[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FEEDING THE DRAGON: REEVALUATING U.S. DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO CHINA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 15, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-78
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-262 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BRAD SHERMAN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
RON PAUL, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
CONNIE MACK, Florida GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas DENNIS CARDOZA, California
TED POE, Texas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
DAVID RIVERA, Florida FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina
ROBERT TURNER, New YorkAs
of October 5, 2011 deg.
Yleem D.S. Poblete, Staff Director
Richard J. Kessler, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois, Chairman
RON PAUL, Texas ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio Samoa
DAN BURTON, Indiana FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina DENNIS CARDOZA, California
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESS
The Honorable Nisha Desai Biswal, Assistant Administrator for
Asia, United States Agency for International Development....... 10
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Donald A. Manzullo, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois, and chairman, Subcommittee on Asia
and the Pacific: Prepared statement............................ 4
The Honorable Nisha Desai Biswal: Prepared statement............. 13
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 34
Hearing minutes.................................................. 35
The Honorable Donald A. Manzullo: Material submitted for the
record......................................................... 36
FEEDING THE DRAGON: REEVALUATING U.S. DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO CHINA
----------
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:30 a.m., in
room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Donald A.
Manzullo (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Manzullo. The Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific will
now come to order.
On September 15th, 2011, the United States Agency for
International Development notified Congress of its intent to
obligate $3.95 million in Development Assistance funds to
``engage China as a partner in addressing climate change.''
This particular notification, while small in the grand
scheme of things, is emblematic of the dysfunction in America's
foreign aid spending priorities. What is being proposed here,
essentially, is that we borrow money from China to give back to
China to help it fix its own domestic problems, many of which
were created in the breakneck rush to develop.
At the same time, these programs help boost the
competitiveness of Chinese manufacturers at the expense of U.S.
manufacturers and U.S. jobs. In my opinion, this is a fool's
errand, and the U.S. Government needs to clean up its own
fiscal trail before helping China clean up its environmental
mess.
We have enough challenges at home without having to worry
about U.S. taxpayer monies funding a Chinese Government regime
notorious for disregarding international norms of trade, human
rights, and the environment.
China's poor record speaks for itself. None of the
organizations, universities, and entities that USAID funds in
China are completely independent of Chinese Government control.
Each year the United States spends over $39 billion in taxpayer
funds to support America's foreign policy objectives abroad.
In the Asia region alone, the President's request for
Fiscal Year 2012 amounts to more than $800 million. It is up to
all of us to ensure that not a penny of taxpayer money is
wasted on these programs.
China's behavior on multiple levels, demonstrates a
concerted effort to advance economic growth, regardless of the
consequences. Indeed, Chinese leaders count on economic growth
to offset the lack of political and religious freedoms in that
country.
As a result, American manufacturers face unprecedented
challenges from illegal Chinese Government subsidies, an
artificially low exchange rate, and rampant systematic theft of
intellectual property. None of this is new information, and the
American people are sick and tired of China's unfair trade
practices.
To drive home this point, the U.S. intelligence community
released a report just last month detailing the depth and
breadth of China's organized industrial espionage efforts. The
findings are truly scary.
No amount of U.S. Government assistance will change China's
intentions to steal our secrets, take our manufacturing jobs,
and advance its own agenda. Our generosity as a nation in
helping others is without question what makes us great. In
fact, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, OECD, noted that the U.S. is the largest provider
of government and civil society programming among major
bilateral foreign aid donors in terms of real funding.
We need to make sure that these funds are effectively being
used to the benefit of the American people. Providing training,
technical assistance, and capacity building for China's
manufacturing and commercial real estate sectors is
unjustifiable in a time when China continues to steal our
intellectual property and drive U.S. competitors out of
business.
I am amazed that it takes 22 contractors in China to
implement just one part of the environmental program contained
in USAID's notification.
Furthermore, the fact that USAID conducts oversight of this
program from its regional headquarters in Bangkok, Thailand is
even more surprising.
To make matters worse, the U.S. Trade Representative
Office, at the urging of the United Steelworkers of America,
has launched a Section 301 investigation into alleged dumping
of solar panels and wind energy goods into the United States.
The USTR also filed a formal complaint against China at the
World Trade Organization over the country's failure to declare
over 200 government subsidy programs in the clean tech sector.
In many cases, these subsidy programs are the same programs,
initiatives, and incentives that climate activists and the
administration claim as tremendous breakthroughs and efforts
China is making to combat climate change. This view could not
be more optimistic from our end and more misguided from theirs.
Given the state of the U.S. economy and with government
debt approaching a record $15 trillion, it is absurd to think
that any U.S. Government entity would spend a single dollar
trying to encourage China to do the right thing.
China is America's strategic competitor in many areas, and
I have seen no evidence to show that American foreign
assistance--that is American taxpayers' dollars--to China is
paying dividends in the relationship. In fact, it is arguable
that China has enough resources to spend on its own, and U.S.
assistance to China should not be at any cost to the taxpayer.
China's economy has been growing far faster than the U.S.
and other Pacific powers. China's complete disregard for
intellectual property rights, abysmal human rights record, and
lack of religious tolerance run counter to American values.
China's poor record on accountability and its unwillingness to
share accurate environmental and human rights data with its own
citizens and with the U.S., creates uncertainty over the
effective utilization of American taxpayer monies. If the PRC
lacks the political will to clean up its own backyard, no
amount of U.S. funds will change that reality.
The 16th Congressional District of Illinois, which I have
the honor of representing, depends heavily on manufacturing for
its livelihood. Manufacturing accounts for approximately 25
percent of the local economy or double the national average. We
need to be supporting U.S. manufacturers in Illinois and
nationwide to compete with China, not throwing money away to
help China compete with us. The American people deserve more
from their tax dollars at work beyond spending it on programs
aimed to fuel a clean energy revolution in China at the expense
of job growth back home.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Manzullo follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Manzullo. Ranking Member Faleomavaega is on his way
back from American Samoa. Mr. Sherman, do you have an opening
statement?
Mr. Sherman. I sure do.
Mr. Manzullo. You are recognized.
Mr. Sherman. I want to welcome the witness back to this
room, in which she spends such a long time. You are here
testifying about a giant mistake of theory, a giant mistake of
thinking at USAID.
The idea that we would give foreign aid to China is an
insult to the American taxpayer and shows an incredible lack of
understanding of the new world by anyone who would suggest it.
Now, there are only two exceptions to that. One would be
money that we give to democracy organizations designed to
undercut or at least change the Government of China. And the
second would be co-equal contributions to projects that are
equally beneficial. That is not what is at stake her.
Now, I want to stress that an atom of carbon that goes into
our atmosphere is equally important to the entire world. We
don't have enough money in this country to reduce our carbon
emissions to the degree that the world expects of us. For us to
then go spend money on the theory that we are reducing carbon
emissions in China makes no sense. And there is no way that the
world will give America credit for a reduction of Chinese
carbon emissions.
We are borrowing money from China to give it to China to do
stuff that the Chinese don't think is important enough to pay
for. And, if anything, they have got more money. So if it was a
good project in their eyes, they could easily afford to fund
it.
