[Senate Hearing 112-272]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-272
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2012
=======================================================================
HEARING
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
S. 1601
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN
OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER
30, 2012, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of State
United States Agency for International Development
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-618 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Ranking
TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
PATTY MURRAY, Washington LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana MARK KIRK, Illinois
JACK REED, Rhode Island DANIEL COATS, Indiana
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey ROY BLUNT, Missouri
BEN NELSON, Nebraska JERRY MORAN, Kansas
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
JON TESTER, Montana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
Charles J. Houy, Staff Director
Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland MARK KIRK, Illinois
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois ROY BLUNT, Missouri
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana DANIEL COATS, Indiana
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
Professional Staff
Tim Rieser
Nikole Manatt
Janet Stormes
Paul Grove (Minority)
Michele Wymer (Minority)
Administrative Support
Maria Veklich
LaShawnda Smith (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Page
Department of State: Secretary of State.......................... 1
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
U.S. Agency for International Development........................ 59
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2012
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:10 p.m., in room SD-126, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Leahy, Mikulski, Lautenberg, Brown,
Graham, Kirk, Blunt, Coats, Johnson, and Hoeven.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, SECRETARY
opening statement of senator patrick j. leahy
Senator Leahy. Thank you all. I welcome the Secretary who
probably feels like she is back as a Member of Congress with
the amount of time she's spent on the Hill recently, but Madam
Secretary, we all appreciate it, and it's very helpful to us.
Each Member sitting to my left is new to the subcommittee,
so I want to welcome all of you publicly, and I am sure Senator
Graham will want to recognize you as we go ahead.
Senator Graham and I work together on the Judiciary
Committee--where his expertise has been indispensable. We run
the Bipartisan National Guard Caucus and have traveled together
to different parts of the world, some enjoyable and some about
as miserable as you're ever going to see. He has unique
knowledge as a former judge advocate general and I welcome him.
The chairmen and ranking members of this subcommittee have
usually worked to produce a bipartisan, usually almost
unanimous bill. Senator McConnell and I did--when I was either
chairman or ranking member, and Senator Gregg and I have and
others will.
I understand that Rich Verma is leaving and returning to
practicing law. We'll miss you. We missed you when you left the
Senate and went to the Department and we'll miss you now.
Madam Secretary, the Congress, which has not yet finished
work on the fiscal year 2011 budget, received yesterday the
justification for the fiscal year 2012 budget. So my questions
will probably straddle both.
The House majority's proposed draft cuts your budget for
the remainder of 2011. The impact of those cuts on the
operations of our Embassies--which all Americans who travel,
study, or work abroad depend on--will be severe. Every time
there is a problem in a country, Americans in that country go
first and foremost to the American Embassy. We saw that in
Egypt and Libya. The impact of the House proposal on our
national security programs from Afghanistan to Mexico will also
be severe.
The development of foreign markets for U.S. exports, which
creates thousands of jobs here in the United States, and our
influence in international organizations, are going to be
affected by these cuts.
We've all been fascinated by recent popular uprisings in
Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Iran, Yemen, and elsewhere. I think that
the courage and determination of the people in these countries
in overcoming generations of fear and apathy is extraordinary.
It's inspiring, but it also raises the question: What comes
next?
In fact, in many ways, it's hard to see how the Government
of Iran doesn't come out stronger as a result of the upheaval,
and that concerns everybody here.
The United States should be a strong voice for people
living under repressive, corrupt regimes who are demanding the
freedoms we often take for granted, and whose support we need
in countering terrorism around the world.
We've seen the power of the Internet, Facebook, Twitter,
and other social media. We saw how the Mubarak regime tried to
silence it and failed. We know how Iran rulers are cracking
down on it.
This subcommittee, since 2008--I mention this especially
for our new members--has appropriated $50 million for programs
to promote Internet access and circumvent government censorship
around the world. It's one of the reasons why people have their
voices heard now, and so I want to talk about how the State
Department is using these funds.
I think that your budget request is a far more responsible
approach to the national security challenges we face than what
we've seen in the other body's fiscal year 2011 proposal.
We face multiple threats. We have important interests in
the Middle East and South Asia and on every continent. China,
our biggest competitor, is expanding its influence around the
world, and we've got to be engaged if we're going to combat
that. There's a global food crisis some seem oblivious to. We
can't punt these challenges to the next generation.
There are issues like human rights, transparent,
accountable government, and the rule of law which is why I
wrote the Leahy amendment a decade-and-a-half ago, and it was
passed with bipartisan support.
prepared statement
I'm going to put the rest of my statement in the record,
turn it over to Senator Graham, and then to you, Madam
Secretary, and we'll go to questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Welcome, Madam Secretary.
Madam Secretary, the Congress has yet to finish work on the fiscal
year 2011 budget and we only received yesterday the justification
materials for part of your fiscal year 2012 budget request, so I
suspect today's questions will straddle both.
The House majority has proposed drastic cuts in your budget for the
remainder of 2011. The impact of those cuts on the operations of our
Embassies, which all Americans who travel, study, or work abroad depend
on as we have been reminded of in Egypt and Libya; on national security
programs from Afghanistan to Mexico; on the development of foreign
markets for United States exports; and on our influence at the United
Nations and other international organizations, would be dramatic.
I hope, in addition to discussing your fiscal year 2012 budget
request, that you will give us your reactions to the House continuing
resolution.
