[House Hearing, 111 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010 _______________________________________________________________________ HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ________ SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS NITA M. LOWEY, New York, Chairwoman JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois KAY GRANGER, Texas ADAM SCHIFF, California MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois STEVE ISRAEL, New York ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey BARBARA LEE, California BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. Nisha Desai Biswal, Craig Higgins, Steve Marchese, Michele Sumilas, Michael Marek, and Clelia Alvarado, Staff Assistants ________ PART 4 STATEMENTS OF OUTSIDE WITNESSES________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010 _______________________________________________________________________ HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ________ SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS NITA M. LOWEY, New York, Chairwoman JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois KAY GRANGER, Texas ADAM SCHIFF, California MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois STEVE ISRAEL, New York ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey BARBARA LEE, California BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. Nisha Desai Biswal, Craig Higgins, Steve Marchese, Michele Sumilas, Michael Marek, and Clelia Alvarado, Staff Assistants ________ PART 4 STATEMENTS OF OUTSIDE WITNESSES _________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 55-310 WASHINGTON : 2010 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington JERRY LEWIS, California ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia NITA M. LOWEY, New York JACK KINGSTON, Georgia JOSE E. SERRANO, New York RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut Jersey JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia TODD TIAHRT, Kansas JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts ZACH WAMP, Tennessee ED PASTOR, Arizona TOM LATHAM, Iowa DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama CHET EDWARDS, Texas JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island KAY GRANGER, Texas MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas SAM FARR, California MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana ALLEN BOYD, Florida JOHN R. CARTER, Texas CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey KEN CALVERT, California SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia JO BONNER, Alabama MARION BERRY, Arkansas STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio BARBARA LEE, California TOM COLE, Oklahoma ADAM SCHIFF, California MICHAEL HONDA, California BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota STEVE ISRAEL, New York TIM RYAN, Ohio C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado ------ ------ Beverly Pheto, Clerk and Staff Director (ii) STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010 ---------- Wednesday, March 25, 2009. PUBLIC WITNESSES FISCAL YEAR 2010 INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS BUDGET Ms. Lowey. Good morning. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs will come to order, and I want to welcome each of our distinguished witnesses to the Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs hearing on the president's Fiscal Year 2010 International Affairs Budget Request. As you know, the president submitted a budget request of $51.7 billion for programs under the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee, and I commend President Obama for submitting an honest and transparent budget that does not rely on supplemental funding to hide the true cost of our defense, diplomatic, and development commitments. I would note for the record that, while it is a robust budget for international affairs, when you factor in the nearly $11 billion emergency funding that was appropriated or requested in Fiscal Year 2009, the Fiscal Year 2010 request is only a 7 percent increase over 2009. While 7 percent is still a lot of money, we face great challenges. The Secretary also faces the daunting task of rebuilding the capacity of the State Department and USAID so that we do not overextend our military to do jobs that normally fall to our civilian agencies. I want to thank all of our witnesses for coming to our Subcommittee to present your views on the Fiscal Year 2010 budget request. Our public witnesses, along with all of those submitting written testimony for the record, represent a broad cross-section of interests and, collectively, provide a critical commentary for this Subcommittee to consider as we move forward with crafting the Fiscal Year 2010 Appropriations Bill. Unfortunately, our time constraints require us to limit the number of witnesses presenting oral testimony this morning. We are, however, very interested in reviewing all outside perspectives and will include in the hearing record the written testimony of each individual and organization that submits testimony to the Subcommittee regarding the Fiscal Year 2010 budget. So I look forward to hearing your testimony this morning. Please limit your oral remarks to five minutes. We have a distinguished group of witnesses this morning, and I want to provide each of you with sufficient time to make your statement. Your full written statements will be made part of the record. I also want to apologize in advance because I have to duck out for a few minutes for another obligation, but my distinguished vice chairman, Congressman Jesse Jackson, will handle the gavel with great distinction as well. Thank you very much. The Asia Foundation, Douglas Bereuter. ------- Wednesday, March 25, 2009. THE ASIA FOUNDATION WITNESS HON. DOUGLAS BEREUTER, PRESIDENT Mr. Bereuter. Madam Chairwoman, Vice Chairman Jackson, Mrs. Granger, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much for giving us a chance to make some testimony today for you. Of course, the United States and Asia face unprecedented challenges. This is, of course, impacting the developing world. I think it is fair to say that the Asia Foundation, with 55 years of experience as the premier nonprofit, nongovernmental organization operating in Asia, has an unmatched credibility and is an irreplaceable American international asset. The Foundation is now, more than ever, poised to help America's standing in the world by addressing some of Asia's most urgent needs and, with its strong credibility and expertise, to contribute through sound and cost-effective programs. With this experience, credibility, and expertise, coupled with a largely Asian staff--about 80 percent of our staff are Asian nationals--the Foundation is really, I think, in a position to make a significant impact for the United States and to help Asians. The Foundation has a long-term, on-the-ground presence, through its 17 Asian field offices. We are opening two more this year. It works with hundreds of established and emerging Asian partners, about 800 partners every year. Generations of Asians from all walks of life know of our programs across Asia, in part, through our Books for Asia program, which, last year sent over 1.1 million books to Asia, over 40 million, total. With higher security and operational costs in Asia, and Foundation programs more needed than ever, a funding increase is critical for us this year. Why are they critical? Well, they are crucial to our capacity to do more to advance America's interests in Asia. Other current and potential donors need to be assured that the U.S. Government supports the Foundation's effort. Thus, with the congressional appropriation, the Foundation is able to leverage funds from other donors to increase the impact of programs, including funds from the private sector. As a result, the multinational and bilateral development organizations have increasingly begun to see the value of the Foundation's assets, and they have helped fund a wide variety of critical democracy and development programs. But the critical point is that all of those funds, public and private, are tied to specific projects, and they do not allow the flexibility for us to address urgent needs as they arise. One thing we can do: We can respond quickly, much more quickly than a government. Only congressional funding, through this appropriation, provides that flexibility and allows the Foundation to maintain its expensive, on-the-ground presence in Asia and respond quickly to new developments. That on-the- ground presence is important in establishing our credibility. We have been working, for example, with Muslim organizations in some countries for over 35 years. So modest increases for the Foundation have a great impact on the lives of people in Asia, and I will give you a number of examples of the areas we are working in: women's empowerment, democracy, rule of law, working with election training. We trained, for example, over 60,000 election workers this last year alone in places like Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Nepal. A few words about our mission. The Foundation is committed to the development of a peaceful, prosperous, just, and open Asia-Pacific region. America's investments in Asia help restore our country's credibility and effectiveness, as needed, to enhance more effectively the multifaceted programs that we implement. I will give you some examples of the four areas that we work in. I recently returned from Phnom Penh, Cambodia, where I had a chance to see some of the partners we work with on women's rights issues and dealing with girls that were incredibly abused, girls as young as six years of age, and it would not work without our on-the-ground presence in Cambodia. The Asia Foundation is, first and foremost, a field-based, grant-making organization committed to maximizing our program impact in Asia while keeping costs low, despite the growing challenges of providing security for our field office staff. About the only thing that keeps me awake at night is the security of our personnel in Afghanistan and Pakistan and, occasionally, in Timor. So, as I mentioned, we work with local partners. It gives us credibility. It gives us effectiveness. We are trying to establish a capability that is there after we leave that program, but we do not leave the country, and that is reassuring to our partners. Let me say a number of things in conclusion. While the Foundation has had major programming in Asia since 1954, the Asia Foundation Act, enacted in 1983, uniquely provides for an annual appropriation from Congress. The Act acknowledges the importance of stable funding for the Foundation, and it endorses its ongoing values and contributions to U.S. interests in Asia. At the current level of $16 million, the Foundation is only now approaching the higher levels of appropriation it received in the early 1990s. Since that time, the Foundation's appropriated funds base has shrunken in relative and absolute terms. Therefore, we very much appreciate the Committee's trust and faith in providing us funds above the Executive Branch figures during the recent years. But I am pleased to say that this administration has dramatically boosted the figure that they sent forward, to $16.23 million, I think it is. These funds have been invaluable in giving us the capacity to achieve results and fulfill our mission to advance U.S. interests. Objectively, however, we believe that this level of funding is insufficient to meet today's important opportunities and challenges. The modest increase we are asking for is funding at $19 million for Fiscal Year 2010. It is essential that the U.S. take advantage of the Foundation's expertise and unique credibility for the development of stable, democratic, and peaceful societies in Asia. In making this request, we are very much aware of the Fiscal Year 2010 budgetary pressures on the Committee, but the small increase requested of $19 million would be among the best, most cost-effective foreign affairs dollars that you spend. That is my view. I think I had that view even before I left here since I was a strong supporter of authorization for the Asia Foundation, along with Congressman Berman. It would enable the Asia Foundation to strengthen program investments it has begun in recent years with congressional encouragement, such as our continued, but accelerated, work in predominantly Muslim countries, including Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan, parts of southern Thailand, and Mindanao in the Philippines. If the Committee provides these funding levels for the Foundation programs in this fiscal year, I pledge, specifically, to direct the use of those funds to expand programs that build democratic capacity, strengthen civil society, increase economic opportunity, empower and protect women--political and economic empowerment--and antitrafficking work. Thus, we respectfully urge the Committee to sustain and increase its support for the Asia Foundation and thus increase our shared commitment to addressing today's challenges and opportunities in Asia and Asian-American relations. Thank you so much for listening. I appreciate the fact that the full testimony will be part of the record because I give you a lot of examples of our work. I would be happy to answer questions. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Ms. Lowey. Congressman Bereuter, I just want to tell you that it was a delight to work with you when you were in the House, and it is a pleasure to work with you now. I know of your excellent work in Asia, and I certainly appreciate and am aware of the involvement of your people in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and, given the extraordinary risks that they face every day, I just want you to know how much we appreciate your efforts, and I thank you very much. Mr. Bereuter. Thank you. Our largest program is Afghanistan. We have about 160 people there, and we work with the president's office, the women's ministry, and a whole variety of education programs. We run the fiscal affairs of the new American University in Afghanistan. Ms. Lowey. I know we will be talking more about it as the administration continues to review our policy in Afghanistan, and I would be interested in your views. Mr. Bereuter. Thank you. Ms. Lowey. Thank you very much. I am very pleased to have Dr. John Server with us today from Rotary International, a member and vice chair. Thank you. ---------- Wednesday, March 25, 2009. ROTARY INTERNATIONAL WITNESS JOHN SERVER, M.D., Ph.D., MEMBER AND VICE CHAIR Dr. Server. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Lowey, Vice Chair Jackson, Ranking Member Granger, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am the vice chairman of the Rotary International Polio Plus Committee, and I am an emeritus professor of pediatrics and infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital here in Washington and of George Washington University. I appreciate this opportunity to present testimony in support of the continuation of funding at not less than $32 million for Fiscal Year 2010 for this Polio Eradication initiative of the U.S. Agency for International Development. The Global Polio Eradication Initiative is an unprecedented model of cooperation between national governments, civil societies, and the United Nations agencies working together for many years now to achieve the global public good of eradication of this disease. The goal of a polio-free world is definitely within our grasp because polio-eradication strategies have worked, and continue to work, even in the most challenging environments. Let me just mention a little about the progress that has occurred to eradicate polio. This international effort has made tremendous progress, thanks to this Subcommittee's leadership and with your appropriation of funds to the USAID. Only four countries in the world remain endemic and continue to have the naturally occurring polio. Those are the northern parts of Nigeria, the northern parts of India, and parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan. That is the lowest number of infected countries in history. The number of polio cases has fallen, from 350,000 in 1988 to no more than 1,600 in 2008, so that is about a 99-percent reduction in the number of cases of polio. Actually, we were having a thousand cases of paralytic polio a day. Today, we have just a little over a thousand cases in a year. There are new tools that we have available now to complete this job. These are new monovalent vaccines, as well as new laboratory diagnostic procedures. We also are using tailored tactics for each country, to fully incorporate information in the intensified eradication effort. The prospects for polio eradication are bright, but significant challenges remain. For example, in the four endemic countries, there are issues that range, for the campaign, in terms of quality, security, and funding. In addition, we need to deal with outbreak responses, which occur from individuals leaving those countries and going into an adjacent country, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Angola, and Sudan. We are dealing with those. They are tragic, and they are costly reminders that no child is safe until polio has been eradicated everywhere. Just to mention the role of Rotary International in this effort and our continued commitment and the goal of more than 32 Rotary Clubs throughout the world and in 170 countries, a membership of over 1.2 million business and professional leaders, of which more than 375,000 are in the United States, has been committed to battling polio since 1985. We recently reaffirmed our commitment to achieve polio eradication, and we are in the midst of our third fundraising effort. This is a Rotary $200 million challenge, which we are raising right now over a period of three years, in response to an extraordinary challenge grant of $355 million for global polio eradication from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. So by the time the world is free of polio, Rotary's contribution to global polio eradication will exceed $1.2 billion, second only to that of the United States. In addition to providing financial support, Rotarians in other donor countries are working to ensure that their countries are supportive of this program, particularly G-8 members, and that they continue their financial commitment. Meanwhile, our Rotarian leaders in the remaining polio- affected countries work to ensure the political commitment of those countries in completing the polio program, all the way from the ground level--the individual people going out and immunizing--to the level of heads of state. We are doing our best to ensure that we finish the job which has made such great progress, and making the stakeholders accountable is the way we can achieve that. Now, the role of the U.S. Agency for International Development started in April of 1986, and, with the support of the 104th Congress, as urged by this Subcommittee, USAID launched its own Polio Eradication Initiative to coordinate the agency-wide efforts to help eradicate polio. Congress has continued its commitment to polio eradication since that time. Some of USAID's 2008 polio-related achievements, I would just like to mention to you. First, USAID is supporting the rapid outbreak response by investigations and immunization in newly infected countries or parts of countries. AID is working through the USAID-funded Compass Project in the highest-risk areas in, finally, 11 states in Nigeria to improve immunization coverage in those states. We need to complete that area. The polio project supports the improved use of women's groups, religious leaders, and medical associations and exemplifies the advocacy of the local government authority. Supporting immunization campaigns is continuing by USAID in Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, and other countries, and funding active surveillance and laboratory in India, where they have supported 200 surveillance officers, to guarantee that polio is being detected and that immunization is going on; and also, in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Indonesia, as well as they support of all of the laboratories in the region with accreditation visits, cell lines, reagents, and laboratory training. Now, these are just a few of the areas, important ones, that are funded by USAID. Other examples are in my testimony. Ms. Lowey. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony, and the complete testimony will be placed in the record. We share your concern as well, and we are worried that because of instability--we know what is happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan--that rather than eradicating polio completely, as was our goal--we certainly have been on the verge of doing so--that it could continue being a problem. So I thank you for your testimony, and I commend you and the Rotarians for your commitment. Dr. Server. Thank you. Ms. Lowey. Thank you. Ms. Granger. Before you leave, just as a fellow Rotarian and a Member of this Subcommittee, congratulations on a really extraordinary program. When it was introduced, as a polio survivor myself, I said, you know, this is something that we all need to be aware of, and you have done just an exceptional job. Thank you. Dr. Server. Thank you, and we appreciate the strong support of all Rotarians in this effort. Mr. Jackson. Madam Chair, may I make an observation also? Ms. Lowey. Certainly. Mr. Jackson. Madam Chair, let me thank Dr. Server, a past witness. There is a specific line in his testimony that probably needs to be iterated, and that is, ``We respectfully request that you maintain level funding of $32 million for USAID's polio-eradication activities.'' I am sure, in all of the testimony that we are going to hear today, there is a similar line in everyone's testimony. Please make sure that it gets delivered. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Lowey. Thank you very much. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Wednesday, March 25, 2009. EURASIA FOUNDATION WITNESS HORTON BEEBE-CENTER, PRESIDENT Mr. Beebe-Center. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Vice Chairman, and distinguished Members of the panel, for the opportunity to speak before the Committee today. The mission of the Eurasia Foundation is to promote prosperity and stability throughout the Eurasia region by supporting the institutions of open, pluralistic, and entrepreneurial societies. Our programs enable citizens to participate in the civic and economic life of their own countries and to connect with the wider world. The Eurasia Foundation was conceived as a pioneering venture and remains one to this day. It was present at the creation of some of the most influential institutions in the region, for instance, the leading association of independent newspaper publishers in Russia and the most successful small business lending program in Armenia. Today, we support programs ranging from delivery of child immunizations in Western Ukraine, following last year's disastrous floods, to a cross-border program in Tajikistan that trains Afghan women to better educate girls. The Eurasia Foundation is distinguished from other organizations by its origins, its geographical focus, and its commitment to localizing its activities. The concept for the Eurasia Foundation emerged from the State Department in 1992, shortly after the breakup of the Soviet Union, and our partnership with the U.S. Government and its core financial support has been essential to our work over the years. Second, our geographic focus on the former Soviet Union and its immediate neighborhood has enabled the Foundation to evolve to suit the particular needs of the Eurasia region. Finally, we focus on building local institutions that can sustain reform efforts over the long term, and, in the last few years, we have taken this commitment to its logical conclusion by transforming our field offices into a network of locally- chartered foundations. The Eurasia Foundation Network, which consists of those four local foundations plus our Washington, D.C., office, represents a unique asset that can deliver targeted investments to support independent media, public administration reform, and small business development efforts more efficiently than governments. The Eurasia Foundation Network can extend the reach of the U.S. Government investment by leveraging significant financial support from other sources and also serve as an enduring link to complex societies vital to American interests. Not only the United States, but the entire world, has a stake in the development of stable, prosperous nations in Eurasia. As you well know, the region is rife with hot spots. Recent political upheavals and the global economic crisis remind us of the fragility of the patchy progress of the region, over the last few years, towards prosperity and stability. Half of the 12 countries in the region are Muslim nations, and engagement with the entire region is essential for management of the world's most pressing international challenges, yet, despite the importance of the region to American interests, U.S. Government funding to assistance programs has consistently declined over the last several years. This reduction in investment has been slowed by Congress, which has regularly increased administration requests. In the case of the Eurasia Foundation, our annual allocation from the State Department has fallen, from about $30 million in Fiscal Year 1999 to about $11 million in Fiscal Year 2008. Several years ago, we intensified our private fundraising efforts, and, today, the network is able to leverage private sources to match U.S. Government support about one to one. Two years ago, the Eurasia Foundation began efforts to secure legislation authorizing separate funding in the State Foreign Operations Appropriation Bill. We engaged both the House and Senate authorizing committees and secured bipartisan support in both chambers. The House passed the measure in 2007, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported the bill out last spring. Unfortunately, holds were placed on the bill, and it died at the end of the last session. Efforts are underway to secure authorizing legislation this year. Congress, over many years, has supported the work of the regional foundations that operate in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. We heard from one just earlier, Mr. Bereuter, of the Asia Foundation. The Eurasia region is as critical to our national security and American interests as all of those other regions, and the U.S. Government has, for a decade and a half, invested in the Eurasia Foundation to serve as America's regional foundation in this crucial geographic region. We have leveraged investment with other donors and have built a unique network of local foundations covering the entire region. It would be a great loss if these assets were allowed to scatter, and it is essential to formalize U.S. Government financial support for the Eurasia Foundation Network so that it can continue to serve this crucial function in the future. I conclude by requesting your support for separate line item funding for the Eurasia Foundation in Fiscal Year 2010 in the amount of $15 million. If that is not possible, I ask for your strongest endorsement of the work of the Eurasia Foundation and its importance to U.S. development goals in the countries of the former Soviet Union. Thank you very much. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Ms. Lowey. Thank you, and I want you to know that we appreciate your hard work and your commitment to the tremendous challenges in that region. As you know, at this moment, the budget, the appropriations process, is up in the air, but we certainly will take your request into consideration. Mr. Beebe-Center. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Ms. Lowey. Thank you. Howard Kohr, AIPAC, and thank you for joining us. ---------- Wednesday, March 25, 2009. AIPAC WITNESS HOWARD KOHR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Mr. Kohr. Thank you for the opportunity, Madam Chair, and I also say, once again, it is an honor to be here. I also want to take note that I am here with my colleague today, Esther Kerrs, who is joining me as well. Thank you again for this opportunity, and I do want to take note of the fact that we believe the historical fact that this is the first time that a woman is chairing the Subcommittee and is also the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee. Ms. Lowey. I am glad you acknowledged that, and the chief clerk, too. We have a couple of males here, too. [Laughter.] Mr. Kohr. The chief clerk as well, yes. We are delighted that this change is taking place. We are here today to testify on behalf of the president's request of $2.775 billion in assistance to Israel this year, as well as to lend our name in support for the overall account. We fully believe that a robust foreign operations account is a very important tool in American foreign policy, and I would urge this Subcommittee and the full Committee and the rest of the Congress to see the importance of this, both the assistance to Israel, as well as a robust foreign aid account. What I would like to do is to establish, just very briefly, the overall context in which this assistance is being made; first, to say thank you to the Subcommittee for supporting last year's levels and recognizing that this was also part of a 10- year overall commitment that was made between the United States and Israel, and this year represents the second year of that commitment. It comes at a time when Israel and the United States continue to face a very turbulent and dangerous Middle East, and the cost of defending both Israel and the United States continues to go up. At this hour, if you take a look at the region, just to go over a couple of examples here from a strategic context, the fact of the matter is that Iran and her allies continue to be on the march. The fact is that Hamas, which was engaged in a war with Israel just a couple of months ago, is supplied by the Iranians and, to this day, continues to fire rockets upon Israel. Just to give you some sense, 175 or so rockets have landed in Israel in the last month alone, something that no nation can live with for a long period of time. On Israel's northern border is the threat faced by Hezbollah, and, again, Hezbollah, an arm of the Iranians, continues to create instability in Lebanon and continues to threaten Israel. At this point in time, we understand that they are armed now with some 60,000 rockets and mortars, which is a dramatic increase from where they were even two years ago. Syria remains in the Iranian orbit, again, on Israel's northern border, a challenge for both the United States and Israel. Efforts, we know, are underway to try to pull Syria out of the Iranian orbit, and, obviously, if that could be done it would be a welcome strategic change, but the fact is, the Iranians are still deeply involved and we apparently have learned, if sources are to be believed in the press, that the Iranians have actually helped fund not only the cooperative projects taking place in Syria but may have actually been involved in the funding of this nuclear project in Syria, which is something that we believe requires further looking into to understand what has actually taken place there. Obviously, the most dramatic piece, at this hour, is that the Iranians are moving ever closer to acquiring a nuclear capability. This is something we believe needs to be at the top of the American agenda. The threat of a nuclear Iran poses not just a danger to Israel and our other allies in the Middle East, but, frankly, it poses global instability here and a challenge to the U.S. interests around the world, and this is something we believe needs to be of paramount attention. We believe there is still time to do something about this, and, at this moment in time, it requires American leadership as well. For those reasons, we believe the support for Israel and Israel's defense, which is represented in the request that is being made, is something that we hope will merit the support of this Subcommittee, as well as the full Committee and the Congress. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. Ms. Lowey. Thank you very much, and I think there is a clear understanding on this Committee of the important relationship between the United States and Israel, and I look forward to seeing peace in that region of the world in my lifetime. Mr. Kohr. We all do, Madam Chair. Ms. Lowey. Thank you very much. Mr. Kohr. Thank you. Ms. Lowey. The Nature Conservancy, William Millan. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Wednesday, March 25, 2009. THE NATURE CONSERVANCY WITNESS WILLIAM MILLAN, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR FOR INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION Ms. Lowey. The Nature Conservancy, William Millan. Welcome. Mr. Millan. Madam Chairwoman and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today for the Nature Conservancy. We are very honored. You already have our testimony for the record, so, rather than trying to read it or summarize it, I would just like to say a few words from the heart and then perhaps leave time at the end for a question or two. The Nature Conservancy is a private conservation charity that, each year, raises and spends more than $400 million from private donations to do conservation in 50 states and 34 foreign countries. Of that, about $60 million pays for our international conservation operations. We also benefited, last year, from slightly less than $7 million of grants from USAID. We are grateful for every penny, and we wish it could be more. We are also grateful for the support that this Committee and the Congress have traditionally shown for the international conservation mission. If we could win the battle for the conservation of natural resources and biodiversity around the world by raising our private funds, we would do so, but the unmet needs are so enormous that we recognize that only governments can do that. To that end, we have formed an alliance with the great conservation organizations of the world, with World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International, and the Wildlife Conservation Society of New York, now joined by the Pew Trusts, with the goal of trying to raise the numbers on government support to international conservation to a level more commensurate with the needs. I might add, we are also working with allies in Europe to get the Europeans to do more, and with some success, and I can provide details at the end, if there is time. Our most urgent hope is that, in this year, it is possible to raise the conservation line item in the USAID budget from the current level of $195 million to $275 million. There are other lesser asks. We recognize that this is not entirely within the control of the Committee. The world is living through the greatest financial crisis since the 1930's, and all of us have to be reasonable in our expectations. But we are confident, Madam Chairman, that you and the other Members of the Committee regard our work and the work of the other great groups with confidence and support and that you will do the best that you can under the circumstances of this year. A couple of weeks ago, we had a public launch of this document on the Hill, which Senator Tom Udall attended and Representative John Tanner and several other congressmen and many members of the staff. This is the International Conservation Budget. It describes these programs, the success stories, and so forth. Jane Goodall was there in person and spoke about the wonderful work that she does, not only for the chimpanzees but for hundreds of thousands of people who live nearby, and Wangari Maathai of Kenya provided a special statement by video, and I will end by paraphrasing the remarks of Dr. Wangari Maathai. She said, in her country of Kenya, poor people are constantly forced to make disastrous choices because of the circumstances under which they live. They cannot think about the future of conservation because they have to get through this week, this month, this year. She said, ``Those of us who have an education, who have some money, need to help them.'' That, Madam Chairman, is the core of our take-away. We do not say that conservation of natural resources and biodiversity is the solution to the miseries of the poor countries of the world, but what we do say is it is an element of the solution. All of the conservation programs put together only add up to one percent of the foreign assistance budget. We endorse the president's call for an increase in foreign assistance. We endorse the call for a rebuilding of the administrative capacity of USAID, and we hope that you will do your very best to increase the conservation function, if you can. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee. Ms. Lowey. Thank you so much, and I know this Committee appreciates your important work, and I look forward to working together to get the overall budget at the level that the administration has requested, and we understand the importance of your work in that context. I thank you. Mr. Jackson. Madam Chair, the Conservancy requests $275 million, slightly above the president's request of $195 million, but I also see, Mr. Millan, that the director of your government relations is requesting that the Committee make its best efforts to pay a substantial portion of the U.S. arrears to the GEF, Global Environmental Facility. The arrears are currently $170 million, of whose payments would leverage more than a billion dollars in projects on the ground, the director of government relations says. Can you share with us what some of those projects on the ground are, in that additional request? Mr. Millan. Absolutely. The Global Environment Facility is the implementing agency for six of the great international, multilateral, environmental agreements, including for climate work, for chemical pollution, for conservation, for the convention of biodiversity. About a third of the money that they spend goes for what we would call ``conservation projects.'' The rest goes for other types of environmental cleanups and for climate action. Mainly, under the Clinton administration, the president asked for the money for our annual quota and was not able to get it, and so the United States built up $170 million worth of arrears. In the early years of the Bush administration, they paid down some of this, but then that gradually declined, and so now it is back up to $170 million. A number of countries have paid their quotas but have fenced the money. They have given the money to the GEF, but they have said, ``Until the U.S. pays its arrears, you cannot spend this portion of our money.'' So if the U.S. is able to make a substantial down payment on our arrears, some of that fenced money would be released. Then if the U.S. provides 20 percent of the budget of the GEF, other countries provide 80, so we are automatically leveraged four-to-one. You then get a local match, typically, of three- to-one. So every dollar of U.S. contribution ends up being $10 or $12 on the ground, and there is just a host of very good projects being funded for this. For example, the Coral Triangle, which is an initiative for marine conservation in East Asia, the GEF has pledged $60 million for that. So this would help facilitate that type of work. Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Madam. Ms. Lowey. Thank you. We share your concern and your commitment, and we just have to have enough of an allocation so we can meet all of the tremendous challenges out there. Mr. Millan. We are crossing our fingers. Ms. Lowey. Thank you so much. Mr. Millan. Thank you. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Wednesday, March 25, 2009. INTERNEWS WITNESS JEANNE BOURGAULT, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER/SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR PROGRAMS Ms. Lowey. Internews, Jeanne Bourgault. Welcome. Ms. Bourgault. Madam Chairwoman, I want to thank you and the Committee for your longstanding support of independent media around the world. I am representing Internews Network, a California-based, nonprofit organization that, in the past 27 years, has worked in over 70 countries and trained over 70,000 journalists and media professionals around the world. I, first, want to put my issues that I am going to talk about today into context. Let us think about the numbers. In the world today, two billion people are connected to the Internet, and 3.5 billion are connected via cell phones. Many, many more are within broadcast reach of radio and television. In five years' time, it is likely that the entire planet will be digitally connected. The digital media space is where people live, and if you want to reach people where they live, you will agree with us that local media development and digital communications technologies should be the centerpiece of foreign assistance modernization. I would like to start today by thanking the Committee for your continued endorsement of HIV/AIDS journalism training programs in Kenya, Ethiopia, Nigeria, and India, as well as your support to media development on the Thai-Burma border. My written testimony discusses these programs in more detail. I would also like to thank the offices within the U.S. Government where our issues are starting to really resonate, particularly in USAID and in the Department of State. But, today, I want to talk about the strategically important region of South Asia, where we are finding that a very cheap and effective tool of stabilization is the microphone. My first picture here was captured on the border of Afghanistan and a radio listening to one of the 36 community radio stations we have helped build, with the generous support of USAID, since the fall of the Taliban. Many of these stations that we have built are reaching villages and communities that had never before been reached by a broadcast. Remarkably, for Afghanistan, four of these stations are managed by women. More remarkable still is the fact that all of them are continuing to run, despite the fact that several of them have been destroyed and have been rebuilt in the past few years. These stations are deeply rooted community institutions, and their outlets for national news is so necessary to cultivate a sense of nationhood in the very, very fragile Afghanistan. My second picture comes from Pakistan. These are pictures of IDPs, following the 2005 earthquake, where we were able to build a network of humanitarian radio stations in the affected regions. Media investments in Pakistan are equally as important as they are in Afghanistan. In the settled areas of Pakistan, there is a vibrant media sector, but we are not seeing the exploding numbers of journalists that are able to produce the quality, public-interest programming so desperately needed in that country. The disturbing stories of illegal hate media emerging in the tribal areas of Pakistan is a very increasing concern. That said, there are emerging beacons of hope. One of these is Khyber Radio, a small station that provides news to the people in the border regions of the Fatah. Khyber Radio is gutsy, producing independent broadcast news. In this conservative region, the station airs both male and female journalists. Internews has worked with Khyber Radio to develop news programming that focuses on local issues that matter to the local people. It entertains, and it informs, opening a much- needed civic space within an extremely conservative community. Stations like Khyber Radio are truly part of the solution for a stable, democratic Pakistan. Unfortunately, this summer, Internews faces a potential closeout of our extraordinary program in Pakistan. We urgently need the Committee to support media development in Pakistan. I also want to request that the Committee consider continuing your support in 2010 for the important HIV/AIDS journalism programs in Nigeria, Kenya, Ethiopia, and India, as well as your support for independent media in the cross-border region on the Thai-Burma border. In conclusion, I want to reiterate that the free flow of information is key, not only to democratization and development; it is also essential to the empowerment of citizens to participate in a global society. From training the newest generation of Pakistani journalists to produce balanced, accurate news to building community radio stations in the heart of Taliban territory, Internews is proud to be at the forefront of this global movement. Thank you very much, and I would be happy to take any questions. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Wednesday, March 25, 2009. GRAMEEN FOUNDATION WITNESS ALEX COUNTS, PRESIDENT Ms. Lowey. Thank you so much. When this Committee was in Dada, Pakistan, in the earthquake region, dedicating a school, I think many of us were surprised to see the awareness and the sense of understanding among the young girls. Now I understand why, so thank you. Ms. Bourgault. It is the humanitarian media programs where we really feel the impact most acutely. We have humanitarian radio programs in the border region of Chad, servicing refugees from Darfur, as well as in post-tsunami Aceh and post- earthquake Pakistan, and, there, the community media saves lives every single day. Ms. Lowey. Thank you. Ms. Bourgault. Thank you very much. Ms. Lowey. I am now going to turn the gavel over to Vice Chairman Jackson. Mr. Jackson [presiding]. Thank you Madam Chair. Presenting the Grameen Foundation, Mr. Alex Counts, President. Mr. Counts. Thank you very much. Mr. Vice Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am very pleased to be here today. I would note that I am representing the Grameen Foundation, though I also chair a coalition called the ``Micro-enterprise Coalition.'' As you know, poverty is one of the great global problems that we are facing, and it is one that is worsening: 100 million people more in poverty as a result of the financial crisis. It is also a problem, from my six years of living in Bangladesh, that I concluded was linked to many of the other problems facing the world, whether it be the AIDS crisis, the population crisis, the environmental crisis, the lack of full democratic rights by so many in the world. I do not know if you read yesterday's New York Times. There was an article about the fourth-largest city in Haiti, Gonaive, and one of the things that it said in that article, it was very gloomy about how this city was devastated by the hurricanes that hit last fall, but, in the very last paragraph, it quoted the manager of the local branch of Fancose, a micro-lending organization in Haiti, and it said that Fancose was helping to lend to businesses there to get people back on their feet. It reminds us--I wish the article would have spent more time on that--that microfinance is actually helping to get people back on their feet, rebuilding and building across some of the most devastated places in the world, and a lot of that is as a result of U.S. Government support of microfinance over the last 30 years. I would like to briefly summarize five arguments of why I think microfinance allocation, micro-enterprise allocation, should be increased to $304 million in this coming fiscal year. Number one, microfinance has been one of the most studied and researched social interventions of all time, and it shows a sustained impact on poverty, on women's empowerment, on nutrition, on education, and, in fact, we, at the Grameen Foundation, we put out a publication a few years ago, which I will leave with the Committee, summarizing the 90 most-credible impact studies of microfinance, and it showed that it truly works. This is something that works. The second argument I would put before the Committee is that microfinance has gone to a very large scale, reaching 150 million families, after its beginnings in Bangladesh with the Grameen Bank and elsewhere. One of the things we have learned is that the infrastructure we put in place to provide microfinance to these 150 million families, that what that means, in fact, is, every morning, hundreds of thousands of loan officers go out to meet with the women borrowers of microfinance to do their business. What we have learned is that those people, and the credibility that they have with the poor, give them opportunities to not just to financial business but also to bring messages and products and tools to address issues of health, of democratic participation, of education, and many other things. So leveraging this platform is, in fact, one of the breakthrough ideas in addressing health and other crises that the poor face because this infrastructure, unlike a lot of infrastructures that touch the poor, is actually paid for by the poor themselves through the interest that they pay on the loans to the microfinance. So we have got this highway with small feeder roads reaching into virtually every village and urban slum in the world, paid for by the poor, which is a route to bring them services that they would not get from other sources, or they would get much more expensively. The third is that microfinance, because of its size, if we can make even small changes in the business model, the operating model, there is a big potential impact. If we can, for example, increase the efficiency of microfinance, decrease interest rates by one percent globally through innovation, it would mean $200 million more in the pockets of the world's poor. That is $200 million for them to address nutrition and health and education needs that they have and also to energize local economies. Fourth, and it is really two issues in one, a lot of us have been promoting the commercialization of microfinance, bringing private capital in to fuel the growth, and we think that that was the right move. It is why microfinance is so big today. Otherwise, it would be limited to philanthropic resources. However, this has led to two unintended consequences, in my mind. One is, a lot of MFIs, with their private financiers, are going for the better offer, when we think that public resources can help refocus microfinance on the most vulnerable poor, where the impact could be the greatest. The second impact of commercialization is that many private financiers are under pressure, looking to withdraw or slow down their investment in microfinance. So at just the time when microfinance is needed most, growth is slowing, or even being reversed, by many microfinance organizations. As a result, to keep that growth going, even at a slower pace, will require public investment, particularly during this time. So, with that, I will just thank the Subcommittee for giving me this opportunity to testify. Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Counts. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Wednesday, March 25, 2009. FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION WITNESS BRIDGET MOIX, LEGISLATIVE SECRETARY Mr. Jackson. Our next witness is Bridget Moix of Friends Committee on National Legislation. Welcome to the Subcommittee, Bridget. Ms. Moix. Thanks very much, Vice Chair Jackson and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Bridget Moix. I work with the Friends Committee on National Legislation, leading the program on peaceful prevention of deadly conflict. For those of you who may not know our organization, we are a nonpartisan Quaker lobby in the public interest. We are the oldest registered religious lobby in the United States, and we work with a community-based network of individuals and groups across the country, although we do not claim to represent all Quakers. Since its founding over 65 years ago, FCNL has worked to help heal the wounds of war and promote just and lasting peace. In our early years, we lobbied Congress to support the Marshall Plan to rebuild after World War II. Today, we work to increase U.S. commitments and funding to head off wars before they begin, and that is what I would like to speak with you about today. Now, many high-level government officials, with much more experience than I, have already come before Congress to talk about the need to increase investments in our civilian capacities. The threats that we face today, as a world community--problems of weak and failing states, genocide, poverty, global health pandemics, violence against civilians, and proliferation of weapons, small and large--cannot be solved through military might. Secretary of Defense Gates, himself, has said, ``Our toolbox must be equipped with more than just hammers.'' We, at FCNL wholeheartedly agree, and we thank this Subcommittee for its work in strengthening civilian capacities. Today, I would like to suggest some small, but highly cost- effective, ways that this Subcommittee can help fill the U.S. toolbox with more effective ways to prevent problems from turning into crises and deadly conflict. Many in Washington are now advocating the three Ds: defense, diplomacy, and development. We would like to suggest a slightly different approach for this Subcommittee, in particular, that we call ``DDI'': diplomacy, development, and international cooperation, with a focus on prevention. First, diplomacy. We welcome and urge support for the administration's proposals to expand the diplomatic corps and stand up a civilian response corps. These are critical tools for preventing and responding to conflict. In addition to having the people power, though, our civilian agencies need more flexible and rapidly accessible funding to respond to emerging crises. In recent years, the Department of Defense, as you know, has been given broad, new authorities and funding to respond to unfolding events in the field, but our civilian agencies, the State Department, in particular, remain crippled by a lack of quick-response funds. To fill that gap, we urge this Subcommittee to support the creation of a Crisis Response Fund within the State Department, beginning at a level of $50 million. Such a fund would give the Secretary of State and civilian leaders the ability to respond to an escalating crisis in real time, before violence erupts. It could support regional peace-making initiatives, shuttle diplomacy, local police and community-safety efforts, or assistance to U.N. peace operations. Second, development. We join others in calling for elevating development assistance as a core pillar of U.S. foreign policy and rebuilding USAID. We also support the current efforts in Congress toward comprehensive foreign aid reform. In that context, we urge greater support for programs which seek to address root causes of conflict and help societies transition from war to peace. Offices like the Conflict Management and Mitigation Office in USAID, or the Office for Transition Initiatives, should be expanded and strengthened. In addition, we urge the Committee to provide new funding, through existing development accounts, to support programs which address root causes of conflict. The recent Genocide Prevention Taskforce has a proposal for $200 million in new funding, through existing accounts, to help address latent conflicts so they do not explode into violence. Finally, international cooperation, or, as the Quaker Peace Center in South Africa likes to say, ``Peace is a group effort.'' The U.S. needs healthy international and regional organizations that can help prevent and respond to crises. We thank the Subcommittee for its work to bolster contributions to the United Nations and urge full payment of our debt, which now stands at $1 billion, this year. We also urge support for specific mechanisms in the international system which can help prevent and respond to conflict. The U.S. Peace-building Commission is a new tool which needs further support, and the U.N. Least-developed Countries Fund is helping poor countries mitigate the effects of global climate change. We believe this fund, in particular, needs a significant increase in funding. To sum up, we believe, at FCNL, that the best use of the international affairs budget is to prevent deadly conflict before it starts. Small investments in DDI--diplomacy, development, and international cooperation--could save billions of dollars and countless lives. Thank you very much. Mr. Jackson. The Friends Committee has been our national conscience on human rights, poverty, and humanitarian aid. Your points today are well made and very thought provoking. I know that the administration is seeking to address these concerns. The Committee, as always, provided the administration with the needed tools to respond to these crises. Bridget, we want to thank you for your testimony today. Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Rehberg. Just a quick question, if I might. I notice, in your resume, you talk about being an adjunct professor, and you brought in speakers from five different groups. What are the other religions that take an active role in promoting peace? Ms. Moix. You are referring to a class I taught on religions and their role in conflict and peace-making. We looked at five major religions. I think, in most every religion, you can find actors working towards peace. We looked at Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, and, in all of those, you can find peace-making work. Mr. Rehberg. Thank you. Ms. Moix. Sure. Mr. Rehberg. Thank you for your testimony. Ms. Moix. Thank you. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Wednesday, March 25, 2009. AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION WITNESS MICHAEL GRECO, PAST PRESIDENT Mr. Jackson. Mr. Michael Greco, past president of the American Bar Association. Mr. Greco, welcome to the Subcommittee, and we look forward to your testimony. Mr. Greco. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Vice Chair Jackson and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Michael S. Greco. I am past president of the American Bar Association (ABA) and currently serve on the board of directors of the ABA's Rule of Law Initiative. On behalf of the ABA, I thank you for this opportunity to address the importance of congressional funding for programs that promote the rule of law throughout the world. With more than 400,000 members in the U.S. and overseas, the ABA is the largest voluntary, professional-membership organization in the world, with expertise in virtually every area of the law. The ABA does many important things. Perhaps the most significant is advancing the rule of law, both at home and abroad. Internationally, we do this through our Rule of Law Initiative, which I will refer to as ``ABA ROLI.'' ABA ROLI is a nonprofit, public-service program grounded in the belief that advancing the rule of law is the most effective way to deal with the pressing problems facing the world today, including poverty, conflict, corruption, and disregard for human rights. In doing this, we promote political stability, as well as economic and social development. We are very mindful of the current U.S. financial situation, but we believe that foreign assistance funding for rule-of-law programs is a vital and necessary long-term investment that is in the U.S. national interest. Thus, on behalf of the ABA, I urge that the Subcommittee continue to support the robust funding for international rule- of-law and democracy programs like ABA ROLI. ABA ROLI's work is guided by several core principles, including providing apolitical, nonpolitical, technical assistance and advice in building sustainable local capacity. Our programs focus in seven areas: first, access to justice and human rights; anticorruption and public integrity; criminal law reform and anti-human trafficking; judicial reform; legal education reform and civic education; legal profession reform; and women's rights. ABA ROLI implements programs in over 35 countries around the world, including Mexico, China, Russia, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Bahrain, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, and others. We often talk about phrases like ``the rule of law'' in almost ideological or theoretical terms. Terms and principles are important, but it is helpful to look beyond them to see the actual impact of these programs on our fellow human beings in such need around the world, and ABA ROLI's work in the Democratic Republic of Congo is just one example. Let me speak to you briefly about this program. The DRC, arguably, has suffered more tragedy and devastation than any other African country in the last century. The Second Congo War, which began in August 1998, has claimed nearly five and a half million lives. Despite the January 2000 peace accord, armed conflict continues today, mostly between government troops and militias. Women, however, are among the most frequent targets of this ongoing conflict, with rape used as a weapon to destroy them, their families, and their villages. In the last 10 years, hundreds of thousands of women and girls have been raped, many of them gang raped, with victims ranging in age from three to 75 years. In early 2008, ABA ROLI opened its office in the city of Goma to help address the world's most severe rape crisis. Our program provides legal assistance to these women and girls, helps the provincial bar association in providing pro bono assistance, and trains police, lawyers, prosecutors, magistrates, and judges to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate these cases. We also operate a legal aid clinic that has helped dozens of rape survivors file charges and testify against their assailants. Since we opened our Goma office, there has been a substantial increase in the number of rape convictions in the region. Let me conclude with this thought: Congress's financial support of ABA ROLI has helped legal systems and institutions throughout the world to be grounded in the rule of law. How do we do this? By building sustainable, local capacity. This is a critical component of U.S. foreign assistance efforts to foster democracy and development. Our programs are a cost- effective way of doing this. We believe, very simply, that a just rule of law is the single best foundation for stability, prosperity, and security, both in the United States and throughout the world. Thank you for your past support that has made ABA ROLI's programs so instrumental in advancing the rule of law, and thank you for what we hope will be your continued support for this important program. The ABA is pleased to provide further information, if you need it, and I am happy to respond to any questions that the Members of the Subcommittee may have. Mr. Jackson. Mr. Greco, we have seen many of the ABA's programs around the world. Your colleagues provide vital technical assistance to help establish governance to institutions around the world. The Committee has historically supported this critical component of the ABA's mission. We thank you for your testimony. Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just, a philosophical question of you, and that is, as I have traveled around some of the countries that are struggling with new governments--DRC, Uganda, some of the others--I think I have finally come to the conclusion that one of the reasons their government is having difficulty is because they do not separate the judiciary from the presidency. First of all, would you agree with that or not? Mr. Greco. I agree with that, and, you know, I am from Boston, Massachusetts. I do not want to be provincial, but John Adams, who wrote the Massachusetts Constitution on which the U.S. Constitution is based, made it clear that what distinguishes a democracy from a tyranny is an independent judiciary, and without an independent judiciary, freedom really is at risk or does not exist. Mr. Rehberg. I guess my question, then, would be, how can the Congress, not dictate, not mandate--my job is not to figure out how to create a democracy in a country that clearly does not understand a democracy, or there may be something that they feel better governs them--how do we, financially, say, ``You get the money, except, or unless, you separate the judiciary from the presidency?'' What happens is they immediately come up with a constitution. They establish a two-term limit, and then the first thing they do is they go in to change the constitution so they can have their third term, and they control the judiciary. We almost exacerbate their problem. We are not solving it. We are not creating any of the solutions. Can we do that? Can we wall off money, from your perspective, and say, ``Unless you separate the judiciary, forget it''? Mr. Greco. Well, a very important question. It goes to the heart of what ABA ROLI does, really. The short answer is, we cannot order it. We cannot dictate, but what we can do is use the vast resources of American judges, lawyers, and law professors to go in and to demonstrate, to teach, that, without a independent judiciary, you have anarchy, and you have tyranny. Mr. Rehberg. So you would not tie our financial assistance. Mr. Greco. No. We have had examples of that in the last administration, and it does not work. There are ways of accomplishing what you are suggesting, and the ABA is doing it. We have a judicial index in these countries that demonstrates how they are failing, by failing to protect the judiciary, how they are failing to protect the fundamentals of freedom in these countries. Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Chairman, do you know, is that one of the categories within the Millennium Challenge, that they had to meet a certain standard. Places like, I think, Senegal or Benin are a couple of the locations that were online for Millennium Challenge dollars. Mr. Greco. I do not know the answer, but we will answer that question when I go back. We will provide the Subcommittee. Maybe you know the answer. Mr. Jackson. Mr. Rehberg, I have been advised by staff that good governance is a criterion within the Millennium Challenge criteria, but I am not sure that the question of an independent judiciary is specifically delineated in that criteria, but when we have the director of the MCC before us, that might be something that we press at that time. Mr. Rehberg. I would appreciate that. I have never really verified my assumption about the separation of the judiciary--I do not know whether is true or not; it just seems like it. Mr. Greco. Yes. Thank you for the question. Thank you for the opportunity. I would like to give you this report because there may be some information in here that is broader than your question, and we will make available copies of this very recent report of the ABA ROLI programs that covers judiciary issues and covers the full array of issues that I have briefly tried to touch on this morning. So, if I may, Mr. Congressman, I will---- Mr. Rehberg. I would appreciate that. Mr. Greco. Thank you very much for your courtesies. Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Greco. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Wednesday, March 25, 2009. ARMENIAN ASSEMBLY WITNESS VAN KRIKORIAN, MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS Mr. Jackson. Representing the Armenian Assembly, Mr. Van Krikorian, a member of the Board of Directors of the Armenian Assembly. Mr. Krikorian, welcome to the Committee, and we look forward to your testimony. Mr. Krikorian. Thank you, Vice Chairman Jackson. Congressman Rehberg. I am going to adopt the model that some of the other witnesses have taken and not speak from my testimony; you have that in front of you. I want to start by, as others have, thanking you, individually and institutionally. I think that this Subcommittee, the Congress, in particular, has done the United States very proud in very many ways over the years by seeing to it that U.S. values are promoted; and promoting U.S. interests through these appropriations and endeavoring to use U.S. funds as wisely as possible. To address the point that you did make earlier, though, Mr. Vice Chairman, the specific numbers that we are here to testify on behalf of, for the Republic of Armenia, not less than $70 million; for the Nagorno Karabakh Republic, not less than $10 million; for FMF for Armenia, not less than $4 million; and, for IMET for Armenia, not less than $1 million. With that out of the way, I would like to pick up, I think, on the first point I made and Congressman Rehberg's question. We actually do believe strongly that Congress ought to examine and put conditions on aid from time to time. This example of countries adopting a constitution, adopting laws on paper and not enforcing them, the classic problem that we saw during the Soviet era; you are exactly right. They adopt a constitution with term limits, and, the next thing you know, the term limits are amended away, and that does not promote anything that is any good for any of the people. That term, ``the people,'' is also one that we especially appreciate that the Congress has dealt with by making sure, increasingly, I think, that U.S. aid goes to benefit people and not to benefit corrupt governments and practices that will not pass muster with the American people. Armenians, I think, stand in an unusual position. Many of us owe our lives, our families' lives, as survivors of the genocide, to the assistance that the United States rendered. I know that is certainly the case in my family and many others, and I think that is reflected in the permanence of the ties between the United States and Armenia and Armenians all over the world, actually. Those ties, since independence, have grown, politically, economically, culturally, increasingly militarily. I think Armenia stands in the unusual position of being a former Soviet country that not only maintains these excellent ties with the United States but also maintains excellent ties with Russia. In this era of resetting our foreign policy, I think that is important, and I think there are some lessons that can be learned. I think that when you look at foreign assistance, one of the ideas that has always been present, and actually lectured on by one of our organization's founders, who sadly passed away this year, Professor Brusarian, is that using foreign assistance as a model for other countries in areas where you can show that something works and then apply it in other places is one that ought to be pursued. In that regard, Armenia stands in a unique position, I believe, first of all, because you have so many Armenians with a foot in both the West and the East, if you will. You also have a fairly small country, nimble enough, whose economy can change. That economy, though, is constrained, if not strangled, by the blockades imposed by Turkey and Azerbaijan. This Committee and this Congress have been excellent, over the years, in terms of trying to alleviate those problems. We are very much encouraged and pleased with President Obama's position on the Armenian genocide. We are encouraged with Secretary Clinton's consistent position on the Armenian genocide, as well as Vice President Biden's. We expect that Armenia and Turkey are going to be in the press in the coming weeks and months as President Obama goes to Turkey. We sincerely hope that this rapprochement that is taking place between Turkey and Armenia continues but not at the expense of rewriting U.S. history, and, I will note, that it take place according to the rule of law. There are treaties in place, the same treaties that set the border between Turkey and Armenia, that guarantee that the border will be open to Armenia. Turkey has violated those provisions pretty much without repercussion. I see that I have four seconds left, so I am going to thank you again. I hope I did not talk too fast, and, again, let me reiterate our appreciation and wish you good luck. Thank you. Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Krikorian. Mr. Krikorian, Armenia is in danger of losing parts of its MCC compact because of concerns about its governance. As a friend of Armenia, what can we do to make sure that Armenia does not further erode progress on good governance and lose economic assistance? Mr. Krikorian. I think it would be helpful if, first of all, Members of Congress let the Armenian government know that. I can say that, in Armenia itself, there is substantial freedom of speech. There are people who are just as concerned about the factors that MCC is taking into account. I can tell you, as an Armenian-American, we are concerned about it, and we raise our voices about it, and we talk about it with the Armenian government. I think, the more people they hear that from, the better that it is. In this regard, too, as we noted in the testimony, we felt as though, in past years, MCC funding was almost used as a substitute for foreign assistance. We certainly heard that from State Department officials in their efforts to decrease Armenia's foreign assistance. I think those distinctions have to be made. We support MCC. We support their criteria. We support the application of their criteria. We do not like it when Armenia has democracy problems. At the same time, within the last year, we have seen a new development in Armenia, which I noted in my testimony as well. Armenia has a human rights ombudsman who has not been bashful at all, who has had access to the press, who has actually shown up at different places and spoken out for human rights, for making sure that Armenia does what it is supposed to do. I do not think, among friends, there should be any bashfulness at all about saying we are concerned. We do it internally. We welcome you to do it as well. We note, in the testimony, that Armenians watch and expect international monitoring, U.S. monitoring. It is always welcome. It should be a transparent society; there is no question in our minds. Mr. Jackson. Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe your testimony has it, but I was trying to look for the information on the blockade by Azerbaijan. Is it an energy blockade, or is it beyond? Mr. Krikorian. It is a rail blockade. It is a road blockade. It is also an energy blockade. It was particularly devastating right after the earthquake in 1988, before independence. Eighty-five percent of supplies to Armenia came through the Soviet railroad that went through Azerbaijan. Those were all cut off. Obviously, the conflicts in Georgia have cut off and often increased the prices. Georgia now has a monopoly position. If you speak to some of the Members of Congress who had visited Armenia in those days, they will tell you just how cold and difficult it was. I, myself, got frostbite in those days, as there was not heat, and there was not light. It was difficult. Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh both have offered confidence- building measures, a willingness to participate in Track 2 efforts, limited border openings, things of that sort. They have all been rejected. Right now, the country has been squeezed for a long time. It continues to be squeezed, and I think that the United States' assistance in those circumstances has really had an impact not just in Armenia but also, symbolically, around the world, and that is why it is so important, and I am so happy to be here to ask for your assistance again. Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Krikorian. Mr. Krikorian. Thank you. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Wednesday, March 25, 2009. PATH WITNESS ERIC WALKER, VICE PRESIDENT, CORPORATE SERVICES Mr. Jackson. Mr. Eric Walker, PATH, Vice President of Corporate Services. Welcome to the Subcommittee, Mr. Walker. Mr. Walker. Good morning, Vice Chair and the Committee. Thanks for allowing us to be here this morning. I work for PATH, which is a Seattle-based, international nonprofit that seeks to introduce global health technologies in developing countries. What we do that is different is that we do not just invent them ourselves; we find other technologies that are appropriate, and we deliver them in partnership with the private sector and with the U.S. Government. Now, specifically, what we are doing here today is to ask that, in this time of competing demands for the budget, that a specific element of how USAID works be protected, and that is that USAID's work in research and development for global health technologies be allowed to continue. Of course, it would be great if it was expanded, but I want to go through a couple of examples of why keeping R&D in the USAID portfolio is critical. The broad, ongoing, and successful struggle to improve global health relies on the availability of health interventions and technologies designed to prevent, diagnose, and treat disease. Although some effective interventions already exist--I note the polio eradication we heard about earlier--many more will be needed if existing global health gains are to be maintained and expanded. For three decades, USAID has supported the development and introduction of affordable health technologies appropriate for developing countries. Given its local expertise and understanding of how new technologies can best respond to the needs of developing country populations, USAID is extremely well positioned to conduct the research necessary to ensure that the best available tools are ultimately used effectively on the ground. While agencies that perform basic science research, such as NIH and CDC, play a critical role in product development, this is only one component of a much broader process. USAID is often the federal agency best suited to support the efforts needed to ensure that basic research breakthroughs are translated into concrete health gains in developing countries. One example of this, of USAID's contribution, is a partnership between PATH and USAID in a program called ``HealthTech,'' which is specifically dedicated to developing and introducing new technologies. One of the products is called ``Uniject.'' It is an auto- disabled, prefilled syringe that addresses a specific problem of low-skilled health workers not necessarily being able to load a syringe appropriately and the chronic problem of reuse of dirty needles. USAID is currently working with us to prepare the Uniject device, which is being made commercially, by the way, by Becht & Dickinson, a U.S. company, for use with vaccines to administer oxytocin to reduce deaths from post-partum hemorrhaging, gentamicin to treat neo-natal infection, and an injectable contraceptive to help mothers control family size and birth spacing. Another technology example is an effort to improve women- initiated contraceptives. In too many cases, gender inequality means that women in the developing world are wholly dependent on the cooperation of their partners to protect themselves from disease and unintended pregnancy. USAID has responded to this need by partnering with PATH and other groups to develop women-initiated contraceptives that are effective and appropriate for developing countries. Two products that PATH and USAID have worked on are a female condom, as well as moving forward on the research for microbicides. The third example is working together to advance the malaria vaccine. You may know that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has set its sights on developing a vaccine within about 15 years. PATH is privileged to be one of the key implementers of that research, but we are also partnering with USAID to accelerate that part of it as well. USAID has funded pieces that develop methods for cultivating the malaria parasite in the laboratory at specific phases of its life cycle, allowing more effective research on interventions targeting the parasite during particular stages of its development. The agency has also participated in the discovery of several molecules with potential for use in the development of vaccines, as well as the performance of human tests of candidate vaccines. You may have read in the press, several months ago, that one of the lead candidates for this vaccine, developed by GlaxoSmithKline, made it through Phase 2 trials with an efficacy rate that was higher than ever had been seen before. We are not there yet, but a Phase 2 trial with these efficacy rates is an important milestone in its development. So what is important for us is USAID's ability to partner with organizations like PATH to translate basic research into practical solutions; something we think USAID is very well suited to do. If it were to go back to NIH or CDC, while they are fantastic at basic research, we think they lack the on-the- ground presence and perspective to take it to the end of the day, or sometimes we say, ``to carry it the last mile.'' Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to share these thoughts with you, and I am certainly available for any questions. Ms. Lowey. [presiding]. Well, thank you for your testimony today. Mr. Walker. Thank you, Chairwoman. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Wednesday, March 25, 2009. UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS WITNESS DOUG BOUCHER, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, TROPICAL FOREST CLIMATE INITIATIVE Ms. Lowey. Our next witness is Dr. Doug Boucher of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Dr. Boucher. Good morning, Chairwoman Lowey, Congressman Rehberg. My name is Doug Boucher. I am a forest ecologist, and I direct the Tropical Forest and Climate Initiative at the Union of Concerned Scientists. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today about appropriations to help end tropical deforestation. I would like to make four points today: First, tropical deforestation and forest degradation has a very significant effect on global warming. Second, reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries is a very cost-effective way of reducing global warming. Third, this Committee and the U.S. Government can help fund the global efforts to stop tropical deforestation. Fourth, there are great benefits to the U.S. in playing a leadership role, bilaterally and multilaterally, in reducing such emissions. Forests in the tropics are being rapidly cleared for agriculture or pasture, destructively logged, and degraded by human-set fires at a rate of one acre every second. This tropical deforestation causes carbon dioxide emissions that are responsible for about 20 percent of total global warming pollution every year. That is more than the emissions from every car, truck, plane, ship, and train on Earth, the entire transportation sector. So, clearly, addressing tropical deforestation is an important part of dealing with climate change, and, indeed, in 2005, Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica led developing countries in proposing a policy to reduce emissions from deforestation at the international climate meeting in Montreal. The international climate treaty being negotiated is likely to, and should, include policies to reduce emissions from deforestation, and the administration is supporting such policies, both in the treaty negotiations and in domestic legislation. Countries can greatly reduce tropical deforestation and the emissions that it causes at a cost considerably lower than the current cost for reducing pollution from industries, vehicles, and power plants. Conservative calculations, both our own at UCS and those of the European Commission and the British government, estimate that 20 percent of tropical deforestation emissions can be stopped at a cost of $5 billion; for $20 billion, half of such emissions can be stopped. That is considerably less expensive than the cost of making comparable reductions in fossil-fuel-related sectors. But in order to achieve this potential, we need to build up the capacity of tropical countries to measure their emissions, to determine the specific causes of deforestation in their countries, to make national plans to reduce emissions, based on those causes, and to gather the scientific evidence as they achieve those reductions so that they can document them and be compensated for them after they are achieved. The first phase of this, the capacity building, has a much smaller cost than the later phase--we are talking about hundreds of millions rather than many billions--but it has to be started quickly so that we can achieve major reductions in emissions in the decade of the 2010's. Official development assistance funding represents the earliest and fastest way for tropical countries to build up the capacity they need to protect their forests, measure, certify their emissions reductions, and do the necessary training and technology development. Just for comparison, other countries are already contributing to this. The government of Norway, for example, a country of just 10 million people, is committed to $500 million a year, for each year, for the next five years towards this goal. UCS, accordingly, urges the Subcommittee to appropriate at least $200 million in Fiscal Year 2010 development assistance to increase tropical countries' capacity to reduce emissions from tropical deforestation, as well as to maintain or increase reforestation. This appropriation would fund such activities as developing the capacity to measure their reductions, determining emissions reference levels, developing strong forest governance, modifying national development plans, creating in-country capacity to use satellite data, creating the necessary forest inventory plots, and learning how to assemble all of this information into scientifically rigorous, dependable measures in the form that will be necessary to receive private and public sector funding for the reductions that have been made on a ``pay-for-performance'' basis; that is, reductions have to be made first; compensation comes after. Such a tropical deforestation and climate program would be integrated with USAID's other environment and climate-related activities, which include promoting the international development of clean technology and climate-adaptation initiatives. These three elements--forests, green technology, and adaptation--are also very important parts of the international negotiations currently going on in the U.N. process. As the world community anxiously awaits the U.S. Government to retake the leadership role in treaty negotiations, such bilateral funding will be the first and most concrete indication of the U.S.'s reengagement. Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee, we are running out of time. Scientists have recently concluded that the impacts of global warming are becoming even more severe and more quickly than had been projected. So, as part of a more robust, climate-change program in the USAID, we urge you to appropriate $200 million in additional funds to help reverse tropical deforestation and thus reduce global warming pollution. Thank you very much, and I would be happy to answer your questions. Ms. Lowey. First of all, as you know, we are very pleased that the president's budget includes a significant focus on climate change. Whenever I hear a comparison of reducing fossil fuels and looking at what deforestation does comparably, I continue to be amazed. I almost think you should put great, big signs all over to get support for this initiative. I know that there is a great deal of enthusiasm and confidence that focusing on deforestation in the president's overall agenda is going to be key, and I hope that we will be able to provide sufficient funding to be able to accomplish your goals. I really want to thank you for your important work. Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Lowey. I really appreciate the support, and, as you said, this is not only a very important part of the global warming problem, but it is also one of the areas where we can be most cost effective in reducing greenhouse gas emission and, therefore, in solving the problem. Ms. Lowey. Thank you. Let me thank you and all of those who are still here who presented their testimony. This hearing is adjourned, and we will continue our work. Thank you. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Thursday, March 26, 2009. PUBLIC WITNESSES: THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2010 INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS BUDGET Ms. Lowey. Good morning. The subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs will come to order. I want to welcome each of our distinguished witnesses to the subcommittee. This is a hearing on the President's Fiscal Year 2010 International Affairs Budget. As you know, the President submitted a budget request of $51.7 billion for programs under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, and I do commend President Obama for submitting an honest and transparent budget that does not rely on supplemental funding to hide the true costs of our defense, diplomatic, and development accounts. I would also like to say that the decision of the Budget Committee to reduce that was not a happy result, but the process is not over until it is over. And I would note for the record that while it is a robust budget for international affairs, when you factor in the nearly $11 billion emergency funding that was appropriated or requested in fiscal year 2009, the fiscal year 2010 request is only a seven percent increase over 2009, and while seven percent is still a lot of money, we face great challenges. It is therefore extremely important to hear from our witnesses today about funding priorities and I would like to thank all of you for participating in today's hearing. Our public witnesses, along with all those submitting written testimony for the record, represent a broad cross- section of interests and collectively provide a critical commentary for this subcommittee to consider as we move forward with crafting a fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill. Unfortunately, our time constraints require us to limit the number of witnesses presenting oral testimony this morning. We are, however, very interested in reviewing all outside perspectives and will include in the hearing record the written testimony of each individual and organization that submits testimony to the subcommittee regarding the fiscal year 2010 budget. I look forward to hearing the testimony this morning, and we would be very grateful if each witness would limit their oral remarks to five minutes. We have a distinguished group of witnesses this morning and I want to provide each of you with sufficient time to make your statement. Your full written statement will be made part of the record. We will begin, with Cynthia McCaffrey, United States Fund for UNICEF, Senior Vice President, Program and Strategic Partnerships. Please proceed. ---------- Thursday, March 26, 2009. UNITED STATES FUND FOR UNICEF WITNESS CYNTHIA McCAFFREY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, PROGRAM AND STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS Ms. McCaffrey. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee. On behalf of American supporters for the US Fund for UNICEF, I appreciate this opportunity to testify regarding the United Nations Children's Fund, and I respectfully ask the subcommittee to provide at least $135 million as the U.S. government's voluntary contribution to UNICEF for fiscal year 2010. Most importantly, I want to thank you for your ongoing bipartisan support for UNICEF and the world's children, and for providing $130 million to UNICEF in the current fiscal year. Our organization, the US Fund for UNICEF represents concerned Americans who want us to save children from dying preventable deaths. I just completed my first year at the US Fund for UNICEF. I have had the opportunity over the years to work for several international organizations, including UNICEF itself, so I have traveled quite a bit and seen UNICEF programs from different angles. One trip in particular struck me and stuck with me when I met a new mother with her young baby son, Samani Buno, and I asked did it have any significant meaning, and she said, ``it means be well.'' ``My other two babies died,'' she continued, ``but this one will be well, will be healthy, and grow to be a strong man.'' What struck me was that it was not a sad moment; it was a determined, decisive moment. And that is UNICEF. We are decisive and determined. Every year 9.2 million children die from causes we can prevent. That is 25,000 children dying every day before their fifth birthday. We believe we must and we know we can make that number zero. What is UNICEF doing to do that? With support and money that this committee has provided we have immunization efforts underway. In the last year, UNICEF has contributed to prevent two million deaths of young children through immunization programs. In 2007 UNICEF provided 3.2 million vaccine doses worth $617 million that reached 55 percent of the world's children. Nutrition is also very important. Of those 9.2 million children who die every year, almost 40 percent are malnourished. I know you may be familiar with our oral rehydration salts, which are lifesaving, but I want to make sure you also know about our micronutrient powders. With pennies, we can put this on a child's food; it is tasteless and they can get the vitamins and micronutrients they need for up to a week. Or ready-to-use therapeutic food, which is a high protein mixture that is easy to swallow and you can literally see an acutely malnourished child come back to life as he swallows it; for less than a dollar. UNICEF is on the ground in over 150 countries and territories helping children to survive childhood and thrive through adolescence. UNICEF, in addition to supporting health and nutrition, provides clean water and sanitation, quality basic education for boys and girls, and protects children from violence, exploitation, and HIV and Aids. I have brought some pictures to further illustrate what UNICEF does on the ground. This is in Azerbaijan, a temporary kindergarten unit which is exemplary of what UNICEF does. In an internally displaced camp or in an emergency it provides a safe place for children to go and to learn. I was in Laos recently where UNICEF supports a mobile health clinic providing health and basic nutrition screening, but with our partners we have thrown on kindergarten and basic education. I was struck by the four, five, and six year old children who come running when the mobile clinic rolls into town, into the village, where there is not a school nearby, to begin learning how to read and write, and I was also struck how the 14, 15, and 16 year old boys and girls who grew up in the same village far from a school come and also try to learn how to read and write. This is in Pakistan after the earthquake, and illustrates UNICEF providing with partners clean water points and we provide water purification as well. As you know, dirty water is one of the biggest killers of children. Up to 4,200 children die every day from diseases caused by dirty water. March 22, Sunday, the US Fund for UNICEF launched celebrating Clean Water Week by walking with over 2,000 children and their families in New York City and Chicago to show how important clean water is for everyone, everywhere. This in Somalia after the tsunami, UNICEF providing shelter, basic health and nutrition, as well as education in an emergency. More recently in Haiti when the island was pummelled with hurricanes, UNICEF did the same thing. We were among the first responders to make sure there was clean water and sanitation, basic education where children could be in a safe place and learn, and have the health and nutrition that they required. Along with the $135 million that we have requested for UNICEF, we would like to support increased funding for Child and Maternal Health subaccount, the Iodine Deficiency, Polio Eradication, and the GAVI request. This committee has been steadfast champions for children and we are here to thank you for that leadership and to encourage you to keep children an Appropriations priority. Thank you. Ms. Lowey. Thank you for your very important work and we look forward to continuing to work together as partners. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Thursday, March 26, 2009. WORLD WILDLIFE FUND WITNESS THOMAS C. DILLON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT Mr. Dillon. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today. World Wildlife Fund is the largest private conservation organization working internationally to protect wildlife, wildlife habitat, and natural resources that all humans need to survive. We have been around for 45 years and we have worked in more than 100 countries. We are supported by 1.2 million numbers in the United States, and 5 million members worldwide. We believe we have a unique way of working that combines our global reach with the foundation and science to meet the needs of people and nature. The nature of many assets are impossible to live without and yet are facing dire challenges. Two billion people, 75 percent of whom are rural poor, are food insecure. Fish stocks are collapsing worldwide, putting at risk one billion people who depend on fish for protein. A good example is from where I used to live in Laos and Vietnam along the Mekong River, the lower part of the river supplies 80 percent of the protein for 70 million people there, and that is at risk from climate change, from infrastructures such as dams for growing energy, and from poor land use planning, and deforestation. At the same time fresh water systems and species are in peril while inadequate water supply are leading to 50 percent of the world's nutrition, 10 percent of global health problems and two million deaths per year. It is estimated that by 2030 half the world's population could be living in water-stressed countries. Wetlands, river basins and groundwater aquifers are the key to ensuring clean, fresh water for all are rapidly being depleted and polluted. So I think the link between nature and human interests cannot be overstated. A few other example would be, for instance, the island of Sumatra in Indonesia has been undergoing the most rapid deforestation in the world after the fall of the Suharto in the fall of 1998, and that is leading to widespread problems for local people who are dependent on the forest, but also at a regional level is leading to very serious haze problems as deforestation causes forest fires, which is leading annually to billions of dollars in health care costs in Singapore and Kuala Lumpur, as well as contributing greatly to the concentration of greenhouse gases. Just to the island of Sumatra alone, the deforestation that are occurring annually exceeds the reduction in greenhouses gases from the Kyoto Protocol, and that is on an annual basis. There is a lot of projects that the U.S. Government is funding that are improving the situations between local livelihoods for rural people, and nature that they are dependent upon. One great example would be in Namibia, the life program which has been going on for 16 years supported by USAID, and there they are now 50 community conservancies representing one-seventh of the country's population, and these are the poorest people in Namibia who now have control over their own resources. They have brought back their wildlife. They have brought back water resources, and they have greatly improved both health and their local environment, which has brought in significant economic resources. Interestingly, almost none of these people have any formal education, and now they are actually managing very sophisticated operations. One-third of them are women. When I was there recently talking to a committee that runs one of these very large conservancies--they are on average about a half a million acres--I was talking to women who had only first and second grade education, and has been goat herders their whole lives, and now were managing these operations that are bringing in the financial resources for their own communities as well as improving the environment. There are a lot of other wonderful examples of U.S. Government-funded projects. I do not have a lot of time, but in Nepal, for example, there are simple technologies such as bio- gas that allow for the reduction of the use of firewood, and reduction in time that women spend collecting firewood, and that brings back the forests in southern Nepal. So in conclusion, I would say that we have worked very closely with USAID and others in the State Department on environmental projects and programs throughout the world. We appreciate the funding that this subcommittee has provided in fiscal year 2009, and we hope that in fiscal year 2010 you will consider $275 million for USAID's bio diversity conservation program, 80 million for the global environment facility, plus 85 million for arrears which is half of the current arrears the U.S. Government has, as well as $20 million for the Shaska Forest Conservation Act, which is the same amount as in fiscal year 2009, and $12 million for the international organizations and programs at the State Department who have been very helpful in a lot of the large-scale conservation programs throughout the world; maybe most notably the Coral Triangle which President Obama mentioned in his first few days in office, which is working on marine fisheries which not only is the most important place for coral reefs in the world, it also is the area that spawns many of the fish that people in Southeast Asia are relying upon, and it is a large-scale project that both AID and State Department have helped foster. Thank you for allowing me to speak today, and I obviously have a lot more in my written testimony, and I hope that it is helpful to you. Ms. Lowey. It certainly is helpful and I thank you very much. In particular, I think the information regarding the impact of deforestation, to use the example of Indonesia, should really be sent out loud and clear on a great big PR campaign because I do not know that the majority of the people in this country are really aware of it, and certainly our resources can be very, very helpful in reversing it. So I thank you for your focus on that, and the other information you provided. Ms. Granger. Ms. Granger. Thank you for your appearance and thank you for your written statement. I will study it carefully. You have great information to give us. Thank you. Mr. Dillon. Thank you. Ms. Lowey. Thank you very much. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Thursday, March 26, 2009. NATIONAL COORDINATED EFFORT OF HELLENES WITNESS ANDREW E. MANATOS, PRESIDENT Ms. Lowey. Andrew E. Manatos, National Coordinated Effort of Hellenes. Thank you very much. Welcome. Please proceed. Mr. Manatos. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee. I will be brief and submit my written testimony for the record. The first point I would like to bring to the committee's attention is ESF funds going to Cyprus. I know the committee over the years has tried to help our bureaucrats over there make sure that the government of Cyprus that is recognized by the United States is fully briefed on where those dollars are going. Strangely enough, there are some people in our bureaucracy who have taken upon themselves to treat these issues differently. As a matter of fact, you will be interested to know that in recent days an effort was made, for example, to have the leader of this entity on Cyprus that is not recognized by the American government meet with the Secretary of State and meet with General Jones. This went on a great deal of activity within our bureaucracy to do this. When it was brought to the attention of Secretary Clinton, she, of course, understood the importance of recognizing the legitimate government of Cyprus and that was immediately put to a stop. The Hellenes funding is another program that has taken care of 40,000 people, very desperate people in need of health care in the former Soviet Union, 40,000 people a year. It is a small dollar item for the American budget but has a profound impact on that region. If I might also just mention a couple of issues that I know the members of the subcommittee are interested in in that region. One is the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which is to the north of Greece. The issue has really simplified in recent months because the United Nations offered to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia the name that they have been asking for; the name Macedonia. The UN said, of course, we will give that name qualified by the part of ancient Macedonia that is within the borders of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, so it will be North Macedonia. Well, that UN proposal was rejected. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia wants a name that not only describes their territory but also the north of Greece which you will see maps that show northern Greece annexed to this country. So the issue is solidified, clarified for a lot of people. It is no longer an issue of a name. It is an issue of territorial sovereignty. Another issue of great concern is the issue of the ecumenical patriarch. As you know, the ecumenical patriarch is the spiritual leader of the second largest christian church in the world. In nearly 2,000 years it has been established in what is today Istanbul, Turkey. He plays a phenomenal role. He was selected in 2008 Time Magazine as the eleventh most important person or influential person among the 100 most influential people in the world. He is the individual that brought about the first condemnation of 9/11 as an anti- religious act, a condemnation by Muslim leaders, but as you know in recent years 95 percent of his property in Turkey has been confiscated. There is an effort to put an end to this nearly 2,000 year-old religious institutions by requiring that all future patriarchs be Turkish citizens, and that community has been so oppressed, it is less than down to 2,000 people, mostly old, and it would be extinguished. American policy on this is really quite good and that Congress has been excellent on urging Turkey to do what is in Turkey's best interest, and that is to provide religious freedom to ecumenical patriarch. The final issue I will mention is the Cyprus issue. A lot of people do not realize, because of the neighborhood that Cyprus is in, that unlike Greece and Turkey, which had great violence for 400 years, unlike Bosnia and that area, on the island of Cyprus in their 400-year history together of Turkish Cypriots and Greece Cypriots, they got along with only 16 years of violence, and those 16 years were motivated by, for example, the Brits did the divide and conquer where they created a Turkish Cypriot police force and pitted them against the Greece. When Turkish Cypriots leave Cyprus to go back to the U.K., which was their colonial country, where do they live? They got to Greek Cypriot neighborhoods. They live together in Great Britain. They are members of the same social clubs. There have been 15 million crossings in recent years between the two communities; not one incident of violence. Yet, as you may know, Turkey has more troops on the little island of Cyprus than the U.S. has in Afghanistan, and America policy is trying to help that country come together, and even the establisher of the Turkish Caucus on the Hill is now supporting the removal of Turkish troops from Cyprus. This is not a pro-Greek or pro-Turkey. It is in everybody's best interest, probably more for Turkey than for anyone else. And as the first witness to stop at exactly five minutes, I hope we get additional consideration for your request. [The information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Ms. Lowey. You always have the consideration of this subcommittee, and we thank you very much for appearing. Ms. Granger? Ms. Lee? Thank you very much. GAVI Fund, Dwight L. Bush, Jr., Member, Board of Directors. Thank you for being with us today. ---------- Thursday, March 26, 2009. GAVI FUND WITNESS DWIGHT L. BUSH SR., MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS Mr. Bush. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. It is a privilege and honor for me to speak before your committee once again on behalf of the GAVI Fund. I have a written statement that I would hope would be entered into the record, and rather than repeat the points in that statement I would like to highlight briefly my recent experiencing witnessing firsthand child immunization in Liberia, a trip that I took about six weeks ago. I saw immunization activities in 10 clinics in three different hospitals located in both rural and urban setting. I saw firsthand literally hundreds of mothers waiting their turn to ensure that their children are protected against preventable diseases that kill millions every year: hepatitis B, diphtheria, and tetanus. These were hopeful mothers who want for their children what we want for ours--the chance to grow and thrive without the fear of preventable diseases that could stop them from realizing their potential. But their struggle to secure this is so much greater than ours. However, the resolve of those mothers is so clear. It was an incredibly moving experience for me. I have visited a number of the developing countries since joining the GAVI board more than five years ago, but this experience was particularly poignant for Liberia and the United States, as you know, have a very special bond. My colleagues and I saw firsthand the key role that GAVI support plays in expanding access to life-saving vaccines and in strengthening health systems in Liberia. But for each challenge that I saw I also saw hope. I saw the faces of parents who felt for the first time that they were assuring the basic insurance that increases the chances that their children will live to the age of five, and I also witnessed the empowerment that health workers experienced as they administered life-saving vaccines. During Liberia's long, brutal war, vaccination rates dropped to about 32 percent. Today, I am pleased to announce with the support of GAVI and other organizations the rate of immunization has more than doubled, to over 60 percent. Because of the commitment of our government to prioritize public health and to support GAVI's partnership, which includes UNICEF, and World Health Organizations, among others, as partners, we are helping to ensure that children in Liberia have a chance to thrive and grow. President Ellen Sirleaf Johnson is personally aware of GAVI's support, and she met with our delegation there. She understands that vaccinations is the backbone of public health and that it is important for her to realize her broader objectives for stabilizing Liberia. Wherever we turned we heard stories from mothers about how vaccines or the lack thereof affected them and their families. I just want to share one story with you, one individual we encountered. Her name is Angie, and she was a nurse who was assigned to take us around the country. Angie had three children. Two of her children died of pneumonia, unnecessarily so before they reached the age of five. And during the course of her raising her three children, she was always subject to feeling the power and the burden of the brutality of the war that went on. So there were instances when she took us to her home in the country, and there was a dividing line, and she knew that when she lived there she couldn't get past the army or the people involved in the government to get her children to the hospitals for basic vaccines. She lost two kids. She saved one. This need not happen, and her story, I think, is indicative of the experience that many had in Liberia that GAVI is helping to address, to make sure that she can get her children to the age of five because we know that children who live to five have a great chance of growing to maturity. Madam Chair, we can make sure that Angie's story is not repeated in Liberia and elsewhere, in Sub-Sahara Africa, in South Asia. We can work with government in Liberia and the more than 70 other very poor countries to increase access to life- saving vaccines so that children can grow into healthy and productive adults that contribute to the prosperity of their countries, but we do continue to need U.S. support. Thanks to your leadership and the subcommittee support the GAVI alliance has been able to provide vaccines and health system support to more than 70 of the world's poorest countries. On behalf of the alliance, we respectfully request that this subcommittee recommend $80 million for the GAVI alliance in fiscal year 2010 budget. Thank you and I am prepared to answer any questions you may have. Ms. Lowey. Thank you for your very important work, and I really do appreciate your giving us some examples of President Ellen Johnson's relief work in Liberia. This committee traveled there and we are very well aware of the enormous challenges that she faces. She has a big cheerleading squad here. Mr. Bush. Yes. Ms. Lowey. And I am glad that you are working so actively with her. Thank you. Ms. Granger. Thank you. Mr. Bush. Thank you very much. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Thursday, March 26, 2009. BASIC EDUCATION COALITION WITNESS STEPHEN F. MOSELEY, CHAIRMAN Mr. Moseley. Madam Chairwoman, I am just delighted to have the honor to be here, and I want to thank you for the extraordinary leadership you are providing to help children's education around the world and the access and improving the quality of those children's lives through education around the world, and also to thank Ms. Granger and Ms. Lee also for in your role prior to becoming a Ranking Member, supporting the EFA bill, which is now a bipartisan effort which is hope is moving through toward ultimate legislation and funding. Extraordinary progress has been made, Ms. Chairwoman, not only for your leadership first as a Rank Member and the Chair, to leading us back into a role of leadership on children's basic education, and especially for girls' opportunity for basic education around the world. The U.S. has reached one of the lowest points in history of support for education just about the time the world's ministers of education came together in the year 2000 in Dakar. Since then that level of funding, which was only $100 million, barely serving kids at that point has risen to approximately $700 million in the last year, joined with other nations, which is so important, the collaborative cooperation now led by the U.S. is the largest single donor has been so important in moving us forward and meeting the goals that have been set forth by the EFA movement. We are at a particular point in time though where we must wrestle with the things that we have not accomplished, but I want to start by noting how much has been accomplished. In the years since 2000, 20, almost 30 percent in many cases, increase in access and completion of basic education has resulted. That is a dramatic increase in a period of 10 years. Depending on the area and depending on the country, 20 to 40 percent increases in participation by girls has occurred as a result of this funding, as well as a result of the support, and as a result of the leadership, though, by the countries themselves, but the donor support has been absolutely critical in being able to leverage their support to address these critical needs. The successes have varied by region, but U.S. support has particularly been effective in bringing to scale at a national level work on countries as diverse as El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua in Central American, Guiana, Uganda, Namibia, Ethiopia have all made dramatic progress in terms of access for girls, opportunities again to improve quality of education. Liberia is a wonderful example just cited as a massive change in where not only a new education system had to be rebuilt but also to serve the children in crisis at the same time. The same thing is occurring in parts of Asia--I have a note--beginning to move toward more national skill program in Nepal, Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, very challenging but major progress being made as a result of the U.S. involvement and in cooperation with others. Our members from BEC, who I am representing today, the Basic Education Coalition, are the 18 organizations that work at the grass roots level. They work also with the National Ministries of Education. They work in cooperation with both multilateral donors, in particularly though with AID which is doing an extraordinary job, I want to note in its work at the ground level. It is the only donor organization working on a continuous basis at the ground level and being able to work at scale but doing so on a country-led leadership and initiatives, and at that country-led process working closely in cooperation with the other donors so that our coordinated efforts together make that difference. What is wonderful about education is that there is as large investment by countries. What is further wonderful though is that the amount of funding, which may appear small relative to the need, is in fact able to leverage that other funding to make qualitative changes, significant skill changes. The funding that is provided through USAID has been very important in changing the teaching approaches, materials, the relevant content, applying technologies for more efficient systems, training of leaders, making sure that the management information systems both contribute policy change within the country but also, frankly, to make sure that we know where the funding is going to ensure that it continues to be accountable for results, which have been led in many respects by USAID's work. Many of our organizations work in concert with AID in making this happen. At the same time we feel that over the past several years the attention to the leadership in aid for education within AID has not been fully recognized. It continues to be low down in the bureaucracy despite the very high priority your committee has helped the agency to achieve in terms of on-the-ground funding. We are recommending this year in the 2010 budget that we find room and opportunity to begin, in effect, to make that downpayment, a significant downpayment on the EFA legislation and are recommending $1 billion support, to make sure that we go forward at this halfway point in the EFA movement toward our goals for 2015. We are living in a time of revolutionary change in education. We can achieve--maybe not in my lifetime--but soon, I believe in my children's lifetime--we will see the possibilities that this support will bring education to every child in the world. That will be revolutionary and is possible and doable. I just finally want to note as the buzzer is ringing how important it is that we also support bringing back the skill level of the valuable personnel at the field level for USAID, education officers, to ensure that sound programming, sound planning, working with country-led programs by the countries themselves bring about this change and utilize these funds well and for the long term. We also want to make sure that the U.S. leadership role does work closely in cooperation with UNESCO, with UNICEF, with UNIFEM, with other organizations. It is very important that our leadership be one in unison with the others, and we look forward to the committee's consideration of not only this level of funding, but how best to carry out that funding, working with our agency and with the kind of members that we represent. So thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. Ms. Lowey. Thank you very much. Mr. Moseley. Thank you very much. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Thursday, March 26, 2009. CARNEGIE HALL WITNESS SARAH JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, WEILL MUSIC INSTITUTE Ms. Johnson. Thank you. Good morning. Chairwoman Lowey, Ranking Member Granger, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today on behalf of Carnegie Hall. My name is Sarah Johnson and I am the Director of the Weill Music Institute which is Carnegie's education and community program's arm. I am here in place of our trustee and artist advocate, Jessie Norman, who sends her best personal wishes to you, and regrets not being able to be here today. She sent us. Carnegie Hall has worked closely during the past eight years with the Department of State, Office of Education and Cultural Affairs. We believe that education and cultural exchange is a critical component of international diplomacy and we encourage the committee to fund innovative cultural exchange programs at the highest possible level in fiscal year 2010. Funding for cultural diplomacy has more than tripled since 2001, and in fiscal year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, $10 million was made available for grants to entities for one-time cultural exchange activities. This funding was a breakthrough for organizations like Carnegie Hall. As American society grows increasingly diverse and as our global community continues to shrink, there is a corresponding need for bridging cultural divides and placing different cultures and dialogue with one another. The arts can play a central role in this work by virtue of their unique ability to create communal experiences among diverse peoples, to support individual and collective expression, to foster greater cultural awareness, and to stimulate cross-cultural understanding and communication. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke recently about bringing twenty-first century tools and solutions to meet our problems and seize our opportunities. We consider ourselves fortunate to have developed and partnership with the Department of State cultural exchange as one of these powerful twenty- first century tools. Building on our joint successes and a desire for richer, more sustained relationships with our international partners, we have developed Carnegie Hall cultural exchange, a highly innovative and far-reaching model that creates long-term links among U.S. students, high school students and teachers, and their peers abroad. This program currently engages students, educators and artists in Turkey, India, and starting this fall in Mexico. In each of these countries there is enormous opportunity to improve understanding and perceptions of the United States through non-political activity. Carnegie Hall cultural exchange provides specific targeted educational resources for students, teachers and artists, including curricula, professional development for teachers, and online communities that supports dialogue and exchange, multiple simulcast for performances connecting students in New York City with the focused countries, and in-person exchange of teachers, artists and art administrators. To give you a real-time example of the program's power-- when the Mumbai terrorist incident occurred in December of 2008, we had already begun the online dialogue between New York students and their peers in New Delhi. We found several things interesting. First, the students in New York who may not have read or heard about the attacks had a striking reason to discuss world affairs. Second, Carnegie Hall's online community gave the Indian students an important voice in shaping U.S. perception of the attacks, and gave the U.S. peers a perspective that was distinct from the media coverage of the event. A teacher who participated in the program with Turkey recently volunteered a strong endorsement of the cultural exchange program. She said, ``This program is the best embodiment for hope, not just to have our students be diverse, but also for them to understand diversity. It is the best training ground I have seen for youth ambassadors to learn that they can be citizens of the world.'' We have learned that cultural diplomacy is complex and multi-faceted and each year our programs evolve as we learn more through doing this work with people in different countries. These activities challenge our assumptions and those of our partners about what it means to be a citizen of the world, and about the importance of both understanding our own culture and of learning about the rich cultures of other nations. This program has had a marked effect on thousands of high school students and teachers both here and in the United States, and abroad. We have seen a broadening of students' world views. We have watched educators' teaching practices evolve, and we have learned that teaching practices that we taken for granted in the United States have been hailed as innovations by teachers participating in foreign countries. This is a great example of a lasting positive impact for the foreign participants of the program. Meaningful international work for nonprofit organizations, even large institutions like Carnegie Hall, is not sustainable without a true partnership with the Department of State. The U.S. embassies have played a valuable role in developing the Carnegie Hall program, and in turn the embassy staff members have been very excited about the work and have welcomed its impacts in their communities. A federal investment, even in relatively small increments, allows private organizations to leverage additional private dollars. We urge funding for the continuation of these grant programs and educational and cultural exchange at the State Department to help our organizations create innovative, robust and most importantly, sustainable programs. We commend the State Department's work as well as the committee's task ahead and thank you once again for your consideration of the importance of cultural diplomacy in U.S. foreign affairs. Ms. Lowey. Will there be a partnership with Mexico? Ms. Johnson. Absolutely yes. We are beginning the cultural exchange work there, so starting next year we will have high school students, primarily in Mexico City, partnering with New York City students. Beyond that, however, there are a number of other collaborations that are possible forming a partnership with CNART, which is the national center for the arts there, and they are interested not only in this program but in taking other programs that we have developed, adapting them, not only translated them into Spanish, but adapting them for appropriate use in Mexico, and then using their distance learning system which has national reach across Mexico to share this work more broadly. We are very excited about the potential there, and just beginning the conversations, but it is extremely interesting and feels very timely, certainly. Ms. Lowey. Thank you. Ms. Johnson. Thank you. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Thursday, March 26, 2009. AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION WITNESS JOHN K. NALAND, PRESIDENT Mr. Naland. Madam Chairwoman, Ms. Granger, thank you very much for having me here to speak today. I am the elected representative of the Career Foreign Service at State, USAID, Foreign Commercial Service, Foreign Agricultural Service. I am also an active duty career foreign service officer. I guess I am one of the bureaucrats that your third speaker referred to. Well, this bureaucrat's most recent overseas assignment as consul general in Matamoras, Mexico, which is the home of the golf cartel, and my next assignment in two months is as a provincial reconstruction team leader in Basra, Iraq. So that is what your bureaucrats are doing overseas for you. Many of the speakers today are talking about the programs that your subcommittee funds, and those are very important, but I am here to talk about the platform from which those programs are implemented. U.S. embassies and consulates and provincial reconstruction teams are very much power and projection platforms just like an aircraft carrier. But as Secretary of Defense Gates has pointed out, every member of the U.S. Foreign Service generalist corps could easily fit on one aircraft carrier. So we are a small core of people. We have huge staffing gaps both at State and, as you well know, at U.S. Agency for International Development, which is a shadow of what it was 10 or 20 years ago. The American Academy of Diplomacy did a very thorough study that was published last October. Ambassador Tom Pickering has been testifying about it, and it detailed the staffing gaps at State and USAID. This subcommittee and the Congress in both the fiscal year 2008 supplemental and the fiscal year omnibus had started to rebuild staffing at State in USAID, and we are extremely grateful for that, but much more needs to be done. President Obama's budget that we are here talking about, budget requests, calls for a multi-year effort to significantly increase the size of the foreign service, and we at the American Foreign Service Association wholeheartedly endorse that. The new positions that you and your colleagues have funded in 2008 and 2009 will just barely fill the gaps that already exist at our embassies and consulates around the world. We also need more positions--the American Academy of Diplomacy study details this--more positions for training. The GO has for a long time issued reports that show that language proficiency in the foreign service has been slipping. People are in jobs that they have not been trained for, and that is because there has not been funding for training positions, so that someone could take two years to learn Arabic. I mean, I am going to be a provincial reconstruction team leader and I do not speak Arabic, and that is because--I mean, I have many fine qualities, but Arabic is not one of them, and we just do not have enough people at State and USAID to send out everyone to Iraq speaks Arabic, and people in Afghanistan who speak Dari. So we need these positions that President Obama has called for. I have not seen the 302[b]. I do not know what it is going to do, but please consider funding the platform from which all of the good work that the other speakers are taking about is conducted. So ending really early if you have question. Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Lowey. Thank you very much, and one of the aspects of last year's bill that I know this committee is very proud of is the increased positions at USAID. Mr. Naland. Right. Ms. Lowey. And the U.S. State Department and in every trip I have taken to look at the programs, I continue to be impressed with the caliber of people such as yourselves who have devoted your life to foreign service and making this a better world, so I personally want to express my appreciation to you. Mr. Naland. Thank you. Ms. Lowey. Thank you. Ms. Granger. Ms. Granger. First of all, thank you for your service, and thank you for the information about staffing and also the written information about pay gaps. Mr. Naland. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Granger. And that is very helpful to us as we go forward, so I would say that we do read the material and we do thank you for that. Mr. Naland. Thank you so much. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Thursday, March 26, 2009. SAVE THE CHILDREN WITNESS AMBASSADOR MICHAEL KLOSSON, ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF POLICY OFFICER Mr. Klosson. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Granger, I really want to thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of Save the Children, and really highlight the needs of vulnerable families as we take up this year's appropriation bill, and I want to join others in thanking the subcommittee for its leadership on this score. Perhaps just a quick point on Save the Children itself. We have entered our seventy-seventh year as a nonprofit organization working to help children in need, and create positive changes in their lives. Unlike some organizations, we work both in the U.S. and also overseas, so we are working in 22 states across the country, and in more than 50 countries around the world. Last year we served about 48 million children, and we work to help them grow up safe, educated, healthy, and living in food secure and economically viable households, and we also deliver sort of life-saving assistance in emergency. Now, I know our country faces pretty daunting economic challenges, but these same challenges, I think, pose even more dire choices for poor people in the developing world, so at times like this it is even more important that we prioritize our foreign assistance funding to really help those in need and promote sustainable poverty reduction. Save the Children's full recommendations were submitted in written testimony by our President Charlie McCormack who regrets that he could not be here today. They address a pretty broad range of needs because we have learned through experience the best way to promote the well being of children is in an integrated fashion, and I think, given our fiscal situation as a nation, I realize that the committee faces Hobson choices in addressing this range of needs, but we are convinced that investment in these areas really will not only save the lives of children and mothers, but it will also pay very strong dividends for our standing of our country in the international world, and certainly project our values as a nation. So let me out of that broad list just highlight three points. First, the survival and well being of children, newborn and mothers, has to remain a priority. As has been mentioned, each year about 9 million kids, over 9 million kids under five die of treatable and preventable conditions and more than a half million women die from pregnancy and birth-related complications. That does not have to be, and if we are able through increased investments to accelerate implementation of proven low-cost effective interventions, it would prevent many of these deaths. What am I talking about? I am talking about things like oral rehydration salt which for pennies could save the life of a newborn who is suffering from diarrhea, or a hat on the head of a newborn could keep that newborn warm. This is not highly sophisticated science. It does not require very fancy hospitals. It is proven, it is low cost, and it really does the job in saving lives. Save the Children has been educating Americans on this issue and through our Knit-one/Save-one campaign I think we have been very heartened by the response. This cap is one of about 100,000 that were knit by Americans across the country that we are sending overseas to help newborns, and these same people have written about 5,000 letters to the president urging that he prioritize this area. So we would urge this committee support the recommendation from the U.S. Coalition for Child Survival to invest $900 million in the child and maternal health programs this year. Our estimate suggests that if these programs are funded at that level they would reach more than 20 million children and save approximately one million young lives, and USAID had documented quite well the effectiveness of such programs in a report late last year. They showed how maternal and child health assistance in 15 countries could really solve between 21 and 50 percent reductions in under-five mortality rates over an eight-year period. So that is a pretty good result. From our perspective, we have a proven body of evidence. We have affordable interventions and then we have this problem of child mortality. So we think this is really one of the most effective investments we as a nation can make. Obviously it saves children's lives, and that is important. I mentioned earlier that it also sort of speaks to our standing in the world, and let me just read to you very briefly the comment of a mother who participated in one of our programs and whose daughter was saved as a result of learning something called ``Kangaroo Mother Care'', and this is Grace Mloto of Malawi. She said, ``In a few years I will tell my daughter how people halfway around the world cared enough to help save the babies of Malawi and gave me a chance to teach and help others. This support saved your life and gave me my best friend.'' That is what our programs are doing. I mean, I think that is a lot better than sort of public opinion surveys and things like that. It really speaks to the broad impact on America's standing in the world these kind of programs. The second point is on malnutrition. Malnutrition contributes to one-third of the under-five deaths, the nine million deaths, and I think the recent volatility in food and fuel prices certainly exacerbated by the economic turndown really threatens to set back a lot of the advances we have seen in child survival and in education. So we certainly feel very strongly that investments in this area are essential to tackle child hunger and reduce child mortality. We would ask you to consider what is called the ``Roadmap to End Global Hunger''. This was a proposal that has been developed by a coalition of some 30 NGOs, Save the Children, others in this room, and it maps out a way that the U.S. Government could step up to the plate and look at this hunger issue from an integrated fashion both from an emergency setting all the way to the development setting. It partly focused on small shareholder farmers which, as you know, the majority of whom are women, and it talks about increasing their access to inputs, capital, these types of things, but it also addresses the need to expand safety nets and social protection, disaster risk reduction, those kinds of programs as well. The third and final point is investment in basic education which is obviously critical. As Steve Moseley mentioned, there is 75 million children out of school, 40 million of whom are in conflict-affected countries and half of them are girls, and we hear from the children, the children and families that we work with sort of day in and day out of the importance of education, both the peace in their countries but also to their future and the prosperity of that country. Save the Children mounted a global campaign called ``Rewrite the Future'' where we have improved the quality of education for millions of children in these very challenging contexts, and we think that besides increasing support for education overall, that there needs to be particular emphasis on these more challenging contexts if we are going to achieve universal and equitable education. We certainly have seen the benefits of education firsthand in countries like Nepal. Early childhood development from our perspective should also be part of this effort. It is an important investment in school retention, and I think research certainly shows that what goes on in the early lives of a child plays a critical role in the child's development and ability to grow up and live a productive life. So we would certainly support the Basic Education Coalition's recommendation for $1 billion funding in this account. Let me just in conclusion say that we want to thank you for your leadership on these issues, your support for sort of child-focused foreign assistance priorities. It is very much appreciated. As a member of the modernizing foreign assistance network, I think we would also welcome further action by the committee to strengthen our nation's smart power tools, including expanding the capacity of the State Department and USAID to do their work. We really need to have meaningful modernization in these two agencies so they are more fully capable to address global poverty and to really play the role that they need to play alongside our colleagues in the Defense Department. And if we are able to strengthen their capacity, then I think the government would be a better partner with non- governmental organizations, foundations in the private sector in advancing the millennium development goals which government subscribes to but which they cannot achieve by themselves. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Ms. Lowey. Thank you very much, and please extend my best to Mr. McCormack, and I just want you to know how much we appreciate the leadership and the professionalism of Save the Children and many of your workers are operating in the most challenging, which is an understatement, part of the world, and we certainly appreciate your efforts and look forward to continuing to work together as partners. Thank you. Mr. Klosson. Thank you. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Thursday, March 26, 2009. HELEN KELLER INTERNATIONAL WITNESS HENRY BARKHORN, BOARD TRUSTEE Mr. Barkhorn. Good morning. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of Helen Keller International. I am volunteer member of HKI's board of trustees. Our organization was founded in 1915 by the deaf/blind crusader Helen Keller herself. We are a leading nonprofit organization dedicated to preventing the causes and consequences of blindness and malnutrition, and to improve the survival, health and productivity of disadvantaged populations. We support programs in 21 countries in Africa and Asia, as well as in the United States. I am appearing today to urge you to support funding for programs which are vital to our work around the world. With respect to blind children, in the world today a child goes blind every minute. In the developing world blind children must depend completely upon their families with help from the very stretched government health system in place in most of these countries. They are often neglected, rarely attend school, marry or develop skills to become productive members of society. All too often they die young. I urge the subcommittee to continue the blind children's funding at a level of $2 million for fiscal year 2010. This is critical for our work in childhood eye health in several countries in Africa. With respect to Vitamin A supplementation, Vitamin A is essential for growth, cognitive development and immune system function, and is a key determinant in maternal and child survival. One hundred and twenty-seven million pre-school children worldwide, and seven million pregnant women in the developing world suffer from a Vitamin A deficiency. The conditions causes up to half a million children to go blind every year, and an alarming 70 percent of those children will die within one year of losing their sight. This is an example of Vitamin A supplementation, a tiny, little packet dropped twice a year onto the tongue of a child can prevent blindness at an overall cost of a dollar a year. Vitamin A supplementation has been recognized by the World Bank and by the Copenhagen Consensus as the most cost-effective public health intervention available in the world, and that is a strong statement. Thanks in part to the funding from and close partnership with USAID, Helen Keller International has become a recognized leader in the distribution of Vitamin A capsules, and we urge the subcommittee to approve $32.5 million for micro-nutrients in fiscal year 2001, of which 22.5 million would be for Vitamin A. With respect to nutrition and HIV/AIDS, nutrition plays an important part in maintaining the quality of life for people with HIV/AIDS. The lack of proper food and nutrition for these individuals diminishes the effectiveness of other prevention, care, and treatment strategies. Helen Keller International has a highly successful and replicable homestead food production program which has been tailored to meet the nutritional needs of people living with HIV/AIDS. The program helps communities in developing countries establish local food production systems that include gardens with micro-nutrient rich fruits and vegetables. I urge the committee to continue to support the use of funds under HIV/AIDS accounts to address nutrition issues. With respect to neglected tropical diseases, neglected tropical diseases inflict severe economic, psycho-social and physical damage on the poorest populations in the developing world. Three hundred million people in Africa, Asia, and Latin America are affected by neglected tropical diseases, and that is about the same as the population of the United States. Helen Keller International supports addressing all of the diseases under the program for neglected tropical diseases. For decades we have been the recognized leader in addressing two blinding NTD, trachoma, and onchocerciasis, otherwise known as river blindness. More recently we have had considerable success in efforts to combat anemia through interventions to control soil-transmitted worms such as tape worms. I urge the subcommittee to recommend $70 million for neglected tropical diseases in fiscal 2010. Finally, with respect to child survival and maternal health, as we have heard from a couple of the other testifiers this morning, each year some nine or 10 million children die before their fifth birthday. I thank the committee for increasing the overall child and maternal health funding for fiscal 2009 to 495 million, and urge you to continue to expand this life-saving program in fiscal 2010. In closing, I would like to leave you with some words from our founder, Helen Keller. ``If we look at difficulties bravely, they will present themselves to us as opportunities.'' I thank you. Ms. Lowey. Thank you very much for all the work you are doing. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Thursday, March 26, 2009. GLOBAL HEALTH COUNCIL WITNESS MAURICE I. MIDDLEBERG, VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC POLICY Mr. Middleberg. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for the opportunity to testify concerning the foreign appropriations for fiscal year 2010, as the Global Health Council represents over 560 organizations dedicated to saving lives and improving health throughout the world, including many of the organizations you have heard from today, including Save the Children, AED and Helen Keller. The council commends the members of the subcommittee for their commitments to the health needs of poor in developing countries. We thank you for the recent increases in global health programs, especially for the must-needed increases in maternal health, child health and reproductive health programs. Your support bolsters U.S. leadership, helps secure U.S. national interest, and helps partner countries improve the health of their people. As the Institute of Medicine described convincingly in its recent report, U.S. global health program is a pillar of U.S. foreign policy. Global health is a shining star in the projection of smart power, attracting loyalty worldwide and manifesting the values and decency of the American people. Moving forward, we respectfully urge the subcommittee to sustain the upward momentum of global health programs within the context of a much needed comprehensive global health strategy that balances three elements: First, a global family health action plan aimed at reducing child mortality and illness, material deaths and disability, and the unmet need for family planning and other essential reproductive health services. Second, sustaining the U.S. commitment to the fight against HIV/AIDS; and third, maintaining a vigorous growing program aimed at the major infectious disease, including tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases. Each element must contribute towards building health capacity for the long term. For fiscal year 2010, GHC respectfully requests nearly $14 billion for all global health programs. The resource allocation we propose closely parallels the Institute of Medicine's report and embodies the comprehensive balance approach we are proposing. In support of family health, we are requesting $3.2 billion, including $900 million to accelerate the decline in child mortality, $1.3 billion for maternal health to address the long-neglected tragedies of maternal death and disability, and $1 billion in response to the unmet need for family planning among over 200 million women. GHC proposes $1.5 billion towards the fight against the major infectious diseases that pose a global threat, including $800 million for malaria, $650 million for tuberculosis, and $70 million for the seven neglected tropical diseases. We urge that the subcommittee appropriate $9.2 billion for HIV/AIDS, including $6.5 billion for bilateral HIV/AIDS programs and $2.7 billion for the global funds to fight HIV/ AIDS, TB and malaria. This will expand access to treatment and the prevention programs that are the only real hope to reversing the pandemic. Further detail on the proposed appropriations can be found in our written submission. We are mindful of the economic crisis and the fiscal challenges. However, the U.S. commitment to improving health and saving lives is a vital strategy for advancing U.S. national interests and American values. Economic crises fall most heavily on the poorest and most vulnerable. Investments in global health yield huge economic returns for the beneficiary countries by increasing labor productivity, ensuring that children could attend school and grow into productive workers, and protecting vulnerable households from being immiserated by the cost of health care. Less well recognized but equally important are the economic benefits for the United States. U.S. Government investments are multiplied by private sector contributions that draw on the U.S. comparative advantages in research, training and technological assistance, thereby creating job and economic activity at home. On behalf of the GHC, I therefore ask that serious consideration be given to honoring this request for sound productive investments towards securing the health of the most vulnerable which will help protect the health of the U.S. people, increase U.S. security and stimulate economic growth at home and abroad. Thank you for your kind attention. Ms. Lowey. Thank you for your important work. Mr. Rehberg, welcome, and I thank you for being here. Ms. Lee. Thank you very much for your testimony and all your good work. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Thursday, March 26, 2009. AMERICAN HELLENIC INSTITUTE WITNESS NICHOLAS LARIGAKIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Mr. Larigakis. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, and members of the subcommittee. I am here to testify to the subcommittee on behalf of the nationwide membership of the American Hellenic Institute on the administration's foreign aid proposal for fiscal year 2010. Madam Chairman, in the interest of the United States, we oppose any military assistance for Turkey until such time as Turkey removes its 43,000 troops and 180,000 illegal settlers from the island of Cyprus. We oppose any aid for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia that is not tied to firearms commitment and negotiate in good faith with Greece to find a solution to the unresolved issues between Greece and the firearm over the name of the latter, and we oppose any reduction that might be introduced in the A levels for the U.S. peacekeeping force in Cyprus. Additionally, we support continuing ESF funds for Cyprus as long as it is tied exclusively to bi-communal projects of the island as mandated by U.S. law which states that U.S. funds support only, and I quote ``measures aimed at reunification''. Madam Chairwoman, the United States has a foreign interest in Southeast Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean. To the north of Greece are the Balkans, Eastern Europe and Russia. To the east is the Middle East and to the south, North Africa and the Suez Canal. Significant communication links for commerce and energy sources pass through the region. Greece is situated in a vitally important strategic region for U.S. interests. The projection of U.S. interests in the region depends heavily on the stability of this region; therefore the U.S. has an important stake in fostering good relations between two NATO allies--Greece and Turkey, and then achieving a just and viable settlement of the Cyprus problem. However, Turkey's continuing occupation of Cyprus, its intransigence in solving the Cyprus problem, the refusal to recognize Cyprus as a member of the European Union is continuing violations of Greece's territorial integrity and the ongoing human rights and religious freedom violations in Turkey threaten and prevent this stability and by extension U.S. interests. In promoting a multilateral approach to diplomacy and foreign policy the U.S. shall look to Greece as an immensely valuable link in this region with its close cultural, political and economic ties to the Mediterranean countries, Western Europe, the Balkans, Eastern Europe and the Middle East, Greece is an ideal strategic partner for the United States with regard to diplomatic relations with countries from these regions. Since founded in 1974, AHI has advocated the consistent policy themes regarding Southeast Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean, and the relation to the U.S. interests and values. I reiterate those themes today. U.S. interests are best served by applying the rule of law in international affairs. U.S. foreign policy should foster and embody U.S. values, including human rights. The U.S. should have a special relationship with Greece, recognizing Greece's strategic location in Southeastern Europe where the United States has important political, economic, commercial and military interest. Souda Bay is one of the most important facilities for U.S. interests in the entire Mediterranean. A Cyprus settlement should not reward aggression, but should be based on democratic norms, U.N. resolutions, the EU communitair and the partnering decisions of the European Commission of Human Rights, and the European Board of Human Rights. Cyprus should be recognized as an important partner for U.S. strategic interests in the Eastern Mediterranean. The United States should not apply double standards to Turkey and appeasement of Turkey under rule of law, and aggression and occupation in Cyprus, and finally, the U.S. interests are best served by supporting ways that will continue to facilitate better relations between Greece and Turkey. A detailed discussion of these and other issues, including the ecumenical patriarch, the Aegean Sea boundary, the recognition of the Greece genocide, the Greek minority in Albania, and a visa waiver program can be further viewed on our website. Finally, Madam Chairwoman, we believe that in the interest of regional stability and dispute resolution the United States shall promote Turkey, Turkey's emergency as a fully democratic state whether or not she enters the EU. This will require fundamental changes in Turkey's governmental institutions, a significant improvement in its human rights records, the settlement of the Cyprus problem on the terms referred to above, and publicly acknowledging the existing boundary in the Aegean Sea between Greece and Turkey as established by treaty. Past and current policy has not had this effect and it needs to be critically reviewed by this Congress. I thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee for being able to present these issues for your consideration. Ms. Lowey. Thank you so much for taking the time to appear before us. Mr. Larigakis. Thank you. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Ms. Lowey. I do not see John Calvelli here, and I know the Women's Campaign International is delayed but have included their written testimony for the record. We thank you all who have appeared before us. Your statements will be carefully considered and we appreciate your presenting your very persuasive testimony. Thank you very much. The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations will be adjourned. W I T N E S S E S ---------- Page Aker, Dee........................................................ 506 Baguirov, Adil................................................... 358 Barkhorn, Henry.................................................. 276 Barry, D. J...................................................... 421 Baumgarten, A. D................................................. 365 Beebe-Center, Horton............................................. 28 Bendick, Robert.................................................. 55 Bereuter, Douglas................................................ 2 Boucher, Doug.................................................... 151 Bourgault, Jeanne................................................ 58 Bramble, B. J.................................................... 472 Bush, D. L., Sr.................................................. 198 Calvelli, J. F................................................... 310 Carter, Joanne................................................... 478 Collins, Ambassador J. F......................................... 540 Counts, Alex..................................................... 69 Davidson, Professor D. E......................................... 347 Dillon, T. C..................................................... 171 Franklin, Nadra.................................................. 412 Gillespie, Duff.................................................. 438 Greco, Michael................................................... 94 Grieves, Rev. Camon.............................................. 365 Gulas, Ike....................................................... 372 Hastings, Hon. A. L.............................................. 338 Headley, Fr. William............................................. 506 Huseynov, Javid.................................................. 460 Johnson, Andrea.................................................. 376 Johnson, Sarah................................................... 224 Kalm, Antony..................................................... 384 Khamvongsa, Channapha............................................ 406 Klosson, Ambassador Michael...................................... 242 Koenings, Jeff................................................... 402 Kohr, Howard..................................................... 40 Krikorian, Van................................................... 124 Lacy, James...................................................... 23 Larigakis, Nicholas.............................................. 302 Lauer, Krista.................................................... 486 Lawrence, Dr. L. R., Jr.......................................... 395 Lisherness, Sara................................................. 492 MacCormack, Charles.............................................. 244 Manatos, A. E.................................................... 189 Margolies, Marjorie.............................................. 329 McCaffrey, Cynthia............................................... 162 McNish, M. E..................................................... 393 Middleberg, M. I................................................. 290 Millan, William.................................................. 49 Moix, Bridget.................................................... 83 Moseley, S. F.................................................... 208 Naland, J. K..................................................... 233 Rogers-Witt, Rev. A. C........................................... 431 Ruebner, Josh.................................................... 498 Server, John..................................................... 15 Vartian, Ross.................................................... 511 Walker, Eric..................................................... 134