I realize that the amounts of money involved are relatively
small. A particular notice was sent to Congress, talking about
$3.95 million.
I don't worry so much about the $3.95 million. I worry
about a mindset in our foreign policy establishment that thinks
us mailing checks to Beijing is a good idea.
I should bring to the attention of this committee that
outside of our jurisdiction, the Department of Energy is
spending from the reports I have seen far more than USAID also
to give foreign aid to China.
I would invite anyone at USAID to come to a town hall and
stand in front of American taxpayers and say, ``Giving foreign
aid to China is a good idea.'' There is a tremendous disconnect
between a foreign policy establishment that runs our foreign
policy and the American people who pay for it.
I will be circulating a letter addressed to the
Administrator of USAID, Dr. Shah or Mr. Shah, urging that he
not provide foreign aid to China.
Now, I should point out that in this very room, we had to
discuss the idea of providing foreign aid to Libya. This was
money to be given to entities under the control of Gaddafi's
kids. This was about 4 years ago. There is just a disconnect
between those who are in the Executive Branch who make our
Executive Branch decisions on foreign aid and common sense.
And I realize that USAID deals with a lot larger amounts
than $3.95 million, but this is an example of what Congress
needs to stop.
I thank the chairman for holding these hearings. I hope
that the witness is treated well by the State Department for
the--do you get--well, I will find out in your opening
statement whether you get hazard pay for today. But you deserve
it.
And I yield back.
Mr. Manzullo. Congressman Johnson, do you have an opening
statement?
I can assure you that as the chairman of this subcommittee,
you will get all the respect possible under every
circumstances. The members here realize that you are doing your
job, and we appreciate that. We appreciate your ability to come
here and your willingness to do so.
Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciated my colleague's comments about the fact that
USAID deals in much larger issues. You are exactly right. Over
the last 10 years, we have given China some $275 million. The
3.9 that we are talking about this year is a drop in the bucket
compared to what we have already given to our world's largest
competitor. So I commend you for those comments.
I find the topic of today's hearing particularly troubling
in light of our country's current fiscal situation. Nationwide
unemployment stands at 9 percent. And many parts of my district
in eastern and southeastern Ohio consistently have seen double
digit unemployment for far too long.
Even more troubling, our national debt is dangerously high
at over $14.9 trillion, threatening our nation's ability to
recover from its economic woes, turn our economy around, get
people back to work, and continue to fulfill our role as a
worldwide advocate of freedom and democracy.
So the news that we are giving aid to China for certain
unnecessary programs and projects hits home especially hard,
particularly for Americans struggling to get back on their
feet.
Why can't China, a nation with the world's second largest
economy and the fastest growing economy after our own, use its
own funds to implement green energy programs to address climate
change? Surely China can find the funds somewhere within its
$10 trillion economy.
USAID tries to legitimize this aid by arguing that China is
behind on environmental governance and that strategically
working with China to address environmental threats will change
their way of thinking and ensure that the two nations are on
the same page. Apparently this aid is also seen as a way to
level the playing field for U.S. industries that must comply
with environmental responsibility standards. This is just
absolutely misguided thinking.
First, China is in no way behind when it comes to
environmental knowledge or technology. The U.S.-China Economic
and Security Review Commission's 2010 report to Congress noted
that China's continued economic growth and stability is
dependent on its energy supply and, therefore, is looking to
improve domestic energy production and energy efficiency.
Chinese leaders have even pointed specifically to green energy
as a means of strengthening energy security.
In September 2009, Chinese President Hu Jintao gave a
speech to the U.N. General Assembly which focused on China's
adoption and implementation of a national climate change
program. And China's 12th 5-year plan mentions climate change
at the top of its environmental section. The plan also includes
new policies to promote greater industrial efficiency and a
major push to also increase the efficiency of new and existing
buildings. It seems to me like China is perfectly aware of the
global climate issue.
Let's face the facts here. It makes no difference whether
or not China is abiding by priorities it has outlined in
speeches and plans. No amount of U.S. assistance will convince
China to implement policies that harm its bottom line.
China's position at the top of the world's production and
manufacturing is its focus and will remain so, no matter how
hard anyone tries to convince it otherwise.
And let's discuss leveling the playing field for a moment.
Abiding by the same environmental standards will not put U.S.
and Chinese manufacturers on par. China's artificially low
currency, illegal subsidies for industry, and disrespect for
intellectual property rights will continue to put American
businesses at a disadvantage. It is ridiculous to think that
the value of this funding is worth the return.
At the same time, another arm of the U.S. Government, the
U.S. Trade Representative, has brought a case against China at
the World Trade Organization regarding illegal green technology
subsidies. So we are borrowing money from China to give to
China for a sector of their economy that is already well-
developed and now enjoying illegal subsidies. Someone please
explain how this makes sense because I don't get it.
My home State of Ohio is a leader in many forms of energy
production: From coal to natural gas and now even alternative
energy. With a manufacturing sector that has suffered greatly
due to jobs moving overseas, Ohio is looking to alternative
energy production as a way to revitalize this important sector.
China is already creating conditions for its green technology
companies to flourish at home and abroad.
I have got some more of my opening statement, but I am
running out of time, Mr. Chairman. It is my strong opinion that
the committee's hold on this funding should remain in place.
There are better uses of taxpayer dollars, particularly at this
time in our nation's economic history. I am looking forward to
hearing the justification for these projects, but it is going
to take some convincing for me to understand the logic here.
I yield back.
Mr. Manzullo. Congressman Chabot, you are recognized for an
opening statement.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And so we can get to our witness, I will be relatively
brief here. I want to thank my friend the chairman from
Illinois for arranging this hearing.
It is no secret that I have long been a critic of U.S.-
China policy on many levels. And my criticism is not limited to
this administration. I have been just as critical of Republican
administrations, particularly on human rights issues and
specially on U.S.-Taiwan policy.
While our current Federal budget deficit is over $1.3
trillion, our national debt approaching $15 trillion with China
holding much of that debt and with every American taxpayer
responsible for about $133,000 of that debt, we are discussing
today an administration proposal to obligate an additional $4
million in American tax dollars to engage the People's Republic
of China on climate change.
I will be interested to hear the testimony this morning
that will hopefully shed a little light on how we think this
commitment of tax dollars will benefit us, the United States of
America. Aside from the obvious questions about why the United
States should be providing what is essentially foreign aid to
China, the chairman has raised some serious questions about
oversight. And I look forward to hearing what can be done about
this waste of U.S. tax dollars, particularly in light of the
PRC's dismal record on environmental issues and the blatant
lack of transparency in their government.
I again want to commend the chairman for calling this
hearing. You know, it is no wonder the confidence by the
American people in this administration is so low and the
confidence in the United States Congress is even more dismal
when you see things like this, U.S. foreign aid to China, when
we owe them almost $1 trillion for money that we have already
borrowed from them. It is just almost unthinkable, but here we
are.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you.
It is a pleasure to welcome Nisha Desai Biswal back to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, where she once served as a member
of the staff. Good to see you again.