We have all been fascinated by recent popular uprisings in Tunisia,
Egypt, Libya, Iran, Yemen, and elsewhere. The courage and determination
of the people of these countries in overcoming generations of fear and
apathy is as extraordinary as it is inspiring.
At the same time, it is hard to see how the Government of Iran does
not come out stronger as a result of all this upheaval, which deeply
concerns all of us.
The United States should be a strong voice for people living under
repressive, corrupt regimes who are demanding the freedoms we often
take for granted, and whose support we need in countering terrorism. We
have seen the power of the Internet, Facebook, Twitter, and other
social media, and how the Mubarak regime tried, and failed, to silence
it, and how Iran's rulers are cracking down.
Since 2008, this subcommittee has appropriated $50 million for
programs to promote Internet access and circumvent government
censorship. You have spoken about this and I hope you will tell us how
the State Department is using these funds.
Turning to fiscal year 2012, I believe your budget request is a far
more responsible approach to the national security challenges we face
than what the House has proposed in its fiscal year 2011 continuing
resolution. While the mood in the Congress is to cut spending, the age
old refrain ``penny wise and pound foolish'' could not be more
applicable.
We face threats and have important interests, not only in the
Middle East and South Asia, but on every continent. China, our biggest
competitor, is expanding its influence in every hemisphere. There is a
global food crisis that our friends in the House seem oblivious to, and
their answer to climate change is to punt to the next generation. We
face huge challenges in our own hemisphere.
Our priorities also must include promoting human rights and
tolerance, transparent and accountable government, and the rule of law.
That is why I wrote the Leahy amendment almost a decade and a half ago.
For those who question the need for the funds you are requesting,
there are many other compelling examples.
We can begin with global health--preventing outbreaks of deadly
viruses and other infectious diseases that can quickly become pandemics
that kill millions of people including Americans.
Or international terrorism, organized crime and other trans-
national crime, which are growing threats to Americans and the citizens
and governments of other nations, especially democratic governments
whose institutions are weak and prone to corruption.
There is the pressing need to respond to rising temperatures,
melting glaciers, growing populations of hungry people who need energy
and jobs, and whose access to land and safe water is shrinking. These
are elements of a global train wreck in the making.
We know this budget will not solve every problem in the world, but
it will at least ensure that the United States is equipped to play a
leadership role--something that some of our friends in the House seem
unconcerned about.
Today more than ever we recognize the need for fully staffed
Embassies, effective diplomacy, and strong alliances. We greatly
appreciate the work you are doing. And we again commend the dedicated
men and women of the State Department and USAID who are serving America
here at home and at posts around the world, often at great personal
risk.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM
Senator Graham. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm honored
to be on the subcommittee. This is a change for me, and it's
something I've been looking forward to for a very long time.
And we have worked together on the Judiciary Committee. We
have good contests and we work together well, and that's what
the Senate is supposed to do, sometimes fuss and sometimes
fight, but sometimes get something done.
Now, on my side, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned the
subcommittee members. We really have a rich resource for the
Nation here.
Senator Kirk is a Naval reservist who is going to be in
charge of piracy. He doesn't know that yet, but he has been
involved in international security matters for a very long time
and is a really unique guy to have in the Senate.
Roy was one of the leaders in the House and he's going to
tell us how to deal with the House, when it comes to finding
the difference between $14 billion----
Senator Mikulski. That does require treaty negotiations.
Senator Graham. Yes. Well, I think Roy's your man. He knows
how to get things done.
And we've got a Governor. I really look forward to hearing
your view of what it's like in the prairieland to talk about
foreign operations and foreign aid.
We've got a businessman, who just got mad, very
successfully, ran for the Senate and is here for all the right
reasons, and that's Senator Johnson. I'd very much like your
view of how this fits into the overall problems we have as a
Nation, where we should be going in terms of foreign
operations.
I mention Dan Coats last for a reason. He was an
ambassador. He's actually lived in the world of which we're
talking about, who represented our country in Germany. Just
within a few days of arriving, 9/11 happened, and I think he
can really share with the members of this subcommittee what
it's like to represent America abroad, particularly when you're
at war.
So we have a good team over here, and I'm very proud of my
colleagues, and, Mr. Chairman, working together, we're going to
defend America. And it's my view this account is as much of
winning the war as any other account that we will deal with.
Secretary Clinton said something when we were meeting that
just, I think, we have to come to grips with. She said that
everybody in the world doesn't believe America can't do
anything that needs to be done and we don't have money
problems.
I've found that to be true. How many times have you
traveled overseas where somebody in a foreign government will
ask you for money, never believing that we can't provide the
money or we can't provide the resources? Because, from their
point of view, America is the group of people--even though they
won't say this publicly, privately--that can fix anything.
Well, I like to think of ourselves in good terms, but we
can't fix everything, and we have money problems. So part of
the challenge is to educate our allies throughout the world
that we're hurting here at home and we're going to have to do
more with less, that we still have a good heart and we want to
be involved and not leave vacuums that would be filled in by
bad people, but we've got to get our fiscal house in order.
And we, on our side particularly, have to go home and
convince people who are hurting--who've lost their jobs and
budgets have been cut and they don't know if they're going to
get the next paycheck, and many of them are living on
unemployment benefits--that spending money overseas really does
matter.
And so that's the challenge, the tale of two people, the
world at large, who believes America has an unlimited ability
to help and we have no budget problems. People here at home
have to be shown why it matters to be involved.
