[Senate Hearing 112-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2013
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:08 a.m., in room SD-226, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Leahy and Graham.
UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
STATEMENT OF RAJIV SHAH, M.D., ADMINISTRATOR
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY
Senator Leahy. Good morning Dr. Shah and thank you for
being here. We will be discussing the U.S. Agency for
International Development's (USAID) budget.
It has been a little more than 2 years since you became
USAID Administrator, and I know you had to start addressing the
serious cultural and programmatic problems you inherited that
have plagued USAID for years. You have plenty to be proud of.
USAID's programs have helped to improve agricultural
productivity, rather than countries having to import food.
USAID has increased the enrollment of girls in schools, which
is extremely important. USAID has also saved countless lives
from malaria and other diseases.
We also understand that in any bureaucracy as large as
USAID change doesn't come easily, and so while you have made
progress there is a long way to go.
We included several provisions in the Department of State,
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs bill last year to
support USAID's procurement reform.
We have asked USAID for recommendations of other ways the
Congress could amend the Federal acquisition regulations. I
have said to you privately and publicly that I am concerned
that a few large U.S. contractors and nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) obtain the majority of USAID funding.
Eight years ago, the Congress created the Development
Grants Program, a small fund to support innovative proposals
including small, mostly local NGOs. But I see what happens so
often, USAID has taken a good idea and either failed to
implement it or redesigned it in such a way that it thwarts our
intent.
I think you have to fundamentally reform the way USAID does
business. If the changes we have asked for simply end up
shifting a whole lot of money to big contractors in developing
countries, that is not the reform we seek.
A related concern is sustainability of USAID's programs.
The World Bank recently analyzed the sustainability of
nonsecurity assistance in Afghanistan. They estimated that by
2014 between $1.3 billion and $1.8 billion will be needed just
to maintain and operate the programs that are currently
underway.
The majority of our assistance programs are funded by
USAID. There is just no way at all that an impoverished,
corrupt government--and the Karzai government is corrupt--can
come up with that kind of money, even if it wanted to. This
concern is not limited to Afghanistan. Sustainable development
became a popular slogan a decade or so ago, but we need more
than slogans.
I think a lot of what USAID does is well-intentioned, but
not sustainable. We hear of programs that are not pursued
because program officers are afraid to try something new and
may fail, and I understand that. But if USAID is unwilling to
try new things, we simply end up continuing to fund projects
that produce mediocre results.
Your budget requests include disproportionate amounts for
Afghanistan and Iraq. That is wishful thinking.
Billions of people today live in conditions that would be
condemned if they were animals living in the United States. Yet
these are human beings. Corrupt leaders plunder their
countries' natural resources as though they were their personal
bank accounts while their people scavenge for food.
We are racing toward 9 billion people in the world. The
demand for food, water, land, and electricity outstrips supply.
We see what may be coming, and these are all things that you
know as well as I, and you see them every day.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We want to hear from you, but first, of course, from
Senator Graham, who I should point out has followed the
tradition of this subcommittee where both the chairman and
ranking member have worked very closely together, just as
Senator Gregg and I did and Senator McConnell and I did when
each one of us was either chairman or ranking member.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Welcome Dr. Shah and thank you for being here. This morning we will
discuss the United States Agency for International Development's
(USAID) budget request for fiscal year 2013.
It has been a little more than 2 years since you became USAID
Administrator and began to address the serious cultural, management,
and programmatic problems you inherited that have plagued USAID for
years.
We appreciate your efforts. You are taking steps to improve
efficiency and reduce costs, which are reflected in your budget
request. USAID also has plenty to be proud of thanks to investments
that have improved agricultural productivity, increased the enrollment
of girls in school, and saved countless lives from malaria and other
diseases--to name just a few examples.
We also recognize that, as much as we wish it were otherwise, as
with any large government bureaucracy, change does not come easily at
USAID. In fact, I would say that after 2 years and lots of hard work,
you are at first base.
Last year we included several provisions to support USAID's
procurement reform. We have also asked for recommendations of other
ways the Congress could amend the Federal acquisition regulations, if
they impose onerous or unnecessary requirements on USAID.
I have long voiced my concerns with the way a few large U.S.
contractors and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) obtain the vast
majority of USAID funding. Years ago I created the Development Grants
Program, a small fund to support innovative proposals of small, mostly
local NGOs. But USAID has done what it does too often--take a good idea
and either fail to implement it or redesign it in such a way as to
thwart the original intent.
I hope you can tell us what you expect from the changes to USAID's
procurement process, because they need to fundamentally reform the way
USAID does business. If these changes just end up shifting resources to
big contractors in developing countries that is not the reform we seek.
Another concern is the sustainability of USAID projects. The World
Bank recently analyzed the sustainability of nonsecurity aid in
Afghanistan and estimated that by 2014 between $1.3 and $1.8 billion
will be needed just to maintain and operate the programs that are
currently underway. The majority of those programs are funded by USAID.
There is no way that impoverished, corrupt government can come up
with that kind of money even assuming it wanted to.
This concern is not limited to Afghanistan. ``Sustainable
development'' became a popular slogan a decade or so ago, but slogans
don't get you very far. USAID does a lot of good, but I worry that too
much of what USAID does, while well-intentioned, is not sustainable.
We also hear of innovative projects that USAID has not pursued
because program officers are afraid to try something new and fail. I
understand that, but we need to balance accountability of taxpayer
dollars with a willingness to try promising new approaches to
development. It may make less fiscal sense to continue funding projects
that produce mediocre results, than it does to fund new ideas even if
it means taking some risk.
Your fiscal year 2013 budget request for USAID operating expenses
and programs totals slightly less than what was enacted for fiscal year
2012, including disproportionate amounts for Afghanistan and Iraq
which, in my view, are more a reflection of wishful thinking than what
can be effectively used.
Today, we face similar fiscal challenges as we did last year. To
those who think this budget is some kind of luxury or charity we can't
afford, I would say take a look at the world around us.
Despite progress in many countries, billions of people live in
conditions that would be condemned if they were animals living here,
while corrupt leaders plunder the country's natural resources as if it
were their personal bank account. As the Earth's population races
toward 9 billion and the demand for food, water, land, and electricity
outstrips supply, it does not take a rocket scientist to foresee what
the future may hold.
We ignore these forces at our peril, and while USAID cannot
possibly solve these problems alone we need to get the most for our
money. I want us to work together to bring about the kind of
transformative changes at USAID that this country, and the world,
needs.
Senator Leahy. Senator Graham.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
That is very true. I have enjoyed working with you and your
staff. And you know, being the ranking Republican, talking
about foreign assistance is not popular, in general, but I
think very necessary. And I just want to say I think you have
done a great job.
I think USAID is changing for the better, that you have
thought outside the box, that your cooperation with the
military in Afghanistan evolved over time to where USAID
actually coordinates with it. Our civilian-military partnership
in Afghanistan is as good as I have seen it. We are making sure
that the dollars we spend on the USAID side fits into the
strategy to withdraw and transition.
In Iraq, I share Senator Leahy's concerns. I just--I am not
so sure that the security footprint in Iraq can be maintained
by a civilian contractor force, and I am very worried about the
ability to get the dollars out the door into the hands of
people and transform the country because of lack of security.
And I couldn't agree with Senator Leahy more. We are going to
have to redesign our footprint in Iraq.
But as far as Africa is concerned, I really enjoyed my
visit over there a month or so ago. I met your people on the
frontlines. Between President Clinton and President George W.
Bush, we have done a very good job.
And I know Senator Leahy has been supportive of trying to
get dollars from the American taxpayer to do three things--
create a counterweight to China. China is all over the
continent of Africa, and their desire to help the people, I
think, is secondary to their desire to own the resources that
the people have.
I do worry about safe havens for al Qaeda and other
terrorist organizations developing in Africa. And the third
thing is that make sure that our money is being spent to create
economic growth in the future for American companies. We have a
lot of efforts going on in Africa to deal with AIDS and malaria
and other diseases where we have a transition plan.
I want people to understand that the foreign aid budget is
about 1 percent of the total budget and that under
Administrator Shah's guidance and Secretary Clinton, we are
trying to find ways to transition. It is not an endless,
perpetual amount of money being spent to combat AIDS and
malaria. We are creating systems that can be sustained in
Africa by local governments, by the national governments.
I applaud your efforts to come up with a transition plan.
Some places would be quicker than others, but there is a desire
to build people up so they can help themselves.
On food security and agriculture development, I really
applaud your efforts to try to get the Europeans to be more
reasonable when it comes to the use of hybrid seeds and other
farming techniques that will allow Africa to double or triple
their food production, just by using modern farming practices.
Your association with ONE, the Gates Foundation, and faith-
based organizations are the way to go.
There is a lot of goodwill from the American people, apart
from their Government. There are a lot of churches involved in
Africa, a lot of private foundations all over the continent
that are delivering quality services, and I want to make sure
that we partner with the private sector in an appropriate way.
As far as Afghanistan, sustainability is a question, but I
think General Allen has a good military plan to withdraw. And
post-2014, I do believe it is in our national security
interest. The foreign assistance account is a tool to be used
to protect America.
There are many ways to protect this country. Sometimes it
is military force, but it doesn't have to be that way all the
time. Sometimes it is just helping the population with
devastating problems like AIDS and malaria, building up a
relationship with younger people which is going to take more
than 1 day.
And the chairman is right. The Karzai government is very
difficult to deal with. Corruption is rampant. But having been
there about a dozen times, I can tell you there is a new
generation coming through the system that will have a different
attitude about Afghanistan. This is going to take a while.
People from age 25 to 45 have been mentored by our
military, by our civilians, and there are better days ahead in
Afghanistan. We are just going to have to push through and get
a new generation of leadership, and it does matter what happens
in Afghanistan.
I worry tremendously about Pakistan. Pakistan, to me, is
the place most likely to fall if we don't get it right in
Afghanistan, and I look forward to hearing from Administrator
Shah about what we can do in Pakistan with a deteriorating
relationship.
When it comes to Egypt, I want to be involved and be
helpful, but the Egyptian parliament has made some statements
that I would say at best are unnerving. And they have got to
decide what they want to be. If you want to be a country that
tears up the treaty with Israel and brings disdain upon the
Israeli people and basically go back into the darkness in terms
of the way women live and minorities in Egypt, that will be a
choice you will make, and the price will be heavy for the
future of the Egyptian people.
You can have Islamic conservative governments. That is
totally understandable to me. But those governments have to
reach out not only to their neighbors, but the world at large
and so that win foreign partnerships.
So I think you have done a very good job. We can always do
better, but I look forward to hearing from you about what we
can do to help you and all those in your care and guidance.
So, thank you and to those people who are out front in Iraq
and Afghanistan and other places, I know you are accepting
personal danger, but you are doing a good job for the country.
Senator Graham. Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Please go ahead, Dr. Shah.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DR. RAJIV SHAH
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Graham,
members of the subcommittee.
I am honored to join you to discuss the President's fiscal
year 2013 budget request for USAID. I would like to start by
thanking Senator Kirk and wishing him a continued speedy
recovery. He has been someone who has spent time with me and
has significantly supported our efforts and our agenda and our
reforms.
Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Graham, on behalf of our
agency, I really do want to thank you for the tremendous
support and guidance you have offered to our agency and our
efforts.
Senator Leahy, you have, as you continue to do today,
challenged us to reform the way we do business, to expand the
way we think about development, to be open to new partners,
innovations, and new ways of solving traditional development
problems. We have tried to heed that call and, I believe, have
made real progress, and we will continue to stay very focused
on that agenda.
Senator Graham, you have challenged us to work more
effectively with our military partners, with the private
sector, with the American public, including faith-based
organizations. I think in all of those areas, we have taken and
made real strides and will continue to stay committed to that
path of engagement and cooperation.
Two years ago, President Obama and Secretary Clinton called
for elevating development as part of America's national
security strategy and foreign policy approach. This required us
to be more effective and responsive in a broad range of
priorities.
Frontline states, such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq;
quickly reacting to the political transitions in the Arab
Spring; expanding our engagements in a concerted and forceful
way with the private sector in order to enable them to be a
counterweight to the way China and others engage in places like
Africa; and to focus on delivering core results in our basic
areas of business.
Avoiding food insecurity and hunger; helping to improve
health, in particular helping children survive; expanding
access to water and sanitation and education to kids who are
vulnerable; and responding to humanitarian and complex crises.
And all the while staying focused on gender issues and on
expanding the access to basic democratic governance and human
rights.
The President's fiscal year 2013 budget request enables us
to implement an ambitious set of reforms we call USAID Forward.
We have prioritized and focused and concentrated in many
different parts of our overall portfolio.
In global health, we have reduced the number of places
where we will work on maternal health from 64 to something
closer to 40 and concentrated resources in the 24 countries
where we think we can get the most lives saved for the dollars
we invest.
In ``Feed the Future'', our signature food security effort,
we have closed programs in Kosovo, Serbia, and Ukraine so we
can reinvest resources in places like Tanzania, where we are
seeing improved new seed varieties rapidly increase food
production and a pathway to end child hunger and malnutrition.
With guidance from the Quadrennial Diplomacy and
Development Review and Presidential Policy Directive on Global
Development (PPD), our budget prioritizes this set of basic
reforms. We have taken the call to be more innovative in our
programs. We have launched grand challenges in development that
have helped us reach thousands of new partners and seek
innovative new proposals to lower the cost of saving lives at
birth or come up with new ways to use technology to ensure that
all children have the opportunity to read and achieve basic
literacy outcomes.
In those two grant programs alone, we have literally
reached more than 1,100 new partners who have sent in proposals
and who we can now work with and engage with. We have launched
the Development Innovation Ventures Fund, a portfolio of
innovative investments, more than one-half of which use clear,
randomized control methodologies, which is the gold standard to
evaluate outcomes so we can study and learn from small and
focused investments.
We have put in place a new evaluation approach that has
been recognized by the American Evaluation Association as the
gold standard across the Federal Government, and they have, in
fact, encouraged other agencies to adopt some of the principles
and operational approaches we have put into practice.
But most important, we are trying aggressively to change
the way we partner, to partner more directly and in a more
collaborative way with institutions of faith that do incredible
work around the world, to focus on exactly what Senator Leahy
mentioned, reforming how we do procurement to work with local
institutions, including setting specific targets across our
more than 80 missions to ensure that we move resources to the
most efficient opportunities we have.
This work, taken together, allows us to concentrate on some
of our specific priorities, and I would like to spend a moment
to just articulate what they are.
First, we continue to maintain a priority for the frontline
states and to expand our work in the Arab Spring. I look
forward to being able to discuss some of the efforts we are
making in those areas, but they are, I believe, responsive to
the guidance and dialogue we have had over the past 2 years in
that respect.
Second, we are focused on global health. At $7.9 billion,
this is the single largest item in the foreign assistance
budget. This budget, we believe, will allow us to make and live
up to the President and Secretary's extraordinary commitments
in this space: to expand the PEPFAR program to treat 6 million
patients, thanks to a significant reduction in the cost of
treatment; to expand our efforts to save children's lives by
pulling together the incredibly effective President's Malaria
Initiative with a number of other programs designed to improve
nutrition and child survival, especially in the first 48 to 72
hours of life; and by focusing on seeking efficiencies in our
maternal health programs so we could expand services while
lowering costs.
Next, our priority is food security. This budget includes
significant resources for the President's ``Feed the Future''
program. We continue to believe that food security is a
national security priority, and we believe we saw that come
together just these past 6 months in the Horn of Africa, where
the worst drought in more than six decades affected more than
13 million people.
USAID led a significant humanitarian response across
international partners, feeding more than 4.6 million
individuals and saving countless lives in the process. But we
know that it is more efficient and more effective to help
countries transition from food aid to being able to grow their
own food, have their own modern food systems and agricultural
systems, and achieve self-sufficiency.
In the 20 Feed the Future priority countries, we have seen
agricultural productivity go up at more than 8 times the rate
that we see it in the rest of the world, with a 5.6-percent
improvement in agricultural food production on an annual basis
in those 20 countries.
We believe those kinds of results will help move hundreds
of millions of kids out of poverty and hunger over time if we
stay focused, we partner with the private sector, we use new,
effective, and proven technologies, and we bring our capacity
to measure results and ensure that progress is being made
especially for women, who continue to provide most of the labor
in these farm economies.
Finally, I would like to conclude with a thank you to our
staff. Our teams work incredibly hard and take extraordinary
risks. Those risks have been quite visible in recent weeks in
Afghanistan, as our staff and our partners, many of whom work
directly with counterparts in the Afghan Government and with
civil society organizations, have had to take on new
precautions to protect themselves.
But we also have colleagues taking risks in all parts of
the world. And just this morning, I got an email from one of
our Foreign Service nationals who works in Zimbabwe to support
democracy and civil society organizations in that difficult
environment.
He takes tremendous personal risks every day in order to
just come to work, but he sent a note that said that he does
this because he genuinely believes that the efforts we make are
helping to make the world fairer and more just for his children
and all of our children.
PREPARED STATEMENT
And it is really that spirit that motivates our staff, that
motivates our teams, and that has led to a tremendous amount of
commitment to this set of reforms that we have discussed and to
these priorities. And I look forward to taking your questions.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Rajiv Shah
Thank you Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Graham, and members of the
subcommittee. I am honored to join you to discuss the President's
fiscal year 2013 budget request for the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID).
Two years ago, President Obama and Secretary Clinton called for
elevating development as a key part of America's national security and
foreign policy. Through both the Presidential Policy Directive on
Global Development and the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development
Review, they made the case that the work USAID's development experts do
around the globe was just as vital to America's global engagement as
that of our military and diplomats.
The President's fiscal year 2013 budget request enables USAID to
meet the development challenges of our time. It allows us to respond to
the dramatic political transformations in the Middle East and North
Africa. It helps us focus on our national security priorities in
frontline states like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. And it
strengthens economic prosperity, both at home and abroad.
This budget also allows us to transform the way we do development.
It helps countries feed, treat, and educate their people while
strengthening their capacity to own those responsibilities for
themselves. It helps our development partners increase stability and
counter violent extremism. It supports those who struggle for self-
determination and democracy and empowers women and girls. And it helps
channel development assistance in new directions--toward private sector
engagement, scientific research and innovative technologies.
I want to highlight how the investments we make in foreign
assistance help our country respond to our current challenges, while
delivering results that shape a safer and more prosperous future.
efficiency, trade offs, and usaid forward
While foreign assistance represents less than 1 percent of our
budget, we are committed to improving our efficiency and maximizing the
value of every dollar. American households around the country are
tightening their belts and making difficult tradeoffs. So must we.
Even as we face new challenges around the world, our budget
represents a slight reduction from fiscal year 2012.
We've prioritized, focused, and concentrated our investments across
every portfolio. In global health, we propose to close out programs in
Peru and Mexico as those countries take greater responsibility for the
care of their own people.
We've eliminated Feed the Future programs in Kosovo, Serbia, and
Ukraine and reduced support to Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia by
$113 million to reflect shifting global priorities and progress over
time by some countries toward market-based democracy.
And we're keeping our staffing and overall administrative costs at
current levels, even in the midst of a major reform effort. It is
through that effort that I spoke about last year--USAID Forward--that
we've been able to deliver more effective and efficient results with
our current staffing profile and operating budget.
Our budget prioritizes our USAID Forward suite of reforms.
That funding allows us to invest in innovative scientific research
and new technologies. Last year, our support of the AIDS vaccine
research through President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)
led to the isolation of 17 novel antibodies that may hold the key to
fighting the pandemic. And we're working with local scientists at the
Kenyan Agricultural Research Institutes to develop new drought-
resistant seed varieties of sorghum, millet and beans, as well as a
vitamin-A rich, orange-fleshed sweet potato.
It helps us conduct evaluations so we know which of our development
efforts are effective and which we need to scale back. The American
Evaluation Association recently cited our evaluation policy as a model
other Federal agencies should follow.
It allows us to partner more effectively with faith-based
organizations and private companies. In fact, the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development recognized USAID as the best
amongst peers in driving private sector partnerships and investment.
And through our procurement reform efforts, among the most far-
reaching and ambitious across the Federal Government, we are
aggressively seeking new ways to work with host country partners
instead of through more costly consultants and contractors. This effort
will make our investments more sustainable and hasten our exit from
countries, while cutting costs.
For instance, in Afghanistan, we invested directly in the country's
Ministry of Health instead of third parties. As a result, we were able
to save more than $6 million.
That investment also strengthened the Afghan health ministry, which
has expanded access to basic health services from 9 percent of the
country to 64 percent. Last year, we discovered the true power of those
investments; Afghanistan has had the largest gains in life expectancy
and largest drops in maternal and child mortality of any country over
the last 10 years.
In Senegal, we are working with the government--instead of foreign
construction firms--to build middle schools at a cost of just $200,000
each. That helps strengthen the government's ability to educate its
people, but it is also significantly more cost effective than enlisting
a contractor.
When we do invest money in partner governments, we do so with great
care. Our agency has worked incredibly hard to develop assessments that
make sure the money we invest in foreign governments is not lost due to
poor financial management or corruption.
With your continued support of this effort, we can expand our
investments in local systems while building the level of oversight,
accountability, and transparency that working with a new and more
diverse set of partners requires.
The Working Capital Fund we've requested would give us a critical
tool in that effort. The Fund would align USAID's acquisition and
assistance to USAID's program funding levels through a fee-for-service
model, so that our oversight and stewardship is in line with our
program and funding responsibilities. The result will be improved
procurement planning, more cost-effective awards, and better oversight
of contracts and grants.
supporting strategic priorities and strengthening national security
We will continue to support the growth of democracies around the
world, especially in the Middle East and North Africa where the
transformative events of the Arab Spring are bringing down autocratic
regimes and expanding freedom.