Ms. Biswal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Manzullo. Ms. Biswal was sworn in as USAID's Assistant
Administrator for Asia on September 20th of 2010. Prior to her
appointment, she served as the majority clerk for the State
Department and Foreign Operations Subcommittee on the Committee
on Appropriations under Chairman David Obey and Representative
Nita Lowey.
Ms. Biswal previously served as the Director of Policy and
Advocacy at InterAction, the largest alliance of U.S.-based
international humanitarian and development nongovernmental
organizations. I thank you for appearing before the
subcommittee. Your written statement will be entered into the
record.
We are going to leave the record open for at least 14 days
to accommodate any statement that Mr. Faleomavaega wants to
insert into the record.
Ms. Biswal. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Chabot and Mr. Sherman, for your
remarks as well.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NISHA DESAI BISWAL, ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR ASIA, UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Biswal. It is an honor for me to appear before this
committee today and be here to discuss with you the important
topic of our bilateral assistance programs in China. I
appreciate that as we face a difficult economic and budgetary
environment, and it is more important for us to analyze the
impact of our programs and to ensure that taxpayer dollars are
being wisely and effectively spent.
Mr. Chairman, USAID's bilateral programs in China focus in
four areas: Assisting Tibetan communities, addressing the
threat of HIV/AIDS and other pandemic diseases, advancing the
rule of law and human rights, and supporting environmental
protection/climate change mitigation efforts.
These programs have been and continue to be congressionally
directed programs. I believe, however, that they advance the
values and the interests of the United States. They address
critical development challenges that have regional and trans-
boundary reverberations. And let me assure you that none of the
funds that USAID manages in China go to the Government of
China.
Congress began appropriating funds for assistance to
Tibetan communities as early as Fiscal Year 2000. In Fiscal
Year 2006, that program was expanded to address governance,
environment, and rule of law through U.S. educational and
nongovernmental institutions as directed by Congress. For FY
2010, Mr. Chairman, USAID's assistance in China was $23.4
million, including $4 million for health and HIV/AIDS, $7.4
million for Tibetan communities, and $12 million to support
environment and rule of law activities. In 2011, our total
country allocation for China for USAID is projected to be $12
million, a 48-percent decrease from the prior fiscal year. With
that backdrop, let me spend just a couple of minutes on the
specific area that you have highlighted, which is the
environment programs.
Mr. Chairman. 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in the
world are in China. And the pollution from Chinese factories
and plants has a substantial negative impact directly on the
United States. Almost one-third of the particulate pollution in
California and 30 percent of the mercury found in North
American lakes comes from Chinese coal-fired power plants.
USAID programs work to reduce these harmful emissions,
which are having an impact on our own shores. We have proposed,
as you noted, a $3.95 million program budget to continue
environment programs in China. These programs focus on three
major areas. The U.S.-China partnership for environmental law
strengthens the application of environmental laws and
regulations through partnerships between the United States and
Chinese universities, government agencies, and NGOs to provide
training in environmental regulation and law to lawyers and
lawmakers.
The U.S.-China partnership for climate action is a public-
private partnership with GE, Honeywell, Walmart, S.C. Johnson
and Company, and the Citi Foundation to promote reduction in
energy use through bringing together leading U.S. and Chinese
practitioners, energy conservation, greenhouse gas management,
and environmental innovation. This program is expanding market
opportunities for U.S. businesses and technologies by featuring
them prominently in our training and workshops.
And, finally, the third component is a regional program to
combat trafficking in endangered species to address the illegal
wildlife trade across the Asian continent, seeking to improve
law enforcement, reduce consumer demand, and strengthen cross-
border regional networks.
Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude to say that USAID's work
in China is important to our national and our economic
interests and that it addresses critical global development
challenges.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today before you,
and I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions that you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Biswal follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you.
Let me do this. Do either of you gentlemen have another
hearing that you have to go to? You are right on time.
Mr. Chabot, then we will take you first.
Mr. Chabot. I have a couple of questions. I appreciate
that.
First of all, thank you for your testimony here this
morning.
We are broke. The United States is broke. We spend more
money than we take in. We have got almost a $15 trillion
national debt hanging over our heads, $1.3 trillion this year
alone. Unfortunately, it is heading in the wrong direction.
We don't know what the so-called Super Committee is going
to do, what they are going to recommend. There is some
speculation that, God forbid, they are going to suggest that we
raise taxes and, therefore, burden the American people even
more. We don't know if that is going to happen or not, but we
are all trying to figure out what kind of proposals are going
to be made and whether they are going to be able to come to
some agreement. And if they can't, we know that sequestration
of funds was built into the bill, which means automatic cuts,
$600 billion in cuts from defense, which concerns everybody.
Probably Republicans are a little more concerned about it, $600
billion in domestic cuts, which most people would argue maybe
the Democrats care a little bit more about that. That is what
you hear. I don't know if that is accurate or not, but you do
hear that. But it is a lot of money. And we are talking about
cutting that.
Now, I know $4 million in Washington to some people may not
sound like much. I can guarantee you for the hardworking,
taxpaying folks back in my district, that is a lot of money,
more money than most see in an entire lifetime of work. And so
I think we ought to take this amount very seriously.
My point is that we are spending far more money than we
take in, which means that any additional expenditures that are
made--and this is an additional expenditure that is being
proposed here, correct?
Ms. Biswal. That is correct.
Mr. Chabot. Yes. It is new money that we are spending. If
we are not in balance--and we are not--and we are spending new
money, then that means--and you assume, as the President has
said, he doesn't want to run up more debt. And I think Congress
doesn't want to run up more debt. Then it means you are going
to have to cut from somewhere else to come up with this $4
million.
Where does the administration propose cutting? What program
is less important than us giving this what many of us would
call foreign aid to China? What is less important than giving
foreign aid to China?
Ms. Biswal. Thank you for that question. Mr. Chabot----
Mr. Chabot. You are welcome.
Ms. Biswal [continuing]. Let me reassure you, first of all,
that we are focusing and prioritizing our foreign assistance
programs. As I mentioned in my brief oral statement, we have
seen our China program's overall size go down by 48 percent
from the prior year in what we are spending in Fiscal Year
2011.
The amount of assistance that we program in China, none of
which goes to the Government of China but is administered
through nongovernmental institutions and American educational
institutions, the programs that we administer in China leverage
significant contributions from the American private sector and
from Chinese institutions.
Mr. Chabot. That is all well and good. And I only have
another minute. I don't mean to cut you off, but I will at this
point just to ask you this. So you are saying, in essence, what
you said is that we have other programs and other things in
China and other places around the world where we spend money,
but we are going to spend less on something else for this
money. Isn't that correct?
Ms. Biswal. Mr. Chabot----
Mr. Chabot. The money has got to come from somewhere unless
we are going to add to the deficit. The President has said he
doesn't want to do that. Congress doesn't want to do that.
Ms. Biswal. Certainly it is a difficult environment. And
tough choices are being made across government and certainly
within USAID in terms of what we will be able to fund and where
our priorities are.