If we were not involved in Egypt for 30 years with their
army, God knows what would have happened. And that is not
popular to talk about on the stump, but it is a reality of the
world in which we live in. How we help the Libyan people, the
Tunisian people will matter, because if we don't help them,
somebody else will.
So I'll look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, to
try to articulate to the American taxpayer, who's under siege,
that we have to stay involved in the world, and General
Petraeus believes that the civilian side of the military-
civilian partnership is more important than ever, that we
cannot win in Iraq if we don't keep the civilian component
strong, because you'll be in the lead. And the civilian surge
in Afghanistan is as important as any brigade we're going to
send.
So we have to convince the world that we have limited funds
here on our own people to spend money wisely. I cannot stress
enough, from my point of view, that the foreign operations
account can make the difference between a safe America and an
at-risk America.
Can it be reduced? Can it be reformed? Yes. But if you
don't see it as a national security tool then I think we're
missing the mark as a nation. So I look forward to working with
you.
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much, and, Secretary Clinton,
please go ahead.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much, Chairman Leahy and
Ranking Member Graham. It's wonderful being back here in the
Senate and having this opportunity to discuss these important
issues with you, and I welcome all the new Members to the
Senate. I hope that they enjoy their time here as much as I
enjoyed my 8 years. I'm looking forward to working with this
subcommittee because there is an enormous amount that we have
to do together.
I recently took part, on Monday, in emergency meetings in
Geneva to discuss the unfolding events in Libya, and I'd like
to begin by offering you a brief update.
We have joined the Libyan people in demanding that Colonel
Gaddafi must go now without further violence or delay, and we
are working to translate the world's outrage into actions and
results.
Marathon diplomacy at the United Nations and with our
allies has yielded quick, aggressive steps to pressure and
isolate Libya's leaders. We welcomed yesterday's decision to
suspend Libya from the Human Rights Council, as I had urged a
day earlier.
USAID is focused on Libya's food and medical supplies and
is dispatching two expert humanitarian teams to help those
fleeing the violence into Tunisia and Egypt. Our combatant
commands are positioning assets to prepare to support these
critical civilian missions, and we are taking no option off the
table, so long as the Libyan Government continues to turn its
guns on its own people.
The entire region is changing, and a strong, strategic
American response will be essential. In the years ahead, Libya
could become a peaceful democracy or it could face a protracted
civil war or it could fall into chaos. The stakes are high.
This is an unfolding example of using the combined assets
of diplomacy, development and defense to protect our interests
and advance our values. This integrated approach is not just
how we respond to the crisis of the moment. It is the most
effective and most cost-effective way to sustain and advance
our security interests across the world, and it is only
possible with a budget that supports all the tools in our
national security arsenal.
Now, I agree that the American people today are justifiably
concerned about our national debt, but I also believe that we
have an opportunity, as well as an obligation, to make
decisions today that will keep us safer and more secure and
more prosperous into the future.
In Iraq, almost 100,000 troops have come home and civilians
are poised to keep the peace. In Afghanistan, integrated
military and civilian surges have set the stage for our
diplomatic surge to support an Afghan-led reconciliation that
could end the conflict and put al Qaeda on the run. We have
imposed the toughest sanctions yet to rein in Iran's nuclear
ambitions. We have re-engaged as a leader in the Pacific and in
our own hemisphere. We have signed trade deals to promote
American jobs and nuclear weapons treaties to protect our
people. We worked with northern and southern Sudanese to
achieve a peaceful resolution and prevent a return to civil
war.
And we are working to open political systems, economies,
and societies at this remarkable moment in history in the
Middle East, where we are trying to support orderly, peaceful,
irreversible democratic transitions.
Our progress is significant, but our work is ongoing. We
believe, obviously, that these missions are vital to our
national security and now would be the wrong time to pull back.
The fiscal year 2012 budget we discuss today will allow us
to keep pressing ahead. It is a lean budget for lean times. I
launched the first ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development
Review (QDDR) following on my experience when I served with
Senator Graham on the Armed Services Committee, what the
Pentagon had done with its QDDR. So this QDDR helped us
maximize the impact of every $1 we spend. We scrubbed the
budget. We made painful, but responsible cuts.
We cut economic assistance to Central and Eastern Europe,
the Caucasus and Central Asia by 15 percent. We cut development
assistance to more than 20 countries by more than one-half.
And this year, for the first time, our request is divided
into two parts. Our core budget request is for $47 billion,
which supports programs and partnerships in every country, but
North Korea. It is essentially flat from 2010 levels.
The second part of our request funds the extraordinary,
temporary portion of our war effort that we are responsible for
in the same way the Pentagon's request is funded, in a separate
Overseas Contingency Operations account, known as OCO.
Instead of covering our war expenses through supplemental
appropriations, we are now taking a more transparent approach
that reflects our fully integrated civilian military effort on
the ground. Our share of the President's $126 billion request
for these exceptional wartime costs is $8.7 billion.
Let me walk you through a few of these key investments.
First, this budget funds vital civilian missions in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.
In Afghanistan and Pakistan, al Qaeda is under pressure as
never before. Alongside our military offensive, we are engaged
in a major civilian effort to help build up the governments,
economies, and civil societies of those countries in order to
undercut the insurgency.
These two surges set the stage for a third, a diplomatic
push in support of an Afghan process to split the Taliban from
al Qaeda, bring the conflict to an end and help stabilize the
entire region.