State and USAID have requested $770 million for a new Middle East
and North Africa Incentive Fund to respond to the historical changes
taking place across the region. The Fund will incentivize long-term
economic, political, and trade reforms--key pillars of stability--by
supporting governments that demonstrate a commitment to undergo
meaningful change and empower their people. State and USAID will
continue to play a major role in helping the people of this region
determine their own future.
In Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan USAID continues to work closely
with interagency partners including the State and Defense departments,
to move toward long-term stability, promote economic growth, and
support democratic reforms. Civilians are now in the lead in Iraq,
helping that country emerge as a stable, sovereign, democratic partner.
Our economic assistance seeks to expand economic opportunity and
improve the quality of life throughout the country, with a particular
focus on health, education and private sector development. With time,
Iraq's domestic revenue will continue to take the place of our
assistance.
In Afghanistan, we've done work to deliver results despite
incredibly difficult circumstances. We established our Accountable
Assistance for Afghanistan--or A3--initiative to reduce subcontracting
layers, tighten financial controls, enhance project oversight, and
improve partner vetting. And with consistent feedback from the Congress
we are focusing on foundational investments in economic growth,
reconciliation and reintegration and capacity building, as well as to
support progress in governance, rule of law, counternarcotics,
agriculture, health, and education. We continue to focus on the
sustainability of these investments so they ultimately become fiscally
viable within the Afghan Government's own budget.
In Pakistan, our relationship is challenging and complex, but it is
also critical. Our assistance continues to strengthen democratic
institutions and foster stability during a difficult time. Crucial to
those efforts is our work to provide electricity. Over the last 2
years, we've added as many as 1,000 megawatts to Pakistan's grid,
providing power to 7 million households. We've also trained more than
70,000 businesswomen in finance and management and constructed 215
kilometers of new road in South Waziristan, expanding critical access
to markets.
the global health initiative
Thanks in large part to the bipartisan support we've had for
investments in global health, we're on track to provide life-saving
assistance to more people than ever before. Although this year's budget
request of $7.9 billion for the Global Health Initiative is lower than
fiscal year 2012 levels, falling costs, increased investments by
partner governments, and efficiencies we've generated by integrating
efforts and strengthening health systems will empower us to reach even
more people.
That includes PEPFAR, which will provide life-saving drugs to those
around the world afflicted with HIV and expand prevention efforts in
those countries where the pandemic continues to grow. We can expand
access to treatment and lift a death sentence for 6 million people in
total without additional funds.
We're also increasingly providing treatment for pregnant mothers
with HIV/AIDS so we can ensure their children are born healthy. And
because of breakthrough research released last year, we know that
putting people on treatment actually helps prevention efforts--
treatment is prevention. All of these efforts are accelerating progress
towards President Obama's call for an AIDS-free generation.
Our budget request also includes $619 million for the President's
Malaria Initiative, an effective way to fight child mortality. In
country after country, we've shown that if we can increase the use of
cheap bed nets and anti-malarial treatments, we can cut child death--
from any cause, not just malaria--by as much as 30 percent. In
Ethiopia, the drop in child mortality has been 50 percent.
Last year, we commissioned an external, independent evaluation of
the Presidential Malaria Initiative's performance. That report praised
the Initiative's effective leadership for providing ``excellent and
creative program management''.
And we will continue to fund critical efforts in maternal and child
health, voluntary family planning, nutrition, tuberculosis and
neglected tropical diseases--cost-effective interventions that mean the
difference between life and death.
feed the future
Last year, the worst drought in 60 years put more than 13.3 million
people in the Horn of Africa at risk. Thanks to the humanitarian
response led by the United States--and the investments we made in the
past to build resilience against crises just like these--millions were
spared from the worst effects of the drought.
But as is well known, providing food aid in a time of crisis is 7
to 10 times more costly than investing in better seeds, irrigation and
fertilizers. If we can improve the productivity of poor farmers in
partner countries, we can help them move beyond the need for food aid.
And we can prevent the violence and insecurity that so often
accompanies food shortages.
That's why we are requesting $1 billion to continue funding for
Feed the Future, President Obama's landmark food security initiative.
These investments will help countries develop their own agricultural
economies, helping them grow and trade their way out of hunger and
poverty, rather than relying on food aid.
The investments we're making are focused on country-owned
strategies that can lift smallholder farmers--the majority of whom are
women--out of poverty and into the productive economy. All told, the
resources we're committing to Feed the Future will help millions of
people break out of the ranks of the hungry and impoverished and
improve the nutrition of millions of children.
We're also leveraging our dollars at every opportunity, partnering
with countries that are investing in their own agricultural potential
and helping companies like Walmart, General Mills, and PepsiCo bring
poor farmers into their supply chain.
These investments are working.
In Haiti--where we continue to make great strides thanks to strong
congressional support--we piloted a program designed to increase rice
yields in the areas surrounding Port-au-Prince. Even while using fewer
seeds and less water and fertilizer, Haitian farmers saw their yields
increase by almost 190 percent. The farmers also cut 10 days off their
normal harvest and increased profit per acre. Today, that program is
being expanded to reach farmers throughout the country.
These results complement our work to cut cholera deaths to below
the international standard. And we worked with the Gates Foundation to
help nearly 800,000 Haitians gain access to banking services through
their mobile phones.
And in Kenya, Feed the Future has helped more than 90,000 dairy
farmers--more than a one-third of whom are women--increase their total
income by a combined $14 million last year. This effort is critical,
since we know that sustainable agricultural development will only be
possible when women and men enjoy the same access to credit, land and
new technologies.
Overall, since we began the initiative in 2008, our 20 target
countries have increased their total agricultural production by an
average of 5.8 percent. That's over eight times higher than the global
average increase of 0.7 percent.
building resilience
We all know that a changing climate will hit poor countries
hardest. Our programs are aimed at building resilience among the
poorest of those populations.
By investing in adaptation efforts, we can help nations cope with
these drastic changes. By investing in clean energy, we can help give
countries new, efficient ways to expand and grow their economies. And
by investing in sustainable landscapes, we can protect and grow
rainforests and landscapes that sequester carbon and stop the spread of
deserts and droughts.
That work goes hand-in-hand with our efforts to expand access to
clean water to people hit hard by drought. In 2010 alone, those efforts
helped more than 1.35 million people get access to clean water and 2
million people access to sanitation facilities. Increasingly, we're
working with countries to build water infrastructure and with
communities to build rain catchments and wells to sustainably provide
clean water. We're currently in the process of finalizing a strategy
for our water work designed to focus and concentrate the impact of our
work in this crucial area.
strengthening education
Last year, we made some critical decisions about how we strengthen
global education. Since 1995, USAID's top recipients have increased
primary school enrollment by 15 percent. But even as record numbers of
children enter classrooms, we have seen their quality of learning
sharply drop. In some countries, 80 percent of schoolchildren can't
read a single word at the end of second grade. That's not education;
it's daycare.
The strategy we released last year will make sure that our
assistance is focused on concrete, tangible outcomes like literacy. By
2015, we will help improve the reading skills of 100 million children.
conclusion
Thanks to these smart investments, every American can be proud that
their tax dollars go toward fighting hunger and easing suffering from
famine and drought, expanding freedom for the oppressed and giving
children the chance to live and thrive no matter where they're born.
But we shouldn't lose sight that these investments aren't just from
the American people--as USAID's motto says--they're for the American
people. By fighting hunger and disease, we fight the despair that can
fuel violent extremism and conflict. By investing in growth and
prosperity, we create stronger trade partners for our country's
exports.
And above all, by extending freedom, opportunity and dignity to
people throughout the world, we express our core American values and
demonstrate American leadership.
Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much.
I have met many of these dedicated people in places all
around the world where often times they are working under very
difficult circumstances.
I noticed it was reported today that Thomas Lubanga, who is
a rebel leader in Congo, had been captured, tried, and found
guilty of outrageous crimes. Last week, 50 million people
watched a YouTube video about Joseph Kony and the Lord's
Resistance Army (LRA), who terrorized civilians in Central
Africa for two decades.
About 12 years ago, Tim Rieser from my staff went to Uganda
to see what kind of aid we could bring to families whose lives
were destroyed by Joseph Kony. You have been providing
humanitarian aid to the victims, including the families and
children who were abducted.
USAID and State have expanded an early warning radio
network for vulnerable communities. The Leahy War Victims Fund
has been used to provide artificial limbs, wheelchairs, and so
on. So we have been doing a lot for years, long before
attention was brought to this, and I included up to $10 million
for these programs in the last appropriations bill.
I understand the administration supports expanding the
State Department's Rewards for Justice program to cover war
criminals like Joseph Kony. What do you plan to do with the
2012 funds that we provided you?
Dr. Shah. Well, thank you, Sir, for the question. I want to
thank you for your incredible leadership on this issue for a
much longer period of time than well before YouTube was even in
place.
And the Leahy War Victims Fund is one of the many tools
that you have encouraged us to deploy over the past two decades
to address this challenging issue including--the other tools
include the international disaster assistance account and the
development assistance account, both of which we have deployed
aggressively over the last decade to try to meet needs that are
created by an incredibly unjust situation.
The video to which you referred has been seen by so many
people, and it does highlight the basic actions and approach of
LRA. Our approach has been to focus on humanitarian relief and
recovery in places like Northern Uganda, which are now cleared
in some degree of the LRA.
We have seen internally displaced persons return to their
communities, and we support those returns, providing people
opportunities for education, employment, to re-enter their own
economy, mostly by supporting agriculture, which is the primary
economy in Northern Uganda.
But we also know that there are efforts that need to be
made in the Central African Republic, in the Democratic
Republic of Congo, in South Sudan. And in those areas, we have
expanded our efforts to support recovery, offering psychosocial
support for children, offer humanitarian assistance ranging
from food and water and other basic necessities, but also cash
for work opportunities to be engaged in short-term employment,
creating roads and helping their economies get back together.
We remain very, very focused on this issue, and I just want
to thank you and our partners, partners like Catholic Relief
Service that is reaching 24 communities in South Sudan.
Partners like Vodacom that are helping to establish cell towers
that will enable a greater degree of protection.
The program you mentioned around expanding radio access and
programming to help warn communities ahead of time and a whole
range of other activities, some of these things take some
learning, as we are trying a lot of new things in order to
offer protection to the population and to meet needs
thereafter.
Senator Leahy. Keep me posted on this, and please know that
it is a priority and has been a priority for some time.
We watch our children playing safely at playgrounds--it
used to be my children, now my grandchildren. It is hard to
conceive of something like that happening.
Over the years, American taxpayers have provided tens of
billions of dollars in economic aid to Egypt for programs
administered by USAID. Very few Egyptians seem to know this. It
has come out, in the last year especially, that apparently year
after year the money was channeled through Egyptian Government
ministries for programs that corrupt Egyptian officials took
credit for.
Now we see anti-Americanism rampant in Egypt. I agree with
the comments Senator Graham made about Egypt earlier.
We have seen the same thing in Pakistan after billions of
dollars in United States aid went there. We are giving billions
of dollars to these countries, but the American people who are
paying for it often get no credit for it. A lot of it is
siphoned off by corrupt officials. How do you respond?
Dr. Shah. Well, I think our focus has been ensuring that
the investments we make generate results. And I just want to
start by saying that whether it is Egypt or Pakistan, I think
when the American people see the actual results--28 percent of
irrigated farmland in Egypt was created by USAID partnership,
the water and sanitation system in Cairo, the number of girls
in school, and a 30-year externally validated health student
that showed the gains in women's health because of our
partnerships. That said, it is critical that those gains are
made more visible to people in the countries.
That is why we are working more directly with civil society
organizations and with local organizations. That is why we
recently looked at just what our USAID press presence is in
Pakistan and found that every month there are about 1,000
references to USAID that are mostly positive in the news. That
is often not enough to overwhelm the broader context, but----
Senator Leahy. We should follow up on that because, as
Senator Graham also said, getting foreign aid bills passed is
not the most popular thing back home.
The Budget Control Act of 2011 includes automatic
reductions in mandatory and discretionary spending beginning in
2013 if an additional $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction is not
enacted by January 15, 2013.
If no legislation is passed before 2013, the Congressional
Budget Office estimates the fiscal year 2013 discretionary
funding levels would be reduced by 7.8 percent. I understand
the amount of the final reduction would be determined by the
Office of Management and Budget using its own estimates.
What is going to be the impact of a 7.8 reduction in
USAID's fiscal year 2013 budget for operations and programs,
and what preparations are you taking in the event this
mandatory reduction is implemented?
Dr. Shah. Well, thank you for the question.
In terms of what impact a reduction like that would have
is, as we have discussed previously, it would essentially shut
down our ability to implement the reforms we are putting in
place. USAID today has a $70 million per full-time equivalent
(FTE) contract oversight capacity. The standard across the
Federal Government is $35 million per FTE.
We have been trying to build up our staff, our contracts
officers, our procurement capacities, taking in consideration
the recommendations of the wartime contracting commissions and
what we have learned about what it takes to implement serious
accountability to hold our partners to account and to ensure
that we are more directly engaged with the local institutions
that you spoke about earlier, Sir. And our ability to do those
types of things in an environment where we are cutting staff
and presence and resources by that percentage would be severely
impeded.
On the program side, the programs that would be most
affected, I fear, are the ones that we all believe deliver some
of the most extraordinary results. Efforts like our Global
Health and our Feed the Future priorities since those have been
the ones that have been the areas of most recent investment
focus and growth.
And so, we are working hard to come up with contingency
plans, but we are also hopeful that scenario will not come to
pass and believe that it would be inefficient if it did.
Senator Leahy. Well, I hope it doesn't come to pass. As a
bumper sticker slogan, talking about these kind of cuts sounds
great. It can be very popular, especially in a Presidential
election year. The reality is something else, so that is why I
raise it.
Senator Graham, please.
Senator Graham. Well, I want to echo what you said about
sequestration. It is the dumbest way in the world to achieve
savings. It will decimate the military, $600 billion on top of
the $480 billion we are trying to reduce spending by over the
next decade. It is a blind hatchet approach to try to get our
budget in balance.
You may not know the answer to this, but you can get it to
us later. Of all the USAID programs from around the world, you
know, every dollar that you are responsible for, what
percentage of the Federal budget would you think that would
equate to?
Dr. Shah. Well under, I think State and USAID together----
Senator Graham. No, just USAID.
Dr. Shah [continuing]. Is right around 1 percent, and USAID
is about one-half of that total budget, even less than one-
half. So it would be probably less than one-half a percentage
point.
Senator Graham. Okay. Let us talk about that one-half a
percentage point and what we get for it. In terms of China and
Africa, what is your assessment of the Chinese involvement in
the continent of Africa?
Dr. Shah. It has been--the defining trend in Africa over
the last decade has been a rapid increase in Chinese investment
and subsidy for Chinese companies to invest. Most of those
investments appear to be focused on resource extractive
industries, and not all of them have followed, as you would
imagine, the international norms and standards around
transparency, around anti-corruption, around ensuring that
benefits accrue to local populations.
The United States continues to be tremendously popular, and
it is----
Senator Graham. Can I just stop you there?
Dr. Shah [continuing]. In Africa because of our work.
Senator Graham. In Ghana, I think we had an 80-something-
percent approval rating. And when I went all over Africa, the
Chinese presence was dominant. Would you agree they are making
a play for the continent of Africa, the Chinese?
Dr. Shah. Absolutely.
Senator Graham. They are trying to basically gather up the
natural resources of a continent blessed with a lot of natural
resources, and they are doing it in a way, don't you think,
Administrator Shah, that instead of focusing on the population,
making sure they can benefit from these resources, they are
using some unsavory tactics, to say the least. Do you agree
with that?
Dr. Shah. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Senator Graham. Eighty-five percent of the people in
Tanzania, I was told, have no access to power from a grid or
running water. Is that correct?
Dr. Shah. I believe so.
Senator Graham. Okay. But all of them have cell phones.
Just about everybody I met had a cell phone, but no running
water, no power. The continent of Africa is underpowered. Is
that fair to say?
Dr. Shah. Absolutely.
Senator Graham. So one of the benefits of our engagement in
Africa, helping people and trying to make the governments more
responsible, responsive to the people is that somebody is going
to provide the resources to help the whole continent achieve
power, right?
Dr. Shah. And coupled with African investment itself, yes.
Senator Graham. So I would like that to be the United
States, not China. There is so much business to be done in
Africa between a continent and the United States on the food
side. What opportunities exist for American companies to be
involved in agricultural development in Africa? Is that a good
business opportunity?
Dr. Shah. I personally believe it is probably the best
agricultural business opportunity that exists over the course
of 20 or 30 years. We have done a lot at USAID to work better
with business and to let American businesses be part of
partnerships that help to tap into an African common market
that is----
Senator Graham. Will that create jobs here at home?
Dr. Shah. They absolutely do, including our programs, for
instance, in Ethiopia with Pepsi that now are trying to reach
30,000 chickpea farmers, efforts to help United States
entrepreneurs create and sell innovations like solar-powered
flashlights to rural communities. Many of those are the
innovative business models of the future, and either U.S. firms
and entrepreneurs will be part of that large common market as
it evolves, or we will cede that ground to others.
Senator Graham. Is it fair to say 10, 15, 20 years ago that
AIDS was rampant throughout the continent about to take out an
entire generation of people, women and children?
Dr. Shah. Certainly, and I think people saw that the
structure of the epidemic specifically killed people who were
in their productive earning years and, therefore, had outsized
and destructive effects on the economies in Africa.
Senator Graham. And mother-to-child AIDS growth was
phenomenal. The children would be infected at birth. Is that
correct?
Dr. Shah. Yes. It was one of the leading causes of child
infection and then morbidity.
Senator Graham. Well, between Presidents Clinton, Bush, and
Obama, how would you rate our efforts to control mother-to-
child AIDS transmission, and generally, are we turning a corner
when it comes to AIDS in Africa?
Dr. Shah. We are. And in fact, both the President and
Secretary have made the commitment to ensure that our
leadership continues to deliver in the future a generation free
from AIDS. Today, we have a global commitment to completely
eliminate mother-to-child transmission so no child is born with
AIDS.
That means treating pregnant women and----
Senator Graham. What kind of results are we getting?
Dr. Shah. Extraordinary results in that program. It is
called Preventing Mother-to-Child Transmission. That is a
highly efficient way to eliminate transmission to children.
Senator Graham. I had a chance to go and see the program in
action in Ghana and Tanzania and South Africa, and I was just
astounded what a little bit of money can do spent well.
On the malaria side, what kind of progress are we making to
address this really devastating disease?
Dr. Shah. Yes. I think the recent external data reviews of
the malaria program have shown that it is by far the most cost-
effective way to save a child's life on the planet.
Senator Graham. Now the Gates Foundation and ONE and other
organizations, they are doing things apart from the U.S.
Government. Is that correct?
Dr. Shah. They are, but also in partnership with us. And
through a unique partnership with the Gates Foundation and
others called the Global Alliance for Vaccines, we were able to
lower the cost of new vaccines by 70 percent and expand access.
Senator Graham. Well, I am going to invite you to Clemson
University, where they have a logistics graduate degree
program, and they are coming up with a way to deliver vaccines
in a more-efficient way, the actual delivery of vaccines to the
people who need them.
And we have a rule of law center we are developing at the
University of South Carolina Law School, and I know USAID is
very involved in rule of law development, particularly in
developing frontline state nations. We will invite you down to
look at that program.
And Don Gressett, who served as a detailee, has been really
great. So thanks for his services.
Now when it comes to Iraq, I think Senator Leahy and I
share a concern. How many people do you have in Iraq?
Dr. Shah. Well, if you include our Foreign Service
nationals, it is more than 100. If you look at just U.S. direct
hires, it is closer to 40.
Senator Graham. Okay. How much money are you intending to
spend on Iraq?
Dr. Shah. I would have to check the exact number. I think
it was around $200 or $250 million.
Senator Graham. What is the security environment like there
now?
Dr. Shah. I am sorry. The number for fiscal year 2013 is
$263 million. The security environment is challenging. It is
more challenging today than it was 6 months ago, and of course,
as we are having this transition, we are also seeking and have
been on a path of transition of the USAID programs. Iraq,
increasingly and appropriately, is taking on more of the costs
of implementing these programs themselves.
Senator Graham. Right. I just want to echo what Senator
Leahy said. I think our footprint in Iraq is too big. Fourteen
thousand contractors providing security, most of the money goes
to security, not to the actual training of the police and other
programs. And we are just going to have to re-evaluate that in
light of the changes.
Now when it comes to Afghanistan, how many people do you
have in Afghanistan?
Dr. Shah. More than 400.
Senator Graham. Okay. How would you evaluate the people
that you interact with, younger people in Afghanistan? Do you
have any insight to share with the subcommittee about what you
see on the ground in terms of younger Afghan partners?
Dr. Shah. Sure. Sir, I think that my interactions with our
partners who fit that description are, of course, self-selected
to be more creative, entrepreneurial, and capable. We have been
impressed with the capacity of some of those individuals to
lead efforts on behalf of their country.
Some are in ministries, ministries like the Ministry of
Agriculture, that have implemented to great success a program
that is funding small- and medium-sized agricultural
entrepreneurs that will largely be the source of economic
growth for the next 5 to 6 years.
Senator Graham. Senator Leahy mentioned something I think
is very true. If you are an American out there and you are
spending all this money on Afghanistan, you see the cross being
burned and the President being burned in effigy, that is
certainly not reassuring.
But is there another side to Afghanistan? Are there things
that do not make it on TV that we should know about and maybe
be encouraged about?
Dr. Shah. Well, there is that other side. There is this
other side that is focused on the results that we have seen
over the last decade. The largest reductions in maternal
mortality anywhere on the planet, more than 7 million kids in
school, 35 percent of whom are girls, whereas there were none
in school previously. Ten or so percent annualized growth rate,
and more than 1,800 kilometers of road that were created to
support that economic growth, more than tripling energy access
to the population and the business population.