Mr. Chabot. Okay. Let me ask you this. We have a trade
deficit with China right now. Is that correct? In other words,
we are importing a whole lot more from them. All you have got
to do is go to Walmart. An awful high percentage of what is
labeled there if you pick it up and look under it is going to
say ``Made in China,'' a lot less than we export to them.
Now, we have GE aircraft engines and other things that go
on planes that we sell to them. So it is not that we don't sell
them anything, but a lot more Chinese products come into the
United States than U.S. products that go there. Isn't that
accurate?
Ms. Biswal. You are correct. It is also our largest export
growth market.
Mr. Chabot. And we have a huge surplus to the extent that
we are borrowing from them, correct? It is not like they are
borrowing from us. And it is to the tune of almost $1 trillion
at this point that we owe them. Is that correct?
Ms. Biswal. I have no reason to doubt that. I am not the
expert on the amount.
Mr. Chabot. And there are an awful lot--and I am almost out
of time, but there is an argument that they are manipulating
the value of their money in order to continue this huge
continuing U.S. importing Chinese products. And that is costing
American jobs a lot of people would argue. Isn't that correct?
Ms. Biswal. That is correct.
Mr. Chabot. Well, all that being given, it just seems to me
you are going to have a hard sell explaining to the American
people why we ought to be using U.S. tax dollars to fund
something like this. Why can't China use their own money?
And I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Biswal. May I respond briefly?
Mr. Manzullo. Yes.
Ms. Biswal. Mr. Chabot, my only response to the points that
you raised, which I agree are all important points for
consideration, is that our programs, particularly our
environmental programs in China, are fundamentally advancing
our interests. And those interests are associated with the
amount of pollution in the United States that is traced back to
Chinese sources. And the fact that if we do not engage in
addressing that pollution in light of the explosive growth that
China is experiencing, the harmful effects here in the United
States are going to become increasingly costly, both in terms
of the health impacts and the economic impacts.
Mr. Manzullo. Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Ms.
Biswal, for your testimony.
So let me get this straight. We are borrowing money from
China to give back to China to improve industrial energy
efficiency, which will then drive down production costs to
Chinese firms, making it harder for U.S. firms to compete. Why
are we paying to modernize China? Please enlighten me as to
USAID's thinking that this is an effective use of hardworking
Americans' tax dollars, which should really stay in the pockets
of small businesses right here at home to help create jobs for
unemployed Americans. Can you enlighten me? Why are we paying
to modernize China?
Ms. Biswal. Mr. Johnson, I would simply respond by saying
that this program leverages significant resources from American
companies, like GE, which has put in $2.8 million in matching
contributions toward the training programs that we have to
improve environmental health and safety standards in China by
improving----
Mr. Johnson. Wait a minute. Hold on. Hold on. Did I
understand that right? In addition to the $4 million that we
are giving for these programs free of charge, no interest
payment, to the Chinese, we have also got American companies
that are giving additional and above that?
Ms. Biswal. So if I may finish----
Mr. Johnson. Is that yes?
Ms. Biswal. So we have leveraged significant resources from
the American private sector because they see the value of, one,
greening their supply chain; two, having the same compliance
requirements of Chinese companies on environment, health, and
safety standards, to which they are subjected. That does
actually have the effect of increasing perhaps the cost of
manufacturing in China and improving the environmental impact
of----
Mr. Johnson. And is USAID going to hold China accountable
for enforcing these standards that we train them on?
Ms. Biswal. Our programs work to improve the domestic
demand in China for environmental compliance through supporting
advocacy organizations----
Mr. Johnson. I have got a number of questions. So like Mr.
Chabot, I----
Ms. Biswal. Sorry. I was simply trying to respond.
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. I apologize. So let's assume that
we can solve the pollution problem in China. How does that
create jobs here in America? Draw the line back for me.
Ms. Biswal. First of all, many of the energy efficiency
technologies, products, and services which we are bringing to
the attention of Chinese officials in industry----
Mr. Johnson. That we are giving to them.
Ms. Biswal. We are not providing any technology or service.
We are helping to make them aware of, but then Chinese
companies individually contact and contract with American
companies for those products and services. We do not provide a
technology transfer, and we do not----
Mr. Johnson. We don't have to provide technology transfer.
The Chinese takes the technology. Now, that is another part of
the problem. In your description of USAID's rule of law
programs, you state that the goal, one of the goals, is to
level the playing field for U.S. corporations to operate within
China's legal framework. You stated that this includes training
Chinese Supreme Court justices on how intellectual property
cases are prosecuted within the U.S.
I don't know if you are aware or not or have read the
Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive Report on
Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage, but China
is one of the most aggressive collectors of U.S. economic
information and technology. China's intelligence services
frequently seek to exploit Chinese citizens or persons with
family ties in China to use their insider access to corporate
networks to steal trade secrets.
So I don't buy that we are giving them anything. They are
taking whatever they want. That is one of their predispositions
in doing business in China.
How does USAID know whether these judges and officials that
you are training are using your valuable training opportunities
to take back to their lawyers and then find the loopholes and
the strategies to compete against American companies?
Ms. Biswal. I do agree that intellectual property rights is
an area of significant deficiency in terms of China's
compliance. China has adhered to the same international
standards. However, they have been extraordinarily weak in
compliance.
Our programs seek to improve the record of compliance. It
is a difficult task. Providing technical tools through
American-based organizations, like the Asia Foundation, to
develop the knowledge and the capacity in the court system, in
the law schools, in the legal profession in China to improve
compliance is one way to address that.
Mr. Johnson. Ma'am, my time is up, and I apologize. It
seems to me that giving the Chinese Government American aid at
the expense of the American taxpayer to try and force
compliance is an ill-advised strategy, given the fact that over
the last 10 years, we have given the Chinese nearly $275
million, around $275-300 million, and we are not seeing any
progress on compliance. And so I would say that the program is
failing.
And I stand by, Mr. Chairman, my assertion that I hope we
keep these funds on hold.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you.
Ms. Biswal, is there money in the budget to give to the
U.S.-China Partnership for Environmental Law?
Ms. Biswal. The President's budget request did not contain
funding for these programs.
Mr. Manzullo. For all the programs?
Ms. Biswal. Was that your question, sir?
Mr. Manzullo. No. Of the $12 million that is in the budget,
was any money there allocated for the U.S.-China Partnership
for Environmental Law?
Ms. Biswal. In the $3.95 million congressional notification
that was sent to the committee, about $1 million of that is to
continue the U.S.-China Partnership for Environmental Law.
Mr. Manzullo. On page 2 of your testimony at the bottom,
you state that that program ``is now fully self-sustaining and
no longer requires additional USAID funds.''
Ms. Biswal. Sorry. The reference is to another component
program. That was not for the environmental partnership law
program; it was not my intent to mischaracterize how I joined
those two together, that was part of the Guangdong
Environmental Partnership Program, which has become fully
sustaining and does not receive----
Mr. Manzullo. Wait a second.
Ms. Biswal [continuing]. Any additional funds.
Mr. Manzullo. So there is a program within the program?
Ms. Biswal. I think in referencing that program, I was also
connecting to other programs that supported those outcomes,
which have become fully self-sustaining. And I apologize if
that was confusing.