Our military commanders, as you just heard, including
General Petraeus, are emphatic that they cannot succeed without
a strong civilian partner. Retreating from our civilian surge
in Afghanistan with our troops still in the field would be a
grave mistake.
Equally important is our assistance to Pakistan, a nuclear-
armed nation with strong ties and interests in Afghanistan. We
are working to deepen our partnership and keep it focused on
addressing Pakistan's political and economic challenges as well
as our shared threats.
And after so much sacrifice in Iraq, we have a chance to
help the Iraqi people build a stable, democratic county in the
heart of the Middle East. As troops come home, our civilians
are taking the lead helping Iraqis resolve conflicts peacefully
and training police.
Shifting responsibilities from our soldiers to our
civilians actually saves taxpayers a great deal of money. The
military's total OCO request worldwide will drop by $45 billion
from 2010, while our costs for the Department of State and
USAID will increase by less than $4 billion. Every business
owner I know would gladly invest $4 to save $45.
Second, even as our civilians help bring today's war to a
close, we are working to prevent tomorrow's. This budget
devotes more than $4 billion to sustaining a strong U.S.
presence in volatile places. In Yemen, it is helping to provide
security, development and humanitarian assistance to deny al
Qaeda a safe haven. It focuses on those same goals in Somalia.
It is helping northern and southern Sudanese chart a peaceful
future, helping Haiti to rebuild. And it proposes a new global
security contingency fund that would pool resources and
expertise with the Defense Department to quickly respond to
challenges as they emerge.
This budget also strengthens our allies and partners. It
trains Mexican police to take on violent cartels and secure our
Southern Border. It provides nearly $3.1 billion for Israel and
supports Jordan and the Palestinians. It does help Egypt and
Tunisia build stable and credible democratic systems. And it
supports security assistance to more than 130 nations.
As Senator Graham said, over the years, we've seen great
ties created because of that funding. We did help to train a
generation of Egyptian officers who refused to fire on their
own people.
Third, we are making targeted investments in human
security. We have focused on hunger, disease, climate change
and humanitarian emergencies, because they threaten not only
the security of individuals, but they are the seeds of future
conflict.
Our largest investment is in global health programs,
including those launched by President George W. Bush. These
programs stabilize entire societies that have been devastated
by HIV/AIDS, malaria and other illnesses. They save the lives
of mothers and children and halt the spread of deadly diseases.
And, yes, global food prices are approaching an all-time
high, and 3 years ago, this led to protests and riots in dozens
of countries. Food security is a cornerstone of global
stability, and we, under our policy, are helping farmers grow
more food, drive economic growth, and turn aid recipients into
trading partners.
And climate change threatens food security, human security
and national security. So our budget builds resilience against
droughts, floods and other weather disasters, promotes clean
energy, and preserves tropical forests.
Fourth, we're committed to making our foreign policy a
force for domestic economic renewal. We are working
aggressively to promote sustained economic growth, level the
playing field and open markets to create jobs here at home.
To give you just one example, our economic officers in
Vietnam helped Boeing secure a $1.5 billion contract for eight
787 aircraft to be assembled in North Charleston, South
Carolina. And I personally lobbied for that, Senator.
Fifth and finally, this budget funds the people and the
platforms that make everything possible that I've described. It
allows us to sustain diplomatic relations with 190 countries.
It funds political officers defusing crises, development
offices spreading opportunity, economic officers who wake up
every day thinking about how to put Americans back to work.
Several of you have asked the Department about the safety
of your constituents in the Middle East. Well, this budget
helps fund the consular officers who evacuated more than 2,600
people from Egypt and Libya and nearly 17,000 from Haiti. They
issued 14 million passports last year and served as our first
line of defense against would-be terrorists seeking visas to
enter our country.
At the same time, I'd like to say just a few words about
funding for the rest of 2011. As I told Speaker Boehner and
Chairman Rogers and many others, the 16 percent cut for State
and USAID that passed the House last month would be devastating
to our national security.
It is no longer possible in the 21st century to say that
you are walling off national security by going after non-
defense discretionary spending. We are so much more integrated
and interdependent, and it would force us to scale back
dramatically on critical missions that are absolutely supported
by Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, General Petraeus, and
others.
Now, there have always been moments of temptation in our
country to resist obligations beyond our borders, but each time
we shrink from global leadership events summon us back to
reality. Now, we saved money in the short term when we walked
away from Afghanistan after the cold war, but those savings
came at an unspeakable cost, one we are still paying 10 years
later in money and lives.
We have, over generations, enabled Americans to grow up
successful and safe because we've led the world, we've invested
resources to build democratic allies and vibrant trading
partners, and we did not shy away from defending our values,
promoting our interests and seizing opportunities.
Having now traveled more than any Secretary of State in our
history, I know that the world has never been in greater need
of the qualities that distinguish us, our openness and
innovation, our determination, our devotion to universal
values. Everywhere I travel, I see people looking to us for
leadership. This is a source of strength, a point of pride and
an opportunity for the American people. But it is an
achievement, not a birthright. It requires resolve, and it
requires resources. And I look forward to working closely with
you as we try to keep our country safe and maintain American
leadership in the world.
LEAHY AMENDMENT
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
Senator Graham and I kind of whispered to each other that we
don't know how you handle the jet lag with the amount you
travel, but I feel fortunate this country has you representing
us in the parts of the world where you go.