Those types of gains are critical to success, but the
challenge going forward and as it has been the President's
policy and what something USAID has really led on is ensuring
that we make the shift to efforts that can be sustained over
the long run.
Senator Graham. Right. And we have a transition plan to put
Afghans in control of Afghanistan. Is that correct?
Dr. Shah. We do on the military side. We absolutely do on
the development program side. I issued a sustainability
guidance last year. We reviewed more than 65 programs. We found
more than 20 that failed the sustainability review and
restructured those programs to be more aligned.
Senator Graham. I think that has been a great breakthrough,
and I don't want to take too much more of your time here.
Now this Joseph Kony that Senator Leahy spoke about, who
is--I don't know how you would describe him other than just the
worst of humanity. Is the Taliban in the same league as this
guy?
Dr. Shah. The things we have seen Joseph Kony do are
brutal. The things that we have seen at different points in
history the Taliban do are also very, very challenging. The
thing that we stay very focused on as a development agency is
ensuring that we build the basis for a sustainable, inclusive,
and stable society. And that is why when there were no girls in
school, now having millions of girls in school is such an
important accomplishment that absolutely needs to be sustained.
It is why, as we go forward with the President's policy to
achieve a political and military strategy that allows us to
bring troops home, we are very focused on protecting women's
rights and protecting girls in particular and ensuring that we
continue to support civil society and women leaders in
Afghanistan, many of whom have done just extraordinary things
in partnership with us over the last few years.
Senator Graham. Well, thank you for your service and to all
those under your command. You have done a great job.
Thanks.
Dr. Shah. Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Here in this subcommittee we have supported
USAID's procurement reform. We included several provisions in
the fiscal year 2012 bill, including 2-year availability for
operating funds, funding increases for procurement staff and
training, and authority for USAID to limit competition to local
organizations for awards less than $5 million.
We supported USAID's effort to change its internal
procurement policies. Your budget request proposes additional
legislative changes and funding. What would they do beyond what
we have already done?
Dr. Shah. Well, first, thank you, Senator, for your
extraordinary and specific support for procurement reform and
for ensuring that America has a development agency that is
capable of delivering value for every tax dollar that is spent
in trying to make the world a better place.
That is really what this procurement reform is about. In
this budget, we request a working capital fund to ensure that a
small percentage of allocated resources go in a dedicated way
to building out the contracting capacity and the capacity for
oversight and accountability so that we continue to make the
transition from very costly and sometimes Western-dominated
implementation mechanisms to local institutions.
Because ultimately, our goal is to build capacity, not
dependence. And ultimately, our goal is to identify those local
leaders who have to have their own ownership of success, as
opposed to doing things for them. And that takes effort. It
takes doing risk assessments of local organizations to ensure
we can protect taxpayer dollars.
It takes a more active on the ground presence to make sure
we are combating corruption and ensuring that money is not
lost. It takes extra effort to monitor and evaluate programs so
that we can guarantee that every major investment will have an
externally valid evaluation public within 3 months of
completion.
Senator Leahy. Let me give you an example of where I think
you can look. There is a small NGO working in an impoverished
country, a place where most people have no access to modern
healthcare. They have a corrupt and repressive government, but
this small NGO has been implementing successful programs to
diagnose and control malaria for 20 years.
The Congress asked USAID to do more in this area. You
solicited proposals. Somehow this local NGO was cut out of the
picture, and two large U.S. NGOs were selected. One has
experience in malaria but has never worked in the country. The
other has worked in the country, but not on malaria.
I am just wondering why we fund big NGOs that have no track
record in a country if we have a small NGO that has a good
track record?
Dr. Shah. Well, honestly, Sir, we got here over decades.
The agency over two decades has experienced 60-percent staff
attrition and a 300-plus-percent increase in its programmatic
responsibilities, most notably in dangerous, wartime
environments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The combination of those two things led to contracting out
of way too many core functions. Designing programs, searching
for partners, engaging directly with local staff, learning
about what is working, what is not working, using those
learnings to then make changes and to insist on, document, and
report on actual results. That is the basis of the USAID
Forward reforms, but they are contingent upon our ability to
rebuild the balance and rebuild our core staffing.
I thank you personally for the support for the development
leadership initiative and for the new Foreign Service officers
and procurement officers we have been able to hire. And I can
assure you that we have focused those additional energies and
resources on precisely this challenge.
Under the procurement reform, we will go from approximately
9 percent in 2009 to approximately 30 percent in 2015 in terms
of our total programmatic allocations to local institutions.
And we are doing that in a careful, measured way.
Every one of our countries has specific targets for helping
to achieve that global aspiration. And when we get there, we
will be a much more nimble, much more-efficient enterprise.
Senator Leahy. It worries me and it is symptomatic of other
places, and there is not a limitless amount of money. For
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, the President's fiscal year
2013 budget request for USAID operations is $331 million, plus
$84 million in overseas contingency operations funding.
That is a 35-percent increase from 2011. It is a larger
percentage every year of your total operating budget. The
operating budget in fiscal years 2011 and 2012 for these
countries was 17 percent of USAID's operating budget. For
fiscal year 2013, the budget request is 22 percent of the
total.
We provided this administration and the one before it
billions of dollars for Afghanistan. Think about what will
happen when the funding tap dries up. You have issued a report
on guidance and sustainability of assistance for Afghanistan,
but your total request for fiscal year 2013, $1.85 billion, is
only $87 million less than the fiscal year 2012 estimate.
How is that sustainable? I acknowledge in many areas the
Afghans have moved forward, but with a corrupt, anti-American
Government, but are we approaching a point where all of USAID
is going to be in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan?
Dr. Shah. No, Sir. I don't believe we are. I believe that
in Afghanistan, we, as USAID, are a small part of the
investment this country has made in lives and in dollars. We
are very, very small in comparison to the overall military
expenditure. But we are a big part of helping to create the
conditions that will allow our troops to come home safely and
quickly.
In order to live up to that mission, we have had to more
than triple our staffing in Afghanistan to implement a program
we call the A-Cubed, or Accountable Assistance for Afghanistan
effort. We have had to go to 100-percent local cost accounting.
We have had to do much more monitoring and evaluation and a
significant number of program redesigns to ensure that we have
a more-effective focus on sustainability.
In just the last few years, we have seen Afghan Government
revenues from local collections, customs collections, and
collecting revenue related to energy more than triple. That is
a trend that we need to absolutely stay focused on in order to
ensure there is some degree of sustainability for the gains
that we have all seen.
Going forward, our focus will be sustainability, revenue
collection, economic growth that is based in the agriculture
and food sector for the next 5 to 7 years and the mining sector
beyond that. And we believe we are putting forth budgets that
will help lay the groundwork for that and allow the American
people to save 10, 20 times the proposed expenditure because of
our ability to draw down our troops.
Senator Leahy. I supported our mission to go into
Afghanistan because the mission was defined as to capture or
kill Osama bin Laden. That was 10, 11 years ago. Shortly after
that time, he apparently left Afghanistan and went elsewhere.
We have been there ever since, and it is almost as though we
overlook the fact, and I hate to use the term, but it is
``mission accomplished''. We got Osama bin Laden.
We have long since been supporting extensive nation-
building. Perhaps I can be convinced it can succeed. I haven't
been yet.
Let me ask you one last question and then yield back to
Senator Graham. For several years, USAID has been implementing
a program, which was begun by the Congress, which funds
partnerships between United States universities and NGOs with
counterparts in China to strengthen the rule of law and
environmental health and safety.
I have met some of the Chinese participants in this
program.
They are impressive and courageous people. They are
standing up for environmental health and safety in China. This
is not the safest thing to do. Some Members of the House have
held up this funding on the ground that the Chinese Government,
not USAID, should pay for it and it somehow hurts American
businesses.
Actually, I think it helps to level the playing field.
American companies are contributing funds to support it. How do
you feel about this program?
Dr. Shah. Well, Senator, the fiscal year 2013 budget
request does not include any funds for the Chinese Government.
Our request is focused on assistance to Tibetan communities and
to address the threats that may emanate from China with respect
to pandemic diseases in a partnership with the Centers for
Disease Control (CDC).
So that is what we believe the priority is and believe
that, in fact, we have gone even farther and worked through
entities like the Global Fund to try and create a situation
where China is no longer necessarily a recipient of funds, but
is more of a global donor to those types of mechanisms that
help effectively prevent disease spread.
Senator Leahy. So you don't think there should be these
partnerships between United States universities and NGOs in
China to strengthen the rule of law in environmental health and
safety?
Dr. Shah. No, Sir. We do. I was just highlighting that
those are not programs that run through in any way the Chinese
Government. That they support----
Senator Leahy. I understand that.
Dr. Shah[continuing]. NGOs outside of the government.
Sorry.
Senator Leahy. Well, I am confused. Are you in favor of
these programs or not?
Dr. Shah. So I would have to come back to you on the
specific program. I know that our efforts have supported NGOs
in areas like human rights and rule of law outside of those
efforts.
Senator Leahy. Can you get back to me within 1 week?
Dr. Shah. Absolutely.
Senator Leahy. Sometimes when we ask these questions, they
go--not just to you, but to everybody else--they go into some
kind of a dark hole and with a feeling that perhaps there is a
limited attention span on the part of some of us in the
Congress. On this matter, I have a long attention span.
So if you could get back to me within 1 week?
Dr. Shah. We certainly will. And let me also say we do
support these efforts. I just want to come back with something
more specific. But we will do that within 1 week.
[The information follows:]
United States Agency for International Development Programs To
Strengthen Rule of Law and Environmental Safety in China
The United States pursues a long-term strategy vis-a-vis China to
protect and promote U.S. national interests and values. United States
Agency for International Development's (USAID) fiscal year 2013 budget
request is limited to funds for activities that preserve the distinct
Tibetan culture and promote sustainable development and environmental
conservation in Tibetan communities through grants to U.S.
organizations, and for health programs to address pandemic diseases.
With regard to your question about partnerships between United
States universities and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to
strengthen rule of law and environmental safety in China, consistent
with congressional intent, USAID has operated programs since 2006 that
focus on activities in environmental, administrative and criminal law,
energy use and management, and regional trafficking in endangered
species.
These programs address development challenges that have regional
and international reverberations for U.S. communities and companies.
For example, USAID environmental law programs include:
--The U.S.-China Partnership for Environmental Law strengthens and
improves China's environmental regulatory system through
partnerships involving United States and Chinese universities,
government agencies, and NGOs. The program works through
collaborative partnerships and training for lawyers, scholars,
law students, judges, regulators, and lawmakers.
--USAID works with the Institute for Sustainable Communities, a U.S.
NGO, to establish environmental health and safety (EHS)
academies to train factory managers (paid for by trainees or
Chinese employers) to improve environmental safety practices
for Chinese workers and communities. EHS academies help ensure
that Chinese factories comply with international standards;
they help to level the playing field for U.S. companies and
reduce air pollution that reaches U.S. shores.
Mr. Chairman, partnerships do not stop with NGOs and universities.
USAID programs in China have leveraged important contributions--
financial and technical--from U.S. companies including General
Electric, Honeywell, Wal-Mart, Alcoa, and Pfizer. GE alone has
contributed more than $2.8 million for USAID's China programs. The EHS
academies program plans to become fully self-sustaining and serves as
an example of initial USAID seed funding that leads to sustainable,
long-lasting impact.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you.
And these hearings are very informative and helpful, and I
will give you my 2 cents worth about Afghanistan. I agree with
Senator Leahy on a lot in this effort to craft a foreign
operations account that is more focused on results, that allows
us to transition to country control, no matter where we are at.
But I have always believed that we are fighting an idea,
not just a person, that killing bin Laden is a great
accomplishment for the United States. President Obama deserves
a lot of credit for making, I think, a very tough call.
But we don't want to make him larger in death than he was
in life, and the way I think we have become safe in the war on
terror is not just killing the leaders of terrorist
organizations, but empowering those who would fight these guys
in their own backyard if they could. So I have come to conclude
that about 80 percent of the people in Afghanistan have
absolutely no desire to go back to Taliban control because it
was a miserable life.
You couldn't do anything other than what they told you you
could do, and from a woman's point of view, it was just
barbaric. And from the average young person's point of view, it
was a miserable existence, and they have had a taste of it, and
they don't want to go back.
The problem is capacity. You have got to have capacity to
meet will. That is why I think we can be successful in
Afghanistan because, based on my view of the country, there is
a lot of will to change Afghanistan. The problem is that their
government, as Senator Leahy says, is very dysfunctional. This
is trying to create a democracy out of 30 years of chaos is
difficult.
But when it comes to Afghanistan, how many times have you
been, Director Shah?
Dr. Shah. Well, Senator, I believe we met for the first
time out there, and I appreciated that opportunity. I don't
know, four, five, six? I would have to----
Senator Graham. Is it your sense that the people of
Afghanistan, as a collective body, want to move forward?
Dr. Shah. That is my sense, of course.
Senator Graham. Okay. And I believe it is in our national
interest that they move forward. Any place they can move
forward where the Taliban used to reign is a good deal. Places
going back into Taliban control after an effort to squash them
is probably not the right signal to send to Iran and other
places.
But let us talk about Egypt. The Arab Spring to me is a
defining opportunity for change in the Arab world, and people
mentioned Egypt to me, and Senator Leahy and I are very much
concerned about what is going on in Egypt right now. And I had
high hopes for the Arab Spring.
The fact that Islamic conservatism is on the rise when you
displace secular dictatorships is of no surprise to me because
religious people were pretty suppressed in Libya, Tunisia, and
Egypt. But what does concern me is the attitude that is
emerging in some sectors of the political space in Egypt about
the way to move forward.
What advice would you give this subcommittee about how to
engage Egypt and the Arab Spring in general?
Dr. Shah. Well, thank you, Senator. Thank you for your
recent efforts in Egypt to help advance our approach.
You know, USAID has played a major role in Eastern Europe
during political transitions and transformations and learned
that it takes both time and persistence. There will be ups and
downs along the way. And it takes flexibility, flexibility to
invest in creating capable political processes in engaging
beyond Government-to-Government engagements, but with local
civil society.
In supporting the private sector so there is a more dynamic
set of opportunities----
Senator Graham. Is that why we need to make sure you have
democracy assistance, development programs in the USAID budget?
Dr. Shah. That is, Sir. I think those programs have been
uniquely important in this setting. This budget also has a
request for a $770 million Middle East Incentive Fund that we
intend----
Senator Graham. Can I just point out to the subcommittee
how important that fund is? Tunisia is, I think, one of the
better stories in development and progress stories. They have a
budget shortfall of about $1 billion. This fund you just
acknowledged is trying to do a loan guarantee program so they
can borrow money.
Do you know the status of that? Are you familiar with that
at all?
Dr. Shah. I am. I am not sure of the immediate status of
that, but we have been pursuing a number of efforts there,
including helping to set up an enterprise fund. And this budget
includes a request for that. And a number of other efforts we
have taken to build public-private partnerships with
information and communications firms to create more jobs.
Senator Graham. Well, I know the subcommittee here is
trying to reprogram $100 million--I can't remember from what
account--to create a fund to challenge the rest of the world to
invest in it as kind of a transition to your program, where we
can come up with about $1 billion to help the Tunisians get
through a budget shortfall.
They seem to be very focused on reforming their economy,
privatizing industries, and making a more free market situation
in Tunisia. So I just want to let you know that I think the
subcommittee on both sides would be very interested in trying
to create some short-term assistance for Tunisia.
What is your view of Tunisia? How does it seem to be going?
Dr. Shah. Well, I had the opportunity to visit Tunisia and
a number of the senior administration officials have. We are
very optimistic about and President Obama and Secretary Clinton
have directed us to really do everything we can to be helpful
through this transition. They are, as you mentioned, putting in
place tough, but important reforms to enable entrepreneurs to
start businesses easier, to access capital more effectively.
They have the potential to provide information technology
services to the region and including some of the southern
European countries. And so, they have benefited from
partnerships we have helped establish with Microsoft and Cisco
and others that will help employ more Tunisian youth.
And we have helped their local civil society organizations
create processes----
Senator Graham. I think they want a free trade agreement
with the United States. Is that----
Dr. Shah. I am sure they do.
Senator Graham. Yes, and I think that is encouraging. So I
just want to echo what you are saying about Tunisia. I think we
have a good strategy, but it is imperative that we deliver
quickly when it really does matter. We have got to get these
loan guarantees, agreements done so they can--people are
hopeful. They are ready for change, and the government has got
to deliver.
And Tunisia has got an Islamic conservative coalition, but
they seem to be embracing free-market economies and tolerance
for minorities. So anything we can do in Egypt, Tunisia, and
Libya, let us do.
So thank you. If there is anything else the subcommittee
can do to help be engaged in the Arab Spring, let us know
because every 6,000 years you get a chance for democracy in
Egypt. I hope it doesn't pass. I hope we don't fail, and I hope
more than anything else, the Egyptian people do not fail on a
chance to start over.
And one last thought about Egypt. The parliament has said
some things that are very chilling. It is probably more
symbolic than it is substantive. But I think Senator Leahy and
I, one Republican and one Democrat from different political
spectrums and perspectives, really do want to engage the world
in a constructive fashion. But we are not going to throw good
money after bad.
And if we are not welcome and if people don't want our
assistance, we are not going to force it on them. So I hope we
can find a way to make Egypt a showcase of what can happen when
people have free choices to make.
So thank you very much and continue the good work.
Dr. Shah. Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. I concur with that, too.
The thing is we all want you to be successful everywhere
you are. We also know that we only have a certain amount of
money available and a certain number of people. We also realize
that each country is different.
Egypt, I think, is very important to that part of the
world. They will have to decide what kind of government they
want. I get frustrated when I see one more government that
might become a theocracy. We have to watch it carefully.
I was in Cuba a couple of weeks ago, and USAID has
democracy and human rights programs there. Some have been
controversial here in the Congress. Certainly they create a lot
of controversy in Cuba. We all want to see a democratic Cuba
where human rights are respected.
I am one who feels, and in fact I have said this to Fidel
and Raul Castro personally, that in some ways our embargo has
been one of the best things going for them. They can have a
failed economic and political system and blame it on us. What
we get out of it, of course, is looking foolish to the rest of
the world that a nation as powerful as the United States
maintains an embargo on a country that poses no threat to us.
I don't know what benefits there are, but we have what we
have. If USAID has programs in Cuba that break Cuban laws, even
though they may be laws you and I would totally disagree with,
there are consequences.
I do not agree with the kind of censorship that goes on in
Cuba. I do not agree at all with their restrictions on the
Internet and travel. I am not suggesting otherwise. I don't
agree with what they do there, but neither do I agree with what
we do with the embargo.
Alan Gross, who is a USAID contractor, has served 2 years
as a prisoner in Cuba for implementing a USAID program. The
Cubans agree that he is not a spy, that he is not anything
other than a USAID contractor. But his case has become an
obstacle to progress on some issues between the United States
and Cuba.
Have you reviewed the program that he was involved with?
Many of us will continue to work to get him released and back
to his family. Have you considered expanding into areas in Cuba
like private sector development?
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Senator.
First, thank you for mentioning Alan Gross' case and for
your personal efforts to help him seek freedom and be free from
his current situation.
Senator Leahy. Senator Coons of Delaware and I met with
him, and then I personally raised his case with President Raul
Castro, the Foreign Minister, and the head of their National
Assembly.
Dr. Shah. Well, we very much appreciate those efforts. The
State Department is leading our efforts to try to negotiate his
release and has been very focused on that. We have also taken
some special measures to support his family through what is a
very difficult situation.
We have reviewed that case, and based on that review and a
more comprehensive review of our efforts, we have presented a
budget request for $15 million this year that we believe is
consistent with our law. It is consistent with basic
international human rights conventions. And it is focused on
those areas where we think our partners are going to be able to
implement some of these programs.
With respect to expanding efforts to private sector
development, we are currently restricted from pursuing broad
expansions in those areas. And I am very focused on making sure
that if we are putting resources into something, we are
confident the conditions are in place to deliver results. And
it probably goes without saying under current circumstances, it
seems that is not particularly the case in this situation.
Senator Leahy. Does that include private sector
development? I met with a number of people in Cuba including,
ironically enough, representatives of foreign companies. These
companies were from Germany, Canada, France, Mexico, and
elsewhere. They all say with unity ``Please keep your
embargo.'' They want to keep the United States out of Cuba
while they get a foothold.
They say it with only a little bit of a smile. But there is
some private sector development in Cuba. Certainly not what you
and I would want, but it is a change from just a few years ago.
Will you look at whether that is an area we could expand
into?
Dr. Shah. We will certainly look into that and look forward
to learning more about your views from your trip and who you
met with and what your opinions are based on that.
Thank you.
Senator Leahy. I also went to Haiti. I have been there a
number of times. I know you have. I wanted to see the progress
that was made in downtown Port-au-Prince. It was different than
it was a year ago. The progress is still slow, but it is more
encouraging.
I met with President Martelly. In past times when I have
been there, I have heard over and over from people that they
want a government that cares more about the Haitian people than
it does about itself, and maybe they have that now. I hope they
do. I look at all the lost opportunities after the earthquake
when the government could not or would not even respond, though
there was an enormous amount of aid available to make life
better for so many people there.
One thing that goes way beyond even housing or any other
issues is the possibility of cholera. I am told that the danger
remains high, and of course, if it were to happen there, it
could spread to a number of other countries. The Dominican
Republic, of course, as it is on the same island, but also
Jamaica, Mexico, Brazil, and so on.
Do you think the Haitians are prepared to respond to
another cholera epidemic?
