[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