I'm going to ask a question mostly for the record about the
use of the Leahy amendment. It's been the law for more than 13
years. It says if a Secretary of State has credible evidence
that a unit of a foreign security force has committed a gross
violation of human rights, U.S. aid to that unit stops unless
the foreign government brings the responsible individuals to
justice. We want to make sure that they are held accountable
and that U.S. assistance is not used to commit a crime.
Recently, we have seen on the news the use of tear gas,
clubs, rubber bullets and live ammunition against peaceful
protestors in different parts of the world. I'm not going to go
into all the countries where this would apply, but just look at
the Middle East and South Asia--countries where aid is
contingent upon the Leahy Amendment in, among others,
Afghanistan, Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Tunisia,
Morocco, Lebanon, and Pakistan.
So I ask--you can provide this information later, but I'd
like it within a week--have any military or police units in
those countries I listed been deemed ineligible for U.S.
assistance under the Leahy amendment?
Secretary Clinton. Yes, Sir. We will do that.
Senator Leahy. In Libya, the issue is not whether Muammar
Gaddafi's regime will end, but when and how it ends and how
many people are going to die needlessly before then.
Some Members of Congress have urged the administration to
provide weapons to the Libyan opposition. I understand the
sentiment, but I'm not quite sure who the Libyan opposition is.
They have a number of different factions and tribes. Some seem
loyal to Gaddafi. Some are opposed. Some seem to be trying to
save their own necks and some seem opportunistic.
How do we go about arming these people, and know who to
arm? Also, what's the administration's position on a NATO-
enforced, no-fly zone over Libya?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, I think that all of these
matters are under active consideration, but no decisions have
been made, and for good reason, because it's not at all clear
yet what the situation demands.
We are actively reaching out, for example, to Libyans who
are working to bring down the Gaddafi regime. We only set up
our Embassy in 2009. We did not have relations, as you know,
for many years with Libya. We are working to understand who is
legitimate, who is not.
But it is premature, in our opinion, to recognize one group
or another. We have to keep our focus, at this point, on
helping the Libyan people.
And I think it's important to recognize that there is a
great deal of uncertainty about the motives, the opportunism,
if you will, of people who are claiming to be leaders right
now. I think we have to be focusing on the humanitarian mission
and then gathering information as we can.
With respect to the no-fly zone, we have been discussing
that with a lot of our allies and are looking at it, but there
are many, many challenges associated with it.
So, at this time, we're focusing on how we can get medical
supplies and food in to the people who are in safe enough zones
that it can be delivered to assist them as they try to rid
themselves of this regime.
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (ICC)
Senator Leahy. The United Nations Security Council, in a
unanimous vote, imposed sanctions against Libya, which I
applaud. The ICC will conduct an investigation for possible
prosecution of the Gaddafi regime for crimes against humanity.
The United States is not a member of the ICC. There's
actually a prohibition in law, which I did not support, I might
say, on U.S. support for the International Criminal Court.
If they were to ask the United States for information
during an investigation so they could prosecute Gaddafi, his
family or those around him, would we be able to provide that
information?
Secretary Clinton. We believe so, Senator. In fact, the ICC
announced today they would be opening up an investigation file
on Colonel Gaddafi and those around him.
We also have our own interest in pursuing an American
investigation regarding Pan Am 103. Some of the comments that
have been made by some of the Libyan officials that they know
that Gaddafi personally ordered the bombing of Pan Am 103, and,
as a Senator from New York, I represented many of the families
of victims because there were many from Syracuse University.
So in addition to supporting the ICC where we can, we are
reaching out through the FBI and the Department of Justice to
see what else we can do to pursue justice for the victims of
Pan Am 103.
OPEN AND FREE INTERNET
Senator Leahy. I don't want to go beyond my time, but you
recently gave a speech at George Washington University. You
talked about the importance of protecting access to an open and
free Internet. Again, I agree with you. And you also spoke
about that a year ago.
Congress has provided $50 million for efforts to keep it
open. Twenty-two-million dollars of that has been spent. Is
there a clear strategy for supporting Internet freedom and
should we continue to fund that through State or other relevant
agencies, including the Broadcasting Board of Governors?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, we are very committed to
this. I've given two speeches on it. I've made it a high
priority within the Department. We have awarded more than $20
million in competitive grants through an open process,
including evaluation by technical and policy experts.
This year, we will award more than $25 million in
additional funding, and we're taking what you might call a
venture-capital-style approach. We're supporting a portfolio of
technologies, tools and training, because, frankly, we don't
know what will work best. This is a pretty new field.
Senator Leahy. Fast-changing field, too.
Secretary Clinton. Yes, and we, I have all these young tech
experts who are doing this. So I'm just repeating what they
tell me, but we are moving as fast as we can to deal with
situations that are totally unprecedented.
When Egypt shut down the Internet, nobody had ever done
that before. And then, you know, some bright young people
figured out how to get around that with voicemail on cell
phones. So we are in a real race on behalf of openness for the
Internet versus those who wish to control it and limit its
openness.
So I think we have moved as fast as we responsibly could
and are funding what we think of as the best bets that will
actually produce the best results.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, I think what you've done is going to
become legendary, and the person who follows you should not try
to duplicate this. It's not good for your health to constantly
be in the air. I cannot tell you how I am impressed with your
personal energy and the engagement you've offered on behalf of
our country, and I really do appreciate it. I think we all are
amazed at your work ethic.
IRAN
A couple of years ago, the young people took to the streets
in Iran. They were met with a very brutal response, and they
were upset about the election, which I think most of us would
agree was probably not free, fair, and transparent. Looking
back, do you think we missed an opportunity there?