Dr. Shah. Senator, I appreciate your raising Haiti. I think
the progress has been extraordinary, given the circumstances,
and we all want to see things move faster, but take some
encouragement from what is happening in agriculture and
establishment of improvements in education, improvements in
access to mobile banking services and other types of
innovations there, and some of the bigger private investments
that are creating jobs in the industrial park in the north and
hotel construction in Port-au-Prince.
You mentioned President Martelly, and we continue to work
closely with him, hope he will appoint a new Prime Minister
soon because that is a critical position for our partnership.
Senator Leahy. Incidentally, we urged him to move as
quickly as he could on that.
Dr. Shah. Great. And with respect to cholera, we were the
major partner in rapidly moving resources to make sure that
rural communities in particular had clean water, had access to
medical services, oral rehydration, and brought the cholera
disease, the case fatality rate down to I believe it is now 0.4
or 0.5, which is below--or 0.04, which is below the--no, I am
sorry, 0.4 or 0.5, which is below the 1 percent, which is the
international target.
Of course, if there is a new expansion or epidemic of
cholera, that would place a tremendous amount of strain on
their already-strained health services capacity. In the last
situation, it was really the United States, USAID, and the CDC
working together to address and tamp down cholera.
And I suspect if it were to--if it were to go out and
become an epidemic again, it would again require a significant
external response in order to quickly save children's lives.
Senator Leahy. I have talked with our ambassador there who
is a very, very good ambassador, but he is about to leave and
going to Dubrovnik, as I understand. It is something we may
want to keep watching.
Let me add one last thing on Feed the Future, and you have
given more personal attention to that than anybody has. The
administration has requested $1 billion in fiscal year 2013 as
part of that initiative. The first page of the Feed the Future
Web site says USAID is going to help tackle global food
security. Nobody would disagree with that as a goal.
We have provided more than $2 billion for these programs.
Is this a 3-, 5-, or a 10-year initiative? How will we know
that we are succeeding, and what is the timeframe that you see?
Dr. Shah. Well----
Senator Leahy. Incidentally, I support you on this. I just
want to know how we measure success.
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Senator.
I think success for our Feed the Future partnership with
countries and governments is measured in a number of ways.
First, we need to make sure that other countries are also
living up to the commitments that were made in 2009 at the
L'Aquila summit. The United States is living up to them, and we
are holding others to account in a very transparent and public
way.
Second, this initiative is in part different because we
asked more of our partners. We said we will do business
differently, partner with the private sector, measure results,
invest in local institutions. But we want to see the kind of
policy reforms that will generate extraordinarily effective
results.
And so, we continue to work on that aspect of the effort,
and that is a critical ingredient. But the third and most
important piece is we are measuring outcomes. So I can tell you
today that the agricultural productivity growth rate in the
countries where we are working is I think it is 5.6 percent,
which is higher than the international average, which is 0.7
percent.
That is because we are investing in new technologies. We
are working with women farmers. We are measuring outcomes. We
have put in place a women's empowerment index, which for the
first time across all partners will measure whether women are
getting benefits from these programs, report on that in a very
transparent way, and allow us to program against it.
And most importantly, we measure the actual outcomes we
care about, families that move out of poverty and children who
are malnourished chronically, and we are starting to see
reductions there. And my recent favorite example is Bangladesh,
which for the first time certain parts of Bangladesh are
becoming self-sufficient in rice. And that is leading to
improved outcomes for children's nutrition.
Senator Leahy. Years ago, I was chairman of the Senate
Agriculture Committee, and I tended to upset some of the
agriculture lobbies here in the United States because I was
urging that we help countries grow their own food rather than
buy it, especially when it means buying food in the United
States and shipping it there. Some in the farm lobby loved
that, of course, because it gave them a market.
I remember there were a couple of places in Africa that I
visited where they could raise food, but the market for it was
20 miles away, and the condition of the roads was so poor it
would take 2 or 3 days to travel that 10 or 20 miles. Of
course, for perishable produce, this didn't work.
Why don't we spend some money--we don't have to build the
George Washington Parkway--to build a road like the dirt road
that I live on in Vermont, where they could actually go 25, 35
miles an hour and bring the food in an hour's time to market.
That is just one example.
Keep me posted what you are doing on food security. I
applaud you for it.
Dr. Shah. May I make a comment, Senator?
Senator Leahy. Sure.
Dr. Shah. You know, we agree entirely. I believe it is 8 to
10 times less costly to help countries achieve food security
and sustainability on their own self-sufficiency, as opposed to
providing food aid during emergencies. Well, of course, we are
always going to be there when people are struggling.
Senator Leahy. Well, you have a tsunami. You have an
earthquake. No country can move it as quickly and easily as we
can.
Dr. Shah. That is right.
Senator Leahy. I want people to have the ability during
normal times to be able to produce their own food.
Dr. Shah. Absolutely. The other thing I would say, Sir, is
that Feed the Future is a partnership across the entire Federal
Government, and Secretary Tom Vilsack and the Department of
Agriculture has been a major partner, working with us to
improve phytosanitary standards in Central America so food can
enter into Wal-Marts, value chains there, which is helping to
move thousands of farmers out of poverty.
We have partnered to address wheat rust, which is a disease
in wheat that is starting to expand in Eastern Africa and
threatens the food supply there, but could easily threaten the
food supply anywhere else in the world. And our partnerships
are helping to create international research efforts that are
very modern and very effective and, ultimately, offer very
direct protections for American farmers as well.
The food supply is just much more interconnected today than
it ever has been.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Leahy. A stable food supply will bring countries
that much further toward having a stable government and
democracy.
I will keep the record open for 1 week for the submission
of written questions.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
afghanistan, pakistan, and iraq operations
Question. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget request for
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) operations
in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq operations total $331 million,
including $84 million in Overseas Contingency Operations funding. This
is 35-percent higher than fiscal year 2011. Not only does the cost for
USAID operations in these three countries continue to rise, it is
becoming a larger percentage of USAID's total operating budget. In
fiscal year 2011 and 2012 the operating cost for these countries was 17
percent of USAID's total operating budget, and in fiscal year 2013 the
cost is 22 percent of the total.
How does this make sense given all the obstacles to implementing
sustainable programs in these countries, and the pressing needs in so
many other parts of the world?
Answer. The fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Frontline
States of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq reflects the level needed to
maintain current on-going operations in countries critical to our
national security. The fiscal year 2013 Operating Expense (OE) request
for these countries is based on the most recent projections for
security and other operational conditions and is not a result of new
programs or staffing increases above approved levels. Since USAID's
overall fiscal year 2013 OE request is a relative straight line of the
fiscal year 2012 appropriation, as security and other operating costs
increase in the Frontline States it takes up a larger percentage of the
USAID's total operational budget. As an agency, we have made the
necessary trade-offs to fully support operational requirements in
countries that are critical to our national security.
Development assistance to Afghanistan and Pakistan remains a
critical component to supporting our core U.S. national security
objective to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda, as well as to
deny safe haven to it and its affiliates in the region. The fiscal year
2013 OE request for Afghanistan and Pakistan reflects the cost of
implementing and providing proper oversight of the program funds
appropriated in prior years. We must provide and maintain a high level
of oversight in order to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. Given a
vastly improved recruiting and hiring process it was only this fiscal
year that USAID reached the full approved civilian surge level of 333
OE funded American staff on the ground in Afghanistan. As a result of
reaching the full approved staffing level this year, the fiscal year
2013 budget request represents the first time USAID has fully budgeted
for the civilian surge for an entire fiscal year. The full approved
staff level of 333 OE-funded Americans includes a tripling of oversight
staff, contract officers, comptrollers/financial management officers,
and lawyers. We have also increased the number of field officers
outside of Kabul, all of whom are working to improve project
performance and oversight of U.S. taxpayer funds. USAID, working with
State and the National Security Council-coordinated interagency
process, is in the process of determining the most-effective transition
of staff levels in fiscal year 2013 and 2014 ensuring that the staffing
levels support the overall transition and the administration's civilian
assistance objectives.
In Pakistan, the staffing levels reflect the tripling of assistance
since fiscal year 2008 in support of our core objectives in the region.
We have increased the number of critical oversight staff (i.e.,
contracting officers, financial management officers, and lawyers). The
increased number of United States staff also reflects United States
presence in the Consulates in Lahore, Karachi, and Peshawar in order to
increase the oversight and effectiveness of assistance program
implementation. As assistance levels have tripled since fiscal year
2008, we have doubled the number of United States direct hire and
Pakistani staff over that same period in order to improve oversight.
USAID's operational costs are increasing as the embassy and USAID
address security concerns and other operational challenges.
Based on the most recent projection for operations in the current
fiscal year as reported in the Congressional Budget Justification
(CBJ), USAID operating requirements in fiscal year 2012 were revised
downward from $75.3 to $53.8 million. For fiscal year 2013, the budget
request for Iraq is $66.2 million, which accounts for USAID now paying
life-support costs for mission personnel through the Department of
State's International Cooperative Administrative Support Services
(ICASS) program, the costs of and estimates for which can vary
frequently. However, USAID's actual operating costs for fiscal year
2014 are likely to continue trending downward due to both operational
efficiencies and changing circumstances on the ground in Iraq.
afghanistan sustainability
Question. For years this administration and the one before it has
provided billions of dollars in aid to Afghanistan with little thought
for how the programs would be maintained once the funding tap dries up.
I was encouraged that in June 2011, USAID announced its ``Guidance on
Sustainability of Assistance for Afghanistan''. Yet your total budget
request for the Economic Support Fund for Afghanistan for fiscal year
2013--$1.85 billion--is only $87 million les than the current fiscal
year 2012 estimate. Given how Afghanistan looks today I do not consider
$1.85 billion a ``sustainable'' level. How has this guidance influenced
USAID's programs?
Answer. The Administrator's Sustainability Guidance is reflected in
the significant changes in programming that we have undertaken in
Afghanistan. A major phase of the interagency sustainability review of
USAID's Afghanistan program recently concluded. USAID also conducted
the sustainability review in consultation with the Afghan Government
and in collaboration with other donors.
While the overall level of spending in fiscal year 2013 is roughly
in line with the fiscal year 2012 enacted level, that funding level is
consistent with U.S. Government and expert views, including those of
the World Bank, as to what is necessary to lay a foundation for an
economically sustainable, post-transition Afghanistan. As a result of
USAID's sustainability review, the country program is focused on
fostering economic growth; enabling increasingly effective governance;
and fostering a more resilient and capable population able to advocate
for government services. If funding were to decline dramatically in
fiscal year 2013, we believe there would be negative effects on both
the transition in 2014 and on the viability of the gains in civilian
development.
Consistent with the principles of sustainability, USAID will
continue to increase the proportion of its on-budget assistance to the
Afghan Government, contingent upon the proper oversight and requisite
safeguards, while drawing down investments in less sustainable forms of
assistance.
USAID will also continue the next phase of the sustainability
review with the Afghan Government to ensure that programming reflects
shared priorities, and that programs not addressing core objectives are
phased down, eliminated, or assumed by other donors. For instance, the
economy of Afghanistan lacks trained and skilled workers. Therefore,
our assistance will increasingly focus on higher education and
vocational training to ensure Afghanistan has the workforce required to
grow its economy over the critical transition years.
We are also focusing on strengthening government capacity to
maintain roads, bridges, schools, and other infrastructure built over
the last 10 years, rather than continuing to build new infrastructure.
We are targeting economic growth and agriculture investments towards
provinces where economic zones can generate the greatest number of
private sector led business and job growth. In addition, we are
reorienting our ``clear/hold'' stabilization programing from 17
provinces down to the 9 that are most critical for the
counterinsurgency effort. Finally, we are focusing our efforts in
health and basic education on consolidating and maintaining the gains
that have been made in these sectors rather than on expansion.
pakistan
Question. Since 9/11 we have spent billions of dollars in Pakistan.
Most has been military aid, but several billions have been for
humanitarian and development programs administered by USAID. Yet the
Pakistani people's view of the United States does not seem to have
improved at all. In fact it may be worse.
Are the programs we are funding in Pakistan sustainable; what are
you doing to strengthen civilian democracy in Pakistan and with what
results; and why has all this aid had so little impact on the
Pakistanis' opinion of the United States?
Answer.
sustainability and civilian democracy
After a careful review of the Pakistan assistance portfolio during
the first half of 2011, we have determined that it remains in the
United States interest to continue to provide civilian assistance which
addresses the priorities of the Pakistani people and their
democratically elected representatives. Continuation of civilian
assistance remains an important tool to furthering our objective of
building more capable civilian state institutions, fostering economic
growth, and building non-state institutions that can serve as checks on
political and military power. It also demonstrates United States
staying power in the region by empowering the middle class and other
drivers of long-term change in Pakistan. Despite challenges, over the
long-term, a tolerant, democratic, and economically stable Pakistan
both benefits the Pakistani people and advances United States national
security, as well as security in the region.
Our approach of providing a substantial percentage of the country
program in the form of local direct assistance contributes to
sustainability by strengthening the capacity of those ministries of the
Government of Pakistan, in provincial government, and in other
important entities with whom we work, such as the FATA Secretariat.
Similarly, our work with Pakistani nongovernmental organizations (NGO)
builds capacity and sustainability in civil society. For example, we
have worked closely with the FATA Secretariat to strengthen their
financial management and procurement mechanisms, but more broadly
strengthen their ability to communicate with constituents and be more
responsive to the people of the FATA. Another example is our work in
Sindh Province. USAID will be helping the Sindh Department of Education
manage resources and monitor school construction. This is essential to
ensuring results can be maintained and local governments can become
responsible for service delivery.
Beyond governmental capacity-building, our multi-sectoral strategy
aims to build long-term sustainability within important sectors, such
as the energy sector. The U.S. Signature Energy Program in Pakistan has
invested in policy reform, capacity building and efficiency
improvements to reduce power losses and increase revenues, as well as
targeted infrastructure investments to increase electricity generation.
This effort has yielded significant results. By the end of 2013, these
investments will have added 900 megawatts (MW) of power to the grid,
including the completion of the Gomal Zam Dam in South Waziristan, one
of Pakistan's restive tribal areas. Going forward, we will continue to
support infrastructure projects but, complementing those infrastructure
programs, U.S. efforts will also help GOP institutions build the
capacity needed to manage the power sector effectively and implement
policy reforms that will strengthen commercial performance in the
short-term and increase access to power in the mid- to long-term. These
efforts will be undertaken through ongoing technical assistance and
implementation of improved commercial operation of power distribution
companies and demand-side load management initiatives.
We will also continue important cross-cutting activities that
strengthen governance, transparency, and gender equality through
programs such as the Political Parties Development Program, the Anti-
Fraud Hotline, and the Gender Equity Program.
In addition, we are working to expand the ability of civil society
to engage in government oversight and policy advocacy, combat
corruption, improve the status of women, and address the pressing needs
of communities. For example, the Political Parties Development Program
will work to improve the democratic performance of political parties to
strengthen their ability to address constituent needs and grass-roots
concerns by helping parties conduct their own research, analysis, and
training for the formulation of increasingly responsive and informed
platforms and policies, as well as implement internationally recognized
standards for internal democracy and transparency. This work builds on
previous USAID investment in Pakistan's democracy and governance that
continues to provide long-term sustainable benefits. For example,
USAID's prior work with the Election Commission of Pakistan, including
improving and updating Pakistan's voter registry, will be essential to
the integrity and legitimacy of upcoming general elections that are due
no later than May 2013. Those elections would mark the first civilian
transfer of power in Pakistan's history.
public opinion
Pakistani public opinion of the United States has historically been
extremely low for a variety of reasons. During 2011, several events
occurred--Wiki Leaks, the Raymond Davis incident, May 2, and the
November cross-border incident--that have provided further challenges
to the effort to improve Pakistani public opinion of the United States.
We have continued to implement a strong branding policy in
Pakistan, as detailed in a briefing provided for your staff last year.
In 2012, USAID will focus efforts on raising Pakistani awareness of
United States assistance. A recent USAID-funded study suggests that 64
percent of Pakistanis are not aware of USAID at all and 86 percent are
not aware of specific USAID projects.
While USAID does not anticipate that increased awareness of United
States civilian assistance will dramatically change historic trends in
Pakistani public opinion of the United States, we believe increased
awareness can have a long-term impact on public opinion. Past
experience shows that greater awareness of U.S. civilian assistance
does help improve overall perceptions of the United States.
Accordingly, USAID is working closely with the Embassy Islamabad
Public Affairs Section to positively message United States civilian
assistance and increase Pakistani public awareness. The USAID mission
in Pakistan has contracted with one of Pakistan's leading media groups
to design and implement integrated information campaigns, primarily
using television and radio as a vehicle. USAID runs a weekly Urdu
language radio show that features USAID projects in Pakistan and is
broadcast across 70 percent of the country. We have also created a
series of documentaries about our projects, which are being broadcast
on local TV stations. Additionally, USAID has engaged a local research
company to conduct public opinion research that will be used to inform
our strategic communications efforts and evaluate its effectiveness.
While our relationship with Pakistan is complex, Pakistan's future
remains vital to our national security and regional interests. As
challenging as the last year has been, we have many shared interests,
and it is important we continue to find a way to act on those
interests, even as we work through difficult issues.
cuts in global health funding
Question. The President proposes to cut funding for the neglected
tropical disease program from $89 million in fiscal year 2012 to $67
million in fiscal year 2013. These diseases afflict the poorest people
in the world. I am told that more than 532 million neglected tropical
disease treatments have been distributed in 21 countries since fiscal
year 2006, but this cut would cause a sharp drop in the number of
people treated and in the number of countries served. The President
also proposes to cut funding for maternal and child health by $27
million, and for malaria programs by $31 million. We have worked hard
for years to build up these programs. Why do these cuts make sense?
Answer. In light of the constrained fiscal environment, USAID made
difficult decisions in the development of the fiscal year 2013 budget.
For the Neglected Tropical Disease (NTD) program, USAID remains
committed to the control of NTDs and the advances made by this program
and will strategically plan resources to ensure the greatest outcomes
of the funding provided for this purpose.
USAID's NTD program has expanded from five countries, when the
program began in 2006, to 20 countries in 2012. To date, the program
has delivered more than 500 million NTD treatments to 200 million
people. Documentation of control and elimination of the targeted
diseases on a district-level basis is now underway. In order to
continue toward national level control and elimination, USAID will
continue to prioritize those countries closest to elimination.
USAID's NTD program leverages billions of dollars' worth of
pharmaceutical donations each year. Pharmaceutical partners have
significantly increased their donations because of the demand USAID's
support for treatment programs has created. USAID will continue to
advocate for other partners to increase their support and commitments
to NTDs so the gains made to date are not lost and we can continue to
maximize the leverage from these pharmaceutical partners.
Every year in developing countries, 7.6 million children younger
than age of 5 die, two-thirds of which are preventable. USAID goals are
to reduce under-5 mortality by 35 percent and maternal mortality by 30
percent across assisted countries. Substantial mortality reduction for
mothers and children in the developing world is the result of a
strategic use of resources from donors, governments, and families
themselves. Mortality reductions are achieved by USAID investments in
maternal and child health (MCH), malaria, nutrition, and family
planning programs. USAID's maternal and child health resources are
focused in the 24 MCH priority countries under the Global Health
Initiative, which account for more than 70 percent of under-5
mortality.
In fiscal year 2013, USAID will expand investment in vaccines
through our contribution to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and
Immunization (GAVI Alliance), where the U.S. Government will take
advantage of the ability to leverage resources from other donors and
increase the effectiveness of this investment. Immunization programs
presently prevent approximately 2.5 million under-5 deaths each year.
By expanding the coverage of existing vaccines and introducing new
immunizations, we believe we can save the lives of 4 million children
over just the next 5 years. To do this, we need to deliver routine
vaccines in new combinations, as well as introduce new vaccines against
childhood killers, which includes acute respiratory infections and
diarrheal disease to all children, and especially hard to reach
children who are presently not receiving any vaccinations. The impact
of the new pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, which protects against acute
respiratory infections, could reduce the deaths from childhood
pneumonia by up to 500,000 every year. Similarly, the rotavirus vaccine
that combats diarrhea could save 300,000 children who die every year
from extreme diarrhea.
Fiscal year 2012 increases in funding for the President's Malaria
Initiative (PMI) have allowed for the expansion of activities and
geographic coverage within both Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of
the Congo (DRC), which together account for almost one-half of all
malaria cases in Africa, while maintaining coverage and sustaining
gains in the remaining PMI countries. Further expansion of program
activities in Nigeria and the DRC will be possible with the fiscal year
2013 budget request level. PMI will continue to collaborate closely
with other donors and partners to seek cost savings and sustain the
gains achieved in focus countries.
joseph kony and the lord's resistance army
Question. Your fiscal year 2013 budget request does not mention the
Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) or anything about implementing the LRA
Disarmament and Recovery Act. Is that an oversight? What more could be
done to help Kony's victims recover, to support the early warning
network and the disarmament and reintegration of former LRA combatants,
especially child soldiers?
Answer. While a specific LRA line item is not included in the
fiscal year 2013 budget, USAID will continue to assist those affected
by the LRA in Uganda, the Central African Republic (CAR), the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and South Sudan with
humanitarian and development assistance in fiscal year 2013. USAID's
fiscal year 2013 CBJ includes approximately $82 million for
reintegration, recovery and development of conflict-affected
populations in Northern Uganda, including 1.8 million people who had
been displaced by the LRA. USAID's fiscal year 2013 budget request also
includes funding for development programs in South Sudan, a portion of
which will be in LRA-affected areas (the southwestern region of the
country) and could benefit individuals affected by LRA violence. USAID
assistance in Western Equatoria State includes construction of feeder
roads that will enable agricultural products to get to market, market
electrification assistance, basic education services, primary
healthcare delivery, English language instruction via radio programs,
technical assistance to improve the quality of the water supply in the
area, and fertilizer and seed distribution programs.