Mr. Manzullo. Ms. Biswal, it is not self-sustaining when
you are asking the taxpayers to pony up $1 million. I mean,
General Electric, Honeywell, Walmart, Alcoa, and Pfizer have
contributed how much money? Do you have any idea? You said GE
contributed $2.8 million.
Ms. Biswal. Right. So I believe for the Institute for
Sustainable Communities programs in China, which include the
Climate Action Partnership and the Guangdong Environmental
Partnership, which we are no longer funding, those two programs
leveraged over----
Mr. Manzullo. I am not saying leveraged, but these
companies can put up all the money. They certainly make a lot
of money in China and don't need taxpayers' dollars for
``leverage.'' Would you agree?
Ms. Biswal. I think that the intent behind a public-private
partnership is to create that initial platform for private
sector investment around a policy objective. We are trying to
move toward graduating these programs.
Mr. Manzullo. You don't have to graduate Honeywell,
Walmart, Aloca, Pfizer, and General Electric. They make
tremendous profits. Wouldn't you agree?
Ms. Biswal. I believe they are making progress.
Mr. Manzullo. Okay. They are making a lot of profits. Yet,
still you are asking the taxpayers to put more money into a
program that already has generous support by the private
sector. That doesn't make sense. How can you defend that?
Ms. Biswal. I would only posit, sir, that the President's
budget request did not request funding for these programs, but
because Congress appropriate funds for these specific
environmental and rule of law activities, being a good
congressional staffer in my past life, we do strive to make
sure that we follow congressional intent in how we maintain our
programs.
Mr. Manzullo. Let me see if I can get this straight. The
President's budget did not request any money for the U.S.-China
Partnership for Environmental Law?
Ms. Biswal. No, sir.
Mr. Manzullo. Is that correct?
Ms. Biswal. That is correct.
Mr. Manzullo. Then what programs are targeted for funding
under the President's request, in his budget request?
Ms. Biswal. The President's budget request included funding
for programs in Tibet, which was $5 million in the----
Mr. Manzullo. Let me back up. Could you go to your
testimony on pages 2, 3 and 4 and point, in particular, to
where the programs are that the President wanted funded? Start
with the U.S.-China Partnership for Environmental Law. You are
saying the President requested zero funding for that.
Ms. Biswal. That is correct.
Mr. Manzullo. For anything involved in that program or
subprograms or programs within the program?
Ms. Biswal. That is correct.
Mr. Manzullo. And the Guangdong Environmental Partnership
Program, that was included in that program?
Ms. Biswal. There was zero funding requested for
environmental and rule of law programs in the President's
budget request.
Mr. Manzullo. Okay. The U.S.-China Partnership for Climate
Action, did the President request any funding for that?
Ms. Biswal. He did not, sir.
Mr. Manzullo. Okay. So I have zero, zero. The Asia Regional
Response to Endangered Species Trafficking, did he request any
money for that?
Ms. Biswal. No, not for the China programs.
Mr. Manzullo. The USAID Rule of Law Program in China, did
the President request any money for that?
Ms. Biswal. He did not.
Mr. Manzullo. Well, then, why have you given us four
programs for which he has requested no money? I thought that
you would have at least the programs that are getting the
money. What other programs are there besides these? Am I
missing something?
Ms. Biswal. So the President's budget request asked for $5
million to continue assistance to Tibetan communities----
Mr. Manzullo. Okay. Go ahead.
Ms. Biswal [continuing]. And I believe $7 million for HIV/
AIDS assistance through the PEPFAR program, through CDC and
USAID combined.
Mr. Manzullo. Okay.
Ms. Biswal. That was a total of $12 million that was
requested in the President's budget request.
Mr. Manzullo. All right. So these four programs here were
the ones that ended up being funded by the time the continuing
resolution was signed. Would that be correct?
Ms. Biswal. So dating back to 2006, Congress has included
funding and directives to maintain rule of law and environment
programs in China. And we have complied, sir.
Mr. Manzullo. I am just trying to figure out who is on
first here. I think I am understanding that the four programs
here that you have listed in this testimony were not at the
President's request. Is that correct?
Ms. Biswal. That is correct.
Mr. Manzullo. And the programs ended up getting funded
because Congress decided to throw that money in for these
programs?
Ms. Biswal. That is correct.
Mr. Manzullo. And that the----
Ms. Biswal. For these sectors. The programs were
competitively awarded, but the sectors of environment and rule
of law were determined and directed by Congress in the
appropriations bill.
Mr. Manzullo. Okay. The President's request is for $12
million. That is for Tibet and for HIV/AIDS. Is that correct?
Ms. Biswal. That is correct.
Mr. Manzullo. All right. But, notwithstanding the fact that
Congress directed USAID to spend this money, then you
anticipated my next question. How did Vermont end up with
getting this award?
Ms. Biswal. A number of different U.S. institutions have
partnered with USAID over the years in carrying out both the
environment and rule of law programs. USAID would put forward a
request for proposals. Different institutions would then submit
proposals. And then they would be competitively awarded by a
technical selection committee based on a variety of criteria,
including technical expertise, country experience, cost-
effectiveness of programs.
Mr. Manzullo. Do those people sit under your purview or
your jurisdiction?
Ms. Biswal. I do not have any direct lens into the awarding
of these grants or contracts. And for the programs that we are
discussing today, most of them had been awarded under either
the previous administration or before I went to USAID. But they
have continued certainly since I have been there.
Mr. Manzullo. Then this question I will not anticipate you
to answer, but if you know the answer, I appreciate it. Do you
have any idea how many colleges or universities actually were
in the application process for some of these programs?
Ms. Biswal. I do not. I can take that question for the
record.
Mr. Manzullo. Okay. Mr. Johnson, do you have some more
questions?
Mr. Johnson. Ms. Biswal, explain how USAID is going to
effectively expand the market potential for clean energy
technologies and services from American companies in China when
China has hundreds of subsidies policies and practices in place
affecting trade and investment in green technology, of which
USTR just filed an investigative report to the World Trade
Organization about. How are you going to get Chinese companies
to buy U.S.-manufactured products over its own heavily
subsidized domestic goods?
You earlier testified--when I asked you about creating
American jobs, you said companies here would be creating
products that would then be sold to the Chinese in those green
energy initiatives, but they are heavily subsidized in China.
How are you going to get past all of that?
Ms. Biswal. What our programs seek to do, sir, is to create
a platform for U.S. technologies, U.S. companies that provide
services that we think are relevant to improving the energy
efficiency, reducing the greenhouse gas emissions. We provide a
platform for those products and services to----
Mr. Johnson. Cap and trade by regulation. I got that part.
Go ahead.
Ms. Biswal [continuing]. To introduce American products and
services into the Chinese market. So American companies
participate in these training workshops. USTR and the Foreign
Commercial service of the Department of Commerce actually
advertise our programs as a good way for American companies who
are seeking entry into the Chinese market to be able to
introduce----
Mr. Johnson. How are you going to get the Chinese to buy
them when the Chinese are subsidizing the prices of those
products domestically? How are you going to compete? How are
American companies going to compete in that market?
