programs. We will use these
funds to promote improvements in maternal nutrition, access by mothers
and children to medically trained personnel, reproductive health
education, and to strengthen support for voluntary family planning
practices that allow couples to choose family size and child spacing.
The Global Health pillar incorporates $1.46 billion of fiscal year
2002 funds from all accounts.
conflict prevention and developmental relief pillar
USAID continues to stand at the forefront of agencies around the
world in its ability to respond to man-made and natural disasters. The
request will enable USAID to maintain this capability to provide needed
help rapidly when international emergencies occur.
To complement our strength in disaster assistance, USAID must
improve its ability to promote conflict prevention. To address the
rising number of collapsed states, internal violent conflicts and
complex humanitarian emergencies in the post-Cold War era, some of
which have become focal points of U.S. foreign policy, USAID will
undertake a major new conflict prevention, management, and resolution
initiative. We want to integrate foreign policy and foreign assistance
in a way that accommodates both short-term operational and longer-term
structural prevention needs. To do so, we need to strengthen current
partnerships and create new ones with the U.S. military, the
international community, and U.S. and indigenous private and religious
institutions dedicated to conflict prevention and resolution. This
approach will require even closer collaboration within the U.S. foreign
affairs community, especially between USAID and the Department of
State.
This initiative will integrate the existing portfolio of USAID
democracy programs with new approaches to crisis and conflict analysis,
and new methodologies to assist conflicting parties resolve their
issues peacefully. Our experience has proven that by promoting and
assisting the growth of democracy--by giving people the opportunity to
peacefully influence their government--the United States advances the
emergence and establishment of societies that will become better trade
partners and more stable governments. By facilitating citizens'
participation and trust in their government, our democracy efforts can
help stop the violent internal conflicts that lead to destabilizing and
costly refugee flows, anarchy and failed states, and the spread of
disease.
The Conflict Prevention and Developmental Relief pillar will
incorporate $2.193 billion in fiscal year 2002 funds from all accounts.
This amount includes $835 million requested in fiscal year 2002 for
Public Law 480 Title II (Food for Peace) programs.
usaid's fourth pillar: the global development alliance
It's not enough to reconsider our priorities. We need to
fundamentally change the way we do business. Not only has the world
changed; but the provision of foreign assistance has changed
drastically. The globalization of the world economy has meant that
governments, while still essential, are not the only institutions
through which public services are provided. The role of religious
institutions, non-governmental organizations, private foundations,
universities, and the private market economy in providing services and
accomplishing public objectives has dramatically increased.
I intend to create a fourth ``process'' pillar that defines the
Agency: the Global Development Alliance. The Global Development
Alliance (GDA) is USAID's commitment to change the way we implement our
assistance mandate. We propose to serve as a catalyst to mobilize the
ideas, efforts, and resources of the public sector, corporate America,
the higher education community and non-governmental organizations in
support of shared objectives. For example, a critical development need
is to help poor countries have access to new information technologies,
so they aren't left permanently off the digital highway. Some
companies, like Hewlett Packard, already assist developing countries
with information technology; I want such companies to consider working
with us, in collaboration with U.S. universities and NGOs, to really
make an impact.
Why will this work? Because U.S. organizations and companies want
to and already do try to help less fortunate people worldwide, out of
American compassion and out of the desire to create new markets. But
many organizations don't know how to get involved in providing foreign
assistance, and USAID has not been prepared to take full advantage of
the resources private organizations can bring us. The GDA will change
this by actively seeking out partners willing to commit real
resources--funding, information, or personnel--to support development
programs. With these partners, we will build alliances that target
specific development objectives, and leverage private funds from
foundations and corporations to accomplish those objectives.
USAID's role with these alliances will be to collaborate with non-
governmental partners to provide the technical expertise needed to
effectively use private funds, and to use the field-based personnel and
management systems to track projects and funds. USAID's extensive field
presence and technical expertise give the Agency the ability to
integrate, coordinate, and facilitate a public-private alliance among
U.S. development assistance actors.
This is not an entirely new way of doing business for the Agency.
USAID is already engaged in many successful alliances around the world.
For example, the Global Alliance on Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI)
is an alliance of the United States, the United Nations, the Gates
Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the International
Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers to coordinate a worldwide
effort to protect children from vaccine-preventable diseases.
The GDA will be a fundamental reorientation of how USAID sees
itself in the context of international development assistance, both in
how we relate to our traditional partners, and in how we seek out and
develop alliances with new partners. Incorporating GDA as a pillar of
our new approach means we will pursue a systematic approach to
alliances on a much larger scale and will institutionalize these
alliances as a central business model across Agency operations.
To jump-start the process, I intend to assign $160 million in
fiscal year 2002 funds specifically for GDA projects. The $160 million
requested will generate new alliances that support the three program
pillars, consistent with the authorized intentions of USAID's funding
accounts. This investment will leverage private funding in program
areas important to USAID's goals.
management challenges
The Agency cannot make sweeping changes to its business model
without overhauling the central management systems through which USAID
does its work. USAID, and its ability to perform optimally, has been
seriously compromised for a number of years by ineffective management
systems--particularly those related to finance and budgeting, human
resources, information management and procurement. The books of USAID
have been unauditable for four years. In a recent study of federal
agencies, USAID finished second to last in a survey of whether the
personnel system rewards managers for accomplishing the objectives of
the agency.
While some progress has been made in fixing these systems, it has
been too slow, and neither innovative nor sweeping enough to get the
job done. As I said earlier, the business of foreign assistance has
changed drastically in recent years. The Agency has 35 percent fewer
staff than it did ten years ago, while the number and size of awards
and contracts has grown significantly. The Agency has not adjusted to
these changes.
Let me say that I have been extremely impressed with the Agency's
career civil and Foreign Service employees. These people are working
their hearts out to do the very best for the American people, to
capture the spirit of American values, and to take that spirit around
the world. But USAID's career officers are demoralized and frustrated
by these systems, which make it nearly impossible for them to get their
work done. Our procurement officers are overloaded and coping with
archaic and inefficient systems. They want to help me overhaul the
systems. My first priority at USAID will be to get command of the
Agency's finance, budgeting, and personnel systems. In fact, in my
first direct discussion with Secretary Powell, he made it clear that he
expected me to be a change agent in order to make sure that we are
doing the best job for the American people and the people of the world
with the money that Congress is providing us to use.
The ultimate goal of implementing a new way of doing business and
management reforms is to provide the most effective and efficient
foreign assistance programs possible. USAID's experts and partners who
live and work in developing countries are best positioned to know which
programs will best serve U.S. national interests and the needs of
people in those countries. I hope the Congress will help us be
effective and efficient by reducing the number and intrusiveness of
earmarks. Earmarks divert scarce resources away from field-initiated
programs that address U.S. development and foreign policy goals.
budget request summary
The President had a number of tough choices to make in putting this
budget together, and I was very pleased that he saw fit to continue to
support International Affairs programs including foreign assistance.
For fiscal year 2002, the Administration proposes $23.9 billion for
International Affairs programs. Of that amount, USAID will manage $7.7
billion or 32 percent, which includes programs that USAID manages and
those we administer in cooperation with the Department of State and
other agencies. The fiscal year 2002 USAID budget request is an
increase of $129 million, or less than two percent, over the previous
year's appropriation.
I will summarize our request in terms of existing appropriations
accounts, and briefly describe how they relate to my focus on the
Agency's four pillars. For your convenience, the attached tables show
this budget request by account and by pillar.
development assistance
The Administration requests $1.325 billion for Development
Assistance (DA) programs, an increase of $23 million over fiscal year
2001 appropriations. This account supports programs that promote
economic growth, agricultural development, human capacity development,
women's reproductive health, environmental protection and biodiversity,
and democracy and governance in some of the poorest countries in the
world. With this request, USAID will increase support for economic
growth, renew its focus on agricultural development to reduce hunger
and malnutrition, improve business and trade climates in developing
countries, and continue its work to promote efficient energy technology
in developing countries.
The DA account also includes $358 million for USAID family planning
programs, of a total $425 million from all accounts. We will use these
funds to promote family health and to strengthen support for voluntary
family planning practices, that cut child mortality rates and improve
health by allowing couples to choose family size and child spacing.
DA funds support all three of the Agency's program pillars:
Economic Growth and Agriculture: $817.8 million.--DA funds in this
pillar go to activities that ultimately serve to provide poor people,
especially women, access to real economic opportunity. Our programs
help expand and strengthen private markets and institutions, encourage
agriculture development and food security, promote efficient growth and
energy use, and protect valuable natural resources. For example,
microenterprise development efforts play an increasingly important role
in building futures for women and the rural poor. We expect to meet the
congressionally authorized target of $155 million for microenterprise
programs in fiscal year 2002. This pillar includes USAID funds to
expand its leadership in helping the developing world participate
effectively in the global trading system; such participation is
critical to sustainable economic development for developing and
transition economies, and important to the economic future of our own
nation.
Global Health: $375.5 million.--The majority of DA funds for
Global Health are for USAID's family planning and reproductive health
programs. The total request for $425 million from all accounts includes
$358 million in Development Assistance. The President knows that one of
the best ways to prevent abortion is by providing quality voluntary
family planning services, and decided to maintain the fiscal year 2001
funding level in his fiscal year 2002 budget request.
The remainder of DA funds in this pillar fund important health
programs such as $10 million for the Leahy War Victims Fund, which
contributes to improving the mobility, health, and socioeconomic
integration of civilians who have sustained physical disabilities as a
result of armed conflict.
Conflict Prevention and Developmental Relief: $131.7 million.--
USAID's democracy and local governance programs funded by DA fall under
this pillar. USAID's programs work to build democracy, support human
rights, strengthen the rule of law, create a strong, politically active
civil society, and combat corruption around the world. Our democracy
efforts have paid dividends: never before in human history have more
nations embraced democracy, and more than fifty have made a transition
to democracy in the past fifteen years.
But many fledgling democracies are vulnerable to military takeover,
corruption, organized crime, civil strife and economic chaos. We will
respond to this need with a new initiative to integrate existing
democracy programs and new approaches in conflict prevention, including
addressing the economic causes of conflict.
I intend to target $110 million of Development Assistance for the
Global Development Alliance. There are many exciting opportunities for
strong public-private partnerships using DA funds, and this investment
indicates my commitment to seeking new partners and leveraging private
funding for our development programs.
child survival and disease account
We have requested $1.011 billion for the Child Survival and Disease
Program Fund (CSD) for fiscal year 2002, an increase of $50 million
over fiscal year 2001 appropriations. This amount includes a transfer
of $110 million to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF).
The CSD funds cover programs that address child survival and
maternal health, HIV/AIDS, other infectious diseases such as malaria
and tuberculosis, reducing the spread of antimicrobial resistance, and
improving basic education. Experts say that these programs save more
than three million lives a year, and have helped drop infant mortality
rates in the developing world to their lowest levels ever.
Of this request, $901 million falls under Global Health. This
request meets the Administration's commitment to increase funding to
support prevention and care programs that combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
The funding target of HIV/AIDS programs in fiscal year 2002 is $369
million from all accounts, including $329 million from CSD. We will use
these funds to expand primary prevention efforts and reduce the risk of
mother-to-child transmission, improve community and home-based care,
and increase support for those suffering from the AIDS virus. We will
also target resources to help the growing crisis of AIDS orphans.
The remaining $110 million in CSD is for basic education, which
comes under the Economic Growth and Agriculture pillar. We have also
targeted $12.6 million from the Development Assistance to bring the
total request for basic education to $122.6 million. Basic education
plays a critically important role in protecting both the health and the
future of children in developing countries. We want children to go to
school and receive a quality education, not to work for pennies wages
in lousy conditions. Toward that goal, USAID's basic education programs
work to strengthen education and teacher training programs throughout
the developing world, with particular focus on Africa.
USAID will set aside $25 million in CSD for our fourth pillar, the
Global Development Alliance. The Agency has developed successful
public-private alliances in the past to address important health needs.
I mentioned GAVI earlier; another example is USAID's and Rotary
International's successful public-private partnership to eradicate
polio--a partnership that led to polio vaccinations for literally
hundreds of millions of children. We will use this funding to form and
bolster such public-private alliances that allow us to tackle critical
health, nutrition and education needs more effectively than ever.
regional requests
Africa
Reflecting our priority to promote stability and integrate sub-
Saharan Africa into the global economy, the Administration is
requesting a total of $1.055 billion in fiscal year 2002 for this
region.
This amount includes $434 million from Development Assistance, $356
million from the Child Survival and Diseases Program Fund, and $105.5
million of ESF. Also, we intend to program $160 million of Public Law
480 Title II resources for developmental food programs in Africa.
As Americans, we are not content to sit idly by while people suffer
from starvation, disease, and tyranny. We want to try to solve those
problems, and we want people to be able to build their own societies
and take advantage of economic opportunities. USAID's work to address
health challenges and promote broad-based economic and social
development in Africa goes to the heart of American values. And by
encouraging participation in the global trading system, addressing the
HIV/AIDS epidemic, and building stability by setting the foundations of
democratic governance, we also support U.S. national interests in
Africa.
There has been significant progress in Africa. Countries that only
ten years ago were ruled by dictators are today democracies, such as
Nigeria and Mozambique. The growth rate in sub-Saharan Africa has
averaged 4.9 percent over the past five years, the highest in two
decades. Unfortunately, a combination of poverty, infectious diseases,
conflict, complex emergencies and natural disasters have tarnished the
promise of progress in sub-Saharan Africa. Nearly half of sub-Saharan
Africa is at risk of violent conflict and instability. Recognizing the
importance of conflict prevention to our entire development mission, we
will integrate conflict analysis into the Agency's strategic planning
process for this region.
USAID's challenges in Africa span all three of our program pillars,
and we will use our new program focus to meet these challenges in a
targeted, coordinated, and effective manner. Of the total request for
Africa, $401.4 million would fund activities in Economic Growth and
Agriculture, $376 million would fund activities in Global Health, and
$277.75 million would fund activities in Conflict Prevention and
Developmental Relief.
In addition, we will use the Global Development Alliance to build
stronger public-private partnerships that will leverage much-needed
financial and human resources for our development goals, particularly
in key sectors of agriculture and basic education.
Asia and the Near East
In fiscal year 2002, the Administration intends to request $2.34
billion from all accounts for the Asia and Near East region. This
amount includes $205.5 million in Development Assistance, $112.1
million from the CSD account, and $1.9 billion in ESF. In addition, the
Administration requests $140 million in Public Law 480 Title II
resources for the region.
The Asia and Near East region (ANE) encompasses East Asia, South
Asia, and the Middle East/North Africa. The stability and growth of
this very large and diverse region is essential to U.S. national
security and economic interests. The United States trades more with
this region than any other; after Europe, the ANE region is the second
most important market for U.S. goods and services. The challenges in
this region are equally diverse: addressing humanitarian needs,
supporting conflict prevention and democratic transition, promoting
sustainable economic growth, and tackling HIV/AIDS and mother-child
health.
USAID's programs in this region support economic and political
reform and transparency in East Asia; promote more equitable economic
growth and reduced poverty in South Asia; seek to improve the supply
and efficient allocation of water resources, and expand employment
opportunities in the Middle East; combat the spread of HIV/AIDS, and
promote clean and efficient energy use. In so doing, we not only help
the people of this region, but also improve business climate and
opportunities for U.S. businesses. I also want to give USAID's Asia and
Near East staff credit for leading the attack in this region on two
reprehensible practices: the trafficking of women and girls, and
abusive child labor. This Administration will continue to support those
efforts.
With this request, we intend to provide $1.76 billion for programs
under Economic Growth and Agriculture; $267 million under Global
Health; and $310 million under Conflict Prevention and Developmental
Relief. We will use the Global Development Alliance to create new
partnerships here, building on the success of the U.S.-Asia
Environmental Partnership, which has a great record of matching U.S.
businesses with environmental and energy efficiency opportunities in
the region.
One management challenge USAID must resolve is the increasing
amount of work in ``non-presence'' countries--countries with USAID
programs but without a USAID mission. USAID already supports programs
in Pakistan, Vietnam, Burma, and 15 other non-presence countries in the
region; we must identify new ways to maximize the efficiency of our
personnel and management resources throughout this region.
The ESF funds are primarily used to support economic growth
initiatives in the Middle East, including $720 million for Israel, $655
million for Egypt, $150 million for Jordan, and $75 million for the
West Bank and Gaza. ESF will also fund bilateral programs in Cambodia
and Mongolia.
The Public Law 480 Title II funds will help improve child survival
and nutrition in India and Bangladesh.
Latin America and the Caribbean
Because the countries assisted by USAID in Latin America and the
Caribbean (LAC) are our neighbors, their economic, social, and
political development have an extremely important impact on our own
security and well-being. Americans benefit directly when the economies
of developing LAC countries expand and their markets open. Since 1990,
the number of U.S. jobs supported by exports to the region has
increased by 2.3 million. But when nations in this region face
political instability and failing economies, the United States sees the
consequences directly through increased illegal immigration and illegal
narcotics. None of us should ignore the cross-border spread of
communicable diseases such as TB and HIV/AIDS. Finally, environmental
degradation and pollution can affect U.S. border states directly and
also aggravate regional instability and migration, as well as increase
the risk of death and destruction from disasters in the region.
To fund USAID's programs in this region, the Administration
requests a total of $878.6 million from all accounts. The request
includes $207.3 million in Development Assistance, $100.2 million from
CSD, $177.5 million from ESF, and $108.1 million of Public Law 480
Title II funds. USAID's total funding incorporates $292.5 million from
the International Narcotics Control account, included in the State
Department's budget request
We intend to allocate $398 million of total funds for Economic
Growth and Agriculture, $153 million for Global Health, and $327.5
million for Conflict Prevention and Developmental Relief.
USAID's programs in the Western Hemisphere support U.S. national
interests. We will continue to work to prevent conflict by encouraging
democracy and good governance throughout the region. We will continue
to work to increase economic opportunity and reduce poverty, through
microenterprise programs, improving access to quality education and
training, and encouraging better management of the environment. Equally
critically, the United States must ensure that post-hurricane and post-
earthquake reconstruction in Central America not only replaces what was
destroyed, but builds back better in ways that lay the foundation for
sustainable growth.
Let me briefly discuss the Andean Regional Initiative. The
President and Secretary Powell recognized that the United States must
adopt a regional strategy to assist Colombia and the neighboring
democracies to confront narco-terrorism and the associated threats to
their societies. In fiscal year 2002, the Andean Regional Initiative
will provide $494 million from DA, CSD, ESF, International Narcotics
Control, and Public Law 480 Title II accounts for non-enforcement
related activities in Bolivia, Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Panama,
and Venezuela. We will use these funds in a regional framework to
intensify Alternative Development programs that move farmers from coca
to licit crops, and for democracy programs that improve local
governance and the administration of justice.
Europe and Eurasia
The stability and security of Europe and Eurasia directly impacts
fundamental U.S. security and economic interests. USAID's challenge is
to help nations in this region continue their transformation from
authoritarian, centrally planned and oppressive societies into
participatory democracies with strong market economies. Our work in
this region shows both the incredible risks and rewards of foreign
assistance as a tool of U.S. foreign policy. On one hand, USAID
assistance last year provided crucial support to democratic elections
in Croatia and Serbia, bringing a decade of political misrule and
Serbian expansionism to an end. On the other, current ethnic clashes in
Macedonia remind us how fragile stability and democracy are in the
region.
The Administration's total fiscal year 2002 funding request for
USAID programs in the region is $1.46 billion. The request includes
$610 million for the Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic
States (AEEB) account; $808 million for the Assistance for the
Independent States of the Former Soviet Union (FSA) account; $39.6
million from ESF; and $6.5 million from the CSD account.
The Global Development Alliance will play an extremely important
role in this region. The partnerships the Agency already has developed,
such as with the American International Health Alliance, have brought
additional knowledge and resources to these countries. Ultimately,
these private-public partnerships help sustain progress when USAID's
role inevitably starts to decline. USAID will use GDA funding to
aggressively seek out new ways to engage potential partners in the
delivery of foreign assistance to the people of this region.
This request includes $145 million in AEEB funds for Montenegro and
Serbia. This request allows the United States to continue its important
efforts to prevent conflict, reform the economy, and build the
institutions that underpin a market-oriented, democratic society. Our
work in Montenegro will encourage the rule of law and democratic
processes as Montenegrins decide whether to remain part of Yugoslavia
or become independent.
USAID's request of $39.6 million in ESF funds for this regions
includes $19.6 million for the International Fund for Ireland, $5
million for Irish visas, and $15.0 million for Cyprus.
Economic Growth and Agriculture will receive $700.4 million to
foster the emergence of competitive, market-oriented economies in which
people, not governments, control economic resources. Conflict
Prevention and Developmental Relief will receive $688.1 million in
support of programs in this pillar, covering a continuum of assistance
from humanitarian relief, to easing the transition from disaster to
development, to promoting peaceful and accountable government by
promoting democratic processes and freedom of information. In
recognition of increasing health risks in the region, Global Health
will receive $75.6 million to improve primary health care and fight the
spread of infectious diseases including HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis.
The new Administration is undertaking a series of foreign policy
reviews, of which Russia will be the first. This review may result in
changes to the U.S. assistance program over the near future.
development credit
Another important tool in USAID's development arsenal is the
Development Credit Program. When appropriate, the Agency can use credit
in the form of direct loans or loan guarantees to support true risk-
sharing ventures with private firms. That credit authority gives USAID
the ability to mobilize substantial private capital for development
purposes.
This program consolidates former credit programs: Urban and
Environment Credit Program, the Micro and Small Enterprise Development
Program, and the Development Credit Authority. By consolidating various
credit initiatives under the Development Credit Program, the Agency
ensures that all credit activities will use the same strict rules
regarding accountability and risk-sharing. The Agency has officially
instituted a clear policy that the consolidated credit program will not
engage in sovereign risk activity.
For fiscal year 2002, the Administration is requesting transfer
authority of up to $25 million from other USAID program accounts (DA,
CSD, ESF, SEED, FSA) for the Development Credit Program. We also
requested $7.5 million for administrative costs of the expanded
program. This request for $25 million in transfer authority for the
Development Credit Program could mobilize $250 million or more of local
private capital for projects that support our development goals in
countries where we work.
international disaster assistance
The fiscal year 2000 request for International Disaster Assistance
is $200 million, an increase of $35 million over the fiscal year 2001
appropriated level (not including supplemental appropriations). This
request is to fund the work of USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster
Assistance (OFDA) to support emergency relief and rehabilitation
programs in response to natural and manmade disasters, and other
emergencies that displace large numbers of people.
Our ability to respond rapidly to emergencies is known and
respected worldwide, and USAID staff work in close collaboration with
U.S. and international agencies and private organizations. I take some
pride in having been a part of building that respect during my previous
life here. These programs are first and foremost to meet the critical
needs of vulnerable people in emergency situations. But that is not
enough--we also use our Disaster Assistance funds to help countries
adopt disaster prevention and mitigation measures so the next calamity
cause less damage. Right now the Agency is in the process of preparing
for the upcoming hurricane season, working with the Fairfax County and
Miami-Dade County Search and Rescue Teams and prepositioning emergency
disaster kits at Homestead Air Force Base in Florida.
Demands on disaster assistance resources have increased for a
number of years. In particular, complex emergencies--involving civil
conflicts and often complicated by natural disasters--account for the
lion's share of International Disaster Assistance Funds, more than 70
percent. These emergencies can require long-term relief assistance for
those displaced or devastated by the conflicts.
All International Disaster Assistance funds fall into the pillar of
Conflict Prevention and Developmental Relief. I intend to use $25
million of these funds for implementation through the Global
Development Alliance. For example, we will use the GDA to develop new
partnerships with faith-based organizations already providing relief to
disaster victims around the world.
transition initiatives
For the Transition Initiatives (TI) account, we have requested $50
million, the same as appropriated this fiscal year. These funds, which
fall under the Conflict Prevention and Developmental Relief pillar,
support the work of the Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI).
I have already spoken at length about the emergence of conflict as
a defining trend of this new century, and the importance of conflict
prevention to both our development and humanitarian goals and to U.S.
national interests. OTI supports conflict prevention by assisting
countries making the transition from complex emergency to economic and
political stability. OTI provides fast, flexible, short-term, high-
impact assistance designed to strengthen peace, reconciliation, and
reconstruction efforts.
esf funds
The Economic Support Fund (ESF) account advances the economic and
political foreign policy interests of the United States. ESF funding
can be used, for example, to finance balance of payments and economic
stabilization programs, often in a multilateral context.
For fiscal year 2001, USAID is requesting $2.29 billion in ESF
funds. As detailed in other parts of my testimony, this funding will be
used to support the Middle East peace process and several initiatives
Latin America, Asia and Africa. Of this amount, $1.75 billion will fall
under Economic Growth and Agriculture, $115 million under Global
Health, and $328 million under Conflict Prevention and Developmental
Relief.
operating expenses
For fiscal year 2002, USAID requests $549 million in Operating
Expenses (OE) compared to this year's post-rescission OE level of $532
million. However, factoring in other OE funding sources, such as local
currency trust funds, the total OE budget--at $613 million--is just $1
million more than the current year budget, an increase of less than 1.5
percent.
These funds cover the costs of salaries, benefits, and other
administrative costs of Washington and overseas operations associated
with management of USAID's $7.7 billion worldwide programs.
The Secretary has spoken of three priorities for the Department of
State's operating funds: hiring staff, modernizing information systems
and improving facilities security. These are the same priorities for
USAID's OE account. First, the request will permit the Agency to
continue its efforts to restore its direct-hire staff, which has been
reduced to unacceptably low levels through the same combination of
attrition and previous administrative cost-cutting efforts affecting
many other federal agencies. It is absolutely essential that the Agency
have sufficient funds to recruit, train and deploy the additional staff
needed to assure adequate stewardship of its program responsibilities.
Second, the OE request includes the funds needed to continue
modernizing USAID's information technology and financial management
capabilities. The request will permit the Agency upgrade its
telecommunication capacity and continue modernization of its accounting
and procurement systems.
And third, the request includes funds to upgrade the security of
vulnerable overseas posts which are not collocated with embassies. It
is critical that we have funds to assure the security of our Foreign
Service personnel abroad. Additionally, $50 million has been included
in the Department's budget request to improve USAID facilities security
in countries where our missions are located on embassy grounds.
In order to have the funds to cover these priorities while also
meeting projected federal pay increases and high inflation rates
overseas, I will have to identify ways to cut costs and increase
productivity both at headquarters and in our Missions overseas. This I
plan to do. I understand the budget pressures you face, but you should
know that this OE request is critical to USAID's operations--and is the
bare minimum I need for the staff and technology to successfully carry
out transformation of the Agency.
inspector general
The Administration requests $32 million for fiscal year 2002, an
increase of more than $5 million over fiscal year 2001. The Office of
the Inspector General (OIG) plays an important role in helping USAID
implement its strategies effectively, and in protecting the integrity
of the Agency. This request covers operations, including the salaries,
expenses, and support costs, for the work of the to conduct audits and
investigations relating to the programs and operations of USAID around
the world, plus the foundations assigned to the OIG for review. In
fiscal year 2001, the OIG's funds included $3.8 million of no-year
funds that the OIG had identified and reported to OMB and the Congress.
These funds will be depleted during fiscal year 2002.
conclusion
With this budget request, we have taken the first steps toward the
transformation this Agency must embrace in order to respond to
fundamental changes in foreign policy and foreign assistance. Our new
approaches will enable us to coordinate our programs and leverage
substantial private resources to achieve our development and foreign
policy goals. The result will be a world that is safer, more
prosperous, and more free than ever. I appreciate the President's and
the Secretary's confidence in me to begin this process, and I ask for
your support as well.
summary of usaid fiscal year 2002 budget
For fiscal year 2002, the President is requesting appropriations of
$7,716,500,000 in discretionary funds for USAID-administered programs,
including those jointly administered with the State Department. This
compares to the fiscal year 2001 level of $7,587,278,000 when $223.825
million in supplemental funding is excluded.
The fiscal year 2002 USAID budget is presented in a new, simplified
way, which aggregates funding for the various appropriations accounts
into the four pillars on which USAID's programs are focused. The Global
Development Alliance GDA) is the over-arching, process pillar (and will
receive ``seed'' funding in fiscal year 2002) which is supported by
three program pillars.
The following ``cross-walk'' relates this new configuration of
pillars to the current program appropriations account structure managed
by USAID (excludes USAID OE and other admin. accounts).

FISCAL YEAR 2002 USAID BUDGET REQUEST
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSD DA IDA TI PL 480 II ESF AEEB FSA Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Growth and Agriculture...................... 110.3 817.8 ......... ......... ......... 1,754.5 269.2 431.2 3,383.0
Global Health........................................ 900.7 375.5 ......... ......... ......... 114.6 13.5 55.6 1,459.9
Conflict Prevention and Developmental Relief......... ......... 131.7 200.0 50.0 835.0 328.3 327.2 321.3 2,193.5
State Department Initiatives......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 91.6 ......... ......... 91.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total USAID.................................... 1,011.0 1,325.0 200.0 50.0 835.0 2,289.0 610.0 808.0 7,128.0
==================================================================================================
Of which: Global Development Alliance................ 25.0 110.0 25.0 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 160.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--The fiscal year 2002 USAID request includes funding for the Child Survival and Disease Programs Fund (CSD), Development Assistance (DA), the
Economic Support Fund (ESF), Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltics (AEEB), and Assistance for the Independent States of the former Soviet
Union (FSA), as well as funding for International Disaster Assistance (IDA), Transition Initiatives (TI), Development Credit programs, and
administrative expenses. Public Law 480 (Food for Peace), is administered by USAID but formally requested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The following table provides budget account details.

USAID BUDGET
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
----------------------------
2001 2002
appropriation request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign Operations Subcommittee

USAID--Directly Managed:
Child Survival and Disease Programs 960,881 1,011,000
Fund (CSD)............................
[includes transfer to UNICEF]...... [110,000] [110,000]
Development Assistance (DA)............ 1,302,129 1,325,000
[Incl. transfers to Int.Am.Fdn/ [27,938] [28,150]
Afr.Dev.Fdn]......................
----------------------------
Subtotal--DA/CSD................. 2,263,010 2,336,000
============================
International Disaster Assistance.......... 299,340 200,000
Transition Initiatives..................... 49,890 50,000
Credit Programs--Subsidy:
Development Credit Programs [by [4,989] [25,000]
transfer].............................
Development Credit Programs by 1,497 ............
appropriation.........................
Other Credit Programs [by transfer].... ............. ............
Other Credit Programs by appropriation. 1,497 ............
Administrative Expenses:
USAID Operating Expenses (OE).......... 531,827 549,000
Development Credit Programs--Admin. 3,991 7,500
Expenses..............................
Other Credit Programs--Admin. Expenses. 499 ............
Inspector General Operating Expenses... 26,941 32,000
Foreign Service Disability & Retirement [44,489] [44,880]
[mandatory]...........................
----------------------------
Subtotal--USAID Direct............... 3,178,492 3,174,500
============================
USAID Jointly Manages with State
Department: \1\
Economic Support Fund & International 2,314,896 2,289,000
Fund for Ireland......................
Central America/Caribbean Disaster ............. ............
Recovery Fund.........................
Assistance to the Independent States 808,218 808,000
(FSA).................................
Assistance for Eastern Europe and the 674,338 610,000
Baltics (AEEB)........................
Plan Colombia request [USAID managed [90,000] ............
portion]..............................
Andean Counter Drug Initiative [USAID ............. [292,500]
portion]..............................
----------------------------
Foreign Operations Subtotal.......... 6,975,944 6,881,500
============================
Agriculture Subcommittee

Public Law 480 Food For Peace Title II..... 835,159 835,000
============================
USAID Total.......................... 7,811,103 7,716,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some funds are transferred and managed by othe agencies; levels
shown reflect the full appropriation.

Note.--Fiscal year 2001 includes enacted supplementals, which included
$135 million of International Disaster Assistance funds for Southern
Africa floods; $76 million of Assistance for Eastern Europe and the
Baltics funding; and $13 million in USAID Operating Expenses to
provide administrative support in Kosovo. Fiscal year 2001 levels
reflect a rescission from all accounts of .022 percent.

Senator McConnell. Let me apologize again for the
interruption we are about to have. We have three votes, so it
is good that cell phones are now common and a lot of your staff
is here. Hopefully you can do something useful. I am not sure
it makes sense for us to slip back to the hearing in between
votes, that would be so disjointed.
What we will do is catch the first vote at the end, and
then the second vote, and the third vote at the beginning, and
I will start back over here. Hopefully my colleagues will be
able to come back as well.
The hearing is in recess for the moment.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Senator McConnell. Again, I apologize for the delay. I
would like to focus, if I could Mr. Natsios, on the Middle
East. I do not have to tell you that over the course of the
last 3 or 4 months, the previous Israeli administration offered
essentially everything to the PLO. They offered them control of
the neighborhoods in East Jerusalem; they offered them a
capital in East Jerusalem; they offered them 96 percent of the
West Bank, and joint control of the holy places in Jerusalem,
and 100 percent of Gaza.
That was met, as we now know, with a refusal, and I have
asked a number of Israeli politicians over the last few months:
was there anything else that could have been offered? No one
has been able to think of anything.
There was a fascinating article in the Washington Post
yesterday, which I suspect you saw, which questioned whether
Arafat really has any control over the violence. The Israelis
have always argued that he does and therefore, should be
responsible for the behavior of the Palestinians. Others say
that he does not.
Regardless of whether he does or does not have control, I
have often felt that foreign assistance is not an entitlement.
If you live in this country and you are 65 years old, you get
Social Security. But if you are a country and you have been a
long-time recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, should you get
assistance no matter how you act?
I am told the number one hit selling song in Egypt these
days is entitled ``I Hate Israel.'' The state owned news
service is spouting antisemitic rhetoric like nothing we have
seen in years. By any objective standards, the Egyptians, at
least in the last few years, have not been very constructive
players in the Middle East even though they still have a
nominal peace treaty with the Israelis.
I am curious as to whether you think, the budget request
for Egypt, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip should continue as
business as usual?
Mr. Natsios. Let me first say, Senator, that there are
certain issues where there is a heavy foreign policy focus, and
this particular question you have asked is probably one of the
most sensitive ones the Secretary is dealing with. And so for
me to make comments that could affect his conversations with
the Israelis, Palestinians and Egyptians would be a little
dangerous for me, given that I have only just been sworn in.
Senator McConnell. It could end up being a short tenure.
Mr. Natsios. It could be a very short tenure, the shortest
in USAID history. And having been a former military officer and
having a former four star general and Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs as Secretary of State, there is a sense of hierarchy,
and I report to him.
But let me make a couple of comments on the general
proposition without specifying a specific country.
Senator McConnell. I would be satisfied with that, just a
general proposition of whether foreign assistance is completely
unrelated to behavior.
Mr. Natsios. The first thing I would say is that there are
different categories of foreign assistance. If, for example, we
are in a country where there is an extremely oppressive
government, or predatory government, not just authoritative,
predatory, and we oppose the government overtly, our foreign
policy is very clearly against that government, but we are
providing assistance to human rights organizations that are
monitoring atrocities that might be committed that might be
ongoing in the society, or sometimes we provide assistance to
people who have been running an election, different parties.
That kind of assistance I am not sure is wise to shut off,
because it is the one thing in the society that exists that is
allowing us to counter the tyranny of the government.
So I think the first thing that I would say is that you
need to look at what the assistance is.
Senator McConnell. What if it is military assistance?
Mr. Natsios. Oh, military assistance for me, you shut it
down, from my perspective. In fact, I would shut down economic
assistance and certain other kinds of direct development
assistance, except things like child survival, HIV/AIDS.
Senator McConnell. I agree with that. So military
assistance in your view, could well be conditioned on behavior?
Mr. Natsios. That is my personal opinion but needless to
say, I do not control----
Senator McConnell. I understand that, and I am not trying
to trick you. I understand that you are not going to answer
that question and if I were in your seat, I would not either.
But, I am interested in your general view about whether ``once
a recipient always a recipient'' makes sense with respect to
our foreign assistance.
Mr. Natsios. I think that it is a dangerous idea to attach
to our foreign assistance programs a notion of entitlement. It
is not just in terms of foreign policy but from a developmental
point of view, the idea is for us to leave the country
eventually when the country becomes more prosperous; you do not
want to be there forever. If a country gets drawn into the
dependency syndrome that takes place in some countries, because
they think we are going to subsidize everything forever, it is
not healthy to the society. So I think there has to be a
psychology to this where the countries in which we work know
that under certain circumstances we will withdraw. I think
entitlement is a bad idea as a general proposition.
Senator McConnell. Looking at Bolivia, for the last 16
years USAID has been involved in alternate development
activities to stem the growth of coca. The programs have
largely been successful. In the last 4 years, 18,000 families
received assistance on alternate crop development, 3,000
kilometers of roads and 110 bridges were built, and 15 health
posts and one hospital were chartered.
Colombia's alternate development needs never were part of
the Andean Initiative. Can we realistically expect alternative
development activities to take root in Colombia given the
continuation of civil strife in the coca growing regions?
Mr. Natsios. Mr. Chairman, this was perhaps the first
briefing I asked for when I arrived at USAID because this
affects profoundly the program in Colombia and our direct and
immediate national interests, and is a clear foreign policy
issue before the U.S. Congress.
I have to say, when I went to see Senator McCain to
introduce my successor, a brigadier general retired to run the
big D, he kept focusing on Plan Colombia and I kept trying to
introduce my successor to him. And he simply told me I could go
down and explain. So when I go to USAID, I said Senator McCain
likes the program. I am not quoting anything he has not said
publicly, and I would like to know about this program, because
I want to know whether the program is successful. Is it for
public relation purposes you are saying it is successful, or is
it truly a good use of money.
The director of the program is one of our most able foreign
service officers, George Wachtenheim, who is a very experienced
foreign service officer and is known for getting things done
and getting them done right. The briefing I had from him and
several other people familiar with the program is not only are
we showing signs of success fairly quickly, but that it looks
like we can expand the program along the lines we had looked
at.
Senator McConnell. They cannot operate in the areas
controlled by the insurgents though, can they?
Mr. Natsios. No, but we are operating in a lot of areas
that are close by, and it does not take a lot of encouragement
for many of these farmers to switch over to licit crops. And I
cannot remember the figure; I think we are up to 7,000 farmers
that we have enlisted in this program since December. We give
them seeds and tools, and help them with inputs to facilitate
their moving into the normal market system for agricultural
programs.
Senator McConnell. What are we doing about human rights?
Funding for Plan Colombia has always been very controversial.
Mr. Natsios. It has been, and that is a certain issue for
me because I am very much interested in the human rights issue,
given the atrocities that I have seen committed over the last
12 years in different countries.
The first thing is, we are funding what are called houses
of justice. The normal legal system in Colombia is not
something that poor people have access to, so there is a sense
of alienation between people in some of the rural areas,
particularly in the areas in which the drug organization
exists, and the judicial system. I don't remember the exact
number of these houses of justice that exist, but they are up
and running now and they are apparently working quite
successfully.
They are basically what we would call a lower court in the
United States. They are more accessible by people. People go in
and bring their disputes and get them resolved in an honest
way.
We are also funding human rights organizations that are
looking at these issues within Colombia. Part of our program is
in the human rights and justice area, for the very reason that
you mentioned.
Senator McConnell. Did you have something to add there?
Mr. Natsios. Fifteen of the 30 planned casas de justicia
are operating today, and they are processing about 150 cases a
day--free of charge. We have strengthened the public defenders
offices in 10 of Colombia's 31 state capitals.
Senator McConnell. Let me shift to a different part of the
world. I have had a longstanding interest in the situation in
Burma, which is one of the most outrageous regimes in the
world. I want you to know that I am not going to support any
program inside Burma due to the lack of the transparency and
accountability of the junta. I do not know if you have any
plans for programs inside Burma. Are you planning on doing any
programs in Burma? This would be futile under the current
situation.
Mr. Natsios. I do not believe we have any plans for any
program nor do we have any running in Burma now, though I
should say, the HIV/AIDS epidemic is spreading across Southeast
Asia now, and I do not think it respects national boundaries,
but we do not have any programs.
Senator McConnell. Well, as bad as it has been in Thailand,
you would expect it to end up in Burma.
Mr. Natsios. Exactly.
Senator McConnell. That is really a horrible situation. The
previous Secretary of State appeared before the Senate, and she
admitted, too, that it is simply impossible to get concerted
action from the ASEAN nations because of Burma. It is a source
of ongoing frustration. I am beginning to wonder if it will
ever change. If it does, that will probably be a place where
USAID is going to be needed.
In Cambodia, speaking of disappointments, a coup d'etat in
1997 was followed by flawed elections in 1998. Corruption and
human rights abuses have continued by a government essentially
in power since the 1980s.
My question is, under your pillar of conflict prevention,
will democracy building programs in Cambodia be a priority?
Mr. Natsios. We have democracy and governance programs
right now in Cambodia, and they are focused on human rights in
the development of civil society to promote the level of NGOs.
We do run only one program in cooperation with the government
and that is the HIV/AIDS program; everything else is run
through NGOs. I know World Vision, the NGO that I was an
executive with for 5 years, has a very large Cambodia program,
and I visited it along with seeing the other NGO programs
there. Many of them are quite good, in the child survival area
in particular, because there are also a lot of mine victims, I
am sure you have know.
Senator McConnell. I have seen them, I have been there.
Mr. Natsios. It is grim.
Senator McConnell. Very depressing.
Mr. Natsios. Very depressing. And so, there are prosthetics
programs now. But in terms of working with the government, I
would not support any programs beyond the HIV/AIDS program in
terms of working with the government itself.
I was one of the members of the team in, I think it was
1999, that monitored the Cambodian elections. I was asked by
one of the groups, International Republican Institute, that
monitored those elections--1998, excuse me, thank you.
I did not have the same view as the public relations view
of how those elections were run myself, but that was just my
opinion from my experience there.
Senator McConnell. Well, continuing to span the world,
Macedonia has certainly been back in the news lately. The
Macedonian Government has called for a state of war against the
NLA, the Albanian National Liberation Army. Ethnic Albanians in
Macedonia, which as you know are about a third to a quarter, of
the population, do have some legitimate grievances with regard
to equal representation within the government. Obviously, a
state of war will only exacerbate tensions between ethnic
Albanians and Macedonians and will likely result in even
greater civilian casualties.
I wonder if you have been on the job long enough to have an
assessment of the situation and what proactive steps the Agency
may be facing to address the concerns inside Albania of the
ethnic Albanians?
Mr. Natsios. I met with the president of Macedonia last
week.
Senator McConnell. I did, too.
Mr. Natsios. I had a very good conversation with him, and I
emphasized in my conversation with him how pleased we were at
the restraint in the initial phases of this conflict that the
Macedonian military showed in the villages, because we are in
those villages. There was a relatively minimal amount of damage
in that phase.
I told him that it was in the interests of the United
States as well as stability in the Balkans for a more judicious
approach for dealing with the insurgency, that there had to be
some review of the provisions of the constitution which the
Albanian minority's leadership believes needs to be addressed,
need to be changed.
Of course, all of this was something we did in concert with
the State Department because they delivered exactly the same
message. There is an USAID effort to rebuild the housing that
was destroyed in those villages up near the Kosovar border, and
we are putting that on a fast track because there is hope that
this could come out the right way if it is handled well.
The more extreme the reaction, the more likely we will
destabilize a society that was moving along in the right
direction, slowly, perhaps not as fast as the Albanian minority
would like to, but they were trying to do the right thing. And
the fact that they have a functioning democracy, it seems to
me, has helped a lot in containing this.
We hope that they will continue to show restraint, because
if they do not, then we are going to have an uglier situation.
Senator McConnell. I have not been entirely happy with the
way the Macedonians have treated the Albanians over the last
few years. In the press over here it always seems like the
Albanians are the problem but I think it has frequently been
the opposite.
Next door in Montenegro, there were press reports that we
had been using foreign assistance as leverage prior to the
recent Montenegran elections to discourage those forces there
who were seeking independence. Is there any truth to that?
Mr. Natsios. I am not aware of that. We have our acting
assistant administrator that tells me we are not doing that.
Senator McConnell. Are you proposing to withholding
assistance to Montenegro?
Mr. Natsios. I was unaware that we were withholding
assistance. Are we? Oh, the election. Yes. As you know, there
were elections recently.
Senator McConnell. That's what I was talking about.
Mr. Natsios. I am sorry. The election results were not
definitive, it was a very close election, much to my surprise
personally. I had expected it would be much more decisive than
it was. And there is a review going on now. Pending that review
I won't be able to make a comment, and we will see what the
State Department decides.
Senator McConnell. Is there any connection between
assistance to Montenegro and cooperation of the current
Yugoslav regime in turning over Slobodan Milosevic to the
Hague?
Mr. Natsios. My understanding is, and again, I have only
been on the job a couple of weeks, is that the U.S. Government
continues to strongly press the Serbian Government for
accountability of the atrocities that took place during the
Bosnian civil war. To what degree our aid is involved in those
discussions, I have to tell you, Senator, at this point I can't
tell you, I don't know.
Senator McConnell. I have to offer an amendment on the
floor, and what I am going to do is pass the gavel to Senator
Leahy for his questions, and then to Senator Bennett, who I am
sure may have some thoughts as well.
I have a few more questions I am going to submit in
writing. I thank you very much for being here today.
Mr. Natsios. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McConnell. I look forward to you having a
successful tenure.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand that
we will keep the record open today so if others have questions,
they can submit.
The discussion on Colombia was unfortunately interrupted
because of these votes this morning. I know Senator Bennett has
other duties too, but I do want to ask a couple of questions.
Colombia has actually signed up about 11,000 families for
alternative development programs, because they have agreed to
destroy their coca crops. But the aid they are supposed to get,
which is to be $900 a family, will not begin until June, so
they have to take us on faith, I guess.
I have not seen the monies for protecting human rights
delivered very quickly. You have the problem of prosecuting
human rights crimes for some, particularly within the military,
because they go to military courts and maybe one sacrificial
lamb is tossed out, but everybody else, nothing happens to
them. It is only if they are prosecuted in civilian courts that
you have any chance at justice.
Now you have the expansion of support for the
paramilitaries by some within the Army, and it makes violations
of humans rights worse, so I continue to have a great deal of
concern about Plan Colombia.
In many ways I think that our whole approach is somewhat
like Moses commanding the tide to stop coming in, and the tide
is attracted by us, and if we would stop spending so much money
on drugs, we could stop all these drugs from Colombia, stop all
these drugs from Peru, but with the demand, it will come from
somewhere.
I think we have been remarkably ineffective in some of our
programs here in the United States and unwilling to fund
education and treatment programs for our young people, and this
does not come under USAID, I understand, but my belief is we
need to get them away from the drug scene.
And the billions we spend down there, I am afraid that some
of this may end up being like the old cold war. If we had
someone with a terrible human rights record or a dictatorship
or whatever, they would say I am anticommunist, we would say
oh, here, how much money can we give you. And today if they say
they are antidrugs, it is almost the same way--we will close
our eyes to the human rights violations.
I have a lot of respect for President Pastrana in Colombia,
but I am not too impressed with our programs other than sending
a lot of military money and closing a blind eye to the
paramilitaries.
The President's budget is $5 million above the 2001 level
for Development Assistance, which is, when you count inflation,
really a cut. And yet, this is the heart and soul of AID's
programs. Since the early 1990s there have been cuts in all
these development activities--agriculture, family planning, and
so on.
Senator McConnell and I have fought to stop the cuts, and
the budget is no longer decreasing the way it was in the mid-
1990s, but looking ahead, what do you see as AID's number one,
two, and three funding objectives?
Mr. Natsios. Are you talking about generally or in
Colombia?
Senator Leahy. Generally.
Mr. Natsios. Well, the three focuses that I mentioned in my
testimony are the areas that I would like to put emphasis on in
future years, in 2003 and 2004. This budget obviously was done
primarily by the last administration. We made some amendments
to it, but I have to say, we did not make any huge amendments.
It is just a little too early to do that, given how new I am
and the administration is.
But the budget was not cut for 2002, and I think given the
other Federal problems, no cutting is a good sign. Colin Powell
and the President, are both strong supporters of these kinds of
programs. And I think what counts is what you actually propose,
and given what happens to some of the other departments, I
think their actions show that.
In terms of my own personal priorities and the areas that I
advocate on in the future, in the health area, the HIV/AIDS
epidemic is destroying whole societies as I said in my
statement, and we need to get a hold of that before the whole
continent is crippled permanently.
The second item in the health area that I mentioned, I will
repeat it, is in the micronutrient area, because we know we can
make a lot of progress for modest investment in children's
health over a long period of time with a micronutrient
strategy. And so, I would like to put more money in that area.
This is in the larger scheme of things and future years.
The second area that I have a deep interest in is in
agriculture and when I say agriculture, I don't just mean
growing crops. Agriforestry is part of agriculture. The
development of world markets is part of agriculture; you have
to move your surpluses around. If you don't have rural roads,
you cannot move your surpluses, so there is no incentive for
the peasants to grow more food.
There is a lot of research that has been done that is not
getting out into the field among the subsistence farmers who
tend to be very poor, there is poor nutrition. We find that if
you increase the family's income, you can do that through
agriculture, it affects everything else. The kids get better
fed, they are better clothed, they get private medical care
that they would not have gotten otherwise. They get to pay
their school fees so they can go to school. So, a livelihood
strategy in the rural areas of agriculture makes great sense to
me and I would like to put a lot of emphasis on that.
But, there are other areas of investment in agriculture, in
tree farming. Through the biodiversity programs we have
discovered the new uses of newly discovered species that have
very large markets. And what we need to do is convert some of
these discoveries into sustainable programming where we don't
have whole forests cut down because the trees are valuable.
There is a lot of research that has been done through the
CGIAR, the Consultative Group for International Agriculture
Research. The agriforestry program in Kenya is one of the best
of the 17 institutes they run on agriculture around the world,
and they have done a lot of work in this area that I would like
to use in our programs and expand.
The third area is in conflict prevention. The NGO community
has been experimenting for a decade or more, some of them like
the Mennonites and the Quakers have been involved in this for a
century. But a lot of the operational NGOs have been trying
techniques at calming down very provocative situations that
could explode in various areas of the world, and some of them
have been very successful.
This is not a very expensive area, but if we could prevent
one or two wars by a modest investment, I think it is worth
doing that.
Senator Leahy. I have heard that USAID is planning to
sharply cut funding for renewable energy and clean energy
technology. I am not sure I understand why. There is a lot of
opportunity to invest in infrastructure and energy technology
in developing countries that benefits everybody, it benefits
them, it benefits the environment, it benefits our country. Why
would we cut that?
You talk about planting forests and so on, yet in some
places there is desertification because everybody cuts down
what trees there are, and it is hard to tell them, you know, in
10 years we will have this forest and they say my kids are
going to freeze to death tonight, I have to cut down the wood.
Why would AID cut back on funding for renewable energy and
energy technology?
Mr. Natsios. If you look at the budget, Senator, there are
a number of accounts where there appears to be a reduction.
What there in fact was is we moved money into a reserve fund.
Actually we are not moving the money, the money is still in
those accounts, but it has been reserved for what we call
Global Development Alliance, which I actually wanted the
Secretary of State to announce later this week, which he will
do. What it is is an attempt to use USAID's financial
resources, technical expertise and field missions, and leverage
private sector money from the capital markets, from NGOs with
private funding, from some of these new high-tech foundations
that have been formed, and from our universities and colleges,
and try to create an alliance using that $160 million as
leverage in some of those areas.
Now, we cannot tell you which deals are going to be put
together, which alliances are going to succeed, but our idea
here is to multiply the amount of money----
Senator Leahy. Can you give us some indication of how much
will go into renewable energy and clean energy sources?
Mr. Natsios. We made cuts in a number of the activities,
including that account.
Senator Leahy. I understand, but do we know, if it is all
leveraged and we get the private sector to help in carrying out
our responsibilities, do we end up having more going into
renewable energy and things that may help these people in these
countries or not?
Mr. Natsios. I can't tell you which agreements are going to
make it; we have not negotiated them yet. We are going to try
in each of the sectors, but I cannot assure you that someone is
going to contribute money in precisely the areas that we are
spending money on now. We are going to look at those areas,
Senator.
Senator Leahy. The reason I ask, we could direct a certain
amount of policy, the government, you, Congress, the President
and so on, but Senator McConnell and I have been carrying on
the battle, sometimes it is very unpopular doing it, on foreign
aid. It is very easy for people when they talk about foreign
aid to say I do not hold a passport, I will never leave the
country while I am in the Congress, I don't want to give money
to foreigners, what have they ever done for us, and that sort
of thing.
We now spend in actual dollars far far less as a percentage
of our overall budget or even our gross domestic product, we
spend far far less than a lot of countries who do not have the
international responsibilities that we do. We spend a lot less
than the countries that do not begin to have as much to gain by
these expenditures as we do.
You spoke of conflict resolution. We sometimes will spend
tens of millions, even hundreds of millions in a massive effort
to get people out of an area after the fact, but if we spent a
higher percentage of that before the fact, we might prevent the
conflict to begin with. I am not suggesting we would solve the
world's problems by any means, but we seem to have an almost
isolationist attitude when it comes to this when there is so
much we could accomplish.
Global health, you know, ebola plague or any disease like
that is only an airplane trip away from us, and it is like
pulling teeth sometimes to get money to work to eradicate this.
Look at AIDS, threatening in Africa to wipe out the economic
gains of the past quarter century. There are millions of
refugees, half a dozen wars raging, 2 to 3 million people die
in the Congo, mostly from disease and starvation, and nobody
seems to notice. We have immense needs there, but it takes
leaders who are not corrupt and are willing to work with civil
society, and if we are going to have some kind of a Marshall
Plan for Africa, there are not too many of those leaders
around.
We spend in foreign aid pennies per capita in Africa, and
in some much more developed nations, we spent hundreds, even
thousands per capita. I am just wondering if we have our
priorities right.
If you had a billion dollars extra for Africa, which would
mean instead of going and spending 5, 6, 7, 8 cents per capita,
whatever it is, you bring it all the way up to 14 cents or a
dollar. A lot of the developed countries we send aid to, would
consider that insulting.
Suppose you could do it, where would you spend it first?
Mr. Natsios. In Africa. Well, Africa has different
development problems than most other areas of the world.
Senator Leahy. True.
Mr. Natsios. And we don't have as many success stories
there as we do in other areas of the world. So, I think we
would have to invest our resources in those countries which
have shown some local leadership in making some progress, in
Ghana for example, in Senegal, in Botswana. In Mozambique,
probably the best success story in Africa that we see right now
is Mozambique. When I visited Mozambique 12 years ago, it was
the basket case of Africa, probably on a par with Sudan.
Senator Leahy. This was when?
Mr. Natsios. This was 12 years ago in the middle of the
civil war which killed 2 or 3 million people.
Senator Leahy. In fact, we began the Leahy War Victims Fund
in Mozambique.
Mr. Natsios. We appreciate that.
Senator Leahy. Because I felt, and Melissa Wells, our
ambassador at the time felt, and the president of the country
felt that it was a wonderful way to get something done, even
though we faced--probably you also remember that our State
Department and others said, well, we will do a little project
there, a few thousand dollars, and we can split it up with all
these other countries. And I said no, why not do it right? And
it worked.
Mr. Natsios. Well, there was a combination of several
factors that led to the current state of affairs in Mozambique,
which has moved to a market economy; they have about six
cabinet ministers who were educated in the west and who are
undertaking a major reform of the Mozambican regulatory
structure to encourage more investment.
There has been a huge success in agriculture. Up in the
middle part of the country, there are four provinces that are
very rich in agricultural lands, and those were devastated by
the war, and they are now producing surpluses that were being
exported until recently into Malawi and Zambia.
There has been expansion of the cashew industry, food
processing is beginning. The floods unfortunately were quite
devastating, as you know, but they have made a lot of progress,
and they did it because there was local leadership, there was
some people willing to take some risks, and there was a
willingness on the side of both sides in the civil war to
peacefully resolve issues in the future.
And I have to say this. One of the things I am interested
in is seeing if we cannot use some of the religious groups
around the world that specialize in mediation to try to help us
in this area. And the peace talks in Mozambique, this is not
well known in the United States, were in fact negotiated by a
Catholic lay order from Rome called the Order of D'Argenio, and
that is a group of Catholic lay people, men and women, who do
this sort of work. They do it in the Balkans, but they started
the peace talks in Mozambique, and they were the ones that
facilitated them as a disinterested third party. And it helped
enormously in ending the civil war, bringing peace to the
country.
There are lots of groups like that around that we need to
encourage. The USAID is funding, for example, the Henry Durant
Center, which is connected to the ICRC in Geneva, and they are
doing some very important conflict resolution interventions in
some very unstable areas of the world right now.
So there is outside help, but also local initiative and
support, willingness to negotiate.
Senator Leahy. We could do a lot more by going to
countries, even countries where we may disagree with their
government at the time, and having exchange programs, student
programs, and we will get some people over here that may be
anti-American, but will also see how democracy works, and those
may be the people 15 or 20 years ago that are sitting down
doing conflict resolution today. Thank you.
Mr. Natsios. If I could just add one comment on that,
Senator, when I was with World Vision, I would go into civil
war areas and see who worked with the NGOs, from the local
population; I don't mean the westerners. And it was very
interesting, because the wages were so low in these countries
and there are so few jobs, the truck drivers for most of the
NGOs, for example, had master's degrees, everybody has a
college degree. So one of the effects of the NGO program, this
is not why they exist, but this is one of the good unintended
consequences is they keep hundreds of people on their staff to
do relief work in the emergency that maintains the middle class
in the country.
There are thousands, tens of thousands of people who stayed
in Liberia and Surinam and the Congo who worked for NGOs, who
were people from the country educated in the United States
primarily, who were able to keep life and limb together for
their families by taking this NGO job to do some important
immediate work, but that serves the basis for the middle class
to help rebuild the society after the war is over.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Senator Bennett. Mr. Natsios, may I start by saying I am
impressed with your patience and your knowledge and your
performance here today, and I think the country is well served
by your willingness to accept this assignment.
Mr. Natsios. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Bennett. Indeed, your enthusiasm and your actual
proselytizing for this particular assignment strikes me as
maybe a demonstration of some mental dysfunction on your part.
Nonetheless, it is salutatory and well received.
Let us talk a little bit about the health situation in
Russia. You have listed your three priorities and I have noted
them, and I frankly applaud you on your choice. I think health
first, then agriculture and then conflict prevention, that is a
good way to stack the priorities.
Let us talk about the health delivery situation in Russia.
The last time I had any kind of analysis of the circumstance in
Russia I was told HIV/AIDS was in epidemic status, as was
tuberculosis. Can you comment on that?
Mr. Natsios. I had a visit to my office when I was the
director of the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance before
the Soviet Union collapsed by a professor at Georgetown
University, Murray Fishbein as I recall his name, who wrote at
the time the preeminent work on Soviet health systems, and he
was in some quarters ridiculed because people said no, it could
not possibly be this bad. I do not recall the exact statistics,
but it was a striking number, for example, of hospitals that do
not have running water, they do not have hot water, they have
outhouses for toilet facilities, in hospitals.
I recall studies that I read of the number of times that
the typical Soviet child would be immunized, 20 or 30 times a
year they would get shot with various kind of medical
interventions. I am sorry, I cannot remember the different
kinds of diseases that children were being immunized against,
but there were no standards in the factories where the serum
was being produced for the children, or for the adults for that
matter, and so they did not know what kind of dosage they were
getting.
If you go through the Soviet health system, it more
resembles the poorest of the developing world in some areas
than it does a western society, which some people at one time
thought the Soviet Union was. They have made some progress in
some areas in the last 10 years, but the average life
expectancy for Russian males has deteriorated in the last 10
years, which is almost unbelievable when you think about it.
So it is very serious. We have a very heavy focus in our
portfolio, our ongoing health and social services program in
Russia is about $125 million and there is a heavy health focus
on it. We do have an HIV/AIDS prevention program that has been
started there.
I know World Vision, once again just to give you an example
of an NGO program that worked very well, had a modest grant
from USAID about 8 or 9 years ago to develop a curriculum to
train nurses, because the argument within World Vision was, if
you really want to influence the way in which the health care
system works, retrain the nurses. And most of the nurses had
high school degrees; they were more like orderlies are in this
country. They did not have a nursing profession as we would
understand it. So we developed a textbook in Russian and
created nursing federations, nursing associations in each of
the republics, through which the text was used and curriculum
was developed for courses to improve the quality of nursing or
to create nursing education programs. That has improved the
quality of nursing care in hospitals across Russia, a small
program but it had a big impact.
Senator Bennett. Well, that triggers a report to you of the
comment that was made in the conference that I attended, where
the circumstances of the Russian health situation was laid out
in absolutely stark terms, and they made the same comment you
did about the falling life expectancy, and said that Russia's
population will shrink from 140 million to something like 80
million within the next 40 years, that having a new child in
Russia is an economic disaster for the parents, and therefore,
the birth rate is very very low, abortion is rampant throughout
the country, in an effort to make sure they do not have a new
child.
The comment made by the experts that appeared before us,
members of both the House and Senate was that at least in the
last 8 years or so, America's financial involvement with Russia
had been counterproductive. The experts, and these were not
politically chosen, these were out of academia, said that the
American State Department and the IMF both had to bear some of
the responsibility for the deterioration in Russia because of
the way the money was distributed and the way it exacerbated
some of the problems. And even the Russian central president
said don't give us any more money, which was a very interesting
thing for an appropriator like myself to be told.
They said, the thing we need most is NGO involvement of the
kind that you have just described. I had not intended to go
through this, but you just described World Vision as an NGO,
and they said that makes more difference than large sums of
money funneled through the government that end up leaking into
a variety of little buckets and other places, and does not get
where it needs to go.
Given your background and your experience with an NGO, this
is not the kind of question that deserves standard
administration response, but just something for you to think
about. Maybe you ought to try to funnel AID's activities into
places like Russia in more of an NGO sort of delivery system
than the traditional government delivery system, and think in
whole new terms in that particular paradigm.
Let me switch countries on you but stay in the same mode. I
was visiting with Youssef Boutros Ghali, who is the Economics
Minister in Egypt, and I said to him, what do you need the
most. And he said people. Trained people. And then in a
statement that is probably a little bit of hyperbole he said,
if I had 10 trained people I could trust, I could fire the
other 50,000 who work for me.
And then he told me this story, which is in the same vein.
He said, I have asked AID for scholarship money to help me get
these 10 people. He himself holds a Ph.D. in economics from
MIT. He said, they won't give it to me, they say you will just
pick your nephew or your political supporters and send them to
America as political patronage on our nickel, and we are not
going to do that. So he said you pick them, he said I will not
pick, you go out into the universities and pick the best and
the brightest that you think would be most responsive to an
education in the United States. And I am sure he would like to
be consulted so that he at least had some input, but he said, I
will get out of the decision-making process, but this is what I
need more than anything else out of USAID. And there was a
sense of yeah, well, we could do that, but inevitably there is
a bureaucratic reason why it never happens.
I got the same thing in Russia, some folks saying what we
need most is people who understand how the world really works
in countries where it works. They only understand how it works
here in a country that it does not work.
Without getting into a long debate, let me just plant a
seed in your head about the USAID and the way the money is
used, rather than just the traditional kind of government to
government sort of situation.
Mr. Natsios. Well, about two thirds, Senator, of our total
grants and contracts last year were committed to non-profit
organizations. These include, among others, American NGOs,
American colleges and universities and indigenous NGOs,
locally-based NGOs. Some countries like Indonesia have
thousands of local NGOs that are very very good. So 65 percent
of our funding does not go through governments, it goes through
universities, colleges, research stations, local NGOs,
international NGOs, cooperatives. The Land of Lakes, for
example, is a cooperative electric, or rural electric
cooperative trade association in New England, and they do a lot
of work in developing countries developing electrical
cooperatives, and they are very successful in some countries.
So we do that now.
In terms of scholarships, USAID has been educating people
for decades, ten of thousands of people in the developing world
have degrees from American universities with USAID
scholarships, so that is a good program. One of the problems,
however, I have to tell you, as soon as a lot of people get
their degrees, they leave, they come here.
I don't know if you know this, Senator, but the best
educated immigrant group to the United States right now are
Africans. They have the highest number of Ph.D.'s of any
immigrant group into the United States, and most of those
Ph.D.'s were obtained at U.S. institutions and many with USAID
scholarships.
Now, it is nice to get degrees, but I have to tell you, it
is not helping Africa very much if they come over here. So that
is one of the problems.
One of the things that we do though, right now, which is
very successful, I had the minister of agriculture visiting me
yesterday from Georgia, the country of Georgia, not the state.
Senator Bennett. Stalin's Georgia.
Mr. Natsios. Stalin's Georgia, exactly, the only place
where they have not pulled down Stalin's statute because he is
still remembered there, not because they agreed with him but
because he was from the country. In any case, the minister was
pleading with me to keep on a USAID advisor in agriculture.
I think he is an agricultural economist, he is an American,
but he has been on his staff for 4 months, he said I need him
on the next 2 years to help me. They are restructuring their
agricultural system and he said this man is honest. When we
hire our technical people in the United States, obviously we
are careful who we hire, but these people tend to be very
idealistic, but also very practical. This guy has worked in the
developing world before, he knows what the challenges are. He
has become one of the most important advisors to this minister
of agriculture. He does not go in and leave, he lives in the
country. He is going to bring his family over and live there
for a couple of years.
So one way in which we answer the question that you were
asked is, we do do the scholarships, we still do that, but
there has been a problem with it. Once they are educated, they
don't want to go back, or they go back and then the emigrate.
But we send these advisors in there. We have a couple dozen
advisors in Indonesia right now trying to help the government
think through before it is too late, the economic reforms that
are necessary to make that country's economy recover, which it
has not yet, from the economic collapse of a few years ago.
We have found in a number of countries that these advisors
have made a profound difference by living in the country and
working in the ministries, but we pay the--we choose the
person, we pay the person, they are still our employee, but
they work in the ministry itself on a daily basis.
Senator Bennett. We can have this conversation later on and
I think undoubtedly we will, because there are a number of
roads that you have opened up that I would like to go down, but
I would also like the adjourn the hearing and I am sure you
would too.
So let me just ask you one last question. How do you view
the role of GasProm in Russia's economic situation?
Mr. Natsios. I have to tell you, I am not an expert in the
area. I should not speak about this. I am not sure of what I am
going to say, and so I would rather not comment.
Senator Bennett. Okay.
Mr. Natsios. I can send you a response in writing if you
wish, Senator.
Senator Bennett. I think that would be useful. And again, I
appreciate your willingness for government service and your
willingness to testify, and the breath of fresh air you bring
to this whole activity. And on behalf of Youssef Boutros'
colleagues, take a look at more scholarships for Egypt, and
maybe we do something like the service academies do, we will
give you a free education at West Point, Colorado Springs or
Annapolis, but you owe us at least four years, and maybe when
AID gives a scholarship to somebody from Egypt it is with the
understanding that you may really like it up in Cambridge, but
you are going to have to go back to Cairo for at least four
years before you apply for a job.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Natsios. Thank you, Senator.