USAID will continue to utilize humanitarian assistance funds to
address emergency needs in the DRC, CAR, and South Sudan related to the
impact of LRA violence, including food security, economic recovery,
health and protection assistance, as well as continuing reintegration
assistance for children formerly abducted by the LRA. USAID, in
conjunction with the Department of State's Bureau for Population,
Refugees, and Migration (PRM) will continue to monitor the humanitarian
needs of LRA-affected communities and deliver needs-based humanitarian
assistance throughout the region. In addition, we have launched a new
Counter-Trafficking in Persons policy and are elevating our focus on
trafficking in and around conflict areas; we will be particularly
focused on the DRC.
Question. How do you regard the potential for social media to
inform the public and rally support in response to crises--whether to
stop the effects of climate change, punish war criminals in Sri Lanka,
or some other compelling issue?
Answer. USAID recognizes that social media is a proven catalytic
force in global politics and requires timely, consistent, and relevant
communication to be effective. Social media has great potential to both
inform the public and rally support around a cause, and when harnessed
correctly, positions USAID to be truly effective in engaging directly
with myriad development stakeholders. In times of immediate crisis,
like natural disaster or conflict situations, user-generated social
media content often provides the world with the first glimpses of the
disaster. These on-the-ground testimonials can be vital in rallying
support for direct action, thus resulting in a timelier and ultimately
more-effective response to distressed areas.
With longer-term crises, like famine, drought, or public health
issues, a more measured and intentional approach can and should be
taken. Social media provides a streamlined, yet far reaching, avenue
for engaging the public in the places where they both consume and share
content within their immediate circles of influence and beyond. A
strong social media campaign can leverage the critical opportunity to
reach not only our natural audiences, but their extended audiences as
well. The primary key to that virality is providing timely and relevant
content of a quality that is worth sharing.
To that end, USAID partnered with the Ad Council in September 2011
to raise awareness of the serious plight of more than 10 million people
who have been at risk from the famine, war, and drought affecting the
Horn of Africa. Through this partnership, USAID produced several public
service announcements (PSAs), which featured celebrities, professional
athletes and well-known personalities, and have aired nearly 20,000
times, reaching an audience of more than 45 million people. These same
PSAs garnered more than 150 million forward actions through Facebook,
Twitter, email, and YouTube, and increased attention to and support for
the efforts to ameliorate the situation in the Horn of Africa.
Internationally, USAID's missions utilize various social media
platforms with increasing regularity, and within the last year, USAID
has seen an exponential increase specifically with engagement via
Facebook and Twitter accounts. Recognizing the need to engage with
development stakeholders in a meaningful way through the social media
realm, USAID is actively working toward institutionalizing demonstrated
successes and best practices by supporting its missions' use of these
platforms. Further, the State Department (Embassy Public Affairs
Sections) and USAID (Communications Offices) work together in the field
to improve their communications collaboration and develop cohesive
strategies that incorporate USAID outreach efforts, leverage different
networks, and reach relevant target audiences. This information is also
shared with the USAID Washington Social Media team to further promotion
via domestic audiences.
development grants program
Question. I started the Development Grants Program (DGP) several
years ago to provide a relatively small amount of money--$45 million
out of a total Development Assistance account of more than $2 billion--
to provide small NGOs with grants of less than $2 million for
innovative proposals. The purpose was to support mostly local NGOs that
cannot compete for big USAID grants. Unfortunately, USAID did not
implement the program as intended.
One of the key goals of your procurement reform is to be able to
support more grants to smaller NGOs. But given your track record with
the DGP, it is hard to be optimistic. Why can't these DGPs be made
available for projects in any sector--agriculture, environment,
education, democracy and governance, water and sanitation, you name
it--at any USAID mission that receives a proposal that qualifies?
Answer. In its first 3 years of programming, the DGP has been
successful at broadening the USAID partner base by providing direct
grants to 38 small U.S. private voluntary organizations and 104 small
local NGOs, the majority of which had not received any prior direct
USAID funding. In addition to providing small grants, the program
continues to provide capacity building to strengthen the organizations
and provide critical program support to missions.
DGP is valued by missions and has become an important way that
missions directly engage with small nontraditional partners that have
access to underserved communities. In many instances, DGP relationships
have grown into long-term partnerships supporting core mission goals.
In Zambia for example, under the DGP, a local NGO implemented a
Water and Sanitation program in schools which increased sustainable
access to safe drinking water and sanitation facilities, improved
hygiene, and addressed environmental issues that impacted education
quality and learner performance. The structured and consistent support
to the local NGO under the DGP resulted in effective planning,
implementation and monitoring of activities as well as a strong
collaboration and positive working relationship with government
officials, schools, communities and other key stakeholders. Valuing the
local NGO's reach into the most rural communities, the mission, with
its own funds, more than doubled the size of the award to the
organization and now considers them as a strong development partner in
its Water and Sanitation program.
All of USAID's programs must address the balance between
development priorities and budget realities. In the context of the DGP,
USAID finds that mission capacity to program through local
organizations and a greater number of smaller partners is increasing to
meet the same goals. Further, unlike the first 3 years of programming
in which all of the DGP funds were encumbered with sector directives,
in fiscal year 2012, more than one-half of the appropriated funds will
not be required to be used with specified sectors.
haiti
Question. Some public health experts say the international response
to the cholera epidemic was fraught with problems, the incidence of
cholera in some parts of Haiti today remains among the highest in the
world, the danger of another cholera epidemic in Haiti is high, and the
country is far less prepared to respond than it was a year ago. If
cholera were to spread to Jamaica, Mexico, or Brazil, it could be
disastrous. How do you respond to these concerns? Do you believe the
United States Government's support for cholera management in Haiti is
sufficient to prevent another epidemic; and, if so, why?
Answer. Experts view the rapid spread of cholera within the
region--with the high mortality rates seen during the early onset in
Haiti--as highly unlikely, in large part, because sanitation systems
are more advanced, and access to healthcare is greater.
As the rainy season approaches, our focus continues to be on
supporting the Haitian Government in the prevention and treatment of
cholera. The U.S. Government has integrated cholera response into our
long-term health programming, ensuring that we are helping to combat
the disease as long as it continues to threaten the country. The United
States Government has also taken precautions by prepositioning cholera
response commodities throughout Haiti. Though spikes in cases are
possible with the onset of the rainy season, the fact that the case-
fatality rate has remained less than 1 percent for several months is
good indication that people understand what to do when symptoms occur
and that the system itself is able to manage the cases that occur.
Since the cholera epidemic began a year-and-a-half ago, USAID has
provided cholera treatment through our health service delivery sites,
which provide access to care for approximately 50 percent of the
Haitian population. Today, the U.S. Government continues to manage the
epidemic primarily through our basic health services. All sites in
USAID's network are capable of treating new cholera cases. All staff
are appropriately trained, and commodities such as oral rehydration
salts and IV fluids are on hand to treat patients.
In addition, the U.S. Government continues to support improvements
in access to safe drinking water, improved sanitation, and hygiene for
the people of Haiti, as these represent long-term solutions to the
cholera epidemic and to many other public health problems that hinder
the health of the Haitian people and the development of the Haitian
nation. To date, the U.S. Government has spent more than $73 million to
fight cholera in Haiti.
protecting forests and indigenous people
Question. Last year, we transferred the position of Advisor for
Indigenous People from the State Department to USAID. Do you know if a
search is underway to fill that position? It is important because USAID
gets involved in everything from building roads to logging in tropical
forests which directly impact indigenous people, and their governments
often run roughshod over their rights and territories. We are seeing
that today in Peru, where the Amazon is being carved up for oil, gas
and logging concessions, and I want to be sure there is a person at
USAID with authority who indigenous people have access to who will look
out for their interests.
Answer. USAID shares your commitment to elevating the interests of
indigenous peoples, which are currently integrated into many areas of
programming, including land tenure and property rights, forestry and
biodiversity, resource governance, rule of law, human rights, and
community health programs.
With respect to the position of the Advisor for Indigenous Peoples
Issues, which was transferred to USAID with the passage of the fiscal
year 2012 appropriations bill, we are working at the highest levels of
USAID to determine the appropriate scope of duties for this position,
its optimal home within the organization, and associated resource
requirements. We look forward to consulting with your staff to move
this forward as expeditiously as possible.
evaluation policy
Question. USAID adopted a new evaluation policy in January 2011
which changed the requirements for evaluating the effectiveness of
USAID projects and programs. I agree that the way USAID evaluates the
effectiveness of its programs needs to be more credible, but I worry
that the emphasis on quantitative analysis is overly-simplistic and
focuses on short-term impact, rather than longer-term outcomes which
can be influenced by many factors. I am not sure your results will be
accurate. How do you respond?
Answer. USAID's Evaluation Policy has been recognized by the Center
for Global Development for ``fostering a new culture, of transparency
and learning.'' The American Evaluation Association has also cited the
policy as a model other Federal agencies should follow. USAID's
Evaluation Policy was created to recommit USAID to ``obtain systematic,
meaningful feedback about the success and shortcomings of its
endeavors'', and this includes stronger quantitative and qualitative
analysis. The Policy does not place an emphasis on quantitative
analysis to the exclusion of other methods. Rather it requires that
USAID-funded evaluations use methods that generate the highest quality
and most-credible evidence that corresponds to the questions being
asked, taking into consideration time, budget, and other practical
considerations. Given the nature of development activities, both
qualitative and quantitative methods yield valuable findings, and a
combination of both is often optimal.
To ensure that USAID's evaluations address longer-term outcomes,
evaluation requirements are written into the guidance for the missions'
Country Development Cooperation Strategies (CDCS). Missions identify
longer-term outcomes of the USAID country program in the CDCS and
specify indicators to routinely track change and evaluation questions
to be addressed over the period of the strategy. In addition to the
CDCS, evaluation is integrated throughout the USAID Program Cycle,
which includes long- and medium-term outcomes and includes developing
and implementing policies and strategies, project design and
implementation, performance monitoring, and learning from experience to
improve development outcomes and inform resource requests.
The Evaluation Policy and USAID's efforts to build evaluation
capacity, particularly in missions, to conduct high-quality evaluation
will lead to increasingly accurate, unbiased, relevant, and transparent
evaluations. USAID is investing in classroom training in evaluation
methods for staff, creating tools, and resources to guide staff and
partners, and providing direct technical assistance to staff engaged in
evaluation design and management. USAID's Bureau for Policy, Planning
and Learning and USAID technical and regional bureaus are working on
the sectoral and multi-country learning that complements mission
evaluations and tracks longer-term outcomes. For example, the new
Center for Democracy, Human Rights and Governance has established the
Evaluating Democracy and Governance Effectiveness initiative; a
comprehensive, long-term program to measure the impact and
effectiveness of various approaches to democratic development and
incorporate the findings into USAID policies and programs through
outreach, training, and field support.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Question. Dr. Shah, I commend the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) in its efforts to improve the delivery of foreign
assistance in more-efficient ways. With the President's announced shift
in our national security strategy to focus more on the Asia-Pacific
region, would you please elaborate on enhancements, new areas of
interest, or ways USAID will strengthen its work in the region?
Answer. USAID has responded to the administration's focus on the
Asia-Pacific region by enhancing existing programs, expanding into new
areas of focus and strengthening our collaborative work in the region.
We will work with Asian countries facing management, governance, and
social challenges that impede progress and growth. USAID will enhance
key bilateral relationships, such as those in the Philippines and
Indonesia, where U.S. Government partnership agreements are elevating
broad based, inclusive economic growth as development priorities.
In Burma, where emerging reform presents a new opening, United
States Government officials have been able to travel to Burma to meet
with government officials and civil society to determine the country's
development needs. On April 4, 2012, following Burma's successful by-
elections, USAID announced the re-establishment of an in-country USAID
mission in Rangoon as part of the United States Government's commitment
to support the Burmese people, reform-minded governmental officials and
other Burmese leaders who are seeking constructive engagement to
advance reform in the country.
USAID Forward and Procurement Reform policies are changing the way
we conduct business--broadening our collaborative partner base and
making it easier for small businesses, local institutions, and other
donors to partner with us. As two examples:
--USAID's work with Association of Southeast Asian Nations Dialogue
partners supports regional program coordination, climate change
initiatives, disaster management and regional trade; and
--USAID efforts promote important multi-donor and multilateral
coordination on issues such as the development of hydro-power
on the Mekong River.
Question. Senate Report 112-85, the Senate's State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for fiscal year
2012, which was referenced in the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
House Report 112-331, directed the Secretary of State to follow
guidance included in Senate Report 112-74 related to the Compact of
Free Association (Compact) agreements with the Federated States of
Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), and the
Republic of Palau. It also directed the Secretary to work within the
U.S. Government interagency process to address the domestic impacts of
Compact migrants on affected jurisdictions. Could you please explain
what, if any, involvement and role USAID has in this process?
Answer. USAID is responsible for United States disaster assistance
and reconstruction services in the RMI and the Federated States of
Micronesia (FSM), which the United States Government is obligated to
provide as stipulated in the Compact. While our disaster response and
reconstruction program does not directly address the domestic impacts
of Compact migrants, it does support these countries' ability to
anticipate and mitigate the effects of natural disasters. Our efforts
help reduce the number of Compact citizens who will have to migrate to
the United States due to disasters.
Question. With respect to the Compact countries, currently, the
Departments of the Interior and State participate in the Joint Economic
Management Committee and Joint Economic Management and Fiscal
Accountability Committees to strengthen the management and
accountability of assistance provided to Compact countries. This
involves a review of the development plans and other planning and
budget documents of the governments, as well as monitoring the progress
being made toward sustainable economic development and budgetary self-
reliance. USAID's mission is development assistance to countries for
the purpose of helping them gain stability and sustainability. I
believe this is an area USAID's experience and technical expertise
would be invaluable, and would be interested to learn what involvement
USAID may have in this process and what it might be able to lend to the
Departments of the Interior and State.
Answer. USAID has more than 50 years of experience in partnering
with governments to build sustainable institutional capacity in
developing countries. We have developed technical expertise in
improving governments' capacity to formulate and implement economic
development plans; improve fiscal stability; reinforce anticorruption
measures; and strengthen rule of law. While USAID's program is limited
to disaster assistance in the RMI and FSM, we welcome opportunities to
share our technical expertise in other areas critical for the Compact
countries' sustainable economic development.
When the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the
Department of Homeland Security was responsible for disaster assistance
under the Compact, that FEMA's role was restricted to disaster relief
and reconstruction. USAID is now able to fulfill the U.S. Government's
obligations under the Compact, while helping to strengthen each
country's capacity for disaster mitigation, response, recovery, and
reconstruction at both national and community levels. USAID will work
with the Departments of the Interior and State to ensure our programs
are complementary in building sustainable institutional capacity.
Question. I am interested in learning what USAID's plans are for
development assistance in the larger context of the South and Western
Pacific, and what it is currently undertaking in this key strategic
area.
Answer. USAID seeks to play a key role in deepening U.S. Government
engagement in the Pacific region. Our programs in the Pacific are
regionally focused, but target South and Western Pacific countries,
including Papua New Guinea (PNG), RMI, FSM, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau,
Samoa, Solomon Islands, Fiji, Vanuatu, and Tonga.
The value of U.S. Government presence is magnified by our programs'
focus on issues that pose the greatest socio-economic threat to the
Pacific island countries:
--Mitigating the negative impacts of global climate change in a
region that is among the most vulnerable in the world to the
adverse effects of climate change, but least able to respond;
--Addressing the impact of HIV/AIDS in PNG, which suffers from the
highest HIV/AIDS epidemic rate in the Pacific; and,
--Strengthening democratic institutions in PNG and Fiji, where
democracy is still fragile.
To further maximize the impact of our programs, USAID:
--Collaborates and leverages the funding of key donors in the region,
including Australia, New Zealand, and Japan and other
multilateral organizations such as the United Nations, the
World Bank, and Asian Development Bank;
--Supports key regional institutions; and
--Forges greater synergy and unity of effort among the different U.S.
Government agencies working in the region for a more-effective
``whole-of-government'' approach that makes the best use of
limited resources.
The opening of USAID's satellite office in Port Moresby, Papua New
Guinea in October 2011 is a recent example of increased U.S. engagement
in the region. USAID's presence has contributed to expanding the U.S.
Government's outreach and diplomatic capacity in the region.
Question. Would you please tell me what USAID's plan for economic/
development assistance is for the country to the Philippines?
Answer. A team of economists from the United States and the
Philippines analyzed and identified the country's most binding
constraints to growth. To ensure the Government of the Philippines
ownership of the new approach, the analysis was a collaborative effort
and included development objectives outlined in the Philippines
Development Plan (PDP), 2011-2016. The PDP is a document developed by
the Government of the Philippines that closely aligns with the United
States' 5-year strategy from 2012-2016. Under the new strategy, USAID
will focus on two key areas to address economic/development assistance
in the Philippines:
--regulatory reform; and
--fiscal space
areas identified as among the most critical constraints that prevent
the Philippines from realizing its full economic potential.
The United States Government supports the Government of the
Philippines measures to reduce the cost of doing business, improve the
investment climate, ensure that import regulations are science-based,
and ease restrictions on market entry. Rule of law and judiciary
reforms will support these critical initiatives. The Government of the
Philippines has committed to streamlining business procedures
(predictability, reliability, and efficiency) at national and local
levels to reduce the country's cost of doing business and they have
committed to improving the overall investment climate through
regulatory reforms. The Government of the Philippines is pursing
implementation of the Anti-Red Tape law and a Philippine Business
Registry system to establish an on-line system for national business
registration.
Improving fiscal space is the second key area on which USAID will
work. Low government revenue due to a narrow tax base and ineffective
expenditure management, caused in part by favoritism in government
contracting, inhibit growth. Through this strategy, programs will
address inefficient revenue generation, strengthen tax collection
enforcement and improve expenditure management of the Government of the
Philippines agencies.
Question. In your testimony, you spoke about the focus being given
to North Africa and the Middle East, especially following the
revolutions in the region early last year. How does USAID plan to
sustain its various assistance, economic and reform oriented, while
shifting focus to the Asia-Pacific region and maintaining the current
operational tempo in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Answer. In North Africa and the Middle East, USAID will remain an
active and sustained partner as the region transforms. As the U.S.
Government shifts focus to the Asia-Pacific, we are utilizing our
resources differently. Through innovation and reinvention, USAID will
expand focus to the Asia-Pacific while sustaining our current efforts
elsewhere. In October 2011, USAID opened an office in Port Moresby,
Papua New Guinea, to manage programs throughout the Pacific Islands.
Additionally, USAID will re-open its mission in Rangoon to better serve
the nascent democratic process in Burma and provide increased oversight
to our on-going programs.
USAID is in the midst of finishing a comprehensive portfolio review
in Afghanistan. Last June, Administrator Shah issued Sustainability
Guidance that mandates all programs in Afghanistan be reviewed and
adjusted to ensure they are implemented with the driving principles of
accountability, sustainability, and social and gender inclusion, and
that they be implemented in partnership with the Afghan government.
Allocation of aid resources will increasingly be based on maximizing
capacity-building initiatives and development impacts as aid budgets
shrink to enable a viable Afghan transition.
USAID's projects in Iraq transitioned from stabilization assistance
to development assistance beginning in 2009. The State Department,
USAID, and our other U.S. Government partners continue to meet the
challenge of operating successfully in a dynamic environment while
still maintaining the safety of our personnel by:
--Contracting third-party monitoring and evaluation specialists who
have greater access to project sites, are less limited by
security concerns, and possess local knowledge.
--Employing local Iraqi professionals to provide an additional layer
of oversight and greater access to project sites,
beneficiaries, and counterparts.
--USAID employs more than 1,100 implementing personnel in Iraq,
nearly 1,000 of whom are local Iraqi employees, or 90 percent.
Question. The American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (ASHA) program
is very important to assisting our friends and partners overseas. I
have been very supportive of ASHA in the past, in particular its work
in Israel. Would you please explain how much an average ASHA grantee
receives, and how many grantees ASHA supports? Finally, I have
supported efforts by the Israel Center for Excellence in Education
(ICEE) in the past, and I understand they have benefited from ASHA
support many years ago. Dr. Shah, would you please explain how the
grant process has changed over the years, and if ICEE submitted a grant
application, I would be interested in learning about its current
status.
Answer. USAID's ASHA program administers a worldwide grant program
that reflects both the pioneering spirit and the generosity of citizens
of the United States. USAID appreciates your past and future support of
the program, including its work in Israel.
In order to ensure an equitable distribution of ASHA funds to
entities whose proposals best support the program's objectives, ASHA
conducts a fair and competitive process in order to allocate grant
funds each year. On average, ASHA receives approximately 80-100
applications in response to the annual Request for Applications. Of
that number, 25-35 new grants are awarded annually. The individual
grant awards range from $150,000 to $2,000,000.
USAID/ASHA has recently modified the grant process in the last year
by utilizing www.grants.gov as the means to post its Request for
Applications. fiscal year 2012 funding requests are currently being
reviewed by a USAID Technical Evaluation Committee, and it is
anticipated that final agency recommendations will be made in June or
July 2012.
ICEE did not submit an application for this past grant application
cycle, which ended October 31, 2011. We appreciate your show of support
and encourage ICEE to apply to the upcoming grant application cycle,
which will be available on www.grants.gov in June or July 2012.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
Question. While I commend the efforts being made by the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID) to cut waste in the
delivery of its assistance, I wish to assure that we maintain a broad
connection between democracy and labor rights groups in the United
States with their counterpart partners in developing nations. This is
especially important when we want to promote such groups around the
world, often in countries where direct associations with the U.S.