Ms. Biswal. I would leave it to others to answer that
more----
Mr. Johnson. You don't know.
Ms. Biswal [continuing]. Effectively than myself, but I
would say that many of our partners, GE, Honeywell, have
reported increases in their sales in China. I don't know what
the correlation is to their participation in our programs, but
I----
Mr. Johnson. That is the problem that we have, Ms. Biswal,
with so much of our job-killing policies coming out of this
administration--that they don't know. You don't know what the
implications are to American companies until after you have
implemented these policies. And then the American businesses,
small businesses, here in America wind up paying the price for
that.
China has also shown an increasing tendency to use
international language to defend its poor environmental record
and falsely tout its achievements. Of course, the Chinese
Government welcomes increased U.S. Government funding to help
them build capacity, train their people, and take greater
market share and jobs away from America.
Why aren't we using the money that we are giving to China
to help spur the U.S. economy and job growth at home, rather
than investing it in China, which has the technology, the
budget, the resources, and the manpower to do all of this on
their own? We are borrowing money from them. And, yet, we are
giving them money to do, like someone I heard earlier say, what
they don't think is important enough to spend their money on.
Why are we doing that?
Ms. Biswal. So, as I noted earlier, while these programs
are maintained not at the behest of the administration but in
compliance with congressional directives, that we do believe
that these programs are advancing our American economic
interests and do serve as a platform for American companies and
American institutions to be able to gain entry into the Chinese
market.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I appreciate your retort about it is
congressional direction, not the administration. First of all,
I disagree with that, but I can assure you I am new. This is my
first term. But if that is true, then I am going to work hard
to change the direction because we are spending American
taxpayer dollars irresponsibly on this program.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Manzullo. Mr. Royce?
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hello, Nisha. How are you?
Ms. Biswal. It is a pleasure to see you, Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. Nice to see you.
I have some of the same concerns. Basically I think we are
borrowing about 37 cents on every dollar right now in the U.S.
And we are borrowing a lot of that from China. So from the
standpoint of people here, we are spending money we don't have.
And I think we can do better than borrowing money from China
only to gift it back to them. And from the standpoint of many
of us here, that looks like what we are doing.
China already has a competitive advantage over the United
States. Right now with this Keystone project, this weekend the
Chinese head of state is up meeting with Prime Minister Harper
trying to convince him to send that oil to China, rather than
allow it to come into the market in the United States. And so I
just ask--you know, we get down to the technology transfer
issue here as well.
Section C--it is description of the U.S.-China Clean Energy
and Climate Partnership--says that USAID does not ``necessarily
intend'' to promote technology transfer or technology
deployment-focused activities. The phrase ``does not
necessarily intend'' is somewhat troubling because from
hearings I have held on, China's indigenous innovation
policies, basically story after story is told about how U.S.
companies are forced to hand over sensitive technology in order
to obtain market share there.
So not necessarily intending to do this when you are a
competitor, when China is fully intent on doing exactly this
leads me to worry that these same pay-to-play policies will be
implemented by China in our efforts to promote clean energy
there. And I wonder if you could clarify what USAID means with
this language ``does not intend.''
Ms. Biswal. So, Mr. Royce, the programs that USAID is
managing in China on environment don't actually involve a
transfer of technologies. They basically provide information on
best practices, on energy efficiency that are commonly adopted
in the United States.
However, they do seek to engage American companies as
service providers, as experts on addressing some of these
challenges that, in the process, allow opportunities for those
companies to pursue any commercial opportunities that may
result.
Mr. Royce. I understand, Nisha, that argument. But if that
were the case, then why wouldn't the language read, ``There
will be no technology transfer,'' rather than the language I
see here, which implies that----
Ms. Biswal. Yes. You know, as I look through the language
of the RFAs involved in these programs, I will say that they
were written a number of years ago. And I think our policies
have evolved since then, particularly because the operating
climate has also evolved. And we are not providing through
these programs any transfer of any cutting edge innovative
technologies or any patent-protected technologies. We are
basically looking at best practices.
Mr. Royce. I understand. I understand. But I think there is
a certain naivete here. And, looking at USAID, the way they
state this on China's rule of law program assistance, for
example, part of this, USAID says, ``China is making efforts to
develop more robust administrative procedures and laws--
judicial review, notification and comment, transparent
administrative procedures, and gaining redress are all seen as
possible outcomes.''
Going to the issue of naivete of us working with China in
this relationship, when China--first of all, I don't think they
are too concerned at all about green energy other than the
bottom line for them, but in terms of practicing it themselves,
they seem quite indifferent to it, unfortunately.
Second, in terms of our experience, I probably hear this
more because I am a Californian and hear people who have
invested in China more than most of the members, but there is
no understanding, there is no respect of the rule of law. And
U.S. businesses enter at their own risk. And, yet, the
verbiage, the language, whether it is Commerce Department or
USAID, gives our companies the sense that there is some
progress being made; whereas, in fact, in working with the
embassy on a number of these questions, constituents are having
their entire businesses seized and this is ignored by the
Chinese legal system.
And I just ask if giving rosy descriptions of this program,
if implying that China is cooperating on this, I just ask if
USAID understands the level of impunity that still exists in
the Chinese legal system and in their resistance to any of
these things that you and I worry about.
Ms. Biswal. I think that that is a very fair point, Mr.
Royce. And I think oftentimes in our description of programs,
perhaps the aspirational language of what we are trying to
achieve might appear overly optimistic and, as you said, paint
a rosy scenario. So I take your point.
Mr. Royce. Yes. My final point is I don't think China
intends to buy into this system, either rule of law or on the
environmental front. They will take money from us. They will
take things that they think they can use for technology
transfer and so forth and try to compete with us on the world
market, but in terms of domestic concern about these issues, I
just haven't seen it in my trips there or discussions there.
Thank you very much for your testimony here, Nisha.
Ms. Biswal. Appreciate your questions.
Mr. Manzullo. Mr. Biswal, on page 5 of your testimony, you
talk about the Asia Regional Response to Endangered Species
Trafficking Program,----
Ms. Biswal. Yes.
Mr. Manzullo [continuing]. The ARREST Program.
Ms. Biswal. Yes.
Mr. Manzullo. Now, prior to this year, did the President
seek funding for that program?
Ms. Biswal. So overall funding for addressing----
Mr. Manzullo. No. I know it went down, but prior to this
year, did the President seek funding for that particular
program?
Ms. Biswal. This particular program is a new regional
program that has not yet commenced. It builds upon prior
regional programs in the ASEAN region that did not----
Mr. Manzullo. Okay.
Ms. Biswal [continuing]. That did not address----
Mr. Manzullo. It is a new program?
Ms. Biswal. It is a new program.
Mr. Manzullo. Now, I have in front of me a letter from
USAID dated April 1st of 2011 signed by Thomas Stephens,
Regional Agreement Officer, giving $7,995,000 to the FREELAND
Foundation. Are you aware of that?
Ms. Biswal. Yes.