Additional committee questions

Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. There will be some
additional questions which will be submitted for your response
in the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Agency for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
earmarks
Question. In your testimony two week ago before the Foreign
Relations Committee, you said that Congressional earmarks make ``it
very difficult for USAID to get its work done, show any creativity, or
customize USAID programs in the field to the local situation.''
I don't know how familiar you are with other appropriations bills
but some are nothing but earmarks. Every dollar is earmarked. USAID's
budget is actually relatively free of earmarks.
What earmarks there are have various explanations. Some, like aid
to Israel and Cyprus, are there for political reasons. And these
earmarks reflect the Administration's budget request. Other earmarks
are there because the Congress has tried every other way to convince
UAID to do something without success. Let me give you an example:
Three years ago, USAID spent about $2 million on tuberculosis
programs worldwide. When I tried to convince USAID that was not a
serious response to tuberculosis, all I got were excuses. Today USAID
is spending $60 million on tuberculosis, because Congress felt it
should be a priority.
Having said that, Senator McConnell and I, and our colleagues in
the House, try hard to discourage earmarks, and we succeed most of the
time. I would like to see fewer earmarks, but USAID also needs to
recognize that sometimes members of Congress have strong views about
how to spend the funds we appropriate.
What earmarks are you most concerned about?
Answer. Senator Leahy, I first want to clarify that when I used the
term earmarks I was generically using it to mean both earmarks and
directives. I agree that the number of earmarks is not that great and
that you and Senator McConnell, as well as members in the House, have
been successful in limiting earmarks, but the number of directives has
grown over the years. I also agree that there are times such as the
example you used with TB, when the Congress has had to use its
influence through earmarks and or directives to direct USAID towards a
correct program path. However, that does not mean that Secretary Powell
or I agree that every directive is the best way in which USAID funds
can be used. Secretary Powell in his testimony before the Congress has
indicated his strong concerns about the increasing number of directives
that are being imposed on the foreign assistance accounts.
In fiscal year 2001 there was a total of 247 directives and
earmarks against USAID managed accounts from the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees. While not all of those included funding
levels many did, and I believe that this is not always the best use of
our funds or the direction in which our programs should go. At the same
time, we are always aware that if directives are not followed they can
easily become earmarks the following year, and for that reason we try
to be as responsive as possible.
For many of the directives there are very good reasons for our
opposition. For some the institutions/organizations in question have
not responded to our requests for additional information or even
submitted a proposal after being asked to do so. For others core
funding has already been provided with the understanding that the
organizations in question are already self-sustaining and additional
funds are to come from sources other than USAID. In other examples
funding may be redundant in that other organizations may have already
been selected or involved or the work in question has been completed.
For others we are being asked to implement a program where there is no
USAID presence or management capacity to monitor or assess the progress
and success of the activity.
For the non-DA accounts we have an additional problem in that we
are not able to unilaterally determine that funding directives which
affect those accounts can be met without consultation and agreement
with the State Department.
Other examples are the funding floors imposed on us for our Africa
and Latin America programs. Secretary Powell and I have made it clear
that we believe assistance to the Africa region is of the up-most
importance, but having a floor greatly reduces our flexibility in
programming needed resources. I don't believe that our request for
Africa in the current ``Budget Justification'' justifies a need for
continuation of that floor nor does it for the Latin America region.
One area of particular concern is the practice of targeting funds
to specific universities. There are 75 directives targeted to specific
universities and institutions of which 59 are against the Development
Assistance and Child Survival and Diseases program accounts and the
balance against the ESF, SEED and FSA accounts. In some cases USAID is
already funding some of them so there is no issue. However, I strongly
believe that the competitive process will most always result in a more
successful and stronger program. There are 20 of these directives that
we have identified as not meeting the requirements we deem necessary
for funding.
I ask that the Congress give us the flexibility to make choices and
provide some relief from the increasing number of directives being
imposed on our programs and accounts. If you or others in Congress have
concerns I assure you they will be listened to and addressed in a
positive way. Where we have differences we will work with you to iron
those out where possible.
microbicides
Question. Both the House and Senate strongly support efforts to
develop microbicides--a technology that aims to prevent HIV infection.
They are particularly important for women, whose risk of HIV infection
is high and whose control over other prevention options is low. This
year, in response to pressure from Congress, USAID plans to spend $12
million for microbicides development--another example of where Congress
had to earmark funds to get results. I am confident that we will
include at least that much in fiscal year 2002. I want to be sure USAID
coordinates its microbicides activities with other federal agencies
like National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control.
Can you tell me what USAID has identified as its best use of
resources in this area?
Answer. USAID has supported research to develop microbicides for
more than five years with annual funding levels of about $2 million. In
fiscal year 2001, USAID intends to commit about $12 million for this
purpose. Promising microbicidal products have been identified as a
result of research undertaken to date with USAID funding. Fiscal year
2001 funds will be used to accelerate the completion of laboratory
evaluation of these microbicidal products, initiate clinical testing to
evaluate safety, effectiveness, and acceptability, and undertake a
variety of support activities to ensure widespread availability and
proper utilization once they are available for use. The support
activities include the development of tools to predict the likelihood
that a lead microbicidal candidate will result in a safe and effective
product; strategies to minimize risky behaviors that may accompany the
availability of a microbicide; and infrastructure and capacity
strengthening to increase the number of countries, institutions, and
communities that can perform microbicide trials.
USAID coordinates its microbicide research and development efforts
with other U.S. government agencies, NIH's Office of AIDS Research and
CDC; private foundations such as Gates and Rockefeller; and non-
governmental organizations to maximize the level and impact of
resources as well as minimize duplication of effort.
infectious diseases
Question. Four years ago, USAID launched its ``Infectious Disease
Initiative,'' which since then has provided an additional quarter
billion dollars in four priority areas: surveillance, anti-drug
resistance, tuberculosis and malaria. This initiative has been, on the
whole, a success. But it is only a start. The threats to Americans, and
to people everywhere, from infectious diseases, requires a far more
aggressive response.
As we consider substantially increasing our support for HIV/AIDS
programs, it seems to me that much the same case can be made for much
larger investments to combat other infectious diseases. Do you agree?
Answer. There is no question that the areas addressed by USAID's
Infectious Disease Initiative are of critical and growing importance.
The tuberculosis epidemic grows in concert with the HIV/AIDS pandemic
and claims the lives of nearly 2 million people each year. Growing
prevalence of drug resistant strains of tuberculosis, malaria and a
host of other diseases (such as pneumonia and diarrhea) are not only
deadly and often incurable killers in the developing world but also
threaten the United States. The surveillance information we and our
partners at the country and international levels rely on to make
decisions and target resources is generally of very poor quality and
needs to be dramatically improved.
Confronting the spread of infectious diseases must take into
account broader efforts such as our work in child and maternal health.
Our maternal child health activities are helping to establish
sustainable, functional health systems that will not only respond to
the HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria epidemics, but also help save the millions
of children and women whose lives are threatened each year from
preventable diseases.
USAID combats a myriad of problems in the health and other related
sectors such as economic growth and education which impact on the
spread of diseases. Our funding is limited. As a result, we cannot
tackle all of the priorities with the preferred level of resources.
Therefore, USAID will more aggressively identify and pursue
partnerships with other donors, non-governmental organizations,
foundations, and the private sector to mobilize more funding for
countering the spread of infectious diseases.
family planning
Question. Each year, we fight over the Mexico City policy, or the
``global gag rule'', as it has become known--a policy that would be
unconstitutional in our own country. But separate and apart from that,
USAID funds voluntary family planning programs in dozens of countries.
Unfortunately, funding for these activities has not kept up with the
need. This year, USAID will spend $425 million on family planning. That
is $25 million less than it did in fiscal year 1995, the last year I
chaired this subcommittee. For fiscal year 2002, the President has
requested level funding. This is shortsighted. Making family planning
services available is key to children's health, to women's health, to
safeguarding the environment, to economic development, and above all,
to reducing poverty.
Where do you put family planning on your list of priorities?
Answer. Family planning is one of a number of key health priorities
for this Administration. USAID is allocating $425 million this year for
family planning activities. This level is $40 million higher than
appropriated levels in recent years. In the President's 2002 budget,
this level has been maintained.
USAID recognizes the importance of family planning and reproductive
health. However, we also acknowledge that efforts to improve economic
growth, basic education particularly for girls, and other health areas
have a large impact on family planning practices. Thus, USAID balances
a number of critical priorities with its limited overall funding
levels.
For that reason, I am pressing USAID staff to aggressively identify
and pursue partnerships with other donors, non-governmental
organizations, foundations and the private sector to mobilize more
funding for tackling critical development issues like family planning.
clean energy technology
Question. I think this Administration is being extremely
shortsighted in its approach to energy in this country, not to mention
globally. Anyone can see that we waste huge amounts of energy, yet
[Vice President] Cheney denigrates conservation. We know from our own
experience that nothing is more key to economic development than the
availability of energy--cleaner energy. I have heard that USAID plans
to sharply cut funding for renewable energy and clean energy
technology.
With so many opportunities to invest in infrastructure and energy
technology in developing countries--which benefits U.S. companies, U.S.
jobs, and the environment, why cut these programs? How much is USAID
spending in fiscal year 2001, and what is USAID's fiscal year 2002
budget request, for the development of U.S. clean energy technologies,
and for the use of clean energy technologies in developing countries?
What is the fiscal year 2001 budget for the Office of Energy and
Environmental Technology, and what is the request for fiscal year 2002?
I am told half would cut it. This office has strong, bipartisan support
in Congress, and no decision like that should be made without first
consulting with us.
Answer. We agree that there are many opportunities to invest in
infrastructure and energy technology in developing countries. However,
the overall USAID budget is squeezed by earmarks, directives and
Administration priorities, thus not all critical initiatives can
receive the preferred level of funding.
As a result, USAID's budget for energy, in general, and clean
energy, in particular, is extremely limited. The Agency will spend in
the neighborhood of $30 million for clean energy from development
assistance resources in fiscal year 2001. Our funds are used for two
primary purposes: (1) research and development to identify low-cost,
efficient and environmentally sound energy innovations for the
developing world; and (2) technical assistance and training to leverage
the resources of international financial institutions and to improve
the policy and regulatory environment for U.S. private sector
investment.
We cannot yet specify a target for fiscal year 2002. The budget for
the Global Bureau's Office of Energy and Environmental Technology (G/
ENV/EET) is $16 million in fiscal year 2001; our fiscal year 2002
request for G/ENV/EET is about $13 million.
biodiversity
Question. One area that has suffered in recent years is funding for
programs to protect biodiversity. With the world's population set to
exceed nine billion by the middle of this century, and the number of
automobiles skyrocketing, the pressures on the environment in
developing countries are enormous. You can see this simply by traveling
to Mexico today, a country that is literally littered with garbage,
where protected areas are being destroyed, and where cities are
becoming unlivable. This is the reality in many developing countries.
What do you see as USAID's role in addressing these environmental
problems? Where does it fit on your list of priorities? Do you agree
that we should spend more on these programs in fiscal year 2002?
For fiscal year 1995, the last year I chaired this subcommittee,
USAID spent $106 million to protect biodiversity. In fiscal year 2001
we will spend about $100 million. So in real terms we are spending less
than we used to. Do you agree that we should spend more on these
programs in fiscal year 2002?
Answer. USAID promotes a holistic approach to addressing global
environmental problems. Our programs promote the wise and sustainable
use of the world's natural resources, clean energy technology and use
of renewable energy resources, clean water and sustainable use of
global water sources.
Biodiversity conservation plays an important part in ensuring the
continued use and providing opportunities for new uses of the world's
ecosystems, including the maintenance of locally important watersheds.
In this context, biodiversity conservation remains a high priority for
USAID. The Agency is working collaboratively with its NGO partners,
local governments, and local peoples to conserve biodiversity while
improving the economic opportunities in rural areas. We will
aggressively pursue partnerships with other donors, non-governmental
organizations, foundations, universities and the private sector to
leverage more funding to protect biodiversity. In this way, we view
ourselves as an entity implementing solutions to biodiversity issues on
a limited scale, while also being a catalyst for focused efforts to
tackle the larger issues on a global scale.
Although USAID would like to spend more to support biodiversity
conservation programs in fiscal year 2002, other budgetary demands will
make that unlikely. We do not yet have figures for biodiversity
spending in fiscal year 2002. However, anticipated cuts in the overall
environment budget will constrain spending on biodiversity programs.
Through our current programs, our NGO partners are using USAID funds to
leverage new and additional funding sources. We will identify and
pursue additional leverage opportunities through our public and private
partnerships that shall generate substantially more resources for these
programs.
conflict prevention
Question. I like your idea of doing more in conflict prevention. It
does not need to cost a lot, but it can make a real difference. There
are experienced negotiators whose skills are under utilized, who can
propose creative solutions to diffuse tensions. Give me an example of
what you have in mind?
Answer. USAID will be exploring and possibly strengthening the role
that international and indigenous NGOs, Foundations and other public
and private sector organizations can play in contributing to the
transformation of conflict to non-violent outcomes and peacebuilding.
These grassroot level efforts (e.g. the Lileer reconciliation, along
with the Wunlit reconciliation of 1999 in Sudan that helped in reducing
tensions and conflict in Equatoria in Sudan) can be critical serving as
catalysts for calming ethnic tensions. Locally initiated efforts at
conflict resolution, when combined with parallel efforts in HIV/AIDS
prevention programs, provide sound interventions with people level
impact. USAID supports the African Centre for the Constructive
Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD) in diffusing tensions on the ground
through conflict training programs.
Question. One thing that has strong congressional support are
programs that bring together teenage youth from conflict zones, like
the Middle East, Cyprus, the Balkans. There has even been talk of
Kashmir and Central Africa. Would you include this type of thing?
Answer. These important programs for adolescent girls and boys can
have lasting impact at reducing the potential for future violent
conflict. They need to be developed and incorporated into an integrated
approach for peacebuilding and reconciliation that provides educational
and employment opportunities and democratic values to support a new
generation of youth with hope, not despair. Child soldiers, AIDS
orphans, and victims of human trafficking lucky enough to survive, need
opportunities to meet other youth in a safe way that allows for sharing
of personal experiences.
procurement, personnel, information management systems
Question. I cannot agree with you more about the need to fix
USAID's dysfunctional procurement, personnel and information management
systems. You can have programs that look great on paper, but if it
takes half a year to negotiate contracts, or to procure the necessary
goods or services, or if you can't get quick and accurate information
about what you are doing, you won't get good results. Can you describe
what a reformed procurement system at USAID would look like it?
Answer. It is very difficult to describe a reformed procurement
system at USAID because what one group calls ``reform'' another group
calls ``trouble.'' Let me give you an example. Many inside USAID argue
for streamlining the procurement process, so we can award contracts
faster, and the rules give us some flexibility to do that. We could
reduce the time for advertising new procurements, or the time for
preparing proposals. But that just gives contractors who have
previously worked with USAID an additional advantage. The smaller firms
that have such a hard time competing against the big contractors won't
have a chance if they have even less time. I want to broaden the base
of firms we use overseas, not reduce it.
Nonetheless, I'm sure there are ways we can streamline our internal
procurement process that would not put any organization at a
disadvantage. We will soon ask a procurement expert to come inside
USAID, review the way we conduct a sampling of procurement actions, and
get some practical recommendations about steps we can cut or eliminate.
We will also look for ways to improve procurement planning. If the
procurement staff can be involved earlier in the process, issues can be
addressed and the procurement action can begin at an earlier stage in
activity development. This will help minimize delays in getting
activities started.
global development alliance
Question. You have proposed a ``Global Development Alliance'',
which would set aside some amount of USAID resources from various
accounts to leverage funds from private foundations and corporations,
to be targeted at specific foreign aid goals.
How can we be sure that if you withhold $x from, say environmental
programs, that at least that much, when combined with private funds,
will end up being provided for environmental programs? Or could that $x
end up being used for something completely different, say democracy
programs? If so, I think that would pose a problem for us. I see no
reason why private funds could not be leveraged in support of the wide
range of USAID activities, but I would not want to see funds intended
for the environment, or some other activity, end up being used for
something else. I think withholding funds to leverage private resources
is fine, if it really does result in more resources for the purpose the
appropriated funds were intended. Can you comment on this?
Answer. Funding for the Global Development Alliance is intended as
an incentive to encourage public-private alliances, which will leverage
additional resources and new ideas to tackle critical development
problems. This is a new initiative for fiscal year 2002, and one of
USAID's four pillars.
The funding requested for the Global Development Alliance for
fiscal year 2002 comes from three accounts; Development Assistance
($110 million), Child Survival and Diseases Program ($25 million), and
International Disaster Assistance ($25 million). Funds were not
withheld from any particular sector, but rather taken off the top of
these accounts. All resources that USAID programs for the Global
Development Alliance will be used for activities consistent with the
purposes of the accounts to which these resources were appropriated.
It is our hope that all sectors will be able to benefit from an
increase in total funding as alliances are formed with private
companies, foundations and other groups. Until the alliances are
actually developed and submitted for funding, it is impossible to know
which sectors will receive what level of funding. It is also quite
possible, and we believe desirable, that some alliances may work across
sectors.
universiy directives
Question. Each year, we receive more and more requests from Members
of Congress to direct USAID to fund universities in the United States,
to support their international studies, research, and exchange
programs. I think these institutions have a lot to offer whether in
agriculture research and marketing, natural resource conservation,
telemedicine--the list is as limitless as a university professor's
imagination. But I am also concerned about the process by which these
proposals are funded. We can recommend that USAID consider these
proposals, but I want to be sure that funding decisions are ultimately
made on the merits, not on the basis of political pressure. Do you have
an opinion on this?
Answer. We prefer that U.S. colleges and universities channel their
proposals through competitive procurement mechanisms rather than
through legislative directives that require USAID to sign contracts and
agreements with specific organizations to perform specific work in a
sector. USAID considers the U.S. higher education community to be a
national resource and a significant contributor to our programs. As a
result, we have a variety of competitive programs and activities
designed specifically for U.S. colleges and universities.
Our competitive higher education partnership programs are open to
all U.S. colleges and universities on an annual basis. Programs undergo
a peer review process that recommends funding based on the technical
merits of the proposal. These grant programs apply the knowledge,
research, service, and technical expertise of U.S. colleges and
universities, in partnership with developing country institutions of
higher education, to national and regional development challenges.
In addition to hundreds of other new competitive procurements each
year in almost all development sectors for which U.S. higher education
institutions can compete, we will be exploring additional ways to
fashion relationships through the Global Development Alliance. We hope
not only to build partnerships, but also to leverage more resources to
confront critical development problems.
blind children
Question. We provided $1.2 million for programs for blind children
in fiscal year 2001. This is a program we have funded for several
years. It is my understanding that there is about that much funding in
the pipeline that remains unspent. In other words, we are about a year
behind in obligating these funds.
It seems to me that it should not be difficult to make good use of
these funds, for surgery that can cure some types of blindness and for
other types of assistance for blind children. If there are questions
about what activities the funds should be used for, I am sure we can
answer them. Would you look into this and be sure that these funds are
used for their intended purpose, or come back to me and explain why
they can't be?
Answer. Yes, the fiscal year 2000 funds were not obligated during
fiscal year 2000. However, these funds are being added to fiscal year
2001 (for a total of $2.197 million) and will be obligated during
fiscal year 2001.
The funds have been used for surgeries for blind children, as well
as to train eye care specialists in target countries, to provide
corrective services, and to support advocacy for integration of eye
care services into national health systems. A new five-year program
will address two of the major causes of childhood blindness, congenital
cataract and significant refractive error, by developing a multi-
country, integrated and comprehensive approach to tackle the blindness
problem in Bangladesh, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria and South Africa.
Activities include increasing community awareness of preventable eye
disease; training health workers; integrating Primary Eye Care into
existing primary health care structures; and establishing centers of
excellence for the provision of childhood cataract surgery and follow-
up care, and for low vision and rehabilitation services.
disaster assistance
Question. Disaster Assistance has strong support in Congress and
among the American public--this is what people think of when they think
of foreign aid. In your written testimony, you noted that ``demands on
disaster assistance resources have increased for a number of years.''
However, the budget for the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance
(OFDA) has not kept pace over time. Currently, the Disaster Assistance
account is being called on to meet competing needs in Afghanistan, El
Salvador, India, Sudan, and many other needy places. As the former head
of OFDA, do you agree that funding for Disaster Assistance is
inadequate?
Answer. USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA)
generally obligates more than its annual New Obligating Authority.
Additional needs have been covered through the recovery of prior years
obligations, supplemental funding from Congress and by exercising the
492(b) authority. Over the last five years, OFDA has responded to an
average of 68 disasters annually. Most of the IDA account is spent on
complex emergencies involving political turmoil and civil strife that
threaten the stability of a region, such as is the case in Sudan. We
have projected our funding requirements based on the current activities
and I believe the funding level to be adequate.

BHR/OFDA--NOA ANALYSIS AND OBLIGATIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1996-2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New obligating Number of
Fiscal year Total authority declared
obligations (NOA) disasters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000......................... $229,507,615 $152,706,257 74
1999......................... 292,664,529 160,000,000 64
1998......................... 186,358,181 160,000,000 86
1997......................... 174,670,844 165,000,000 51
1996......................... 156,605,467 155,951,000 65
------------------------------------------------------------------------

east timor
Question. I am sure you are aware of the destruction that took
place in East Timor after the referendum in 1999. As East Timor now
moves toward full independence, its need for international assistance
remains great. From everything I hear, USAID's Office of Transition
Initiatives has been doing a superb job there. What kind of U.S.
support for East Timor--in terms of funding levels and priorities--do
you envision after a formal declaration of independence?
Answer. East Timor must take several steps to achieve full
independence. Elections for East Timor's Constituent Assembly are
scheduled for August 2001 (although they may be delayed). Following
these elections, the new assembly will draft a constitution, with
public participation through the formulation and functioning of
Constitutional Commissions. The East Timorese people will elect their
new president in early 2002. The formal declaration of independence
will occur when the new president is installed. Given the complexity of
these steps, full independence probably will not be achieved until June
2002 or later.
USAID will maintain programmatic flexibility within this extremely
fluid political and social environment. We have developed a strategy
based on a funding scenario of $25 million economic support fund (ESF)
annually in fiscal years 2001-2003 (a total of $75 million).
In fiscal year 2001, USAID anticipates using approximately $5
million ESF for pre- and post-election activities. This includes
assisting indigenous non-governmental organizations with election
support; constitution and legislative drafting; citizen participation
in local governance; rule of law; and media development. Our post-
election priorities are to provide technical assistance and training to
strengthen the new independent electoral commission in organizing and
conducting future elections.
USAID's ongoing economic development work spans both pre- and post-
election periods. Approximately $4 million ESF will be used to
accelerate economic revitalization by continuing to develop East
Timor's main export commodity (coffee).
The Office of Transition Initiatives will continue to work with
USAID/Jakarta on community-level rehabilitation through its small
grants program. We anticipate that approximately $9.5 million will be
spent on community stabilization, assistance to independent media
outlets, and support for the reintegration of ex-combatants.
______

Question Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
global development alliance
Question. You have suggested a $160 million fund for public-private
partnerships. While I welcome the flexibility that such a fund could
offer USAID, I'd like you to outline where these funds are coming from
in your budget to make up the $160 million fund? How will you be sure
that the goals of the programs from which these funds are taken, such
as renewable energy, biodiversity and other environmental projects, are
met under the Global Development Alliance?
Answer. Funding for the Global Development Alliance is intended as
an incentive to encourage public-private alliances, which will leverage
additional resources and new ideas to tackle critical development
problems. This is a new initiative for fiscal year 2002, and one of
USAID's four pillars.
The funding requested for the Global Development Alliance for
fiscal year 2002 comes from three accounts; Development Assistance
($110 million), Child Survival and Diseases Program ($25 million), and
International Disaster Assistance ($25 million). Funds were not
withheld from any particular sector, but rather taken off the top,
since this is a new funding request.
It is our hope that all sectors will be able to benefit from an
increase in total funding as alliances are formed with private
companies, foundations and other groups. Until the alliances are
actually developed and submitted for funding, it is impossible to know
which sectors will receive what level of funding. It is also quite
possible, and we believe desirable, that some alliances may work across
sectors.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
tuberculosis
Question. Tuberculosis is an ancient disease, but due in part to
apathy, it has made a dangerous comeback in recent years. Tuberculosis
is highly infectious and spreads through the air from one person to
another. Among infectious diseases, TB remains the second leading
killer in the world (after AIDS), killing nearly 2 million people
around the world each year. Tuberculosis rates are substantially higher
for minorities in the United States. Native Americans, for example,
have an incidence five times greater than that of Caucasians.
Tuberculosis also has a sinister interaction with the HIV/AIDS
epidemic-people co-infected with HIV and TB are up to 800 times more
likely to develop active TB than people without HIV.
Tuberculosis is the leading killer of people with AIDS and accounts
for one third of all deaths in Sub-Saharan Africa. Due to its
infectious nature, an important way to control TB here at home is to
control it abroad. Congress has expanded investment for international
tuberculosis control in recent years--in 2001 this Subcommittee
provided $60 million for international TB control, up from a level of
virtually zero in 1997.
What are your views of the extent of the TB problem overseas? How
will USAID address this growing problem in the coming years?
Answer. The tuberculosis problem overseas continues to grow every
day and is of increasing concern to USAID. Ninety-five percent of all
TB cases and ninety-eight percent of the 2 million annual TB deaths
occur in developing countries. Tuberculosis threatens the poorest and
most marginalized members of a society and undermines economic
development. As you accurately noted, TB is growing in concert with the
HIV/AIDS pandemic. Because of this and because TB is highly contagious,
the disease is clearly a threat not only to the developing world but to
the United States as well.
USAID is making a significant contribution to the global effort to
prevent and control tuberculosis, leading to a reduction in the
morbidity and mortality associated with the disease. USAID will work to
build capacity in countries most affected to address tuberculosis;
expand implementation of proven, cost-effective interventions for
preventing the transmission of tuberculosis; and help strengthen policy
commitment and surveillance. We also will help ensure an adequate
supply of drugs by assisting countries to obtain reliable access to TB
drugs through improved drug management and procurement practices. In
addition, USAID will continue to invest in developing new tools to
prevent, diagnose and treat tuberculosis, and invest in training an
expanded cadre of TB experts. Finally, we are contributing
significantly to the international Stop TB partnership, as well as
fostering partnerships with other donors, non-governmental
organizations, foundations and the private sector to mobilize more
funding and attention to combating the spread of TB and other
infectious diseases.
corruption in the organization for security and cooperation in europe
(osce) region
Question. As Chairman of the Commission of Security and Co-
Operation in Europe (OSCE), the Helsinki Commission, I am particularly
concerned over the growing problem of corruption in the 55-nation OSCE
region. I have worked to raise corruption-related issues within the
OSCE framework, as there are obvious implications in the security,
economic and human dimensions that impact U.S. interests in the region.
What projects are currently being supported by USAID in the OSCE
participating States to help promote transparency and the developments
of related non-governmental organizations (NGOs)?
Answer. USAID recognized the growing problem of corruption in the
region back in 1997, when, together with the OECD, we inaugurated an
Anti-Corruption Network for Transition States, including both Central
European and the former Soviet Union. That network brings together
host-country government officials, non-governmental organizations,
foreign donors and anti-corruption practitioners and specialists in
yearly meetings to promote best practices, such as procurement reform
and aggressive freedom-of-information laws to protect journalists who
report on corruption. We also launched an English-Russian anti-
corruption website, www.nobribes.org, to detail many of these
approaches and connect users in ways that truly facilitated
information-sharing and open dialogue.
In the countries of southeast Europe represented in the Stability
Pact, USAID has pressed for non-governmental organization (NGO)
participation and leadership in the transparency effort. We fund the
Southeast Europe Legal Defense Initiative, an anti-corruption program
not led by any foreign donor or development organization, but by
Coalition 2000, an anti-corruption NGO in Bulgaria, to help other anti-
corruption NGOs across eight countries to develop their own ability to
monitor and fight corruption in their countries.
In addition to these regional approaches, USAID also emphasizes
bilateral efforts to combat corruption. In Slovakia, for example,
before USAID's bilateral program ended, the entire program was devoted
to the promotion of transparency and the fight against corruption. We
worked very closely with the Government of Slovakia to publicize a
detailed corruption strategy and ensure NGO participation in it. In
Bulgaria, we continue to work with NGOs and the Government to promote
accountability within the judiciary and customs, and we work closely
with our colleagues from the Department of Justice in that effort. Our
Croatia mission is moving cautiously forward with a program emphasizing
transparency in the continued privatization process, participation by
NGOs and labor unions in economic reform efforts, and civil society
involvement in these questions at all levels.
Throughout the region, USAID coordinates closely with anti-
corruption programs implemented by other U.S. government agencies, such
as the Departments of Justice, State, and the Treasury. USAID will
continue to work with the OSCE, the World Bank, the OECD Development
Assistance Committee and other regional development and security
organizations in the region to aggressively promote transparency as a
fundamental part of development work.
Question. Given the implications for democracy, human rights and
the rule of law, is USAID placing greater emphasis on activities that
can help stem corruption in these countries?
Answer. This year, USAID's Europe & Eurasia Bureau released an
Anti-Corruption Strategic Framework, disseminating it widely through
the U.S. government, to anti-corruption practitioners and others. At
the heart of that strategy is a focus on our capacity to promote
transparency and information-sharing. In countries where consolidating
authoritarian regimes appear to be returning, we believe that a renewed
focus on human rights and freedom for journalists and critics remains
the most important contribution we can make to stemming the tide. In
other countries whose overall direction is uncertain, we believe an
approach combining ``good governance'' technical assistance and
aggressive promotion of information-sharing is an effective tool to
help reform-oriented groups within those countries consolidate their
gains and prevent backsliding or erosion. In countries with clear
commitments to democracy and the rule of law, we are attempting to make
transparency the core of our economic and democratic assistance
programs.
We have examined the record of other countries that have mounted
successful campaigns against corruption and noted the importance of
these kind of practices, together with aggressive law enforcement
technical assistance that our colleagues from Justice, State, Treasury
and elsewhere are providing. All are necessary parts of a comprehensive
package that new transition states can use to make inroads against
corrupt practices.
Question. Last week I chaired a Commission hearing on developments
in Ukraine. I am particularly interested in USAID's ongoing activities
in that country where corruption remains a major stumbling block to
progress. Could you please provide your views in this area?
Answer. Corruption is the misuse of public power for private
profit. Not many would disagree that corruption in Ukraine today is
systemic. However, it should be remembered that corruption was also
systemic during the Soviet era. This partly explains the lack, or the
lesser amount, of stigma associated with corrupt acts in Ukraine.
Nevertheless, action is necessary because corruption has grown to
such an extent that it now may constitute a threat to the state.
Corruption promotes the unequal distribution of wealth, undermines
public confidence in government, and discredits the concepts of the
free market and rule of law.
Obviously, enforcement strategies will remain a component of any
anti-corruption program. But, their limited effectiveness to date
strongly suggests the need to supplement them with initiatives to
prevent corruption from arising. This so-called ``prevention'' strategy
focuses on reducing the incentives and opportunities that lead to
corruption. Unlike enforcement strategies that attack corruption
directly, prevention strategies often do so indirectly by pursuing
policies that have as one of their concomitant consequences a reduction
in the incentives and opportunities for corruption.
Since corruption in Ukraine affects many of the areas in which
USAID is providing assistance, most, if not all, USAID assistance
programs inevitably address corruption. The major focus of many of
these programs has been to reduce opportunities for corruption by
promoting reforms that increase transparency and accountability.
Examples of anti-corruption activities in the current USAID portfolio
include:
--Regulatory reform to assist the Government of Ukraine (GOU) bring
about a meaningful reduction in the overwhelming regulatory
burden faced by enterprises in Ukraine, especially small- and
medium-sized businesses whose survival and development are
stifled by over-regulation.
--Banking sector reform to foster more transparency by training
Ukrainian bankers in western banking practices, training GOU
bank regulators in on-site inspection, to elevate regulators'
standards and professional knowledge, and to promote conversion
of commercial banks to international accounting standards.
--Enterprise accounting to reform the accounting system based on
international accounting standards.
--Enterprise development to provide entrepreneurs across Ukraine with
access to existing laws, policies, and regulations governing
their activities and to work with multiple branches and levels
of the GOU to support deregulation of commercial activities and
reduce the number of licenses, monitoring procedures, and other
obstacles to efficient business development.
--Independent media to provide special seminars and training
exchanges, some in conjunction with the World Bank, in
investigative reporting for reform-oriented journalists.
--Justice sector reform to encourage courts to adopt more transparent
procedures, including blind assignment of cases.
--Legal reform to facilitate drafting of a new Ethics Code for
government officials and legislation to cover the rights and
obligations of administrative bodies, their relationship to
other governmental organizations and the public.
--Fiscal reform to encourage sounder budget and tax policies, better
government financial management practices, greater transparency
in city budgets and strategic plans, higher professional
standards, and decentralization.
--Local self-government development to help Ukrainian cities
establish transparent procedures in budgeting, municipal land
use and competitive contracting for public works.
belarus
Question. What is the current level of USAID assistance to Belarus?
Answer. USAID's budget for fiscal year 2001 is $4 million.
Including USAID, the overall U.S. Government assistance budget for
Belarus is approximately $13 million. Approximately 80 percent of the
USAID budget support democratic initiatives. The United States is the
largest bilateral donor of foreign assistance to Belarus.
Question. Are there plans to increase the level of assistance to
devote to development of non-governmental organizations and the
independent media in Belarus?
Anwer. Both USAID and State Department assistance is already
largely focused on development of non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
and the independent media. Should additional pre-election requirements
be identified, we will look at how we might accommodate them.
Question. What programs are already in place to promote democracy,
especially in the run-up to presidential elections expected later this
year?
Answer. USAID's activities in the current year include political
process support, civil society and NGO strengthening, support for rule
of law and legal defense, assistance to independent media and technical
assistance to private enterprises, which are an important constituency
for democratization.
Question. According to the Spring issue of the Belarusian Review,
Lukashenka has issued a decree banning the use of foreign aid for pro-
democracy activities. Is USAID aware of this development and are your
funded organizations doing pro-democracy work in Belarus now in
jeopardy?
Anwer. USAID is aware of President Lukashenka's Decree 8, which
forbids ``gratuitous foreign assistance,'' particularly related to
election assistance. However, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has
assured the U.S. Embassy that USAID grantees and contractors are exempt
from Decree 8, which explicitly excludes those programs covered under
international agreements approved by the Government of Belarus, such as
our Bilateral Agreement. At the request of our grantees and
contractors, USAID provided a sentence to be added to all their
documents citing coverage under the Bilateral Agreement.
Yet, despite these assurances, USAID grantees and contractors have
been contacted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Belarusian KGB
with repeated requests for details of their programs. And, on several
occasions, USAID's grantees and contractors have been harassed by
telephone, by being followed, and by being photographed.
The Government of Belarus continues its attack on the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and its efforts to train
election monitors for the presidential election, which have been
scheduled for early September 2001.
international crime
Question. The Federal Government considers international crime--a
composite of many separate types of criminal activities, such as drug
trafficking, money laundering, and public corruption--as a growing
threat to the national security interest of the United States,
designated as such by Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 42 of
October 1995. PDD-42 called for a sustained and focused federal effort
to combat international crime. In 1998, the International Crime Control
Strategy outlined the 8 goals and 30 implementing objectives of the
federal response and identified a number of specific initiatives to
achieve these goals and objectives. In addition, the strategy called
for conducting assessments to gauge the threat posed by various types
of international crime and implementing a performance measurement
system to assess the effectiveness of the strategy's initiatives. Two
threat assessments were subsequently conducted in 1999 and 2000; there
was no action to establish an overall performance measurement system.
What programs is USAID funding to support the Administration of
Justice and Rule of Law? In which countries are these programs? Is
USAID funding any specific initiatives to help address international
crime? If so, how are these initiatives coordinated with other federal
agencies also working in the international crime area?
Answer. USAID's administration of justice and rule of law programs
are part of our overall objective of strengthening democracy and good
governance. Programs generally follow one of four basic approaches:
--improving the legal framework;
--improving justice sector institution performance;
--increasing access to justice; and
--generating popular demand for justice sector reform.
Within these broad parameters, specific country programs vary
significantly. Attached (on the following page) is a chart that
illustrates USAID justice sector assistance programs by country and
region.
In general, USAID does not directly engage in activities to stop
international criminals due to statutory restrictions and institutional
capabilities. Our justice sector and other programs are focused on the
long-term impact of strengthening host-country justice systems. A
capable and fair judicial sector that is able to withstand significant
corruption will have a key role in derailing international crime.
Nevertheless, we do undertake efforts, which impact on international
criminals' ability to operate. These include crop substitution in
narcotic growing areas, anti-corruption measures in governmental
institutions, and building awareness in the government and non-
governmental community to stem the trafficking of people. We also
directly provide resources to USG agencies such as the Departments of
Justice and State, which work in partnership with law enforcement
officials implementing measures to counteract international crime.
The National Security Council is responsible for inter-agency
coordination of international crime-related actions. All USAID-funded
and implemented justice sector assistance programs emphasize
coordination with other federal agencies. Joint assessments, funding
transfers (when appropriate), and regular consultations with relevant
agencies are among the prominent coordination modalities with other
federal agencies. We have agreements in place with the Department of
Justice and the Federal Judiciary for coordination on training of
police, prosecutors, court administrators and judges. USAID routinely
works on these issues with various State Department offices, including
the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, the Bureau for
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, the Office of
International War Crimes Issues, as well as regional bureaus.

USAID JUSTICE SECTOR ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asia/Near East Africa Europe/Eurasia LAC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bangladesh Angola Albania Bolivia
Cambodia Burundi Armenia Colombia
East Timor Congo Azerbaijan Dom. Rep.
Egypt Ethiopia Belarus Ecuador
Indonesia Madagascar Bosnia El Salvador
Mongolia Malawi Bulgaria Guatemala
Morocco Mozambique Croatia Haiti
Nepal Nigeria Georgia Honduras
Oman Rwanda Kazakhstan Mexico
West Bank Sierra Leone Kyrgyztan Nicaragua
South Africa Kosovo Panama
Tanzania Macedonia Paraguay
Uganda Moldova Peru
...................... Montenegro Venezuela
...................... Romania
...................... Russia
...................... Serbia ........................
...................... Slovakia ........................
...................... Ukraine ........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, that concludes the
hearing. The subcommittee will stand in recess until 9:30 a.m.,
Tuesday, May 15, when we will meet in room SD-124 to hear from
the Secretary of State, Hon. Colin Powell.
[Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., Tuesday, May 8, the subcommittee
was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, May 15.]

FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

----------

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2001

U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mitch McConnell (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators McConnell, Stevens, Specter, Bennett,
Campbell, Leahy, Mikulski, Durbin, Johnson, and Landrieu.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Office of the Secretary

STATEMENT OF HON. COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MITCH Mc CONNELL

Senator McConnell. Good morning, Mr. Secretary. Welcome to
the subcommittee. It has been our custom for the chairman and
ranking member to make brief opening statements, then we will
go to you for your statement. We appreciate very much your
being here. Welcome back to the front lines of U.S. foreign
policy. We had Andy Natsios here last week. He's a very
impressive fellow, I might add, and we are looking forward to
learning his reform plans for USAID. I know you have already
wrestled with some of the earmarks, sanctions, and
certifications requirements contained in last year's foreign
operations bill. As someone who inserted a number of those, I
can assure you they will not all go away, but we do not want to
complicate your life and do want you to be a big success.
Some of those earmarks reflected a lack of confidence by
some of us in the previous administration. Some of it, frankly,
I think was necessary and helpful to the previous
administration. In the last 8 years I think we saw a crisis of
confidence in Washington that was fueled by a number of
missteps and mistakes across the globe. Your success in your
new job will be measured in part by a decrease in some of these
earmarks and mandates that we have a tendency to put in these
bills.
Your foreign policy mettle has already been tested by our
confrontation with China over the EP-3 incident, the escalation
of ethnic tensions in the Balkans, and continued violence in
the Middle East against one of America's most important allies.
While there have been successes and setbacks, our country's
commitment to principles, constancy of purpose, and
credibility, will ensure that U.S. national security interests
are advanced and protected. There is a demand for American
leadership in the world, whether it is seeking justice for war
crimes in Serbia or maintaining sanctions against the
oppressive military regime in Burma. I want to offer a few
comments on the President's $15.2 billion request for foreign
operations.
While I have concerns with the 25-percent decrease in
funding for the Export-Import Bank, I am pleased that the
overall amount is a slight increase over the fiscal 2001 level.
There will be some fine-tuning on our part, in line with the
subcommittee's budget allocation and policy interest, as is our
prerogative.
Among other issues, I anticipate discussion and debate over
the $731 million Andean counterdrug initiative, and the $369
million request for HIV/AIDS programs. You should know that I
do not view U.S. foreign assistance as an entitlement, and will
be reviewing more closely country-specific aid packages under
the economic support fund and other accounts.
For example, what justification could be offered this year
for the $75 million request for the West Bank and Gaza Strip,
when no end to the violence seems to be in sight? Yasser Arafat
walked away from the best deal the Palestinians will likely
ever see. I am not sure there is anything more the Israelis
could have offered than they did late last year. In Egypt,
Government-sponsored newspapers praise Adolph Hitler and incite
violence against Jews in Israel. I am wondering if this kind of
behavior warrants a request of $2 billion.
Let me close with a brief comment about the struggle for
democracy in Asia. In the past, the State Department has been
all talk and little action on this issue. I have had to battle
for increased support and attention to Burma, Cambodia, East
Timor, and Indonesia.

prepared statement

I hope that at some point during this hearing you will
affirm America's commitment to the cause of freedom in this
region, particularly in Burma and Cambodia. As President Ronald
Reagan stated in his speech before the British Parliament back
in the early 1980s: We must be staunch in our conviction that
freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the
inalienable and universal right of all human beings.
Again, Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here, and I will
now defer to my colleague, Senator Leahy.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Mitch McConnell
Mr. Secretary, welcome back to the front lines of U.S. foreign
policy. You and Andy Natsios, who appeared before this Subcommittee
last week, have my support and encouragement for bringing about much
needed change at State and the U.S. Agency for International
Development.
I know that you have already wrestled with the many earmarks,
sanctions, and certification requirements contained in last year's
foreign operations bill. More than anything, this is evidence of the
little faith that the U.S. Congress had in the previous
Administration's foreign policy skills and priorities. The past eight
years saw a crisis of confidence in Washington that was fueled by
missteps and mistakes across the globe. Your success in your new job
will be measured, in part, by a decrease in Congressionally mandated
actions.
Your foreign policy mettle has already been tested by our
confrontation with China over the EP-3 incident, the escalation of
ethnic tensions in the Balkans, and continued violence in the Middle
East against one of America's most important allies. While there have
been successes and setbacks, our country's commitment to principles,
constancy of purpose, and credibility will ensure that U.S. national
security interests are advanced and protected. There is a demand for
American leadership in the world, whether seeking justice for war
crimes in Serbia or maintaining sanctions against the oppressive
military regime in Burma.
I want to offer a few comments on the President's $15.2 billion
request for foreign operations. While I have concerns with the 25
percent decrease in funding for the Export-Import Bank, I am pleased
that the overall amount is a slight increase over the fiscal year 2001
level. There will be some fine tuning on our part in line with the
Subcommittee's budget allocation and policy interests, as is our
prerogative. Among other issues, I anticipate discussion and debate
over the $731 million Andean Counterdrug Initiative, and the $369
million request for HIV/AIDS programs.
You should know that I do not view U.S. foreign assistance as an
entitlement, and will be reviewing more closely country-specific aid
packages under the Economic Support Fund and other accounts. For
example, what justification can you offer for the $75 million request
for the West Bank and Gaza Strip when no end to the violence is in
sight? Yasser Arafat walked away from the best deal the Palestinians
will likely ever see; what more can Israel offer? In Egypt, government-
sponsored newspapers praise Adolph Hitler and incite violence against
Jews and Israel. Is this kind of relationship worth the request of $2
billion?
Let me close with a brief comment about the struggle for democracy
in Asia. In the past, the State Department has been all talk and little
action on this issue. I have had to battle for increased support and
attention to Burma, Cambodia, East Timor, and Indonesia. I hope that at
some point during this hearing, you will affirm America's commitment to
the cause of freedom in this region, particularly in Burma and
Cambodia. As President Ronald Reagan stated in his speech before the
British Parliament in June 1982, ``We must be staunch in our conviction
that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the
inalienable and universal right of all human beings.''

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary,
it is always good to see you. I have said before publicly that
I believe your appointment was one of the President's best and
most important decisions so far, for our country, but also for
the State Department, and I think that was shown by the very
effective way you handled the situation with China when they
held prisoner our reconnaissance aircraft crew.
The public statements you have made for a more aggressive
response to AIDS when you and I were at the White House last
Friday, as you know, I have complimented you for that, and I do
here publicly.
I believe it is a critical time for our country. The peace
and prosperity which many had hoped for after the cold war has
not materialized in a lot of parts of the world, including
parts of our country.
The world today is increasingly divided between the extreme
rich and the extreme poor, a situation that triggers vicious
civil wars. These wars are also fueled by religious and ethnic
hatred, when both sides kill in the name of their Creator,
making everybody wonder just who has got that direct line to
heaven as people die on both sides.
Even the American people--we are blessed with wealth and
opportunities beyond what most people could dream of, certainly
far more than your parents or my parents could dream of--seem
unsure of the role our country should play in the world.
President Bush promised to act more humbly around the world,
but we are increasingly accused by our friends and allies, as
well as our detractors, of arrogance and bullying.
The recent vote in the U.N. Human Rights Commission did not
occur in a vacuum. It reflected deep resentment built up over
years that we impose standards on the rest of the world that we
do not always live up to ourselves. I hope we can get back on
the commission. Withholding our U.N. dues may make us feel
good, especially when we see a number of human rights violators
who went on that commission. We see countries noted best for
their pomposity and arrogance, like the French, a country that
ignored the slaughter of children and others in their own
former colonies, advising us on human rights, but withholding
our dues, of course, could just make a bad situation even
worse. We look forward to your advice on that.
It is early, but I do not get the sense of how the
administration plans to project American power and leadership
in a way that builds better relations with our allies as well
as our adversaries.
This is nothing new. During the early years of the Clinton
administration, our foreign policy lurched from crisis to
crisis. An administration that believed very much in looking
first and foremost at the economy, we had been through a number
of recessions, it seemed like foreign policy was often a last-
minute thought, and Congress did not help. We cut funding for
foreign policy. We tied up billions of dollars over a dispute
about family planning as populations exploded around the world.
Charting a steady course in our foreign policy--one that
reflects both the interests and the responsibilities of the
wealthiest, most powerful Nation, is increasingly difficult in
today's world. We ought to reaffirm the principles that guide
us and adhere to them, whether it is in Colombia, the Middle
East, or the Balkans, and when we set goals we should provide
the resources to achieve them.
Year after year, we sell ourselves and future generations
short by underfunding foreign policy. No one questions the
importance of military power, but security today has a lot less
to do with military power than it did a quarter of a century
ago. Certainly, if we can get countries to become more
democratic, then we are better off, but that means you have to
have a long-term vision, one that goes on from administration
to administration, and it has to be backed by well-funded
foreign assistance programs and effective diplomacy as well as
military power, and we cannot cut any of those.
I cannot think of anyone better suited to define our role
in the world and to strengthen our policies and to carry out
our policies to strengthen our security, broadly defined, than
you, Mr. Secretary. You have the vision, common sense, and the
firmness that are required. At the time you were appointed, we
spoke very shortly after that. I did not know whether to offer
you congratulations or condolences, and it took at least a week
or so before I even broached the subject with Mrs. Powell, but
I am glad you are there.

prepared statement

It is not an easy job, but there are a lot of us up here in
both parties who would like us to have a strong, consistent
foreign policy, and one where we can anticipate and stop crises
before they happen. We will work with you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you. I think your appointment was
one of the President's best and most important decisions so far, both
for our country and for the State Department.
This has already been shown by the effective way the Administration
handled the crisis with China over the detention of our reconnaissance
aircraft crew, the public statements you have made for a more
aggressive response to AIDS, and your work on other issues.
This is a critical time for our country. The peace and prosperity
which many hoped for after the cold war has not materialized. The world
today is increasingly divided between the extreme rich and the extreme
poor, and torn by vicious civil wars fueled by religious and ethnic
hatred.
Even the American people, blessed with wealth and opportunities
beyond what most people could dream of, seem unsure of the role our
country should play in the world.
Despite President Bush's campaign promise to act more humbly, we
are increasingly accused by our friends and allies, as well as our
detractors, of arrogance and bullying.
The recent vote in the U.N. Human Rights Commission did not occur
in a vacuum. It reflected a deep resentment, built up over years, that
we impose standards on the rest of the world that we do not always live
up to ourselves. We need to get back on the Commission, but withholding
our U.N. dues is the precisely the wrong way.
It is early, but I have no sense that this Administration has a
clear sense of how to project American power and leadership in a way
that builds better relations with our allies as well as our
adversaries.
This is nothing new. During the early years of the Clinton
administration our foreign policy lurched from crisis to crisis. No
thanks to Congress, I might add, which cut funding for foreign policy
and tied up billions of dollars over abortion.
Charting a steady course in foreign policy that reflects both the
interests and responsibilities of the wealthiest, most powerful nation,
is increasingly difficult in today's world. We need to reaffirm the
principles that guide us, and do a better job of adhering to them,
whether in Colombia, the Middle East or the Balkans.
When we set goals, we should provide the resources to achieve them.
Year after year we sell ourselves--and future generations--short, by
under-funding foreign policy.
No one questions the importance of military power. But security
today has a lot less to do with military power than it did a quarter
century ago.
It requires a long-term vision backed by well-funded foreign
assistance programs, effective diplomacy, as well as military power. We
cannot afford to cut corners on any of these.
But again, it is early, and I cannot think of anyone better suited
to define our role in the world, and to carry out policies to
strengthen our security--broadly defined--than you Mr. Secretary. You
have the vision, the common sense, the humility, and the firmness that
are required.
Thank you for agreeing to take on this responsibility.

Senator McConnell. Thank you, Senator Leahy.