Government is problematic. Can you tell me how USAID is balancing the
important role these intermediary organizations play with its efforts
at greater localization of assistance contracts?
Answer. USAID will continue to offer significant support to
international democracy and labor rights groups, particularly as they
support local counterpart organizations.
The connection between local organizations in developing countries
and democracy and labor organizations in the United States is supported
through the Agency's guidance regarding incorporation of Local Capacity
Development into USAID project designs. Building strong partnerships
between local and American organizations that respond to similar
issues, or have similar organizational missions, can facilitate the
emergence of stronger promotion of democracy and labor rights.
Considering the potential value of such relationships is part of
appropriate project design, and is reinforced through the guidance that
is shared with missions.
This is especially true in the area of international labor rights
programming. USAID supports U.S. intermediary organizations, like the
Solidarity Center and the International Labor Rights Fund, in order to
leverage specialized expertise to strengthen unions and labor rights
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in developing countries and
connect them to the global labor movement. A good example of this is
USAID's $37.5 million Global Labor Program (GLP) Leader with Associates
Award, a 5-year program with the Solidarity Center that is currently
active in nine countries and four regions (Africa, Asia, Latin America,
and Eastern Europe). Due to the Solidarity Center's successful capacity
building of local unions and labor rights NGOs, this support helps
prepare the type of local organizations that USAID seeks to strengthen
through local capacity development and localized assistance contracts.
USAID recognizes that support to U.S. intermediaries like the
Solidarity Center and the International Labor Rights Forum, a
consortium partner in USAID's Global Civil Society Strengthening
Program, is important to this effort.
USAID also promotes democracy groups in developing countries by
encouraging USAID missions to incorporate them into the monitoring and
evaluation of USAID programs that use partner country systems, thus
bringing a more-sustainable form of accountability to developing
country governments. This is reflected in USAID's policy on the use of
partner country systems.
Question. I very much applaud your efforts to strengthen
independent civil society and NGOs around the world. Can you outline
how the President's budget request will support the strengthening of
democracy, human rights groups, and labor unions around the world
through funding by USAID? How is USAID strengthening worker rights in
Arab Spring countries that have seen trade unions leading efforts for
democratization?
Answer. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2013
includes $2.84 billion for State Department and USAID programs to
strengthen democracy, human rights and governance worldwide. Under this
broad rubric, both the State Department and USAID will plan programs
to:
--ensure free and fair elections;
--promote freedom of association and strengthen civil society
organizations;
--support human rights organizations in their monitoring and advocacy
efforts; support independent media; and
--strengthen labor unions and worker rights.
USAID's programs promote freedom of association, working to ensure
that NGO laws provide an enabling environment for a vibrant,
independent civil society sector. USAID also builds the organizational
capacity of NGOs to advocate on behalf of constituents, influence
policy dialogues, and hold governments accountable for their
performance. In the Middle East, USAID's programs focus on empowering
new actors, including women, youth, minorities, and other communities
that have been excluded from political and economic power.
USAID support for workers' rights revolves around the GLP,
implemented by the Solidarity Center, which promotes international core
labor standards, works to improve workers' access to justice, and
supports independent, democratic labor unions and NGOs.
USAID has workers' rights programs in Ukraine, Georgia, Bangladesh,
Cambodia, South Africa, Liberia, Mexico, Honduras, Brazil, Peru,
Colombia, Kyrgyzstan, and Vietnam. While USAID does not have specific
programs focusing on workers' rights in the Middle East and North
Africa, the Department of State's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights
and Labor is supporting independent trade unions in Egypt. USAID
coordinates its programming closely with the Department of State.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
vulnerable children
Question. In just 9 days, the inspirational video created by the
American nongovernmental organization Invisible Children--which focuses
on Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) leader Joseph Kony--has attracted more
than 78 million views on YouTube and generated hundreds of thousands of
dollars in donations on its release day alone. Louisiana constituents,
particularly younger Louisianans, have been contacting my office
nonstop in support of the ``Kony 2012'' movement with phone calls and
emails. Though the size of the LRA is dwindling and Joseph Kony is now
thought to be operating from the Congo or the Central African Republic
(CAR), some 440,000 Ugandans have been displaced by the conflict--most
of them children.
Do you mind detailing the United States Agency for International
Development's (USAID) support for these conflict-affected children and
former child soldiers in Uganda?
Could you explain USAID's efforts to restore the livelihoods of
conflict-affected children? Is there a focus on reconnecting these
children with the families from which they were kidnapped?
Answer. USAID has been heavily engaged in addressing the needs of
LRA-affected communities since the late 1980s, when USAID began
providing humanitarian assistance in Northern Uganda. Although the
threat of the LRA has shifted from terrorizing communities in Northern
Uganda to CAR, the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan, USAID
remains committed to addressing the needs of affected populations,
including children, in Uganda. In fiscal year 2011, USAID provided
approximately $102 million in assistance to Northern Uganda. The needs
of children, women, and other vulnerable groups are addressed through
programs that promote reconciliation, restore livelihoods and rebuild
the region. USAID programs do not isolate child soldiers, but rather
integrate them and their unique needs into our programs designed to
promote reconciliation. By linking the specific needs of formerly
abducted persons with those of their communities, USAID ensures a
whole-of-community approach that addresses both the short- and long-
term needs of conflict-affected children and former child soldiers.
USAID programming to support conflict-affected children and their
communities in Northern Uganda include:
--psychosocial support;
--vocational and leadership training;
--peace education;
--livelihoods training and agricultural extension;
--community consensus-building; and
--provision of family support social services.
As the needs in Northern Uganda have evolved from short-term,
quick-impact transition initiatives to longer-term development, USAID
has transitioned its work in Northern Uganda to address these long-term
issues. As an example, the Supporting Access to Justice, Fostering
Equity and Peace program is a new 5-year program that continues peace
and reconciliation efforts in LRA-affected areas and proactively
addresses emerging development issues and conflict drivers, such as
land disputes and government service delivery.
USAID began transitioning from providing emergency food assistance
to internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the camps to supporting the
return of IDPs to their former homes. Since 2006, USAID/FFP has
provided more than $100 million in title II Development Food assistance
benefiting 87,000 families in 21 districts in Northern Uganda. This
assistance has included:
--support for increased agriculture production;
--HIV/AIDS awareness;
--infrastructure development;
--maternal and child health and nutrition; and
--water, sanitation, and hygiene.
procurement reform
Question. The administration has said that it wants to make foreign
aid more effective and efficient and has made some progress on this,
particularly through the USAID Forward agenda. I've been a supporter of
procurement reform and was pleased to see that just this past month,
USAID simplified its regulations so that the agency can support smaller
businesses in the United States and abroad--supporting economic growth
in areas that really need it--when buying goods and services. The
President's fiscal year 2013 budget requests that $16 million be
appropriated to the USAID operating expenses account to support the
USAID Forward agenda, and particularly procurement reform. The request
notes that several new civil service positions are needed to implement
procurement reform to develop smaller contracts appropriate for partner
country systems.
What other local procurement activities are envisioned by this $16
million?
Answer. The $16 million identified in the President's fiscal year
2013 budget for procurement reform includes $13 million in fiscal year
2012 appropriated operating expenses (OE) and $3 million in the fiscal
year 2013 appropriation. Per the fiscal year 2012 statement of managers
provision that at least $25 million of the appropriation be made
available for procurement reform in fiscal years 2012 and 2013, the $13
million reflects the carryover funding for fiscal year 2013 activities.
Hence, only $3 million for 16 new civil service positions for
procurement reform is requested for appropriation in fiscal year 2013.
With the additional funding, USAID will be able to field more
acquisition personnel to support the increased local procurement
activities and related local capacity development interventions.
Additional work includes the need to complete pre-award surveys for
local organizations that have never had a direct award with the U.S.
Government, assess the capacity development needs of the organizations,
and provide capacity-building support to ensure accountability for U.S.
taxpayer funds and compliance with U.S. law and policy requirements.
Question. Additionally, what steps have been taken to help both
small U.S. and developing country businesses know about and take
advantage of these recent regulatory changes?
Answer. USAID has increased and focused its outreach efforts to
both small U.S. and developing country businesses to inform them of the
Implementation and Procurement Reform Initiative and opportunities for
direct and indirect partnership implementing USAID-managed development
resources. For U.S. small businesses, USAID's Office of Small and
Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) conducts on-going outreach
activities at both USAID-sponsored events and external small-business
conferences. These outreach efforts provide forums for OSDBU to counsel
U.S. small businesses seeking contracting opportunities at USAID. In
fiscal year 2012, OSDBU will take part in more than 25 small-business
outreach events, including hosting the 5th Annual USAID Small Business
Conference. This conference provides a forum for U.S. small businesses
to hear from senior USAID leadership and program officials regarding
IPRI and future contracting opportunities at USAID. Additionally, OSDBU
conducts periodic Vendor Day sessions with all categories of U.S. small
businesses.
For developing country business, the Agency's Partner Community
Outreach Plan, available at http://www.usaid.gov/business/
USAIDPartnerCommunityOutreach
Plan.pdf, provides guidance to USAID personnel on outreach to new and
existing partners. Missions have started holding ``Industry Days'' and
``Pre-solicitation Conferences'' and inviting local organizations to
participate. For example, the USAID mission in Rwanda recently held a
``How to Do Business with USAID'' for potential local applicants for a
health award solicitation. The USAID mission in Philippines held
similar events for solicitations in the Economic Growth and Democracy
and Governance sectors. In Egypt, the USAID mission held a series of
outreach events attended by more than 1,400 people to learn about the
process for submitting applications under an Annual Program Statement.
As part of a series of field-based Local Capacity Development training/
workshops, USAID personnel have been trained on mapping local civil-
society and private-sector organizations to identify prospective local
partners and assess their capacity to implement activities. Missions
are encouraged to invite prospective local partners to ``Partner
Exchange Days'', which provide opportunities for prospective
implementation partners to provide feedback on project designs and
identify potential partnerships, and ``Pre-Proposal Conferences'',
which provide information on upcoming solicitations, and invite local
organizations to participate.
central america
Question. Within Central America, the deteriorating security
situation threatens citizen safety. Narcotics traffickers continue to
establish trafficking routes to and through the region. The continued
expansion of national and transnational gangs creates communities of
fear where illicit organizations are effectively in control. At a time
when many of our regional partners are fighting a brutal battle in
their countries against organized crime, the President's fiscal year
2013 budget request recommends that the State Department make a $5
million cut from enacted fiscal year 2012 levels to the Central America
Regional Security Initiative (CARSI). The President recommends that the
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement Account
appropriation to the Western Hemisphere be reduced by $92 million for
fiscal year 2013. Can you please explain the President's logic in
making such a sizeable reduction to this appropriation for the Western
Hemisphere, when drug-related violence and narcotics trafficking is at
an all-time high?
Answer. We share your concern regarding the citizen security crisis
in Central America, and the accompanying factors that bring violence to
the region. The problem is large and complex, but the United States is
committed to continuing to work with Central American governments, as
well as other donor nations and institutions, to support the region's
efforts to reverse the deteriorating state of citizen security.
Through its programming and policy advocacy, CARSI seeks to reduce
the region's levels of crime and violence, support prevention efforts
for at-risk youth and those living in marginalized communities, and
strengthen rule of law institutions. The Bureau of International
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) and USAID are implementing
CARSI programs capable of being replicated or ``nationalized'' by host
nations. Examples of this are Model Police Precincts, the opening of
youth outreach centers and vocational training centers, and the
development of ``Municipal Crime Prevention Strategies'' in communities
at-risk. CARSI also supports border security professionalization,
assistance for judicially authorized wire intercept programs, seized
asset programs, and the training and vetting of specialized
investigative units.
Since fiscal year 2008, the United States has committed $361.5
million to these efforts. The administration requested $100 million for
CARSI for fiscal year 2012; however, we plan on allocating $105 million
for CARSI (INCLE: $60 million; ESF: $45 million), pending final
congressional approval. The administration's fiscal year 2013 budget
request of $107.5 million will represent a 2.3-percent increase more
than the fiscal year 2012 actual allocation for CARSI (INCLE: $60
million--no change; ESF: $47.6 million--5.7-percent increase).
Citizen security is a priority for the people of Central America
and the hemisphere. The administration's proposed fiscal year 2013
$91.8 million reduction in Western Hemisphere INCLE funding largely
accounts for the continuing transition of counternarcotics and rule of
law programs to the Government of Colombia as it continues to build and
strengthen its capacities, which reflects the success of United States
assistance investments. In fact, Colombian capacity has reached the
point where they are providing law enforcement training and assistance,
in cooperation with the United States, in both Mexico and Central
America. In Mexico, the fiscal year 2013 INCLE budget request decrease
reflects a reorientation of efforts in Mexico from the acquisition of
equipment to training, mentoring and capacity building, all of which
are lower cost and provide long-term sustainability.
Given the proximity of Central America to our own border, and the
efforts of transnational trafficking organizations in Central America,
Colombia and Mexico, we will continue our commitment to Central
American and in the hemisphere to sustain our efforts and support our
partners in addressing their most pressing citizen security, rule of
law and prevention challenges.
Question. The U.S. Congress voted to ban military aid to Guatemala
in 1990 due to concerns regarding human rights abuses committed by the
Guatemalan army. Today, the ban remains in place as a partial
restriction that limits Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and
International Military Education and Training (IMET) funding to the
Army Corps of Engineers, Navy and Air Force, allowing only Expanded
IMET to the Guatemalan army. The fiscal year 2012 omnibus
appropriations bill, which passed through the Congress last December,
states that funding to the Army will only be considered in fiscal year
2013 if the Army complies with a series of stipulations, including ``a
narrowly defined mission focused on border security and external
threats, cooperation with civilian investigations and prosecutions of
cases involving current and retired officers and with the CICIG, and .
. . publicly disclosing all military archives pertaining to the
internal armed conflict.''
Does USAID concur with these requirements and do you believe that
the Guatemalan army is ready to receive regular FMF and IMET funding?
Answer. The Department of State has indicated to both the current
and past Guatemalan governments that we are willing to discuss the
United States congressional restrictions on IMET and FMF funding for
the Guatemalan army, and we have encouraged the Guatemalans to discuss
the restrictions with Members of Congress. While it is early in the
Perez Molina administration, going forward we will thoroughly assess
the military's commitment and progress with regard to human rights,
internal reform, and other key issues, as outlined in the manager's
report accompanying this year's appropriations act. The Guatemalan
military is responsive to civilian political authorities, it has a
human rights and international humanitarian law training program, and
has provided key complementary support to law enforcement as part of
Perez Molina's strategy to improve citizen security. The Guatemalan
military is also continuing to work with representatives of the Central
American archives to explore the possibility of putting the conflict-
era military archives online through the University of Texas. It has
earned significant international and Guatemalan public respect for its
work in support of peacekeeping operations, disaster response, and
recovery efforts.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
Question. Recent events have underscored the importance of the
current United States strategy to continue withdrawing our troops from
Afghanistan. What role do you see the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) playing in Afghanistan after our
troops have left the country?
Answer. Afghanistan faces a critical turning point in the next few
years. Insecurity, corruption, the narcotics trade, and political
instability continue to pose challenges to fragile gains in development
and governance. The drawdown of international combat forces and the
associated economic impact will slow growth. But as the recently
concluded U.S.-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) makes
clear, we will stay engaged in Afghanistan for the long-term, providing
the Afghan people support so that they can pursue a future of greater
stability and dignity.
The path to sustainable stability in Afghanistan requires continued
commitment to civilian assistance, but increasingly through efforts
that will boost Afghan self-sufficiency. The signing of the SPA is a
major accomplishment and pivotal milestone on this path. The United
States commitment to seek funding from the Congress for continued
economic assistance is contingent on the Afghans fulfilling their
commitments and obligations to strengthen accountability, transparency,
oversight, and the effectiveness of government institutions. Through
the SPA, we seek to cement an enduring partnership with Afghanistan
that strengthens Afghan sovereignty and stability while promoting
respect for the constitution, human rights, and the advancement of
women.
We have prioritized our assistance portfolio to make foundational
investments that will enable transition to full Afghan security
responsibility, and help to ensure Afghans increasingly have the skills
and resources necessary to chart their own future. USAID plans to
invest in priority sectors that are critical to private sector-led
economic growth:
--agriculture;
--extractive industries;
--trade; and
--human capacity development.
In addition, we are working with the Afghan authorities to ensure
credible and inclusive national elections in accordance with the Afghan
constitution, including by supporting and strengthening political
parties and civil society coalitions to participate fully in an
inclusive and representative democracy.
In one of the most food-insecure countries on Earth, our
agriculture assistance will help significantly boost crop yields, farm
income, access to markets, and reduce dependence on opium poppy for the
80 percent of Afghans who make their living from subsistence farming.
Afghanistan's endowment of mineral wealth provides enormous
opportunities to expand industry, trade corridors, and revenues, but
presents significant potential pitfalls as well. USAID will work with
the Afghan Government and the private sector to improve the investment
climate, increase Afghan capacity to create and implement a policy and
regulatory framework that meets international best practices, and
transparently report and manage resource flows so that they benefit the
Afghan people.
As you well know, Afghanistan remains a poor country and as such,
we cannot, and should not, set unrealistic goals. USAID is making
difficult choices to sharpen our focus--reducing infrastructure
investments in order to support the government to maintain the
infrastructure it already has. Likewise, we are cementing, rather than
expanding, gains in health and education, and are reorienting
stabilization efforts to more directly support the transition and a
sustainable Afghanistan.
The G8, Chicago, and Tokyo conferences will be instrumental in
engaging the Afghan Government and international community to advance
our diplomatic and civilian efforts in the region.
Question. On the 2-year anniversary of the Haiti earthquake this
year, I wrote to the State Department expressing concern about the slow
distribution of aid to the region. In January, the State Department
responded by noting the many challenges that State and USAID have faced
in distributing this aid. Understanding that USAID faces considerable
challenges, what are you doing to speed the distribution of aid?
Answer. The United States Government continues to move forward in
programming our funds to meet the needs of the Haitian people. Since
our response to you on January 19, 2012, we have made significant
strides in accomplishing our goals set forth in our Post-Earthquake USG
Haiti Strategy. As of March 1, 2012, USAID shelter solutions benefited
64,478 households--or more than 322,000 people-- approximately one-
fifth of the 1.5 million people estimated to have been displaced by the
earthquake. Overall, internally displaced persons (IDPs) are down to
490,545 from the estimated 1.5 million after the earthquake. In
addition, our efforts have removed 2.31 million cubic meters of
rubble--almost one-half of all the rubble that has been removed.
We have also made progress in longer-term development solutions.
Our agricultural programs are increasing farmer incomes and
productivity. The 2011 harvest produced increased yields in corn (+368
percent), rice (+118 percent), beans (+85 percent), and plantains (+21
percent). The 2012 planting season will incorporate new innovations in
productivity and continue the progress being made.
We have also successfully launched $6 million in programs to
benefit vulnerable populations, specifically people with disabilities.
These efforts will improve access to services, and the legal and policy
environment, train health personnel to better understand and attend to
their needs, and strengthen advocacy groups focused on this effort.
Also, a $22 million human rights program is now underway which will
protect the rights of children, women, and youth.
We have addressed several key obstacles such as staffing shortages
and procurement support. As a result, our pace of programming continues
to accelerate, while still adhering to the requisite environmental and
seismic data assessments.
The resignation of Prime Minister Conille may unfortunately slow
down development efforts. For our programs to function better and be
implemented faster, we need a Haitian Government that is fully engaged
and that is showing no tolerance for corruption and reaffirming its
commitment to democracy and rule of law. Such engagement will also
serve as a signal to other donors that their investments will be
worthwhile and spent effectively.
Question. It is critical that gender issues are integrated
throughout all of our foreign aid programs, so I was pleased to see
that USAID recently released a new policy on gender equality and
women's empowerment. What metrics will you use to specifically
determine the impact this new gender policy is having on women and
girls around the globe?
Answer. USAID's newly updated policy on Gender Equality and Women's
Empowerment mandates the Agency to monitor the impacts of our
investments on males and females and to measure our results in specific
ways. To that end, USAID will measure performance in closing key gender
gaps and empowering women and girls; ensure that our monitoring and
evaluation methods include gender indicators that measure progress
toward gender equality and women's empowerment; and ensure that
projects collect and use sex-disaggregated data.
USAID has already put in place various metrics to determine the
impact of our investments. USAID's Feed the Future Initiative developed
an enhanced monitoring and evaluation system that will comprehensively
track the impact of our work on women and girls using a newly designed
Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index created in collaboration with
the International Food Policy and Research Institute and Oxford's
Poverty and Human Development Initiative. The Index is the first
measure to directly capture women's empowerment and inclusion levels in
the agricultural sector. It focuses on five areas:
--decisions over agricultural production; and
--power over productive resources such as:
--land and livestock;
--decisions over income;
--leadership in the community; and
--time use.
Women are considered to be empowered when they meet the
requirements in some combination amounting to 4 of the 5 areas. The
Index also takes into consideration the empowerment of women compared
with men in the same household, based on asking women and men the same
survey questions. The Index will be used to monitor and evaluate
programs in all 19 Feed the Future countries to ensure that our efforts
are empowering women and supporting the essential role they play in
reducing hunger and advancing prosperity.
In 2011, the State-USAID Performance Plan & Report system was
significantly revised and the entire Foreign Assistance indicator suite
was re-engineered. This new system includes seven output and outcome
indicators on gender equality, female empowerment, and gender-based
violence that Operating Units will use in Performance Management Plans
and Reports for tracking progress toward implementation results and
measuring impact across programs. The seven indicators are:
--Number of laws, policies, or procedures drafted, proposed, or
adopted to promote gender equality at the regional, national or
local level.
--Proportion of female participants in U.S. Government-assisted
programs designed to increased access to productive economic
resources (assets, credit, income, or employment).