Secretary Clinton. You know, Senator, we spoke out at the
time, and we were also not only conscious of but advised by
people from within and outside of Iran that it was very
important for them not to be seen as though they were in any
way directed by, or affiliated with the United States and that
this needed to be viewed as an indigenous Iranian movement.
So I think we struck the right balance, but, obviously,
what we have seen in the year-and-a-half or so since is the
brutality of the Iranian regime, its absolute commitment to
repressing any kind of opposition.
And I have been upping, certainly, my rhetoric. We have,
under the legislation passed by the Congress, the ability to
designate human-rights abusers. We've been using that very
dramatically.
Senator Graham. Have we designated anybody in Iran as being
a human-rights abuser?
Secretary Clinton. Yes, Sir, we have. We have designated a
number of them. I just designated some more of them a few days
ago.
Senator Graham. What is the highest official who's been
designated?
Secretary Clinton. I think--I don't remember--I'll get you
all of that. The prosecutor general was somebody we just
designated.
Senator Graham. Would you consider Gaddafi a human-rights
abuser?
Secretary Clinton. I would consider Gaddafi a human-rights
abuser, and I would consider the leadership of Iran as abusing
human rights.
Senator Graham. Including President Ahmadinejad?
Secretary Clinton. I think that there is certainly evidence
of that, yes, Sir.
Senator Graham. Well, let's drill down to this. The idea of
a no-fly zone probably is complicated, but it makes sense to me
to make sure that the Libyan people will not have to face air
power and that we have the ability to do that.
I understand the concerns about just passing out weapons to
the Libyan opposition. You don't know who you're passing them
out to.
Would it be smart if there was another uprising in Iran
where the people took to the streets that we stand behind the
people in the streets and impose a no-fly zone in Iran, if they
used air power to oppress their own people or is that a
different situation?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator I think that I'm not going
to speculate on a hypothetical.
Senator Graham. Okay. Fair enough.
OIL FROM CANADA
Let's talk about oil. Gas prices are going to go up to $4 a
gallon. I think we're well on our way. Are you familiar with
the oil sands in Canada?
Secretary Clinton. Yes, Sir.
Senator Graham. And the pipeline that's being proposed to
be built from Canada to Texas, I think, Louisiana?
Secretary Clinton. Yes, Sir.
Senator Graham. I've been told that the second-largest-
known deposit of oil is the oil sands in Canada and that it is
equal to or greater than Saudi Arabia and Iran, and there's
some problem with the pipeline.
What's your view of the pipeline? Should America be trying
to receive this oil from Canada?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, since my Department bears
the ultimate responsibility for making a recommendation on the
pipeline, I am not able, at this time, to express an opinion.
Senator Graham. Are you generally supportive of receiving
more oil from Canada and less from the Middle East?
Secretary Clinton. I am generally supportive of receiving
more oil from Canada. I am absolutely supportive of us doing
more in energy efficiency and renewables and looking for clean
ways to use our own resources as well.
TROOP WITHDRAWAL AND STATE'S ROLE
Senator Graham. Well, let's go to war zones. Now, in Iraq,
by the end of the year, according to the agreement negotiated
by the Bush administration, all American troops are supposed to
withdraw by 2011. Is that correct?
Secretary Clinton. That's correct.
Senator Graham. Now, come 2012, there's a lot still to be
done in Iraq, and you will be the lead organization. Is that
correct?
Secretary Clinton. That's right, Sir.
Senator Graham. That is a major obligation.
Secretary Clinton. Yes, it is.
Senator Graham. Probably never undertaken in the history of
the State Department. What would it take for you to safely and
effectively do your job? Are you going to have to build a State
Department army to provide security? How do you get around? And
if the Iraqis ask for some American troops, at their request,
to stay behind to provide force protection, training,
intelligence gathering, and logistical support, would you
believe it would be wise for us to agree to some level of troop
presence in 2012?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, first let me say it is
unprecedented. We have been planning, as a State Department,
since the Bush administration. There was not only a Status of
Forces Agreement signed, but also a strategic framework
agreement signed, and, in that, in the Bush administration, we
agreed with the Iraqi Government that we would provide a
significant presence, we would continue to provide support for
police training and other functions.
Senator Graham. Are you worried about the safety of your
people----
Secretary Clinton. Yes, Sir. Yes, Sir, we are worried.
Senator Graham. I am, too.
Secretary Clinton. We are worried.
Senator Graham. How many people would you envision being in
Iraq to do the jobs that you'll be tasked to do?
Secretary Clinton. I think we're looking at thousands.
Senator Graham. I mean like more than 10,000?
Secretary Clinton. More than 10,000, yes.
Senator Graham. And we've got to realize, as a
subcommittee, we're going to have 10,000 American citizens, all
civilians, trying to do business in Iraq, all over the place,
with no troops.
Secretary Clinton. Well, in fact, we have a total of about
17,000 civilians and the great proportion of those will be
private security contractors.
Senator Graham. And that is basically a private army
replacing the American military. So I'd like us to think long
and hard as a Nation whether that make sense. You being in the
lead makes perfect sense.
Now, let's move quickly to Afghanistan in 42 seconds.
You're negotiating a strategic framework agreement with the
Afghan Government. Is that correct?
Secretary Clinton. We call it a strategic partnership
dialogue, but that's what it is.