Summary statement of Hon. Colin Powell

Mr. Secretary, we are looking forward to hearing from you.
We will put your full statement in the record, and go right
ahead.
Secretary Powell. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
your warm welcome, and I thank you for your opening statement,
and Senator Leahy, I thank you for your opening remarks, and I
look forward to hearing from the other members of the committee
during the question and answer period. I want to let you know,
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that I do look
forward to working with the committee in the months ahead.
I think it is an important part of my responsibilities to
work closely with the Congress and all the various committees.
This will be my eighth hearing in the 3-plus months that I have
been Secretary of State, among other duties that I perform, but
I view this kind of interchange with the Congress just as
important as any other duty that I have, and so I appreciate
your welcome, and I look forward to working with you in the
future.
Before getting into a shortened version of my prepared
testimony, perhaps I will just touch briefly on some of the
points, Mr. Chairman, you raised, and Senator Leahy raised.
With respect to earmarks, directives, and restrictions. I
understand the reality of such things, and I thank you for the
opportunity to be graded on the basis of the declining number
of earmarks and directives that you will find it necessary to
impose upon me and the administration in the months and years
ahead.
I hope we can work together closely so that we can satisfy
the concerns and needs of the Congress, and accommodate the
imperatives of the Congress in a way that is faithful to what
the Congress wishes to see happen but also gives the
administration, gives the President the necessary flexibility,
and his team the necessary flexibility to react to changing
events without being overly constrained by provisions of law,
earmarks, and restrictions.
I look forward to having that relationship with you, Mr.
Chairman, and the members of the committee, and other
committees, towards that end, so that we do what is in the best
interests of the Nation, as determined by the President and the
Congress, in the name of the people, but do it in a way that
gives the President maximum flexibility to conduct foreign
policy.
On the Eximbank, yes, there has been a decrease, but we
think it is a reasonable decrease in light of the policy
changes that accompany that decrease, and those policy changes
include encouraging companies that have access to capital
markets to go to the private capital markets rather than coming
to the Government, and for those who do come to the Government,
taking on a slightly higher level of risk as part of their
business activity, thereby allowing us to reduce that account,
and make it less of a drain against the American taxpayers. We
will be looking at this very, very carefully to make sure that
we have not done anything that is disruptive to the activities
of the bank, or undercut the foreign policy goals that we have
for the bank.
With respect to the Andean Initiative and the counterdrug
initiative within it, I think it is logical and comprehensive
follow-on to Plan Colombia, where we are expanding our efforts
throughout the whole region, and I will have a little bit to
say about that in my statement, but I think we can make a case
that this is a worthwhile investment in our overall drug
strategy but also in our overall development strategy, not just
going after drugs in those regions as sources of drugs that
come to the United States, but also helping improve the lives
of those people, help their democracy become stabilized, fight
off the corrosive effect of narcotrafficking on their
democracies, so in the programs we are going to be requesting
and the money we are requesting for those programs in this
fiscal year budget, you will see us talk about democracy
building activities, alternative crops, things of that nature,
as well as the more standard kinds of drug interdiction
activities.
Similarly, I will say a little bit more about AIDS in a
moment, but it is a crisis not only in sub-Saharan Africa, it
is a crisis in Russia about to happen, and it is a crisis in
other parts of the world. It is not just a health care crisis,
it is a destroyer of culture, a destroyer of families, a
destroyer of economies, and it is something that we have to get
a lot of attention to, and as Senator Leahy noted, the
President has taken us to a new level of commitment to this war
by participating in the global trust fund that is being
created, and by committing $200 million to the global trust
fund on top of the very significant contribution that the
United States makes towards the war on HIV/AIDS already.
Mr. Chairman, on your concern, with respect to the use of
foreign assistance funds for the West Bank, Gaza, and Egypt, I
think we have to look at these carefully. I think we have to be
a responsible partner for the parties in the region at this
time of high stress, at this time of high violence, in order to
get them back to a situation we can pursue a negotiating track.
I am sure we can talk about that more in the course of
questions and answers, but I take your points with respect to
those two particular accounts, the West Bank, Gaza, and then
Egypt.
With regard to Burma, Cambodia, East Timor, and Indonesia.
Chairman McConnell, I can assure you that the administration,
President Bush, me, and all the members of the administration,
are committed to human rights everywhere throughout the world,
as universal rights belonging to every child of God, whether
that child is in the United States, or in Burma. You will see
us aggressively pursue our human rights agenda at every
opportunity.
Some people suggest that one of the reasons we ran into
some trouble on the Human Rights Committee vote was because we
were too aggressive, and frankly, when we had the Geneva
meetings a few weeks ago we were very aggressive. I was calling
foreign ministers and presidents, the President was calling
presidents, Dr. Rice was involved in it, we were pushing for
the resolutions we thought were important, and we may have made
a few people mad at us by the aggressive manner in which we
pursue human rights issues.
We probably made some more people mad at us when we
released our human rights report that call things the way those
things are around the world. If that is what made people mad,
well, they are going to stay mad, because we are going to
continue to point out human rights abuses. We are going to
continue to work on this issue. I also believe that we will get
back on that commission, if that is what we choose to do next
year, and I think that is what we should do next year; subject
to the President's final approval.
I would encourage the Congress to be cautious with respect
to punishing the United Nations for this particular problem. We
lost a vote. It was a democratic vote. We do not like the
outcome. We may not like the fact that people trade votes.
Nevertheless, we lost the vote. We should take our hit and now
look to build on the future, and not take actions which are
punitive or suggest that you are not going to get the money we
owe you unless you guarantee that we will win the next vote. We
should win the next vote on our merit, and the case will make
our next vote. Not because we are holding a financial hammer
over the heads of the members of that committee that did not
vote for us this time.
So I think it is important for us to keep that loss in
perspective, and recognize that we still have observer status
on the commission, that we will be able to help others
introduce resolutions. We will not be able to vote for that 1
year that we are out, but we will still be able to communicate
in a very, very powerful, clear voice, our concerns about human
rights. Nothing associated with that vote should suggest to
anybody that the United States or the Bush administration is
going to hold back in speaking about human rights.
With respect to Senator Leahy's comments about whether our
foreign policy is well thought out, whether we say we are going
to be humbled but act arrogantly, I think, over time, Senator
Leahy, you will see that we do have a foreign policy that is
well thought out, that begins here in the Western Hemisphere.
The Summit of the Americas a few weeks ago was very, very
successful, with a powerful commitment to democracy.
We are working with our allies in Europe. We are working
with nations that used to be enemies. My Russian colleague,
Igor Ivanov, will be here this Friday for a full day's worth of
discussions on every issue affecting our two nations, and so
you will find us reach out increasingly.
The President will be going to EU's summit meeting in
Brussels, a summit meeting with his NATO allies, or
ministerial, or presidential Chief of State meetings in June,
and then we have G-8 coming up in July, and you will see us
increasingly engaged in Europe.
Once we get this incident of the airplane completely behind
us, you will see us engage with China, and we still have strong
allies in Japan and South Korea. We will be building on those
alliances, and I think you will see, over time, emerge a
foreign policy that is humble, not arrogant; that reflects the
best values of the American people; and that reflects our
position in the world as a powerful Nation that has to use that
power, not be afraid to use it, but in using it, use it with
humility, and use it to pursue well-thought-out policies and
well-thought-out concepts of where we need to be going on the
world stage. I hope we will be able to persuade you of that.
For my brief opening statement, and I will summarize it
very quickly, I would just like to mention to members of the
committee that while, by law, I am the principal foreign policy
advisor to the President, I am also, if not stated directly in
the law, I am the leader and manager of the Department of
State, the CEO, the Chief Operating Officer, the person who is
responsible for motivating a superb workforce and taking care
of them, making sure they have what they need to do their job
well.
As both the chairman and Senator Leahy mentioned, it is our
obligation, once we have set goals for those diplomats of ours,
to achieve, we have got to give them the resources they need to
do the job, and this budget request that I am up here defending
as the CEO of the State Department, I think does a good job of
moving us in that direction. It represents an increase over the
previous year budget. Of the overall $23.9 billion in the
President's fiscal year budget request for the State
Department, $15.2 billion is for foreign operations, about 2
percent more than last year, with some puts and takes in that
number.
Let me give you a few highlights of the budget, and then go
directly to your questions. You have already heard, as you
indicated, Mr. Chairman, from USAID Administrator Andy Natsios,
I think we are very, very fortunate in getting a man of his
qualifications to lead USAID. He comes in with lots of new
ideas, he knows the organization, he is going to challenge it,
he is going to take it up to a new level, he is going to bring
in some new ideas, and the idea that he discussed with you on
global development alliances I think is an example of the kind
of creative thinking that you will see coming out of USAID.
USAID will be more closely aligned with the State
Department than it has been in the past. I view myself as the
owner of USAID, even though it is an independent agency. But
the law says it is my responsibility to give them direction,
give them policy direction and supervise them, and I can assure
you I do that.
Mr. Natsios is at my 8:30 staff meeting every single
morning with every other principal leader in the Department of
State. He is part of my team, and I am going to do everything I
can to make sure that USAID is successful and that it uses the
money given to it by the American people in the most effective
way possible, and especially through this global development
alliance idea that Mr. Natsios has discussed with you, to
leverage some of the resources that USAID has to bring in other
agencies, other activities, NGO's, the private sector, and
figure out clever ways and creative ways to leverage up our
Federal dollars into maximizing the opportunity to bring in
private dollars and other means of investing in the development
work that we will be doing all around the world. So I am very,
very proud to say this about USAID, and also say that I think
we have got a real winner in Mr. Natsios.
We talked briefly--I touched briefly on the Andean Regional
Initiative. Let me just say that in the over $800 million for
this initiative, about half is for Colombia, half is for the
other nations in the region. About half is for drug
interdiction, the other half is for those other activities I
mentioned of crop substitution, democracy-building, investment
in the infrastructure, giving these populations the wherewithal
to resist--resist the corruption and the corrosiveness that
comes with the presence of narcotraffickers in the region, not
just in Colombia, but throughout the whole region.
Obviously, the ultimate solution to this problem is demand
reduction. The ultimate solution to this problem is prevention
and rehabilitation of people who have been drug-users through
treatment, and the new czar, the new director of this program,
Mr. Walters, has made a commitment, and the President has made
a commitment to focus on demand reduction as well as supply
reduction and interdiction efforts. But I think to keep going
with the programs that we have now, I would ask the Congress to
fully support the request that we have made for the Andean
Regional Initiative.
As you also know, $369 million is in our budget for HIV/
AIDS. When you add what other Government agencies are doing,
that number with respect to HIV/AIDS quickly goes over $500
million and, of course, Secretary Thompson has a lot more money
in his budget at HHS on research, looking for a cure,
encouraging drug companies to move everything that is done at
the National Institutes of Health through medicare and other
programs, so that billions more, really, are involved in
treating, preventing, and fighting AIDS.
A lot more needs to be done. The $200-million program that
the President seeded last week with Kofi Annan has to grow.
Other nations have to get involved, nonprofit organizations,
private citizens have to get involved. That fund needs a lot
more money, and the President has committed to doing more for
that fund, and I think that the administration should be
congratulated for helping pull the fund together and for
seeding it with that initial $200 million.
As you may also have noted from that announcement,
Secretary Tommy Thompson and I now cochair a task force on HIV/
AIDS for the President, working closely with Mr. Scott Everts,
the new AIDS policy director in the White House.
There are many other items in the budget that could be
highlighted, Mr. Chairman, but they are known to you; they are
available to you in my prepared testimony, my longer testimony,
so what I think I will do at this point is essentially close
these few opening remarks and turn it over to questions, with
one final observation, and that is, I cannot tell you how proud
I am to be the Secretary of State, and for the opportunity to
lead these wonderful men and women, members of the professional
Foreign Service, members of the Civil Service, our Foreign
Service nationals around the world.
They are doing a great job for America on our first line of
offense; carrying our values, carrying our moral model, our
moral inspiration out to the world, and we have to make sure
they are protected in good embassy buildings, we have to make
sure they are well-compensated, well-rewarded, that their
families are taken care of, and that is my obligation to them,
and I will be fighting for what I believe they need to do their
jobs for the American people with all of my energy and with all
of my strength, just as I used to do when I was wearing a
different kind of uniform.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Colin L. Powell
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to appear
before you for the first time as Secretary of State, and to testify in
support of the President's International Affairs Budget for fiscal year
2002.
This Budget represents a needed increase in the Department's
dollars for the upcoming fiscal year, and we are pleased with that.
This is a good start.
It is the first fiscal step in our efforts to align the conduct of
America's foreign relations with the dictates of the 21st Century.
As Secretary of State I wear two hats--one as CEO of the
Department, the other as the President's principal foreign policy
advisor.
Since the primary interest of this subcommittee is in my role as
foreign policy advisor to the President, I will wear that hat for this
testimony.
Of the $23.9 billion in the President's fiscal year 2002 budget
request (a 5 percent increase over this year) there is $15.2 billion
for foreign operations--or about 2 percent more than this year.
Let me give you some of the highlights of that part of the budget
request and let me begin with a significant change we are making in the
way the U.S. Agency for International Development carries out its
business.
u.s. agency for international development
The President's fiscal year 2002 budget marks the beginning of a
new strategic orientation for USAID. At the center of this strategic
orientation is a new way of doing business to ensure that USAID's long-
term development assistance and humanitarian/disaster relief programs
better respond to U.S. national interests.
Increasing levels of conflict, degraded economic performance, and
widespread disease are causing regional instabilities, complex
humanitarian emergencies and, in some cases, chaos. These conditions
threaten the achievement of USAID's development objectives and broader
U.S. foreign policy goals. The new Administration intends to address
these particular conditions by concentrating USAID resources and
capabilities for a more effective method of delivery.
To improve USAID's effectiveness, several important changes are
outlined in the budget:
--Reorientation of USAID programs to focus on ``Four Pillars'' each
of which supports achievement of USAID's objectives;
--As the first pillar, introduction of the ``Global Development
Alliance'' as USAID's new model for doing business;
--The simplification, integration and reorientation of current
programs and their alignment with three new program pillars:
Economic Growth and Agriculture; Global Health; and Conflict
Prevention and Developmental Relief;
--Adjusting the Agency's budget priorities to target increased
funding for agriculture, HIV/AIDS, basic education, and
conflict prevention and resolution;
--Directing senior management attention to the sweeping overhaul of
the Agency's management, procurement, and operating systems.
the global development alliance pillar
The Global Development Alliance (GDA) is USAID's business model for
the 21st Century and is applicable to all USAID programs. As USAID's
first pillar, the GDA is based on the Agency's recognition of
significant changes in the economic development assistance environment.
No longer are governments, international organizations and multilateral
development banks the only assistance donors; nor is Official
Development Assistance the only source of funding for international
economic development. Rather, over the past 20 years a growing number
of new actors have arrived on the scene: NGOs, Private Voluntary
Organizations (PVOs), foundations, corporations, the higher education
community and even individuals are now providing development
assistance. As a result, the U.S. Government is not the only, or
perhaps even the largest, source of American funding and human
resources being applied to the development challenge.
The GDA will be a fundamental reorientation in how USAID sees
itself in the context of international development assistance, in how
it relates to its traditional partners and in how it seeks out and
develops alliances with new partners. USAID will use its resources and
expertise to assist strategic partners in their investment decisions
and will stimulate new investments by bringing new actors and ideas to
the overseas development arena. USAID will look for opportunities where
relatively small amounts of risk or start-up capital can prudently be
invested to generate much larger benefits in the achievement of overall
objectives. USAID will increasingly fill the role of a strategic
alliance investor, a role akin to that of a venture capital partner, in
the resolution of serious development issues. Unlike a venture capital
fund, however, the Agency will not try to establish equity positions or
seek early exits from the activities in which it invests. Sustained
improvement over the long haul will remain a prime objective. Of
course, the Agency will continue to deploy resources where private
funding is not available and for activities where the governmental role
is clear and pre-eminent to stimulate institutional and policy change.
In order to launch the GDA, a special unit will be established to
expand outreach into the private, for-profit and not-for-profit
sectors. To stimulate movement towards the Global Development Alliance
in its early years, USAID has identified $160 million in the fiscal
year 2002 request to be used to initiate the new business model and to
help fund alliances by Washington bureaus and/or field missions, with a
view toward fully integrating GDA concept into the three program
pillars not later than fiscal year 2004. GDA is not expected to become
a separate funding account.
The funds for initiating the GDA are proposed from the following
appropriations accounts: $110 million in Development Assistance (DA);
$25 million in the Child Survival and Disease Program Fund (CS/D); and
$25 million in International Disaster Assistance (IDA). Uses will be
consistent with the authorized intentions of these accounts.
program pillars
The three program pillars are part of the justification for the
proposed overall program level of $3.4 billion for USAID's directly-
managed programs, including food aid and excluding USAID's
administrative expense accounts and programs jointly managed with the
State Department. Details on the three program pillars follow.
The Economic Growth and Agriculture Pillar ($928 million)
Assistance provided under this pillar will work to create economies
that are viable over the long term. Special emphasis will be directed
at integrating growth, agriculture and environmental objectives and
concerns in a manner such that ``market forces'' play an increasingly
important role in our strategic approach and in determining a program's
long-term viability. Activities funded will assist: the productive
sectors, especially agriculture; the environment and energy sectors;
human capacity development (including basic education); micro-
enterprises; and improvement of the business, trade, and investment
climate. The interrelationship and interdependence of economic growth,
environmental sustainability and the development of a country's human
capital will be highlighted in this pillar.
--The request for fiscal year 2002 is $928 million compared to an
equivalent figure of $871 million in fiscal year 2001 (both
including $28 million for the African and Inter-American
Development Foundations).
--Given the importance of agriculture and basic education (especially
for girls and women) in most recipient countries, USAID plans
to increase its emphasis in these sectors.
The Global Health Pillar ($1.276 billion)
Under this pillar, USAID will group its programs related to
maternal and child health, nutrition, family planning and many of the
related transnational issues confronting the world, such as HIV/AIDS
and other infectious diseases. This budget includes a major initiative
to combat HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases--mainly malaria and
tuberculosis--which have significant public health impact. Child
survival interventions target the major childhood killers, including
vaccine-preventable diseases (e.g., polio), diarrheal disease,
malnutrition, acute respiratory infections, and malaria. USAID programs
continue an aggressive effort to eliminate vitamin A and other
micronutrient deficiencies. Maternal health activities aim to reduce
maternal deaths and adverse outcomes as a result of pregnancy and
childbirth. In family planning, USAID programs seek to promote family
health and allow couples to achieve their desired family size. For HIV/
AIDS and infectious diseases, USAID will aggressively promote public/
private partnerships and provide technical leadership for programs at
the national and grass-roots levels.
The Global Health programs are funded from the CS/D account with
the exception of family planning, which is currently financed from DA
funds and other accounts. The fiscal year 2002 request for Global
Health, $1.276 billion, compares to an equivalent figure of $1.259
billion in fiscal year 2001 (both include $110 million in transfers to
UNICEF).
--The Global Health request for HIV/AIDS funding has increased from
$299 million in fiscal year 2001 to $329 million to address
more effectively this major public health issue. The total
amount available for HIV/AIDS from all appropriated accounts,
including ESF, is expected to be $369 million.
--The remaining $947 million is proposed for child survival and other
global health activities. These funds would support efforts to
improve maternal and child health and nutrition; reduce infant
and child mortality; support programs that promote family
health, and allow couples to achieve their desired family size.
The total amount available for family planning is $425 million,
from all appropriated accounts.
The Conflict Prevention and Developmental Relief Pillar ($1.217
billion)
Given the rising number of collapsed states and internal conflicts
in the post-cold war period, some of which have become focal points of
U.S. foreign policy, USAID will undertake a major new conflict
prevention, management, and resolution initiative. This initiative will
integrate the existing portfolio of USAID democracy programs with new
approaches to anticipating crisis, conflict analysis, comprehensive
assessment, and will provide new methodologies to assist conflicting
parties resolve their issues peacefully. This initiative will also
address on-going efforts to bridge and integrate foreign policy and
foreign assistance in a way that accommodates both short-term
operational and longer-term structural prevention needs.
USAID continues to stand at the forefront of agencies around the
world in its ability to respond to man-made and natural disasters. The
budget request will enable USAID to maintain this capability (unique
within the United States) to provide needed help rapidly when
international emergencies occur.
--The request for fiscal year 2002 is $1.217 billion compared to an
equivalent figure of $1.181 billion in fiscal year 2001 (both
include Public Law 480 Title II at $835 million).
--International Disaster Assistance funding increases from $165
million (excludes the fiscal year 2001 $135 million
supplemental) to $200 million in recognition of the increased
demands generated by complex emergencies and natural disasters.
--The request includes Transition Initiative funding of $50 million
to meet challenges in conflict-prone countries and those making
the recovery from crisis.
--Democracy and Local Governance funding continues at $132 million.
USAID Budget Accounts
While the three program pillars embodied in USAID's new strategic
orientation are a valuable way to focus, manage, and report on
activities, they do not correspond neatly to the five program accounts
for which the agency is currently responsible.
The three program pillars discussed above will be funded by the
following five program accounts: Child Survival and Disease Programs
Fund; Development Assistance; International Disaster Assistance;
Transition Initiatives; and the Development Credit Program, which is
funded mainly through transfers from the other accounts. In addition,
USAID administers Public Law 480 Title II Food for Peace programs.
Child Survival and Disease Programs Fund (CSD)
The fiscal year 2002 request is $1.011 billion, compared to an
equivalent figure of $961 million in fiscal year 2001 (both include
$110 million for UNICEF).
This account includes funding for infectious diseases at $110
million; HIV/AIDS at $329 million; basic education at $110 million
(with an additional $13 million from DA); and $454 million for child
survival and other health activities.
Development Assistance (DA)
The Administration's fiscal year 2002 request is $1.325 billion,
compared to an equivalent figure of $1.302 billion in fiscal year 2001
(both years include $28 million for the Inter-American and African
Development Foundations).
This account includes funding for agriculture at about $210
million; micro-enterprise and improvement in business trade and
investment climate activities at $284 million; environment at $251
million; human capacity development (non-basic education) at $52
million and basic education at $13 million; and family planning at $425
million, funded from DA and other appropriation accounts.
International Disaster Assistance (IDA)
The fiscal year 2002 request of $200 million supports emergency
relief and transitional activities provided in response to natural and
manmade disasters and other emergencies often accompanied by the
displacement of large numbers of people.
Transition Initiatives (TI)
The fiscal year 2002 request of $50 million supports programs
administered by USAID's Office of Transition Initiatives. This office
addresses the opportunities and challenges facing conflict-prone
countries and those making the transition from the initial crisis stage
of a complex emergency to a more stable political and economic
situation.
Development Credit Program (DCP)
For fiscal year 2002, the Administration is requesting transfer
authority of up to $25 million from USAID program accounts for the
newly consolidated Development Credit Authority. This brings together
various separate Agency credit programs under one credit umbrella.
The change will allow USAID to use credit as a flexible development
tool for a wide range of development purposes and will increase the
flow of funds to urban credit and micro and small enterprise
development programs.
In addition, $7.5 million is requested for administrative costs for
the consolidated authority. It is envisioned that all future agency
credit activities will be carried out under the reforms embodied in DCP
regulations and the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1992. This program
augments grant assistance by mobilizing private capital in developing
countries for sustainable development projects. DCP is not intended for
sovereign risk activities.
USAID's Operating Expenses
The fiscal year 2002 request of $549 million will provide resources
needed to maintain current staffing levels associated with USAID's
presence in key developing countries, continue to build the Agency's
information technology and financial management capabilities, and
strengthen staff capabilities through training.
These funds cover the salaries, benefits, and other administrative
costs associated with USAID programs worldwide, including those managed
by USAID and financed through Development Assistance, the Child
Survival and Disease Programs Fund, the Economic Support Fund, the
Support for East European Democracy Act, the Freedom Support Act, and
Public Law 480 Title II Food for Peace programs.
The request includes $7.5 million for facility security where USAID
is not co-located with embassies. There is also a request of $50
million for co-located USAID facilities included in the State
Department's Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance request.
Let me move now to other bilateral economic assistance and discuss
the Economic Support Fund (ESF), Assistance for East Europe and the
Baltic States (SEED), and the FREEDOM Support Act.
Economic Support Fund (ESF) (including International Fund for Ireland)
The fiscal year 2002 ESF request of $2.289 billion supports the
economic and political foreign policy interests of the United States.
Highlights of the fiscal year 2002 request include:
Near East.--$1.682 billion to continue restructuring assistance
levels in the Middle East and promote regional stability and a
comprehensive peace between Israel and her neighbors. Funding includes
$720 million for Israel, $655 million for Egypt, $150 million for
Jordan, and $75 million for the West Bank and Gaza. In addition, the
fiscal year 2002 request provides funding for the Iraqi opposition and
for programs that support U.S. efforts to strengthen regional
cooperation, promote democracy and civil society, and encourage
economic growth and integration through increased trade and market-
oriented reforms.
Europe.--$39.6 million, including $15 million for Cyprus and $19.6
million for the International Fund for Ireland, as well as $5 million
for the third and final year of a program to bring youths from Northern
Ireland and designated disadvantaged areas to the United States as
outlined in the Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program Act
of 1998.
Western Hemisphere.--$170.5 million, including $54.5 million for
democratic institution building and economic growth programs in Peru,
Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Panama under an Andean regional
initiative; $21 million for earthquake assistance in El Salvador; $5
million for Cuban democracy programs; $11 million for Eastern Caribbean
stabilization; $35 million for humanitarian NGOs in Haiti; $10 million
for reform in Mexico; $10 million for Administration of Justice
throughout the region; $15 million to support the Ecuador/Peru border
and Guatemala peace processes; and $9 million for other regional
democracy-building programs.
Africa.--$105.5 million, including $25 million to assist Nigeria in
rebuilding its democratic institutions; $20 million to support
countries in transition, especially those countries emerging from
conflict; $15 million to support the Education for Development and
Democracy in Africa program, with an emphasis on girls' education; $15
million for regional initiatives, including democracy programs; $10
million for the Africa Great Lakes Initiative designed to build
credible and impartial civilian and military justice systems in the
region; $9 million for Sierra Leone to help fund a special court and
rebuild infrastructure; $2.5 million for Ethiopia/Eritrea to assist in
efforts to recover from the war; $2 million to strengthen civil society
and lay the foundation for political institutions, democratic reform,
and good government in Angola; and other programs designed to foster
African integration into the global economy, enhance the safety and
reliability of air transport on the continent, and support conflict
management and prevention.
East Asia.--$169.75 million, including $50 million to support
democratic and economic strengthening in Indonesia; $25 million for
East Timor's transition to independence; $25 million for humanitarian,
justice, and democracy programs in Cambodia; $15 million for anti-
corruption and peace-promoting programs in the Philippines; $14 million
for South Pacific Fisheries Treaty commitments; $12 million for
democracy and free market support in Mongolia; $5 million for Rule of
Law programs in China; and other programs that support democracy
promotion, regional environmental initiatives, regional women's issues,
and economic technical assistance.
South Asia.--$30 million, including $7 million to fund programs in
India to promote judicial reform and rule of law and address the
growing problem of trafficking and forced labor of women and children;
$7 million in Pakistan to help restore democratic institutions and
build civil society; $3 million each in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and
Nepal to help combat child labor and violence against women and promote
democracy and judicial reform, human rights commissions, and civil
society participation in local and national government; and $7 million
to fund programs to promote regional energy cooperation and use of
clean energy technologies, help eliminate cross-border trafficking in
women and children, and fund projects promoting cross-border
confidence-building measures between the civil societies of India and
Pakistan and among elements of societies struggling with strife in
Afghanistan, Nepal, and Sri Lanka.
Oceans, Environmental, and Science Initiative.--$4 million for
environmental diplomacy activities. These funds will be used for
targeted activities in support of ongoing international negotiations on
global environmental issues including climate change; biodiversity; the
production, use, and trade of hazardous chemicals; and numerous
bilateral and regional fisheries and oceans negotiations. Funds will
also be used to support regional cooperation efforts and respond to
emerging environmental crises and priorities.
Human Rights and Democracy Funds.--$13.5 million to respond to
emergencies to prevent or forestall further human rights abuses; to
exploit unanticipated opportunities to promote democracy; to help
establish institutions that serve human rights and democracy efforts,
especially those that address concerns raised in the Human Rights
Reports; and to support multilateral initiatives that respond to human
rights or democratization opportunities.
Innovative Partnerships to Eliminate Sweatshops.--$5 million to
continue funding for NGOs, labor unions, and corporate groups to
support the promotion of core labor standards, model business
principles, and monitoring of labor conditions. The program is targeted
at eliminating sweatshop conditions in overseas factories that produce
or sell consumer goods for the American market.
Policy Initiatives.--$69 million designated for policy initiatives
of the new Administration.
Assistance for East Europe and the Baltic States (SEED)
The Support for East European Democracy (SEED) Act is the
foundation for U.S. assistance to Eastern Europe and the Baltic States.
SEED is a transitional program designed to assist those countries
through their difficult passage to democracy and a market economy. The
fiscal year 2002 SEED request is $610 million.
For fiscal year 2002, the SEED request includes $145 million for
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. These funds will be used in both
the Republics of Serbia and Montenegro to support economic reform and
promote democracy and civil society by assisting judicial reform,
independent media, NGOs, and local government. In Southern Serbia,
continued support is needed for community development projects designed
to reduce ethnic tensions.
The request for Kosovo is $120 million. These funds will further
implementation of UNSC 1244 by supporting security (including the U.S.
contingent to UNMIK police), democratization, and respect for human
rights and rule of law. The United States is completing its emergency
assistance programs and is now focusing on longer-term development
goals such as building transparent economic and political institutions
and a strong private sector.
The increase for Macedonia to $45 million will help the government
move more rapidly in bringing the benefits of democracy to all of the
country's citizens. Funds will target efforts to decentralize the
government and allow a broader range of Macedonians to play a direct
role in building their society. Economic programs will promote a
strengthened private sector to extend prosperity to the wider populace.
Finally, additional resources will support ongoing programs that
promote inter-ethnic harmony and strengthen the fabric of civil
society.
Funding for the Bosnia-Herzegovina program is $65 million, down
from $100 million in fiscal year 2000 and $79.8 million in fiscal year
2001. This decrease reflects progress on the political commitments
under the Dayton Peace Accords and the fact that Bosnians are taking on
a greater role in managing their own affairs. The remaining
reconstruction effort will focus on encouraging returns of dispersed
minorities, which have increased in recent years.
Eight of the 15 original SEED countries have graduated, and USAID
missions there have been closed. Regional funding, at reduced levels,
continues for Northern Tier countries to help ensure the success of
their transitions and to meet limited special or emergency needs.
In Southeast Europe, SEED-funded regional programs help build
stability by fostering cooperation among neighboring countries in key
areas such as good governance and anti-corruption, the fight against
organized crime and smuggling, and developing cross-border solutions
for energy, transportation, and pollution.
Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union
(FREEDOM Support Act, or FSA)
The fiscal year 2002 request for the FREEDOM Support Act (FSA) for
the New Independent States (NIS) totals $808 million.
This request sets aside funding in the regional account to support
a settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. These funds will enable
the United States to contribute to post-settlement reconstruction in
Azerbaijan and Armenia as part of a coordinated international donor
effort.
This budget directs a larger share of funds than last year towards
promoting change at the grassroots of NIS societies, by supporting
exchanges that bring NIS citizens--including large numbers of young
people--to the United States for first-hand exposure to our system;
strengthening NGOs; increasing Internet access; and aiding pro-reform
regional and local governments. With freedom of the press under threat
in most countries of the region, emphasis will be placed on programs
that support the independence and viability of the media. Support will
also be continued for law enforcement cooperation to combat organized
crime and corruption.
Several of the NIS are now experiencing economic growth for the
first time. To help sustain this growth, FSA programs will support
small and medium-sized private businesses through training, exchanges,
and greater access to credit. Technical assistance to central
governments will be limited, focusing on those countries that show the
greatest commitment to economic reform. In Russia, Kazakhstan, and
Ukraine, funds will support initiatives designed to facilitate growth
in pro-reform regions. Programs will also support U.S. investment and
trade throughout the NIS.
FSA programs will address some of the most serious socio-economic
problems in the NIS, particularly in the fields of health, nuclear
safety, and the environment. Health programs will include hospital
partnerships and efforts to combat infectious diseases and improve
maternal health. Resources devoted to humanitarian assistance will help
mitigate the suffering caused by poverty, natural disasters, and
regional conflicts.
The potential proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
remains a significant threat in the NIS. To address this threat, the
request funds several programs aimed at channeling WMD expertise in the
direction of civilian research and development of new technologies.
The FSA-funded Export Control and Border Security Program will
continue to strengthen the ability of NIS countries to prevent illegal
cross-border movements of narcotics, arms, and WMD materials. This
program also enhances regional stability by helping several countries
in the region better maintain their territorial integrity in the face
of terrorist threats and border zone conflicts. FSA funds will also
facilitate the removal of Russian troops and military equipment from
Moldova and Georgia.
Debt Restructuring
Let me turn briefly to a program that had broad congressional
bipartisan support last year, debt restructuring:
--For fiscal year 2002, the Administration is requesting $224 million
for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Trust Fund to
provide multilateral debt relief. This fund helps regional
multilateral development banks, such as the African Development
Bank and Inter-American Development Bank, meet their costs of
HIPC debt reduction.
--In 1999, the United States committed to a $600 million contribution
to the HIPC Trust Fund. In fiscal year 2001, $360 million was
appropriated for this purpose. The fiscal year 2002 request of
$224 million, combined with $16 million in previously
appropriated but unexpended debt account balances, will fulfill
the U.S. commitment in full and leverage participation from
others.
--For fiscal year 2002, the Administration is not requesting any
funding to provide bilateral debt relief under the Tropical
Forest Conservation Act of 1998 (TFCA). However, the request
does include authority to transfer up to $13 million from
USAID's Development Assistance account for debt relief under
this program. The Administration may also use carryover funds
from the Debt Restructuring account for TFCA implementation.
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE)
Mr. Chairman, we are profoundly concerned about the recent
shootdown of a civilian aircraft by the Peruvian Air Force and the
tragic deaths of an innocent woman and her child, as well as the injury
of another civilian and the destruction of private property. A full
investigation is underway. We will work with the countries in the area
to do all that we can to prevent any such tragedy in the future.
Meanwhile, however, our counter narcotics effort will remain robust:
--The fiscal year 2002 request includes $217 million for base
programs of the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement (INL).
--The request provides $162 million to support counter-narcotics
programs outside of the Andean region. These INL programs will
grow 30 percent worldwide. They include regional programs for
Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East; participation in the
U.N. Drug Control Program and other international
organizations' counter-narcotics efforts; and increased support
for drug awareness and demand reduction.
--The request also provides $55 million for programs to counter
transnational crime, including trafficking in women and
children--an increase of 22 percent. These programs include
establishing a center to counter international migrant
smuggling/trafficking in persons; continuing support of a
Civilian Police Contingent for deployment as part of
international relief efforts in post-conflict situations; an
African regional anti-crime program, focused particularly on
Nigeria and South Africa; and support to five International Law
Enforcement Academies.
Andean Counterdrug Initiative (ACI)
As part of an overall Andean regional initiative, the fiscal year
2002 request includes $731 million for ACI, a multi-year counterdrug
assistance effort designed to sustain and expand programs funded by the
Plan Colombia emergency supplemental. ACI differs from Plan Colombia in
several respects. ACI triples--to 45 percent--the share of counter-
narcotics assistance going to countries other than Colombia. ACI
increases to 40 percent the amount of INCLE funding going to social and
economic programs, exclusive of other economic assistance accounts.
Finally, ACI funding will be augmented from other accounts to support
reforms directed toward strengthening democracy and economic growth.
Fiscal year 2002 funding for ACI includes Colombia, Peru, Bolivia,
Ecuador, Brazil, Venezuela, and Panama.
Combined with Plan Colombia, ACI will make a significant, immediate
impact on the flow of narcotics out of the Andes. The Administration's
performance goals specifically include: (1) achieving a 30 percent
reduction in Colombian coca production between CY 2000 and the end of
CY 2002; and (2) eliminating all illicit coca production in Bolivia by
the end of CY 2002.
ACI will support Colombia's push into the former coca-growing
sanctuaries in Putumayo by backing joint operations between the Amy's
new, air mobile counter-narcotics (CN) brigade and the Colombian
National Police's anti-narcotics unit (DIRAN). It will also support
alternative development and assistance to internally displaced persons,
maritime and aerial interdiction, the Colombian National Police's
aerial eradication program with additional spray aircraft, and human
rights and judicial reform in Colombia.
Additional support for the Andean regional initiative is being
provided through Economic Support Funds and Foreign Military Financing.
Development Assistance and Child Survival and Diseases accounts will
also support this initiative.
Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA)
Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2002 request for MRA is $715 million,
as follows:
--The request includes $509 million for Overseas Assistance. This
amount will support the protection of refugees and conflict
victims, the provision of basic needs to sustain their life and
health, and the resolution of refugee problems through durable
solutions. It will also provide funding for the focused ``Up to
Standards'' initiative targeted on health and health-related
problems that appear to have the greatest impact on refugee
mortality/morbidity rates.
--The fiscal year 2002 request for Refugee Admissions is $130
million. This $20 million increase over the fiscal year 2001
level reflects a grant increase in the Reception and Placement
program and the fact that $14.7 million appropriated in fiscal
year 2000 was available for Admissions in fiscal year 2001.
--The request for refugees to Israel is $60 million--the same amount
appropriated in fiscal year 2002, prior to the rescission.
--The request for Administrative Expenses is $16 million--an increase
of $1.5 million from the fiscal year 2001 level. This level
will support the full-year salaries and operating costs
associated with a staff of 110 positions. The increase includes
funds to cover full-year support costs of several refugee
coordinator positions to be established at the end of fiscal
year 2001.
In addition to the MRA funding request, we are asking for $15
million to replenish the U.S. Emergency Refugee and Migration
Assistance Fund. This request will preserve the President's ability to
respond to unforeseen and urgent refugee and migration needs worldwide.
Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs (NADR)
The fiscal year 2002 NADR request includes a total of $332 million,
broken out as follows:
--$14 million for the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund (NDF), a
contingency rapid-reaction fund which can meet unanticipated
challenges and disperse funds quickly in support of urgent
nonproliferation objectives.
--$17 million for Export Control Assistance designed to provide
training and equipment to establish or enhance export control
systems. Funds support programs in Russia and the NIS, Central
and Eastern Europe, and key transit states worldwide.
--$37 million for the Science Centers to prevent former Soviet
weapons experts in Russia, Ukraine, and the other NIS countries
from emigrating to proliferant states by financing civilian
research. It has redirected tens of thousands of NIS WMD/
missile scientists to peaceful pursuits and remains a key
component of U.S. nonproliferation policy.
--$49 million for voluntary contributions to the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) to support effective implementation of
strengthened nuclear safeguards measures and growth in the area
of nuclear inspections. The $2 million increase will fund
safeguards technology development relevant to verifying North
Korea's initial nuclear inventory.
--$20 million for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)
Preparatory Commission to pay the U.S. share of costs for the
ongoing work of the Provisional Technical Secretariat,
including development and implementation of the international
monitoring system (IMS) to detect nuclear explosions.
--$95 million for the U.S. contribution to the Korean Peninsula
Energy Development Organization (KEDO) for administrative costs
and heavy fuel oil (HFO) purchases in fiscal year 2002. KEDO is
responsible for implementing elements of the Agreed Framework
between the United States and the Democratic People's Republic
of Korea (DPRK) by financing and constructing light water
reactors in North Korea and by providing annual shipments of
heavy fuel oil to the DPRK until completion of the first light
water reactor. The requested increase reflects a near doubling
of the price of HFO on world markets.
--$38 million for the Anti-Terrorism Assistance (ATA) program to meet
the widening and continuing terrorist threat. Funds will
support ongoing core ATA programs, develop new courses
(including a new cyberterrorism course), increase training to
select Balkan and Central Asian states, and initiate an energy
security-related training program in the Caspian region. The
request also includes $2 million to continue the Weapons of
Mass Destruction (WMD) Preparedness Program, which is designed
to help foreign government officials and ``first responders''
manage terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass
destruction. Funds will support policy workshops with senior
host government officials and ``first responder'' training for
hazardous material personnel, paramedics, and other security
personnel who would be on the front lines dealing with an
actual incident.
--$4 million for the Terrorist Interdiction Program to support the
third year of a multi-pronged border security program designed
to assist selected vulnerable countries in stopping terrorists
from crossing their borders or using their territory as transit
points or staging areas for attacks. Funds will support
installation of an integrated personal identification database
system and associated training for about five countries in East
Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. A small amount of
funds will also help upgrade INTERPOL's communications system
to complement the database network.
--$16 million contribution toward the incremental cost of holding in
the Netherlands the trial for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight
103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.
--$40 million for the Humanitarian Demining program, which supports a
wide range of humanitarian mine action initiatives in nearly 40
countries around the globe. The program's emphasis is on mine
clearance, surveys, and mine awareness, although some funds are
provided for training and special projects that indirectly
benefit mine-affected nations.
--$2 million to support the second year of the Small Arms Destruction
initiative, which is designed to eliminate stockpiles of excess
small arms and light weapons left over from Cold War and post-
Cold War conflicts, particularly in Eastern Europe, Central
Asia, Latin America, and Sub-Saharan Africa.
Military Assistance
Mr. Chairman, the Military Assistance portion of the President's
budget request includes IMET, FMF and PKO, as follows:
International Military Education and Training (IMET)
The Administration is requesting $65 million for IMET in fiscal
year 2002.
IMET encourages mutually beneficial relations and increased
understanding between the United States and foreign militaries to help
create a more stable and secure world community. Through more frequent
and wide-ranging contacts, IMET promotes a shared set of values and a
common approach to conflict resolution.
The increase over the fiscal year 2001 level will allow additional
personnel to enroll in courses offered on professional military
education; military operations, with such subjects as tactics,
strategy, and logistics; and technical training, such as aircraft
maintenance. Approximately 2,000 courses are available for over 9,000
students at 150 military schools and installations.
In addition, special courses--known as Expanded IMET (E-IMET)--are
designed to promote greater respect for and understanding of the
principle of civilian control of the military, democratic values, and
military justice systems that protect internationally recognized human
rights.
Foreign Military Financing (FMF)
The Administration is requesting $3.674 billion for FMF in fiscal
year 2002, including:
--$3.4 billion for Israel, Egypt, and Jordan military assistance
programs.
--$39 million to support NATO's newest members--Poland, Hungary, and
the Czech Republic--and $97.5 million to strengthen cooperation
with Partnership for Peace (PfP) partners in Central Europe,
the Baltics, and the New Independent States. Requested funds
will help support new and ongoing programs to help meet
Membership Action Plan goals and objectives and enhance
interoperability with NATO.
--$22 million for the East Asia and Pacific region. The majority of
these funds will support a multi-year FMF program for the armed
forces of the Philippines to sustain crucial military
capabilities while promoting clear and positive action to
correct significant budgetary and logistical deficiencies.
Other funds for this region include continued funding to
provide Mongolia robust communications equipment to help
respond to security threats along its border and $1 million to
help support a new East Timor Defense Force.
--$18 million for countries in the Western Hemisphere to help support
the capabilities of militaries engaged in drug interdiction,
search and rescue, and anti-smuggling operations, and help
sustain small professional forces essential to regional peace
and security. Funds will also aid in increasing the
capabilities of key countries that participate in worldwide
peacekeeping operations such as Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, and
Uruguay, and provide assistance to help Andean and Central
American countries counter the ``spill-over'' security problems
caused by the effective implementation of Plan Colombia.
--$19 million for the Africa region. These funds will aid in the
reform and modernization efforts of the Nigerian military,
enhancing its role in Nigeria's transition to democracy and
supporting participation in U.N. peacekeeping operations. Funds
will also support South African airlift capabilities and
military reform efforts. The Africa Regional Stability account
consolidates regional African requirements that will permit
greater flexibility to respond to developing situations in
countries such as Ethiopia and Eritrea and selectively support
militaries that are willing to support humanitarian and
peacekeeping operations.
--$8 million for the Enhanced International Peacekeeping Initiative
to provide assistance to key countries to improve their
peacekeeping capabilities with an emphasis on peacekeeping
doctrine and education, training, and communications systems.
This program will create a bigger pool of potential
peacekeepers, thereby reducing dependence on U.S. forces.
--$10 million designated for Policy Initiatives of the new
Administration.
--$35 million for Department of Defense (DOD) costs for the
successful administration of global grant military assistance
programs. The $2.2 million increase above the fiscal year 2001
level is needed to cover costs in support of security
assistance offices overseas.
Peacekeeping Operations (PKO)
The Administration is requesting $150 million for PKO in fiscal
year 2002.
PKO funds are designed to advance international support for
voluntary multinational efforts in conflict resolution, including
support for international missions in response to crises around the
world. These funds promote involvement of regional organizations and
help leverage support for multinational efforts where no formal cost-
sharing mechanisms exist. The budget includes:
--$20 million for the African Crisis Response Initiative, which
represents final funding for this multi-year program.
--$54.6 million for Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE) peacekeeping activities in the Balkans and OSCE
preventive diplomacy missions elsewhere in Europe and the NIS.
--$16.4 million to continue the Administration's commitment to the
Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) in the Sinai.
--$8 million to continue support for U.S. Civilian Police (CIVPOL)
assigned to the U.N. Transitional Administration in East Timor
(UNTAET) mission.
--$51 million for Africa Regional Peacekeeping Operations, an account
that consolidates numerous peacekeeping needs on the African
continent. These include assisting the Economic Community of
West African States (ECOWAS) and other African countries that
are committed to providing peacekeeping troops in support of
the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) and
supporting the Joint Military Commission's (JMC) efforts in
maintaining the peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
and the Organization of African Unity's (OAU) efforts in
support of military observers in Ethiopia and Eritrea.
Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) and International Organizations
and Programs (IO&P)
Mr. Chairman, the President is seeking the following funding for
the multilateral development banks (MDBs):
--The fiscal year 2002 request provides $1.210 billion for scheduled
annual U.S. commitments to MDBs. The banks lend to and invest
in developing economies and private sector enterprises in
countries where risks are too high for private financing alone
and where leverage is needed to spur private financing.
--Bank policies and lending programs reflect U.S. priorities in
promoting growth and poverty reduction in developing countries.
These include financial sector reforms, anti-corruption
measures, core labor standards practices, private sector
development, and environmental management.
--The Global Environment Facility provides grants and arranges
financing for projects that address environmental management
problems with global implications in developing countries.
--MDBs support U.S. foreign policy initiatives in Eastern Europe and
the former Soviet Union, Latin America, Asia, Africa, and the
Middle East.
--At the end of fiscal year 1997, U.S. arrears to the MDBs totaled
$862 million. But by the end of fiscal year 1999, arrears were
reduced to $335.3 million. Fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year
2001 appropriations resulted in overall arrears increasing to
their current level of $498.6 million. Since the Administration
is not requesting any funding for arrears in fiscal year 2002,
it is important that the regular commitment request be fully
funded in order to avoid any further increases in arrears.
And the following funding for IO&P:
--The fiscal year 2002 request of $186 million provides U.S.
voluntary contributions to international organizations and
programs to help address global challenges through
international cooperation.
--The total includes funding for the U.N. Development Program that
coordinates U.N. development assistance to build countries'
indigenous capacities to achieve sustainable development ($87.1
million); the U.N. Population Fund that provides critical
population assistance to developing countries and countries
with economies in transition ($25 million); and the World Trade
Organization ($1 million), supporting technical assistance and
capacity building related to the world trading system.
--The request also includes $25 million for a contribution to the
Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund that helps developing
countries use substitutes for ozone layer-depleting substances;
$10.75 for the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP Fund/UNEP-
related); and other contributions to international conservation
programs addressing issues such as international forest loss
and biological diversity.
--Funds will be also be used to promote democracy and provide
humanitarian assistance worldwide. Specifically, they will
provide U.S. contributions to U.N. voluntary funds for torture
victims and human rights; to the Organization of American
States (OAS), supporting development assistance and efforts to
strengthen democracy in the hemisphere; and to the World Food
Program ($5.4 million).
And now, Mr. Chairman, let me turn to export financing:
Export-Import Bank
The Administration is requesting $633 million for Export-Import
Bank's loan and guarantee programs and $65 million for the bank's
operations in fiscal year 2002.
These funds will assist American businesses in sustaining U.S. jobs
by increasing exports, thus stimulating economic growth and job
creation in the United States.
The fiscal year 2002 request proposes a 25 percent decrease in the
bank's program resources, in part to reflect lower estimates of
international lending risk. Within this level, Export-Import Bank will
continue to serve exporters facing subsidized competition, as well as
small and medium-sized enterprises.
The increase for administrative expenses will, among other things,
enable the bank to modernize its computer infrastructure to provide
better service to the exporting community.
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)
In fiscal year 2002, OPIC-generated revenue from its private sector
users and other sources will allow OPIC to make a contribution of
approximately $251 million in net negative budget authority to the
International Affairs budget.
The Administration is requesting the authority for OPIC to spend
$38.6 million for administrative expenses. In keeping with OPIC's
mandate to operate on a self-sustaining basis, this funding will come
from OPIC user fees and earned income.
The Administration is not requesting credit funding for OPIC in
fiscal year 2002. OPIC anticipates that sufficient unobligated amounts
from the corporation's fiscal year 2001 appropriation of two-year funds
will remain available to support new direct loans and loan guarantees
in fiscal year 2002.
In fiscal year 2002, OPIC will continue to support the
Administration's priorities for investment in such areas as Southeast
Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, Central America, the Caribbean, the Middle
East, and the Caspian region. OPIC will continue also to emphasize
activities and products that increase participation in its programs by
American small businesses.
Since 1971, OPIC has supported $138 billion worth of investments,
generating over $63 billion in U.S. exports and creating or supporting
nearly 250,000 American jobs.
Trade and Development Agency (TDA)
TDA assists in the creation of jobs for Americans by helping U.S.
companies pursue overseas business opportunities. Through the funding
of feasibility studies, orientation visits, specialized training
grants, business workshops, and various forms of technical assistance,
TDA helps American businesses compete for infrastructure and industrial
projects in emerging markets.
The fiscal year 2002 budget request of $50 million will enable TDA
to continue to strengthen its core regional programs and help U.S.
firms compete against heavily subsidized foreign competition. In
particular, TDA has witnessed impressive growth in demand for its
Asian, Eastern European, and African programs. While meeting this
increased demand, TDA's fiscal year 2002 program priorities include
expanding its High Tech Initiative in the areas of financial services
technologies and emergency management.
Every dollar TDA invests is associated with $40 in U.S. exports,
estimated to total close to $17 billion since the agency was
established in 1980.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2002 budget request
provides $275 million to permit the Peace Corps to continue its role as
the leading international service organization engaged in grass-roots
development. The increase of $10.6 million will enable the Peace Corps
to continue support of its approximately 7,000 volunteers. This money
will permit enhanced security measures for overseas staff and
volunteers and will allow completion of information technology
initiatives in support of volunteers.
There are of course more details to the President's fiscal year
2002 budget request for international affairs. I invite the members'
attention to an excellent Department of State pamphlet entitled
``Summary and Highlights: International Affairs Function 150--Fiscal
Year 2002.''

Senator McConnell. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. The only
exception the subcommittee makes to the opening statement rule
is when the chairman of the full committee shows up. I do not
know if Senator Stevens would have any observations. I would
call on him before we go to the questions, which will be 5-
minute rounds.

Opening Statement of Senator Ted Stevens

Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do
appreciate the courtesy, because we do have three separate
meetings this morning that I want to attend.
Mr. Secretary, I am pleased to see you. I cannot tell you
how proud we are you have agreed to be where you are. We look
forward to working with you, and we hear you about the process
of support, and I am sure that we all, knowing you as well as
we do, we will rely upon your judgment and upon your guidance,
and we look forward to working with you, and I have no
questions this morning. It is good to be with you, Mr.
Secretary.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Chairman Stevens.
Mr. Secretary, in recent years in hearings with the
Secretary of State I have not asked questions about the Middle
East, because it seemed it was getting adequate attention and
things seemed to be moving in the right direction. As we all
know, toward the end of last year it was a very exasperating
experience in which the previous Israeli administration offered
everything there was to offer to the PLO, only to find that
offer rebuffed, followd by a resumption of the violence that we
saw a number of years back that continues up to this morning.
We have accommodated the wishes of administrations of both
parties with regard to financial assistance to that region for
a long time, going back at least to the Camp David Accords. We
have treated assistance to Israel and Egypt almost as an
entitlement, with few questions asked, because we had a
longstanding relationship with both those countries,
particularly Israel.
We, after the Oslo Accords, began an aid arrangement with
the PLO and this year, as we approach these funding decisions,
it seems to me appropriate to ask you, as a spokesman for a new
administration: should we view our assistance package to the
West Bank and Gaza as an entitlement? If you look at the PLO
and as you look at our good friend Egypt, and their behavior
over the last few years, it is hard for me to see how either
has tried to move the process in the right direction.
So as we make these rather significant funding decision in
terms of the size of our package, and as we make these
significant funding decisions this year, I am curious if you
have an opinion as to whether or not we should continue to
write the checks with little or no inquiry.
Secretary Powell. Mr. Chairman, I believe that these are
not entitlements. They were, nevertheless, commitments that
have been made by the U.S. Government many years ago which come
up for review every year. The commitments that were made and
the yearly review combine to suggest that it remains in our
national interest to fund these activities in these accounts
for these countries.
It is in our national interest to see that Israel, the
democratic nation in the region, remains strong economically
and militarily. It has long been U.S. policy, long-term U.S.
policy, which I think still makes sense, to ensure that Egypt
is provided with assistance, both economic assistance and
military assistance to keep the balance in step, and also to be
consistent with and faithful to the commitments which were made
long ago at Camp David.
I also believe that we have a very delicate situation right
now, where negotiations took place at the tail end of the last
administration that for a moment were breathtaking in their
implications, if those negotiations could have gone to
conclusion, but they did not, and they fell apart. The Intifada
never did end while those negotiations were going on. The
violence was continuing.
With the end of those negotiations a new election took
place in Israel, and Prime Minister Sharon has come in, and the
terms of the negotiations are no longer where they might have
been in January of this year. The violence has gotten worse.
The United States has offered its assistance in trying to get
security discussions going between the two sides to get the
violence moving in the other direction.
We have also been rather forthcoming in saying that once
the violence starts moving in the other direction, we have got
to see economic activity start up again, principally by
allowing Palestinian workers to get to their jobs and releasing
tax revenues that belong to the Palestinians that is being held
by the Israeli Government. We firmly believe that there also
has to be a negotiation at some point to start moving again in
the right direction.
This conflict cannot be solved by just violence, military
activity on either side. It has to ultimately be solved at the
negotiating table. What we have to do to get the violence down
so that confidence can be built up between the two sides again,
economic activity start, so that you do not have people who are
not working who take their frustrations out into the streets,
and at the same time get to a process of negotiation.
Some new tools are now on the table with the Mitchell
report and the very fine work that is being done by the
Egyptians and the Jordanians on a paper that they have tabled.
I think at this point we need to pursue the opportunities that
are provided by the Mitchell report and the Egyptian-Jordanian
initiative. I would not support cutting or reducing the funds
at this time that we normally provide to these nations.
Senator McConnell. So it is your view the Egyptians today
are making at this point a constructive contribution to the
process?
Secretary Powell. They play an important role in the
region. We speak out when they say things that we find are not
appropriate, or when the newspapers say things that are quite
inappropriate. I could show you an editorial they wrote about
me not too long ago that was, I thought, quite inappropriate.
We called it to the attention of the Egyptian Government and
got something of an apology, and so they are sensitive to our
concerns.
Senator McConnell. My time is up, but, as you know,
Egyptian news agencies funded by the Government are spewing
anti-Semitic rhetoric at an all-time high, and it seems to me
it is hard to conclude that that is very constructive. Maybe
there are other things, as you indicated, that they are doing
that is constructive.
My time is up on this round. Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, you had mentioned the request for foreign
operations, about 2 percent above the fiscal year 2001 level,
but that assumes that a $230 million cut in the Eximbank goes
through, and I doubt, and I suspect you doubt that a majority
in Congress will support such a large cut, and so if we put
that money back in we end up with a net cut.
Senator McConnell and I have tried very hard to protect
this budget. It is not the most popular budget on the Hill, and
I would suggest that you look very hard at building support
both at OMB and Congress for real funding, adequate funding in
this area.
One of the bits of advice that I have given many of your
predecessors, most of whom quickly forgot it, is to spend more
time with the Appropriations Committee. It is the
Appropriations Committee, because for years and years and years
we have not had an authorization bill on foreign aid, and I
really would encourage you not to forget us, because we are
facing in real terms a cut in foreign aid in this budget and
there is more that could be done.
I think of Plan Colombia, these programs that cost billions
of dollars. I find it hard to see how they are going to succeed
with the amount of drugs coming into the United States going
up, not down. The price in the United States has actually gone
down. We are not doing much to reduce the demand here, but we
spend billions down there.
We do not have an adequate amount of money for drug
treatment. People are told yes, you do need treatment, we are
going to put you on our priority list for 6 months from now.
Maybe we are spending money in the wrong place. We have
worked with people who have been involved in massive criminal
activity in Peru. It is certainly not a mark of success to stop
drugs by shooting a missionary and her baby, whether by mistake
or stupidity.
Frankly, I would hope you look closely at all of that.
Aerial fumigation is supposed to be very safe, but the
manufacturer says we recommend that grazing animals such as
horses, goats, cattle, and sheep remain out of the treated area
for 2 weeks and it should not be applied to bodies of water,
people should stay out of a treated area until it is thoroughly
dry.
We are spending an awful lot of money with wonderful
intentions, sometimes dealing with people that we can admire
for their policies, like President Pastrana of Colombia, but
the results are still, I believe, negligible.
Let me ask you about Africa, a continent in crisis, and in
many countries in Africa, AIDS threatened to wipe out all of
the economic gains of the last quarter-century.
There are half-a-dozen wars raging. There are millions of
refugees and displaced persons, a third of the people are
chronically undernourished, and that is twice as many as 30
years ago, 2 million people--2 million people--have died in the
Congo, mostly from disease and starvation. No one hardly knows
it. That is four times the population of my State.
Some have called for a Marshall Plan, or a Powell Plan for
Africa, so my question is this. If you had the funds, say
another billion dollars to support a Powell Plan, to support
debt relief and expand trade and combat poverty in Africa, how
would you spend it?
Secretary Powell. Off the top of my head, I would put an
additional chunk of it into HIV/AIDS work, with the focus not
just on treatment, but on prevention. Ultimately, this crisis
we solve through prevention, although treatment is important.
I think debt relief for those countries deserving of debt
relief, that have now put in place functioning democratic
systems and economic systems that show some promise of future
success.
I would invest part of the money into education, and trying
to get access to the Internet for young people of Africa to
begin expanding their horizons and seeing what is out there,
and being able to give them distance learning. You may have
seen a wonderful article in the Washington Post a few days ago
about what that is doing to a village in Cambodia, and what you
can do through that transformation type of activity.
I would make sure that the money was invested in those
countries that have stepped away from old patterns of
totalitarian behavior and State-controlled economies, so we are
not just putting money down a rat hole.
I would invest in those countries that truly have forsaken
the past patterns of bad behavior, but HIV/AIDS, debt relief,
education, Internet access, and other infectious diseases,
malaria and tuberculosis, which increasingly are linked with
AIDS, are the sorts of accounts I would put it into.
Senator Leahy. I will have other questions for the record.
Senator McConnell. We are going to have plenty of rounds.
Senator Specter.
Senator Specter. Mr. Secretary, I know that the
administration is doing a great deal in the Mideast. In
conversations with you and others upon my return from the
Mideast last month, I wrote to the President, you, and National
Security Advisor Rice urging that a Special Envoy be
designated.
I can understand the considerations in trying to keep the
matters within the chain of command, but I believe that a
Special Envoy would be very helpful, in keeping in the
tradition since Henry Kissinger did the job for President Nixon
many years ago, and that it would give reassurance to many
people who do not know all that is going on.
I had a chance to talk with the President yesterday. He was
in Philadelphia, and we had a plane ride to discuss it. I would
urge you to appoint a Special Envoy to give that kind of public
confidence and also to undertake the kind of intense attention
that no matter how attentive you are, and I know you are very
attentive, that would be a positive step forward.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Senator Specter. I take the
point. We have not ruled out having somebody pay attention to
it on a full-time basis, but we do not think we are at a point
yet where there is enough in the equation to justify that kind
of attention.
We have people in the region, an Ambassador and a Consul
General who are deeply engaged and are now going back and forth
between the two sides. If we can get the violence moving down,
and if we can get the negotiations moving forward again, it may
require that level of attention, and somebody, an Ambassador-
at-Large or special Envoy. So we have not ruled it out, but we
have not yet reached a point where we think it is timely for
that kind of attention.
Senator Specter. Mr. Secretary, I thank you and the
President for carrying on a very strong policy of our special
relationship with Israel. I think it is very important for the
U.S. national interest, and for the strong ties we have to the
only democracy in the region.
The fighting there is extraordinarily difficult. The
metaphor I used, I could not even find a tunnel, let alone a
light at the end of the tunnel. I happened to be visiting with
Chairman Arafat near midnight on April 16 when Israel was
retaliating for mortar shells which had been fired from Gaza
into Israel, and he made a statement about Israel's response
being excessive and disproportionate. I know that the United
States is frequently criticized for not being evenhanded.
There are many factors at work, but the question that I
have is that when mortar shells are being fired, and Arafat
denies complicity, as he did to me, eyeball-to-eyeball, and I
checked with our intelligence sources and it was conclusive
that Arafat was behind the mortar attacks, and while Israel did
respond very, very forcefully, Israel could have responded even
much more forcefully,
They are facing a situation where everybody is at wit's
end. I believe that the calculation is that if they hit them
hard enough, within reason, that the Palestinians perhaps will
stop the terrorism, although that is very complicated, with
Hamas an Islam Jihad and the others.
But I would be interested in your response. In the region
that comment was taken very badly by the Israelis, and taken
with great jubilation by the Palestinians, because I saw their
reaction. So it would be my request that, while the
Palestinians are inciting the violence, that we be even more
circumspect in what we say.
Secretary Powell. I cannot talk to the specific incident,
and Mr. Arafat's knowledge or wittingness, Senator Specter. We
try to be evenhanded.
The occasion you may be thinking of is when I made a public
statement after Israel went into the Gaza Strip and one of the
generals indicated they plan to stay there. That is when I was
most outspoken. But it turned out they were already on their
way out at the time I was issuing the statement, so by Israeli
accounts the statement had nothing to do with their coming out.
They were planning to come out anyway. But the statement got a
lot of attention.
I understand the inherent right of self-defense. I lived
under those terms of engagement for many, many years, so there
is an inherent right of self-defense. But in exercising that
inherent right of self-defense, if you do not want to make the
situation even worse, I think that the response has to be very
carefully calibrated and proportionate. We have to make
judgment calls from time to time as to whether we believe a
particular response was proportionate and well-calibrated and
therefore not creating an even more difficult situation,
because right now we have a cycle where mortars are fired, and
there is a very sharp response. I understand the need for a
sharp response. But if you see in days after that mortars
continue to be fired, and your sharp responses do not produce
the desired result, it suggests to me that it is time for both
sides to find ways to go back down the cycle of violence. And
that is what we are desperately trying to find a way to do now.
Only when we get moving in the other direction and stop this
exchange, whether it is proportionate or disproportionate, will
we be able to bring some stability to the region and get
confidence-building measures created again, and then start a
negotiation which will end the need for any kind of violence on
anyone's part, proportionate or otherwise, right or wrong.
Right or wrong, kids are dying.
Senator Specter. Thank you for that response. I would just
say that it looks very different on the spot there. I just
happened to be there at the time. It looks very different as
Israel is responding to those mortar shells, contrasted with
the picture that we get here in Washington.
Thank you.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Senator Specter.
Senator Mikulski.

Opening Statement of Senator Barbara A. Mikulski

Senator Mikulski. Good morning, Mr. Secretary. Mr.
Secretary, I know in your testimony, and even in my colleagues'
questions, many compelling issues will be raised, ranging from
conflict containment to conflict resolution dealing with the
drug agencies, supporting our agency, and particularly the
State of Israel, and I would hope we could advance on the
Jordan free trade agreement, but Mr. Secretary, I would like to
focus my questions on the impact that this foreign aid budget
has on women and children around the world. I know an area in
which you have expressed a longstanding commitment and
sensitivity, and even in your chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs,
it is really to defend the weak and the helpless.
I am concerned about, first of all, the spartan funding for
refugees, or the spartan increase. As you know, 95 percent of
the refugees in the world are women and children. We have those
that have been externally displaced to other countries, the
internally displaced, like we see in the Congo, and I wonder
what your reaction is to that, and do you think that we really
do have the resources to meet really the sad and melancholy
consequences of war, either external or internal, in which the
victims are women and children?
Secretary Powell. It is one of the great tragedies of our
time, Senator Mikulski, as you noted, that the victims of most
wars are not the soldiers that fight those wars but those who
are displaced, and those who are displaced very often tend to
be women and children. They become internally displaced within
their own country.
I would like to do more. I think we are doing a lot. I
think our request for fiscal year 2002 shows our commitment to
doing as much as we can, and I made a more personal and direct
commitment to the Refugees International board of directors the
other day, and with respect to trafficking in persons----
Senator Mikulski. Yes, which is another issue, sir, that I
raised in our State Department.
Secretary Powell. Right, and as you know, we are in the
process of--we have gotten the direction in the law we
supported--the previous administration supported last year, and
we will faithfully execute that law. We are looking at the
placement of an office for that purpose now under new Under
Secretary of State Paula Dobrianski, and she has been
instructed by me to make sure it gets the highest priority.
Senator Mikulski. Well, as you know, the issue of the
trafficking of women has been bipartisan, Senator Kay Bailey
Hutchison, as well as the men here, Senator Brownback. We look
forward to meeting with her in advocating this issue.
The other issue is a public health crisis that is facing
the world. As I mentioned, Laurie Garrett has written a
compelling book on this, and even in the transnational threats
identified by George Tenet at CIA, they talked about the
growing impact of malaria, tuberculosis, and AIDS, the pandemic
nature of it.
This then goes to the question of money and how we are
going to address the issue. Jeffrey Sacks and his Harvard group
says that we need between $8 to $12 billion alone to deal with
AIDS, malaria, and TB in Africa. Could you comment on that,
particularly in the area of not only let us all find a cure for
AIDS, I think the whole world wants that, but in the area of
prevention, and an integrated approach on this issue. We need
money, we need a strategy. Who is in charge, and do you think
we have enough, or how can we get to enough?
Secretary Powell. I have seen Dr. Sacks' work, and that
number, and Kofi Annan uses a number in that range, $7 billion
a year. It is a huge bill, and a lot more can be done. The
United States is at the moment contributing multiple times more
than any other nation or group of nations on the face of the
earth, and I think we should try to do more.
It was for that reason that the President supported, last
Friday, the global trust fund, which would draw not just from
Federal funds but try to get private funds, corporate funds,
lower drug prices, educational activities, youngsters doing
walks for the cure and things of that nature, to make it a
worldwide response to a worldwide crisis.
I believe that the money we have requested in this budget,
when you add up all the various accounts, as the President
noted the other day, it comes to over $700 million, over $500
million under my general supervision as Secretary of State,
representing a 100-percent increase over the last 3 years and a
10-percent increase from last year's accounts, so I think we
are doing a lot.
Should we be doing a lot more? Yes. Where should we be
doing it? In my judgment, you have to deal with the prevention,
treatment, and cure. Money is going to treatment. We need to
put more money in. The real solution to this crisis ultimately
has to be prevention, and those nations in Africa that are
starting to do better on this and get their rates down have
been focusing on prevention, to keep people from being infected
in the first place.
Senator Mikulski. Well, Mr. Secretary, I believe you and I
are on the same broadband, to use a new vocabulary. Who in the
administration or in your shop is really overseeing this issue?
Secretary Powell. I oversee it as the Secretary, Deputy
Secretary Armitage is following it, it is in the Africa Bureau
is terribly interested in it, of course. The Global Bureau is
interested in it. Secretary Thompson and I represent the
President as a joint task force at Cabinet-level, and we are
getting policy directions from Mr. Scott Everts, the new policy
director for this account in the White House.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Secretary, I note my time is up. This
issue, of course, has consequences both abroad as well as here.
Senator Leahy has had a longstanding interest in infectious
disease. Senator Frist intends to hold hearings on this, and I
believe that there needs to be a one-stop shop at the State
Department, and perhaps an interagency task force established
on this public health crisis, then focusing on prevention,
treatment that is appropriate to these countries, and I would
like you really to consider that, and perhaps we could have
further conversations about it.
Secretary Powell. I look forward to it, because underneath
Secretary Thompson and I we do have working groups, and we are
forming an executive secretariat. In fact, Secretary Thompson
and I cochaired our first interagency Cabinet-level meeting on
this last week.

prepared statement

Senator Mikulski. Well, we look forward to more. Thank you
very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
Mr. Secretary, let me join in welcoming you to the Foreign Ops
Subcommittee. I've had the pleasure of hearing from you every week--two
weeks ago on the State Department budget at CJS and last week at the
CJS hearings on terrorism. I look forward to working with you closely.
I am proud to carry on a tradition of bipartisanship in foreign
affairs and cooperation between the Administration and Congress. I hope
President Bush and you will work to achieve consensus in foreign policy
so our foreign policy reflects the values and interests of the American
people as a whole.
Today, I want to focus on issues of global public health. You and I
are far more likely to die from infectious disease than from a missile
attack or a space-based weapon.
Let me start with some chilling facts a brilliant author named
Laurie Garett presented to the Democratic Caucus at our recent retreat
that I find deeply troubling. If you've never talked with Laurie
Garett, I suggest you or your senior staff do so.
Malaria killed more than a million and a half people in 2000. This
is more malaria deaths in one year than ever before in history, and
we're seeing malaria return to the United States. Tuberculosis also set
a one-year record in 2000, killing more than 2 million people
worldwide, with more than 8.5 million active cases. What's even scarier
is that multi-drug resistant TB is spreading rapidly, now accounting
for nearly half the TB cases in India and nearly six percent of U.S.
cases. We're letting tuberculosis turn into an infectious disease that
we cannot control through over-use and mis-use of anti-biotics. I won't
go into the statistics on HIV/AIDS, except to say that within a few
years it will have killed more people than the Black Death. And the
worst is yet to come because the experts don't expect to find a cure or
a vaccine any time soon.
The World Health Organization estimates that 600,000 women die
every year from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth--more
than one woman every minute of every day. The vulnerability of most of
the world's population to disease is a direct result of poverty, the
lack of clean water and proper sanitation and poor nutrition. The kind
of outbreaks that we see in scary movies--like ebola--happen because
people are vulnerable to disease. Underfunded public health resources
can actually spread disease through re-use of needles or lack of
protective equipment or sterilization.
Do you find these facts scary, Mr. Secretary? I sure do. But here's
the kicker: This isn't just a problem in Africa or Russia. This isn't a
foreign problem. Over the last 20 years, from 1980 to 2000, the number
of Americans who died of infectious diseases doubled to more than
170,000 a year.
Globalization means a health problem anywhere is a health problem
here in America. As soon as an infected person or animal or even food
gets on an airplane or a ship, s/he or it becomes a vector bringing
disease to our shores. We must protect our people, Mr. Secretary. We
cannot throw up our hands and say this problem is too big to deal with
because it will only get bigger and more expensive to deal with. We
cannot just point to incremental increases in our spending to make it
sound like a lot of money when it's clearly inadequate to the task.
I believe there are solutions, Mr. Secretary, and I look forward to
working with you and with Chairman McConnell and Senator Leahy, who has
been such a strong advocate on public health, to change the way we
approach this issue.
First, we need a global public health approach--not just disease
treatment programs, but programs to help provide: clean water; better
nutrition, including providing micro-nutrient supplements; better
sanitation; and single-use needles for every vaccination and drug that
is administered.
Second, we need to strengthen our voluntary family planning
programs--not weaken them with the so-called Mexico City policy to
appease a small constituency. I was outraged when I heard the Bush
Administration reinstated the global gag rule, gutting our commitment
to international family planning programs and ducking from our
responsibility to the world's poorest women. Women should have the
ability to decide whether and when to have children. International
family planning programs mean healthier babies, stronger families, and
fewer abortions.
Third, we need to strengthen prevention programs which are far more
cost-effective than treatment and ultimately far more humane.
Fourth, we need sensible, integrated treatment programs like the
DOTS program (Directly Observed Treatment, Short-course) for TB to
ensure we're strengthening the patients, not the diseases.
Finally, Mr. Secretary, we need to put money into this effort now.
Jeffrey Sachs and his group at Harvard suggested we need $8 to $12
billion a year for treatment and prevention of AIDS, malaria and TB in
Africa alone. The more realistic estimates for dealing with the big
three--TB, malaria, and HIV--are probably the higher estimates of $20
billion per year.
A few weeks ago, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan called
for the establishment of an international fund to address HIV/AIDS,
malaria and tuberculosis. I applaud President Bush for making the
United States the first country to pledge a contribution to this
effort. With U.N. Secretary-General Annan and Nigerian President
Obsanjo at his side, he announced a ``founding contribution'' of $200
million to this global fund ``with more to follow as we learn where our
support can be most effective.''
However, the announced contribution pales in comparison with real
needs. U.N. Secretary General Annan called for a $7 to $10 billion
fund. As OxFam reportedly put it, President Bush left off a zero. As
details come out, it seems the funds will come in part from monies
already intended for public health at home and abroad--so some of it
isn't really additional money at all.
Mr. Secretary, Mr. Chairman, Senator Leahy--I ask you to join me
today to commit ourselves to addressing global public health needs on a
scale not contemplated by the President's budget, beyond the framework
of the Budget Resolution's limited funding for International Affairs,
before it is too late. We must do this because it is the right thing to
do--to help the people of Africa, the people of Russia, the people of
India and so many others--and to protect the American people.