--Proportion of females who report increased self-efficacy at the
conclusion of U.S. Government-supported training/programming.
--Proportion of target population reporting increased agreement with
the concept that males and females should have equal access to
social, economic, and political opportunities.
--Number of laws, policies or procedures drafted, proposed, or
adopted with U.S. Government assistance designed to improve
prevention of or response to sexual and gender-based violence
at the regional, national, or local level.
--Number of people reached by a U.S. Government-funded intervention
providing GBV services (e.g., health, legal, psycho-social
counseling, shelters, hotlines, other).
--Percentage of target population that views gender-based violence as
less acceptable after participating in or being exposed to U.S.
Government programming.
These seven indicators were designed to be broad so that they can
be used across various sectors--from health to democracy and governance
to economic growth. Already, missions have asked implementing partners
to begin collecting data and set targets for these indicators that can
be used in fiscal year 2013 performance reports.
Question. If we do not take real steps to stop the worst effects of
climate change, what additional resource burdens will USAID face in
trying to meet development goals in our partner countries?
Answer. Climate change is already expected to exacerbate existing
development pressures and most heavily impact the poor in developing
countries. If steps are not taken to stop the worst effects of climate
change, the impacts undoubtedly will be greater and place additional
burdens on USAID programs, as well as countries that can least afford
to handle them. Among the additional resource burdens USAID and its
partners will face are:
--Additional obstacles to achieving development goals in food
security, health, and economic growth. More variable rainfall,
stronger storms, and temperature changes, driven by unmitigated
climate change, have the potential to reduce agricultural
productivity. Agricultural productivity is projected to decline
in some continents, especially Africa and South Asia, at a time
of rapidly growing demand for food, threatening the success of
USAID's food security investments. The combined climate change
impacts of warming and ocean acidification are projected to
result in nearly all coral reefs classified as threatened by
2050, impacting the roughly 500 million people who depend on
reef ecosystems for their protein. Similarly, increased
incidence of flooding and drought, saltwater intrusion into
drinking water supplies, and the migration of disease vectors
into new areas (such as mosquitoes carrying malaria) will
affect public health by undermining access to clean water and
sanitation, undercutting nutritional gains, and changing
disease distribution patterns and prevalence. Reduced
agricultural productivity, combined with increased disease
burdens and increased economic losses from climate change-
related damage will undermine effort to achieve sustainable
economic development in USAID-partner countries as well as
place additional burdens on the Agency.
--Increased demand for humanitarian assistance. Unmitigated climate
change is likely to increase the severity and frequency of
natural disasters, such as floods and droughts. USAID already
spends significant resources responding to both immediate
humanitarian and long-term reconstruction needs after natural
disasters. These needs would increase with the number and
severity of disasters. Rising sea levels will render some
densely populated coastal areas uninhabitable, creating
``climate refugees'' who will be forced to move to higher
ground.
--Increased need to respond to conflict and political instability.
Any humanitarian crises, caused or exacerbated by climate
change will undermine the social, economic, and political
stability of our allies and partners, leaving them less able to
help address other global challenges. Climate change may
exacerbate water scarcity and increase conflicts; it could
trigger displacement and contribute to national and regional
resource governance tensions, threatening U.S. national
security objectives in key regions of the world. The U.S.
military, USAID, and intelligence community consider climate
change to be a ``threat multiplier.''
Question. Worldwide, there are more than 200 million women who want
to delay or prevent pregnancy but lack access to modern contraceptive
methods. What new approaches and innovations is USAID supporting to
meet these family planning needs? Additionally, how do investments in
international family planning help USAID achieve the goals of the
Global Health Initiative?
Answer. Expanding the availability, accessibility, and voluntary
use of family planning is vital to safe motherhood and healthy
families, reduces abortion and mother-to-child transmission of HIV, and
has profound health, economic and social benefits for families,
communities, and nations. Voluntary family planning programs that
enable couples to choose the number, timing and spacing of their
children are a key intervention in achieving the Global Health
Initiative goal of preventing 54 million unintended pregnancies.
By allowing women to delay and space births, family planning could
prevent as many as one-third of the 350,000 maternal deaths that occur
each year. In the developing world, an estimated 90 percent of infants
whose mothers die in childbirth will die by their first birthday.
Family planning helps women have healthier children, and increases the
likelihood that infants will survive and remain healthy.
To help the more than 200 million women with an unmet need for
family planning, USAID supports all the key components of effective
family planning/reproductive health programs--service delivery,
performance improvement, contraceptive supply and logistics, health
communication, biomedical and social science research, policy analysis
and planning, and monitoring and evaluation. In addition, USAID puts
special emphasis on program approaches and issues that are under-
resourced in country programs but hold promise for accelerating
progress, including contraceptive security, integrated family planning/
HIV and family planning/maternal and child health programming,
community-based approaches, voluntary access to long-acting and
permanent methods, gender, reaching youth and underserved populations,
and equity in access to services.
USAID also works to expand access to family planning through social
science, operations and contraceptive research. These efforts include
promoting a greater understanding of the gap between unmet need and
planned family planning use through the social network, and developing
a compendium of best practices in family planning/HIV integration.
Question. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget request includes
$770 million for the establishment of a new program Middle East and
North Africa (MENA) Incentive Fund (IF). What type of programs and
activities is USAID expecting to support with this new Fund? What
requirements will be made of recipient groups or countries that receive
this aid?
Answer. The MENA IF represents a new approach to the Middle East
and North Africa by demonstrating a visible commitment to reform and to
the region; tying assistance to reform agendas; and providing
flexibility for contingencies in order to take advantage of new
opportunities. USAID will work with State Department and other
interagency partners through a process that develops shared objectives
consistent with U.S. foreign policy goals. Deploying the fund will
require close coordination.
What type of programs and activities is USAID expecting to support
with this new Fund? MENA IF will address three types of needs as
follows:
Longer-Term Transition Incentives.--The bulk of the fund will be
focused on activities supporting governance and economic reform
including activities such as:
--Private sector development, including jobs growth;
--Seed money for larger investments and multilateral projects;
--Loan guarantees;
--Governance reform assistance;
--Enterprise funds; and
--Technical assistance to improve transparency, human rights, free
trade, and regional integration.
Immediate Transition/Stabilization Contingencies.--In addition, a
portion of the MENA IF will be available for short-term support for
newly transitioning countries including activities focused on the
following:
--Short-term economic stabilization (e.g., fiscal support);
--Assistance in managing immediate political transition processes;
--Civil society strengthening;
--Emergency technical support;
--Humanitarian assistance and human rights investigations;
--Transitional justice programs;
--Security sector support; and
--Bolster capacity to engage with newly emerging democracies.
Regional Program Platforms.--MENA IF also includes the base funding
for the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) ($65 million), and
USAID's Office of Middle East Programs (OMEP) ($5 million). MEPI
cultivates locally led change by supporting civil society in every
country of the MENA region where the United States has a diplomatic
presence. OMEP provides surge capacity and region-wide scope for
development activities that respond to regional transition and reform.
What requirements will be made of recipient groups or countries
that receive this aid? MENA IF provides incentives to support
transitioning governments who demonstrate a clear commitment to
political and economic reform. Recipients will be required to submit
credible political, economic, and/or security reform proposals for
activities that demonstrate significant economic returns or progress in
quality of governance. Policies and procedures for programming of
assistance will govern proposal identification, implementation,
monitoring, and evaluation. This will include, among other things,
clearly defined conditions and benchmarks for measuring and achieving
individual program success.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham
Question. What are the specific impacts of sequestration on United
States Agency for International Development operations and programs?
Answer. We urge the Congress to enact balanced deficit reduction
legislation that avoids sequestration. If necessary, the administration
will be addressing important technical questions concerning sequester,
but now is the time to focus on enacting the balanced framework
proposed in the President's budget.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Kirk
veterans hiring
Question. According to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM),
the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has the
lowest percentage of veteran hires and the second-lowest number of on-
board veteran employees among all executive branch agencies. According
to OPM, in fiscal year 2010, veterans made up 5.6 percent of USAID's
workforce, as compared to State Department's 16.7 percent, the Labor
Department's 17.8 percent, or even the National Science Foundation's
5.7 percent.
Why is USAID unable to effectively recruit veterans?
Answer. USAID has made substantial progress in recruiting veterans.
In fiscal year 2011, USAID implemented a wide range of outreach,
recruitment, and marketing initiatives to increase veteran hiring.
These efforts resulted in a marked increase of new veteran hires from
5.6 percent in fiscal year 2010 to 8.5 percent in fiscal year 2011.
USAID continues to make significant progress this fiscal year. During
the first quarter of fiscal year 2012, 11 percent of USAID's new hires
were veterans.
Question. What specific steps beyond OPM's hiring preferences is
USAID taking to engage our veterans and substantially increase its
number of veterans on staff? Does USAID have any specific veteran
hiring programs?
Answer. USAID has implemented a number of creative strategies to
increase the number of veterans in USAID. First, we hired a seasoned
full-time professional as the Veterans Employment Program Manager with
primary responsibility for executing all aspects of the Veteran's
Employment Initiative and serving as an advocate to promote veteran
recruitment, hiring, and retention within USAID. Second, we initiated a
vigorous internal referral program to target vacancies for veterans as
soon as they arise. The program allows USAID hiring managers to contact
the Veterans Employment Program Manager to fill their positions quickly
with qualified veteran candidates using the Special Appointing
Authorities for Veterans. These Special Appointing Authorities enable
veterans to be referred for consideration prior to the posting of a job
announcement. Twenty-five percent of all veterans hired in fiscal year
2011 were referred from this program. Third, USAID sponsors quarterly
Federal employment workshops at USAID headquarters at no cost for
separating and retiring military members and spouses. Finally, USAID
has increased the number of veterans hired through our formal Student
Internship Program and continues to partner with a wide variety of
Military Transition Assistance Programs and Veterans Rehabilitation
Organizations. The specific types of transition assistance we provide
include resume writing, workshops on the Federal application process,
and interviewing skills. These are only a few examples of the many
proactive initiatives USAID has implemented to hire more veterans.
Question. How many veterans currently work for USAID and in what
capacities are they primarily employed? Do their USAID positions align
with previous military experience, including conducting development and
diplomacy on the front lines? What specific skills gained by our men
and women in uniform during their service can advance USAID's mission?
Answer. Currently, there are 306 veterans employed at USAID (8
percent of the workforce). There are 204 veterans employed in the Civil
Service, 101 employed in the Foreign Service, and 1 veteran employed as
an Expert Consultant. Veterans are employed in a myriad of professional
and administrative positions in both the Civil Service and the Foreign
Service, including the position of Chief of the Office of Human
Resources' Outreach and Marketing team, which leads recruitment.
Our veterans' previous military experience allows them to
transition directly into positions conducting development and diplomacy
on the front lines. For example, during fiscal year 2011, USAID hired
15 veterans on term-limited appointments to the Foreign Service to work
on critical priority programs in Afghanistan and Pakistan, allowing a
seamless transfer of skills gained in uniform to assist in advancing
USAID's mission in the field.
The discipline and work ethic that our veteran men and women bring
to bear, coupled with their technical skills, make them well suited for
a variety of positions at USAID. Veterans at USAID are currently
working in occupations such as acquisition, administration, information
technology, communications, security, human resources, engineering,
public policy, finance, and education.
partner vetting system
Question. When do you expect the joint State-USAID Partner Vetting
System (PVS) pilot to become fully operational?
Answer. The Department of State and USAID are working closely to
implement the pilot program. The schedule is dependent upon several
factors including the rulemaking process which mandates a specific
comment and review period; upgrades to the database functionality to
incorporate the secure portal; and, the completion of the Department of
State's iteration of the PVS database. USAID and the Department of
State expect to begin the deployment to the pilot missions by September
30, 2012 as required by Public Law 112-174.
Question. Would you support expanding PVS globally?
Answer. The Department of State and USAID consider the pilot PVS
program to be a true test, with a view toward providing both agencies
with a deeper understanding of the ways to mitigate risk in the
provision of foreign assistance and safeguard U.S. taxpayer funds, as
well as, to determine the feasibility and utility of developing a
worldwide system. The pilot will ensure that countries will be selected
with a range of terrorist threat levels, rather than simply selecting
five countries with high threat levels, to provide a broad range of
useful data for evaluation. At the conclusion of the pilot program,
USAID and the Department of State will evaluate the results and make
determinations regarding future applications of the vetting process.
somalia
Question. Can you provide an update on USAID's assistance efforts
in Somalia, including on the ground presence, applicable restrictions
on USAID operations, and any efforts to expand the scope of USAID
operations?
Answer. Since early 2011, the United States has provided more than
$252 million to respond to humanitarian needs in Somalia. USAID
humanitarian programs focus mainly on providing emergency food
assistance and supporting immediate recovery in food security, economic
recovery, protection, health, water, sanitation, and hygiene
activities. USAID development programs complement these efforts by
focusing on improving good governance, increasing economic growth,
enhancing education and livelihood opportunities, reducing the appeal
of extremism, and promoting stabilization in recovering areas.
Due to the highly insecure environment, the U.S. Government has no
permanent staff presence in Somalia; however, USAID works closely with
international and local organizations working in the country to
implement USAID-funded programs. USAID staff members located in
Nairobi, Kenya, and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, manage humanitarian and
development programs. USAID uses a third-party contractor to monitor
its work in-country, interspersed with limited in-country travel by
USAID staff to monitor programs, meet with partners, and build
relationships with key stakeholders.
USAID is expanding its development and stabilization programming to
areas vacated by al-Shabaab such as Mogadishu and along the Kenya and
Ethiopian border. In terms of humanitarian assistance, access
constraints, ongoing insecurity, and population displacement affect the
provision of humanitarian assistance for affected populations in
Somalia. Al-Shabaab controls many parts of central and Southern Somalia
and has prevented 16 relief agencies from operating in areas under the
group's control since November 2011. In addition, al-Shabaab terminated
the agreement under which the International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC) was allowed to deliver aid in January 2012 and revoked the
permission of another organization to operate in areas under the
group's control in March 2012.
USAID's efforts are critical to prevent a deterioration of
humanitarian conditions or a reversal of recent food security gains.
Question. On February 3, 2012, the United Nations declared the end
of famine conditions in Somalia.
Do you share this assessment and if so, how do you expect it to
impact USAID operations in fiscal years 2012 and 2013?
Answer. The United Nations based its February 2012 declaration that
famine had ended in Somalia on findings from the Famine Early Warning
Systems Network and the U.N. Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit.
USAID concurs with this assessment. While famine no longer exists due
to a favorable harvest and increased humanitarian assistance, high
levels of food insecurity, malnutrition, and other emergency conditions
still exist.
The situation remains extremely fragile and conditions could
deteriorate due to another anticipated season of below-normal rainfall
combined with the loss of household assets, constraints to humanitarian
access, insecurity, and displacement.
In fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013, USAID plans to continue
providing humanitarian assistance for Somalia in response to identified
needs and evolving conditions.
Question. Following the decision by the al-Shabaab terrorist
organization to ban all international organizations from distributing
aid to al-Shabaab-controlled territories, you wrote to the Congress on
December 8, 2011 that USAID is working ``to determine the impact of
this ban and identify alternative options for delivering humanitarian
assistance'' to these areas.
Can you provide additional details regarding these efforts?
Answer. As of mid-March 2012, Al-Shabaab was preventing 16 relief
agencies from operating in areas under the group's control and halted
the operations of two others. These agencies include several large U.N.
agencies and international relief organizations that had facilitated
logistics and supply chains for other relief agencies. However, a
number of international and local relief agencies continue to operate
in areas of Central and Southern Somalia controlled by al-Shabaab.
Al-Shabaab's ban on humanitarian organizations has substantially
reduced relief activities in affected areas. The number of
beneficiaries reached by the Food Assistance Cluster--the coordinating
body for food-related assistance in Somalia--decreased from
approximately 2.6 million in October to 1.6 million in January due to
access challenges. This affected 7 of the 18 Cluster partners and
created notable nutritional gaps in the Bay, Bakool, and Middle
Shabelle regions. The ban also interrupted the distribution of
essential health supplies, limiting access to life-saving
interventions. Affected populations in the Bakool, Bay, Hiraan, and
Middle Shabelle regions did not receive food vouchers in January as a
result of the ban.
As of mid-February, USAID's partners continued to coordinate to
provide humanitarian assistance in nonpermissive areas to address
shortages in health, nutrition, water, sanitation, and hygiene supplies
as a result of the ban. As humanitarian access levels in Somalia
change, USAID staff will continue to identify and support implementing
partners and approaches that can best meet humanitarian needs.
Question. Can you provide an accounting of USAID's distribution of
assistance to Nagorno Karabakh (NK) for fiscal year 2011 and fiscal
year 2012 to date, including a complete description of the projects,
purpose, funding, and an assessment of goals achieved?
Answer. United States assistance supports our diplomatic efforts,
including Armenia's reconciliation with Azerbaijan, and resolution of
the conflict over NK. Our humanitarian assistance is also helping to
stabilize the region and prevent future conflict. Our commitment to NK
assistance has remained steadfast despite the decline in overall
funding and competing priorities. During fiscal year 2011, the United
States provided $2 million in humanitarian assistance to the people of
NK. A similar amount of assistance is planned for fiscal year 2012.
U.S. assistance is roughly split between humanitarian demining and
potable water projects. The demining activity, implemented by HALO
Trust since 2001, focuses on clearing mines and returning lands to the
rural population for agricultural use. Thus far 94 percent of anti-
personnel and anti-tank mines and 71 percent of the battle area have
been cleared. Upon the current project's completion in December 2012,
the U.S. Government will have invested more than $7.6 million in
demining.
We are concluding a potable water program which is expanding access
to clean water in the city of Stepanakert. The program, totaling $2
million upon completion this year, supports improvements to two
independent water systems in Stepanakert which are expected to benefit
more than 20,000 people. Water supplies are being improved through
priority repairs to water mains, sand traps, and dikes; providing for
rehabilitation and modernization; and installing water meters.
Question. Can you provide the results of all needs assessments that
USAID has conducted with regard to the NK since December 2007?
Answer. In March 2012, USAID, through an independent consultant,
conducted a rural water sector needs assessment. The final report is
expected in mid-April. USAID is planning to conduct a thorough
assessment on the remaining minefield clearance in NK in July 2012. The
assessment will also be implemented by an independent consultant.
Question. In rendering aid decisions concerning NK, do USAID
officials interact and consult with their counterparts in the NK
Government? Can you provide details of such interactions concerning
fiscal year 2011 assistance or fiscal year 2012 to date? Are there any
restrictions in place for any such interactions?
Answer. The U.S. Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group has the U.S. lead
in mediating the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and travels frequently to
Nagorno-Karabakh. USAID personnel have traveled to Nagorno-Karabakh in
the past with the concurrence of the U.S. Co-Chair to implement
humanitarian aid programs. USAID's non-American local staff visits NK
to monitor the two ongoing projects. For program coordination purposes,
non-American local staff may meet with community leaders, municipality
representatives, or representatives of particular services such as the
water operations and maintenance unit and the rescue team (which
includes a demining section), but does not discuss future funding
decisions with central NK authorities.
Question. Pursuant to report language in Public Law 112-74, how
does USAID plan to assist vulnerable ethno-religious minorities in
Iraq, specifically the Chaldo-Assyrian communities in the Nineveh
Plains?
Answer. To date, the United States Government has provided about
$40 million in assistance to Iraq's minority communities. This includes
Iraq's Christian communities including the Chaldo-Assyrians in the
Ninevah Plains. Assistance has included both short-term humanitarian
and long-term development projects.
In 2010-2011, USAID assisted minority communities in the Ninevah
Plains with various community development projects. USAID also provided
apprenticeships to help members of these communities gain the skills
needed to sustain their development. USAID-funded microfinance
institutions benefiting minority communities in the Ninevah Plains are
focusing on expanding access to credit to promote private sector growth
which generates jobs and increases incomes.
Access to Credit.--USAID is providing additional funding to
existing USAID-supported microfinance institutions, small- and medium-
enterprise lending units, vocational training and apprenticeships
available to minorities in the Ninevah Plains and other vulnerable
groups.
Access to Justice.--USAID assists minorities in the Ninevah Plains
by increasing awareness of their rights as well as avenues for
receiving remedies from the government through legal clinics and as
well as by Iraqi civil society partners, including professional legal
associations, law schools, human rights nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs), and government partners.
Civil Society.--USAID supports Iraqi civil society efforts to
advocate on behalf of minorities to improve national, provincial, and
local governments' responsiveness to needs identified by local
communities.
Governance.--Broad-based improvements in Iraqi livelihood and
democratic governance will also directly and indirectly benefit Iraqi
minority communities. In fiscal year 2013, USAID expects to fund
governance and livelihoods projects. These projects will improve the
effectiveness of Iraqi governance at all levels and encourage
community-based development through partnerships with civil society
organizations, among others.
Question. According to USAID, ``Kosovo is the youngest country in
Europe with more than 50 percent of Kosovars aged 25 or younger. The
growing youth population that is unemployed (estimates range from 50
percent-75 percent), disengaged, and disconnected is emerging as an
urgent issue for the newly independent state.''
In an effort to foster stability and economic development, would
you support prioritizing United States assistance for Kosovo with a
focus on education?
Can you please provide an update on your efforts in this regard?
Answer. USAID currently supports the basic education sector in
Kosovo by enhancing school management capacities at the municipal
level, strengthening the assessment of learning outcomes, and improving
in-service teacher professional development and certification.
Consistent with the Ministry of Education's reform strategy, USAID
improves the capacity of primary schools to provide a modern education
through advanced teacher professional development, as well as
introducing technology for science and math teaching. The USAID basic
education program enhances skills in Kosovo's youth that are important
to Kosovo's economic future.