Senator Graham. Okay. And the surge of military forces has
an equivalent civilian surge, is that correct?
Secretary Clinton. Yes, Sir.
Senator Graham. General Petraeus has told me, you, and
everyone else he cannot win the fight in Afghanistan without
you, USAID, Department of Agriculture, and Department of
Justice. Is that correct?
Secretary Clinton. That's right.
JOINT BASING
Senator Graham. Now, do you think it would be wise for this
country if the Afghans made a request, as part of this
negotiation, to have joint basing past 2014, where they request
our presence, where there would be a joint basing arrangement
with American air power and special forces capability to ensure
that we maintain the gains that we've fought so hard, as a
signal to the region that America is not leaving this place in
a helpless situation? What would be your view of such a
request?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, it's not only the United
States, but NATO----
Senator Graham. Absolutely.
Secretary Clinton [continuing]. At the Lisbon Summit made a
commitment that we will be supportive of the Afghans after 2014
when our combat mission ends.
There are many ways to achieve that. We have ruled out
permanent American bases, but there can be other ways where we
provide support for the Afghans.
Just as you referenced with the Iraqis, they have not asked
us for anything, but they have huge gaps in their capacity and
they are in a very dangerous neighborhood, so they may well
come to ask.
But that's a very different situation, because, then, we
have fulfilled our obligations. Our combat troops have done
their duty, some to the greatest possible sacrifice. And, now,
it is a nation asking for the United States' continuing
support, and that will be up to this Congress and this
administration to evaluate.
Senator Leahy. Senator Brown.
Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman----
Senator Leahy. And then we'll go to Senator Kirk. I'm going
back and forth in the order that Senators arrived.
Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Madam
Secretary, welcome. It's nice to see you.
LABOR RIGHTS
Want to talk about labor rights. The Obama administration
announced that the United States would use the labor chapter of
the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which, as you
remember, passed the House in a late-night vote by only one or
two votes, and passed the Senate a bit more comfortably.
Many were concerned about already violations of labor laws
and other reasons, other reservations some had about the
Central American Free Trade Agreement.
To its credit, the Obama administration set the State
Department working with the Labor Department; have approached
Guatemala on enforcement of this.
It has been 6 months since the formal consultations with
Guatemala began. The Government of Guatemala has not taken
steps to remedy its failures to enforce labor laws. The
complaint remains unresolved. Is the administration proceeding
to some kind of arbitration with Guatemala?
Secretary Clinton. Well, I informed the foreign minister in
our last meeting last month that we were going to have to
pursue our remedies because they have failed to respond in a
satisfactory way.
Senator Brown. Putting aside Guatemala for a moment, does
that mean that our trade agreements, labor laws are not as--
either as strong or as enforceable as they might be?
Secretary Clinton. No. I think that that may be true in
some cases, not in other cases. But, certainly, we have been
trying to work with the Government of Guatemala to resolve this
matter, short of mediation, short of trying to use the remedies
that are available to us, and we have not been satisfied. So we
are looking at going to the next step.
Senator Brown. Again, putting aside Guatemala, are there
efforts, in conjunction with the Department of Labor, for those
two arms of the U.S. Government to look at all of these trade
laws that we have passed here, understanding that the
reluctance of many of us to vote for trade agreements is based
on environmental issues, in some cases, shift of power to
private corporations away from democratically elected
governments, but also labor law itself? Are there sort of
ongoing efforts by State and by Labor to look at potential
labor-law violations with whether it's a bilateral or
multilateral trading partner through free trade agreements?
Secretary Clinton. Yes, and I think this is a very
important issue that often doesn't get enough attention in a
strategic context. And by that I mean, in and of itself, the
abuse of human beings in labor situations, child labor, other
kinds of conditions that are just not acceptable, need to be
addressed, and we have to get smarter about that, not only in
what we do, but internationally.
But, also, if you looked at what happened in Tunisia and,
to some extent, what happened in Egypt, the secular opposition
is coming out of the trade-union movement.
In Tunisia, the best organized group, other than what is
clearly going to be a well-organized Islamic political
presence, will be trade unions.
In Egypt, the best organized group; other than the Muslim
Brotherhood, are trade unions.
We supported trade unions in Poland. That's how we got
Solidarity. We have supported trade unions in other areas, but
then we stopped doing it as a country. And I think we've got to
be smart strategically about what are the levers that can best
be employed to help create indigenous, organized centers of
power and influence that are not going to be prey to ideology
and radicalism.
And I think that going back to what we did in the 1970s and
the 1980s in supporting trade unions in a lot of these emerging
democracies is very much in our interests.
Senator Brown. You might say it's also happening in Madison
and Columbus and Trenton, but that would be a whole other
issue.
Let me shift to----
Secretary Clinton. Politics.
INFECTIOUS DISEASE
Senator Brown. Yes. Let me shift to something else,
something that Chairman Leahy has been so very involved in and
that is--and Senator Durbin--and that is infectious disease in
the developing world.
There's a new diagnostic tool called GeneXpert, X-P-E-R-T,
which can detect drug resistance, identifying tuberculosis in
people living with HIV/AIDS. Most people that die of HIV/AIDS--
I believe, most people, well more than 50 percent--in the
developing world are actually dying from something like
tuberculosis, often drug-resistant tuberculosis.
This GeneXpert can deliver results in about 90 minutes, all
clear advantages over the standard microscope method which was
developed literally 100 years ago. I mean, we haven't had that
much--except for some of the antibiotics--haven't had that much
progress in tuberculosis (TB).