Senator McConnell. Senator Campbell.

Opening Statement of Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell

Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary
Powell, we wish you well. I think it was advisable for the
President to name you Secretary of State. I have many
questions, probably many more than I can get through in one
round, but I was particularly interested in a number of your
comments dealing with human rights. We, all of us in the
Senate, wear more than one hat, just as you do, and have more
than one duty, and one of my duties is the chairman of the
OSCE.
If I mention OSCE anywhere in Europe when we travel over
there, most people know what it is and what it does, but I
would guess that most Americans never heard of it, and if I
asked this audience what it meant, probably half of them would
not have a clue about what the OSCE does, but I happen to think
it is a very, very important group, as do the other 16
commissioners that are made up of House and Senate Members as
well as I, that serve as the commissioners.
Much attention has been focused, as you mentioned, to the
ouster of the United States from the Human Rights Commission,
U.N. Human Rights Commission. It seems to me that even makes
the OSCE all the more important. Let me ask you, how much
importance does the Department attach to periodic review and
implementation of the OSCE commitments and mission?
Secretary Powell. It is an important organization. There
are a lot of similar organizations within the international
community that we work with, and we do attach importance to it.
How often we review it and on what basis, I would like to
provide that for the record.
Senator Campbell. If you could, I would appreciate that.
[The information follows:]

The Department places great importance on reviewing implementation
of OSCE commitments. At the weekly Permanent Council meetings as well
as the annual Human Dimension Implementation Meetings, the Department
raises its concerns about how other OSCE participating States are
meeting their OSCE commitments on religious freedom, media freedom,
prevention of torture, freedom of movement, rule of law, trafficking in
human beings and other human dimension areas.
This process of having OSCE member states remind each other of
their commitments, complemented by recommendations for improvements, is
essential to building a more democratic, prosperous and secure future
for the OSCE region. It is a form of conflict prevention in practice.
The Department works very closely with the U.S. Commission on
Security and Cooperation in Europe on OSCE issues, including the
Implementation Meetings. As a measure of the importance the United
States places on the role of the Implementation Meetings in advancing
the Helsinki process, the Department sent to the last Implementation
Meeting in Warsaw a U.S. delegation that included 40 members.

Senator Campbell. I have several questions. I am sure some
of these are tough, and I will submit some of them in writing.
In 1998, the international crime control strategy outlined
eight goals and 30 implementing objectives. I mention this
because you talked about narcotics, and Senator Mikulski also
mentioned the trafficking of women and children that seems to
be all on the rise in international crime.
The goals, there was a number of specific initiatives under
that 1998 strategy, but it is my understanding that there have
been two threat assessments that were subsequently conducted in
1999 and 2000, but there has been no action to establish any
performance measurement system. Do you know of any new steps
the State Department will take to improve the response to
international crime?
Secretary Powell. International crime is a major challenge,
especially in the area of globalization, where money and people
can flow around the world so easily. That includes criminals
and dirty money.
On these two specific assessments you made, and the goals
to achieve the purposes that flow from that, I would like to
give that to you for the record as well, Mr. Campbell.
Senator Campbell. That will be fine. That is 1999 and 2000,
those two assessments.
[The information follows:]

The Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs
(INL) is working with other bureaus in the Department and with U.S. law
enforcement and other U.S. Government agencies to develop a longer-
term, more coordinated approach toward providing international crime
control assistance. Annual completion by each embassy's country team of
the Mission Performance Plan (MPP) that identifies the United States'
highest priority strategic goals in the host country, is the first
step. An MPP, however, is not always as comprehensive as we would like.
INL has therefore recently asked all posts that have significant and
sustained narcotics and crime control programs to prepare law
enforcement assistance coordination plans that look out over the next 3
years. The objective is to encourage posts to take a more comprehensive
and balanced view about what needs to be done to develop more reliable
international drug and crime control partners.
INL has led a small State/Justice/Treasury interagency team to look
preliminarily into how some posts are structured to undertake this mid-
term planning and coordination. Once the reports are in, INL will
organize a broader group to provide feedback to posts and work with
local experts and embassy officials when posts want help in developing
comprehensive, coordinated judicial assistance plans.
To address shorter term needs, we have instituted a new ``project-
based approach'' to make better decisions about how to allocate our
training and program funds among competing U.S. Government agencies and
assistance requests from posts. Posts initiate the process by
describing and requesting comprehensive law enforcement assistance
``projects,'' not just a list of disjointed training courses that often
characterized past assistance requests. Typically a project--such as
enhanced border control--will include a sequence of training courses
that may be team-taught by various U.S. law enforcement agencies, as
well as technical and material assistance. An Assistant Secretary-
directed State/Justice/Treasury working group that then reviews, ranks,
and eventually approves these requests ensures interagency consensus.

Senator Campbell. We have been trying, as commissioners,
when we got to these international meetings, to raise the
awareness with some of our colleagues. There was originally 54
member nations under the original Helsinki Accord. There is
about 10 that are observer nations now, so it is quite a big
group, and when we were in St. Petersburg last year we did have
a resolution passed dealing with transparency in Government and
international crime.
In the Istanbul summit, and the upcoming summit in
Bucharest, which is a ministerial meeting, we hope to have that
awareness raised again, and that will deal primarily with drugs
and trafficking in women and children, and so I would hope that
you would keep track of what we are doing, and help us as much
as you can in that.
Let me ask just a couple more. How does the State
Department propose to coordinate responses to international
crime with other Federal agencies to ensure the response is
focused? When we were in St. Petersburg, in fact, one of the
things we did was visit with the Russian Police Academy which
has just one academy for the whole country. They do not have
different departments in different cities, one academy, and the
police go all over the nation.
They provided us with all of their texts on police training
in Russia, which we in turn brought back and disseminated to a
number of agencies in America for translation, but that is kind
of the last I heard about it. Is there a focus now with State
Department and Treasury and Justice as well to try to get some
cohesive direction?
Secretary Powell. Those parts of the Department that work
with international crime and trafficking, things of that
nature, whether it is the International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Bureau and others, work closely with the FBI, meet
with the FBI Director on a regular basis. Frankly, I was quite
astonished at how aggressive the FBI has become overseas,
working with our embassies. So I think there is a good
relationship with the FBI and the other agencies that are
involved in international criminal activity, whether it is
trafficking, money laundering, and the like.
Senator Campbell. I have about a half-dozen more questions,
but my time is just about up, so I will go ahead and stop while
I am still on the yellow, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Senator Campbell.
Senator Landrieu.

Opening Statement of senator Mary L. Landrieu

Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by
saying what a pleasure it is for me to join you all on this
committee, and I really appreciate the opportunity to serve,
and look forward to working with you and our Ranking Member,
Senator Leahy. Let me also congratulate you, Mr. Secretary, on
your appointment and say how pleased I am to be working with
you, and how much I respect you personally and the job that you
are doing.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Landrieu. I am very, very happy with your
appointment. Let me begin by just associating myself with the
remarks of my ranking member, Senator Leahy, having read and
reviewed his brief but, I think, profound opening statement,
and I just want to reiterate for the record that as a member of
the Armed Services Committee I have been a very strong
supporter of a robust, effective, strong military.
I believe that we are in definitely a period of transition
that is going to be challenging, but this Congress is up to
that task. I believe that our military has to be very strong to
provide security for our Nation and our allies around the
world, and promote, but I also believe that it is so important,
as Senator Leahy points out, that we also have a balance of a
well-funded foreign assistance program and effective diplomacy
to match our strong military power, and one without the other
is really, in some ways, a waste of time and resources. We must
have both.
So I will look forward to working with you through this
committee to make sure that this budget is as fully funded as
possible to match and provide the necessary balance that is
very important as we begin this century, so that our military
can be very effective when called on, but we can have the kind
of offensive, effective diplomacy that is required through this
foreign operations budget.
In that line, I want to just reiterate also something that
Senator Specter said about the Mideast envoy, and how important
it would be for my mind to try to revisit that issue, to urge
the administration to continue to make sure that the world is
very clear that we think that this is one of the most important
areas of the world. I know that every area claims to be, but
clearly history will show that this is a place where all of us
need to give some time and attention to try to bring peace.
So I want to add my voice to urge you to think about that
Special Envoy, to also call to the attention of this record for
this hearing the letter that was signed by, I think, Mr.
Chairman, over 60 Members of the Senate, urging the
administration to rethink our strategy in the Mideast, given
not only the level of violence, but, Mr. Secretary, with all
due respect to what you said in your testimony, there is a
difference in my mind between terrorism and self-defense, and I
think we have got proven now a tremendous amount of terrorist
activity that is going on.
I know that we have been somewhat hesitant, because we were
I think feeling encouraged by the peace process and what we saw
going on, but that has really come to an unfortunate, abrupt
end, and I think, as this letter states, it is time for us to
reassess our position to close the daylight between our
position and the position of Israel, and in effect to try to
bring an end to the violence, to say how strongly we support
Israel.
I know that we want to try to be fair-handed, and I believe
we most certainly have, but we cannot in any way at any time
defend or cover terrorism, and I want to urge you in this time
to think that, and I know it is very sensitive, but to call
your attention to this letter that was sent.
Moving on to another point, the restructuring of USAID, I
want to commend you for and encourage you--you would be
familiar with the term called a force multiplier, and I think
that USAID could be so much more of a force multiplier than it
is. My experience is somewhat limited to Romania and to
Southeast Asia--I mean, Southeast Europe, and working with
USAID, but I want to encourage you to continue to think about
ways that we can restructure USAID to be a force-multiplier,
sort of like the loaves and the fishes, if you will, realizing
that no matter how large that budget could be, we can never
accomplish all the goals, so to be facilitating and encouraging
and building private sources of revenue, to do all the good
things we need to do I think is very smart, and I want to work
with you on that.
Finally, just really a comment and a question about our
position and policy in Central America, another very important
area of the world. There are 450 million people south of our
border, developing those democracies in that part of the world,
and trade opportunities I think could be very important to the
United States as we look into the next decade or so for
economic trade and development.
Just give me one or two of your special focuses, what you
think could be done, what Congress should do to help support
you in that particular area that we should be more focused on
than others.
Secretary Powell. Well, thank you, Senator. First let me
thank you for that expression of support for what our Foreign
Service and Civil Service and Foreign Service national
employees are doing overseas. They are our first line of
offense, working with our colleagues in military uniform.
I saw something in the press this morning that I have to
research to make sure it is accurate, but they said more
Ambassadors have been killed since the end of World War II than
Generals. So we are out there putting our people on the line,
and thank you for that expression of support. I will very
carefully look at the letter which you made reference to. I do
not think I have seen it yet, but I look forward to examining
it very carefully.
Thank you for your words on USAID. We do intend for the
global development alliance to be a force multiplier. Thank you
for your reference to all of the military terms I use to use
with more regularity than I do now, but it fits perfectly.
Finally, on Central and Latin America, I certainly share
your view of its importance, and I think one of the things
Congress can do to help us the most is, as we bring it up here,
the free trade alliance, free trade agreement of the Americas
is going to be very, very important for economic development
throughout the region. In due course the Chilean-United States
free trade agreement, giving us trade preference authority,
fast track, so that we can conclude deals not only in our
hemisphere but elsewhere in the world that will encourage free
trade, remove trade barriers.
At the end of the day, what the people in these fledgling
democracies are looking for is a better life. That better life,
we believe, comes from economic freedom; the kind that is
encouraged by these sorts of agreements.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Senator Landrieu. Senator
Bennett.

Opening Statement of Senator Robert F. Bennett

Senator Bennett. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, I know it is
redundant, but I must join with my colleagues in welcoming you
to this position and telling you how reassuring it is to have
you there. The President did not consult me. If he had, I would
have suggested that he take a look at you as possibly Secretary
of Education because of your commitment in that area as well,
but I am delighted to have you where you are, and join with my
colleagues in making that expression. Just because it is tardy
does not mean it is not well-intentioned.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Bennett. I have got a chart that I am going to put
up for the audience. You have a copy in front of you. The
Russian Statistics Committee has made some grim predictions
included in this quote. I will just highlight a few of them.
These were brought to my attention when I was attending a
conference last summer, where a group of academic experts on
Russia went through this same litany of woe, and I had not
realized how much trouble Russia is really in.
From this quote, Russia's population will drop at least 7.2
percent by 2016, which means a loss of 10 million people. The
death to birth rate is 1.6 to 1, half the Russian population
could have AIDS within the next 10 years, and this has resulted
in widespread alcoholism, drug abuse, in an attempt to escape
the difficulties of their lives in ordinary Russian terms.
The group of experts that spoke to the Congressmen and
Senators that were gathered at the conference to which I
referred were very outspoken in their statement that the amount
of money that the western world had put into Russia had not
helped. Indeed, they went so far as to say that the IMF and
other aid that had been provided by the United States had
exacerbated the problems rather than helped the problems
because of the way in which it was handled.
I remember Congressman Waxman, who is on the other side of
the political spectrum from me in most cases, asking the very
anguished question, ``What can we do?'' and being told, at
least by those experts, as far as governmental concerns, or
governmental channels are concerned, no more money. Money just
makes things worse, and the strong recommendation was effort by
more NGO's.
You have talked about the seed money that this
administration has put into an attack on AIDS, and said you
want that to reach out to NGO's and to others that could step
in and help with this. We, as the committee, have to face this
question of money and we are finding the public health problems
in Russia to be so intractable and, indeed, ultimately
threatening the stability of the regime and maybe the stability
of that whole part of the world. I would like you to respond to
whatever you want to here, and then whatever comments you might
want to share with us later as to the issue of how the West
really can deal with what appears to be an intractable problem
in a country that in terms of its natural resources, the
inventiveness and energy of its people and so on, should be one
of the world's success stories but instead is one of the
world's greatest basket cases. Particularly with the spread of
AIDS and tuberculosis it becomes very, very troubling.
Secretary Powell. These statistics are devastating. When
you have a death rate that exceeds your birth rate by these
standards, with the accompanying health problems that are also
noted by this quote. That society cannot sustain itself over
time. You must have a positive birth rate or immigration of
some kind to keep your population growth up. Just as we benefit
from immigration, but people are emigrating, not immigrating,
with respect to Russia.
Money alone will not do it, whether the money comes from
the U.S. Treasury or from loans, or even from nonprofit
ventures or private investment. What really has to happen in
Russia, in my judgment, is, they have got to put in place a
functioning economic system that is grounded on the rule of
law. Where the law of contract is sacrosanct, where money that
goes inside of Russia stays inside of Russia, and circulates
and does good works, and does not go inside and circulate once
and go outside to bank accounts in other countries, where one
or two people are enriched, but not the people.
So I think a lot more has to be done by Russia to create a
safe environment for money. A safe environment for investment.
A safe environment for loans and other kinds of financial
assistance. I think they will still need financial assistance,
but a great burden is placed upon them to eliminate corruption.
Eliminate some of the terrible things that have happened within
their society over the last 10 years which makes it hard for
people to have confidence in investing in that kind of society.
These are issues we should talk candidly and plainly to the
Russians about.
I am not dismissing Russia. Russia is a proud nation with a
long history. It has an educated population. It has enormous
natural resources. It has scientists. It has all sorts of
people who could take it into a brighter future. If they can
get themselves properly organized in a democratic way with a
sound economic system resting on the rule of law, I think that
Russia can yet take advantage of its human and natural
potential to be a contributing member of the international
community.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much.
Senator McConnell. Senator Johnson.

Opening Statement of Senator Tim Johnson

Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to
Secretary Powell, and my commendation to you for your continued
public service and your choice to do that.
Secretary Powell, one of the flashpoints in the world that
concerns me a great deal has to do with the continuing
conflicts between India and Pakistan, particularly related to
Kashmir. This is a potential source of nuclear conflict, and
certainly destabilizing to all of South Asia and perhaps the
world.
I was pleased last year when President Clinton was the
first President in over a quarter of a century to visit both
India and Pakistan, but I would be interested in any
observations you might have about what is the role of the
United States? What can we do more constructively than we have
up till now?
Obviously, there is no United States--there is no
possibility to impose our solution on two sovereign nations,
but nonetheless I would hope there would be an increasingly
constructive role that the United States might play in this
particular conflict, and I would appreciate any comments that
you might have.
Secretary Powell. I think there are roles we can play. I
think the progress we have seen over the last several years in
the relations between the United States and India, especially
give us a new entree, a new opportunity to encourage the sides
to find a peaceful and just solution to the problem of Kashmir.
But as you know, Senator, it is a very difficult issue.
We plan to build on the relationship. The Indian foreign
minister has been to see me, and I have assured him that we
will build on what was achieved in the previous administration.
I am looking forward to visiting India at some point and
looking forward to exchanges at all levels--economic, trade,
and other levels.
For most of my military career, especially in my senior
years as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and at that
level, India was just over there. It was sort of connected to
the Soviet Union, and we did not pay a lot of attention to it.
Our focus was really on Pakistan.
Now, our focus is on both of them, and I think we can be
helpful to both of them, and we really have to make sure that
this nuclear genie does not get any further out of the bottle
than it is already. On a regular basis, we consult with them.
We make sure they understand the seriousness with which we view
the potential for something getting out of control in the
region, and I think we do have a helpful role to play because
of the relationship we have with India.
Senator Johnson. Let me just ask you quickly, in the short
amount of time I have here, with the reimposition of the Mexico
City policy, and a flat line budget on international family
planning, one of my concerns is, what is the United States
role? It seems to me tragic that this policy, I believe, leads
to more unwanted pregnancies and then, in turn, more abortions
throughout the world.
It seems to me the United States needs to play a more
constructive role in terms of international family planning and
seeing to it that certainly not on our own, but in conjunction
with other western democracies, that we contribute to providing
more options to more women, particularly low income women
throughout the world, and I wonder if you would have any
comments about where do we go from here now.
Secretary Powell. With the Mexico City policy we still--we
have over $400 million going to family planning activities
around the world. Several of them have been caught by the
Mexico City policy, but we are reasonably confident that they
have been able to find alternative sources of funding, and it
is a very small number, and it shows no diminution of our
interest in family planning activities, but not those specific
ones that advocate or educate or provide alternatives founded
on abortion as a family planning practice.

prepared statement

Senator Johnson. Thank you, Secretary Powell. I would yield
back.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Tim Johnson
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank you and Ranking Member Leahy for
holding today's hearing to take testimony from Secretary of State Colin
Powell. I respect the leadership Chairman McConnell and Ranking Member
Leahy have shown on foreign assistance appropriations issues over the
years, and as a new member to this subcommittee, I look forward to
learning from them and working with them on these important issues.
First, I'd like to congratulate Secretary Powell on the unanimous
support his nomination received in the Foreign Relations Committee and
on the Senate floor earlier this year. Secretary Powell brings to his
position as the President's principle foreign policy advisor years of
experience in dealing with multinational issues and a high level of
respect within the international community.
The international challenges facing our country are considerable.
In his own testimony, Secretary Powell noted that ``increasing levels
of conflict, degraded economic performance, and widespread disease are
causing regional instabilities, complex humanitarian emergencies and,
in some cases, chaos.'' Andrew Natsios, Director of USAID, recently
appeared before this subcommittee and noted that nearly two-thirds of
the countries with USAID field missions have been ravaged by civil
conflict over the past five years. Additionally, 75 percent of the
world's poor live in rural areas at a time when many areas of the globe
are experiencing historic and sustained droughts. The HIV/AIDS epidemic
is on the brink of destabilizing an entire continent, Africa, and the
disease's impact continues to be felt around the world.
The challenges facing Secretary Powell, Director Natsios, and our
country are considerable, but they are not insurmountable. Our history
has shown that the relatively small investment the government makes in
the Foreign Assistance budget--approximately one penny of every dollar
the government spends--has paid dividends in peace and stability.
Investments made over the years in fragile democracies in the former
Soviet Union, Central Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, Africa,
and South Asia have resulted in stable governments growing into global
trading partners, solidifying our national security. Director Natsios
gave the Senate Foreign Relations Committee a sobering example of the
consequences of ignoring our nation's investment in the developing
world: Bosnia. The Carnegie Commission for Preventing Deadly Conflict
reported that total NATO peacekeeping and humanitarian aid efforts in
Bosnia cost $53 billion. I share the belief among many in Congress that
it is better to prevent disasters, as much as possible, than to cope
with their aftermath.
In addition to protecting our national security, our small
investment in foreign assistance creates opportunities for American
workers. By promoting American exports and developing international
markets through the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation, and others, the international affairs budget is
responsible for 1 out of every 7 American jobs. In my state of South
Dakota, that means additional markets for grains and meat grown and
raised on family farms and ranches.
I appreciate Secretary Powell's detailed testimony for this
subcommittee and his foreign operations budget justifications for the
fiscal year 2002. I would like to briefly highlight some areas of
interest in this budget proposal.
economic growth and agriculture
In an attempt to concentrate USAID resources and capabilities,
Secretary Powell and Director Natsios have emphasized the importance of
economic growth and agriculture to create economies that are viable
over the long term. I am pleased that the Secretary's request for
fiscal year 2002 is an increase from last year's funding levels given
the importance of agriculture and basic education--especially for girls
and women--in most of USAID's recipient countries.
Dairy directive
I encourage the Secretary and USAID to continue to utilize
successful programs like the dairy directive that assists producers,
small dairies, and cooperatives in developing and transitioning
economies to increase household incomes and nutrition. Linking economic
development programs with increased exports of U.S. dairy products is
mutually beneficial to American farmers and is sound foreign policy.
Credit unions and cooperatives
Also within the area of economic growth and agriculture, I
encourage the Secretary and USAID to consider expanding rural credit
unions, rural utilities, and value-added cooperatives to strengthen
agriculture systems and help small farmers in developing countries. For
a number of years, people in rural America have benefitted from credit
unions and cooperatives. More recently, we have seen that credit unions
and cooperatives are critical grassroots, democratic institutions that
enable rural and urban communities in developing countries to become
selfsufficient. Credit unions and cooperatives can also play an
important role in stabilizing communities impacted by HIV/AIDS through
childcare cooperatives, pre-paid health programs, and cooperative
pharmacies.
International Arid Lands Consortium--South Dakota State University
South Dakota is home to two international programs which emphasize
the role of agriculture in economic development and health. First,
South Dakota State University has been a longstanding partner in the
International Arid Lands Consortium--a group that conducts research,
education, and technical assistance programs in the United States and
with partners in the Middle East addressing water, land, and management
issues. The International Arid Lands Consortium provides for unique
collaboration between American, Jordanian, Israeli, and Egyptian
researchers and scientists. Approximately 40 percent of the world's
land is arid or semiarid, and the International Arid Lands Consortium
is making great strides in helping to transform this terrain for
agriculture and habitation while also addressing the negative impact of
urbanization and desertification. The International Arid Lands
Consortium receives funding through the USDA Forest Service. However, I
am aware of interest in the Consortium of working with USAID, and I
encourage increased communication between the Secretary, USAID, and
representatives of the International Arid Lands Consortium.
George McGovern Global Hunger Project--Dakota Wesleyan University
The second project involves fellow-South Dakotan, Ambassador George
McGovern's campaign to end global hunger. Established by Dakota
Wesleyan University, the George McGovern Center for Public Hunger
Project will be an extension of George McGovern's lifelong work to
eradicate poverty and hunger. As you know, Ambassador McGovern was
instrumental in creating programs to alleviate hunger including Food
for Peace, school lunches, and food stamps and also advanced federal
efforts to deal with poverty and hunger worldwide. Since 1998 he has
served as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Food and
Agricultural Organization. In this role, he has successfully promoted
an international program to provide school lunches throughout the third
world. His lifelong dream is to fully banish hunger from the earth by
2030. I encourage Secretary Powell and USAID to work with Ambassador
McGovern to incorporate the mission of the McGovern Center into the
work of the State Department and USAID.
I'd now like to turn to areas of the world receiving much-needed
foreign assistance and diplomatic attention.
pakistan
I'm pleased that Secretary Powell has requested funding to help
restore democratic institutions and build civil society in Pakistan and
fund projects promoting cross-border confidence-building measures
between the civil societies of India and Pakistan. Staying engaged with
Pakistan through its interim government is the best way to encourage
renewal of democracy and pro-Western attitudes and policies. All of us
wish that Pakistan had a strong, stable democracy, but it never has.
The interim Chief Executive, General Pervez Musharraf, has given
assurances of his commitment to combating corruption and renewing civil
institutions so that Pakistan can attain an authentic, functional
democracy in the future. The Administration should engage closely with
the people of Pakistan in helping to make this promise a reality.
In addition, I encourage Secretary Powell and the Administration to
offer United States mediation toward peace in Kashmir. Kashmir is the
world's most dangerous nuclear flashpoint, and it is in the United
States' and the world's best interest to attempt to bring Pakistan and
India closer together and change the dangerous dynamic in South Asia.
Rising fundamentalism and terrorism are threatening stability in South
Asia and around the world. I have called on the Musharraf government to
illustrate more progress in condemning terrorism, returning to a
democratic government, addressing economic reform, and improving human
rights, especially for women and children. This is a critical time for
Pakistan and the region, and it is critical for the United States to
stay actively engaged.
armenia
I applaud Secretary Powell and the Administration for its efforts
earlier this year in bringing together Armenia and Azerbaijan in Key
West, Florida, to discuss a peaceful end to the Nagorno Karabagh
conflict. As Secretary Powell noted in his budget justifications,
``achieving a durable and mutually acceptable resolution to Armenia's
conflict with Azerbaijan over Nagorno Karabagh is key to several U.S.
interests.'' In addition to helping to restore stability in the
Caucasus region, a lasting peace agreement would allow Armenia to
improve its relations with Turkey and focus much of its economic
resources on internal development and social improvements.
While I am pleased that Secretary Powell's budget request sets
aside funding in the regional account to support a settlement of the
Nagorno Karabagh conflict, I am disappointed that this funding level
falls short of last year's levels. These funds are critical to the
peace process and to post-settlement reconstruction in Azerbaijan and
Armenia as part of a coordinated international donor effort.
israel
Both moral and strategic imperatives require strong bonds and a
close relationship between the United States and Israel. Israel is both
the only democracy in the Middle East and this country's only stable
ally in that vital region. For these reasons, the United States must
continue to aid Israel in military, diplomatic, and economic spheres.
Israel is a friend and should be treated by our government as a valued
ally.
I am pleased the Administration's fiscal year 2002 budget request
illustrates a continued commitment to Israel's security through
economic and military assistance. I support the Administration's
request for $720 million in Economic Support Funding (ESF) and $2.04
billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF). I also urge the
Administration to support early disbursal of both ESF and FMF funding
in full for Israel, along with the ability for Israel to receive a cash
transfer of the ESF funds.
In an attempt to break the generational cycle of violence in the
Middle East, Seeds of Peace brings together Arab and Israeli teenagers
and youth for unique conflict resolution programs. I support the very
limited amount our government contributes to this worthwhile program
and encourage Secretary Powell to continue our involvement in conflict
resolution programs like Seeds of Peace.
The State Department and USAID play a critical role in our
country's national security while maintaining our commitment to
humanitarian principles through development assistance. Secretary
Powell, I look forward to working with you in helping to make
investments in international peace, security, and prosperity.

Senator McConnell. Mr. Secretary, with the breakup of the
Soviet Union and the discovery of even greater oil reserves
than we had thought previously existed in the Caspian Sea,
Americans have rediscovered the Caucasus. The Russians declared
early in the nineties, somewhat similar to the Monroe Doctrine
here a couple of centuries ago, that that was their near-
abroad. It used to be part of the Soviet Union. Basically, it
was our turf.
As you know, in the aftermath of the breakup of the Soviet
Union there was a war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, lots of
refugees on both sides still there, disputed territory in
Nagorno-Karabahk. What was established to try to work out an
agreement was something called the Minsk Group, which had at
the table the Russians and ourselves.
You could not say what I am about to say, but it is my view
that the Russians are not interested in solving this dispute,
the French are rarely helpful on anything, and that leaves us.
I am somewhat skeptical as to whether the Minsk Group is a
format for resolution that can work, so my questions to you are
twofold.
First, do you think that is a format that can work? I
gather they are meeting again in June.
Second, just how big an interest will this administration
take in the issue? Strobe Talbott was the assigned point person
on this issue in the previous administration. I do not think he
would admit this publicly, but it was not a high priority for
him. I think our mind set was that this was so far away and so
close to Russia that we could not play much of a role in it.
How important is this to the new administration? Can the
Minsk Group function with those players, and will it be a
priority for you and, if not, who will handle it?
Secretary Powell. It is a priority. The Minsk Group I think
has done good work, and the two Presidents of Armenia and
Azerbaijan have acknowledged the good work that has been done
by the Minsk Group. Not too long ago we brought the two
presidents to Key West, as you may be aware, Senator, and with
other cochairs present, the Russians and the French, playing a
very constructive and helpful role, we moved the process along
in Key West.
One of the reasons Key West was possible was because
President Chirac and President Putin took a personal interest
in it and moved the two presidents, Kocharian and Aliyev, moved
them in this direction.
We had a good outcome from the Key West meeting. The issues
are very difficult and complex. Both leaders have gone back to
reflect on the ideas that the Minsk Group put to them and to
get ready to take the next step, which is the meeting you made
reference to, I hope in June.
There are some tough issues yet to be resolved, but the
French, the Russians, and the United States are working very
closely, and I think in a very, very constructive and positive
way. We have seen progress over the past year, but we are not
there yet. In due course, it will be the Minsk Group that will
present the proposal to the two sides and to the international
community for consideration.
Senator McConnell. Well, that is encouraging. Essentially,
not much happened for a long time, and I did hear reports that
the Miami meeting was constructive.
Secretary Powell. I flew down to preside at the meeting.
Senator McConnell. Should I take it to mean that this will
be something that you will have a personal interest in?
Secretary Powell. After spending a whole day at Key West,
yes, sir.
Senator McConnell. Good. I am glad to hear that. I think
dealing with that at the highest level is in the best interest.
Secretary Powell. We also have a superb Ambassador as our
cochair, Ambassador Cavanaugh, and he keeps me very closely
informed as to what is going on directly.
Senator McConnell. Shifting to another part of the world,
Carla Del Ponte was in town. I think you met with her, and I
did as well. We talked earlier about how congressional earmarks
and stipulations are sometimes not helpful to administrations,
but in the case of section 594, which Senator Leahy and I
inserted into the bill last year requiring you to certify that
there was a good-faith effort to turn Milosevic over to The
Hague, it actually may have been helpful to you in that regard,
even though you were able to certify this year.
What prospects do you think there are, if any, that
Milosevic will, in fact, be turned over to The Hague, and I
would be interested in just your general observations about the
status of that issue at this time.
Secretary Powell. I would be delighted to respond. I saw
Ms. Del Ponte when she was here, and I also saw President
Kostenica when he was here. I did review with the president and
Ms. Del Ponte the law that I am obliged and anxious to comply
with, and that the certification I made at the end of March was
a conditional certification, made easier that weekend because
they did arrest Mr. Milosevic.
It would have been a much harder certification to make in
the absence of that. But the condition that I used to make the
certification at that time, and I recall speaking to both of
you at the time, was that more had to be done before we could
go to the donors' conference that was called for. I made that
point to President Kostenica and also discussed it with my
European colleagues that I need to see more.
The president has responded, since his visit, that he is
going to try to do more with respect to putting in place the
necessary legal basis. I cannot tell you when Mr. Milosevic
will be subject to the court and will have to face the court in
The Hague. I do not have a date for that. Belgrade has not
given us a date for that. I am hopeful that they will take
actions between now and the time that a decision has to be made
on attendance at the donors conference that will allow me to
remove the condition, or satisfy the condition, because they
have done a lot more.
I would hope that a lot more includes something about Mr.
Milosevic, but I think that is unlikely from this standpoint.
But, I certainly encourage them to understand, without any
question about it, that we will not be satisfied until
ultimately he stands before The Hague and they really have to
put that on their radar screen. Hopefully in the short range
and not the long range, so there is no misunderstanding about
the intent of the law and the nature of our expectations.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. I will follow up on that, because Senator
McConnell and I worked very closely on this and yes, you and I
did discuss it, and I appreciate that discussion, but I am just
wondering, is the administration willing to sit out the donors'
conference and see the Europeans go ahead whether Kostenica is
cooperating with The Hague or not?
Secretary Powell. My best sensing right now is that they
are reluctant to go ahead with the donors' conference without
us. At the same time, Belgrade needs help in order to keep the
success that we have seen in the last 7 or 8 months going. So
we have two objectives here, one to use the promise of
attendance at a donors' conference to satisfy the International
Criminal Tribunal. But at the same time we also have to be
sensitive to the fact that this donors' conference is very,
very helpful in helping the Government to move forward in a
positive direction. I will weigh all of those circumstances and
what has happened between now and the time I have to make that
decision, when I make my notice to the Congress as to the
certification of the condition.
Senator Leahy. I also look at the war criminals in the
Rpublika Srbska, but SFOR has not apprehended them. I do not
think the Serbs would have done anything if the chairman and I
had not had the restriction in, and had not made some very
strong statements that we did not intend, at least at the
congressional level, to give in.
So it relates back to other places like Colombia. We
included human rights conditions on the aid to the Colombian
military, who had a poor human rights record. The House added a
waiver. President Clinton used the waiver. Since then, the
paramilitaries have doubled in size, the number of massacres
has increased, the paramilitaries a week or so ago mutilated
people with a chain saw.
The paramilitaries have close links with the Army. A year
has passed. I think we need to continue the conditions on
Colombia, but is it going to be the policy to just waive the
human rights conditions again if we leave the waiver in there?
Secretary Powell. I think what we have to do when the time
comes to make that decision, take a complete look at what has
transpired since they left.
Senator Leahy. I understand that, but what I am saying is
this. There is a bipartisan concern up here, and none of us
want to see our country hit with drugs, but I worry about this
drug war becoming something similar to what we saw during the
cold war.
Many times with administrations of both parties, if you
have the country where they have the worst abuses of human
rights, you might have a dictator, you might have all these
other problems, but they said, by gosh, we are anti-Soviet
Union, we are anticommunist, would you please send us some aid.
We shoveled it in, and we closed our eyes to some problems that
were far greater than anything we might have faced at that time
from the Soviet Union, and I wish we would look at what is
happening down in Colombia, where we give more aid to the
military, they give more aid to the paramilitaries, the
paramilitaries are involved with atrocities, the guerrillas are
too, the drug lords seem to flourish, but the paramilitaries
are now working as sort of semi-drug lords, too.
And then we do other things. We spray glyphosate down
there, and as the manufacturer says people should stay out of
the treated area until it is thoroughly dry. You should keep
animals out, for 2 weeks out of the area. In Mississippi they
cut back on the use of it. We are finally looking at the health
effects in Colombia. The Colombian officials and environmental
groups, including the World Wildlife Fund, have called for a
halt to the spraying, at least until we find out the results of
the study. Should we at least take that step?
Secretary Powell. I think the manufacturers' cautions are
well-grounded, but I have seen no evidence so far that
illnesses or problems of the kind suggested have broken out, or
been a problem as a result of the spraying.
With respect to the paramilitaries, of course, we do not
support them. And we speak candidly to the Colombian
Government. In my conversations with my Colombian colleagues, I
make the point that human rights are an essential part of our
strategy. And if they really want to be successful at the end
of the day, in defeating not only the insurgencies, but the
narcotraffickers. They have to show to their population a
commitment to human rights and democracy.
The problem Colombia has is, their democracy is being put
at serious risk by these people, so they are in a war.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
Senator Campbell, and let me just say that the Secretary
has to leave at 11:30, but I think with these 5-minute rounds
we are going to all be in good shape. Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell. Well, with that, Mr. Chairman, I have
several other questions dealing with the OSCE and law
enforcement that I will submit in writing to the Secretary, but
there is a last couple of questions. I would like to change
gears just a little bit.
Just as you had a former life, I had a former life, too,
when my wife looks at my waistline she can hardly believe I was
once an Olympic athlete, but I have got the old pictures to
prove it, but I would like to ask you a couple of questions
dealing with the Games that will be coming up in Greece.
Some months ago, Senators Stevens, Roberts, Warner, and I
visited Athens, where the next Olympic Games are going to be.
As you probably know in this year's budget we will be
appropriating something like $92 million that will go toward
security for the Salt Lake Games in Senator Bennett's State.
Most will come through Treasury and CJS, by the way, so we are
taking precautions here.
When we were over there, we asked some of the Greek
officials about it, and they got a little bit defensive, but
the reason I ask is because there have been some people on the
U.S. Olympic Committee who have suggested that if we get
American kids over there and they get hurt, and you know as
well as I do, these big international events have become
spectacular.
Any wacko that wants to make a statement can certainly get
the press, but if we get an American kid hurt, they are not
going to sue Greece, they are going to sue the U.S. Olympic
Team, and so there are some questions about whether the U.S.
Olympic Team should participate. I think they are going to, and
I certainly support that, and I hope they will, but I am
concerned.
When we were in Athens, there were some reports about a
group called 17 November that I am sure you are aware of. It is
a terrorist group. They have not made any specific threats
towards Americans, but in June 2000 they did kill the British
defense attache, who was murdered.
When we were there, we were told by the Ambassador that our
officials are, I mean, in and out of high alert regularly
because of threats. In fact, while we were there, there was a
threat made at the hotel while we were there, and we had to
leave the hotel until the dogs were brought in and all the
sophisticated equipment was brought in, too.
The question I had was, has the State Department raised any
security concerns with the Government of Greece in anticipation
of the upcoming games?
Secretary Powell. I do not know that we have made formal
comments or requests, or expressed formal concerns to the Greek
Government, but I can check on that. I know there has been a
general area of concern, because there is a potential for these
kinds of activities just about anywhere in the world, but
Greece and the 17 November Group is troublesome.
[The information follows:]

The Department has been working closely with the Greek government
on the issue of Olympics Security. At the request of the Greek
government, we and other concerned members of the international
community--the UK, Spain, Australia, France, and Israel--have formed an
Olympic Security Advisory Group (OSAG), which has met several times in
Athens since December 2000. Through OSAG, we are working to help the
Greeks identify unmet security needs and offering advice on how they
can meet those needs. In addition, Greek law enforcement experts have
visited the United States and participated in security training
exercises for the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. From our
perspective, the OSAG process has been highly productive. I would add
that we are posting a special Diplomatic Security Olympics Coordinator
in Athens this summer, as we did for the Sydney Games, to manage the
U.S. effort.
As we know from experience, preparing for the Olympics is a
momentous challenge regardless of the venue, and one that requires an
extraordinarily high degree of international cooperation. The USG will
continue to support Greek efforts toward a safe, terrorism-free
Olympics. Clearly, much work remains to be done. I am confident that
the Greek government will do everything possible to ensure the safety
of the Games, and we will assist them in any way that we can.
On the specific issue of terrorism, we have made our bottom line--
the need for results--well known to the Greek government, including
during Foreign Minister Papandreou's very successful recent visit (May
20-24) to the United States. The Greek government has become more
determined in the fight against terrorism since the murder of UK
Military Attache Stephen Saunders in Athens last year. The Greeks have
taken a number of important steps, including publicizing a reward for
information, bolstering police capabilities, and drafting new
legislation on organized crime and terrorism with important new tools
like witness protection. However, the bottom line is that the ``17
November'' terrorists who planned and carried out the murder of five
members of the U.S. Mission in Greece, wounded dozens more Americans,
and killed an even larger number of Greeks must be brought to justice.
We cooperate closely with the Greek government and the Greek police
to support their counter-terrorism efforts, while fully respecting
Greek sovereignty and authority. This cooperation has improved since
last year. The Anti-Terrorism Assistance program and the FBI--working
through our Embassy in Athens in close cooperation with the British
Embassy and Scotland Yard--provide training to develop the police
counterterrorism unit's professionalism. We are providing assistance
where we can, but ultimately the deadly violence of ``17 November'' and
other terrorist organizations is a Greek problem to be solved by
Greeks.

Senator Campbell. Well, if I might recommend----
Secretary Powell. We also--you know, I do not want to
misstate this, because I also have confidence in the Greek
authorities, and I know that they are committed to having safe
games, but we certainly should monitor their preparations to
make sure that our youngsters are not being put in conditions
of danger. But, I have confidence that the Greek authorities
know how to deal with this kind of thing, and any concerns we
do have we should present to them.
Senator Campbell. Well, they did tell us that they have an
international group. There are some Americans involved, some
British people involved, some Germans and so on, that form sort
of an international group to advise them on security, and I
certainly appreciate that, but would also recommend that you
monitor that through the State Department and keep those
concerns at the forefront when you are dealing with them. We
can almost predict that somebody is going to try something.
Ever since 1972 with the Munich games, in which the Jewish
wrestling team was murdered, it has become almost a planned
thing.
Well, in any event, enough said.
Secretary Powell. That is not endemic to Greece. We had our
own home-grown wacko, whoever it was who set a bomb off in
Atlanta.
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit
the rest of my questions.
Senator McConnell. Thank you. Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Powell, thank you for joining us today, and thank
you for your continuing service to the country. I note that you
are leaving soon to Africa to visit there, and I am heartened
by that visit as well as your expressed interest in the AIDS
epidemic and other problems affecting that continent. I visited
there a little over a year ago, and it had a profound impact on
me personally.
I would like to ask you to consider as part of the package
of our response two things. First is the microcredit initiative
that we have supported around the world. If these 12 million
orphans in Africa have a chance, it will be with extended
families. Those extended families will not have a chance unless
they have some source of income to sustain them. Microcredit
has been a success, and I hope we will dedicate more effort
toward it. I think it is a practical, hands-on thing that can
be of benefit.
Second, I think food can play a very important role here,
and I have joined with former Senators George McGovern and Bob
Dole in an initiative that was announced a little over a year
ago and was implemented partially by the Clinton
administration, and one that I hope you will embrace as well,
to take the largesse of America's bounty and to share it with
children in schools in third world countries.
I believe we can engage the other civilized, industrialized
countries in this world that see a similar need, and I do not
know if you have an opinion on the McGovern-Dole approach in
the school feeding program, and I hope that if you do, that it
is positive. Have you had a chance to look at this?
Secretary Powell. Yes, sir. First, on microcredits, I
certainly agree with you. I have seen in third world countries
what microcredits can do. I was in India a couple of years ago
and visited with some ladies who had access to microcredits,
and you should have seen the pride on their face and smiles on
their face as they were able to provide for their children. I
think that is an excellent way to go with microcredits for
developed nations.
On the worldwide school lunch program, I am very familiar
with it. I heard about it early on, during the transition
period, and Senator McGovern was in to see me about 10 days
ago. We had a chance to talk about it again, and it is still
getting up and running, and it is a great idea. It essentially
takes the old American school lunch program and passes it all
over the world to kids everywhere.
Senator Durbin. The benefit I have found in third world
countries is, you can usually measure their chances for social
progress by really assessing the role of women in their
societies, and those countries that have involved women in
decisionmaking and giving them more responsibility have a
better chance of coping with major social problems, but what I
like about the McGovern-Dole approach is, it will attract young
girls to schools, and in school with an education they are more
likely to make the right decisions in life.
Can I switch to another topic that occupied a lot of your
thinking a little over 10 years ago, and that was the situation
involving Desert Storm, and what happened in the aftermath. A
decision was reached that the Iraqis would pay some $320
billion for damages that they created with their invasion of
Kuwait, and the United Nations Commission was put together to
try to achieve that.
To date, I believe about $32 billion has been paid. It
appears now that it is really slowing down to a trickle in
terms of compensation. What do you think we can do proactively
to make certain that justice is done, that those who are
entitled to compensation from the Iraqis for their aggression
in Kuwait are adequately paid?
Secretary Powell. We are doing everything we can to
encourage that program to continue and to move at a faster
rate. There have been some problems within the past year with
some of our friends who have tried to slow down and frustrate
the effort. We are making clear to them we do not find that to
be an acceptable situation, and we ought to do more to
compensate or to pay off these just claims against that
account.
Senator Durbin. I think that is an important role for us to
play, to make sure that there is just compensation here, and I
hope that we can find ways to deal with that effectively and to
move that on a faster timetable.
Might I ask you as well, on Export-Import Bank funding,
there is a pretty substantial cut in your budget, about $300
million, if I am not mistaken, in export-import financing. Now,
I have been a critic of this agency. I do not agree with a lot
of their policies, but I do think they provide a tool to
American exporters, which need to be competitive on a worldwide
basis.
There is supposed to be an assessment of the Eximbank
before its reauthorization in September. The administration has
decided to make a rather substantial cut in funding to this
agency even before that assessment. Can you tell me what your
view is about the role of the bank, and what this cutback will
mean in terms of American companies trying to compete against
others in the world who have similar support from their
governments?
Secretary Powell. The bank continues to do superb work and
enjoys the support of the administration. At the same time, in
reviewing the work of the bank and the activities of the bank
and the kind of lending that the bank does, it seemed to be
prudent in a way to save taxpayers' dollars by asking some of
the borrowers coming to the bank to pick up a higher level of
the risk. And for some of those borrowers who are large enough
and have the capacity to obtain funds in the private equity and
bond market to go there as their first choice, rather than
coming to the bank, and in that way able to reduce the amount
of taxpayer money needed for the bank.
Now, it is controversial and, of course, the administration
receives some comment and criticism on this approach, but I
think it is worth a try. We will see what happens in the year
that this unfolds as to whether or not we really have hurt
business bad, or whether we have made it a more healthy
situation.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Secretary, I will just close by
thanking you for your testimony and say I am also working on
legislation on clean diamonds, the problem with Sierra Leone,
and working with Congressman Hull and Senator Feingold. I think
you understand that, and understand the illicit diamond trade
is financing terrorism and terrible hardship on people in that
region in Africa.
Thank you very much.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Senator Durbin.
Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary,
the U.N. sanctions on Iraq expire at the beginning of June. We
have had bombs dropped. We have had threats made. We have had
all kinds of activity vis-a-vis Iraq in the previous
administration. Now we are coming to the end. What is our level
of concern about the progress of Saddam Hussein's chemical and
biological weapons program?
Secretary Powell. The sanctions, as they are called, have
succeeded over the last 10 years not in deterring him from
moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move
in that direction.
The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It does
not have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been
contained, and even though we have no doubt in our mind that
the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of
mass destruction, chemical, biological, and nuclear, I think
the best intelligence estimate suggests that they have not been
terribly successful.
There is no question that they have some stockpiles of some
of these sorts of weapons still under their control. But they
have not been able to break out, they have not been able to
come out with a capacity to deliver these kinds of systems, or
to actually have these kinds of systems. That is much beyond
where they were 10 years ago. So containment using this arms
control sanctions regime I think has been reasonably
successful.
We have not been able to get the inspectors back in,
though, to verify that, and we have not been able to get the
inspectors in to pull up anything that might be left there, so
we have to continue to view this regime with the greatest
suspicion, attribute to them the most negative motives, which
is quite well-deserved with this particular regime, and roll
the sanctions over, and roll them over in a way where the arms
control sanctions really go after their intended targets,
weapons of mass destruction, and not go after civilian goods or
civilian commodities that we really should not be going after.
Let that go to the Iraqi people. That was not the purpose for
the oil for food program, and by reconfiguring them in that way
I think we can gain support for this regime once again.
When we came into office on 20 January, the whole sanctions
regime was collapsing in front of our eyes. Nations were
bailing out on it. We lost the consensus for this kind of
regime, because the Iraqi regime had successfully painted us as
the ones causing the suffering of the Iraqi people, when it was
the regime that was causing the suffering. They had more than
enough money. They just were not spending it in the proper way,
and we were getting the blame for it, so reconfiguring the
sanctions I think helps us, and continues to contain the Iraqi
regime.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Going to a completely separate question, but I cannot
resist, there is a page 1 story in this morning's paper saying
that the Chinese military has achieved something of an
intelligence windfall from the Navy plane. Now, I know you
cannot comment on intelligence assessments, but can you at
least tell us where we are with respect to negotiations to get
the plane back, and is it worth getting back?
Interestingly enough, this is the No. 1 foreign policy
question I am asked on the street as I walk around Salt Lake
City, are we going to get our airplane back? I tell them no,
but I do not really know, and you probably do.
Secretary Powell. Well, we are in day-to-day negotiations
and discussions with the Chinese Government, and I think we
will get our plane back.
Senator Bennett. Is it worth getting back, other than the
symbolism of it?
Secretary Powell. My military colleagues are very anxious
to get their plane back. What has been lost or not lost, the
crew was able to do quite a bit as it was descending to Hainan
Island, but I do not know enough about what they were able to
do, and what intelligence value the plane might or might not be
to the Chinese Government to answer any more directly than
that, and even if I did know, I would not answer.
Senator Bennett. I understand. Thank you very much. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McConnell. Mr. Secretary, we could wrap up in three
Southeast Asian countries. I want to start with Burma, one of
the last and truly pariah regimes in the world. Fortunately,
there are not as many of those as there used to be.
I have had a particular interest in that country for a long
time. The previous Secretary of State did as well, and I think
she was certainly frustrated that none of her efforts to get
the ASEAN countries more interested in trying to do something
from the outside to impact that regime was ever agreed to. Our
charge in Rangoon, Priscilla Klapp, stated last month that,
quote, rays of hope, end quote, exist.
I am having a hard time seeing any rays of hope there. The
talks between Daw Aung San Snu Kyi and the regime have gone
nowhere. I am just curious if, Mr. Secretary, you see any ray
of hope in Burma. Any thoughts on this country?
Secretary Powell. Barely a ray of hope. Aung San Suukyi has
been in discussions and that in and of itself is some
improvement over the situation of a while ago. Mr. Resolvi is
planning to get involved, so there are a few rays of hope, but
they are a few, and they are dim.
We do need to do a better job at mobilizing comprehensive
approach to this problem with our friends in the region, and I
will take that up when I visit Asia later this spring and into
the summer, when I have other meetings in Asia as to what more
we can do in concert with the Southeast Asian nations.
Senator McConnell. Secretary Albright, to her credit,
always brought this issue up at the meetings in that region,
and I hope you will continue that. She would be the first one
to say that it did not seem to generate much response from the
others, many of whom are doing business there and obviously do
not want to do anything to upset their investments. But this is
truly an outrageous, outrageous regime, and I think American
leadership ought to be continued and, if there is a way to do
it, to step it up.
Secretary Powell. As you know, we are keeping in place the
executive sanctions that were imposed, and the Japanese are
making an investment in hydroelectric plant that we have
suggested to them is not a proper investment to be making at
this time with this regime.
Senator McConnell. Let me shift to Cambodia, one of the
most depressing places I have been because of the aftermath and
the human toll of the events there of some 20 years ago. As you
know, Mr. Secretary, the country courts and judges are almost
under the total control of a former Khmer Rouge guerrilla who
is currently the prime minister and it seems to me and other
observers of that country that prospects for any kind of
justice is very slim.
Does the new administration tend to support a domestic
tribunal of some sort, to give it at least some chance of
justice finally being done for all the atrocities committed
some 20, 25 years ago?
Secretary Powell. Yes, and I would like to give you a more
fulsome answer for the record.
Senator McConnell. That is fine.
[The information follows:]

The United States is a strong supporter of efforts to bring to
justice leaders of the Khmer Rouge who bear responsibility for
atrocities committed between 1975 and 1979. This administration will
continue to support these efforts. It is important that there be
accountability in Cambodia in order to promote the rule of law and
develop democracy. As currently envisioned, the Extraordinary Chambers
will take place as a special session of the domestic Cambodian court
system with substantial international participation.
We have always insisted that the Extraordinary Chambers to try
former senior Khmer Rouge leaders must proceed in an open, transparent
manner, in full view of Cambodian society and the international
community so as to severely limit anyone's ability to manipulate the
process. We will watch closely to see if the government of Cambodia
fulfills this obligation.

Senator McConnell. Finally, Indonesia, one of the most
populated and potentially important countries in the world. The
president of Indonesia may or may not be in that role much
longer. Many of us have had a chance to meet with the vice
president. We are watching the pulls and tugs in the
archipelago. We saw East Timor break away, at least in a
democratic referendum, but there are other parts of the
archipelago that seemed to want to break off.
What is your assessment of Indonesia today, and do you have
an early indication of what this administration's policies
towards Indonesia are likely to be?
Secretary Powell. It is a very troubled nation. We are
waiting to see what happens in the capital and the leadership
of the country.
I will be meeting with people from East Timor later this
week. We have cautioned the Government that in their effort to
keep the country together and not let it fly apart into its
many potential constituent parts they have to be very sensitive
to how they use their military force, especially to make sure
that whatever has to be done to maintain the cohesiveness in
the country is done in a way that does not violate human
rights, and does not use repressive or excessive use of force.
We suggested to them that, with respect to what happened in
East Timor, that those who should be brought to account for
their actions, their human rights abuses, should be brought to
account, and we are following the situation closely. I have had
delegations come from Indonesia to talk to me at senior
Government levels, and we will be encouraging them to use
democratic processes to figure out where they want to go in the
future with respect to their leadership to maintain an
adherence to a high standard of human rights, and we recognize
the importance of that very, very large country, and the
important role, especially, that it plays in the region.
Senator McConnell. Well, Mr. Secretary, Senator Leahy had
to go to another committee meeting, and extended his apologies.
We are so grateful for your willingness to come today.
We have received the prepared statement of Senator Tom
Harkin which will be made part of the record at this point.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Tom Harkin
Mr. Secretary, it is a pleasure to welcome you before this
Subcommittee. I also want you to know that I sleep better at night
these days knowing that you are at the helm at the State Department and
that you function daily as a steady, calming, mature influence in the
crafting of the Bush Administration's foreign policy.
Let me also commend what you have done since taking office to lift
morale within the ranks of the U.S. Foreign Service and to return our
professional diplomats to their rightful standing at the center of
formulation and implementation of our nation's foreign policy.
Having paid you those compliments, let me also say that I'm not at
all certain that the increases you have proposed in U.S. foreign
assistance programs for fiscal year 2002 can be made when President
Bush has proposed such substantial cuts in our Nation's agriculture and
transportation programs to cite just a couple of pressing domestic
priorities.