Higher education funds support results-oriented programs to address
specific issues related to human resource development and higher
learning. Our assistance is aimed at improving systems and processes in
Kosovo institutions, particularly those that will have a direct impact
on Kosovo's economic growth and democratic stability.
USAID is currently engaging in a feasibility analysis to determine
the needs of strategically selected Kosovar higher education
institutions in priority developments areas. The assessment will also
address institutional partnerships, faculty exchanges and student
scholarships, as these contribute to building and strengthening
Kosovo's development institutions and societal transformation.
west bank/gaza
Question. Can you provide a list of all NGOs that received funding
(with name of group, funding amount, account/bureau providing funds,
and purpose) from USAID in fiscal year 2011 and so far in fiscal year
2012 for accounts/programs/projects operating in Israel, the West Bank
and Gaza?
Answer. USAID/West Bank and Gaza Economic Support Fund (ESF)
Bilateral Program.--The international organizations referenced below
are all prime recipients of USAID/West Bank and Gaza managed fiscal
year 2011 ESF funding. This first set of responses focuses on prime
recipients. We will provide shortly a second tranche of information
that will include the sub-awards. Total fiscal year 2011 funding
obligated to date is $37.55 million. The bulk of fiscal year 2011 ESF
for West Bank and Gaza program funds have not been obligated yet due to
congressional holds on these funds in place until very recently. Fiscal
year 2012 funds have not been obligated yet. USAID will first notify
the Congress of our plans for fiscal year 2012 funding, and only after
that, can obligation occur.
Name of Group: Chemonics International
Fiscal Year 2011 Funded Amount: $12.1 million
Purpose:
Palestinian Authority Capacity Enhancement (PACE)
PACE works with Palestinian Authority (PA) agencies and ministries
to expedite service delivery, improve financial and human resource
management, and enhance accountability and transparency.
The Palestinian Justice Enhancement Program (PJEP)
PJEP aims to strengthen the justice sector by building public
confidence and respect for institutions and the rule of law.
Palestinian Health Sector Reform and Development Project (Health
Flagship Project)
The Health Flagship Project works with the Palestinian Ministry of
Health (MOH) to improve the core areas identified in the Palestinian
National Health Strategic Plan:
--governance;
--human resources for health;
--access to quality services; and
--healthy behaviors.
The project also connects health clinics, the communities they
serve, and the private sector.
Trade Facilitation Program (TFP)
The movement and access of Palestinian goods within the West Bank
and to/from Gaza, and in and out of Israel and neighboring countries,
remains key to all other economic growth objectives. TFP stimulates
trade in the West Bank and Gaza and facilitates cargo movement through
crossing points allowing Palestinian enterprises to generate employment
and economic opportunities.
Investment Climate Improvement (ICI)
ICI assists the PA in adopting and implementing laws, regulations,
policies, and procedures to improve the Palestinian business and
economic climate and promote domestic and foreign investment.
Name of Group: AMIDEAST
Fiscal Year 2011 Funded Amount: $900,000
Purpose:
Model Schools Network (MSN)
MSN improves the quality of basic education (grades 1-9) in the
Palestinian territories. The MSN program focuses on the professional
development of teachers and administrators within the model school
network, particularly in the areas of English, math, and science.
Name of Group: Education Development Center, Inc.
Fiscal Year 2011 Funded Amount: $1.1 million
Purpose:
Palestinian Youth Empowerment Program (Ruwwad)
Ruwwad builds the leadership capabilities of youth by engaging them
in community service learning including:
--civic engagement;
--economic opportunities;
--leadership skills; and
--sports and culture.
Name of Group: International Youth Foundation
Fiscal Year 2011 Funded Amount: $1.4 million
Purpose:
Youth Entrepreneurship Development Program (YED)
YED prepares in and out-of-school youth ages 14-29 for the job
market by equipping them with the employment and entrepreneurial skills
needed to find jobs in the public and private sector or to start their
own businesses.
Name of Group: American Near East Refugee Aid
Fiscal Year 2011 Funded Amount: $3 million
Purpose:
Emergency Water and Sanitation and Other Infrastructure (EWAS II)
EWAS II provides rapid response and emergency relief primarily in
the water and sanitation sectors, and in other sectors as needed. This
project improves the supply of potable water to Palestinian communities
facing serious water shortages by rehabilitating, expanding, and
upgrading small- and medium-scale water and sewage systems. EWAS II
also supports the improvement of basic Palestinian infrastructure needs
by building and rehabilitating community health facilities, classrooms,
and community and youth centers.
Name of Group: CHF International
Fiscal Year 2011 Funded Amount: $1.3 million
Purpose:
Local Government and Infrastructure Program (LGI)
LGI promotes good local governance practices and provides the basic
infrastructure necessary for sustainable improvements in the quality of
life for Palestinians. LGI strengthens local government capacity to
respond effectively and efficiently to community needs through capacity
building, institutional development, and service delivery skill
enhancement initiatives; promotes and institutionalizes good governance
practices; encourages public involvement through participatory
governance mechanisms; and enhances the capacity of the Ministry of
Local Government to assume regulatory, policy development, and
strategic planning responsibilities.
Name of Group: Development Alternatives Inc.
Fiscal Year 2011 Funded Amount: $5,263,000
Purpose:
Enterprise Development for Global Competitiveness Project
The Enterprise Development for Global Competitiveness Project
improves access to markets for Palestinian Small and Medium
Enterprises. Additionally, it improves economic growth and access to
services through the development of local business associations and
business service providers.
Name of Group: Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.
Fiscal Year 2011 Funded Amount: $5.8 million already obligated
Purpose:
Infrastructure Needs Program II Architect and Engineering Contract (INP
II)
INP II Architect-Engineering provides design, engineering,
operations and maintenance, and construction management services
required to implement multi-discipline, high-quality construction
projects in the West Bank.
Name of Group: United Nations World Food Program (WFP)
Fiscal Year 2011 Funded Amount: $4 million
Purpose:
Assistance to Vulnerable Groups
The WFP provides high-quality food assistance (direct food
distribution and electronic food vouchers) to help meet basic food
needs and improve dietary diversity of the most vulnerable and food
insecure nonrefugee populations in the West Bank and Gaza.
Name of Group: Mercy Corps
Fiscal Year 2011 Funded Amount: $1,550,000
Purpose:
Palestinian Community Assistance Program (PCAP)
PCAP addresses infrastructure recovery needs through tangible
improvements in community infrastructure and housing; supports economic
recovery and development through the creation of income generation and
business development opportunities; and promotes social recovery
through community outreach programs focused on mental well-being,
childhood education, humanitarian assistance, and cash-for-work
programs.
Name of Group: CARANA
Fiscal Year 2011 Funded Amount: $687,000
Purpose:
Enterprise Development and Investment Promotion (EDIP)
EDIP supports the development of businesses and business
associations to achieve increased production and better marketing of
their products and services. EDIP improves the capacity of Palestinian
businesses to integrate into domestic and international markets through
initiatives with business associations.
Name of Group: International Relief & Development; American
Intercontinental Constructors, LLC; CDM Constructors Inc; BLD Services,
LLC; APCO/ArCon; The Morganti Group
Fiscal Year 2011 Funded Amount: $450,000
Purpose:
Infrastructure Needs Program II Construction (INP II)
INP II provides critical infrastructure that promotes economic
growth, and helps the PA address both immediate and long-term
infrastructure needs. INP projects include the construction and
rehabilitation of roads, water systems and distribution networks,
wastewater systems, schools, and other necessary facilities.
conflict management and mitigation grants program
The organizations referenced below are all expected to receive
fiscal year 2011 funding as part of the congressionally mandated fiscal
year 2011 Conflict Management and Mitigation program which is managed
at post by both USAID and U.S. Embassy Tel Aviv. The recipients of
fiscal year 2012 funds for this program have not yet been decided.
Name of Group: The Economic Cooperation Foundation
Funding Amount: $1 million
Purpose:
Jenin-Gilboa-Nablus-Haifa: Cooperation Zone
Economic growth requires cooperation, personal interaction, and
joint planning among neighbors. This program is expected to promote
people-to-people activities in Jenin, Gilboa, and Haifa cross-border
area in tourism, trade, and infrastructure planning to support the
economic development of the region. The program will bring together
local and national authorities and civil representatives to strategize
and promote economic development.
Name of Group: Catholic Relief Services
Funding Amount: $1 million
Purpose:
The Gemini Project
The program will build the capacity of Arab and Jewish youth from
Israel to engage in civil debate and encourage increased civic
engagement using nonviolent approaches.
Name of Group: The Hand in Hand Center for Jewish-Arab Education in
Israel
Funding Amount: $1.08 million
Purpose:
Shared Community/School Integration
Hand in Hand works to integrate Jews and Arab children in schools,
and to integrate the communities where these schools are located by
generating people-to-people activities among the residents and
increasing interactions between community members.
Name of Group: Mercy Corps
Funding Amount: $1.19 million
Purpose:
Technology for Peace
The program will bring Palestinian and Israeli youth,
entrepreneurs, and companies together to pursue the shared interest in
information and communication technology (ICT) as an enhancing tool
both for peace activism as well as for economic collaboration and
growth. This 18-month program, designed in collaboration with three
local partners in Israel and the West Bank, seeks to promote peace
activism through the enhanced use of social media, to build the
capacity of Palestinian youth in collaboration with Israeli companies
and joint Palestinian/Israeli youth activities in ICT, and to encourage
economic cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians in the ICT
sector.
Name of Group: The Parents Circle--Families Forum
Funding Amount: $700,000
Purpose:
Where Parallel Lines Meet
The project engages Israeli and Palestinian participants in an
effort to promote peace and reconciliation.
Name of Group: Israel/Palestine Centre for Research and Information
Funding Amount: $1 million
Purpose:
Jewish and Arab Israeli Youth Defining Shared Citizenship Through
Collaborative Community Programs
This program will help Jewish and Arab Israeli youth, living
together in mixed cities in Israel, redefine the nature and quality of
their citizenship, promoting a shared citizenship with shared
responsibilities. Reconciliation and cooperation between these groups
of youth will be fostered through collaborative community programs that
serve a common goal and by facilitating the organization of programs by
the youth that are beneficial for both communities living in the target
cities.
Name of Group: Mifalot--Hapoel Tel Aviv Soccer Club's Education and
Social Project
Funding Amount: $900,000
Purpose:
United Soccer for Peace
This is an Israeli Arab training program for coaches using soccer
as a tool for peace education, conflict resolution, and community
development in marginalized populations. Mifalot will use soccer to
cultivate the proper environment for growth leading to social change.
The aim is to train young men and women as licensed soccer coaches,
cultivate them as community leaders, and at the same time instill in
them values of peace and conciliation. The program is based on a grass
roots approach toward peace and conciliation, starting with
geographically and socially marginalized populations, populations
normally ignored in the people-to-people dialogue.
Name of Group: The Maccabim Association
Funding Amount: $93,000
Purpose:
Goals for Peace
This program recognizes that Arab and Jewish children have minimal
contact with each other in their formative educational years. This has
resulted in a lack of trust and tolerance of each other based on the
prejudices and stereotypes of their families, communities and a biased
media. This program will implement joint Jewish-Arab soccer activities,
as well as computer classes and dialogue programming to reach
marginalized groups that normally would not have an opportunity to be a
part of these activities and to provide an opportunity for interaction.
The program uses soccer as an educational tool for increasing
cooperation and team work, respect for rules and each other, and to
enhance communication and dialogue among participants.
Name of Group: Arab-Jewish Community Center
Funding Amount: $100,000
Purpose:
Jewish-Arab Class Exchange Program
This program recognizes that the majority of Jewish and Arab youth
have not been previously exposed to one another and is expected to
contribute to increased tolerance and respect.
Name of Group: The State University of New York (SUNY) New Paltz
Institute for Disaster Mental Health
Funding Amount: $96,917
Purpose:
Families First: A Palestinian-Israeli People-to-People Approach To
Assist Children and Caregivers as a Means of Conflict
Mitigation and Reconciliation
The program recognizes that children raised in this environment are
likely to absorb and echo the violence that surrounds them. It will
bring together Palestinian and Israeli health and social service
professionals to work in partnership to work to prevent long-term
conflict by addressing short-term mental health needs of children and
families.
Name of Group: The Arava Institute for Environmental Studies
Funding Amount: $561,438
Purpose:
Mitigating Trans-Boundary Waste-Water Conflicts
This program aims to address, help reduce, and prevent further
wastewater conflicts and disputes between Israel and the West Bank.
Name of Group: Seeds of Peace
Funding Amount: $951,745
Purpose:
On Common Ground
The program is designed to provide Palestinian and Israeli young
leaders between the ages of 14-32, as well as local educators, with
experiences, skillsets, and resources to find common ground on the core
issues within and between their societies that perpetuate conflict and
prevent peace.
Name of Group: Sipurei Yerushalayim (Jerusalem Stories)
Funding Amount: $100,000
Purpose:
Storytelling Encounters: A Model Approach for Transforming Israeli-
Palestinian Perceptions
The program seeks to make Israelis and Palestinians understand and
humanize each other through the use of storytelling, photographs, and
video and will build on this tested approach to train Israeli and
Palestinian youth leaders in a series of joint workshops so that they
can introduce the power of storytelling as a conflict transformation
tool to broader audiences throughout Israel and the West Bank.
Name of Group: Kids Creating Peace
Funding Amount: $100,000
Purpose:
Sach-Ten: A Uniquely Interactive Reconciliation and Leadership Program
for Israeli and Palestinian Youth
The Sach Ten program is a recognized professional peace education
program coordinated by the Israeli Ministry of Education and several
leading Palestinian schools and educational institutes.
middle east regional cooperation (merc)
The Israeli and Palestinian organizations listed below are all
current recipients of USAID-managed ESF funding under the MERC program,
funded through prior year funding. MERC's $3 million fiscal year 2011
ESF was received in fiscal year 2012, and its distribution is dependent
upon the completion of ongoing reviews of grant applications, expected
to be finished by June 2012. MERC has not yet received its fiscal year
2012 funding.
MERC is a competitive research program that funds joint Arab-
Israeli research grants to address shared development problems and
promote direct collaboration between Arab and Israeli researchers,
students, and institutions. MERC accepts jointly authored Arab-Israeli
research proposals on any research topic that the applicants can
justify as likely to produce a lasting development result. The program
funds a wide variety of scientific research, but most projects focus on
subjects such as agriculture, water resources, health and the
environment.
The following Israeli NGOs are current MERC recipients and
illustrative of the Israeli institutions expected to receive fiscal
year 2011 and 2012 funds:
--The Arava Institute for Environmental Studies;
--The Assaf Harofeh Medical Center;
--Bar-Ilan University;
--Ben-Gurion University of the Negev;
--The Galilee Society;
--Hebrew University of Jerusalem;
--Shaare Zedek Medical Center;
--The Technion Institute;
--Tel Aviv University; and
--The University of Haifa.
The following Palestinian NGO are current MERC recipients and
illustrative of the Palestinian institutions expected to receive fiscal
year 2011 and 2012 funds:
--Al-Quds University;
--Augusta Victoria Hospital;
--Beit Jalla Hospital;
--Bethlehem University (a subsidiary of the Roman Catholic Church);
--The Biodiversity and Environmental Research Center;
--Caritas Baby Hospital, Children's Relief of Bethlehem;
--The Environmental Protection Research Institute;
--The House of Water and Environment;
--The Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committee; and
--The Princess Basma Center for Disabled Children.
MERC funds are typically awarded to Israeli Government ministries
and NGOs that serve as prime grantees and issue sub-awards to partner
institutions in six Arab countries and Israel. Of the 37 projects
active in 2011, 29 had been awarded to Israeli prime grantees, 5 to
Jordanian primes, and 3 to primes in the United States. All of the
Palestinian institutions listed above are sub-grantees of Israeli
primes. Many institutions are on more than one project.
american schools and hospitals abroad
USAID's Office of American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (ASHA)
provides grants to competitively selected private, nonprofit
universities and secondary schools, libraries, and medical centers
abroad. The list below represents grants for Israeli and Palestinian
institutions that received fiscal year 2011 ASHA funding. Fiscal year
2012 funding decisions have not been made at this time.
U.S. Organization: Trustees of the Feinberg Graduate School of the
Weizmann Institute
Organization Name: Feinberg Graduate School of the Weizmann
Institute of Science
Funding Amount: $1,000,0000
Purpose: To acquire critically needed scientific instrumentation
for Feinberg Graduate School educational and research activities in
science education, energy/environment, and genome-based biomedicine
programs.
U.S. Organization: Hadassah Medical Relief Association, Inc.
Organization Name: Hadassah Medical Center
Funding Amount: $1,600,000
Purpose: To acquire American-manufactured equipment and state-of-
the-art surgical equipment that will improve patient care at Hadassah
Medical Center.
U.S. Organization: Friends United Meeting
Organization Name: Ramallah Friends School
Funding Amount: $1,000,0000
Purpose: To expand classroom capacity for art and music
instruction, upgrade existing facilities to make them handicap
accessible, update classroom technology, renovate guest rooms, and
install photovotaic hybrid power plant.
U.S. Organization: American Committee for Shaare Zedek Hospital in
Jerusalem, Inc.
Organization Name: Shaare Zedek Medical Center
Funding Amount: $500,000
Purpose: To replace obsolete equipment with American-standards
models by purchasing new defibrillators, a new EKG system and new
recovery monitors for the Post Anesthesia Care Unit.
U.S. Organization: American Society of the Most Venerable Order of
the Hospital St. John of Jerusalem
Organization Name: St. John's Eye Hospital Group
Funding Amount: $300,000
Purpose: To purchase a set of highest-quality diagnostic and
surgical equipment and instruments to expand the existing retinal care
unit to benefit 10,000 patients annually.
U.S. Organization: American Friends Tel Aviv University
Organization Name: Tel-Aviv University
Funding Amount: $325,000
Purpose: To purchase American equipment for research to develop
vaccines and therapies for HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, and other diseases
prevalent and deadly in Africa and third world countries.
U.S. Organization: American Friends of The Hebrew University
Organization Name: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Funding Amount: $500,000
Purpose: To purchase next-generation genomic DNA sequencer and
accessory liquid handling work station, essential for research
uncovering roots of human disease to promote diagnosis, prognosis, and
treatment.
Question. Does USAID track the public statements made or events
held by USAID-funded NGOs with regard to incitement against Israel or
Jews?
In a yes or no answer, do you believe USAID should provide funds to
NGOs in Israel, the West Bank or Gaza that compare the State of Israel,
Israelis, Jews, or Zionism to Nazis?
In a yes or no answer, do you believe USAID should provide funds to
NGOs in Israel, the West Bank or Gaza that support boycotts of,
divestment from or sanctions against the State of Israel?
In a yes or no answer, do you believe USAID should provide funds to
NGOs that accuse Israel of ``the slaughter of Palestinian children'',
``massacre'', ``cultural genocide'', ``war crimes'', or ``apartheid''?
Answer. The United States has firmly and consistently condemned
incitement to violence and called on both sides to take action to end
such activity.
Under the Roadmap for Peace brokered by the Quartet in 2003, both
Israel and the Palestinian Authority are committed to ending
incitement. The Palestinian Authority has made significant progress
since the 1990s in combating official incitement to violence through
measures that include undertaking revisions of official PA textbooks
and reducing inflammatory rhetoric.
We continue to work in a variety of ways to combat incitement.
Also, in ongoing discussions with senior Palestinians, we continue to
stress the importance of avoiding any actions that would constitute
incitement.
USAID also employs robust and effective measures to ensure that all
of our assistance to the Palestinian people is only used when, where,
and by whom we have authorized.
Local NGOs that receive U.S. assistance, including sub-grantees,
are vetted to ensure no terrorist connections. In addition to vetting,
USAID has in place other mandatory anti-terrorism procedures including
the requirement that an NGO receiving USAID assistance first sign the
anti-terrorism certification, mandatory clauses in contracts and grants
reminding awardees of their duty to comply with U.S. laws, and
monitoring and audits of all programs in order to safeguard U.S.
investments. These anti-terrorism procedures are described in more
details below:
Vetting.--Before making an award of either a contract or a grant
to a local NGO, the USAID West Bank/Gaza mission checks the
organization against lists maintained by the Office of Foreign
Assets Control within the Department of the Treasury. The
mission also checks all non-U.S. organizations and their
principal officer, directors, and other key individuals through
law enforcement and intelligence community systems accessed by
USAID's Office of Security. The mission collects the
individual's full name, government-issued photo identification
number, and the individual's date and place of birth.
Anti-Terrorism Certification.--All NGOs applying for grants from
USAID are required to certify, before award of the grant will
be made, that they do not provide material support to
terrorists.
Mandatory Clauses.--All contracts and grants also contain a
mandatory clause reminding awardees of their duty to comply
with U.S. laws and Executive orders prohibiting assistance to
terrorist organizations.
Monitoring and Audits.--Once an award has been made, USAID has
established procedures to safeguard U.S. investments and ensure
the transparency and integrity of U.S. assistance. In order to
ensure that funding through local and U.S. NGOs is used only
for agreed-upon purposes, all NGOs are required to submit
quarterly financial reports to USAID on how funds are spent.
The annual appropriation act requires an audit of all direct
USAID grantees, contractors and significant subgrantees and
subcontractors on an annual basis to ensure, among other
things, compliance with vetting. In addition, the annual
appropriation act requires a Government Accountability Office
audit of the WB/G program, including the cash transfer.
______
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Leahy. Thank you all for being here.
I don't want to embarrass her, but there is one member of
the audience who I first knew of when she was just 3 days old,
Suphada Rom, and I want to take a moment to say hello to her
before I leave.
Thank you.
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Senator.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearings were concluded, and
the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]