Mr. Manzullo. In their application approved by USAID for
the programs appearing on page 13 under that particular
program, it says 1.3A, ``Sex, Drugs, Rock and Roll, and
Wildlife''----
Ms. Biswal. I am sorry. What----
Mr. Manzullo [continuing]. ``Targeted officials and youth.
FREELAND's multimedia campaigns motivate all sectors of
society, including border officials, to help stop illegal
wildlife trade. The wildlife trafficking stops here.''
I mean, come on. Can you justify $8 million going to an
organization to have a media campaign entitled ``Sex, Drugs,
Rock and Roll''?
Ms. Biswal. I perhaps would not have titled it that way. I
do believe what they are trying to do in this program----
Mr. Manzullo. Just a second. Just a second. If USAID had an
objection to the title of that, they could have corrected that
title before they give the money. Isn't that correct?
Ms. Biswal. That is correct.
Mr. Manzullo. All right. But, yet, notwithstanding, USAID
agreed to have a program, spending U.S. taxpayers' dollars on a
program entitled ``Sex, Drugs, Rock and Roll, and Wildlife.''
Can't you see why Congress is angry over the way you are
spending money? Do you think that these members are justified
in asking these questions?
Ms. Biswal. I think Congress is always justified in asking
the questions and conducting the oversight that you are
conducting. I truly appreciate the hearing that you are having.
Mr. Manzullo. Well, I understand that. You don't need us to
tell you that spending taxpayers' money on programs called
``Sex, Drugs, Rock and Roll, and Wildlife'' is outrageous.
Ms. Biswal. So that ill-named approach is----
Mr. Manzullo. Ill-named? These are the programs. These
people are getting $8 million in government funds and with the
permission and consent and authority of USAID. They allowed
taxpayers' money to be spent on a program called ``Sex, Drugs,
Rock and Roll, and Wildlife.'' That has got to come to an end.
Would you agree?
Ms. Biswal. I would not agree, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Manzullo. You can defend that program?
Ms. Biswal. I can defend a program that seeks to stop the
trafficking of endangered species, the trade in----
Mr. Manzullo. Well, what has sex got to do with that?
Ms. Biswal. So that media campaign that----
Mr. Manzullo. Well, wait a second. What has sex got to do
with stopping the illegal trafficking of animals, of endangered
species?
Ms. Biswal. Well, to be specific, I would say that there is
a correlation between human trafficking, narcotics trafficking,
and trafficking in endangered species that is occurring
throughout Asia----
Mr. Manzullo. Oh, do me a----
Ms. Biswal [continuing]. And the criminal network.
Mr. Manzullo. Right. I mean, that is----
Ms. Biswal. It is a fact. So I agree with you, sir, that
perhaps the title was glib and ill-advised, but I believe what
they were seeking to do was make the correlation.
Mr. Manzullo. Well, then that is the whole point.
Taxpayers' money supports USAID programs. Is that correct?
Ms. Biswal. That is correct.
Mr. Manzullo. Taxpayers' dollars are used to employ people
to go over applications. Isn't that correct?
Ms. Biswal. That is correct.
Mr. Manzullo. Would you agree also that the people who make
these awards, including apparently Thomas Stephens, Regional
Agreement Officer in Bangkok, Thailand, that apparently he
agreed with this application? Isn't that correct?
Ms. Biswal. I believe he agreed with the intent of what the
program was going to do.
Mr. Manzullo. Just a second. We are not talking about the
intent. I am talking about the literal rewards in this
application.
Ms. Biswal. Yes. I am sure that it did pass through his
approval.
Mr. Manzullo. If he had had a problem with the name of this
program, he could have said, ``Don't use that name.'' Isn't
that correct?
Ms. Biswal. I believe that is true.
Mr. Manzullo. Then, additionally, as part of the Sex,
Drugs, Rock and Roll and Wildlife Program, it says it is
targeting officials and youth. It says, ``Flexible and modular,
the campaigns will be upgraded based on impact surveys and
rolled out in Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia, and
Indonesia.'' Are you going to take a survey on people who were
involved in illegal trafficking of endangered species and see
whether or not these particular ads are impacting their
behavior?
Ms. Biswal. The idea is to reduce consumer demand for
endangered species that are often found on menus in restaurants
throughout Asia and to increase awareness in the general
population of the impact of trafficking in these endangered
species. So yes, we would want to do surveys of that population
to see if our programs to reduce demand were----
Mr. Manzullo. Here is the survey. You are involved in
illegal trafficking of endangered species. Yes or no? Are you
impacted by these TV or radio ads or posters with money spent
by the U.S. taxpayer to determine whether or not this impacts
your behavior? Are you really going to get some kind of a valid
response on that?
Ms. Biswal. Mr. Chairman, for illegal trafficking in
wildlife to be sustained, there needs to be a popular consumer
demand that is being met through this illegal trafficking and--
--
Mr. Manzullo. Then why is the U.S. taxpayer paying for
this?
Ms. Biswal. The U.S. taxpayer pays for this because these
programs address our core interests. The trafficking in
endangered species and the illegal trafficking of wildlife,
one, has correlations to human and narcotics trafficking as
well as some links to terrorist financing;----
Mr. Manzullo. I just----
Ms. Biswal [continuing]. Two, that it has adverse health
impacts and economic impacts in the United States, including
through the introduction of invasive species into the United
States. So we believe that this is an appropriate use of U.S.
tax funds because we are advancing core U.S. interests.
Mr. Manzullo. That is probably the best reason to end it.
Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just note I don't believe that spending by the
United States Government, especially when the money is going to
a non-democratic country, a country that is controlled by an
oppressive government, that we can make up through our spending
what comes about because of bad policy on the part of that
government or lack of spending on that government to achieve
the same end. For us to be pouring money into the goals that
you just suggested is pouring U.S. taxpayer dollars down the
toilet because it will accomplish nothing.
If you have a group of gangsters, who could care less
about--you know, these are people who take their own women and
put them into forced abortions, and these are the same people
who murder the Falun Gong and other religious followers. We
expect that we are going to help them save endangered species
by putting our taxpayer dollars at work in China? Talk about
naive.
We also have a program here that I read as $4 million that
is provided through AID and part of the AID program, the RDMA,
$4 million to help them decrease their carbon footprint in
China.
Now, you tell me that at a time when we are spending our
$1.5 trillion and we have to borrow that money from China in
the first place that giving them $4 million is a good deal for
the people of the United States.
Ms. Biswal. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. It is a pleasure to
see you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you.
Ms. Biswal. Let me answer your question in two ways. First
of all, the environment programs that USAID is managing in
China, none of the funds go to the Chinese Government or
Chinese institutions. Second of all, as I had noted earlier, 30
percent of the particulate pollution in California and 30
percent of the mercury pollution in North American lakes
emanates from Chinese coal-fired power plants.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So they should be giving us money for
that, not us giving them money.
Ms. Biswal. So our programs----
Mr. Rohrabacher. If, indeed, you are right that they are
having policies that affect our people's health, we shouldn't
be giving them money and saying, ``We are going to pay for
it.'' They are the ones who should be paying for it.