Additional committee questions

Senator McConnell. Thank you very much. There will be some
additional questions which will be submitted for your response
in the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
Question. Since certifying Serbia last month under Section 594, do
you see any evidence of further cooperation with the Hague? What
benchmarks is State using to measure the level of cooperation?
Answer. We are in the process of reviewing the FRY's record of
cooperation with the Tribunal. We are considering the full range of
actions that constitute cooperation, including responding to the
Tribunal's requests for assistance, as well as putting in place
procedures for the transfer of indictees.
Question. Should the establishment of a time frame for the handover
of Milosevic to the Hague be a requirement for future United States aid
to Serbia?
Answer. We would welcome a clear statement from the Yugoslav
Government that they recognize the Tribunal's authority to try
Milosevic for international crimes and a general time frame for his
transfer to The Hague. The Yugoslav Government must move expeditiously
and in good faith to transfer Milosevic and other indictees. We plan to
monitor doing so closely, but do imposition of a deadline is and
evaluate their good faith in not believe that the mechanical helpful or
appropriate.
Question. Would you support Congressional efforts to further
increase funding to HIVAIDS programs, above the President's request?
Answer. I fully support the President's fiscal year 2002 budget
request, which represents an eight percent increase for international
HIV/AIDS programs from fiscal year 2001 and a 113 percent increase over
fiscal year 2000. I believe this trend reflects both the urgency of
this issue as well as our shared commitment to combat the global HIV/
AIDS pandemic. I expect this upward trend to continue in future budget
requests.
Question. Where is American investment in the fight against HIV/
AIDS most effective--prevention, care, or treatment?
Answer. The Administration firmly believes that an integrated
approach addressing prevention, training, care and treatment is
essential to successfully fighting HIV/AIDS. Within that program, we
believe that we must continue our focus on prevention--the most proven
and cost effective way to save lives and reduce suffering.
promoting peaceful change
Question. Understanding that current tensions between the United
States and China may limit program opportunities, what more do you
believe the United States can do to promote peaceful changes within
China that are in our national security interests?
Answer. Our challenge is to expose China to the powerful forces of
a free enterprise system, democratic values and the rule of law. The
more we can do to promote a greater voice for the Chinese people, the
greater will be their ability to decide for themselves their own
future. It is important that we continue to pursue these long-term
interests while simultaneously addressing short-term tensions or
disagreements.
prc regional efforts
Question. There have been four senior level Chinese visits to
Cambodia in the past six months. How effective are the efforts of the
Chinese to expand their political and economic influence regionally?
Answer. China is working hard to improve its relations with its
neighbors in the region. They are expanding trade and resolving
outstanding issues. We continue to have strong bilateral ties in the
region and our alliances are in good shape, but we need to devote time,
attention, and resources to Asia. We have important interests there and
it is necessary for us to pursue them effectively and vigorously.
Question. What are your thoughts about the way in which our
national leaders should view global poverty and inequality and what
immediate steps can be taken in the private sphere or through
government action to address these problems posed by the lack of
economic development and effective social programs in so many
countries?
Answer. The issue of global poverty alleviation should be viewed
within the framework of a comprehensive strategy. There is,
unfortunately, no simple remedy. we know that the poor are better off
in resilient, peaceful societies with freedom and opportunity for all;
governed by democratic institutions that are strong, accountable, and
honest; with growing, open, and inclusive economies; with social
investments leading to increased productivity; and a dynamic private
sector.
Through bilateral and multilateral programs, we are working with
governments to find ways to expand the access of the poor to knowledge,
freedom, rule of law, sound institutions, secure food supplies, more
open markets, and solutions to infectious diseases.
We must remember, however, that experience has repeatedly
demonstrated that economic development and significant lasting poverty
reduction can not be bestowed from the outside. The essential
ingredient is that developing country governments themselves undertake
improvements in governance, rule of law, anti-corruption measures,
sound economic policy, expanded political participation, respect for
human rights, and investments in people. These create the necessary
climate for a thriving private sector, which is the primary engine of
poverty reduction the world over.
Question. Is the Administration presently considering funding
programs inside Burma?
Answer. Only a small portion of the $6.5 million in ESF and DA
assistance for Burma administered by the State Department and USAID is
spent inside Burma. None of the money goes to the Burmese regime, and
all decisions on funding inside Burma are made in close coordination
with the democratic opposition. All future programming decisions will
follow these same guidelines.
Question. Japan's recent approval of a $29 million grant to Burma
for a hydroelectric facility is reprehensible. How forcefully has the
United States engaged Japan on this issue, and what action is being
considered to counter a request by the junta for a resumption of
assistance from the Asia Development Bank?
Answer. The United States has repeatedly advised senior Japanese
officials, and senior officials of other allies, that we consider
assistance such as Japan's hydroelectric project to be premature and
not warranted until we see concrete, measurable progress toward human
rights and democracy. In partial recognition of our views, Japan has
announced that its assistance to the dam project will be phased and
linked to progress in the dialogue between the regime and Aung San Suu
Kyi.
We are not aware that the Asia Development Bank is considering a
positive response to Burma's request for assistance; were that to
happen, the U.S. Executive Director at the ADB would strongly oppose
such assistance.
Question. Further sanctions on Burma may be warranted, including a
ban on textile imports to America. Would this Administration support
such a ban?
Answer. The United States has the strongest set of sanctions in
place against Burma of any country in the world, including a ban on new
United States investment, a ban on assistance to the Burma regime,
denial of OPIC and GSP benefits, and a visa ban on senior Burmese
officials. The United States also strongly supports the International
Labor Organization's call for member states to review their economic
relations with Burma because of the regime's poor record on forced
labor. The Administration is closely monitoring developments in the
ongoing dialogue between Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese Government.
We have not ruled out any options at this time.
Question. Does the Administration intend to support a Khmer Rouge
tribunal that relies upon Cambodia's notoriously corrupt courts?
Answer. The United States is a strong supporter of efforts to bring
to justice leaders of the Khmer Rouge who bear responsibility for
atrocities committed between 1975 and 1979. This Administration will
continue to support these efforts. It is important that there be
accountability in Cambodia in order to promote the rule of law and
develop democracy. We have always insisted that the Extraordinary
Chambers must proceed in an open, transparent manner, in full view of
Cambodian society and the international community so as to severely
limit anyone's ability to manipulate the process. We will watch closely
to see if the government of Cambodia fulfills this obligation.
Question. What programs are being implemented to assist the
democratic opposition in the run up to commune elections scheduled for
early next year?
Answer. In Cambodia, we support the development of transparent
democratic institutions together with other elements of civil society.
While it is inappropriate for us to take sides in Cambodia's upcoming,
first-ever local elections, we plan to provide training to candidates,
including opposition candidates, funding these programs through
organizations such as the International Republican Institute, and the
Asia Foundation.
We also plan to fund a nationwide voter education campaign to
inform voters of the role and responsibilities of commune-level
officials. United States-funded programs will also support accurate,
unbiased media coverage and encourage higher levels of participation by
Cambodian women, both as voters and as candidates. Another United
States-funded program will support the activities of local elections-
monitoring organizations during the campaign and voting period.
Question. What steps can the United States take to increase the
percentage back to 30 percent, or at least ensure that this rate is not
further reduced?
Answer. The December 2000 Oil-for-Food Rollover Resolution (UNSCR
1330) provided for a six-month reduction of the percentage of Iraqi oil
revenues allocated to the United Nations Compensation Commission
(``UNCC'') from 30 percent to 25 percent. The U.S. Government agreed to
this temporary reduction at the time as an accommodation to those
States that argued that the humanitarian situation in Iraq required
that additional funds be made available for a period of time for
humanitarian purposes. By doing so, we assured that the Governing
Council of the UNCC could proceed on a consensus basis to approve a
proposed award of almost $16 billion in favor of the Kuwait Petroleum
Corporation (``KPC'') for losses sustained by it during the Gulf War.
Obstruction of this award could have caused permanent damage to the
UNCC which has, from its inception, made its decisions by consensus.
Such a result would not have been in the best interests of the American
claimants, Kuwait or others of our friends who have suffered
substantial losses as a, result of Iraq's aggression and await
recompense. We believe that if the new control regime for Iraq that the
United Kingdom and we have proposed becomes a real-ity, this temporary
reduction should no longer be necessary, as civilian goods will be
allowed to flow freely into Iraq, thereby alleviating the plight of its
people. The majority of the Council wants to make the reduced
allocation permanent, citing continued humanitarian issues in Iraq. We
will work within the Security Council to support the continued ability
of the UNCC to carry our its functions and will support a reversion of
the UNCC allocation back to 30 percent.
Question. What steps can the United States take to ensure that Iraq
fully compensates all victims of its 1990 invasion of Kuwait?
Answer. The best thing that the United States can do to ensure that
Iraq's victims are fully compensated is to continue working to make
available the largest pot of money possible for this purpose. That is
why we will ensure that the UNCC has access to Iraqi oil revenues
sufficient to carry out its task. The majority of the Security Council
would prefer to cut the UNCC allocation. We support a reversion to 30
percent as we negotiate to revise the international community's entire
approach to Iraq. In addition, the United States will continue its
vigilance to ensure that there are no setbacks to the UNCC's current
Work Program' which calls for all claims to be processed in the next
few years.
Question. Could a portion of the $167 million request for Russia
under the FREEDOM Support Act be better spent in former Soviet
republics that are worried about expanding Russian influence, such as
Georgia and Ukraine?
Answer. Our assistance to all the former Soviet republics is
intended to support United States national interests in that region.
The United States has a fundamental interest in ensuring the
independence and sovereignty of the former Soviet states, as well as an
interest in facilitating their transition to democracy and market-based
economies. These two interests are mutually reinforcing: success in
establishing free and open market economies and democratic political
systems rooted in the rule of law should lead to broad-based economic
growth and more stable political development, which in turn wili
enhance these states' ability to resist encroachments on their
sovereignty.
Our requests for Georgia and Ukraine in the President's fiscal year
2002 budget would allow us to maintain our current robust assistance
effort in both countries. We plan to continue programs aimed at
promoting economic and democratic reforms in these and other former
Soviet republics; we will also continue specific activities targeted at
improving these countries' ability to secure their borders.
Our assistance programs in Russia are currently undergoing a
detailed review, expected to be completed by the end of June. This
review will likely result in changes aimed at ensuring our assistance
is directly supporting United States interests. But it should be noted
that United States assistance to Russia is already, and will continue
to be, aimed primarily at the ``grassroots'' level NGOs, independent
media, small business, progressive regional and local governments--and
is intended to promote the kinds of long-term change that will improve
Russia's relations with its neighbors.
Question. What are your views on Russia's current actions in
Chechnya?
Answer. Our policy on Chechnya comprises four elements: (1) the
need for a political settlement; (2) an end to ongoing humanitarian
abuses and atrocities and full accountability for past violations; (3)
humanitarian access and assistance; and (4) return of the OSCE
Assistance Group to Chechnya and visits to the region by the relevant
U.N. special mechanisms.
Chechnya is fundamentally a question of values: Can we have
constructive and productive relations with a government that is
prepared to wage a brutal and seemingly endless war against its own
people on its own territory? Ultimately, it will be our insistence in
making this point--supported and amplified by other voices in the West
that Russia cares about, as well as by Russia's own citizens--that
holds the best hope for influencing a change in Moscow's policies away
from violence toward dialogue and reconstruction. Efforts like the
joint United States-EU Chechnya resolution in the UNCHR and frank
discussion of Chechnya in the Russia-EU Summit are part of making this
point. The international pressure has had some effect, especially in
winning some access to detention camps by the ICRC and access by
international humanitarian groups to Chechnya. But clearly we need to
keep the pressure up.
The Russians have given me positive indications about arranging the
return of the OSCE Assistance Group in the near future. Its return
would send a strong signal.
Ultimately, we would like to see the OSCE presence on the ground
help promote the start of a dialogue between Chechen and Russian
officials. But as we continue to make clear to both sides, to pave the
way to the start of a political dialogue everyone needs to see
accountability for the many abuses and atrocities that have been well
documented by the international human rights community. Moreover,
Russia must take serious and visible steps toward addressing the socio-
economic roots of the conflict, whose neglect after the 1994-1996 war
planted the seeds of the current conflict.
Question. According to Colombia estimates, right-wing
paramilitaries control 40 percent of the country's total cocaine
exports. Given ties between the paramilitaries and the Colombian
military, is United States counternarcotics intelligence being
compromised? Does this relationship undermine Plan Colombia?
Answer. Intelligence personnel working with the Joint Task Force
South, which manages the bulk of our counternarcotics intelligence
under Plan Colombia, are carefully vetted to ensure they have no ties
to paramilitary organizations. Consequently, there is no evidence that
counternarcotics intelligence is being compromised by any possible ties
to the paramilitaries. In fact, since Plan Colombia related operations
began in December, we have witnessed a dramatic increase in Colombian
actions against the paramilitaries, with 401 arrests through May 29,
according to the Ministry of Defense.
Question. Can alternative crop development activities be conducted
in areas that are not under military and civilian control of the
Colombian Government, such as the coca-rich growing region of Putumayo?
Answer. Projects are looked at individually, and security for
workers is a key consideration. This does not mean that areas must be
under complete control of the Colombian Government but, rather, that
the security needs of assistance workers are paramount and must be
fully addressed.
Question. Which bureau will be responsible for the day-to-day
oversight of State and USAID democracy programs?
Answer. Day-to-day management and oversight of democracy programs
is diffuse, depending on whether the programs are country-specific or
regional in nature, and on the source of fund In the State Department,
the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) is responsible
for helping to formulate and coordinate democracy policy and resources
in the Department and across agency lines, fulfilling the bureau's
legislative mandate to integrate democracy into USG foreign policy and
managing the bureau's Human Rights and Democracy Fund (HRDF). HRDF is a
fund designed to exploit unanticipated opportunities to promote
democracy and to help establish institutions that serve democracy
efforts. DRL also consults with the State regional bureaus on
programming decisions for the Regional Democracy Funds, which are
funded by Economic Support Funds (ESF). Generally daily management of
these Funds is done either directly through USAID missions in the
field, or the Washington-based USAID DG Center. In addition, some ESF-
funded projects are programmed through multilateral organizations, such
as the organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). In
those instances the relevant bureaus at the State Department, in
conjunction with the Embassies are responsible for oversight. Finally
some democracy projects, such as those with the National Endowment for
Democracy (NED), are directly managed by the State Department, in which
case, oversight is coordinated between with the Washington bureau and
the relevant U.S. embassy. Democracy projects in Eastern Europe and the
New Independent States are coordinated by the special coordinators'
offices.
USAID field missions are responsible for daily management bilateral
democracy projects that are funded with Development Assistance (DA),
Economic Support Funds (ESF), Support for East European Democracy
(SEED), and Freedom Support Act (FSA). USAID's Center for Democracy and
Governance (DG), soon to be combined with the Office of Transition
Initiatives (OTI), manages those democracy programs that are not part
of ongoing bilateral programs or where USAID missions are not present.
Question. Is there any consideration of creating a fifth program
pillar--that of ``Democracy and Governance?''
Answer. The Administration has already confirmed the crucial role
of democracy in achieving all other foreign policy objectives.
Secretary Powell has stated that a guiding principle of the
Administration's foreign policy will be that the United States stands
ready to help any country wishing to join the democratic world.
Democracy is pivotal for achieving sustainable peace, national
security, and economic development over the long-term only through good
governance and rule of law, participatory government, and vibrant civil
societies.
In terms of USAID aggregating its activities into specific spheres
of emphasis, no final decision has been made on what the spheres should
be. The USAID Administrator is currently consulting with individuals
and organizations both inside and outside the government to seek their
opinions on this question. Once finished, Congress will certainly be
consulted for their views on this streamlining process.
Question. Did the Administration use foreign assistance as leverage
against Montenegrin independence in the run up to the parliamentary
elections last month, as reported in the press?
Answer. No. The Administration supports a dialogue between Belgrade
and Podgorica according to democratic principles and in a way that will
ensure stability in the region. We support a democratic Montenegro
within a democratic Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. United States
assistance programs support Montenegro's efforts to implement
democratic and market reforms and the rule of law. They were not used
to leverage a particular outcome in the parliamentary elections. To
date, we have notified to Congress almost $60 million of the $89
million in assistance available for Montenegro in fiscal year 2001. We
are proceeding with efforts to obligate and disburse these funds.and
will consult with Congress on use of the remaining funds available for
Montenegro.
Question. Why is the Administration withholding assistance to
Montenegro, and are there differences in the economic conditions
imposed on assistance provided to Montenegro and Serbia?
Answer. The Administration is proceeding with assistance to
Montenegro. We recently notified another $5 million in SEED funds,
bringing the total notified to Congress for Montenegro to almost $60
million in fiscal year 2001. We are working to obligate and disburse
these funds in a manner with prudent,management and sound financial In
that connection, we have discussed with the Government of Montenegro
economic conditions that should be attached to future disbursements of
SEED funds for budgetary support. While we have agreed on the principle
of economic conditionality, we have not yet reached final agreement on
the precise conditions to be established on our budget support. We have
not provided this kind of flexible budgetary support for Serbia. We
have not attached conditions to assistance other than budget support
for either Montenegro or Serbia.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. It appears that serious miscalculations in procedure and
international diplomacy were made recently, resulting in the United
States losing our seat on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. How
could this have happened and how can we recoup our standing in both the
near-term and the long-run?
Answer. Elections for the Human Rights Commission were held on May
3 by secret ballot cast by the 54 members of the U.N. Economic and
Social Council in New York. Although we had 43 promises from member
states, only 28 other countries delivered their votes to us. (The
United States received 29 votes including one of our own.)
We campaigned strongly in New York, Washington and Geneva, as well
as making one or more demarche in virtually every capital of ECOSOC
members. The only exceptions were states like Iran, Cuba, and Sudan. If
we did not get a commitment of support, one (or more) follow-up
demarches were made in capitals, in New York or to embassies in
Washington. Our Ambassadors in New York met with almost every ECOSOC
member. We also urged the EU to agree to a single slate. Since it is a
secret ballot, we recognized that not all members would fulfill their
promises. We continued to campaign-until the last day to nail down
every possible vote.
Our commitment to human rights is unaffected by this setback. We
have many tools available to pursue our human rights objectives on a
bilateral and regional basis. We will remain active in other U.N. fora
where human rights work is carried out, such as the U.N. General
Assembly, the Security Council and the International Labor
Organization. Although we will not be a voting member of the CHR after
December 31, 2001, we can co-sponsor and manage resolutions, and remain
active in negotiations, debates and all matters before the CHR. Our
commitment to human rights, including within the U.N. system, remains
unwavering and strong.
Question. Will you guarantee that the U.S. Delegation to the United
Nations will vigorously support the inclusion of substantial provisions
against abusive child labor within the basic mandate for this Special
Session, the related text, and corresponding action plan, starting with
the ``PrepCom'' meetings to be held in June and thereafter?
Answer. Ending exploitative child labor worldwide is a high
priority for the Administration. The draft text being considered in
preparation for September's Special Session on the Status of the
World's Children contains a number of substantive provisions against
the ``worst forms of child labor,'' the term used in ILO Convention
182, which the United States ratified in 1999. The U.S. Delegation will
ensure that the outcome document has strong provisions to protect
children against abusive labor practices.
Question. Do you support abolishing this new child labor-related
program to provide access to basic education for a fraction of the more
than 250 million child laborers in the world?
Answer. I support the concept that the problem of child labor is
best addressed through comprehensive interventions rather than
segmented approaches. When designing and implementing programs intended
to eradicate child labor, it is critical to recognize that access to
basic education is but one part of the necessary response. Funding
earmarked programs to address only one aspect of the solution, such as
the program your question references, does not offer the best
likelihood of success. USAID's budget request for child survival, basic
education, and labor programs when taken together with the U.S.
Department of Labor's request for $30 million for child labor programs
(International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor (IPEC)) allows
the United States to continue its leadership role in the international
donor community.
The U.S. Government has a long and distinguished track record of
supporting basic education throughout the developing world, and this
Administration is committed to continuing that tradition. In fact, the
President's request for fiscal year 2002 includes $123 million for
basic education programs implemented through the U.S. Agency for
International Development which represents a $20 million increase over
the fiscal year 2001 level.
Question. Wouldn't you agree that all of these proposed cuts in
international child labor funding are ill-advised and that such
programs are probably among the least controversial and most broadly-
supported by the American people of all U.S. foreign aid programs?
Answer. The United States remains the world leader in fighting
child labor, particularly the worst forms of child labor. We are
addressing a wide range of factors that tackle the availability and use
of child labor. USAID programs, for example, provide economic
opportunities for parents, improve health services delivery and prevent
diseases thus enabling parents to continue to work. They also
strengthen the judicial systems to enforce child labor laws, and
improve the quality of basic education, thereby reducing the demand and
supply for child labor. Additionally, the United States is the number
one donor to the International Labor Organization's International
Program on the Elimination of Child Labor, was instrumental in the
virtual elimination of child labor in the Bangladesh garment industry,
and has provided substantial financial support for voluntary codes of
conduct in the apparel and footwear industry that include child labor
provisions. These programs and others like them have received
tremendous support from the American people, and we have every
intention of continuing them.
Question. Does the Bush Administration support Senate ratification
this year of the pending U.N. Protocols on Child Soldiers and the Sale
of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography, which the
United States signed last year?
Answer. The protection of children and families is a key priority
for the Administration. I am particularly concerned about the growing
problems of the use of child soldiers in combat, trafficking in
children, sale of children, child pornography, and child prostitution.
We will aggressively pursue measures to combat these problems.
The Administration is currently reviewing its policy regarding the
Optional Protocols on Child Soldiers and the Sale of Children, Child
Prostitution, and Child Pornography.
Question. Mr. Secretary, this week I will be introducing bipartisan
legislation to ban imports from Burma, the vast majority of which are
skyrocketing sales of designer label apparel and textile products. I do
so because the International Labor Organization (ILO) last year invoked
for the first time in its 82-year history a constitutional provision
calling upon the brutal Burmese military junta to immediately stop the
systematic use of forced labor in that country. Will you support this
legislation?
Answer. The United States strongly supports the ILO's call for
member states to review their economic relations with Burma because of
the regime's poor record on forced labor. We have the strongest set of
sanctions in place against.Burma of any country in the world, including
a ban on new United States investment, a ban on assistance to the Burma
regime, denial of OPIC and GSP benefits, and a visa ban on senior
Burmese officials. We will closely monitor developments in the ongoing
dialogue between Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese Government. We have
not ruled out any options at this time.
Question. What is your current assessment of progress toward
political independence for East Timor by next year as well as the
viability and sustainability of the local economy in East Timor?
Answer. We anticipate elections for a Constituent Assembly to take
place on schedule August 30 and for East Timor to achieve independence
toward the end-of 2001 or early in 2002. East Timor will undoubtedly
continue to need international support after independence, since its
infrastructure, economy and education are still inadequate. However,
United States assistance mechanisms will change when East Timor moves
to nationhood. After independence, the United States will be able to
use a variety of bilateral and multilateral assistance funds now
unavailable. We are encouraged that significant resources for the
development of East Timor would also become available once Australia
and East Timor successfully conclude discussions on the distribution of
revenue from planned commercial development of the Timor Gap gas
deposits.
Question. A growing number of Americans are concerned that current
U.S. sanctions on Iraq are causing the deaths of many Iraqi children
and otherwise causing much suffering and hardship on the Iraqi civilian
population. Mr. Secretary, when you took office, you called for a
thorough review of current U.S. sanctions policy toward Iraq.
What is the status of that review and will you share its results
with me and other concerned members of Congress when it is complete
hopefully in the near future? Do you anticipate that review will
pinpoint viable options for minimizing, if not eliminating any adverse
impacts that the current sanctions are having upon the innocent
civilian population inside Iraq, while at the same time tightening and
maximizing the impact of sanctions upon Saddam Hussein's ruthless and
dangerous military regime?
Answer. The unanimous adoption of UN Security Council Resolution
1352 reflects the Administration's determination to re-focus the
international community's controls on the items that would enable the
Iraqi regime to further threaten international peace and security. We
are working to increase international support for this goal and to
improve the situation of the Iraqi people by opening up civilian trade.
The Security Council has now accepted this approach. We are now working
with the other permanent members of the Council and others to develop a
system to allow all civilian trade items to enter Iraq, subject only to
a review of a specific list.of goods that could be useful to Iraqi re-
armament efforts percent That list, called th Goods Review List, is
currently under negotiation.
A key issue in our work with other governments include ensuring
that Iraq's oil revenues are used by the UN for the benefit of the
Iraqi people, and not by the Iraqi regime to further its own ambitions.
Resolution 1352 expires on July 3. By that date, we hope to pass a
resolution that will begin to implement the new system we have
proposed.
Department officers have and will continue to brief interested
Congressional staff on our new approach. I look forward to additional
discussions with you concerning our Iraq policy.
Question. Would you support a statutory requirement that the State
Department notify the appropriate committees of the Congress for each
hold that is placed by the United States Government upon a contract for
goods or services to be delivered to Iraq?
Answer. We have approved 91 percent of contracts submitted to the
United Nations for export to Iraq under the Oil-for-Food Program. Of
those currently on hold, about 90 percent are the result of the
contractor's either not submitting information sufficient to permit an
adequate technical review or including items that we prohibit for
export to Iraq in the absence of weapons inspectors. Our decisions to
hold are based on technical evaluations by U.S. Government experts in
fields such as biological weapons and missile technology. Our practices
in reviewing these contracts are watched closely by UN Security Council
members and other interested nations. Ensuring that the process remains
essentially technical and not political is important to our credibility
on this issue, and so I would not support a statutory requirement as
described.
In the new proposed approach to contracts that we hope the Security
Council will approve before July 3, the current system of placing
``holds'' on contracts would be eliminated. The Council would authorize
fast-track approval of a larger share of contracts than is the case
today. It would also apply a more rigorous screen to determine whether
sufficient technical information is contained in the contract. Those
not fast tracked or returned for additional information would be sent
to the 661 Committee for approval, denial or, if information is still
insufficient, return to the supplier for correction and resubmission.
Question. Many of my constituents have traveled to El Salvador to
help that small, impoverished country recover and re-build after two
major earthquakes earlier this year. How much U.S. aid has already been
provided and from what accounts? What types of aid and in what amounts
and what accounts are you seeking in fiscal year 2002?
Answer. Reconstruction costs for the two earthquakes in El Salvador
are estimated as high as $2 billion. The $110 million pledge for
earthquake assistance made at the Madrid Consultative Group meeting was
developed in response to the damage inflicted by the first earthquake.
To meet this pledge, $52 million is being provided in fiscal year 2001
and the remaining $58 million in fiscal year 2002.
The fiscal year 2001 funding includes $37 million in Development
Assistance and Economic Support Funds, $10 million from USDA food
relief programs, $3 million in International Disaster Assistance, and
$2 million in Transition Initiatives funds.
In the immediate aftermath of the earthquake, OFDA and DOD provided
emergency assistance valued at approximately $27 million. on the
reconstruction side, Project Concern International, with a USAID grant
of about $2 million, is already at work on rehabilitating potable water
systems and wells in the earthquake zone. USAID recently signed grants
of $7.5 million with three United States private voluntary
organizations (CARE, Cooperative Housing Foundation, and Samaritan's
Purse) for permanent housing and an agreement for another $19 million
with the Government of El Salvador for housing, other infrastructure
(health, education, water), and economic reactivation.
Our current plan for the $58 million in fiscal year 2002 is to
provide approximately $30 million in Development Assistance and
Economic Support Funds and up to $10 million in USDA food relief
programs. We are still studying possible sources for the balance.
Question. Mr. Secretary, based upon the cooperation between the
Colombian military units and paramilitary groups and, in many cases,
their closely associated or even common leadership, what specific
assurances can you provide me that American-made weapons or technology
have not and are not being used in human rights violations committed by
the paramilitary groups closely associated with Colombian military
units receiving United States funding?
Answer. We are prohibited from providing funds under the Foreign
Operations Appropriations Act, 2001, Public Law 106-429, to any unit of
a foreign country's security forces where the State Department has
credible evidence that such unit has committed gross human rights
violations, unless the government of that country is taking effective
measures to bring the responsible unit members to justice. Related to
this, representatives of U.S. Government agencies providing assistance
conduct ``end-use monitoring'' and provide reports for all
counternarcotics and military assistance, as required by law. We have
procedures in place to help ensure compliance with relevant legislation
and are not aware of any evidence or credible allegations of
cooperation between paramilitary groups and any Colombian unit
currently eligible to receive USG assistance.
In addition, the government of Colombia has its own elaborate
system of controls that should keep resources from being improperly
diverted. The system includes a Comptroller General empowered to
conduct audits, an Attorney General who serves as a government-wide
inspector general and can remove government officials from office, and
a powerful and independent prosecutor. These institutions have offices
at both the national and local levels.
Question. During last year's campaign, President Bush stressed the
importance of having a clear exit strategy, indicating benchmarks and
deadlines for engagement of all kinds. Given that the reduction of coca
production in one region often leads to a rise in other regions, what
is the exit strategy and what are the benchmarks we should be
monitoring?
Answer. The success of counternarcotics programs is monitored on a
regular basis. Reports on aerial eradication efforts are provided from
the field on a weekly basis and the effectiveness of the campaign is
verified annually by United States and Colombian scientists through
actual visits to sprayed fields. The overall effectiveness of
counternarcotics efforts can also be measured through the annual
analyses of crop yield and drug production prepared by United States
and Colombian agencies.
That said, the specific benchmarks and exit strategy established
last year are currently subject to a broader policy review by the
Administration.
Question. Could you please provide a report to the Committee on the
steps the State Department has taken to implement the Baumel Law
(Public Law 106-89) since its enactment?
Answer. The Department reported to the Congress on its efforts in
connection with this law in May 2000. Zachary Baumel and two other
Israeli soldiers remain missing.
Since the time of the Department's report, we have continued to
raise this matter with regional governments and have encouraged those
with influence in the region to take steps to resolve this matter.
The Department continues to regard ascertaining the fate of Zachary
Baumel, Yehuda Katz, and Zvi Feldman as an important humanitarian goal.
The Department is determined to pursue every concrete lead to ascertain
the fate of the three missing soldiers and continues to urge all
individuals and governments that may have information about them to
provide it to the appropriate authorities. The Department of State will
continue to raise this issue whenever and wherever doing so will
contribute to achieving that goal.
Question. If they [FRY/Serbia] continue to insist on such a [ICTY
cooperation] law, it is important that it be written so it is
acceptable to the war crimes prosecutor, and is not used to obstruct
extradition. Did Kostunica tell you that Yugoslavia will surrender
indictees to The Hague, once the law is passed?
Answer. In our discussions with President Kostunica and Serbian
officials, we have repeatedly stated that there must be cooperation
with the ICTY and that cooperation includes the transfer of indictees.
President Kostunica has told us that in order to have meaningful
cooperation, he must have a law in place enabling the government to
cooperate with the Tribunal. We will continue to hold the FRY to their
promises of cooperation.
Question. Turning over indictees is what we mean by
``cooperation.'' We need to make clear that without this cooperation
the United States will not support additional assistance. Can you
assure us that you will convey this message to President Kostunica?
Answer. We will continue to make clear that the transfer of
indictees goes to the heart of cooperation, and that our aid is linked
to progress on cooperation. President Bush and Secretary Powell
reminded President Kostunica of this during the FRY President's May
visit to Washington, and our mission in Belgrade continues to reiterate
this message.
Question. I am told that plans are moving forward for a donors
conference for Serbia in late June. The World Bank is apparently
pushing hard for this. We want to help Serbia, but not unless we see
real cooperation with The Hague. Is the Administration prepared to sit
out a donors conference if we do not see that cooperation? Are the
Europeans prepared to go ahead even without further cooperation with
The Hague, and without the participation of the United States?
Answer. We are prepared not to attend a donors conference unless we
are convinced that the Yugoslav Government is serious about complying
with its international obligation to full cooperation with the
Tribunal. Our information suggests that the Europeans will proceed with
the conference whether the United States participates or not.
Question. What about Mladic and Karadzic, the two most notorious
war criminals who carried out Milosevic's policies, who are in
Republika Srpska. Why hasn't SFOR apprehended them? Will you urge them
to?
Answer. We believe Karadzic and Mladic should be brought into
custody, either voluntarily or otherwise, as soon as possible.
The governments in the region have the primary duty to secure the
apprehension or voluntary surrender of all persons on their territory
indicted by the Tribunal, including Karadzic and Mladic.
When United States forces entered Bosnia in early 1996, only one
indictee had been taken into custody in The Hague. Since then, 53
indictees have been taken into custody, 23 of whom were forcibly
detained, including 18 by SFOR in Bosnia. We continue to work with our
allies to seek the detention of the indictees who remain at large.
Question. Don't you think the best strategy is to remain a
signatory [to the ICC treaty]--to maintain our leverage in the
negotiations and allow our representatives to get more protections for
Americans?
Answer. The Administration's primary objective in its ICC review is
to find avenues to protect United States officials and service
personnel from politically motivated prosecutions by the International
Criminal Court. That review is currently underway.
Question. Does the Administration's policy on the ICC include
``unsigning'' the treaty or actively pressuring our friend and allies
not to ratify it?
Answer. As you know the Administrative has no intention to submit
the ICC treaty to Senate for advice and consent to ratification. The
Administration has currently underway a review of the ICC and is
seeking to develop a strategy that best protects the interests of the
United States.
Question. Given the harm this legislation could cause--both to
relations with our friends and allies as well as the Administration's
ability to conduct foreign policy--do you support the American
Servicemembers' Protection Act?
Answer. I am not in favor of the adoption of this particular piece
of legislation at this time. As you know, the Administration has
underway a review of the ICC and is seeking to develop a legislative
and diplomatic strategy that best protects the interests of the United
States.
United States interests could be better served by awaiting the
result of that review, a full exchange of views with Congress
concerning what legislation would best fit into our overall strategy.
I would note that several provisions of the proposed Act are
particularly troublesome. The Act would effectively preclude the United
States from providing assistance to the ICC in connection with the
prosecution of certain foreign individual, for example a future Saddam
Hussein. Because the United States provides military assistance only
when it is in our national interest to do so, I would not favor an
automatic cut-off of such assistance. Further, a provision limiting the
authority of the President as Commander-in-Chief to participate in
peacekeeping operations would raise serious Constitutional concerns.
Question. In the past 6 months, 18 Peruvian generals are among the
more than 70 high ranking military and intelligence officials against
whom charges have been brought. Has any investigation been done into
whether United States officials knew they were working with Peruvian
officials who may have committed crimes?
Answer. The ongoing corruption scandal has resulted in charges
against high-ranking military and civilian Peruvian officials. The
Department of State is closely following these proceedings.
United States officials have worked with many of the Peruvian
officials who have been charged, in their official capacity. At the
time we worked with them, no charges were filed against these officers
nor were they under investigation, and we have no reason to believe
that Embassy officials were aware of any alleged criminal activities.
Question. Have there been any consequences for any of the United
States officials who were working with Peruvian officials and either
turned a blind eye to what was happening under their noses or were not
asking the right questions?
Answer. The Department of State has no reason to believe that
United States officials were aware of the alleged criminal activities
of Peruvian officials.
Question. I have heard different State Department officials call
the counter-drug program in Peru a ``success.'' And Bolivia too. May
[sic] they were, for those countries. But it all depends on how you
define success. Did those programs, which cost billions of U.S.
dollars, results in any decrease in the amount of drugs coming into the
United States?
Answer. Our counternarcotics programs in Bolivia and Peru have
resulted in a dramatic reduction in the amount of drugs coming into the
United States from those countries. Over the past five years, our $611
million in total counternarcotics funding of an integrated strategy
that combines eradication of illegal drug crops with provision of
alternative economic development opportunities and a strong law
enforcement interdiction program, resulted in a 70 percent reduction in
coca cultivation in those two nations. In Peru, this translated to a
potential of 290 metric tons of cocaine not being produced, and in
Bolivia, a potential 172 metric tons of cocaine was not produced.
However, those decreases have been nearly offset by increases in
Colombian cultivation.
Question. Now we are in Colombia, and getting in deeper. $1.3
billion last year. Another $882 million this year for Colombia and the
region. I'm sure we will be asked for another half billion to a billion
dollars next year, and the year after that, and the year after that.
How much will it cost before we expect to see a significant decrease in
the amount of cocaine and heroin coming here from South America? What
can we expect, or is it just a guess?
Answer. The stated goal, which is attainable, is to reduce
Colombian cocaine production by 30 percent by the end of 2002. If that
is achieved without the displacement of coca crops to other countries
in the area, it would result in a very significant decrease in cocaine
supplies.
Colombia has also stated its intent to eliminate all opium poppy
cultivation within its borders. We support them in that effort and are
also working with Peru to counter the emergence of a heroin industry
there. Candidly, however, the heroin industry is such that the total
eradication of all heroin production in the hemisphere would have
little effect on world supply.
Question. Given the sharp increase in atrocities by paramilitaries,
it seems to me we should include conditions on the aid, at least that
the army sever its links with the paramilitaries. Do you agree that,
like our experience with Serbia, this is needed in order to get real
results? Would it be your policy to waive the human rights conditions?
Answer. We take very seriously the need for the Government of
Colombia to take effective steps to sever links between the military
and the paramilitaries, and have made this clear at all levels of the
Colombian Government and military. We have made the point repeatedly
that collusion with the paramilitaries is unacceptable, that it must
end, and that anyone found to be engaged in it be held accountable.
We welcome congressional interest in, and oversight of, our
Colombia policy. We will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan
basis as we implement a policy that best advances human rights in
Colombia, supports the peace process and continues to reduce
aggressively coca production and the drug trade. Conditionality of our
assistance would impair our ability to support an imperfect, but
democratically elected and embattled ally.
Clearly, the Colombian Government must do more. President Pastrana
himself recognizes this. I would note that President Pastrana's
administration has achieved some recent, significant successes against
the paramilitaries, including in military encounters on the battlefield
between security forces and the United Self Defense Forces of Colombia
(AUC). Colombian forces in recent months have arrested numerous
paramilitary members--including some leaders--and seized important
financial records from paramilitary supporters.
Question. The paramilitaries admit that they are involved in drug
trafficking. How can Plan Colombia succeed if the Colombian army
continues to support them with weapons and intelligence?
Answer. The Colombian Government is making clear efforts to end
military tolerance of and collaboration with illegal self-defense
groups, which are commonly referred to as paramilitaries. Moreover, we
have seen increasing signs that the Colombian military is coming to the
conclusion that these groups represent a real and growing threat to the
Colombian state. What ties remain do not appear to be having a negative
impact on the effectiveness of Plan Colombia-related operations. In
fact, since Plan Colombia-related operations began in December, we have
witnessed a dramatic increase in Colombian actions against the
paramilitaries, with 401 arrests between January 2001 and the end of
May, according to the Ministry of Defense. Furthermore, we are
prohibited from providing assistance to units credibly alleged to have
committed gross human rights violations. Any unit with ties to
paramilitary groups like those described would clearly meet those
criteria and thus be proscribed from receiving any USG assistance as a
matter of law and Administration policy.
Question. I am told that two bills have been introduced in the
House to end the use of private contractors in Colombia, who are flying
the aircraft used to spray the herbicide. The sponsors of those bills
want the Colombians to fly these missions. Are we training Colombians
to do this? If not, why not? Would that not make more sense, since it
is their country, and cost a lot less?
Answer. The phasing out of contractors is a planned part of the
program and always has been for exactly the reasons cited in your
question.
Question. If this is accurate--and all indications are that it is--
the CIA got it right, and we are being drawn deeper and deeper into
Colombia's civil war. Would you agree?
Answer. I disagree. Our policy toward Colombia is to assist a
democratically elected ally that is under attack from domestic
terrorist groups that enjoy almost no popular support. These groups
finance much of their subversive activity through kidnapping for ransom
and involvement in narcotics.
The sharing of United States intelligence with the Colombian
security forces is carefully controlled and is done only according to
strict guidelines.
But I wish to be clear: as President Bush said during President
Pastrana's February visit to Washington: it is Colombia's fight.
Question. Can I assume that any change in our policy toward
Indonesia, which the Congress has a strong interest in, will be worked
out with the Congress?
Answer. The Administration is aware of Congress' on-going strong
interest in Indonesia. United States policy toward Indonesia is
designed to foster long-term United States interests and, therefore,
will not undergo rapid change. The Administration agrees that it is
important to consult with Congress about Indonesia as our policy
evolves, both to learn the Members' views and to share administration
thinking.
Question. Earlier this month, Indonesia sentenced six men charged
with the brutal murder of three UNHCR workers in East Timor to
sentences of a mere 10-20 months. What was the U.S. response? Isn't it
clear by now that an international tribunal is needed for those
responsible for the mayhem in East Timor?
Answer. We have publicly expressed our extreme disappointment with
the light sentences imposed in this case and have urged the Indonesian
Government to appeal them. Given the defendants' admitted participation
in this brutal slaying of unarmed humanitarian workers, including
American citizen Carlos Caceres, these sentences are outrageous and
call into question both Indonesia's commitment to the principle of
accountability and its commitment to the international community to
bring to justice the perpetrators of this and other crimes in East and
West Timor. We will continue to monitor closely the progress of the
separate Indonesian and UNTAET investigations into human rights abuses
in East Timor. If these processes both fail, we will consider other
options to ensure that justice and accountability are achieved.
congressional commission
Question. Last year, when the Congress approved PNTR for China, it
also established a Helsinki-type commission to monitor human rights in
China. When does the Administration plan to select the Executive Branch
members of the Commission?
Answer. The Administration looks forward to cooperating closely
with the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. The President is
considering now whom he will appoint from the Administration to serve
on the Commission.
Question. Do you support ratification of the Optional Protocol on
the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict?
Answer. The protection of children is a key priority for the
Administration. I am particularly concerned about the growing problem
of the recruitment and use of child soldiers in some of the world's
most brutal conflicts. We will aggressively pursue measures to combat
this problem.
The Administration is currently reviewing its policy regarding the
Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict.
Question. Do you agree that a war crimes tribunal should have
authority to prosecute people--including senior Liberian officials--who
are responsible for the atrocities committed in Sierra Leone?
Answer. Let me assure you that accountability is an important
element of our foreign policy regarding the atrocities committed in
Sierra Leone. The United States supports the establishment of the
Special Court, believing that it is one of several essential components
necessary to restoring peace and stability to Sierra Leone and the
region. As mandated by the U.N. Security Council, the Special Court
will have jurisdiction over those who bear the greatest responsibility
for crimes against humanity, war crimes and violations of relevant
Sierra Leone law. The prosecutor and the Special Court will make
specific decisions about the particular individuals to be prosecuted.
______

Question Submitted by Senator Arlen Specter
rule of law funding
Question. In light of the fact that your fiscal year 2002 budget
request contains a request for $5 million towards China Rule of Law do
you plan to release the fiscal year 2001 money recommended in the
Foreign Operations Appropriations bill and continue forward with this
important program?
Answer. I appreciate the work of many Members of Congress on behalf
of a strong China rule of law program. We do intend to obligate fiscal
year 2001 money in the coming months and to work with Congress to
expand programs that will promote the rule of law in China.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
Question. As you know, former President Clinton was the first
American President in almost a quarter century to visit Pakistan and
India when he traveled to the region last year. Given the increased
tensions in the region and both countries, nuclear capabilities, please
outline briefly the Administration's plans for actively promoting peace
in the region.
Answer. This Administration has demonstrated its intention to give
high priority to United States' relations with South Asia. Active
involvement and better relations with India and Pakistan will give us
the standing to urge dialogue between both countries and a resolution
of their differences. It will also improve our ability to encourage
them to refrain from a costly and destabilizing nuclear arms and
missile race. In the early months of this Administration, the President
and I have met the Indian Foreign Minister and Deputy Secretary of
State Armitage has traveled to India. The Pakistan Foreign Minister
will be in Washington in June for broad consultations throughout our
government. We have used and will use these meetings to stress to both
countries the importance we attach to a peaceful and stable South Asia.
We have welcomed the upcoming visit of General Musharraf to India.
India and Pakistan must find their own solutions. We have played a
helpful role and will continue to do so.
Question. Please comment briefly on your impression from the
meetings in Key West and the prospects for peace?
Answer. Presidents Aliyev and Kocharian made significant progress
at the April 3-6 Key West Peace Talks.
We knew in Key West that the two presidents would need time to
review what had been achieved and to discuss the peace proposals
further within their governments and with their people. These are very
difficult issues.
During a May 18-21 shuttle to the region, the Minsk Group Co-Chairs
identified a particular need for all sides to better prepare their
public for the compromises necessary to achieve peace.
The Co-Chairs and the Presidents are committed to advancing peace
as quickly as possible. The next round of talks will be scheduled as
soon as conditions are right.
Question. What role will United States assistance play in
implementing a settlement to the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict?
Answer. Any peace agreement reached by the two parties will require
compromise and therefore will be sustainable only if accompanied by
substantial assistance flows that allow IDPs to return to their homes
and that demonstrate to the broader population the benefits of a
peaceful Caucasus.
In the event of a settlement, United States bilateral funding would
play a key role in signaling to the international community the high
priority the United States places on achieving peace. While the
majority of funding for reconstruction and resettlement will come from
multilateral institutions, a substantial United States commitment would
be key to attracting funds and resources from other donors.
United States funding would be available for immediate needs such
as demining and longer term needs, including economic development. We
expect that United States assistance would allow for noticeable
improvement in the economic position of ordinary Armenian and
Azerbaijani citizens, improvements that should result from regional
integration, improved communications and increased foreign investment.
Question. Would regional security be enhanced and United States
interests be furthered if Turkey lifted its blockade of Armenia? What
can the United States do to ensure Turkey lifts its blockade of
Armenia?
Answer. The border between Armenia and Turkey has been closed since
April 1993. The United States strongly supports efforts by both
countries to improve their bilateral relations since peace and
stability in the region is one of our foreign policy objectives. Turkey
has indicated a desire to open its border with Armenia but sees
progress toward resolving the Nagoi-no-Karabakh conflict as a necessary
first step. The United States, as a co-chair of the Minsk Group Process
along with France and Russia, supports efforts by Armenia and
Azerbaijan to resolve the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. Regional
security will be enhanced, and, thus, United States interests
furthered, once Turkey and Armenia normalize relations, which would
include reopening the border.
Question. Dakota Wesleyan University in my State of South Dakota is
not only the Alma Mater of former Senator and Ambassador George
McGovern, but also it is the home of the Hunger Project at the McGovern
Center for Public Service. Throughout his career, George McGovern has
championed the rights of the hungry, focusing primarily on the youngest
of the world's population. Dakota Wesleyan University has made a
commitment to build the McGovern Center for Public Service and develop
a program that is focused on understanding and alleviating hunger
throughout the world.
Would the State Department and USAID be willing to work with me and
Dakota Wesleyan University to insure that there is strong cooperation
and coordination with U.S. programs reflected in the Hunger Center's
curriculum?
Answer. We are constantly seeking ways to broaden the number of
partners to engage in development assistance and humanitarian issues.
Thus, both the State Department and USAID would be happy to see the
Hunger Center involve themselves in international deliberations.
Ultimately, this participation will influence the Center's curriculum.
Both the Department of State and USAID are working closely with
Ambassador McGovern on the preparations for the World Food Summit five-
year anniversary that will also be celebrated at its conference. Part
of the preparation for the Summit involves establishing U.S. positions,
including participation by a wide range of institutions and individuals
outside of the U.S. Government. In this process, through the U.S. Food
Security Advisory Committee, we involve universities, non-governmental
organizations, and private businesses with a concern about world
hunger. This Summit presents an appropriate opportunity for the Hunger
Center to engage in a dialogue with a broad spectrum of groups focused
on eradicating hunger in the world. Such participation could also
provide a case study for the Hunger Center to use in its curriculum.
Similarly, the Board for International Food and Agricultural
Development (BIFAD), an advisory board mandated under the recently
amended and rewritten Famine Prevention and Freedom from Hunger Act, is
another forum where the Hunger Center could both make contributions,
and gather operational ideas for its curriculum.
Question. Given the reinstatement of the so-called ``Mexico City
Policy'' and the flat-lined request for the United Nations Population
Fund for fiscal year 2002, please explain how the Administration plans
to promote access to affordable contraception in poor nations around
the world, reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and enhance
adoption and foster care options?
Answer. The best way to reduce unplanned pregnancies is to expand
access to quality voluntary family planning services. That is why the
President's fiscal year 2002 budget requests $25 million for the U.N.
Population Fund (UNFPA) and $425 million for USAID's international
family planning and related activities in poor nations around the
world--the same levels as fiscal year 2001 and the highest since 1995.
USAID's family planning assistance will be made broadly available
through the hundreds of foreign NGOs that operate consistent with the
Mexico City Policy.
Population-directed funds are not used to support adoption or
foster care. However, through USAID's HIV/AIDS activities, we are
supporting efforts to mobilize and empower families and communities to
provide care and support for orphans and other vulnerable children in
AIDS-affected areas.
Question. How do you assess the situation in Ukraine and the United
States approach to that country amid the current political turmoil? How
does the current reality affect the direction of United States
assistance to Ukraine?
Answer. The recent political turmoil does not alter Ukraine's
importance to the United States or our strategic goals in Ukraine.
Ukraine's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity are a
fundamental strategic American interest because they are paramount to
security and stability in Europe. We can accomplish our strategic
objectives in Ukraine only if it becomes a democratic, market-oriented
state. This requires United States engagement in the form of assistance
and support for policies that advance Ukraine's democratic and free
market transition. It also involves making clear to Ukraine when its
actions and policies are inconsistent with its aspirations for
integration into the Euro-Atlantic community.
The recent political turmoil highlighted shortcomings in Ukraine's
democratic transition, including in respect for the rule of law,
freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. We were pleased by recent
cooperation with the FBI in identifying Gongadze's corpse, but overall,
the Ukrainian authorities, handling of the Gongadze investigation is a
source of concern. The fall of former Prime Minister Yushchenko's
Government also raises questions about Ukraine's commitment to
continuing much needed structural economic reform.
We are urging Ukraine to address our concerns by conducting a full
and transparent investigation of the Gongadze case. We are also
reviewing with Ukraine specific, concrete steps it can take on economic
reform over the next several months. We continue to focus our
assistance program to Ukraine on the best way to accomplish our
strategic objective in Ukraine: supporting its successful transition to
a democratic, free market society.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
Question. What types of international crime are of principal
concern to the State Department, and what is the basis for that
concern?
Answer. The Department of State relies on assessments from country
teams at posts, and the intelligence and law enforcement communities to
target those international crimes that potentially cause the greatest
threat to us domestically, and threaten both our safety overseas and
our objectives of building stable democracies and free market economies
abroad. Accordingly, international terrorism, narcotics trafficking,
passport and visa fraud, illegal alien smuggling, trafficking in
persons, money laundering, financial fraud, firearms trafficking,
stolen automobiles, and intellectual property piracy have been among
our top concerns.
We direct our anti-crime programs, however, at a broader focus than
just a set of discrete crimes. We want to build strong and effective
law enforcement institutions around the world that respect the rule of
law. Accordingly, we support anti-corruption, border control, and other
measures that, while not aimed at any particular type of crime, are
essential for boosting a country's capacity to address and Cooperate
with us against all forms of transnational crime.
Question. What new steps will the State Department take to improve
the Federal Government's response to international crime? How does the
State Department propose to coordinate its response to international
crime with the efforts of other federal agencies--such as the
Departments of Justice and the Treasury--to ensure that the response is
focused and the potential for bureaucratic overlap is reduced?
Answer. The Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement
Affairs (INL) is working with other bureaus in the Department and with
U.S. law enforcement and other U.S. Government agencies to develop a
longer-term, more coordinated approach toward providing international
crime control assistance. Annual completion by each embassy's country
team of the Mission Performance Plan (MPP) that identifies the U.S.'s
highest priority strategic goals in the host country, is the first
step. An MPP, however, is not always as comprehensive as we would like.
INL has therefore recently asked all posts that have significant and
sustained narcotics and crime control programs to prepare law
enforcement assistance coordination plans that look out over the next
three years. The objective is to encourage posts to take a more
comprehensive and balanced view about what needs to be done to develop
more reliable international drug and crime control partners.
INL has led a small State/Justice/Treasury interagency team to look
preliminarily into how some posts are structured to undertake this mid-
term planning and coordination. Once the reports are in, INL will
organize a broader group to provide feedback to posts and work with
local experts and embassy officials when posts want help in developing
comprehensive, coordinated judicial assistance plans.
To address shorter term needs, we have instituted a new ``project-
based approach'' to make better decisions about how to allocate our
training and program funds among competing U.S. Government agencies and
assistance requests from posts. Posts initiate the process by
describing and requesting comprehensive law enforcement assistance
``projects,'' not just a list of disjointed training courses that often
characterized past assistance requests. Typically a project--such as
enhanced border control--will include a sequence of training courses
that may be team-taught by various U.S. law enforcement agencies, as
well as technical and material assistance. An Assistant Secretary-
directed State/Justice/Treasury working group that then reviews, ranks,
and eventually approve's these requests ensures interagency consensus.
Question. Also, recognizing that considerable law enforcement
activity to counter international crime occurs in foreign countries,
how does the State Department propose to coordinate its efforts with
its foreign counterparts?
Answer. The State Department coordinates international crime
control efforts with its foreign counterparts on a number of levels. At
the broadest level, we work to create internationally-accepted norms
through the United Nations or regional bodies that help define the
criminal activity and lay the foundation for creating laws,
institutions, and means to combat it. A recent example the negotiation
of the December 2000 U.N. Convention Against Transnational Organized
Crime.
With such norms in place, we can then work to develop and implement
bilateral assistance programs. We work closely with host nation
institutions to design these programs to ensure their commitment and
cooperation. Project details-including timelines and expected outcomes,
and our end-use monitoring and evaluation requirements--are outlined in
Letters of Agreement that both parties must sign before we allocate
project funds. We will terminate projects and reprogram funds if the
project is failing or if the host government loses interest or
commitment.
Question. Would the Department be prepared to work together to make
combating corruption a central theme of the OSCE Ministerial Meeting?
Answer. As you pointed out in your background section, we were
successful in highlighting in the Istanbul Summit documents the threat
posed by corruption to the security and stability of OSCE members. The
Department followed up on our Istanbul efforts by working closely with
your staff in shaping the Chairman-in-Office's 2000 Vienna Ministerial
report on OSCE Contributions to International Efforts to Combat
Corruption. We also successfully negotiated a Good Governance/
Anticorruption theme for the three 2001 Economic Dimension preparatory
seminars and Prague Economic Forum, and welcomed the active
participation of Helsinki Commission staff in all of these events.
We have complemented our ongoing efforts to raise the corruption
issue at OSCE fora with $150,000 in fiscal year 2001 funding for
specific activities undertaken by OSCE field missions and NGOS. These
have included anticorruption roundtables in Armenia and Macedonia and a
budget transparency program in Russia. We will continue to work to
ensure that anticorruption activities remain an integral part of the
OSCE's ongoing activities. We look forward to continuing our close
working relationship with Helsinki Commission staff on this issue.
Question. Please describe some of the Department's ongoing work
within the SECI framework and the potential benefits derived from U.S.
participation.
Answer. Not an assistance program, SECI is self-help program, and
the modest level of U.S. assistance (approximately $3 million/year,
since fiscal year 1999) reflects this. Department efforts focus on SECI
trade facilitation, crime fighting and customs reform. The goals are
increased regional stability and prosperity via improved economic
integration and containing and fighting international organized crime
The SECI Participating States are: Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Slovenia, FYR
Macedonia, Turkey, and now, Serbia.
The Department is working with numerous U.S. Federal Law
Enforcement Agencies, specifically the DEA, FBI, INS, and USCS, to
provide technical assistance to eligible SECI states on anti-crime
initiatives and (in cooperation with the World Bank) customs/border
reform. This assistance has included advice on the development of
specialized task forces to operate nationally and cooperate regionally
(via the SECI Anti-Crime Center) to combat the trafficking in human
beings, narcotics, and commercial fraud. Also, the Department will be
looking to increased integration with the Stability Pact Organized
Crime (SPOC) Initiative to better facilitate Euro-Atlantic cooperation
in these areas, and best utilize limited resources to avoid
duplication.
Already, formal and informal cooperation via the SECI Anti-Crime
Center in Bucharest has resulted in a small number of successful cross-
border law enforcement actions. In April, a joint Turkish-Romanian
operation resulted in the simultaneous arrests of 33 organized crime
suspects in both countries. Earlier this year, 500 kilograms of heroin
were seized through the cooperation of 3 SECI states; sources at DEA
report that partnerships forged thru SECI were crucial to facilitating
this working level cooperation. SECI is not going to improve the region
overnight, but seems to be forging links for institutionalizing
regional cooperation on a number of crime and trade facilitation
issues.
Question. Instead of having members of the Armed Forces performing
(police) duties, shouldn't we place greater effort in training
civilians for police service (citing the OSCE police training academy
as an example)?
Answer. Training and development of the new Kosovo Police Service
(KPS) has been a top priority since the start of the U.N. peacekeeping
mission in Kosovo. Since military forces are generally ill-equipped for
law enforcement duties and not trained to be police, once the military
situation was stabilized, deployment of international civilian police
(CIVPOL) was begun, along with development of the KPS.
Today in Kosovo, CIVPOL has primary responsibility for law
enforcement, with approximately 4,400 CIVPOL deployed throughout the
region. Also, nearly 2,400 members of the KPS, all trained at the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) police
school in Kosovo, are independently carrying out police duties under
CIVPOL supervision. Training of KPS officers continues, with an
additional 1,200 expected to be ready by next July.
Question. Is the Department working toward the timely closure of
OSCE missions?
Answer. The Department has taken the lead within the OSCE in moving
toward closure of the Missions in Latvia and Estonia. In late 2000 we
assisted the Austrian CiO in developing specific closure guidelines to
allow these two missions to close. We are currently working with the
Governments of Latvia and Estonia to ensure that they meet the
requirements for closure. Our current goal is missions to shut down in
December 2001.
We are also beginning the process of identifying closure guidelines
for the Croatia Mission. The mission has drawn down its international
staff level from 250 in mid-2000 to 120 today. The consolidation of
mission staff and exploration of closure guidelines has come in
response to the positive actions undertaken by the current government.
We want to ensure a continued focus by the OSCE on refugee returns,
local/regional government development and property reparations as the
Croatia Mission begins to explore closure options. We have also seen a
37 percent decrease in the fiscal year 2001 budget of the Bosnia
Mission as responsibility for organizing and conducting elections was
turned over to the host government. These examples underline the OSCE's
commitment to continuously evaluate progress in meeting the mandated
goals of field missions, and moving to closure of missions once those
goals are met.
Question. How much importance does the Department attach to
periodic review of implementation of OSCE commitments by the countries
that have signed the Helsinki Final Act?
Answer. The Department places great importance on reviewing
implementation of OSCE commitments. At the weekly Permanent Council
meetings as well as the annual Human Dimension Implementation Meetings,
the Department raises its concerns about how other OSCE participating
States are meeting their OSCE commitments on religious freedom, media
freedom, prevention of torture, freedom of movement, rule of law,
trafficking in human beings and other human dimension areas.
This process of having OSCE member states remind each other of
their commitments, complemented by recommendations for improvements, is
essential to building a more democratic, prosperous and secure future
for the OSCE region. It is a form of conflict prevention in practice.
The Department works very closely with the United States Commission on
Security and Cooperation in Europe on OSCE issues, including the
Implementation Meetings. As a measure of the importance the United
States. places on the role of the Implementation Meetings in advancing
the Helsinki process, the Department sent to the last Implementation
Meeting in Warsaw a United States delegation that included 40 members.
Question. In your testimony you mention the fact the freedom of the
press is under threat in most of the Independent States of the Former
Soviet Union. I understand that you will be meeting with the Russian
Foreign Minister later this week.
Will you raise related concerns during the course of that meeting?
Answer. We have stressed to the highest levels of the Russian
Government the importance of press freedom for the development of
democracy in Russia. We will continue to do so at every opportunity.
I raised the question of press freedom in Russia during my meeting
with the Russian Foreign Minister on May 18. The U.S. Government has
consistently expressed its concern over the state of press freedom in
general and the specific case of Vladimir Gusinskiy's Media Most
company. We are gravely concerned by the recent takeover of Gusinskiy's
NTV, the only independent national television station, by the state-
owned oil company Gazprom, acting as a surrogate for the Kremlin.
Question. The United States-based Committee to Protect Journalists
(CPJ) recently issued its listing of the Ten Worst Enemies of the Press
for 2001, among them Russia and Ukraine. CPJ alleges that ``President
Putin pays lip service to press freedom in Russia, but then maneuvers
in the shadows to centralize control of the media, stifle criticism,
and destroy the independent press.''
Do you agree with this general assessment? What can be done to
promote greater respect for freedom on media in Russia?
Answer. It is our strong belief that Russia's success as a free
market economy and democratic society can only be complete if the media
is fully independent. Unfortunately, financial and legal pressure by
local governments and now increasingly by the central government has
undermined media independence. Some journalists have been arrested or
beaten for reporting on controversial topics; many also face crippling
libellawsuits. Beyond that, it is extremely difficult for Russian media
outlets to operate on a commercially viable basis, especially when
advertisers are discouraged against advertising in private media by
government officials, or to compete against state-subsidized media.
On the diplomatic level, we are maintaining pressure on the Russian
Government to protect media freedom. Support for independent media is
also one of our highest assistance priorities. We are currently
providing assistance to both print and broadcast media through
consulting and training to promote their economic viability, support to
enable them to become more effective advocates for journalistic
freedom, and grants to encourage independent reporting.
In the context of the Administration's overall review of our
Russian assistance programs, expected to be completed by the end of
June, we are looking at ways to enhance current efforts. Ideas being
considered include more support for legal defense of journalists and
media outlets, support for media watchdog and advocacy groups, and a
solid monitoring effort to track and highlight regional and national
attempts to suppress news. We are also consulting with other donors to
develop a joint response to the immediate crisis and to help prevent
other outlets from meeting the same fate as NTV, Itogi and Segodnya by
providing more direct assistance.
belarus: u.s. policy and russia
Question. Is the United States committed to support the democratic
movement in Belarus over the long haul? Will you raise the troubling
developments in Belarus in your discussions with your Russian
counterpart?
Answer. We have a long-term commitment to democracy in Belarus, as
shown by the fact that United States policy toward Belarus has not
changed with the change of Administrations. Our main goal remains the
restoration of democracy in an independent Belarus. To this end, we
strongly support the work of Belarusian democrats, including civil
society and independent media, to bring their country back into the
Euro-Atlantic community of democracies. In addition to political and
moral support, we are providing $12 million in democracy programs in
fiscal year 2001, and we are supporting the work of the OSCE in
Belarus.
Russia's position on Belarus is troubling. On one hand, relations
between President Putin and Aleksandr Lukashenko are clearly strained.
On the other, Russia continues to give political and economic support
to Lukashenko's authoritarian policies. The Russian Government may be
beginning to understand in the West about Russia's general commitment
to supporting democracy in other countries. I discussed Belarus with FM
Ivanov during his visit to Washington in mid-May and will raise United
States concerns over Belarus in future meetings with him.
Question. Is the Department committed to working with the OSCE
countries to improve the situation faced by the Roma, including through
adoption of anti-discrimination laws?
Answer. The Department is committed to protecting and promoting the
human rights of Roma in OSCE countries, both within a bilateral context
and also through OSCE institutions, such as the Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights (which has Contact Point on Roma/Sinti
issues) and the High Commissioner on National Minorities. As we have
made clear in bilateral engagements, at the OSCE, and in public
statements, the Department calls on all governments to respect the
rights of Roma. We continue to urge OSCE participating States to honor
their commitment, made at the 1999 Istanbul Summit, to ensure that laws
and policies fully respect the rights of Roma and, where necessary, to
promote comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation.
Question. Has the Department raised security concerns with the
Government of Greece in anticipation of the upcoming Olympic Games? Has
Athens shown greater willingness to cooperate in efforts to root out
domestic terrorist groups like 17 November?
Answer. The Department has been working closely with the Greek
Government on the issue of Olympics Security. At the request of the
Greek Government, we and other concerned members of the international
community--the UK, Spain, Australia, France, and Israel--have formed an
Olympic Security Advisory Group (OSAG), which has met several times in
Athens since December 2000. Through OSAG, we are working to help the
Greeks identify unmet security needs and offering advice on how they
can meet those needs. In addition, Greek law enforcement experts have
visited the United States and participated in security training
exercises for the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. From our
perspective, the OSAG process has been highly productive. I would add
that we are posting a special Diplomatic Security Olympics Coordinator
in Athens this summer, as we did for the Sydney Games, to manage the
United States effort.
As we know from experience, preparing for the Olympics is a
momentous challenge regardless of the venue, and one that requires an
extraordinarily high degree of international cooperation. The USG will
continue to support Greek efforts toward a safe, terrorism-free
Olympics. Clearly, much work remains to be done. I am confident that
the Greek Government will do everything possible to ensure the safety
of the Games, and we will assist them in any way that we can.
On the specific issue of terrorism, we have made our bottom line--
the need for results--well known to the Greek Government, including
during Foreign Minister Papandreou's very succe ssful recent visit (May
20-24) to the United States. The Greek Government has become more
determined in the fight against terrorism since the murder of UK
Military Attache Stephen Saunders in Athens last year. The Greeks have
taken a number of important steps, including publicizing a reward for
information, bolstering police capabilities, and drafting new
legislation on organized crime and terrorism with important new tools
like witness protection. However, the bottom line is that the ``17
November'' terrorists who planned and carried out the murder of five
members of the United States Mission in Greece, wounded dozens more
Americans, and killed an even larger number of Greeks must be brought
to justice.
We cooperate closely with the Greek Government and the Greek police
to support their counter-terrorism efforts, while fully respecting
Greek sovereignty and authority. This cooperation has improved since
last year. The Anti-Terrorism Assistance program and the FBI--working
through our Embassy in Athens in close cooperation with the British
Embassy and Scotland Yard--provide training to develop the police
counterterrorism unit's professionalism. We are providing assistance
where we can, but ultimately the deadly violence of ``17 November'' and
other terrorist organizations is a Greek problem to be solved by
Greeks.
Question. What is your initial assessment on the role the OSCE is
playing and could play in Europe? What are your views of President
Putin's call to expand the scope of activities of the OSCE in the
security arena?
Answer. The OSCE is an institution where all the countries of
Europe have an equal voice, and all have agreed to uphold a common set
of principles. It is a valuable forum for engaging positively with the
Russians and developing and advancing common policies with our allies
and friends. OSCE cooperates with other institutions to address common
challenges.
The OSCE has played an active and evolving role in assisting
countries making the transition to democracy and in addressing
transnational threats to stability. OSCE missions have helped to
diffuse inter-ethnic and inter-regional tensions. It has played an
important role in facilitating implementation of international
agreements. The OSCE is actively engaged in post-conflict
rehabilitation in the Balkans.
Russia is free to raise concerns or make proposals in the OSCE
context. I would note, though, that the organization operates on the
basis of consensus. No one country can advance an agenda that is not
supported by other states. Further, we do not support any hierarchy
among European or Trans-Atlantic institutions.
The OSCE can make its greatest contribution to security by a
continued focus on intra-state threats to democracy and transnational
issues that undermine stability. OSCE should implement activities
designed to create a stable democratic political process and respect
for the rule of law and human rights, counter corruption and trans-
border crime, improve economic and environmental conditions, and
implement certain arms control agreements and confidence building
measures.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator McConnell. Thank you very much, that concludes the
hearing. The subcommittee will stand in recess until 10:30
a.m., Wednesday, July 11, when we will meet in room SD-192 to
hear from the Assistant Secretary of State Rand Beers.
[Whereupon, at 11:25 p.m., Tuesday, May 15, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a.m.,
Wednesday, July 11.]

FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

----------

WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 2001

U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:38 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Leahy, McConnell, Specter, and Campbell.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

STATEMENT OF RAND BEERS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE,
BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT AFFAIRS

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

Senator Leahy. Good morning.
I understand Mr. Deal is here. Feel free to take your seat,
Mr. Deal. I understand Mr. Beers is on his way, is that
correct? He is here, okay.
The purpose of this hearing is to review the status of
United States support for Plan Colombia and to get an
explanation of the President's budget request for an additional
$731 million in fiscal year 2002 foreign operations funds for
the now renamed Andean Counterdrug Initiative. Our first panel
consists of Rand Beers, who is the Assistant Secretary of State
for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement and Michael
Deal, who is USAID Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Latin America and the Caribbean.
Both witnesses deserve a great deal of credit for managing
what is unquestionably one of the most complex, controversial,
costly, and risky foreign assistance programs the United States
is currently undertaking.
Our second panel, of one, will be Jose Miguel Vivanco, the
Executive Director of the Americas Division of Human Rights
Watch. He is widely respected for his extensive knowledge and
balanced analysis of the human rights situation in Colombia and
throughout Latin America.
Now, there is no doubt that the enormous flow of illegal
drugs into the United States from Latin America poses a serious
threat to the health and safety of the American people. There
is also little doubt in my mind that the administration's
Andean Counterdrug Initiative, however well intentioned, will
not appreciably reduce that flow of drugs, whether this year or
in the future, and as most know who deal with this, even if it
did it would not appreciably reduce the amount of drug usage in
the United States.
As General Pace and Secretary Rumsfeld have said, like
practically every other administration official who has
commented on the subject, we are not going to deal effectively
with the drug problem in this country until we reduce the
demand for drugs here at home. No matter how many billions of
dollars we spend, no matter who we support around the world to
stop the flow of drugs, they are going to come in here, until
the wealthiest Nation on Earth stops paying whatever is
necessary to get drugs.
While everybody who has testified for the administration
knows this, every parent knows this instinctively, virtually
every Member of Congress knows this, President Bush's budget
would cut funding for programs to reduce the demand for drugs
by America's youth by some $74 million. That is a mistake. If
you do not reduce the demand for the drugs, the drugs are going
to come in, whether they come from Colombia or from Southeast
Asia or anywhere else. They are going to come in until we stop
using them.
We have been down this road so many times before, and yet
we continue to repeat our mistakes.
I agree with those who believe that the United States
should help Colombia. I have great admiration for President
Pastrana. He has risked his reputation. He has also risked his
personal safety for the cause of peace. He has some very
capable people under him, including the minister of defense and
the chief of the armed forces. Colombia's Ambassador Moreno is
one of the finest foreign diplomats in this town, also one of
the hardest working people I know.
These are people who are trying to do what is best for
their country. They deserve our support. The Colombian
Government has every right to defend itself against a guerrilla
insurgency financed by revenues from protecting drug
traffickers whose ranks include child soldiers, that use
murder, kidnapping, and other brutal tactics to achieve its
goals. Of course the Colombian government has a right to defend
against that.
But the Colombian armed forces also have a responsibility
to aggressively combat the paramilitaries, whose numbers have
doubled in the past 2 years and whose gruesome tactics mirror
those of the Guatemalan army and the Salvadoran death squads in
the 1980's, groups, incidentally, directly or indirectly aided
by the United States.
The State Department and respected human rights
organizations report that the Colombian military continues to
provide tacit as well as tangible support to the
paramilitaries. In the midst of this widening civil war, United
States policy purports to be limited to counternarcotics. That
is an admirable goal that bears decreasing resemblance to
reality.
Last year Senator McConnell and I increased funding to
strengthen the justice system in Colombia and to reform its
weak and corrupt institutions. This is key to the success of
everything else we hope to achieve in Colombia. I am concerned
about the slow progress of judicial and democratic reform.

prepared statement

As our witnesses clarify the goals and expected results of
this initiative, I hope they will also directly address the
concerns that I and others have raised about the long-term
financial costs, the risks to American personnel, including
private contractors, and the danger that the United States will
become increasingly enmeshed in a civil war where innocent
people are often the targets.
I would yield to the distinguished ranking member of this
subcommittee, the former chairman and one who has spent an
enormous amount of time on this subject.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
The purpose of this hearing is to review the status of United
States support for Plan Colombia, and to explain the President's budget
request for an additional $731 million in fiscal year 2002 Foreign
Operations funds for the renamed ``Andean Counterdrug Initiative.''
Our first panel consists of Rand Beers, Assistant Secretary of
State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement--with able back-
up from Deputy Assistant Secretary William Brownfield, and from Michael
Deal, USAID Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator for Latin America and
the Caribbean.
Both witnesses, and Secretary Brownfield, deserve a great deal of
credit for managing what is unquestionably one of the most complex,
controversial, costly and risky foreign assistance programs the United
States is currently undertaking.
Our second panel of one will be Jose Migel Vivanco, Executive
Director of the Americas Division of Human Rights Watch, who is widely
respected for his extensive knowledge and balanced analysis of the
human rights situation in Colombia and throughout Latin America.
There is no doubt that the enormous flow of illegal drugs into the
United States from Latin America poses a serious threat to the health
and safety of the American people.
There is also little doubt in my mind that the Administration's
``Andean Counterdrug Initiative,'' however well intentioned, will not
appreciably reduce that flow of drugs, whether this year or in the
future.
As General Pace and Secretary Rumsfeld have said--like practically
every other Administration official who has commented on the subject,
we are not going to deal effectively with the drug problem in this
country until we reduce the demand for drugs here at home.
Yet, President Bush's budget would cut funding for programs to
reduce the demand for drugs by America's youth, by some $74 million.
That is a mistake. We have been down this road time and time again, and
yet we continue to repeat our mistakes.
I agree with those who believe that the United States should help
Colombia. I have great admiration for President Pastrana, who has
risked his reputation and his personal safety for the cause of peace.
He also has some very capable people under him, including the
Minister of Defense and the Chief of the Armed Forces, and Colombia's
Ambassador Moreno, who is one of the finest foreign diplomats in this
town.
These are people who are trying to do what is best for their
country, and who deserve our support.
The Colombian Government has every right to defend itself against a
guerrilla insurgency, financed by revenues from protecting drug
traffickers, whose ranks include child soldiers, that uses murder,
kidnaping and other brutal tactics to achieve its goals.
But, the Colombian Armed Forces also has a responsibility to
aggressively combat the paramilitaries, whose numbers have doubled in
the past two years and whose gruesome tactics mirror those of the
Guatemalan Army and the Salvadoran death squads in the 1980s.
The State Department and respected human rights organizations
report that the Colombian military continues to provide tacit, as well
as tangible support to the paramilitaries.
In the midst of this widening civil war, United States policy
purports to be limited to counter-narcotics. That is an admirable goal
that bears a decreasing resemblance to reality.
Last year, Senator McConnell and I increased funding to strengthen
the justice system in Colombia and to reform its weak and corrupt
institutions. This is key to the success of everything else we hope to
achieve in Colombia, and I am concerned about the slow progress of
judicial and democratic reform.
As our witnesses clarify the goals and expected results of this
initiative, I hope they will also directly address the concerns that I
and others have raised about the long term financial cost, the risks to
American personnel--including private contractors, and the danger that
the United States will become increasingly enmeshed in a civil war
where innocent people are often the targets.

Opening statement of Senator Mitch Mc Connell

Senator McConnell. I thank my friend Senator Leahy for his
leadership both as chairman and as ranking member over the
years. We have worked together for a long time now and have
enjoyed mutual confidence. I enjoy our association and
appreciate his having the hearing today.
Today's subcommittee hearing on the fiscal year 2002
funding request for the $882 million Andean Regional Initiative
is timely and serves as an appropriate follow-up to last year's
joint hearing on Plan Colombia.
Senator Leahy. Before you continue, I should point out that
the President was just on the Hill. He was probably meeting
with you for all I know, Senator McConnell. I understand that
Mr. Beers may have been caught in the lockdown of the traffic
when that happens.
Mr. Beers. Yes, sir.
Senator Leahy. It happens to all of us. Go ahead.
Senator McConnell. As I was saying, this is an appropriate
follow-up to last year's joint hearing on Plan Colombia. As we
have the most to gain from questioning witnesses, my opening
comments will be brief. Let me just make four points.
First, the illegal growth, manufacturing and trafficking of
coca is a shared problem between North, Central, and South
America, and Europe for that matter. Demand on American streets
is met by a steady supply of illegal drugs manufactured in
laboratories on rivers and in the hills of Colombia and
elsewhere in the region.
How bad is it? By some estimates, Colombia alone produces
580 metric tons of cocaine, which is 235 metric tons more than
needed to meet America's unfortunate cocaine habit.
Shared problems call for shared solutions, which brings me
to my second point: The need for a coordinated counterdrug
strategy. The development of any plan to stem this threat that
is not integrated and regional in nature will be an expensive
mistake in terms of taxpayer funds and human lives. I made my
concerns with the shortsighted strategy to counterdrug efforts
very clear during last year's hearing on the $1.3 billion
supplemental request for Plan Colombia. My views remain largely
unchanged. The law of supply and demand dictates that narcotics
interdiction, law enforcement, drug abuse treatment, crop
eradication, and political, economic, and social development
all have to go hand in hand, no matter where the problem
arises.
While the Andean Initiative addresses the spillover of the
drug trade from Colombia to neighboring countries, much more
must be done to promote regional consultations, coordination of
law enforcement activities, and intelligence and expertise
sharing.
Bolivia, for example, has enjoyed success in eradicating
coca and promoting alternate development activities, and other
countries can and should learn from the Bolivian experience. At
the same time, political leaders in La Paz have no choice but
to remain vigilant to ensure that spillover from Colombia does
not undermine their substantial achievements. Like a chronic
disease, the threat from narcotics trade never dissipates and
must be constantly monitored and managed.
Third, the rule of law, democratic governance, and respect
for human rights are essential foundations for any long-term
counterdrug effort. Endemic corruption, political instability
and impunity serve to undermine the multi-billion dollar
investment the United States has already made in Colombia and
the Andean region.
What will be the most telling of Plan Colombia and the
Andean Regional Initiative is not the dollar amounts associated
with legal, political, and human rights programs, but concrete
results achieved through U.S.-funded activities.
Finally, the administration has a responsibility to keep
the American people fully informed of all facets of our efforts
in the Andean region, from environmental concerns arising from
aerial spraying to the collusion of some in the Colombian
military with paramilitary groups to obstacles in implementing
necessary political and legal reforms. Anything less than the
truth will erode public support and confidence in counterdrug
programs and activities conducted abroad.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
make opening statements. I, too, look forward to hearing from
the witnesses.
Senator Leahy. Senator Campbell, did you have anything you
wanted to add?

Opening statement of Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell

Senator Campbell. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman. Just let me
make a couple of observations, and I want to certainly
associate my comments with yours when we talk about education.
You know, I guess it is pretty common for elected officials
when they talk about crime and fighting the drug war to speak
very heavily in favor of more incarceration and being tougher
and locking them up and making them bust rocks for life and
that kind of stuff.
The bottom line is, if you track our prison population,
which is going up, I mean, from roughly half a million to a 1.2
or 1.3 million in the last 10 years, and about 70 percent of it
being related to drugs, anybody in their right mind knows we
have got a big problem. I believe, as you do, that as long as
the world operates on the theory of supply and demand, I do not
care how much money we put into the Andean Initiative or any
other initiative; until we convince people that they do not
need it, we are not going to win that war.
As the former chairman for the last 6 years of the Treasury
Subcommittee, which supplies the money for the drug czar and
the DEA, we have had Senator Kohl first and Senator Dorgan now
and I have had a great deal of input on trying to provide money
for education. In fact, we put over $500 million of taxpayers'
money into a drug czar program under General McCaffrey to
television and ads on radios and magazine ads and so on to try
to encourage youngsters, particularly teenagers, to leave it
alone.
We have been able to track over the last 6 years if we have
had any effect and in fact, if you look at the statistics, the
drug use for that age group has gone down. We think we had
something to do with that by providing enough money to
encourage youngsters not to do it.
However, the drug use has gone up in other areas, as you
know, particularly with adults. But I do not know how you tell
kids to leave it alone when their parents are using it. But the
bottom line is that we have to, as Senator McConnell said, we
have to attack it on literally all phases, whether it is in
Bolivia or Colombia or here or wherever the problem is.
But I am convinced, after the years of being a former
prison counselor and having a number of other experiences in
what I call my real life, that the drug war is just unwinnable
until we get to the youngsters and convince them that somehow
they do not need it. That is the first thing.
Of course, the second thing is that farmers that are
raising coca crops, and until we find markets for something
they can raise, whether it is wheat or barley or hay or
something else, and they can make a living on that, they are
going to keep producing the cash crop that brings in the most
money and that obviously is coca for them.
So I look forward to the hearing. I have read part of the
testimony already and would like to ask a few questions if I
have the time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Senator Campbell. You, like I,
have also spent some time in law enforcement and we know that
these are not things that law enforcement is going to handle by
itself by any means.
I am going to recognize Assistant Secretary Beers first and
then go to Mr. Deal. We will put their full statements in the
record. I would ask that you try to limit your time to 5
minutes because I know we are going to be going back into
session. We had to cancel this hearing yesterday because of the
votes. We are going to be back in that same situation and
Senators are going to want to ask questions.
So Secretary Beers, good to have you here, sir, and please
go ahead.

Summary Statement of Hon. Rand Beers

Mr. Beers. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you for the
acknowledgment of the difficulty of getting here. Sorry I was
late.
Senator Leahy. I realized afterward I had heard a lot of
commotion, seen a lot of the extra police around, and thought
that was probably what it was. You are an extraordinarily hard-
working, extraordinarily punctual person, and I now put that on
the record for everybody to hear.
Go ahead.
Mr. Beers. Thank you, sir.
Thank you for this opportunity and this hearing to appear
before you and your distinguished colleagues. Before embarking
on my oral remarks, let me respond to the comments which you
and Senator Campbell both made. There is no disagreement on
this side either that demand reduction is an essential element
of dealing with the drug problem. But just as supply reduction
by itself cannot succeed, neither do we believe can demand
reduction.
While my job focuses on supply reduction, I come before you
to talk about that particular aspect. We do have a small demand
reduction program, about $8 million across our entire budget,
but it is a small program.
The Andean Counterdrug Initiative, or the Andean Regional
Initiative, for us represents a comprehensive and integrated
response to the complex and interrelated issues of drugs,
development, and democracy in the Andean region. We have
requested $882 million in funding for this initiative and
enactment of an extension of the Andean Trade Preference Act.
This is done in support of the foundation laid by Plan
Colombia, which all recognized was not a 1-year funding
initiative, but it also recognizes that Plan Colombia was only
a partial as well as initial response.
It is absolutely essential to build strong democracies,
strong economies, and strong institutions that will work to
dismantle and prevent a resurgence of the drug trade, not just
in Colombia but in the region as a whole. Whereas Plan Colombia
was highly focused on Colombia itself, the Andean Regional
Initiative directs over 50 percent of the funds to the six
other countries--Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Brazil, and
Panama.
Whereas Plan Colombia was highly focused on enforcement and
security, the Andean Regional Initiative requests over 50
percent of the funds for alternative development, democracy,
institution building, health, education, and general
development.
We have also made an attempt to coordinate with the
countries in the region before making this presentation and to
consult with other donors around the world to talk about how we
might work together to deal with this problem.
Mr. Deal will focus on the development issues. I will leave
the rest of my remarks to focus on the enforcement and security
side.
Colombia remains the major focus of this program: $399
million total, of which $252 million are for enforcement and
security. The funds in this area will go primarily to continue
the support for programs that were already funded in the Plan
Colombia initiative: fuel, spare parts, facilities, and
training. There will be no major acquisitions in the Colombian
portion of this program. It will support both the military and
the police. It will focus on southern Colombia, but it will not
be limited to southern Colombia.
Peru and Bolivia are also significant programs and we have
requested $206 million and $143.5 million for those two
programs, of which $77 million and $54 million will be for
enforcement and security. Again, these programs will support
existing programs where we have had major successes in reducing
coca cultivation. We cannot afford to have a resurgence in
these particular areas. So we will focus on eradication and
alternative development. There will be some procurement in
association with this. We are planning on refurbishing the
helicopters for the Peruvian National Police and taking them
from UH-1H's to Huey II's.
In Ecuador we have a large program beginning this year of
$76.5 million, with $19 million for enforcement and security.
It will focus on northern border control plus maritime and
airport control.
In Brazil, a $26 million program will have $15 million for
enforcement and security. We will support the counternarcotics
operation Cobra along the Colombian border. This is the second
largest user of cocaine in the world.
Venezuela, a $10 million program for enforcement and
security to support the counternarcotics operations that have
been very successfully prosecuted there.
In Panama, $11 million out of $20 million to support police
operations, with limited support for maritime and air efforts
and a minimal border control effort in Darien.
Let me speak briefly now to the issue of aerial eradication
because it has been a concern of a number of people. We believe
that aerial eradication is absolutely essential. By itself it
is not sufficient. It needs to be done in conjunction with
alternative development, a carrot and stick operation which
will allow us to put at risk the efforts of farmers who have to
invest in fertilizers and precursors and their own sweat in
order to produce coca for high dollars. We have to reduce their
return on that effort and that is what the aerial eradication
effort is about.
For the first year, we will be spraying throughout the
country. For the first year, we will have recurrent operations
throughout the country. But, that said, this must be a fair
process. It must spray coca and opium poppy and not legal
crops, and we have taken every effort to do that. There have
been reports that we have sprayed crops and we have where they
are in coca fields, but we have not and we have no record of
verifiable spraying of crops other than crops in coca fields.
Second, there has been a health risk issue. We have tested
this in the United States, we have tested it in Colombia. It
has been under way since 1994 in Colombia. In the proper dose,
it will kill coca and opium poppy, but not rain forest, not
animals, and not persons. It biodegrades quickly in the soil.
There are reports of health hazards to individuals. We have
gone in one instance to Noringo and looked at the individuals
with skin problems and found no record of association, no
record of association between spraying and the skin conditions
of the youngsters who were reported in a sensationalist article
in the Dutch press. We have conducted a similar review in
Putamayo. While that review is not entirely finished, we have
not found an association with the spraying there, either.
We are conducting, nonetheless, a long-term review of this
issue where we will do before and after samples in areas where
we intend to spray in the future in order to be able to
scientifically determine whether or not there is a particular
problem.
But let me say it is important to remember that cutting
rain forest, using fertilizers and herbicides like Paraquat and
precursor chemicals like acetone, potassium permanganate, and
sulfuric acid do far more to damage the environment than aerial
eradication, and it is narcotrafficker dollars that create the
crop demand, not aerial eradication.

prepared statement

Finally, on the human rights issue in Colombia and in the
region, it remains a top item in our agenda of cooperation,
especially in Colombia. Programs have made progress. Trials and
convictions of Colombian military guilty of human rights
abuses, operational excesses in capturing paramilitary members,
leaders and financial supporters are all to the credit of the
government of Colombia, but we and they know more is necessary.
We have programs and we hope to work with you, sir, to do that.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rand Beers
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. I am
pleased to be here today to discuss with you the Department of State's
programs envisioned under the Administration's proposed Andean Regional
Initiative, or ARI.
First, I'd like to provide you background on the origin of the
President's Initiative. In July 2000, Congress approved a $1.3 billion
supplemental appropriation to carry out enhanced counternarcotics
activities in the Andean region. Of that amount, approximately $1
billion in Function 150 funding through the State Department was the
U.S. contribution to what has become known as Plan Colombia, a
comprehensive, integrated, Colombian action plan to address Colombia's
complex and interrelated problems. The initial two-year phase of Plan
Colombia focused on the southern part of the country. It began with an
intensive counternarcotics push into southern Colombia, along with the
expansion of programs aimed at social action and institutional
strengthening, and alternative development. Plan Colombia is now well
underway and showing good early results. In addition to stemming the
flow of narcotics entering the U.S., our assistance is intended to
support institutional and judicial reform, as well as economic
advancement, in one of this hemisphere's oldest democracies.
Members of Congress, the NGO community, and other interested
observers had previously expressed concerns regarding aspects of U.S.
Government support to Plan Colombia. Those concerns focused
particularly on three areas: that we did not consult widely enough in
putting together our support package; that we focused too much on
security and law enforcement, and not enough on development and
institutional reform; and that our assistance was too heavily oriented
toward Colombia as compared to the rest of the region.
The Administration has taken to heart those concerns in formulating
the President's proposed Andean Regional Initiative (ARI). ARI is the
product of consultations with the staffs of committees and Members of
Congress, with the governments of the region, and with other potential
donor countries and international financial institutions. ARI addresses
the three issues that lie at the heart of the challenges facing the
region: democracy, development, and drugs. ARI balances the need to
address the continuing challenges in Colombia with the competing
priority of working with the rest of the region to prevent a further
spreading of Colombia's problems or backsliding in areas where progress
already has been made.
The President has proposed $882 million in Function 150 programs
for the ARI. $731 million of the $882 million in ARI is for the
Department's Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement
Affairs (INL) funding of the Andean Counterdrug Initiative (ACI). The
ARI also includes funding for relevant Economic Support Funds (ESF),
Developmental Assistance (DA), and Child Survival and Disease (CSD)
programs, plus a small amount of Foreign Military Financing (FMF). The
ARI covers programs in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela,
and those areas and programs in Panama and Brazil most affected by the
region's problems and those where our assistance can best make a
difference. In addition to being balanced geographically, our budget
will likewise be balanced programmatically. About 50 percent of the ARI
budget will be devoted to programs focused on development and support
for democratic institutions. Integral to ARI as well are the economic
development and job creation afforded by expanded trade opportunities.
The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) can help the entire region
through increased investment and job creation. More immediately,
renewal and enhancement of the Andean Trade Preferences Act (ATPA) can
provide real alternatives to drug production and trafficking for
farmers and workers desperate for the means to support their families.
Our support to Plan Colombia was the first step in responding to
the crisis underway in Colombia. The Andean Regional Initiative is the
next stage of a long-term effort to address the threat of narcotics and
the underlying causes of the narcotics industry and violence in
Colombia, while assisting Colombia's neighbors to ward off those same
dangers in their own countries. Their success is vital to our own
national interests in promoting the spread of strong democratic
institutions, the enhancement of trade and investment opportunities for
U.S. businesses and workers, and the reduction of narcotics production
and trafficking that threaten our society.
My USAID colleague will describe in detail the status of our
alternative development projects. However, I want to point out that
alternative development is an integral part of our plan for weeding out
illicit coca and poppy cultivation in the Andes. We have had large
alternative development programs in Bolivia and Peru for many years,
and they have been quite successful, combining with aggressive
eradication and interdiction programs to produce significant declines
in the coca crops of those countries. Colombia is trying to replicate
that success in Plan Colombia, combining a substantially expanded
alternative development program with aerial eradication and
interdiction activities in southern Colombia, currently the largest
concentration of coca cultivation in the world.
I am pleased to report that the Department is moving quickly to
implement our support to Plan Colombia. Below, I will discuss delivery
of helicopters, aerial spray aircraft, and other equipment which is
proceeding smoothly. I will also describe our support for the Colombian
Government's aerial spraying program.
I'd then like to discuss the proposal we have submitted in our
fiscal year 2002 budget request for INL's $731 million Andean
Counterdrug Initiative (ACI), as part of the larger $882 million ARI.
This initiative addresses holistically--providing assistance for social
and economic development as well as for counternarcotics and security
efforts--the narcotics scourge throughout the Andean region. We are
hopeful that this macro-approach will eliminate the ``balloon effect''
which we observe when programs are developed country by country.
Finally, I will note our support for the ATPA.
status of spending on plan colombia
In less than one year, the Department has ``committed''
approximately 75 percent of the $1.018 billion two-year Plan Colombia
Supplemental. By ``committed,'' we mean that we have contracted for
equipment or services, signed reimbursable agreements with other
agencies or bureaus within the Department, and contributed to the UN.
Taken together, these ``commitments'' total more than $760 million of
the Supplemental.
status of equipment deliveries
Turning now to our equipment deliveries, I can say that they have
proceeded smoothly, generally adhering to the anticipated schedules.
Some have even been accelerated from their original estimates. As of
July 10, 2001, the status of UH-60, UH-1N, Huey-II and spray planes is
as follows:
COLAR and CNP Black Hawks.--A contract was signed with Sikorsky on
December 15th for 14 Black Hawks for the Colombian Army (COLAR) and two
helicopters for the Colombian National Police (CNP). Specifications for
the aircraft configuration were based on SOUTHCOM recommendations with
input from respective Colombian organizations. Arrangements are being
made for delivery by the end of this month of the two CNP aircraft and
the first COLAR aircraft. Remaining deliveries will be made in
increments through December of this year. The contract includes one
year of contractor logistics support (CLS). We expect to extend this
contract pending availability of fiscal year 2002 funding.
COLAR UH-1Ns.--The UH-1Ns supplied to Colombia earlier continue to
provide air mobility support to the troops of the Counterdrug Brigade.
CNP Huey-IIs.--INL and the CNP agreed to use the $20.6 million CNP
Huey-II and $5 million CNP aircraft upgrade budget lines from the
Supplemental to modify nine additional aircraft to desired
specifications and retrofit 22 of the earlier produced Huey-IIs to
include additional options, such as floor armor and passive infrared
(IR) countermeasures. A delivery order has been issued for four
modifications to be accomplished by U.S. Helicopter (completion
expected approximately August/September), and the other five
modifications will be done by CNP in-country with kits furnished by
INL. (Note: 25 Huey-II helicopters have been delivered to the CNP from
previous fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 funding.)
Colar Huey-IIs.--SOUTHCOM presented their recommendations on the
configuration of the Colar Huey-IIs on February 22nd. An interagency
team then selected a configuration that includes a passive IR engine
exhaust system, floor armor, M60D door guns, secure radios, and a radar
altimeter, along with other standard equipment. We estimate that 25
Huey-IIs modified to this standard, along with individual crew
equipment (NVGs, survival vests, helmets, etc.) and some spares will be
possible within the $60 million line item of the Supplemental
Appropriation. We have established a contract delivery order for the
accomplishment of the initial 20 modifications, with options for
additional aircraft. Work is in progress on these aircraft and we
believe that aircraft deliveries to Colombia can begin by approximately
January 2002.
Additional OV-10D Spray Planes.--Three aircraft are currently
undergoing refurbishment/modification at Patrick Air Force Base and are
expected to be completed in August of this year.
Additional Ayres Turbo-Thrush Spray Planes.--A contract is in place
for nine additional agricultural spray planes. The first aircraft
should be delivered in August, with the balance phased in through
February 2002.
aerial spraying
Plan Colombia-related aerial spray operations began on December 19,
2000, in the southern department of Caqueta and moved into neighboring
Putumayo on December 22. Operations later shifted to the northern and
eastern parts of the country.
Some allege that the glyphosate used in the spray program results
in health side-effects to exposed populations. First, let me stress
that glyphosate is one of the least harmful herbicides available on the
world market. Glyphosate has been the subject of an exhaustive body of
scientific literature which has shown that it is not a health risk to
humans. It is used throughout the United States and over 100 other
countries and has been rigorously tested for safety for animals and
humans. Nonetheless, we feel compelled to probe assertions that it is
making people sick. The Narcotics Affairs Section (NAS), with
assistance from our regional EPA representative in Embassy Lima, is
sponsoring a study on the issue. A NAS-contracted physician--Colombia's
leading toxicologist--completed evaluation and treatment of several
hundred individuals in Putumayo on June 20. His report is not complete,
since the evaluations were so recently done. However, the same
physician completed a similar study in Narino Department in May,
concerning the same types of health problems as alleged in Putumayo,
and found the several cases that he reviewed to be inconsistent with
glyphosate exposure. He also discovered that, in fact, many of the
cases were reported well before any aerial spraying was conducted in
the area.
The timing of spray operations in Putumayo was based on a number of
factors. Some were operational concerns, such as seasonal weather
conditions. The timing of operations was also meant to discourage the
return of an itinerant labor pool (coca leaf pickers or
``raspachines'') who generally spend the December holidays at their
homes in other parts of the country. Importantly, the timing also
corresponded with efforts to recruit communities to enroll in
development programs. While the intent of the Colombian Government to
conduct eradication in southern Colombia was well publicized, coca
growing communities in the region initially showed little interest in
participating in development programs, preferring instead to continue
their illicit activity. Only after those initial spray efforts in
Putumayo, which demonstrated the Government of Colombia's resolve to
address the growing problem of coca cultivation in the region, did
these communities express real interest in abandoning their illegal
activities in exchange for assistance. Funding was already in place for
these programs at the time spray operations began and, as each
community signed up for the program, the process began to tailor
community-specific assistance packages.
Many safeguards are built into the selection of spray targets and
further improvements are constantly being made to the system. And while
the Department of State does not select the spray locations, (those
decisions are made by the Government of Colombia), the Department,
through the Narcotics Affairs Section (NAS) of U.S. Embassy Bogota,
does consult on the selection and supports the Colombian National
Police (CNP) efforts.
According to Colombian law, an Inter-Institutional Technical
Committee (ITC) of Colombian Government officials determines what areas
of the country may or may not be sprayed. The CNP generates quarterly
estimates of the illicit coca crop by flying over coca growing regions
on at least a quarterly basis to search for new growth and to generate
an estimate of the illicit coca crop. This information is reviewed for
accuracy by technical/environmental auditors and is passed on to the
ITC. The Directorate of Dangerous Drugs (DNE) chairs the ITC, which
includes representatives from the Anti-Narcotics Police, Ministry of
the Environment, the National Institute of Health, the National
Institute of Agriculture, the National Plan for Alternative Development
(PLANTE), regional environmental agencies, and technical/environmental
auditors. The CNP notifies the NAS Aviation Office of all decisions as
to which areas may not be sprayed. Spray operations are then
coordinated and conducted in approved areas only.
Generally, reconnaissance flights are conducted over areas
identified by the CNP in their quarterly coca crop estimates. With the
use of SATLOC, an aircraft-mounted global positioning system, these
flights identify the precise geographical coordinates where coca is
being grown. Areas with large concentrations of coca are then plotted,
and a computer program sets up precise flight lines, calibrated for the
width of the spray swath of the spray plane to be used. Once the
Government of Colombia has approved spraying in a given area, spray
pilots then fly down those prescribed flight lines and spray the coca
located there.
Also, every effort is made to protect legitimate farming operations
from possible damage from the aerial spray program. The spray aircraft
apply glyphosate at low altitude against predetermined fields,
identified by earlier reconnaissance. The planes carry computerized GPS
monitoring equipment that records their position and the use of the
spray equipment. This system serves to verify that glyphosate is being
accurately applied to intended areas. After spraying, combined U.S.-
Colombian teams also visit randomly chosen fields, security permitting,
to verify that the treated plants were indeed coca. To further aid in
the identification of fields not subject to aerial eradication, the
government of Colombia is currently working to produce a comprehensive
digitized map indicating exempted areas.
Furthermore, the Government of Colombia maintains a system to
compensate farmers for damages caused by the program. Over the past few
months, we have encouraged the Colombian Government to streamline the
process and efforts have begun to better educate the public about that
option.
Recent field visits encountered evidence that coca growers in
southern Colombia are using dangerous chemicals, such as paraquat. That
is a concern to us as it presents a very real risk to the people of the
region. The traffickers' utter disregard for human health and
environmental security that pervades the illegal drug industry goes
beyond the obvious examples of poisoning millions of drug consumers
with their illegal products. It includes the clear cutting of rain
forest; the contamination of soil and watersheds with acids and
chemical salts; and the exposure of their workers and themselves to
potentially deadly chemicals--all in the name of profit.
For example, the expansion of coca cultivation, production, and
trafficking in Peru, Bolivia, and Colombia has resulted in the
destruction of, at an absolute minimum, 2.4 million hectares of the
fragile tropical forest in the Andean region over the last 20 years. In
addition, the very act of refining raw coca leaves into finished
cocaine creates significant environmental damage because of the
irresponsible disposal of large amounts of toxic chemicals used in the
process. A study conducted by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) in 1993 of cocaine production in the Chapare region of Bolivia
showed that production of one kilo of cocaine base required the use of
three liters of concentrated sulfuric acid, ten kilos of lime, 60 to 80
liters of kerosene, 200 grams of potassium permanganate, and one liter
of concentrated ammonia. Processors discard these poisonous waste
products indiscriminately, often dumping them into the nearest
waterway, where the extent of damage is greatly increased. They also
may dump these chemicals on the ground, where as point sources, they
may infiltrate through the soil to groundwater. A report from the
National Agrarian University in Lima, Peru estimated that as much as
600 million liters of so-called precursor chemicals are used annually
in South America for cocaine production. This translates to more than
two metric tons of chemical waste generated for each hectare of coca
processed to produce cocaine.
These environmental concerns are another reason why we must
continue in our efforts to help the governments of the Andean region in
their ongoing struggle against the narcotics industry.
human rights progress
The Government of Colombia's inability to prevent violence by the
three illegal armed groups (the FARC, ELN, and the paramilitary AUC) is
at the root of Colombia's human rights woes. Despite continuing
institutional weakness, the Pastrana Administration has made a far
greater effort than previous governments to improve the state's human
rights performance. The Government of Colombia has instituted greater
human rights accountability for human rights crimes committed by
military personnel. It has tackled the challenge of severing covert
links between security force personnel and paramilitaries. Recently,
Colombian security forces have scored significant successes against
paramilitaries, shattering armed columns, arresting key leaders, and
targeting major AUC financial backers for investigation. Indeed, these
Colombian successes may have provoked recent AUC internal discord
between those factions advocating retaliation against the Government of
Colombia, and those which prefer to continue the AUC's general practice
of not targeting Colombian troops, police, or officials. AUC leader
Carlos Castano resigned from overall military command of the AUC to
become the co-leader of its political arm, possibly hoping to distance
himself from continuing atrocities by AUC elements.
In spite of some significant recent successes against the
paramilitaries, continued engagement with the Government of Colombia on
paramilitary impunity and other human rights issues is necessary.
Pastrana's appointment of Vice President Gustavo Bell to serve
concurrently as Defense Minister received plaudits from many, including
the U.S. due to Bell's vice presidential experience coordinating
Colombian human rights policy. Still, given his relative inexperience
with military matters, Bell's overall effectiveness remains to be seen.
inl's proposed andean counterdrug initiative (aci)
The Andean region represents a significant challenge and
opportunity for U.S. foreign policy in the next few years. Important
U.S. national interests are at stake. Democracy is under pressure in
all of the countries of the Andes. Economic development is slow and
progress towards liberalization is inconsistent. The Andes produces
virtually all of the world's cocaine, and an increasing amount of
heroin; thus representing a direct threat to our public health and
national security. All of these problems are inter-related. Sluggish
economies produce political unrest that threatens democracy and
provides ready manpower for narcotics traffickers and illegal armed
groups. Weak democratic institutions, corruption and political
instability discourage investment, contribute to slow economic growth
and provide fertile ground for drug traffickers and other outlaw groups
to flourish. The drug trade has a corrupting influence that undermines
democratic institutions, fuels illegal armed groups and distorts the
economy, discouraging legitimate investment. None of the region's
problems can be addressed in isolation.
Of the $882 million Andean Regional Initiative (ARI) request, $731
million is for INL's Andean Counterdrug Initiative (ACI). Our goals in
the Andes are to:
--Promote and support democracy and democratic institutions
--Foster sustainable economic development and trade liberalization
--Significantly reduce the supply of illegal drugs to the U.S. at the
source
Just as Plan Colombia represented an improved approach by
considering drug trafficking as part of Colombia's larger crisis, the
Andean Counterdrug Initiative benefits from its appreciation of the
illegal drug industry as part of something bigger. Drug trafficking is
a problem that does not respect national borders and that both feeds
and feeds upon the other social and economic difficulties with which
the Andean region is struggling.
No nation in the region is free of trafficking or the attendant
ills of other crime forms and corruption. To combat these ills, we
propose a regional versus Colombia-centric policy and a comprehensive
and integrated package that brings together democracy and development
as well as drug initiatives.
For this reason, we plan to allocate almost one-half of the
requested $731 million for this initiative to countries other than
Colombia. In so doing, we intend to bolster the successful efforts and
tremendous progress we have made in counternarcotics in countries such
as Peru and Bolivia, while preventing the further expansion of the drug
trafficking problem into other countries of the region, such as Brazil,
Panama, Venezuela, and Ecuador.
In addition to ensuring regional balance, the ACI also spans all
three of our stated goals--counternarcotics, economic development, and
support for democratic institutions. The full ARI budget of $882
million breaks into an approximately 50/50 split between
counternarcotics and alternative development/institution-building
programs. Its ACI component ($731 million) breaks into a 60/40
(counternarcotics vs. development/democracy) split. $293 million of the
ACI budget will be devoted to programs focused on alternative
development and support for democratic institutions.
All of Colombia's neighbors are worried about the possibility of
``spillover,'' specifically that the pressure applied by the Government
of Colombia (GOC) in southern Colombia will result in the flight of
refugees, guerrillas, paramilitaries, and/or narcotics traffickers
across porous borders into other countries. We will work with the
countries of the region to strengthen their capacity to cope with
potential outflows. In Peru and Bolivia, we will work with those
governments to continue their reductions in coca through a combination
of eradication, interdiction, and alternative development. In all
countries, we will work to strengthen democracy and local institutions
in order to attack trafficking networks which move precursors, money,
fraudulent documents, and people.
Since we believe Plan Colombia will result in major disruption of
the cocaine industry, ACI's regional approach becomes even more of an
imperative. Traffickers will undoubtedly try to relocate as their
operations in southern Colombia are disrupted. We believe they will
first try to migrate to other areas inside Colombia, then try to return
to traditional growing areas in Peru and Bolivia. But if those options
are forestalled, they may well seek to move more cultivation,
processing and/or trafficking routes into other countries such as
Ecuador, Brazil, or Venezuela.
The nations of the region are already heavily committed in all
three of the major areas of concern: democratization, economic
development, and counternarcotics. All devote significant percentages
of their annual budgets to these areas and are willing to work with us
in the design and integration of successful programs. Exact figures are
impossible to come by, but the nations of the region in total are
committing billions of dollars to economic development, democratization
and counternarcotics efforts. For example, Ecuador has established a
Northern Border Initiative to promote better security and development
in the region bordering Colombia. Brazil has launched Operation Cobra,
a law enforcement effort concentrated in the Dog's Head region
bordering Colombia. Bolivia has been attacking drug production through
its Dignity Plan and is developing a comprehensive poverty reduction
strategy. Colombia continues to pursue its commitments under Plan
Colombia. Panama has taken concrete steps to improve security and
development in the Darien region. The new Peruvian Government has made
reform of democratic institutions a national priority, and continues to
pursue aggressively the counternarcotics missions. In Venezuela, local
authorities have cooperated admirably on drug interdiction, exemplified
by last year's record multi-ton seizure during Operation Orinoco.
Programs to provide humanitarian relief for displaced persons, to
help small farmers and low-level coca workers find legitimate
alternatives to the drug trade, and to strengthen governance, the rule
of law, and human rights will also be incorporated into the ACI.
atpa renewal
Renewal of the Andean Trade Preferences Act (ATPA) is perhaps the
single largest short-term contribution to economic growth and
prosperity in the Andes. By renewing the Act and expanding its
benefits, we can continue to provide economic alternatives to narcotics
trafficking in Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia. The Act has
already succeeded in doing so without adverse economic impact for the
United States. The original justification for the legislation still
stands, but it expires at the end of the year, and should clearly be
renewed at the earliest possible date. ATPA renewal would serve to
strengthen the credibility of democratically-elected governments in the
region and provide them with a clear demonstration of the benefits of
continuing to cooperate on counternarcotics. It would also halt a
potentially crippling exodus of U.S. industries that relocated to the
region when ATPA was established.
I appreciate the opportunity you have given me to speak to you
today, and I look forward to responding to questions which Members of
the Committee may have.

Senator Leahy. We will go specifically into that. I also
want to ask you about the spraying, about the Colombian system
for compensating people whose crops have been destroyed,
legitimate ones. We will go into that.
But first, if we could hear from Mr. Deal, and then we will
open up to questions. Mr. Deal.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL DEAL, ACTING SENIOR DEPUTY
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR LATIN
AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN, U.S. AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Deal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. I am pleased to be here to briefly summarize the
U.S. Agency for International Development's role in the Andean
Regional Initiative and progress to date in implementing Plan
Colombia.
USAID's program directly supports a comprehensive
integrated approach to our Andean counterdrug strategy by
balancing the interdiction and eradication efforts of other
agencies with social and economic development assistance. Our
experience demonstrates that no single facet of our counterdrug
program can be successful without the other two being
effectively applied.
The Andean Regional Initiative, like our support for Plan
Colombia, maintains a belief that the problem of drugs and
violence will not be solved in any sustained way unless the
fundamental causes of these problems are also addressed.
Democracy institutions must become stronger, more responsive,
more inclusive, and more transparent. The presence of
government in rural areas must increase and provide better
services to the rural poor and give them a stake in the future
and improve the quality of life.
The justice system must be more accessible and efficient,
must reduce impunity, and the human rights environment must
improve. Unless the problem of widespread corruption is solved
and legal employment opportunities are created to absorb the
high number of unemployed, these fundamental causes and their
effects on the region and on America's national interests will
be with us for a long time to come.
But addressing these tough issues is going to take time.
They will require a sustained commitment and interest on the
part of the U.S. Government.
The Andean Regional Initiative proposes that USAID manage
$390 million in fiscal year 2002 funds. This initiative expands
many of our existing programs in response to the changing
circumstances in the region. USAID assistance will be directed
to three main areas: first, strengthening democracy; second,
economic growth through trade enhancement and poverty
reduction; and third, alternative development.
In order to strengthen democracy in the region, we propose
to commit $59 million in fiscal year 2002. USAID will assist in
court administration and training of judges, institutionalizing
the public defender system, and working with NGO's and other
interested groups to provide greater oversight and
participation in judicial reform.
We are helping human rights groups increase their capacity
to document abuses and monitor individual cases. In Colombia,
our activities are designed to help prevent massacres with the
development of an early warning system. We also have programs
directly aimed at the protection of human rights workers and
union leaders. A $2.5 million program for ex-combatant children
strengthens Colombian initiatives to clarify the legal status
of these children, extend them appropriate treatment, and
provide support for their re-integration into society.
We are and will continue to strengthen local governments by
training mayors and council members. We are working to
strengthen the ability to expose corrupt practices and
investigate and prosecute corrupt officials and, very
importantly, make citizens realize they have the right to
demand accountability from their governments.
The second major area of emphasis for USAID assistance will
be economic growth, trade enhancement, and poverty reduction,
for which we propose $123 million. All of the economies in the
region have struggled over the last few years and continue to
be vulnerable to setbacks. USAID assistance will directly
support the countries' poverty reduction strategies, including
macroeconomic policy and banking reform, employment generation,
support for microenterprise, and trade capacity development.
We will also continue health programs in Peru and Bolivia
and will pay specific attention to education, including an
Andean regional center for excellence for teacher training, as
announced by the President in Quebec at the summit of the
Americas. Protection of their natural resources and helping
rehabilitate environmental damage from coca cultivation will
also receive attention.
Our third and largest area of attention is expanding our
work in alternative development, for which we are proposing
$207 million. After a decade of work in Bolivia and Peru, we
know that alternative development works. In Colombia we are
seeing that the risk of illegal coca production is credible, as
evidenced by the fact that over 24,000 farmers have lined up to
sign coca crop eradication agreements in just the last 3
months.
In Peru and Bolivia, we are concentrating on sustaining the
dramatic advances made in these countries in coca eradication.
We want to help these governments and these farmers withstand
the temptation to slide back into the shadow of narcotics
production.
In Ecuador, USAID will expand two key initiatives along the
northern border with Colombia.

prepared statement

Let me conclude by saying that the Andean Regional
Initiative should be viewed as the national program in each of
the affected countries, responding to their priorities and
problems. They are the ones that are going to have to make this
work. Our role is one of facilitating the process and we will
be working along with them over the next several years in this
effort.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to outline our
programs. I would be pleased to respond to any of your
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Deal
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here
to speak about the U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID)
role in the Administration's proposed Andean Regional Initiative and
progress to date in implementing Plan Colombia.
USAID's program directly supports a comprehensive, integrated
approach to our Andean counter drug strategy by balancing the
interdiction and eradication efforts of other agencies with social and
economic development assistance. Our experience demonstrates that no
single facet of our counter drug program can be successful without the
other two also being effectively applied.
The Andean Region faces a wide range of challenges. There are
growing doubts among significant numbers of the region's populations
whether democratic government can deliver essential services and a
better life. Sluggish economies produce political unrest that threatens
democracy and, in turn, weak democratic institutions; corruption and
political instability discourages investment, and contributes to slow
economic growth. This vicious cycle provides fertile ground for drug
traffickers and other illegal groups to flourish, and forces large
segments of the population to rely on crime, insurgency and the drug
economy to survive.
The Andean Regional Initiative, like our support for Plan Colombia,
maintains a belief that the problems of drugs and violence in the
Andean region will not be solved in any sustained way unless the
fundamental causes of these problems are also addressed. Democratic
institutions in the region must become stronger, more responsive, more
inclusive and more transparent. The presence of governments (both
national and local) in rural areas must increase and provide better
services to the rural poor, and give them a stake in the future, and
improve the quality of life. The justice system must be more accessible
and efficient, must reduce impunity, and the human rights environment
must improve. Unless the problem of widespread corruption is solved,
and legal employment opportunities are created to absorb the high
number of unemployed, these fundamental causes and their effects on the
region and on America's national interests will be with us for a long
time to come.
Helping address these tough social and economic issues is going to
take time. They will require a sustained commitment and interest on the
part of the U.S. Government. The Andean Regional Initiative, which
builds upon the fiscal year 2000 supplemental funding for Plan
Colombia, proposes that USAID manage $390 million in fiscal year 2002
funds. This initiative expands many of our existing programs in
response to the changing circumstances in the region. USAID assistance
will be directed in three main areas: first, strengthening democracy;
second, economic growth through trade enhancement and poverty
reduction; and third, alternative development.
strengthening democracy
In order to strengthen democracy in the region, we propose to
commit $59.3 million in fiscal year 2002. This assistance will help
address the problems of fledgling institutions, political instability
and corruption which lessen popular support for democracy at a time
when most economies are under-performing.
USAID will assist in improving the administration of justice by
helping to make justice systems work, make them more modern and
efficient, more transparent, and more accessible. An independent and
vigorous judicial system is vital to the observance of human rights,
the defeat of narcotics trafficking, and the decrease of white collar
and street crime. Working with the U.S. Department of Justice in
Colombia, for example, we are helping move from an inquisitorial to a
more open, accusatorial judicial process. We are strengthening court
administration and training of judges, institutionalizing the public
defender system, and working with NGOs and other interested groups to
provide greater oversight and participation in judicial reform. Part of
that program provides access to justice for the poor through one stop
legal offices called ``Casas de Justicia'' (Houses of Justice), in the
poorer neighborhoods of major cities. We are doing this now in Colombia
and Peru with very good results. In Colombia, 18 ``Casas de Justicia''
have been established thus far, each hearing 150 cases per day and
using alternative dispute resolution techniques to resolve problems.
We also have a program that is designed to help improve the
observance of human rights which will continue. We are strengthening
human rights institutions and groups, increasing their capacity to
document human rights abuses and monitor individual cases. In Colombia,
our activities are designed to help prevent killings with the
development of an early warning system that works with the human rights
ombudsman and channels information up the line to law enforcement and
the military. We also have programs directly aimed at the protection of
human rights workers and union leaders. In Peru, we will continue to
promote increased observance of human rights through informal
mechanisms for the resolution of disputes, with support to legal
clinics and conciliation centers, which provided assistance for 145,000
cases in 2000.
We are and will continue to strengthen local governments in rural
areas of Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia, and Panama where the lack of
basic institutional and social services has marginalized rural
populations. Where the state is present, it is in the form of an overly
centralized, unresponsive bureaucracy that does not necessarily work or
understand the local interests of a community. Thus, we are training
mayors and council members in identifying and monitoring projects,
setting priorities, and handling financial resources in a more
accountable, transparent way. It is a very important part of bringing
democracy to rural areas. And it is an indispensable part of any
program where local empowerment and ownership of national goals--such
as the war against drug cultivation--will be required to assure the
continued enforcement of agreed upon eradication agreements.
With USAID assistance and through policy dialogue, the
decentralization process in Bolivia helps targeted municipal
governments to develop and carry out action plans in a participatory
fashion, engaging civil society at the local and regional level in the
process. As a result, citizen participation in government has
increased, and municipalities have organized themselves into a
nationwide Federation, with departmental associations and an
association of women council members.
Corruption is another very serious problem. The ongoing corruption
scandal from the Fujimori era in Peru has shaken public confidence in
the government institutions of the country. We will work closely with
the incoming administration to strengthen democratic institutions and
promote good government. Similar problems are being encountered
throughout the region, where we are working to strengthen the ability
to expose corrupt practices and investigate and prosecute corrupt
officials and very importantly, make citizens realize they have the
right to demand accountability from their governments.
social and economic development
The second major area of emphasis for USAID assistance will be
economic growth, trade enhancement and poverty reduction, for which we
propose $123 million in fiscal year 2002 funding. All of the economies
in the region have struggled over the last few years, and continue to
be vulnerable to setbacks. Each of the Andean countries has a large
divide between a small wealthy elite and a large impoverished class,
frequently indigenous in origin. Some lack the mix of policies
necessary to promote growth. Others have constructive policies, but
lack the popular support necessary to sustain them over the long run.
USAID assistance will directly support the poverty reduction
strategies of Ecuador and Bolivia, and will also address macroeconomic
policy and banking reform in Ecuador. After an intense economic crisis
in 1999, recent increases in oil prices have helped Ecuador's economy
and contributed to a successful dollarization that has restored
confidence in the economy. However, important and necessary structural
reforms are still pending, particularly in the banking sector, for a
sustainable recovery. In both countries, our assistance will promote
employment generation and access to private lending capital through
support to microenterprise.
Support for trade capacity development will be strengthened to help
these countries develop WTO consistent trade regimes. The
Administration has endorsed an extension of the Andean Trade Preference
Act and a desire to move aggressively toward creation of a Free Trade
Area for the Americas by January 2005. USAID Administrator Natsios has
consulted with Trade Representative Zoellick as to how we can advance
these trade liberalization measures. Early in June, my staff presented
a range of options for promoting free trade to our Andean country
Mission Directors. We look forward to helping our cooperating
governments analyze their existing trade regimes and prepare themselves
for discussion of competition policy and other issues. We will also
assist cooperating governments in bringing civil society into the
process to ensure, not only that there are economic and social
development benefits from globalization, but that there is also a
broader understanding of those benefits.
We will also continue health programs in Peru and Bolivia, and we
will pay specific attention to education, including an Andean regional
Center for Excellence for teacher training as announced by the
President in Quebec at the Summit of the Americas.
Protection of their natural resources, preserving their unique
ecological diversity, and helping rehabilitate environmental damage
from the use of harsh and persistent chemicals for producing illicit
drugs will also receive attention. Cultivation of illicit crops has a
devastating effect on the environment, both in the high mountains where
poppy is grown and in the lower altitudes where coca is produced. In
both cases, delicate forests are cleared and their fragile soils
degraded by the illegal crop. Even after the coca or poppy is
eliminated, the land remains exposed and environmentally sound
production systems must be adopted for sustainable conversion to
pasture or agriculture. As part of our commitment to the Amazon, we
have encouraged the Government of Colombia's decision to support sound
livestock production systems within alternative development areas. Our
Parks in Peril program extends from Mexico through Colombia, Ecuador,
Peru, and Bolivia, providing practical assistance in protected area
management. Also, we continue to manage local funds created under the
America's Fund and the Tropical Forestry Conservation Act that
underwrite the programs of local environmental NGOs.
alternative development
Our third and largest area of attention is expanding our work in
alternative development for which we are proposing $207.5 million for
fiscal year 2002. We know that alternative development works. After a
decade of work in Bolivia and in Peru, we have seen conclusively that a
three-pronged strategy of eradication, interdiction, and alternative
development has dramatically reduced coca cultivation in both of those
countries. There is nothing as economically profitable as coca. The
incentive to get out of coca on a voluntary basis is not economic.
Rather, it is the threat of involuntary eradication or interdiction
because drug production is illegal. There has to be a credible threat
and a risk of continuing to stay in coca in order for our alternative
development approach to work.
In Colombia, we are seeing that the risk of illegal coca production
is credible, as evidenced by the fact that over 24,000 farmers have
lined up to sign coca crop eradication agreements in just the last
three months. But this is not the only ingredient. Once eradicated,
production has to cease. It cannot be allowed to grow back and farmers
cannot move down the road to replant the same crop. To make elimination
sustainable, farmers have to have credible alternatives and local
governments and organizations have to apply pressure and provide
incentives for the entire community to stay out of illicit production.
Our alternative development approach is basically the same in all
of the Andean countries. Groups of small farmers, communities, or
farmer associations sign agreements with the government, agreeing to
voluntarily reduce their coca crop in exchange for a package of
benefits both at the farmer level and at the community level. At the
farmer level, the benefits help get them involved in legal income-
producing alternatives, and at the community level, the Government
agrees to provide basic infrastructure such as schools, health clinics,
public water systems, and rural roads.
Last year USAID set a target in Colombia for voluntary eradication
of 30,000 hectares of coca and 3,000 hectares of opium poppy within
five years. We have started in the Department of Putumayo, which
presents a particularly challenging situation. Compared to the coca
areas in Peru and Bolivia, the climate is harsher, the soils are
poorer, the access to markets is more difficult, the infrastructure is
not as good, and of course the security situation presents an
additional complication for legitimate agricultural activity. Despite
these challenges, the turnout of farmers who are voluntarily agreeing
to sign these pacts and eradicate coca has been quite promising. Our
pre-Plan Colombia opium poppy eradication program has already
eliminated 675 hectares of poppy and produced 600 hectares of
productive, licit crops benefiting 770 families in the highlands of
Tolima, Huila and Cauca.
In Peru, where coca production has dropped from a high of 129,000
hectares to just over 38,000, we will concentrate our efforts in the
Huallaga valley. Here we intend to put into practice our beliefs that
local ownership of the coca eradication goals and local empowerment to
make decisions regarding the economic and social life of the region
will create the environment to deter a minority from going into, or
back into, coca production. In coca producing valleys, more than 27,000
hectares of crops such as coffee, cacao, palm heart and pineapple have
generated around 10,000 full time jobs. Niche industries and global
link-ups with international groups have been promoted in the chocolate
and specialty coffee areas.
In Bolivia, coca cultivation in the once notorious region of the
Chapare has all but been eliminated. Where once over 44,000 hectares of
coca grew, there are now over 114,000 hectares of licit crops and
pastureland. Last year alone the value of licit crops in this region
exceeded $49 million. Our agricultural programs have enabled Bolivian
products such as bananas, canned palm hearts and dried fruit to enter
the highest quality markets, such as Germany, Switzerland and Chile.
Last year, Chapare exports represented $5.7 million, an increase of 68
percent over the previous year. We intend to consolidate these
successes by providing agricultural services used for coca growers to
other farmers who have not yet benefited from the program but who are
susceptible to offers from drug networks.
In Ecuador, USAID will continue two key border initiatives begun
with Plan Colombia supplemental funding and expand the northern
initiative along the Colombian border. Support will be provided to
community organizations working on land-titling, social and
infrastructure services, income earning activities, integrated farming
activities for indigenous populations, irrigation, potable water and
sanitation projects. Recognizing that support for local initiatives and
institutions can help extend the presence of the state and its
accountability to citizens, we will introduce activities to strengthen
the capacity of local governments both on the southern border, as well
as throughout the country.
Since beginning work in January, Plan Colombia has already began
implementation of 23 projects valued at $5.0 million and benefiting
117,000 people. They include potable water systems, sewers, bridges,
roads, land titling, income generation, and human rights. We have
special programs with indigenous communities in Carchi province and an
innovative approach to assisting the 24,000 Afro-Ecuadorans who live in
northwestern Esmereldas province.
Status of Plan Colombia Implementation
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I would also like to
take a moment to review, specifically, some of our progress in
Colombia. While the task is complex, and even dangerous, and requires
extraordinary coordination among many actors, we are pleased with our
start-up activities and the progress we have made to date.
Because of our close collaboration with international organizations
and NGOs prior to receiving Plan Colombia funds, we were able to sign
$25 million of our displaced person monies almost immediately upon
receiving the funds. By renegotiating certain contracts funded prior to
Plan Colombia, we were able to ``jump start'' the important southern
Colombia elements of the program. Because of the size of other aspects
of the program and the interest of the U.S. private sector, it took
several months to compete and sign our initial contracts. All USAID
commitments to contractors and subcontractors for reintegrating and
resettling internally displaced persons have been made, and to date,
all contractors have mobilized in the field. These efforts have
resulted in tangible successes on the ground
I have already mentioned our successes in opium poppy eradication.
In the Plan Colombia phase of our program, I can report that, as of
June 11th of this year, 29 coca elimination pacts have been signed.
Those pacts are pledges to the Colombian Government by small farm
families to eradicate coca in exchange for short and long term
assistance in substitute production, and these 29 pacts represent
promises to eradicate over 29,000 hectares of illicit coca crops by the
end of next year.
Supporting the program has been our local governance strengthening
effort in southern Colombia. USAID and the 13 municipal mayors of
Putumayo are building schools and laying pipes for potable water. These
social infrastructure activities engage scores of small farmers in
their villages in Southern Colombia, providing many of them with the
first tangible evidence of government concern regarding their economic
and social development. The Government of Colombia is also investing in
Putumayo, paving roads, stringing electric wires, and refurbishing
schools. The Colombian Government has delivered food assistance since
December to 9,800 families in Putumayo.
In democracy strengthening, 6 of 12 planned pilot courtrooms have
been established to demonstrate the efficiency and fairness of oral
trials in helping to move Colombia from an inquisitorial to an
accusatorial judicial system. USAID has supported institutional
development of the national Judicial School, which has trained 3,400
judges in oral advocacy, legal evidence gathering, and courtroom
management procedures. USAID has also worked with NGOs and other civil
society actors to analyze remaining needed reforms, increase coalition
building and support full implementation of the modernization process
in the justice sector.
In our highly successful effort to promote justice through
alternative dispute resolution, 18 of a targeted 40 casas de justicia
or houses of justice have been established. These ``casas'' are
neighborhood judicial centers in underserved communities which bring
together a variety of services in one location, giving residents ``one
stop'' access to legal services.
Protection of human rights workers remains a major concern. In
addition to having selected a long term local contractor to help design
and implement a management information system for the Ministry of the
Interior to monitor abuses and progress, to date 197 individuals have
received some sort of protection from the program. We are pleased to
say that 38 individuals received needed relocation assistance within
Colombia and two were relocated internationally under the program.
We have also made grants to seven human rights NGOs in Colombia
totaling over $575,000 to help improve delivery of human rights
services.
Concerning our efforts to respond to the needs of displaced
persons, we can report that over 176,000 individuals have received or
are receiving direct USAID assistance in the areas of housing,
employment generation, health-care or education. This figure exceeds by
about 70 percent our target of 100,000 individual recipients by this
time--which was considered to be very optimistic during our planning of
this vitally important activity.
USAID also supports a $2.5 million program for Ex-Combatant
Children which strengthens Colombian initiatives in clarifying the
legal status of these children, extend them appropriate treatment and
provides concrete and durable reintegration solutions. In preparation
for a large-scale release of child soldiers by an illegal armed group,
USAID is preparing a network of decentralized organizations to respond
to such a release, as well as to assist individual cases where children
must be rehabilitated after exposure to combat conditions. The Program
aims to benefit directly 800 ex-combatant children through January
2003.
It is important to underscore the enormous commitment that the
Colombians have shown in the various efforts we are supporting. Our
efforts are complemented by $62 million that the Colombian Government
has contributed this year through the sale of government ``peace
bonds'' and an additional ``peace tax''. Major roads within Putamayo
and connecting southern Colombia to national and international markets
are already underway, as are smaller social and infrastructure
projects, such as the Casas de Justicia, health clinics and schools.
There have been problems at times given the need for coordination with
the large number of agencies involved, and the Government of Colombia's
complex procurement procedures, but these were not unexpected and have
not been serious obstacles. When issues have surfaced, we have worked
with the Colombians to improve the process.
I should note the special dedication of the people such as the
Ombudsman's office representatives in the field, who face serious risks
to their own personal safety as well. Their efforts are also supported
by other members of the international community. European donors have
pledged over $300 million to assist Colombia's effort, and the Japanese
have offered $175 million. The World Bank has offered $1.4 billion and
the Interamerican Development Bank has offered $1.7 billion in loans.
Let me conclude by saying that just as in Colombia, the Andean
Regional Initiative should be viewed as the national program in each of
the affected countries, responding to their priorities and problems.
They are the ones that are going to have to make this work. Our role is
one of facilitating the process, and we will be working along with them
over the next several years in this effort.

Senator Leahy. Thank you very much.
Let me begin with a few questions. I am trying to make sure
we have time for everybody. I should also note, normal
procedure, the record will stay open just in case other
Senators have questions for the record. Also, after you see the
transcript of your own responses if you realize there are
things you left out or want to add to, you can certainly feel
free to do it.
Secretary Beers, you have had the assignment of looking
into the April 20 shootdown of the missionaries' plane in Peru.
That was the one, you know of course, but others will recall,
where a mother and a young child, wife of a missionary, were
killed. Now, the Peruvian officials said in their comments that
procedures were followed, as they said, ``to the letter'' by
the pilot.
If the procedures were followed to the letter, certainly as
a layman I look at that and wonder what in heaven's name those
procedures are. Were the procedures adequate or did they not
follow adequate procedures? Is it true that the Peruvian pilot
strafed the survivors when they were clinging to the burning
wreckage? Obviously they are not going to go anywhere. The
plane has crashed, it is burning, it is in the Amazon River.
Are the reports true that the Peruvians then came down and
strafed the people on the ground?
Mr. Beers. Sir, with respect to the second question, no,
that is not true. There was a mistaken report that came out
that there was strafing by the Peruvians after the plane was in
the water burning. That did not happen.
With respect to the larger issue which you ask regarding
this very, very horrible tragedy, I am currently under an
injunction not to disclose the results of our investigation
pending the completion of the full review which is currently
under way within the administration.
Senator Leahy. When do you think that will be completed?
Mr. Beers. In talking with the individual who is managing
the remainder of the review, his intention is to complete it by
the end, by the latter half of this month and have it go to
senior levels of the U.S. government for final decision as to
whether or not the programs with appropriate safeguards in both
Peru and Colombia ought to be re-initiated or not.
The report on what happened in this particular incident is
a central element of that particular study and that is why I
have been asked to remain silent.
Senator Leahy. You understand this committee will request
the report when it is completed?
Mr. Beers. Sir, we will brief you as quickly as we possibly
can. I have made that pledge to your staff and other committee
staffs in other committees. We intend to fully brief that.
Senator Leahy. I understand the injunction you are under
and I respect it, but just so everybody understands, once it is
completed we will be asking the questions.
Last year we appropriated $19.5 million for support of the
Colombia air interdiction program. Could I ask you this. Are
the procedures in Colombia different from the aerial
interdiction procedures in Peru?
Mr. Beers. That is another element of this report, which I
myself did not do. I can say as a general proposition they are
similar, but they are not the same. That is the heart of the
larger investigation, which is to look at both Colombian
procedures and Peruvian procedures to ensure whether or not
they are adequate and whether the risk of proceeding with them
is sufficiently small that this government and those
governments are ready to proceed.
Senator Leahy. Do you know how much of that $19.5 million
has been spent?
Mr. Beers. No, sir, I do not have that figure, but I can
get that for the record.
[The information follows:]

In less than one year, the Department has ``committed''
approximately 75 percent of the $1.018 billion two-year Plan Colombia
Supplemental. By ``committed,'' we mean that we have contracted for
equipment or services, signed reimbursable agreements with other
agencies or bureaus within the Department, and contributed to the U.N.
Taken together, these ``commitments'' total more than $760M of the
Supplemental.
$12,494,949 of the $19.5M appropriated for support of the Colombia
Air Interdiction program has been committed. This includes purchase
orders and contracts for FLIRs for Schweizers and C-26's; maintenance
and spares for aircraft; upgrades of 13 Colombian Air Force
helicopters; and other air maintenance support and spares.
In addition:
--$59,700,000 of the $81M appropriated for ``Support for Alternative
and Economic Development in Colombia,'' has been committed.
--INL transferred all of the $30M appropriated for ``Voluntary
Eradication Programs'' to USAID.
--INL transferred $19.5M of the $22.5M appropriated for ``Assistance
for Internally Displaced Persons'' to USAID. INL provided the
remaining $3M to the Bureau of Population, Refugees and
Migration.
--$111,583,882 of the $122M appropriated for ``Support for Human
Rights and Judicial Reform in Colombia'' has been committed.
--$108,548,715 of the $180M appropriated for ``Regional Programs''
has been committed.

AS OF JUNE 15, 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriated Committed Uncommitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Push into Southern Colombia..................................... $390,500,000 $343,539,363 $46,960,637
Interdiction Efforts............................................ 129,400,000 64,742,698 64,657,302
Colombian National Police....................................... 115,600,000 74,290,061 41,309,939
Alternative & Economic Development.............................. 81,000,000 59,700,000 21,300,000
Human Rights & Judicial Reform.................................. 122,000,000 111,583,882 10,416,118
Regional........................................................ 180,000,000 108,548,715 71,451,285
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 1,018,500,000 762,404,719 256,095,281
===============================================
Percent......................................................... .............. 74.9 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Last year we appropriated $390 million for the push into
southern Colombia. $208 million of that was for Blackhawk
helicopters. How much of that $390 million has been disbursed?
Mr. Beers. In terms of disbursal, I will have to get you
the precise amount of that figure, sir. The money has been
obligated, but not all of it has been disbursed.
[The information follows:]

$343,539,363 of the $390.5M appropriated for the ``Push into
Southern Colombia'' has been committed. The entire $208M appropriated
for UH-60 Black Hawks has been committed and put into contracts by DOD
for the purchase of the Black Hawks. All money has been committed, but
not all has been disbursed.

Senator Leahy. We appropriated $129 million for support for
interdiction efforts, with $68 million to upgrade U.S. Customs
Service P-3 aircraft radar systems. Do you know how much of
that $129 million has been disbursed?
Mr. Beers. No, I will have to get you that figure also,
sir.
[The information follows:]

$64,742,698 of the $129.4M appropriated for ``Interdiction
Efforts'' has been committed.
As of March 31, $17.3M of the $68M to upgrade U.S. Customs Service
P-3 aircraft radar systems has been committed.

Senator Leahy. We appropriated $115.6 million for support
for the Colombian National Police, of which $20.6 million is to
upgrade 12 UH-1H helicopters. Do you know how much of that
$115.6 million has been disbursed?
Mr. Beers. I will have to submit that for the record also,
sir.
[The information follows:]

$74,290,061 of the $115.6M appropriated for ``Support for Colombian
National Police'' has been committed.
The entire $26M appropriated for CNP Black Hawk Procurement and
Support has been committed and put into contracts by DOD for the
purchase of the Black Hawks. All money has been committed, but not all
has been disbursed.
$17,339,140 of the $20.6M appropriated for ``Upgrade to Huey II
Configuration'' for the CNP has been committed and disbursed.

Senator Leahy. Of the entire $1.3 billion that we
appropriated last year, only $81 million of that was for
alternative and economic development. Of that $81 million, $30
million was for voluntary eradication programs to assist coca
farmers who voluntarily destroy their coca plants. Do you know
how many coca farmers have volunteered for this program?
Mr. Beers. It is my understanding at this point in time
29,000 farm families have volunteered for this program.
Senator Leahy. How many families have actually benefited
from it?
Mr. Beers. Mike? I do not know the answer to that.
Mr. Deal. To this date, of those families that have signed
the pacts, approximately 1800 families have begun to receive
the assistance, including tools and seeds and farm animals.
Another 10,000 families in Putamayo have received emergency
food assistance.
Senator Leahy. Well, Mr. Deal, how much of the $30 million
has been spent?
Mr. Deal. I will have to provide that for the record as
well. Our data is good as of March 31. We are trying to get
June 30 data for you.
[The information follows:]

PLAN COLOMBIA SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION, ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT,
CUMULATIVE EXPENDITURES THROUGH JUNE 30, 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obligated Expended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Licit Economic Production............... $40,000,000 ..............
Environmental Management................ 2,500,000 ..............
-------------------------------
Total............................. 42,500,000 $249,808
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senator Leahy. Only a small amount actually seems to be
directly to help the people, the farmers and others. $22.5
million was appropriated for assistance to internally displaced
persons. How many people are internally displaced?
Mr. Deal. Our assistance has gone to help approximately
176,000 internally displaced persons thus far. Our target under
assistance is to reach 250,000 people altogether.
Senator Leahy. Mr. Vivanco's written testimony says 319,000
have been displaced. Does that figure seem accurate to you?
Mr. Deal. I cannot----
Senator Leahy. Well, check it for the record and get back
to us on that.
[The information follows:]
Internally Displaced Persons
There is no reliable official estimate, but it is generally
accepted that at least 1.2 million persons have become internally
displaced due to violence since 1991. In 2000, approximately 225,000
persons, mostly from rural areas, are estimated to have left their
homes seeking safer conditions.

Senator Leahy. Do you know how much of the $22 million for
internally displaced persons has been spent?
Mr. Deal. We signed up five grants back in September. I am
sorry, I do not have a specific figure as to what has been
spent to date. We are ahead of our schedule. We are about 60
percent ahead of where we expected to be in assistance for
internally displaced persons at this point.
Senator Leahy. Does that include the $10 million
appropriated for community level alternative development?
Mr. Deal. No, it does not.
Senator Leahy. Will you give me figures on that, how much
of that has been spent and on whom it has been spent?
Mr. Deal. Yes, we will.
[The information follows:]
Internally Displaced Persons Expenditures
USAID states for the record that an agreement has been reached with
the organizations that have received funds under the Plan Colombia
supplemental, that the names of the organizations will not be used in
public. This agreement reflects the difficult security conditions under
which the organizations carry out their work.

Plan Colombia Supplemental Appropriation, Internally Displaced Persons,
Cumulative Expenditures through June 30, 2001

Total grant............................................. $30,000,000
Expenditures............................................ 6,468,284

Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Senator McConnell.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to ask some questions about DynCorp, which has been
awarded the contract for aerial spraying in Colombia. As you
know, aircraft used in spraying operations have been shot at
and hit by guerrillas guarding their coca fields. American
pilots are flying some of these missions.
First, in what danger is DynCorp placing its contractors
and is it conceivable that an American pilot may be shot down
and captured by narcotraffickers or insurgents?
Mr. Beers. Sir, with respect to the aerial eradication
effort, there is without question the risk. There have been
planes which have been hit. Fortunately, we have not yet had a
plane which has been shot down.
In order to ameliorate that risk both for the DynCorp
employees and the Colombian National Police employees what fly
these aircraft, we undertake a survey of the areas that we
intend to spray. We overlay those areas against known
concentrations of insurgent activity. We plan those missions so
that the pilots know where they are going on any given day. We
do not go back to the same area on a given day. In fact, we
generally wait at least a week before we go back even into the
vicinity of where we have sprayed before.
Our patterns of aerial eradication are designed in a
relatively random fashion in order that they are not
predictable. That obviously does not remove the risk, but we
have found that it substantially reduces the risk.
With respect to flying in the hot zone, if you want to call
it that, in Putamayo, in addition to all of this planning, the
Colombian military has put forces on the ground in the vicinity
where those operations were to be conducted and during that
particular phase there were no aircraft that were shot at when
there were Colombian ground troops in the area.
Senator McConnell. What would be the administration's
response to a shootdown involving a U.S. citizen?
Mr. Beers. Involving a U.S. citizen? The first thing we
would do if a U.S. citizen were shot down is what anyone would
do, which is to go in and recover the individuals that were
involved, if they were in need of medical assistance to provide
that, if they were killed to remove the bodies and get them
back to the families.
Senator McConnell. Let me ask you, what do you consider
acceptable risks for Americans on the front lines of Plan
Colombia, whether they are contractor pilots or U.S. soldiers
training counterdrug battalions?
Mr. Beers. Sir, with respect to acceptable risk, it is our
policy to have as little risk as possible and to do everything
possible to prevent any risk. But I cannot in any way tell you
that there is no risk. There is a risk in the air and there is
a risk on the ground. There is a risk for any U.S. officials
anywhere in Colombia and we cannot deny that.
Senator McConnell. What is the status of the DynCorp
training program for Colombian pilots and when do you expect
Colombian pilots to be in the cockpits of all spraying
aircraft?
Mr. Beers. We have currently under contract a significant
increase in the number of spray aircraft that will be available
for use in Colombia, moving from 11 to 23 by the beginning of
the next calendar year. Our first objective is that there will
be only Colombian pilots in all of the new cockpits that are
provided.
Senator McConnell. By when?
Mr. Beers. As they come on line. That is, we will not add
U.S. pilots to the cockpits of the new spray aircraft that are
coming on line. So our first objective is to put Colombian
pilots in the new aircraft, and we will then go back and
replace----
Senator McConnell. Let me try again. At what point in the
future do you expect only Colombian pilots to be making these
flights?
Mr. Beers. At this particular point in time, sir, it is
some time around the end of calendar year 2002.
Senator McConnell. A May 29 Washington Post article
detailed abuses by DynCorp contractors in the International
Police Task Force program in Bosnia. What steps are being taken
to prevent similar abuses by DynCorp contractors in Colombia?
Mr. Beers. The program of work with DynCorp has very strict
guidelines about misconduct and it is the policy of this aspect
of the DynCorp contract, as in Bosnia, to upon substantiation
of the allegations of misconduct to remove the individuals from
the program and from the country.
Senator McConnell. I am not going to ask you to list them
today, but I would like to know all the contracts that were
awarded to DynCorp by the Bureau of International Narcotics and
Law Enforcement Affairs. Please submit that list for the
record.
Mr. Beers. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]

INL has three contracts with DynCorp as follows:
1. For support services of pilots, mechanics and administrative
support personnel for the Colombian National Police. Base year contract
with two option years. Base year was $4.5M. First option year which
began on July 1, 2001 is estimated at $6.7M. Second option year is
estimated at $7M.
2. Air Wing contract with DynCorp provides aviation support
services for INL's Office of Aviation in support of counternarcotics
programs. These services are in association with aerial eradication,
training, interdiction support, aircraft maintenance, logistics and
other activities occurring in Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, other temporary
deployment sites, and a supporting main base at Patrick AFB, Florida.
The value of the contract for the current contract year is $53.99M.
3. CivPol contract with DynCorp funds recruitment, training,
equipment, salaries, and field support for American police
participation in civilian police components of international
peacekeeping missions, and support for local police development, in
Bosnia, Kosovo, and East Timor. The estimated annual cost for these
activities at current levels, including approximately 850 police, is
$95M.

Senator McConnell. Let me go back to the hypothetical I was
raising again about the possibility of a U.S. citizen being
captured. Who would go to the rescue if an American citizen
were captured?
Mr. Beers. Sir, I am not in a position to tell you who
would go to the rescue of a U.S. citizen. At that time we would
have to make that decision based on the knowledge of what is at
that particular time.
Senator McConnell. And if the FARC were to take a U.S.
pilot prisoner, how would we respond?
Mr. Beers. That same condition would prevail in that
situation, sir, just as we have tried to defend American
citizens who have been kidnapped by the FARC as a general
proposition, whether they are government or nongovernmental
individuals.
Senator McConnell. At the rate we are going, I think I
heard you say a minute ago we will not have 100 percent
Colombian pilots until the end of next year.
Mr. Beers. That is correct. But if I could clarify that for
just a minute. When we talk about the number of U.S. pilots in
cockpits that are flying in Colombia as a proportion of the
aircraft which we are providing to the government of Colombia,
we are talking at this particular point in time of a fleet of
six OV-10 aircraft out of currently 11 spray planes and 33 UH-1
helicopters in the military and over 50 helicopters in the
Colombian National Police, as well as fixed wing aircraft, all
of which we support, all of which we help them maintain and
fly.
So while I do not mean to diminish the risk to Americans
and our effort to remove Americans from that risk, it is not a
large proportion of the program.
Senator McConnell. Well, I see my time in this round is up.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I will just maybe proceed with additional questions along
the line that Senator McConnell was asking. You said this
aircraft, of the planes that we provided--these are all unarmed
airplanes?
Mr. Beers. No, sir. They are armed with defensive armaments
in the case of the helicopters. The spray aircraft are not
armed, sir.
Senator Campbell. I am not a scientist and I do not know
much about some of the stuff that is sprayed, but I read your
testimony, Mr. Deal's testimony and yours too, Mr. Beers. This
chemical called glyphosate----
Mr. Beers. Yes, sir.
Senator Campbell [continuing]. Your statement said is not
harmful to humans. Maybe it is not. I do not know anything
about this stuff. But I can remember for 20 years the military
said the same thing about Agent Orange in Vietnam until some
undeniable studies were done, independent studies that proved
in fact it was harmful.
How does this stuff differ and what does it do? Does it
just defoliate?
Mr. Beers. Yes, sir. Glyphosate is an herbicide which is
commonly used in the United States and a number of countries
around the world, including Colombia. It has been tested in
this country and certified by EPA twice, once in the seventies
and once in the nineties. It has been tested in Colombia and
used there since 1994.
What it does in the dosage in which it is delivered--and it
is essential to deliver it in an appropriate dosage. Obviously,
as a material, if you were handling the raw substance in
concentrated form it would be harmful and people who do that
wear gloves and coveralls and things like that in order to
protect themselves.
But it is then put in terms of a solution into a larger
amount of water, and there are some other additives which help
stabilize and disperse it within that. So that on an acre of
land we are probably distributing about three and a quarter
gallons. On a square meter of land, in terms of the herbicide
itself it is probably about a milliliter of that.
Senator Campbell. Does it kill everything else, too?
Mr. Beers. It will kill plants of the coca bush variety or
less substantial plants. It will not--it will defoliate, but it
will not kill rain forest. The rain forest root systems are
substantial enough that by and large those plants, if there is
an overspray, will refoliate.
In terms of what happens to it when it hits, it takes about
24 hours without being washed off for the defoliant to in fact
affect the root system and begin to kill the plant. you can
replant in that field in about 48 hours after the spray in
terms of coming forth with another kind of crop if that is what
you wish to do. So it biodegrades in the soil fairly quickly.
That said, with all of these tests, we are committed to
continuing to test the safety of this product within Colombia,
within this program. But interestingly enough, 90 percent of
the glyphosate used in Colombia is used in commercial
agriculture.
Senator Campbell. Thanks. Let me move on to a couple of
others before my time runs out.
What other countries are making either material or
financial contributions to the Andean initiative?
Mr. Beers. In terms of----
Senator Campbell. Colombia is and Bolivia is in their own
countries.
Mr. Beers. Yes, sir.
Senator Campbell. But are there other?
Mr. Beers. Internationally, outside of the region? The
Inter-American Development Bank, the European Union, the U.K.,
Spain, and there are some smaller amounts from other countries.
In terms of the total amount, I will submit for the record the
current up to date list of what we believe those contributions
are.
[The information follows:]

Total EU, European bilateral, Canadian and Japanese programs, and
UN support, totals $550-600M. Over half comes from just the EU, Spain
and Japan. While some programs are underway or nearly so, the majority
of EU and bilateral programs are still in the planning stages. The
following list is our best compilation, taken from all available
sources, including the EU, IDB, local embassies, the Government of
Colombia and post reporting.
international support for colombia
$175.0M--Japan.--($100M in soft loans and credits for small banks
to support crop substitution, not yet drawn down; $70M in yen loans for
an irrigation project which is underway; and $5M grant to international
organizations involved in humanitarian relief and economic development)
$131.0M--United Nations.--(The U.N. counts its normal operating
budget for 17 agencies carrying out programs in Colombia)
$100.0M--Spain.--(mixed credit and grant 70/30, planning for $10M
of this for small business loans already advanced)
$95.0M--European Union.--(E105M, for programs 2001-2006; EU has
sent study teams to Colombia to determine spending. Another $9M
possibly available under ECHO program for humanitarian aid)
$40.0M--Canada.--(Our records show $10.0M, GOC says $40M grant from
Bogota conference but no further info)
$25.5M--Sweden.--(grant, IDB reports $9.5M; Stockholm says $6M for
human rights, civil society, and peace negotiations. Washington embassy
says $20M for 2001-2003 and willing to increase to $30M if conditions
warrant; GOC counts $25.5M)
$24.0M--Netherlands.--(grant 3 years)
$20.0M--Norway.--(grant, 2000-2002)
$18.0M--France.--(E20M to be disbursed on a project by project
basis; three-fourths education, cultural and one-fourth on crop
substitution, rule of law)
$18.0M--Germany.--(grant)
$15.0M--Italy.--($5M grant, $10M loan)
$12.0M--Switzerland.--(grant, peace process, humanitarian aid over
next 3 years)
$1.8M--UK.--(grant, does not include projections of $5.9M for
bilateral programs, $1.65M to EU programs and expected $570,000 per
year to NGOs. Not clear what IDB figure of $1.8M represents)
$9.0M--Belgium.--(E10M, all channeled to NGOs)
$4.0M--Finland.--(grants)
$0.66M--Austria.--(Brussels, grant, not confirmed)
$0.45M--Ireland.--(grant)
$.25M--Portugal.--(grant)
$6.5B--International Financial Institutions.--$2.7B from the IMF;
$1.7B from the IDB; $1.4B from the World Bank and $700M from the Andean
Development Corporation
Of these funds, the GOC intends to allocate $900M to Plan Colombia
programs for social development projects such as employment creation,
support for poor families and youth job training. Reportedly,
agreements have already been signed for over $550M. (Note that the
Colombians count this as part of their contribution. In order to avoid
double counting, we acknowledge IFI programs, but include it below as
part of the GOC contribution.)
government of colombia contributions
The $4.5B Colombia input consists of three elements:
--approximately $3 billion from the GOC's normal revenues, i.e.
income tax, value added tax, customs duties, etc.
--$900M in new loans from international financial institutions
(IFI's).
--$600M from mandatory internal ``Peace Bonds''.

Senator Campbell. I would like to see that. Mr. Chairman,
just by chance we just returned the day before yesterday, 16
House Members and 3 of us from the Senate side, from the OSCE
in France. One of the big things that generated a lot of
resolutions this year, it is the Helsinki Commission, was based
on international crime which was related to the drug flow, and
a lot of that drug flow in Europe originates in Colombia and
Bolivia, too.
I would be interested in knowing that, what contributions
they make, too.
Mr. Beers. Yes, sir.
Senator Campbell. Maybe a last question, too. Mr. Deal, in
your comments you talked about the number of farmers that have
lined up to sign these coca crop eradication agreements and
that we give them some benefits. Do the benefits provided mean
we are helping them with alternative crops? I did notice later
in your comments you talked about bananas and coffee and
pineapple and some other things that are being planted.
Mr. Deal. That is correct.
Senator Campbell. We provide the expertise, the seed, the
whatever?
Mr. Deal. Yes, we provide assistance in alternative crops,
also in marketing assistance. For example, there has been a
heart of palm plant that was recently opened with our support.
Senator Campbell. Well, I guess that is what I was getting
to, that if you do provide that what do they do with it after
they grow it, if you were providing some mechanism in which
they could market. But that is all part of the deal?
Mr. Deal. That is correct.
Senator Campbell. Do you do that through coops or
individually help with the farmers, or how?
Mr. Deal. Yes, we do that through both mechanisms, working
with the communities. To the extent that coops can be formed,
that will certainly be one of the mechanisms. At this time
there are very few coops in that region, but that is envisioned
as one of the options to improve their marketing.
Also, the government of Colombia is working to improve the
road system, to improve the marketing ability of products from
that region.
Senator Campbell. You also in your comments mention the
number of hectares that have been taken out of production. I do
not suppose you have any way of knowing how many new hectares
have been put into production someplace else?
Mr. Deal. No, I am sorry, I do not have that information.
Mr. Beers. Sir, we normally get that information at the end
of the calendar--well, in the first quarter of the next
calendar year for the preceding calendar year. That is, new
cultivation versus cultivation taken out of production.
Senator Campbell. When you get that could you provide that
for the committee?
Mr. Beers. Yes, sir.
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no
further questions.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Senator Campbell, you raised a very good point on the
discussion with the Europeans. I understand the EU has made a
lot of pledges on helping Plan Colombia, but have they actually
contributed anything?
Mr. Beers. No, sir.
Senator Leahy. Or is this a case of the check is in the
mail or something?
Mr. Beers. Yes, sir.
Senator Leahy. I thought so.
Senator Campbell. What is new.
Senator Leahy. Mr. Deal, last year we appropriated $122
million, I believe it was, for human rights and judicial reform
programs in Colombia. Now, $4 million of that was for the
protection of human rights workers. Another $10 million was for
the security of witnesses and judges in human rights cases. How
much has been spent and have any of the people responsible for
ordering the killings of human rights workers been prosecuted?
Mr. Deal. I do not have information on the second question.
With respect to the first, I do not have a specific figure of
what has been spent. We have provided grants to seven human
rights NGOs for a total of approximately $575,000. The
witnesses and judge protection program that you mentioned is a
program managed by the Department of Justice.
[The information follows:]

HUMAN RIGHTS EXPENDITURES--PLAN COLOMBIA SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION--
DEMOCRACY
[Cumulative expenditures through June 30, 2001]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total grant Expenditures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration of Justice............... $8,000,000 ..............
Anticorruption.......................... 3,000,000 ..............
Human rights--Protection of Human Rights 4,000,000 ..............
Workers................................
NGO Support--Early Warning System....... 11,000,000 ..............
Local Government Strengthening.......... 22,000,000 ..............
Conflict Management..................... 3,000,000 ..............
-------------------------------
Total............................. 47,000,000 $1,534,693
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senator Leahy. Let us see if we can get some figures on
that. We provided $7 million to strengthen human rights
institutions. Mr. Vivanco's written testimony says the only
U.S. assistance the attorney general's human rights unit has
received so far was to send prosecutors to the United States to
learn about our justice system. Is that correct?
Mr. Beers. No, sir. That is an accurate reflection of one
of the instances of training, but in terms of the overall
training program we have begun training a series of satellite
human rights units which involve both investigators and
fiscales around the country. Cali, Naeva, Villa Vicenzio were
three of the first four that were trained.
We have also been training instructors for a larger
training program.
Senator Leahy. These are under the attorney general's
office in Colombia?
Mr. Beers. These are in combination between the ministry of
justice and the fiscale general there. There is also a
forensics, a series of forensics courses that have had at least
two different training courses; and we are now in the process
of setting up those four satellite offices in each of the
locations that they will be set up in.
Senator Leahy. So how many units are presently set up? Are
any human rights units presently set up or is it these four
that are going to be set up?
Mr. Beers. Delivery is expected on 18 July to the two units
that are in Cali and on 25 July to the two units in Via
Vicenzia and Naeva. The units are there. The office equipment
and support is on the way.
Senator Leahy. Do they have some way of getting to the--I
understand that these atrocities that happen are often in rural
areas. Sometimes the only way of getting there with any kind of
speed is by helicopters. Do they have any ability to call on
that kind of help?
Mr. Beers. They have the ability----
Senator Leahy. I am talking about getting there before all
the evidence is gone.
Mr. Beers. I understand, sir. There are normally fiscales
accompanying--not necessarily from this unit--accompanying
operations, both counternarcotics and military operations, if
there is evidence to be taken. What we have not succeeded in
finalizing yet is a specific arrangement that would also ensure
that these human rights advocates are able to move as freely in
the country.
I know it is a concern of yours and we are trying to
finalize that arrangement with the military and the police to
ensure that they can go anywhere they need to go in a timely
fashion.
Senator Leahy. As kind of a side note, is the U.S.
Government paying a Washington, D.C., public relations firm to
advise the Colombian ministry of defense or any U.S. public
relations firm to advise them? Do either of you two gentlemen
know?
Mr. Beers. I know of that contract relationship. To the
best of my knowledge, the U.S. Government is not paying that
contract relationship.
Senator Leahy. So it is not coming either directly----
Mr. Beers. It is not coming out of our money, not coming
out.
Senator Leahy. It is not coming out of this AID money, Mr.
Deal?
Mr. Deal. No, it is not.
Mr. Beers. No, it is not our money.
Senator Leahy. Is there one being paid by somebody?
Mr. Beers. Sir, I do not want to label anybody as
responsible, but, as you know, we are not the only pot of money
that is going to Colombia. There are other agencies.
Senator Leahy. It is quite a big pot. That is why I am
asking some of the specifics about where the money is going,
and I am hoping I can get some of the answers back, because I
suspect that it has at least freed up enough money so that some
money can go to pay a public relations firm.
Mr. Beers. Sir, I cannot argue with your point that at some
level there is a fungibility issue here. May I comment
specifically on what that firm is doing, however?
Senator Leahy. Sure.
Mr. Beers. The intent of that firm, at least the contract
that I am aware of is for the purpose of advising the ministry
of defense with how to deal with issues concerning human rights
in the public affairs arena, not to cover over them, but to get
information out in a timely and transparent fashion.
Senator Leahy. Let me talk to you a little bit about that,
then, because I have, along with a lot of others here,
discussed the paramilitary problems with President Pastrana and
the Colombian foreign minister, Army General Tapias, and a
number of others down there. But yet we find the number of the
paramilitaries has doubled in the past couple of years, the
number of atrocities have exceeded any previous year. The State
Department reports the paramilitaries have a ready support base
within the military and the police.
Now, I am told that everybody wants to make it better, but
it seems to keep getting worse. We are told that the Pastrana
administration has not moved aggressively to acknowledge
military-paramilitary collaboration. Last year the
administration, the previous administration, supported waiving
the human rights conditions on Plan Colombia.
I wonder, do you really think if we have less pressure from
the U.S. Congress on human rights that we are going to have an
improvement in the paramilitary situation? It seems that we
bring pressure, people say all the right things, some of them
maybe through this PR company, but the paramilitaries increase,
the atrocities increase, we waive the human rights conditions
on Plan Colombia, nothing gets better.
Why should we, in this new legislation, why should we
remove those conditions?
Mr. Beers. Sir, as a general matter this administration and
I believe previous administrations which I have also
represented are generally opposed to conditions on assistance.
Having said that, we are certainly prepared to work with you in
the Congress in order to produce an effective and forceful
human rights program, to make clear to the government of
Colombia, to the Colombian military, that we are serious about
these issues, and that progress in these areas is absolutely
essential to the continuation of our public and financial
support for their efforts.
I am not attempting to apologize for the Colombian military
and your remarks about the paramilitaries are certainly true in
terms of their increases. But I think it is also fair to say
that over the course of the last several months the efforts on
the part of the Colombian military and police to go after the
paramilitaries have increased and that something is going on
within the paramilitaries that has caused the split between the
former head, Carlos Castana, and the rest of his organization,
that has caused him to stand down and move off into another
area within that organization as opposed to being the leader.
I am not in any way attempting to claim victory, but I am,
I think, saying that we see some progress and we want to
continue to work with a solid engagement with the government of
Colombia to move this issue forward favorably.
Senator Leahy. My time has expired. I am going to follow up
on this, as you can well imagine.
Senator Specter.

Opening statement of Senator Arlen Specter

Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Beers, when the $1.3 billion package was before the
subcommittee last year and then the full committee and the
Senate, I opposed it because of my concerns that,
notwithstanding all of the money we have put into Colombia,
that we have not seen tangible results.
I admire what President Pastrana is trying to do. I have
made many trips to Colombia and the neighboring countries,
going back 15 years into the mid-1980's. I sponsored the first
legislation on use of military for interdiction. But when we
have an imbalance of about $2 for enforcement for the so-called
supply side to try to discourage production of drugs, stop the
importation into the United States, for every $1 on
rehabilitation and education, it would seem to me that we have
not been getting the value for the dollar.
My question to you is what evidence is there of value to
the United States in ameliorating our drug problem with the
$1.3 billion we appropriated last year?
Mr. Beers. Sir, first let me say, as I said to Senator
Leahy at the beginning, I think everybody who sits on this side
of a Congressional hearing who speaks on the drug issue is in
full agreement that we also need to support the demand
reduction program. I only speak for the supply side.
Senator Specter. But how about a better proportion? I have
been fighting for two decades for a 50-50 split, which I think
would be minimal, since rehabilitation and education has held
some real promise, whereas the efforts to reduce the supply
side--I think we have to maintain drug enforcement on the
streets. I did that as Philadelphia's DA.
But come to the question of what have we gotten for our
$1.3 billion.
Mr. Beers. Sir, with respect to that, in terms of the
activities to date, we have conducted spray operations in
Colombia which have sprayed approximately 50,000 hectares. This
is well in advance of any previous year's effort. We will,
however, only in the second half of this calendar year begin to
receive the bulk of the resources delivered into Colombia, as
opposed to acquired, and be able to put them to use.
We will double the number of spray aircraft from 11 to 23
by the beginning of next calendar year.
Senator Specter. Do you think that will stop the supply of
drugs coming into the United States?
Mr. Beers. I think it represents----
Senator Specter. Or reduce it?
Mr. Beers. I think as a matter of program that, together
with the mobility forces for the Colombian military and police
to allow them to move out aggressively in the field to protect
the spray effort and to protect the companion alternative
development effort, represent the real heart of this program.
As we have said publicly, it is our objective by the end of
this calendar year to cap the growth of coca cultivation in
Colombia and by the end of next calendar year to have a 30
percent reduction in coca cultivation in Colombia.
Senator Specter. Let me shift to a related area, and that
is the efforts which have been made to get Castro's cooperation
in Cuba. I made a trip to Havana 2 years ago and had extensive
discussions with Castro about a number of subjects--human
rights, the missile crisis, Oswald and the possible
implications of Cuba's involvement there, and what they are
doing in medical research.
On the issue of drug interdiction, Castro was willing to
cooperate with the United States on overflights and help on
drug interdiction. But we have steadfastly not developed that
kind of a relationship because of our general hostility toward
Castro in an earlier day when there was a real problem about
Castro destabilizing Latin America with the spread of communism
and when he was entertaining the Soviets with Soviet missiles.
This goes back 39 years.
What efforts are being made in your department,
international narcotics and law enforcement to utilize Castro's
willingness to cooperate in drug interdiction as it goes into
the Cuban area?
Mr. Beers. About 2 years ago, sir, there was an agreement
between Cuba and ourselves to add a drug liaison office, a
Coast Guard officer, to the U.S. interest section in Cuba in
order that we would be able to pass verbally rather than by fax
information regarding flights or boats that were flying over or
seeking to sail around Cuba in order that Cuban forces might on
their own be able to undertake activities against those drug
trafficking efforts.
Senator Specter. You are saying a single liaison officer?
Mr. Beers. Yes, sir, having available information that our
enforcement and intelligence community might be able to
provide.
But I would add, sir, to that that in terms of the patterns
of drug flows to the United States that either overfly or sail
around Cuba, at the present time they are minuscule to
nonexistent. It is true 2, more importantly 3 and 4, years ago
we observed a large number of overflights and boats going
around. But traffickers adjust to----
Senator Specter. Let me interrupt you because my yellow
light is on and I want to ask you a couple more questions which
I would like you to submit for the record. I would like an
evaluation from your Department as to what more could be done
with Castro's cooperation beyond the single individual whom you
have referred to.
I would like for the record, because my time has expired,
what the spraying will cost. You referred to spraying. Out of
the $1.3 billion, how much will that cost? What do you expect
it to produce, and is there any reason to believe that if you
eradicate those crops in Colombia that they will not spring up
in Bolivia or Peru or some adjacent fields?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
The Cost of Spray Operations
For the most recently completed contract year (1 Feb. 2000 through
31 Jan. 2001), cost of spray operations totaled $11.7M. This figure
includes material costs (such as repair parts), as well as fuel,
herbicide and pilot salaries related to spray aircraft.
There are also security and other related costs associated with
these spray flights. If we include all eradication related costs
(escort aircraft, all labor categories, travel, facilities, insurance,
overheads & fees, etc.) the estimated cost of spray operations in
Colombia for the most recently completed contract year (1 Feb. 2000
through 31 Jan. 2001) is $26.5M (inclusive of the $11.7M mentioned
above).
anticipated results
The goal is to achieve, through a combination of aerial and
voluntary eradication, a 30 percent reduction in illegal drug
cultivation in Colombia by the end of calendar year 2002. In Putumayo,
the area of most concentrated cultivation, we hope to achieve a 50
percent reduction in illegal drug cultivation during the same period.
movement of coca cultivation to other areas
Since we believe Plan Colombia will result in major disruption of
the cocaine industry, the Andean Counterdrug Initiative's (ACI)
regional approach becomes even more of an imperative. Traffickers will
undoubtedly try to relocate as their operations in southern Colombia
are disrupted. We believe they will first try to migrate to other areas
inside Colombia, then try to return to traditional growing areas in
Peru and Bolivia. But if those options are forestalled, they may well
seek to move more cultivation, processing and/or trafficking routes
into other countries such as Ecuador, Brazil, or Venezuela.
For this reason, we plan to allocate almost one-half of the
requested $731M for this initiative to countries other than Colombia.
In so doing, we intend to bolster the successful efforts and tremendous
progress we have made in counternarcotics in countries such as Peru and
Bolivia, while preventing the further expansion of the drug trafficking
problem into other countries of the region, such as Brazil, Panama,
Venezuela and Ecuador.

Senator Leahy. Excellent questions. I will be anxious to
see the answers.
Senator McConnell.
Senator McConnell. Unlike Senator Specter, I have not been
to Colombia frequently. I did go once about 3 years ago. I had
the lasting impression that this whole problem is never going
to be solved as long as the insurgency was as strong as it was.
I would like for you, Mr. Beers, to give me an update on where
you think the current negotiations between the Pastrana
Government and the FARC stand. Is there any ray of hope that
you can point to that there might be some kind of settlement in
the future?
Mr. Beers. The ray of hope, and that is all it is, is the
recent prisoner exchange in terms of first wounded and then
other prisoners held by the FARC and the government. I cannot
give you any sense that there will be any larger agreement
between the government of Colombia and the FARC in the near
future. The FARC seem unwilling to participate in a peace
process leading to real goals and objectives.
Senator McConnell. To what extent does that compound all of
these other efforts; compound the problem in all these other
ways that we have been discussing here this morning?
Mr. Beers. As long as the FARC remains in the field active
in the drug trade, our counternarcotics effort will be more
difficult than it is, for example, in a country like Bolivia,
where, while there is campesino resistance, but not an
organized insurgency, or in Peru, where the same is also true.
Senator McConnell. Well, I thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I have a number of other questions which I
would like to submit in writing, in the hopes that the
witnesses could respond to them, and I thank you for my
opportunity to have a turn.
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much.
I, speaking of FARC, am just beginning to read through the
Human Rights Watch report on FARC that was just released, and I
am sure you are, too. It is extremely critical of FARC and
appears to well substantiate the criticism. If you would like,
after you or your office has looked at that, if you would like
to give me your views in a letter or further material----
Mr. Beers. Yes, sir, we would like to submit that for the
record.
Senator Leahy. It is both too new and too detailed. It
would not be fair to ask you to go into it today. But I would
like the have your feelings on that. We will go into that with
Mr. Vivanco.
[The information follows:]

The Human Rights Watch report reflects many aspects of the human
rights problems in Colombia of which we have been aware and on which
the State Department has reported.
The State Department's 2000 Human Rights Report on Colombia noted
that, ``(i)n the absence of both a state presence and international
verification (in the demilitarized zone), FARC human rights abuses
inside the zone, as well as outside of it, continued.''
It is gratifying that an international organization with the
stature and credibility of Human Rights Watch has come to a similar
conclusion as the United States--that FARC is guilty of widespread
human rights abuse in areas where it exercise de facto quasi-
governmental authority.
We have worked diligently with the Government of Colombia to assist
it in overcoming some human rights problems of the past. The U.S.
Government has no official contacts with FARC, but we have repeatedly
urged that it cease its terror campaigns against civilians.
Perhaps, with the publishing of the Human Rights Watch letter,
those in the international community who might be sympathetic toward
FARC's political agenda will urge FARC put its own house in order with
regards to human rights violations. Since a resolution of Colombia's
long-running civil conflict is the only long-term solution to human
rights problems in Colombia, we would hope that the Human Rights Watch
letter to FARC commander Marulanda will cause a re-assessment of the
cost of the conflict and persuade the FARC to engage in a genuine
dialogue with the Government of Colombia on a viable peace.
Until a peace accord can be reached, however, we would join with
Human Rights Watch in urging FARC to:
--cease extrajudicial killing;
--release, unconditionally, all hostages;
--cease recruiting and utilizing child soldiers, while demobilizing
current child soldiers;
--cease holding trials;
--treat captured soldiers in accordance with internationally
recognized rules for the treatment of POWs;
--cease the use of indiscriminate terror weapons; and
--cease attacks on non-combatants, including aid workers.

Senator Leahy. But let me ask you, Mr. Secretary. To follow
up on what we were saying before, the Colombian Government
dismissed 388 soldiers and we are told that this shows they are
dealing with the human rights problems. I then asked the
Colombian government what offenses these individuals were
dismissed for, whether they were human rights violations as
opposed to getting drunk on duty or getting in a fight or
something like that. They have refused to say.
I understand the State Department has also tried without
success to get this information. Do you know, of these 388
people dismissed, were any of them involved in human rights
violations?
Mr. Beers. Sir, I cannot tell you with any credible
information yes or no to that question because, as you, we also
have been unable to obtain that information, regrettably.
Senator Leahy. Do we know if any of them have been
prosecuted for anything?
Mr. Beers. It is my understanding that there have been
some, but I would have to get you for the record any more
detail than that, sir.
[The information follows:]

The U.S. Embassy in Bogota has requested information about the 388,
but Ministry of Defense officials continue to argue that to release any
information at all would open the way to potential lawsuits by
discharged service members.
Press reports, which the Embassy has been unable to confirm,
indicated that as many as 40 of these 388 may have been discharged for
human rights-related crimes.

Senator Leahy. We do not know, we do not know whether any
of them went back in the military or joined the paramilitaries?
By the same reason, we would not have any way of knowing that?
Mr. Beers. Right. I mean, there have certainly been reports
in the media that that is the case, at least with respect to
going into the paramilitaries. But I cannot tell you
specifically.
Senator Leahy. Here is something that you may want to get
back to me on, and we will give you a copy of this letter. Let
me just read it to you. I received it from a Colombian woman
named Maria Vilez, whose husband was killed, she believes, by
the 14th Brigade of the Colombian Army. This is not an
untypical letter, and you can understand why a number of us get
very disturbed. It says:

Dear Senator Leahy: This letter is to inform you about my
situation. My husband, Mr. Carlos Ramirez, was dedicated to his work in
agriculture, cattle, and lumber. On February 15, troops of the Poligua
battalion of the 14th Brigade were in our home. They destroyed our
personal belongings and wrote on our walls saying they were going to
kill my husband, that they were going to saw him with a chain saw.
On March 19 my husband went to buy some sugar cane and did not come
back. On April 1st some campesinos found where the army had left my
husband's body. They had cut his legs off and killed him.
My husband had been in the region for 30 years, working in the
countryside. He was neither a guerrilla nor a guerrilla collaborator. I
ask your help that justice may be done. The attorney general's office
in Bogota has exhumed the body and the police have opened an
investigation.
Sincerely,
Maria Vilez.

Will you get that letter and there might be those from your
office what are in contact with them; ask them what has
happened.
Mr. Beers. We would be happy to do that, sir.
[The information follows:]

I believe that this question refers to the case of Carlos Ramirez,
a ``campesino'' allegedly killed in March by members of the Palagua
batallion of the army's 14th brigade.
The U.S. Embassy has not received a letter from Mr. Ramirez's
widow. The information she has provided in her letter to Senator Leahy
is new to officials at the U.S. Embassy in Bogota, and does not appear
to have been conveyed to them by Colombian human rights NGO's.
The U.S. Embassy has contacted NGO's for further information, and
has learned that one Carlos Ramirez reportedly was detained by army
troops on March 20 in the community of Santo Domingo (Valle de
Cimitarra region, southern Bolivar department), during the army's
``Operacion Bolivar.'' It seems likely, though the Embassy cannot
confirm it without further information, that this is the same Mr.
Ramirez.
It remains unclear whether a formal investigation is proceeding on
this case, and we continue to seek more information both from the
Colombian authorities and from Colombian NGO's.

Senator Leahy. I see things like the Los Angeles Times
correspondent who visited the sites of paramilitary massacres
along the Naya River over the Easter weekend this year. This is
what he wrote:

Paramilitaries butchered 18-year-old Gladys Appia, first
slicing off her head and hands with a chain saw. Next they
killed six people in a restaurant just down the trail. They
shot some and stabbed others. They hacked one man to death and
then burned him.
So they traveled, members of Colombia's largest ultra-right
paramilitary group, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia.
Holy Week became a procession of death as the forces hiked 60
miles from the Naya River's headquarters in the high Andes
toward its outlet in the lowland jungles, stopping to slaughter
at hamlets along the way.
The Colombian people's advocate's office later reported
that the paramilitaries murdered as many as 40 people and at
least a thousand people fled their homes. The public advocate's
report said: ``it is inexplicable how approximately 500
paramilitaries could carry out an operation of this type
without being challenged in any way, especially since the area
these men entered is only 20 minutes from the village of Timbo,
where a base operated by the Colombian army is located and has
been staffed since March 30th of this year.''

Do we have any reason to believe the army did not know what
was going on?
Mr. Beers. Sir, I am not specifically familiar with that
particular incident, but we will submit for the record a
response to that.
[The information follows:]

Eighteen-year-old Gladys Troches Mesa (whose name was erroneously
reported as Apia in early reports) was one of 20 victims during a
large-scale incursion by up to 300 AUC (United Self-Defense Forces of
Colombia) paramilitaries who invaded the Alto Naya region April 12,
2001. Embassy officers traveled to the Valle del Cauca department
following the massacre and extensively interviewed survivors and
displaced.
According to Prosecutor General's office (``Fiscalia'')
investigators, Ms. Troches was brutally tortured and murdered in the
community of El Ceral (Cauca department), which is located northeast of
Timba. Contrary to NGO and press reports, physical evidence indicates
no chainsaw was used to kill any of the 19 victims whose bodies have
been recovered, but several witnesses reported being threatened with
one. Ms. Troches' wounds, as did those of some of the other victims,
indicated that she was killed with a machete. The 18 other victims
whose bodies have been recovered were murdered, some with machetes and
some with guns, in and around the communities of El Playon, Patio
Bonito, El Crucero and El Placer, as paramilitaries swung in a loop
northeast of Timba before leaving the area. The body of the 12th
victim, reportedly a mentally ill woman who was raped and killed, has
not been recovered due to guerrilla presence in the area.
The Army says that it has no base in Timba, although there were
soldiers from the army's Pichincha battalion stationed in Timba at the
time of the massacre. Witnesses also told the Prosecutor General that
they saw soldiers in the community of Jamundi, north of Timba and not
far from the massacre sites. Army troops also are stationed at La
Selvajena base, to protect an electric plant south of Timba.
It remains unclear what security forces knew, and when. Both the
Attorney General's office (which has an investigative function) and the
Prosecutor General's office are investigating the possibility of
military omission in this case. Meanwhile, 74 paramilitaries captured
by joint marine-navy operations following the massacre remain under
arrest and under investigation. While most of the paramilitaries are
former professional soldiers, no active service members have been
implicated in these murders.
Although NGO's and indigenous groups reported that as many as 100
victims were killed, only 20 formal complaints have been filed.
Colombian authorities have told Embassy officials that they do not
expect more. Prosecutors attribute the high estimate to the general
confusion following the massacre.

Senator Leahy. I realize, Mr. Secretary, that some of these
questions, there is no way that you could have the answers and
that they will have to be submitted for the record. But I tell
you, as a parent and an American, obviously I want to see the
ravages caused by drug addiction stopped in our country, but I
worry when we put our imprimatur on operations through our
foreign aid assistance. We are also putting our imprimatur on
terrible human rights violations.
In some ways, more and more we have--not you, sir, but more
and more we have people who seem to think that the solutions to
our home problems are somewhere else. Aside from whether that
is an arrogant or misguided policy, it is one that does not
work.
It is interesting, the drug war has become in many ways
like some of the real excesses of the cold war. In the cold war
we--and I mean both Democratic and Republican administrations--
would support some of the worst dictators around the world if
they would say they were anti-communist and would support us
against the Soviet Union, which was fast crumbling from within
anyway. So we propped up dictators and we did terrible things,
both overtly and covertly, and we have been paying for years in
parts of the world with the instability and the lack of
democracy.
The United States' image, a justly deserved image of a
justice system, one of the finest in the world, a country where
we have more opportunities than anywhere in the world, has been
tarnished.
As for the drug problem, I would hope, whether it is
Colombia or anywhere else, that we do not end up doing the same
thing, where our money, military expertise, intelligence,
weaponry, and everything else create a situation of human
rights violations in other parts of the world, saying that we
are doing this to protect our children on the school grounds of
America.
We have got to go to the school grounds of America to try
to talk people out of wanting to use drugs, and maybe that
would enable us to stand for the things that are best about our
justice system. I am not suggesting that I have an automatic
answer. But there are concerns. They are not concerns just of
this Senator, but concerns of members on both sides of the
aisle, as you have heard from the questions today.
I am so proud of our country, but I am not proud of our
country when our aid ends up directly or indirectly supporting
people who are evil. I am not in any way ignoring the terrible
dangers that FARC has presented, as this report shows and as a
lot of the press reports have shown and a lot of the work from
your own Department have shown.
Frankly, I think we have created a monster in our own
country and we seem to want to get rid of that monster by
supporting a different kind of monster in other parts of the
world.
Thank you both, gentlemen. The record will stay open for
further questions for both these witnesses. I appreciate you
coming.
We will take a 3-minute break before we go to the next
panel.
Mr. Beers. Thank you, sir.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESS

STATEMENT OF JOSE MIGEL VIVANCO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
AMERICANS DIVISION, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
Senator Leahy. Mr. Vivanco, I appreciate you being here. As
I said to the other witnesses, we had to move things around
yesterday, and I appreciate you making it possible to be here
today. As it turned out, had we tried to do this hearing
yesterday we never would have been able to without
interruptions.
You have been able to hear all the testimony today, but
please go ahead and give us your statement. Your full
statement, of course, will be in the record, but go ahead and
say whatever you would like. Then I am going to ask you some
questions, some based on questions that have already been
asked, but also feel free to add in any way to it.
Again, like the earlier witnesses, you will have a
transcript of your testimony and theirs, and you can always
feel free to add any thing further to that.
So go ahead, sir.
Mr. Vivanco. Thank you very much, Senator Leahy. Thank you
for inviting me to convey to the subcommittee our concerns
about the human rights situation in Colombia and the
implications of the U.S. security assistance sent to Colombia
to fight drugs.
I know the subcommittee is most interested in an exchange,
so my remarks will be brief. I would like to submit for the
record my written testimony. I also submit for the record a
recent letter we addressed to the leader of the main Colombian
rebel group about their violations of international
humanitarian law.
Human Rights Watch believes that it is important for this
committee to continue to support human rights in Colombia by
including strong and workable human rights conditions in the
legislation under consideration. Conditions create an effective
mechanism to promote positive change for human rights in
Colombia.
Second, we urge this subcommittee to include increased
funds for the Colombian institutions that have a proven record
of success against human rights violators in Colombia,
including guerrilla members, prime among them the office of the
attorney general, the internal affairs agency, and the public
advocate. The AID proposal from the administration displays a
greater emphasis on funding civilian initiatives, which we
welcome, but much more is needed and specifically for these
critical offices.
We also urge this subcommittee to press Colombia's leaders
for real progress on stopping attacks against human rights
defenders, human rights monitors, and ensuring accountability
for past murders. Even as Colombian authorities continue to
provide bulletproof glass for the offices of threatened human
rights groups and bulletproof vests and bodyguards for human
rights defenders who receive death threats, these brave
individuals continue to be murdered by experienced killers who
continue to count on impunity for their crimes.
The human rights situation, Mr. Chairman, in Colombia has
deteriorated dramatically since Public Law 106-246 was signed
last year. This deterioration is the result of at least three
factors: the Colombian government's continuing failure to
address continuing collaboration between its forces and abusive
paramilitary groups; continuing impunity for military officers
implicated in gross human rights violations; and international
humanitarian law violations committed by guerrillas,
principally the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the
FARC.
According to the Colombian National Police, the number of
massacres they recorded in the year 2000 increased by 22
percent over the previous year, most the work of
paramilitaries, who continue to enjoy at the very least the
tolerance the acquiescence of the Colombian armed forces. In
the first 6 months of this year, the police report yet another
increase, from 84 massacres registered in the first 6 months of
2000 to 98 massacres registered in the first 6 months of 2001,
with a total of 568 victims.
There is a growing sense the violence will only continue to
worsen in the second half of 2001. Instead of bringing hope and
expectations for the future, the millennium has brought terror
and an increasing sense of hopelessness to many Colombians.
Senator Leahy, I would like to, if I may, to make a couple
of comments regarding the testimony of Mr. Beers, specifically
on the issue of cooperation from the Colombian government in
their duty to prosecute paramilitary groups. I think it is
important to acknowledge that there has been some action
against paramilitary groups. We have seen some progress. But it
is important also to underscore that most of this progress is
the result of the work of the attorney general's office,
specifically the human rights unit of the attorney general's
office. They deserve most of the credit.
As a matter of fact, we continue receiving information,
reliable information from the highest levels from different
offices in Colombia, from different governmental offices, that
they argue that the main obstacle for prosecution of key
paramilitary members as well as active paramilitary groups
across the country is the army, specifically the reluctance of
the army to cooperate in providing security for the execution
of arrest warrants, outstanding arrest warrants against members
of paramilitary organizations.
At this point, according to our information, more than 300
arrest warrants for suspected paramilitaries across the
country, have been unable to be executed because of the refusal
of the military to provide needed security for the members of
the attorney general's office to go into these areas that are
controlled by paramilitary organizations.
My last comment, Mr. Chairman----
Senator Leahy. On that one, it would not be an
overstatement to say that if they went in without that
protection it would be basically a suicide mission?
Mr. Vivanco. It would be extremely difficult. It is almost
impossible for them to operate in certain areas of the country
without the support of the military.
Senator Leahy. Go ahead.
Mr. Vivanco. The second point that I would like to make,
Mr. Chairman, is that, according to our information, the
attorney general's office remains severely underfunded. To
date, the human rights unit has not received any funds,
according to the latest information that we received that was
yesterday at the highest level from the attorney general's
office, they have not received any funds through Plan Colombia
for operational expenses that are critical, funds for
prosecutors to travel, to investigate cases, to protect
witnesses and prosecutors, and to purchase critical equipment,
vehicles that are necessary for them to carry out their
mission.

prepared statement

As I noted in my written testimony, Mr. Chairman, so far,
according to the information provided by Colombian officials,
government human rights investigators have received less than
$66,000 from USAID in the year 2000 and the first 3 months of
the year 2001, most for travel expenses to the United States
for a course on the U.S. justice system, which is very
valuable, it is very important; however, given the nature of
the emergency and the crisis in Colombia, we believe that it is
absolutely critical to allow the human rights unit of the
fiscale, the attorney general's office, to have the necessary
funding to be able to carry out their mission.
[The statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Jose Miguel Vivanco
Chairman Leahy, Senator McConnell, Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting me to convey to the Subcommittee our concerns
about the human rights situation in Colombia and the implications of
U.S. security assistance sent to Colombia to fight drugs. I know the
Subcommittee is most interested in an exchange, so my remarks will be
brief. I would like to submit, for the record, my written testimony. I
also submit for the record a recent letter we addressed to the leader
of the main Colombian rebel group about their violations of
international humanitarian law.
Human Rights Watch believes that it is important for this
Subcommittee to continue to support human rights in Colombia by
including strong and workable human rights conditions in the
legislation under consideration. Conditions create an effective and
measurable mechanism to promote positive change for human rights in
Colombia.
Secondly, we urge this Subcommittee to include increased funds for
the Colombian institutions that have a proven record of success against
human rights violators in Colombia, prime among them the office of the
Attorney General (Fiscalia), the Internal Affairs agency
(Procuraduria), and the Public Advocate (Defensoria). The aid proposal
from the Administration displays a greater emphasis on funding civilian
initiatives, which we welcome, but much more is needed and specifically
for these critical offices.
For example, in 2000 and the first three months of 2001--a period
of fifteen months--the Attorney General's Human Rights Unit and
advisers from the Internal Affairs agency received U.S. $65,763 from
the U.S. Agency for International Development. Half was spent on flying
prosecutors to the United States to learn about the American judicial
system, a pursuit that does not address the desperate need for
vehicles, travel funds, and other resources to investigate and
prosecute a rising number of human rights violations. This works out to
less than the amount of U.S. military assistance spent in Colombia in
only two hours of a single day.
Finally, we urge this Subcommittee to press Colombia's leaders for
real progress on stopping attacks against human rights defenders and
ensuring accountability for past murders. Even as Colombian authorities
continue to provide bullet-proof glass for the offices of threatened
human rights groups and bullet-proof vests and body guards for human
rights defenders who receive death threats, these brave individuals
continue to be murdered by experienced killers who continue to count on
impunity for their crimes.
Cases involving the murder of human rights defenders--among them
the 1996 killing of Josue Giraldo Cardona; the 1997 killings of Mario
Calderon, Elsa Alvarado, and Carlos Alvarado; the 1998 killings of
Jesus Valle Jaramillo and Eduardo Umana Mendoza; the 1999 killing of
Julio Gonzalez and Everardo de Jesus Puerta; the 2000 killing of Jaime
Garzon and Elizabeth Canas, just to name a few-languish, in the best of
cases with only the gunmen arrested and not the people who planned and
paid for the killings.
overview
The human rights situation in Colombia has deteriorated markedly
since Public Law 106-246 was signed last year. This deterioration is
the result of at least three factors: the Colombian government's
continuing failure to address continuing collaboration between its
forces and abusive paramilitaries; continuing impunity for military
officers implicated in gross violations; and international humanitarian
law violations committed by rebels, principally the Revolutionary Armed
Forces of Colombia-People's Army (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de
Colombia-Ejercito del Pueblo, FARC-EP).
According to the Colombian National Police, the number of massacres
they recorded in 2000 increased by 22 percent over the previous year,
most the work of paramilitaries who continue to enjoy, at the very
least, the tolerance of the Colombian Armed Forces. In the first six
months of this year, the police report yet another increase, from 84
massacres registered in the first six months of 2000 to 98 massacres
registered in the first six months of 2001, with a total of 568
victims.
Human rights defenders, trade unionists, journalists, and community
leaders continue to lead the lists of people killed because of their
work. Only on July 1, for example, did authorities discover the body of
Alma Rosa Jaramillo Lafourie near the city of Barrancabermeja,
Santander, long the home of a vibrant and broad-based human rights
movement. Several days earlier, this human rights defender had been
kidnaped by paramilitaries, who have been engaged in a deadly campaign
against rights workers in the region. Jaramillo was a valued colleague
of Father Francisco de Roux, a Jesuit priest who runs the Middle
Magdalena Development and Peace Program. Some of you have met with
Father De Roux, and are aware of his valuable and dangerous work in
defense of local communities in the region.
Last year, an estimated 319,000 people were forced to flee their
homes, the highest number of displaced persons recorded in a single
year in the last five years. Thousands of Colombians are leaving the
country, and there is a growing sense that violence will only continue
to worsen in the latter half of 2001. Instead of bringing hope and
expectation for the future, the millenium has brought terror and a
spiraling sense of hopelessness to many Colombians.
military-paramilitary ties
Human Rights Watch continues to document abundant, detailed, and
compelling evidence that certain Colombian army brigades and police
detachments promote, work with, support, and tolerate paramilitary
groups, treating them as a force allied to and compatible with their
own. At their most brazen, these relationships involve active
coordination during military operations between government and
paramilitary units; communication via radios, cellular telephones, and
beepers; the sharing of intelligence, including the names of suspected
guerrilla collaborators; the sharing of fighters, including active-duty
soldiers serving in paramilitary units and paramilitary commanders
lodging on military bases; the sharing of vehicles, including army
trucks used to transport paramilitary fighters; and the coordination of
army roadblocks, which routinely let heavily-armed paramilitary
fighters pass.
In particular, officers at the brigade and battalion level and in
some police detachments routinely flout, ignore, or circumvent orders
from above to break ties to paramilitaries. In violation of the law and
the directives of their superiors, these officers continue close and
regular relationships with the groups responsible for most human rights
violations in Colombia.
rebel violations
In our July 10 letter to the FARC-EP, we document cases involving
the killings and cruel and inhuman treatment of captured combatants,
abductions of civilians, hostage-taking, the use of child soldiers,
grossly unfair trials, and forced displacement of civilians. Further,
FARC-EP forces continue to use prohibited weapons, including gas
cylinder bombs that wreak indiscriminate havoc and cause appalling
injuries, and to attack medical workers and facilities in blatant
disregard of international law and the most basic standards of respect
for human life.
In the area ceded to rebels by the Colombian government for talks,
the FARC-EP has established a pattern of abducting civilians suspected
of supporting paramilitary groups, many of whom are later killed.
Unlike abductions carried out for financial reasons, these abductions
are often kept hidden. The FARC-EP generally does not disclose the
victims' fate or even acknowledge custody. Relatives of those who are
seized by the FARC-EP in these circumstances frequently are unable to
obtain any information from the FARC-EP about the fate or whereabouts
of their loved ones, causing enormous suffering. The victims of these
abductions have no protection under the law, let alone legal remedy
against false accusations and abuse, nor can their relatives invoke
legal remedies on their behalf.
We detail other violations committed by guerrillas in our letter,
part of our continuing effort to hold all sides in this conflict
accountable for their abuses.
the colombian government
Some government officials--the Attorney General, the members of his
Human Rights Unit, investigators in the Attorney General's Technical
Investigation Unit (Cuerpo Tecnico de Investigaciones, CTI), the
People's Advocate, and the Colombian National Police (CNP) leadership--
have taken important action against paramilitaries. They have
investigated their abuses, arrested paramilitary leaders, seized their
weapons, and prevented some massacres.
It was largely due to the Attorney General's efforts, for instance,
that Colombian law enforcement for the first time successfully impaired
the paramilitaries' financial network. In May, a combined team of
Attorney General prosecutors and CTI agents carried out an operation in
the city of Monteria that gathered evidence to be used to arrest and
prosecute the people who finance paramilitary groups. For their
security, this team was protected by an elite Colombian Army unit
brought from Bogota. This is a critical and positive development that
demonstrates that paramilitary groups are vulnerable and can be brought
to justice.
Unfortunately, this operation remains an anomaly. To date, the good
work of the Attorney General's office has been consistently and
effectively undermined, canceled out, or in some cases wholly reversed
by actions promoted by the military-paramilitary alliance and inaction
by the Pastrana Administration.
Despite its statements to the contrary, the Pastrana Administration
has not moved aggressively to acknowledge military-paramilitary
collaboration and take effective action to ensure respect for human
rights. To date, efforts to break these ties have been ineffective or,
in some cases, wholly absent. Even as President Pastrana publicly
deplores successive atrocities, each seemingly more gruesome than the
last, high-ranking officers fail to take the obvious, critical steps
necessary to prevent future killings by suspending suspect security
force members suspected of abuses, delivering their cases to civilian
judicial authorities for investigation, and pursuing and arresting
paramilitaries
Eyewitnesses, municipal officials, and even the government's own
investigators routinely delivered to the security forces detailed and
current information about the exact location of paramilitary bases;
license plates, colors and types of paramilitary vehicles; cellular
telephone and beeper numbers used by paramilitaries; and the names of
paramilitaries. Yet despite dozens of ``early warnings'' of planned
atrocities, paramilitaries advanced, killed, mutilated, burned,
destroyed, stole, and threatened with virtual impunity, often under the
very noses of security force officers sworn to uphold public order.
Just as routinely, the security forces, in particular the military,
have not moved against paramilitaries or have engaged in actions that
produced only delays and allowed paramilitaries to continue their
activities with impunity. Again and again, troops arrived at the sites
of serious abuses committed by paramilitaries only to count bodies,
photograph damages, and make familiar excuses for their failure to
protect civilians and capture the paramilitaries responsible for
abuses. Meanwhile, hundreds of arrest warrants against paramilitary
leaders issued by the Attorney General's office remain unenforced
because the military chooses not to execute them.
According to the CTI, investigators attached to the Attorney
General's office, they had over 300 arrest warrants against alleged
paramilitary members pending in January 2001. Among them were at least
twenty-two separate warrants against Carlos Castano for massacres,
killings, and the kidnaping of human rights defenders and a Colombian
senator. Government investigators from four separate institutions
consulted by Human Rights Watch agreed that the main obstacle to
arrests was the Colombian military. The military, according to these
investigators, refused to send troops to make arrests or else leaks
arrest plans to paramilitaries, frustrating operations.
For its part, the military claimed that it has arrested
paramilitaries. But civilian government investigators have insisted to
Human Rights Watch that most of those counted as detained in military
tallies were merely low-ranking fighters, not leaders and key
organizers. The Attorney General's office, some times acting in
coordination with the CTI and CNP, has a significantly better record of
arresting paramilitary leaders.
Far from strengthening key government institutions that investigate
human rights cases, the Pastrana Administration has significantly
weakened them by cutting their budgets, failing to adequately protect
prosecutors and investigators, and failing to provide adequate funds to
protect threatened witnesses.
According to the Attorney General, decreases have been so extreme
that they threaten key teams, like the Human Rights Unit, with
paralysis. This was made dramatically clear to Human Rights Watch
during a visit to the Human Rights Unit prosecutors in January 2001.
During the interview, one prosecutor was frantically calling various
officials to get a seat on an interior ministry helicopter for a
colleague to investigate massacres in the department of Valle. Such
incidents, he said, were commonplace.
u.s. policy
Human Rights Watch firmly believes that the United States has an
important role to play in Colombia and can help to support human
rights. There have been some positive developments in Washington and
from the U.S. Embassy in Bogota. The chapter on Colombia in the annual
country reports on human rights issued by the State Department
continues to reflect an accurate, albeit grim picture of the worsening
human rights situation. As importantly, U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson
has begun a long-overdue policy of speaking out on the human rights
situation, and expressing concern over specific cases. Her timely,
personal interventions in recent cases have been a critical factor in
spurring the Colombian authorities to act to address the paramilitary
advance.
Nevertheless, it remains clear that much more needs to be done.
U.S. law prohibits military aid from going to security force units
engaged in abusive behavior until effective steps are taken to bring
perpetrators to justice. Last year, the U.S. Congress wisely included
human rights conditions specific to Colombia in Public Law 106-246.
These were conditions that we strongly supported, and this Subcommittee
in particular merits recognition for ensuring that they were made part
of the law.
However, on August 22, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed a waiver
that lifted these conditions, allowing security assistance to be
provided to the Colombian military even as the State Department
reported that these forces continued to work with paramilitary groups.
With one signature, the White House sent a direct message to Colombia's
military leaders that overshadowed any other related to human rights.
Judged by the Colombian military's behavior in the field--not by
rhetoric or public relations pamphlets--its leaders understood this
message clearly. Even as Colombia's high command has agreed to scrub a
few units for human rights problems, the rest of the military appears
to have a virtual carte blanche for continued, active coordination with
the paramilitary groups responsible for most human rights violations in
Colombia.
Human Rights Watch remains convinced that the most important way
that the United States can contribute to improving human rights
protections in Colombia is to enforce strict and workable conditions on
all military aid. These conditions should not include a waiver.
Enforcement of the conditions contained in Public Law 106-246 would
have contributed greatly to improving human rights protection, in my
opinion.
[Clerk's Note.--The Human Rights Watch letter to Manuel Maruland,
FARC-EP, Commander in Chief, Violations of International Humanitarian
Law, Colombia, July 9, 2001, can be found on the website: http://
www.hrw.org]