Ms. Biswal. And we don't give them money, sir. Our programs
through American----
Mr. Rohrabacher. I have got $3,950,000 given as part of the
RDMA program. Now, does that go through foreign aid or doesn't
it? Does it go through the State Department or doesn't it?
Ms. Biswal. That money is programmed by USAID----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Ms. Biswal [continuing]. Through American institutions.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So it is an American taxpayer dollar
program by our AID program. And you think it is a good thing?
Ms. Biswal. I do believe that it is addressing core U.S.
interests.
Mr. Rohrabacher. One of the reasons why I believe that our
country and many Americans believe our country is in such
economic straits is we have been treating China as if it were a
democratic country. We have been willing to turn our head at
violations of human rights but also violations the rights of
our own people to have at least an equal treatment of Americans
in their marketplace as they have in our marketplace.
We hare basically provided this--and turned our heads to
the massive flow of technology that has been stolen from
American businesses. Yet, we continue to have programs that
give them $5 million here, $4 million here, $7 million to sex,
drugs, and rock and roll.
The American people have serious reason to believe that our
basic policy is insane, is insane. It is incomprehensible that
we would permit the massive transfer of wealth that has taken
place between the United States of America and China over the
last 20 years after Tiananmen Square, the leadership of that
government that controls China made sure that the world knew
that they were going to rule their country with an iron fist
and there was going to be no democracy.
To continue treating them the way we are and agreeing to
programs like this, trying to explain them away, no wonder they
think we are a bunch of fools because we are acting like fools.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Manzullo. Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Thanks again, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go back to how we think we can effectively
convince the Chinese to reduce their harmful emissions. I want
you to remind me again. How do your programs work to reduce
harmful emissions when at the national level, the Chinese
Government is only paying lip service to environmental
compliance?
Ms. Biswal. So China has reduced in the past 4 years the
energy intensity of its economy by 19 percent. The overall
amount of emissions has continued to increase as there have
been, I believe, a 40-percent growth in its manufacturing
sector. So certainly we are not keeping pace with the overall
growth to have a net reduction in emissions, but I would say
that the percentage trend has been positive. And if you want to
see how we are----
Mr. Johnson. Well, I thank my colleague for asking. Where
do you get those figures from?
Ms. Biswal. I would be happy to provide after the fact the
source of the data. The 19.1 percent reduction in energy
intensity is through international nongovernmental
organizations that monitor compliance against greenhouse----
Mr. Johnson. Were they produced by the Chinese Government?
Ms. Biswal. No, they are not.
Mr. Johnson. No, they are not? Okay. All right. Well, let
me go to something else here. The Chinese Government does not
encourage public participation or civil society participation
in climate change policy processes. Aren't we being naive in
thinking that NGOs who will have to work with local or central
government authorities can somehow create this change needed to
really clean up China's environmental mess? Your staff has
stated that results have been incremental. You just
acknowledged that.
So how many years do we plan on funding climate change in
China until we see real results or until China wakes up and
takes these initiatives on their own? I mean, what is the end
game here?
Ms. Biswal. Well, sir, as I noted, these funds were not
requested in the President's budget request. USAID will
continue to run programs for environmental protection and
climate change mitigation in China as long as Congress directs
us to do so.
Mr. Johnson. Wow. We can fix that. Okay. Good. Yes. We can
fix that. Thank you very much.
China has a poor record of accountability. We talked about
only making progress incrementally. What mechanisms are in
place to monitor the use of USAID funds? Are there metrics?
And, if so, how are we monitoring the funds and the
effectiveness of such rule of law and climate change programs?
Ms. Biswal. We have monitoring and evaluation built into
every grant proposal that we fund. We also do external audits
of programs when they are completed. And certainly our staff
who are based out of Bangkok travel periodically to the program
sites to ensure that they are going as proposed.
Mr. Johnson. Yes. Just for the record, I was just reminded
that the funds requested for this program last Congress came
from the Senate, not from the House. So I want to make that
assertion.
I think, with that, Mr. Chairman, that is my----
Mr. Manzullo. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Just one note on the statistics that you
offer us.
Ms. Biswal. Sir?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I don't know. Let me just put it this way.
I am not doubting your integrity, but I would doubt the
integrity of those figures. And I would suggest that in a
vicious dictatorship, as China has, that they do not permit
these NGOs that you are talking about the freedom that is
necessary to come up with those statistics.
There is no freedom of press in China. There is no freedom
to complain. There is no freedom to criticize. And there is no
freedom to gather honest statistics. That is what happens under
these type of dictators because you can imagine the local
people in one of their provinces just allowing people to
understand that things are actually getting worse than getting
better or that the money that is being spent by the Americans
here, supposedly to bring down the carbon footprint, is
actually going to the home of one of the Communist Party
bosses. No, no. That would never be known to you.
And, as you start getting it, ``Well, they have increased
it by this much and that,'' that may be good when we are
working with a democratic government that has a free press to
check those figures. It is totally unreliable for us to base
policy on that type of information. So it is like the Cold War,
us going to the Soviet Government and expecting them to be
honest about their environmental or industrial problems, which,
of course, they weren't.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me--by the way,
would you like to comment on that?
Ms. Biswal. Well, only, sir, that I would be happy to try
to provide for the record with the sourcing of where the
statistics came from and how the information was collected.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, realizing that the basics, the
source, whoever that person or group is, faces the same
restrictions as anybody else who tries to do business in China,
that should give us pause not to just give them the benefit of
the doubt when we hear some good statistic.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think that gives us--makes our job a
lot more difficult and your job a lot more difficult to
determine just what is real about this monstrous dictatorship.
Thank you.
Ms. Biswal. Yes, sir.
Mr. Manzullo. Well, this has been interesting, hasn't it?
Ms. Biswal. Indeed.
Mr. Manzullo. What I would like to do is to send you a
letter because we are trying to track down where everything is
going. But, if you know, this program, the ARREST Program,----
Ms. Biswal. Yes, sir.
Mr. Manzullo [continuing]. The information that we have--
and maybe I don't have all of it--does not show China as being
a player in this. Would that be incorrect?
Ms. Biswal. You know, the China component of this program
is very tiny. It is about $250,000 for trying to engage China
in the broader ASEAN compliance network. And so of the overall
program scope, it is, one, new and, two, very small.
Mr. Manzullo. When an award is made by USAID for one of
these programs, how does USAID check out the NGO? I mean, do
they look at the salaries of the officers to see if they are
disproportionate? Do they look to see if there have been any
problems going on with the organization fiscally or
politically?
Ms. Biswal. We do have a fairly extensive system of
analyzing all of the data relevant to the bidders. I don't want
to speak out of turn because I am not familiar with all of the
contractual steps that----
Mr. Manzullo. I understand.
Ms. Biswal. But I would be happy to get that process for
you for the record.
Mr. Manzullo. Okay. Well, we appreciate your coming here
and taking the time to share with us this intriguing item
called foreign aid, which most Americans have a very difficult
time, especially in my district, understanding because in the
largest city, the unemployment is still way over 14 percent. I
appreciate you taking the time. Thank you for being our guest
today.
Ms. Biswal. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Manzullo. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:51 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]