Senator Leahy. We provided last year $4 million for the
protection of human rights workers, $10 million for the
security of witnesses and judges in human rights cases, $25
million to establish human rights units within the attorney
general's office, $7 million to strengthen human rights
institutions. Apparently very little of this money has gotten
anywhere; is that what you are saying?
Mr. Vivanco. That is right.
Senator Leahy. Your written testimony spoke about what a
tiny fraction of the military assistance that is. I mean, the
amount of money we spend in a couple of hours on the military
could provide a great deal for the human rights workers.
Incidentally, I asked earlier about the 388 soldiers who
were dismissed. We have been unable to find out what they were
dismissed for, what happened to them, and whether any of them
came back into the military or the paramilitary. Do you or your
organization have any idea who these 388 soldiers were, whether
any of them were ever prosecuted for any human rights
violations?
Mr. Vivanco. No, sir, we have no information whatsoever. We
tried really hard to obtain information about the nature of the
crimes that these individuals allegedly committed, their names,
ranks, and so far we have been unable to establish anything for
the record with regard to those ones who allegedly have been
dismissed or suspended from active duty because they are
involved allegedly in human rights violations.
Senator Leahy. Do you have any response to the public
advocate's report on the Naya River massacre? Apparently the
public advocate made a report on the Naya River massacre. Have
you seen that report?
Mr. Vivanco. No, no, sir.
Senator Leahy. Can you tell me about the letter you sent to
the FARC leadership that was released publicly yesterday? Would
you just summarize the key points of that letter, just so we
could have it for the record?
Mr. Vivanco. Senator Leahy, our organization has been
monitoring human rights conditions in Colombia for several
years, close to 15 years. Part of our mission is to also
monitor the activities of irregular armed groups all over the
world, including obviously in Colombia. We have produced
several books and specific reports on violations committed by
paramilitaries in Colombia, paramilitaries with close links
with the government as well as guerrillas.
Since guerrilla leaders every few months publicly stated
that they are interested in peace negotiations, they are
interested in respect for international humanitarian law, we
decided to confront their leadership and specifically the
maximum leader of the guerrillas in Colombia, Mr. Marlander,
with the basic principles of international humanitarian law and
with some cases and evidence that shows an appalling record of
systematic abuses of international humanitarian law, especially
against the civilian population, as well as combatants.
That is why we conducted an on-site investigation. We
visited the area that is under the control of the FARC as well
as other areas in the country. After corroborating this
information, we put all of this information in the form of a
letter to Mr. Marulanda. We hope that with this kind of action
we will be able to influence their practice.
So far we have not received any reaction from the
leadership of the FARC.
Senator Leahy. Do you think you will?
Mr. Vivanco. Everything depends on the reaction of the
Colombian people as well as the international community. It is
absolutely essential from our viewpoint to inform the public
about the record of this group as well as the record of
paramilitary groups and the state forces in Colombia. Based on
information and based also on the actions of governments like
the U.S. government and the European Union and some key
governments in Latin America, especially for instance the
Mexican government, we hope that some pressure could be
exercised specifically with the FARC, but also with other
groups in Colombia, that ends up improving human rights
conditions there.
Senator Leahy. Do you feel that the restrictions that we
put on the money last year, some of which were waived by the
Clinton administration, do you feel that we should keep on
having restrictions, keep on tying our aid to improvements in
human rights?
Mr. Vivanco. I think if there is any hope, Senator Leahy,
for improving human rights conditions in Colombia, that is
clearly related to some degree of engagement with key actors in
Colombia on the specific conditions that encourage them to
improve their record. That is why we support human rights
conditions, human rights conditions that could be feasible,
workable, and within a reasonable time, and, obviously, without
a waiver.
Senator Leahy. I have written a number of letters about a
case, the so-called Santo Domingo case, since December 1998.
That is when a bomb exploded in a village that killed 17
people, including 5 children, and wounded 24 others. It appears
the bomb was made in the United States, that it was dropped by
the Colombian Air Force flying a U.S.-manufactured aircraft.
The Colombian military tried to cover up responsibility,
including lying to the U.S. embassy.
These are all pretty damning statements. Do you know
whether a credible investigation has been done of this? Has
anybody been prosecuted or punished?
Mr. Vivanco. As far as I know, Senator Leahy, the most
serious investigation has been conducted by the FBI in situ,
and their conclusions corroborate our assessment that that act
was the responsibility of the armed forces of Colombia. So far,
the local investigation has not produced serious results.
Senator Leahy. The Leahy law that we talked about before
prohibits funds to units of security forces if there is
credible evidence they have committed gross violations of human
rights unless the government has taken effective measures to
address those violations and bring the people responsible to
justice.
Do you think the Leahy law applies to the Santo Domingo
case?
Mr. Vivanco. I believe that it should apply to the Santo
Domingo case.
Senator Leahy. Now, in the past we have talked about the
links between the armed forces and the paramilitary groups.
Years ago I asked the State Department about this and they said
they did not see such evidence of links, but then last year
they told me the Colombian government was making real efforts
to sever these links, the links that they did not think existed
before.
The Colombian Government tells me the same thing, that they
are trying to sever the links between the armed forces and the
paramilitaries groups. What is your sense of the efforts the
army is making against the paramilitaries?
Mr. Vivanco. According to the most recent information that
we have as a result of investigations in Colombia, we are
prepared to state, to argue that these relations in some areas,
areas that are infested with paramilitary groups, still involve
close and active coordination with military units, coordination
and support that includes communications support via radios,
cellular telephones, beepers, sharing intelligence between
local military units and paramilitary organizations,
including--by sharing intelligence, I mean including the names
of suspected guerrilla collaborators, the sharing of fighters,
including active duty soldiers serving in paramilitary units,
and paramilitary commanders lodging on military bases, the
sharing of vehicles, including army trucks used to transport
paramilitary fighters, and the coordination of army road
blocks, which routinely let heavily armed paramilitary fighters
pass.
So in some areas of the country this relationship is still
very close and also the evidence shows that there is active
support. In other words, those ties, that relationship, has not
been breaked and it is still very key for the activities of
paramilitary organizations.
Senator Leahy. I wish you were wrong, but unfortunately
every bit of information I have says the same thing.
Now, I understand a new security law passed the Colombian
congress and I guess President Pastrana has not signed it, but
he probably will. Do you know whether the Colombian attorney
general supports this security law and what effect it is going
to have on the ability of civilian authorities to investigate
human rights violations?
Mr. Vivanco. This law is a very controversial piece of
legislation in Colombia. Fortunately, it has not been signed
yet by President Pastrana. I am not sure about the position of
the current attorney general. President Pastrana just nominated
a new attorney general of Colombia, so I do not know about his
views on the current legislation.
But in our experience all over the region, Senator Leahy,
when a civilian government allows for activities of security
forces without the necessary constraints and supervision and
oversight by the judicial authorities, specifically prosecutors
and judges, that kind of legislational prescription is the best
recipe for abuses. In a country like Colombia, where impunity
is the rule, where everybody acknowledges that strengthening
the judiciary and judicial control over the police as well as
the military is key to move forward the country and to
strengthening democracy and the rule of law, we do not believe
that this legislation will help to increase respect for human
rights in Colombia.
Senator Leahy. Well, in the New York Times yesterday in an
editorial, which I am sure you have seen, it took much the same
position. In fact, they are saying hopefully that President
Pastrana would not sign the bill. They complete the editorial
by saying: ``Congress and President Bush should make it easier
for Mr. Pastrana to kill the bill by promising to cut military
aid if he signs it.''
I tend to agree, and I will put that New York Times article
in the record at this point.
[The information follows:]

[From the New York Times, July 10, 2001]

Legalizing Abuses in Colombia
The human rights record of Colombia's army has improved somewhat in
recent years. In part this is because its abuses have been privatized--
paramilitary groups with close links to many members of the armed
forces are now committing the bulk of the murders of civilians. But a
new law that has passed Colombia's Congress and awaits the signature of
President Andres Pastrana would give the military dangerous new powers
over civilians and lessen the possibility that officers would be held
accountable for abusing them.
Mr. Pastrana seems likely to sign the law this week. That would be
a grave mistake that would jeopardize American Congressional support
for Washington's extensive aid to Colombia's military.
Colombian officials and indeed much of the nation endorse expanded
powers for the military because guerrilla abuses are increasing.
Yesterday Human Rights Watch accused the nation's biggest guerrilla
group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, of serious
abuses, including executions of civilians, hostage-taking, the killing
of medical workers and the use of child soldiers. Last year, according
to Colombian human rights groups, the FARC killed nearly 500 civilians.
Most were people the FARC accused of helping the army or
paramilitaries.
The horrific abuses by the FARC and other guerrillas are driving
Colombians--especially those whose income puts them at risk of
kidnapping--to endorse draconian responses, such as the new security
law. This reaction is misguided. While more moderate than a previous
version, the bill still contains undemocratic and potentially abusive
reforms. It would make authorities such as mayors and governors
subordinate to military commanders. The bill would also give the
military the ability in many cases to authorize raids, arrest civilians
and in some cases carry out investigations. The law is inconsistent
with the Colombian Constitution, which bars the military justice system
from investigating civilians.
The new bill would also contribute to the impunity of the armed
forces, by placing a two-month time limit on the ability of civilian
authorities to open investigations of crimes committed in the course of
military operations. Another part of the security law says that when
people are arrested in the act of committing crimes, the military need
only inform judges of their capture, instead of bringing them before
the courts. There is no possible case to be made that either change
would help the military win the war. Allowing officers to wait to
produce detainees is an invitation to mistreat prisoners. The right to
appear before a judge is partly designed to discourage abuses.
Congress and the Clinton administration approved a large hike in
military aid to Colombia last year at least in part because the
administration promised that the aid would go to a reformed Colombian
military. Now that the money is flowing, Colombia's army has apparently
decided that it can get away with shaking off oversight. President
Pastrana evidently feels he needs to placate the military, another
indication of the worrisome power of the armed forces. The House
Appropriations Committee will meet this week to budget money for
Colombia. Congress and President Bush should make it easier for Mr.
Pastrana to kill the bill by promising to cut military aid if he signs
it.

Senator Leahy. Mr. Vivanco, I appreciate you coming here
and I appreciate your rearranging your schedule so you could. I
am looking forward to reading more thoroughly your report on
the FARC. Thank you very, very much.

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

That concludes our hearings. The subcommittee will stand in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., Wednesday, July 11, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]

FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

----------

U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

[Clerk's note.--The subcommittee was unable to hold
hearings on nondepartmental witnesses. The statements and
letters of those submitting written testimony are as follows:]
Prepared Statement of Columbia University
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to submit a written
statement for the Outside Witness Hearing Record. This statement
provides two recommendations that will assist AID in achieving its
missions and goals in Africa. Specifically, the recommendations are:
--Provide $975,000 for the continued funding of the two site IRI
climate forecasting efforts (Africa); and
--Provide $2 million the Center for Health and Food Security,
designed and manned by the IRI in cooperation with country
teams across Africa.
background
Columbia University's International Research Institute for Climate
Prediction (IRI) is the primary U.S. agent in experimental climate
modeling and long range (seasonal to interannual) forecasting. The IRI,
funded and established through a partnership between Columbia
University and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) of the Department of Commerce, provides support for the Drought
Monitoring Centre in Nairobi, Kenya. The fiscal year 2001
Appropriations Act provided continued funding for this effort and
encouraged AID to establish a second site (in South Africa) with the
IRI. The IRI is currently working on the logistics associated with the
establishment of a second site in Africa. The estimated costs
associated with this effort total $975,000 annually.
Establishment of a Center for Health and Food Security is proposed
at $2 million to focus on disease and famine issues caused by the
effect of climate forcing agents across Africa. This two-year effort is
designed to demonstrate the effectiveness of long range forecasting and
the measures that can be taken to minimize or avoid disease, plague,
famine and drought associated with climate forcing agents such as El
Nino and La Nina events.
The El Nino events in 1983, 1988 and 1997 have demonstrated that
while there was some probability of abnormal atmospheric interaction,
the certainty to take dramatic and forceful actions at the national and
regional levels was lacking. The IRI has now achieved a level of
accuracy in future climate driven events to the extent that forecasting
and predictive capability can be utilized by private and public
decision makers to avoid the high probabilities of below/above average
temperature and precipitation by region. This long-range information
can be converted to practical and practicable actions that can mitigate
the extreme effects and damage caused by climate forcing agents around
the world. The most vulnerable continent to these effects is Africa.
iri goals
The IRI is an institution that seeks to link scientific research
with real world applications. The IRI provides public and private
decision makers with the advanced tools of climate forecasting as means
of planning and preparing for extreme variations in precipitation and
temperature probabilities due to climate forcing agents. With IRI
assistance, AID's efforts in developing countries will be strengthened
beyond current capacity. As third world countries mature toward
economic stability, emerging national leaders will have familiarity
with the value of climate forecasting and thus will incorporate these
instruments into improved mechanisms for national planning.
Thank you again for this opportunity to submit this recommendation
for AID funding.
______

Prepared Statement of the Joslin Diabetes Center

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to present a project
proposal for implementation in Egypt that addresses a growing problem
in third world and developing countries: diabetes. This statement
outlines an identified health problem and a mechanism of resolving the
downstream complications that will inevitably follow in the known
history of this disease.
Specifically, this recommendation proposes the following:
1. To reduce morbidity and mortality associated with diabetes and
its complications in suburban Dakahlia and its surrounding governates.
To be the core center for conducting research aimed at prevention of
both type 1 and type 2 diabetes within the Egyptian population.
2. To establish a state-of-the-art comprehensive diabetes unit
within Mansoura University Hospitals Complex to serve as a regional and
national resource for diabetes care, education and research.
3. To use this unit as a working unit model for collaboration
between U.S. and health care organizations in the Middle East that
serves the educational and developmental needs using currently
available technology and communication platforms. Such working unit
model will serve as the core for future expansion and harmonious
``regionalization'' of the joint program.
The fiscal year 2002 AID cost associated with this initiative
totals $2.9 million. Local and regional contributions from sources in
Egypt, including Mansoura University, total approximately $10 million.
The basic goal is to transfer medical technology and protocol to meet a
major health care crisis.
The Problem: The Burden of Diabetes in Egypt
Diabetes has become a major, emerging clinical and public health
problem and one of the leading causes of permanent disability and death
in Egypt. It is currently the major risk factor for cardiovascular
disease, and the leading cause of lower extremity amputation,
blindness, and endstage renal failure. Because of the chronic nature of
diabetes and the far-reaching complications associated with it, the
costs to society are enormous.
The combined prevalence of diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes in
the Egyptian population >20 years of age was estimated to be 9.3
percent of the 67 million Egyptians, which is far higher than its
prevalence in the developed countries and most of developing countries.
The main reasons for high prevalence rate of diabetes in Egypt are the
increased risk factors for diabetes: inheritance, obesity, bad
nutritional guidance and sedentary life style.
The microvascular and neuropathic complications of diabetes area
major clinical and public health problem in Egypt. In a recent study
conducted by University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, 42
percent of the Egyptian diabetic patients had retinopathy (which can
lead to blindness), 21 percent had evidence of kidney damage, and 22
percent severe nerve damage. The onset of retinopathy was estimated to
occur 2.6 years prior to clinical diagnosis of diabetes.
Relation between diabetes and endemic diseases in Egypt
One of the major growing endemic problems in Egypt is the infection
with hepatitis C, which affects approximately 20 percent of the adult
population. In a recent study conducted by H. Dabbous Department of
Tropical Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, the HCV seropositive
patients were three times more likely to suffer from diabetes mellitus
than those who were HCV.
According to a recent epidemiological study conducted last year by
Department of Medical Statistics and Clinical Epidemiology, Medical
Research Institute, Alexandria University, Egypt, of diabetic patients:
38 percent did not have their retinas examined, 29 percent did not
receive a neurological examination, and 24 percent did not have their
feet inspected. Only 8 percent did self-examination of blood glucose
and 26 percent checked glucose in urine by themselves. Furthermore,
only 4 percent had their HbAlc checked in 12 months. All these
practices are far behind the standard level of diabetes care. Diabetes
care in suburban areas is further behind that in urban areas.
Active Role of USAID in supporting the Health Care System in Egypt
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, USAID assistance to the
Government of Egypt resulted in greatly expanded access to health
services. Substantial investments were made in training health
personnel, upgrading the physical infrastructure, and improving the
service delivery system. Some of these programs brought great benefits
to the country. For example, the Egypt child survival program has been
a phenomenal success in improving the health of young children,
preventing more than 80,000 child deaths every year. USAID, along with
the Government of Egypt, non-governmental organizations and the private
sector, is working to cut mortality rates further, expand and target
maternal/child health services, and improve their sustainability. This
is being done through a range of mechanisms including policy reforms,
the promotion of quality assurance, decentralization, better resource
allocation, and increased participation by the private sector and local
communities.
USAID health investments are also combating endemic and emerging
diseases. One of those is the Hepatitis C virus, which causes severe
liver damage, liver cancer, and increased risk of maternal mortality.
USAID is responding to the urgent need for applied research to
determine how to stop the spread of this deadly virus.
Mansoura University and Mansoura University Hospitals
The Faculty of Medicine was founded in 1962 as a branch of Cairo
University. A presidential decree declared the establishment of East
Delta University in 1972. The name was changed to University of
Mansoura in 1973. The University campus covers approximately 300 acres.
Mansoura University harbors the largest Medical Complex in Egypt, which
includes 7 specialized centers plus the University Hospital.
The Diabetes and Endocrine Section at Mansoura University Hospital
was founded in the late 1960s. It includes 10 senior specialists in the
field of endocrinology and diabetes. The unit, which has become an
integrated clinical, education and research entity, conducted hundreds
of scientific research projects among the Egyptian diabetic population
and some important epidemiological studies. The unit is also a member
of the Egyptian Diabetes Association, Egyptian Society of Diabetes,
Endocrinology and Metabolism, and the International Diabetes
Federation.
Joslin Diabetes Center--Boston
Joslin Diabetes Center, an affiliate of Harvard Medical School
headquartered in Boston's Harvard-Longwood Medical Area, is a national
and international leader in diabetes treatment and research. Joslin has
locations throughout the Boston metropolitan area and offers affiliated
programs throughout the United States. Joslin is currently integrating
its advanced telemedicine platform for comprehensive diabetes
management into the DOD, VA and Indian Health Service Health Care
systems.
Joslin's tradition of excellence in diabetes is reflected in the
high level of satisfaction patients express in the care and education
they receive. Nearly 90 percent of new patients to the Center
consistently rate their experience as ``very positive.'' Moreover,
Joslin trainees chair several prestigious diabetes programs worldwide.
Joslin was established more than 100 years ago by Elliott P.
Joslin, M.D. Dr. Joslin was a diabetes specialist for over 60 years,
beginning in an era 25 years before the discovery of lifesaving
insulin. Dr. Joslin and his colleagues were the first to use insulin in
New England following its discovery.
Project Outline
The project will have two phases:
--The first phase is to establish a well-equipped diabetes unit at
the recently constructed Internal Medicine Center at Mansoura
University. This unit will serve as a working model for 3 years
for future co-operation and partnership between Joslin Diabetes
Center and Mansoura University.
--After 3 years and upon success of this working model, we expect to
proceed with the second phase of establishing a diabetes center
with the aim of serving the high load of diabetes population in
Mansoura vicinities. This expanded center will continue with
the technical and scientific partnership with Joslin Diabetes
Center.
I. With the current advance in electronic communication, medical
informatics and telemedicine, major centers can now work in harmony
with remote units and reach a larger target population at significantly
lower cost. Over the last few years, University of Mansoura invested
heavily in building a communication and networking infrastructure that
serves the university and its affiliated hospitals. All the university
units are currently linked through high-speed fiber optic cables to the
computer and Internet center in the university.
The Diabetes Unit will benefit from this infrastructure by building
a telemedicine and electronic records system that will be fully
integrated with Joslin Diabetes Center. The advantages of this
electronic communication link are:
1. Implement an electronic medical record system which has the
following advantages: (a) Modernize the level of service at the
Mansoura unit. (b) Allows auditing of the quality of diabetes care.
Where Joslin Diabetes Center can monitor the services at Mansoura unit
in order to give much better input in improving the use of the
available resources. This will ultimately help in improving the quality
of diabetes care in Mansoura to the international standard. (c) These
records may serve as baseline data for epidemiological and research
studies and improved patient services.
2. The Telemedicine unit will provide better communication with
Joslin specialists and staff and would enable: (a) Remote case studies,
journal clubs and consultations; (b) Seminars and electronic meetings;
and (c) Transmitting lectures and presentation held at Joslin Diabetes
Center.
3. It will reduce travel costs between the two units and eliminate
the unneeded interruption in the health care activities of both
parties.
II. Joslin Diabetes Center will help Mansoura Diabetes Unit to
establish and maintain a standard of diabetes care following the
American Diabetes Association's recommendations and guidelines.
III. Joslin Diabetes Center will assist Mansoura Diabetes Unit in
starting strong programs, especially those related to:
--Diabetes Care
--Diabetes Education
--Diabetes Research--with focus on issues important to Egypt
--Diabetes Prevention
--Diabetes Complications--management and prevention
--Behavioral Medicine
Joslin has a known international lead in those important fields.
Egypt is deficient in these fields.
Year 1
Create Model Demonstration Unit (MDU) that can utilize the
strategic educational and training program set by Joslin Diabetes
Center. Prepare the task force at Mansoura unit to meet the joint
collaboration goals. Start the telemedicine infrastructure and put it
in demonstration mode.
Year 2
Use the MDU to educate local physicians, nurses and other health
professionals. Use the MDU to develop educational material and
applicable methods and test their input and audit their outcomes and
analyze their effects in improving the health care delivered to
diabetic patients in regional suburban areas. Finalize the telemedicine
working platform to be able to utilize the training and educational
goals.
Year 3
Introduce and distribute the educational materials and programs
developed jointly by Joslin and Mansoura unit for diabetic patients in
Mansoura and its vicinities. Implement epidemiological and health care
services that fit the specific needs of the diabetic population in
Egypt. Translate these services into economic benefits through better
allocation of resources invested in diabetes care. Analyze the MDU for
expansion of the collaborative project beyond the region.
Significance and summary
This project will be a model of International Collaboration in the
twenty-first century. As the joint work progresses, we expect to
capitalize on innovations such as Internet 2, hand held broadband
receivers, etc. to foster an ever closer team work between dedicated
professionals in Egypt and the United States. This project will bring
improved care and comfort to untold numbers of patients by educating
and helping caregivers and medical educators.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit this statement for the
Outside Witness Hearing Record.
______

Prepared Statement of the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public
Service, New York University

the potential of technology to help meet the challenges of democratic
public service education
The American experiment in democratic decision-making began long
ago and in simpler times, but it has many lessons to offer nations and
peoples around the world. After the Allies' victory in World War II,
the United States faced an enormous challenge of rebuilding in Europe
and Asia. Now, having defended its democratic system and won the Cold
War, the United States faces a new challenge of encouraging the
development of democratic political systems and market economies around
the world. The struggle for democracy and economic freedom will require
new weapons, but success in this battle may depend as much on American
ingenuity and technological superiority as did our previous victories.
Through its direct aid programs, its university partnership
programs, its Fulbright and other scholar exchange programs, the Edmund
Muskie and Ron Brown Fellows programs, and through various foreign
visitor programs, our government is making a strategic investment in
developing democratic, market-oriented leadership around the world.
Indirectly, America's investment in it own higher education system has
also paid international dividends: American universities are the most
popular destination of students who study abroad. (More international
students enroll at NYU than any other American university.) During
their stay and time of study in the U.S., these international students
are exposed to American institutions, American values, and American
freedom.
meeting the challenge: nyu and the robert f. wagner graduate school of
public service
I represent the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service
at New York University. The Wagner School--named after a great Senator
from the State of New York, and his son, the three-term mayor of New
York--is the largest school of public service in the United States,
including students from more than 40 countries. In the past decade,
Wagner faculty and programs have provided professional education to
officials throughout the Newly Independent States, Africa, Latin
America, and Asia. We have current partnerships with universities in
France, England, Spain, Belgium, Ukraine, Mexico, Chile, Argentina,
Mozambique and South Korea. We have welcomed their students into our
classrooms, sent ours to theirs, and our faculty has taught courses on
their campuses. The Wagner School has been a leading participant in the
U.S. funded fellowships and educational exchange, hosted Fulbright
scholars, and is now carrying out two Department of State funded
programs in Ukraine and Mozambique. Wagner faculty are also providing
technical assistance to the World Bank and other international
organizations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Columbia, Uganda, South Africa
and Mozambique.
Wagner students receive very practical training. At the end of
their master's degree program, they spend two semesters working in
teams under faculty-supervision working for real world clients doing
``capstone'' projects in public policy, management, finance or urban
planning. In the past three year more than 60 students have
participated in international capstone projects for international
organizations based in the United States such as Save the Children,
UMCOR, Trickle Up, as well as a number of U.N. agencies. For example,
this year five Wagner students are evaluating a humanitarian assistance
project in Mozambique in cooperation with six students from our partner
university in Mozambique. They coordinated their plans using email and
interactive televideo conference meetings, and spent three weeks in
January working in combined teams doing field work in Gaza, a province
of Mozambique, which was an area most affected by last year's
devastating floods.
International NGOs, many based in the United States, have become
major players in responding to humanitarian crises around the world and
in civil society capacity building. The service delivery parts of the
United Nations system, such as UNICEF and the Department of
Peacekeeping Operations, have been given new and more complex
assignments. At the same time, funders are demanding greater evidence
of successful performance and imposing more rigorous standards of
accountability. These developments have greatly increased the need for
managerial competence in international public service organizations.
The Wagner School has been deeply involved in nonprofit management
capacity building in the NIS and in developing countries. The Wagner
School is now creating a partnership between the first university-based
nonprofit management programs in Spain (at ESADE) and in Argentina (at
University of San Andres) to serve civil society capacity building in
Latin America. Given the scale of the distances involve and of the
challenge, this partnership's potential is heavily dependent on
developing, and using extensively, distance learning technologies.
In January 2000, The Wagner School inaugurated a new master's
degree for managers of international public service organizations and
is creating a new sub-field of public management education--
international public service management. The first two classes of 36
students represent 24 countries. An emerging partnership between the
Wagner School and the international programs at the Evans School at the
University of Washington in Seattle also supports this new program. Our
partner program at Korea University, the Graduate School of
International Studies, has admitted five students to a dual masters
degree program: first an MA in international affairs, then our MS in
management next year. We are also exploring the possibility of offering
a related and technologically linked version of this MS program in
Geneva, Switzerland.
needs exceeding capacity
Even as the largest school of public service, the Wagner School can
enroll only a small fraction of the international students who want to
pursue the fields of study offered. For many students from less
economically developed parts of the world, the combined cost of tuition
and books and travel to and residency in New York, constitute an
impossibly high barrier to access. This barrier looms especially large
for women from less developed regions of the world.
Distance learning technologies have been used to expand the reach
of our programs in our partnerships with universities around the world.
Building on our experience using interactive televideo conferencing in
courses with Europe, Latin America, and Asia, we are now introducing
this technology in our work with Mozambique. By reducing the time and
financial costs of faculty and student travel in educational
partnerships, we believe modern technologies will enable the Wagner
School to dramatically widen and deepen its reach to build capacity for
democratic public service in the nations of the world. We are
increasingly working with our university partners in other nations
using distance learning technologies to provide a meeting place for
technical assistance and exchange between officials in specialized
fields. For example, two weeks ago the Wagner School hosted a two hour
meeting between solid waste management officials in Rio De Janeiro and
officials and experts in New York and Paris using an interactive
televideo conference. We believe that if we were properly equipped the
Wagner School could multiply many times over the reach and
effectiveness of its public service policy and management education
efforts around the world.
The International Center for Democratic Public Service
To bring together all of the outstanding programs and resources we
have to offer, Wagner is seeking to develop an International Center for
Democratic Public Service. This Center will focus the vast resources
found in the Wagner School, NYU and New York City on developing and
supporting policy leadership and management solutions worldwide. In
addition to offering a range of courses and degree programs, the
International Center for Democratic Public Service will serve as a
forum for American and international leaders to discuss major policy
objectives, and at which public service professionals can gather to
share ideas and best practices before a global audience. It will create
a global network of students, scholars, and practitioners who want to
better understand how to improve public service delivery throughout the
world in the 21st Century.
As part of its strategic plan, the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School
of Public Service intends to move its faculty and programs from their
dispersed locations around Washington Square into one new integrated
facility. A crucial component of this effort--and one needed to extend
Wagner programs to a global economy--is the inclusion of the full range
of distance learning technologies that would make the School's new home
a state-of-the-art global professional education center. This is an
area in which we will be seeking government support to help leverage
funding from private foundations, corporations and individuals
concerned with the delivery of public services worldwide.
Properly equipped classrooms and computer laboratories can
facilitate a wide range of projects involving faculty, students and
practitioners located in multiple sites simultaneously, and
technologically advanced lecture halls can accommodate unlimited
attendance spanning great distances. These are all well-developed
technologies, but their initial cost is expensive. However, the cost-
effectiveness of these means of professional education make them the
best hope for providing democratic public service capacity building on
the scale necessary to transform the societies aspiring to join the
United States in the great democratic experiment.
______

Prepared Statement of the University of Miami

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for
allowing me to submit testimony concerning an important new initiative
at the University of Miami and its Institute for Cuban and Cuban-
American Studies.
The Castro era may be coming to an end in Cuba, if for no other
reason than geriatric reality. Fidel Castro and his brother Raul are in
their 70s with deteriorating health.
The passing of the Castro brothers may ensue in a period of slow
and peaceful transition or may lead to fast and violent change. In
either case, United States policy makers must be ready to deal with
these and other scenarios that may develop in United States-Cuban
relations. A migration crisis, protracted violence, the emergence of
anti or pro-U.S. factions within the transition leadership, all will
require careful responses from the United States.
If a pro-U.S. democratic transition regime emerges, the United
States tasks may be to provide immediate humanitarian relief and to
link humanitarian aid to democracy building. The United States may be
called upon to assist in rebuilding civil society and beginning the
task of economic reconstruction.
The transition completed and a new government installed through
free, internationally supervised elections, the United States would
work with other democratic countries to help rebuild Cuba's
legislative, judicial, media, and educational institutions as well as
to encourage the growth of independent political parties and implement
military reforms.
A violent post-Castro transition or a civil war in Cuba may require
the United States to deal with migration issues, an activated Cuban-
American population, threats to the United States naval base at
Guantanamo, pressures for United States involvement, and, possibly,
even the eventual use of American military forces.
It is clear that given the proximity of Cuba to the United States;
the role of the Cuban-American community; and our own vital interest in
Latin America and the Caribbean region changes in Cuba will have
significant impact on the United States. The United States should be
prepared to deal with these changes and to respond quickly to problems
and opportunities that may arise in the island.
One of the clear lessons from changes in Eastern Europe and the
Soviet Union is that we were unprepared to deal with transitions in
that region of the world. Unexpecting the depth of change, we were
caught by surprise. Not knowing clearly what role we should play, we
looked confused and indecisive.
The time to start preparing for Cuba's transition is now. We can
best advance our long term goals, in the meantime, by maintaining the
present policy; by waiting patiently for a regime in the island that is
willing to provide meaningful and irreversible changes and then
offering that regime aid, trade, tourism and investments, as a carrot
to accelerate change in the island; by assisting nascent independent
institutions in Cuba; by studying and learning from other transitions
to democracy and by encouraging the Cuban-American community to build
consensus around transitional issues.
The University of Miami seeks support to prepare United States
government officials for the inevitable transition that will take place
in Cuba. The Cuba Transition Project at the University of Miami is
designed to provide policy makers, analysts and others with accurate
information, incisive analysis and practical policy recommendations.
The Cuba Transition Project will be developed over a three-year
period. Clearly, if transition were to take place in Cuba at a fast
pace the products of the Cuba Transition Project will be accelerated to
meet United States government and Cuba's changing needs. On the other
hand if transition is slow the studies and policy recommendations will
be completed within the time scheduled and these will remain as the
basis for continuous studies and monitoring of the Cuba scene.
Regardless of the speed of transition, the studies and the resources
developed will be of invaluable assistance to United States policy
makers dealing with Cuba.
During the first stage of the project (fiscal year 2002) the
following objectives will be accomplished.
--Establishment of a Research Center which will include offices for
researchers; facilities for holding briefings and seminars;
website; database.
--Organize Research Programs. Four initial research units are
planned: (1) socio-economic conditions; (2) statistical
database; (3) political system and decision-making; (4)
critical issues and emergency needs.
--Organize Task Forces. Priority topics to include: Legal reform,
macro-economic issues, agriculture, the future of sugar and
tourism, international trade, immigration, multi-lateral
financial institutions, privatization, telecommunications,
basic education, United States-Cuba relations, justice and rule
of law, education, the environment, institutional reform,
micro- and small business development, transportation,
regulation, utilities and infrastructure, health and nutrition,
AIDS, aging and social security, employment, labor markets, and
social welfare policy, foreign investment, crime and corruption
and the transformation of the value system generated by 40
years of communist rule.
--Organize Study Groups. Priority topics to include: civil-military
issues; governability and state reform; civil society
development; race, ethnicity and cultural pluralism; political
culture and value transformation.
Once transition in earnest takes place in Cuba, and United States
policy permits, we will emphasize a professional development and
education component. This part of the Cuban Transition Project will be
dedicated to direct assistance and advisement to Cuban professionals
and potential policy makers. The objectives of this unit will be
achieved through seminars, support groups, professional and academic
exchange, and direct consulting. A special facility will be established
at the University of Miami to provide distance learning capabilities
able to train large numbers of Cubans in a variety of subjects. As
needed, group seminars will be offered in Cuba and Miami and Cubans
will be brought to the University of Miami campus for specialized
training. A satellite facility will be established in Cuba as soon as
politically and legally possible.
The University of Miami is uniquely qualified to assist the United
States government with transitional issues in Cuba. The University is
located in a multi-lingual city and community, 90 miles away from Cuba.
The University has one of the largest bilingual faculties of Research I
university in the nation. Its academic orientation has been, since its
founding, toward Latin America and the Caribbean. Its schools of Law,
Business, Medicine, and Communications will be key components in
preparing and training future leaders in a democratic Cuba. The
University has the finest and most extensive collection of Library
materials on Cuba. The Cuban Heritage collection at the Richter Library
is considered the best and most comprehensive collection worldwide.
The University of Miami has had a program of Cuban Studies since
1964. The Institute for Cuban and Cuban American Studies directed by
Professor Jaime Suchlicki coordinates Cuba related activities of the
University, including the Emilio Bacardi Moreau Chair in Cuban Studies;
the John J. Koubek Memorial Center and other components related to Cuba
and Cuban-American Studies. The Institute offers courses on Cuban
history, culture, and international relations, produces publications
and sponsors original research and studies. The Institute houses Cuba
On-Line, the most comprehensive current and historical database on Cuba
and is in the process of becoming the Secretariat of the Association
for the Study of the Cuban Economy (ASCE), the most prestigious non-
partisan group of academics and researchers studying Cuba and its
economy.
For fiscal year 2002, the University of Miami Institute for Cuban
and Cuban-American Studies seeks $3.5 million through the United States
Agency for International Development to establish and develop this
important new initiative, the Cuban Transition Project. Our human and
physical capabilities as well as our commitment to help the U.S.
government develop policy-relevant advice and programs to deal with
Cuba's transition, makes the University and its Institute for Cuban and
Cuban-American Studies unique to carry out this delicate and important
task.
Mr. Chairman, we know that this will be a difficult year as you and
Members of the Subcommittee seek to establish funding priorities in
your bill. My colleagues and I at the University of Miami and the
Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies hope that it will be
possible for you to support implementation and development of our new
and vital initiative, the Cuban Transition Project.
Thank you.
______

Prepared Statement of Florida State University

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the Members of the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to present testimony before this
Committee. I would like to take a moment to briefly acquaint you with
Florida State University (FSU).
Located in Tallahassee, Florida's capitol, FSU is a comprehensive
Research I university with a rapidly growing research base. The
University serves as a center for advanced graduate and professional
studies, exemplary research and top quality undergraduate programs.
Faculty members at FSU maintain a strong commitment to quality in
teaching, to performance of research and creative activities and have a
strong commitment to public service. Among the faculty are numerous
recipients of national and international honors, including Nobel
laureates, Pulitzer Prize winners as well as several members of the
National Academy of Sciences. Our scientists and engineers do excellent
research, have strong interdisciplinary interests, and often work
closely with industrial partners in the commercialization of the
results of their research. Having been designated as a Carnegie
Research I University several years ago, Florida State University
currently is approaching $125 million per year in research awards.
FSU will soon initiate a new medical school, the first in the U.S.
in over two decades. Our emphasis will be on training students to
become primary care physicians, with a particular focus on geriatric
medicine--consistent with the demographics of our state.
Florida State attracts students from every county in Florida, every
state in the nation, and more than 100 foreign countries. The
University is committed to high admission standards that ensure quality
in its student body, which currently includes some 192 National Merit
and National Achievement scholars, as well as students with superior
creative talent. We consistently rank in the top 25 among U.S. colleges
and universities in attracting National Merit Scholars to our campus.
At Florida State University, we are very proud of our successes as
well as our emerging reputation as one of the nation's top public
universities.
Mr. Chairman, let me tell you about a project we are pursuing this
year through the Agency for International Development. Florida State
University has proposed to design, develop, and deliver a high quality
program of instruction in basic legal principles for students and
professionals in Central and Eastern Europe, the Newly Independent
States of the Former Soviet Union and other emerging democracies with
the cooperation of the College of Law of England and Wales and the Open
University of Great Britain.
The program builds upon an existing collaboration between FSU and
the European leaders in distance education with a long history of
excellence in instructional design and educational methodology and
enlists the collaboration of the schools to create innovative
applications of educational technology. It adapts existing course
materials for use in the target countries and utilizes networks that
have been established by other organizations committed to reform of
legal institutions in the former Communist countries.
Through existing educational institutions in the countries where
the courses will be completed, programs will be delivered by
established professional and academic networks and non-governmental
organizations. The institutions involved have established partnerships
and have used important developments in instructional technology and
materials-based, supported distance learning that have an immediate and
broad impact on legal education in developing countries.
Last year, $900,000 was appropriated to begin this effort. In
fiscal year 2002, we are seeking language in support of second year
funding at the $1.1 million level through the U.S. Agency for
International Development.
Mr. Chairman this is an excellent project that will yield great
rewards for our nation as well as the nations directly involved with
this training and is just one of the many ways that Florida State
University is making important contributions to solving some key
problems and concerns our world faces today. Your support would be
appreciated, and, again, thank you for an opportunity to present these
views for your consideration.
______

Prepared Statement of Rotary International

Chairman McConnell, Senator Leahy, members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for this opportunity to present written testimony on behalf
of Rotary International in support of the polio eradication activities
of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The effort to
eradicate polio has been likened to a race--a race to reach the last
child. As in any race, discipline, commitment, and endurance are
indispensable elements of success. This race requires the discipline to
remain focused on the task at hand. We cannot allow ourselves to become
complacent as we approach the finish line. Though we sense victory is
near, a single misstep could jeopardize all we have accomplished. This
race requires the commitment to make the sacrifices necessary to
achieve success. The major partners in the global polio eradication
effort have joined with national governments around the world in an
unprecedented demonstration of commitment to this historic public
health goal. As the initiative runs its course, total victory can only
be guaranteed through continued and unwavering commitment to the goal
of a polio-free world. This race requires the endurance necessary to
maintain our current activities. We cannot allow the great distance we
have traveled to diminish our resolve. Though we may be weary from a
race that has now lasted years, our adversary is weakening. The victory
over polio is closer than ever!
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you Chairman
McConnell, Senator Leahy, and members of the Subcommittee for your
tremendous commitment to this effort. Without your support of USAID's
polio eradication activities, the battle against polio would be
impossible. We appreciate the long-term investment you have made
through USAID to strengthen the basic health care infrastructure of
many polio-endemic countries. This solid infrastructure has provided
the foundation on which the polio eradication program has succeeded.
Additional support of the polio eradication program further strengthens
this infrastructure because it gives confidence to the health care
workers, provides dramatic assistance to families who no longer suffer
the ravages of polio, and provides hope that other diseases can also be
eliminated.
The global eradication strategy is working. In 1985, when Rotary
began its PolioPlus Program, 125 nations around the world were polio-
endemic. At the end of 2000, only 20 countries remained polio-endemic.
The Western Hemisphere has now been polio-free since 1991, and the
Western Pacific region was certified polio-free in October of 2000.
Europe will be the next block of countries to be certified polio-free
with the rest of the world anticipated to be certified polio-free not
later than 2005. Today polio is confined only to Sub-Saharan Africa,
parts of the Middle East, and South Asia (Exhibit A).
Thanks to the polio eradication efforts over the last decade, more
than three million children who might have been polio victims are
walking and playing normally. Tens of thousands of public health
workers have been trained to investigate cases of acute flaccid
paralysis and manage immunization programs. Cold chain, transport and
communications systems for immunization have been strengthened. A
network of 148 polio laboratories has been established.
Significant challenges lie before us. Continued political
commitment is essential in polio endemic countries, to support the
acceleration of eradication activities, and in donor countries, so that
the necessary human and financial resources are made available to
polio-endemic countries. Access to children is needed, particularly in
countries affected by conflict. Truces must be negotiated if National
Immunization Days (NIDS) are to proceed in these countries. Polio-free
countries must maintain high levels of routine polio immunization and
surveillance. The continued leadership of the United States is critical
if we are to overcome these challenges.
Rotary International is a global association of more than 29,000
Rotary clubs, with a membership of over 1.1 million business and
professional leaders in 163 countries. In the United States today there
are some 7,500 Rotary clubs with over 380,000 members. All of our clubs
work to promote humanitarian service, high ethical standards in all
vocations, and international understanding.
In the United States, Rotary has formed the USA Coalition for the
Eradication of Polio, a group of committed child health advocates that
includes Rotary, the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation, the
American Academy of Pediatrics, the Task Force for Child Survival and
Development, and the U.S. Committee for UNICEF. These organizations
join us in expressing our gratitude to you for your staunch support of
the international program to eradicate polio. This investment has
helped to make the United States the leader among donor nations in the
drive to eradicate this crippling disease. We remain on target for
certification of eradication in 2005.
fiscal year 2002 budget request
For fiscal year 2002, we are requesting that your Subcommittee
specify $30 million for global polio eradication in USAID's budget.
These funds will support USAID's delivery of vaccine and the
development of the infrastructure necessary to maintain its Polio
Eradication Initiative. This would represent a funding increase of $2.5
million from the fiscal year 2001 level, and a $5 million increase from
the previous four years. This funding level will provide much-needed
stability to the program and ensure that the U.S. remains a leader in
the global polio eradication effort. In addition, we are seeking report
language similar to that included in the fiscal year 2001 Committee
report, specifying that this funding is meant to be in addition to the
resources for the regular immunization program of USAID, and is
intended to supplement other related activities. It is important to
meet this level of funding due to the increased costs of the
accelerated eradication program, and to respond to the urgent needs of
countries affected by conflict. These funds will be applied to the most
challenging countries, such as Angola, India, Nigeria, Bangladesh and
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
eradicating polio will save the united states at least $230 million
annually
In 1998 the Chairman of the House Committee on International
Relations commissioned the General Accounting Office to investigate the
soundness of WHO cost estimates for the eradication or elimination of
seven infectious diseases. The United States was a major force behind
the successful eradication of the smallpox virus, and the GAO concluded
that the eradication of smallpox has saved the United States some $17
billion to date. Even greater benefits will result from the eradication
of polio.
Although polio-free since 1979, the United States currently spends
at least $230 million annually to protect its newborns against the
threat of importation of the poliovirus, in addition to its investment
in international polio eradication. Globally, over $1.5 billion U.S.
dollars are spent annually to immunize children against polio. This
figure does not even include the cost of treatment and rehabilitation
of polio victims, nor the immeasurable toll in human suffering which
polio exacts from its victims and their families. Once polio is
eradicated and immunization against it can be discontinued, tremendous
resources will be unfettered to focus on other health priorities.
progress in the global program to eradicate polio
Thanks to your leadership in appropriating funds, the international
effort to eradicate polio has made tremendous progress.
--Since the global initiative began in 1988, more than 3 million
children in the developing world, who otherwise would have
become paralyzed with polio, are walking because they have been
immunized.
--The number of polio cases has fallen from an estimated 350,000 in
1988 to approximately 3,500 reported cases in 2000 (Exhibit B).
More than 180 countries are polio-free, including 4 of the 5
most populous countries in the world (China, U.S., Indonesia
and Brazil).
--Almost 2 billion children worldwide have been immunized during NIDs
in the last 5 years, including 150 million in a single day in
India.
--Approximately 3,500 confirmed polio cases were reported to WHO for
2000. As a result of routine polio immunisation, NIDs and
house-to-house mopping-up activities, there has been a 99
percent decline in reported polio cases since 1988.
--Of the three types of wild poliovirus, Type 2 has not been seen
since October of 1999, and appears to have been eradicated.
--All polio-endemic countries in the world have conducted NIDs. The
achievement of successful NIDs and implementation of APF
surveillance in Somalia and Sudan shows that polio eradication
strategies can be implemented even in countries affected by
civil unrest.
the role of the u.s. agency for international development
In April of 1996, with the support of the 104th Congress and in
response to the strong urging of your Subcommittee, USAID launched its
own Polio Eradication Initiative to coordinate agency-wide efforts to
help eradicate polio. Over the subsequent four years, despite decreases
in the overall Child Survival budget, Congress directed that $25
million be allocated to USAID's international polio eradication
efforts. In fiscal year 2001, Congress increased this allocation to
$27.5 million. Some of USAID's achievements in the past, and their
planned Polio Eradication Initiative activities in 2001, include:
--USAID was one of the driving forces behind the eradication of polio
in Latin America and the Caribbean. Since the certification of
polio eradication in the Americas in 1994, USAID has turned its
attention to the polio endemic countries of Africa and Asia,
and to finding ways to use American expertise to enhance
immunization services globally. A major breakthrough was the
development of the heat-sensitive vaccine vial monitor, which
is saving an estimated $10 million annually by reducing vaccine
wastage. USAID developed the monitor in conjunction with a
private U.S. firm at the request of WHO and UNICEF. The monitor
is now used on every vial of oral polio vaccine used worldwide.
--Through technical assistance projects and financial support to
international organizations, USAID supports national and sub-
national immunization days (NIDs and SNIDs), mop-up campaigns,
surveillance, the laboratory network, and the training and
social mobilization that make these programs succeed.
--USAID joined forces with Voice of America (VOA) in 1997 to take
advantage of their radio broadcasting network to raise
awareness of polio eradication and to expand community-level
participation. To date more than 900 broadcasts supporting
eradication have been heard in 22 countries, reaching scores of
listeners in remote areas. These broadcasts include radio
dramas and contests of various kinds, all in local languages.
In 1998, WORLDNET TV received funds to add TV broadcasts to
further spread the message about polio eradication and the
importance of routine immunization.
--USAID is supporting Surveillance Medical Officer positions in
Bangladesh, India, and Nepal; and the officers already in place
have had a significant and rapid impact. The quality of
laboratory sample collection and testing has also markedly
improved.
--USAID is supporting NIDs, surveillance, labs, social mobilization,
microplanning, training, monitoring and evaluation in Africa
and India, and surveillance and labs in Latin America.
other benefits of polio eradication
Increased political and financial support for childhood
immunization has many documented long-term benefits. Polio eradication
is helping countries to develop public health and disease surveillance
systems useful in the control of other vaccine-preventable infectious
diseases. Already, much of Latin America is free of measles, due in
part to improvements in the public health infrastructure implemented
during the war on polio. The disease surveillance system--the network
of laboratories and trained personnel built up during the Polio
Eradication Initiative--is now being used to track measles, Chagas,
neonatal tetanus, and other deadly infectious diseases. NIDs have been
used as an opportunity to give children essential vitamin A, as well as
polio vaccine. The campaign to eliminate polio from communities has led
to increased publiawareness of the benefits of immunization, creating a
``culture of immunization'' and resulting in increased usage of primary
health care and higher immunization rates for other vaccines. It has
improved public health communications and taught nations important
lessons about vaccine storage and distribution, and the logistics of
organizing nation-wide health programs. Additionally, the unprecedented
cooperation between the public and private sectors serves as a model
for other public health initiatives. Polio eradication is the most
cost-effective public health investment, as its benefits accrue
forever. The world will begin to ``break even'' on its investment in
polio eradication only two years after the virus has been vanquished.
resources needed to finish the job of polio eradication
The World Health Organization estimates that $1 billion is needed
from donors for the period 2001-2005 to help polio-endemic countries
carry out the polio eradication strategy. Of this total approximately
$550 million has been committed, leaving a funding gap of approximately
$450 million. In the Americas, some 80 percent of the cost of polio
eradication efforts were borne by the national governments themselves.
However, as the battle against polio is taken to the poorest, least-
developed nations on earth, and those in the midst of civil conflict,
many of the remaining polio-endemic nations can contribute only a small
percentage of the needed funds. In some countries, up to 100 percent of
the NID and other polio eradication costs must be met by external donor
sources. We are asking that the United States continue to take the
leadership role in meeting this funding gap.
The United States' commitment to polio eradication has stimulated
other countries to increase their support (Exhibit C). Belgium, Canada,
Germany, and Italy are among those countries that have followed
America's lead and made special grants for the global Polio Eradication
Initiative. Japan has also expanded its support to polio eradication
efforts in Africa. Germany has made major grants that will help India
eradicate polio. In 1999 the United Kingdom announced two grants
totaling U.S. $94.6 million for polio eradication efforts in India and
Africa. In the last year, the Netherlands has committed nearly $50
million for global polio eradication. The Dutch Government pledged $8.4
million for surveillance in India, Pakistan and the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, followed by a year-end allocation of $40 million for
surveillance in 2000.
By the time polio has been eradicated, Rotary International expects
to have expended approximately $500 million on the effort--the largest
private contribution to a public health initiative ever. Of this, $402
million has already been allocated for polio vaccine, operational
costs, laboratory surveillance, cold chain, training and social
mobilization in 122 countries. More importantly, we have mobilized tens
of thousands of Rotarians to work together with their national
ministries of health, UNICEF and WHO, and with health providers at the
grassroots level in thousands of communities.
Your discipline, commitment and endurance have brought us to the
brink of victory in the great race against this ancient scourge. Polio
cripples and kills. It deprives our children of the capacity to run,
walk and play. Other great health crises loom on the horizon. The work
you have done and that which we ask you to continue will ensure that
today's children possess the strength and vitality to run the race on
behalf of future generations.
Thank you for this opportunity to present written testimony.

______

Prepared Statement of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and
Hygiene

The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH)
appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony to present our views on
fiscal year 2002 funding priorities to the Subcommittee.
The ASTMH is a professional society of 3,500 researchers and
practitioners dedicated to the prevention and treatment of infectious
and tropical diseases. The collective experience of our members is in
the areas of basic science, medicine, vector control, epidemiology, and
public health.
The Society thanks the members of this Subcommittee for their
previous commitment and support for the programs administered by the
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) targeted to combating
the global burden of tropical and infectious disease. Your support for
these important programs has resulted in tremendous progress in
combating disease. World health experts estimate that USAID's child
survival programs--which include critical activities in developing
nation's to prevent and treat infectious diseases, such as vector
control strategies, improving the capacity of the public health
infrastructure through training programs and technical assistance,
providing immunizations, oral rehydration therapy, vitamin A
supplementation, and HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment activities--have
helped drop infant mortality rates in the developing world to their
lowest levels ever, and since 1985, have saved over 25 million
children's lives.
Despite this progress, every member of the Subcommittee would
agree, that the global burden of tropical and infectious diseases
remains staggering and poses a tremendous threat to global health.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), infectious diseases
account for more than 13 million deaths a year (25 percent of all
deaths worldwide in 1999). Twenty well-known diseases--including
tuberculosis (TB), malaria, and cholera--have reemerged or spread
geographically since 1973, often in more virulent and drug-resistant
forms. At least 30 previously unknown disease agents have been
identified in this period--including HIV, Ebola, and hepatitis C--for
which little or no therapy is available. Infectious diseases represent
not only a humanitarian concern, but also a bona fide threat to the
national security of the United States. Our borders remain porous to
infectious and tropical diseases, including most recently the West Nile
Virus, which was recently found right here in Washington, DC. Other
diseases still largely confined to the tropics, like malaria, pose a
major threat to American travelers and especially to our military.
Last year the CIA's National Intelligence Council issued a hard-
hitting report entitled ``The Global Infectious Disease Threat and Its
Implications for the United States.'' The report concluded that
infectious diseases are likely to account for more military hospital
admissions than battlefield injuries. The report also assessed the
global threat of infectious disease, stating ``New and reemerging
infectious diseases will pose a rising global health threat and will
endanger U.S. citizens at home and abroad, threaten U.S. armed forces
deployed overseas, and exacerbate social and political instability in
key countries and regions in which the United States has significant
interests.''
The USAID programs targeted to the prevention, treatment, and
control of tropical and infectious diseases are now more important than
ever to the nation's foreign policy objectives and U.S. strategic
interests.
usaid child survival and disease fund
The Society thanks this Committee for placing a high priority on
USAID's Child Survival and Disease Programs which have long been at the
forefront of international efforts to alleviate morbidity and mortality
among the world's most vulnerable populations--children under five
years of age.
The Society urges you to continue your efforts in the fiscal year
2002 budget, by strongly supporting these activities. The Society
applauds the Committee's support for USAID to establish coordinated
centers of excellence of malaria research, focusing on tropical and
subtropical regions in fiscal year 2001. We seek additional funds for
this effort and stand ready to work with the Committee to facilitate
these and other malaria prevention and control activities.
ASTMH believes substantial increases for these important activities
are a cost-effective, sound investment towards improving global health
and protecting the health and well-being of Americans at home and
abroad, given the enormous human and economic costs we face as a nation
with the spread of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases and the
burden of disease on developing countries. We urge the Subcommittee to
provide the highest possible funding level for the USAID Child Survival
and Disease Fund programs to help achieve this goal.
The ASTMH also thanks the Committee for its support in the current
fiscal year for programs and initiatives to encourage research and
development on vaccines and drugs to combat malaria, tuberculosis, HIV/
AIDS and other infectious diseases causing enormous suffering and many
millions of deaths annually. Your support has helped to ensure that
these products are accessible to populations in developing countries
most impacted by these diseases. Your efforts are critical to enhancing
partnerships with federal agencies, industry, non-profit organizations,
the World Bank, and other international organizations to combat the
scourge of infectious diseases.
Your support for the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative and the
International AIDS Trust Fund administered by the World Bank will help
advance the clinical research progress towards developing a successful
HIV/AIDS vaccine and deliver proven therapies to the countless number
of impoverished people suffering with the HIV virus that currently have
no hope of receiving effective treatments.
The Society requests your continued support for contributions to
international organizations such as the Global Alliance for Vaccines
and Immunizations (GAVI) for the purchase and distribution of vaccines
and drugs in developing countries. We also urge your continued support
for activities that will improve the public health infrastructure in
developing countries in order to expand immunizations, prevent and
treat infectious diseases, and build effective delivery systems for
basic health services.
We know you understand the need for greater resources to be
directed to tropical and infectious disease programs, and we understand
that you face many difficult decisions as you develop the funding
priorities that will be reflected in your fiscal year 2002 bill.
In the 21st century we find ourselves with many opportunities to
expand our efforts at controlling and preventing tropical and
infectious diseases. Control of global infectious disease threats is
not just a development issue, it is also a national security issue for
the United States and a health concern for every American. Investments
in global infectious disease programs are clearly a win-win for the
country--by helping others we are also launching the best defense to
protect the health of our nation.
The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene appreciates
the opportunity to present its views. Thank you for your consideration
of these requests.

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

----------
Page

American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, prepared
statement...................................................... 180

Beers, Rand, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, Department
of State....................................................... 117
Prepared statement........................................... 125
Summary statement............................................ 122
Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah, opening
statement...................................................... 81

Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado:
Opening statements..........................................76, 121
Prepared statement........................................... 125
Questions submitted by......................................42, 112
Columbia University, prepared statement.......................... 167

Deal, Michael, Acting Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator,
Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean, U.S. Agency for
International Development...................................... 130
Prepared statement........................................... 132
Durbin, Hon. Richard J., U.S. Senator from Illinois, question
submitted by................................................... 42

Florida State University, prepared statement..................... 174

Harkin, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from Iowa, prepared statement..... 97

Johnson, Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota:
Opening statement............................................ 83
Prepared statement........................................... 84
Questions submitted by....................................... 109
Joslin Diabetes Center, prepared statement....................... 168

Landrieu, Hon. Mary L., U.S. Senator from Louisiana, opening
statement...................................................... 79
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont:
Opening statements.......................................3, 49, 117
Prepared statements......................................4, 51, 119
Questions submitted by......................................35, 102

McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky:
Opening statements.......................................1, 47, 120
Prepared statements.......................................... 2, 48
Questions submitted by....................................... 98
Mikulski, Hon. Barbara A., U.S. Senator from Maryland:
Opening statement............................................ 73
Prepared statement........................................... 75

Natsios, Andrew, Administrator, Agency for International
Development.................................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Summary statement............................................ 5

Powell, Hon. Colin, Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary,
Department of State............................................ 47
Prepared statement........................................... 56
Summary statement............................................ 51

Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, New York
University, prepared statement................................. 171
Rotary International, prepared statement......................... 175

Specter, Hon. Arlen, U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania:
Opening statement............................................ 149
Question submitted by........................................ 109
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska, opening statement... 68

University of Miami, prepared statement.......................... 173

Vivanco, Jose Migel, executive director, Americans Division,
Human Rights Watch............................................. 157
Prepared statement........................................... 159

SUBJECT INDEX

----------

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Additional committee questions................................... 35
Alternative development.......................................... 134
Anticipated results.............................................. 151
Belarus.......................................................... 45
Biodiversity..................................................... 38
Blind children................................................... 40
Budget request summary........................................... 12
Child survival and disease account............................... 13
Clean energy technology.......................................... 37
Coca cultivation to other areas, movement of..................... 151
Colombian Government............................................. 161
Contributions................................................ 145
Conflict prevention.............................................. 39
And developmental relief pillar.............................. 11
Development:
Assistance................................................... 13
Credit....................................................... 17
Disaster assistance.............................................. 41
East Timor....................................................... 41
Economic growth and agriculture.................................. 10
ESF funds........................................................ 17
Family planning.................................................. 37
Foreign assistance and foreign policy............................ 9
Global:
Development alliance.........................................39, 42
Health....................................................... 10
Globalization and conflict prevention............................ 9
Infectious diseases.............................................. 37
Inspector General................................................ 18
Internally displaced persons..................................... 140
Expenditures................................................. 140
International:
Crime........................................................ 45
Disaster assistance.......................................... 17
Support for Colombia......................................... 144
Legalizing abuses in Colombia.................................... 166
Management challenges............................................ 12
Microbicides..................................................... 36
Military-paramilitary ties....................................... 160
Operating expenses............................................... 18
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
region, corruption in the...................................... 43
Procurement, personnel, information management systems........... 39
Rebel violations................................................. 160
Regional requests................................................ 14
Social and economic development.................................. 134
Spray operations, the cost of.................................... 151
Strengthening democracy.......................................... 133
Transition initiatives........................................... 17
Tuberculosis..................................................... 42
U.S. policy...................................................... 162
Universiy directives............................................. 40
USAID:
Fiscal year 2002 budget, summary of.......................... 19
Fourth pillar: The Global Development Alliance............... 11
Program pillars.............................................. 9

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Aerial spraying.................................................. 127
ATPA renewal..................................................... 130
Equipment deliveries, status of.................................. 126
Human rights progress............................................ 128
INL'S proposed Andean Counterdrug Initiative (ACI)............... 129
Spending on Plan Colombia, status of............................. 126

Office of the Secretary

Additional committee questions................................... 97
Armenia.......................................................... 86
Belarus: U.S. Policy and Russia.................................. 115
Congressional commission......................................... 109
Economic growth and agriculture.................................. 85
Global Development alliance pillar............................... 57
Israel........................................................... 86
Pakistan......................................................... 85
PRC regional efforts............................................. 98
Program pillars.................................................. 58
Promoting peaceful change........................................ 98
Rule of law funding.............................................. 109
U.S. Agency for International Development........................ 57