Fulfilling the administration's $4 billion pledge, the
Global Fund will be critical to financing the rollout of this
diagnostic.
Talk to us, just for a moment, if you would, how the
administration will use its resources to capitalize on the
opportunities for this new diagnostic for TB.
Secretary Clinton. Well, that's the kind of opportunity
that we need to be seizing, but, unfortunately, Senator, under
the fiscal year 2011 spending bill moving through the House,
critical global health programs are going to be cut
dramatically, and it's going to jeopardize the progress we are
making all kinds of ways.
For example, 5 million children and family members are
going to be denied treatment for malaria, and 3,500 mothers and
more than 400,000 children under 5 are going to be losing the
opportunity for child-survival interventions.
And when you talk about infectious disease, more than 16
million people are going to be denied treatment for tropical
diseases, 43,000 children and families will die from
tuberculosis, because they'll be denied treatment, and 18.8
million fewer polio vaccinations and 26.3 million fewer measles
vaccinations would occur. And that's just on our best estimate
about what will happen if the 16 percent cut to our budget
that's in the House proposal goes forward.
So when you talk about what we should be doing to get ahead
of disease, we're going to be so far behind instead of what
we've done over the last 2 years to establish a strong platform
that is really going to strengthen our response. And investing
in the GeneXpert program, investing in some of the
breakthroughs and stopping the transmission of HIV/AIDS, all of
that is going to be very difficult for us to fund.
Senator Brown. On a similar health issue--and I understand
my time has expired--cuts to international family planning I
assume will result in more maternal deaths, more abortions,
more unintended pregnancies, more all kinds of afflictions in
the developing world. Correct?
Secretary Clinton. That is certainly my belief, and I think
that is backed up by significant experience and evidence.
Senator Brown. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. I know Senator Graham talked
about the Keystone oil sands project, and you also have a
letter from several Senators which I also signed.
Senator Kirk.
Senator Kirk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'm
just 60 days new to the Senate and to this subcommittee, but I
first worked on my first foreign ops bill 27 years ago as a
staffer, and I think I've known Tim Rieser for 20 of those
years now. So I feel very happy to be here finally on the other
side after having been on the House Foreign Ops Committee.
I wanted to raise two issues with you. First, with regard
to Iran, under your husband's administration, we passed the
Iran Sanctions Act. That was way back in 1996. The Congress
then enhanced that in July 2010.
The Government Accountability Office has identified 41
companies that are potentially in violation of one or both of
those statutes. CRS reports 29 such companies in probable
violation.
In December, Under Secretary Burns told the House that we
have launched a formal investigation of these companies, but,
as yet, the State Department has only designated one entity, a
Swiss-Iranian entity called NICO, as in violation of the Iran
Sanctions Act, and then the 2010 legislation.
How many companies do you have currently under
investigation now at the State Department for violating one or
both of these statutes?
IRAN SANCTIONS
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, first, let me say that I
was the first Secretary of State to impose sanctions. You're
right. They were passed in the 1990s and nobody imposed
sanctions until I did. And we are actively considering a number
of other companies.
I think we've commenced investigation across the board. I
will provide you with that information. Some of it is
classified. Some of it is not, but I'd rather give you a full
answer in a classified setting or classified document.
Senator Kirk. I appreciate that very much.
A second topic in the news recently, great concern to me
for a long time, is expanding piracy in the Indian Ocean. This
is a map showing their range in 2008, in 2009, and 2010.
Obviously, with the murder of four Americans now, it's a front
page in the news.
We have deployed significant naval forces there under a
Task Force 151, but it would appear--and my read of the
administration is you and others think that we may have crossed
a dividing line or a turning point. I would say that if we
can't be tough on pirates on the open seas we can't be tough on
almost anything.
The second Washington administration committed upwards of
10 percent of all revenue to paying off the Barbary Pirates.
President Jefferson finally decided it was too expensive and
too dangerous and authorized the very small U.S. Navy in its
first mission to take on the Barbary Pirates, which required
close-quarter action and led to a hero named Stephen Decatur,
which Decatur, Illinois, is named after.
It would appear that up close and personal combat on the
high seas is necessary by the United States to suppress this. I
would just point out the main ports, especially of Agarside and
Hobyo; seem to be where they're operating. It would make sense
for us to station a U.S. naval vessel, say, 12.1 miles off the
coast of Hobyo and basically attack and sink anything coming
out farther than that.
How are we on crossing this divide and now basically
recovering our Jeffersonian tradition of getting active with
the private trade?
PIRATES VS. TRADE
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, I look forward to working
with you on this, because I share your outrage, and it is a
matter of great concern to me with the deaths of the four
Americans on the Quest.
We have put together an international coalition, but,
frankly, we're just not, in my view, getting enough out of it.
So we're looking at a lot of different options. I've tasked the
State Department to come up with a much more comprehensive
approach. We're working with the Department of Defense.
And I would make three points. One, one of our big problems
is that a lot of the major shipping companies in the world
think it's the price of doing business, and they're not
pressuring their governments. They're not particularly
concerned. They pay a ransom and they just go on their merry
way. That has been a huge problem.
Second, naval ships that have been involved from, I think
now, something like more than 20 nations just have not been
willing to really put themselves out. They're happy to patrol
and they're happy to say they are and then kind of count
themselves as part of the coalition against piracy, but when
push comes to shove, they're not really producing.
And, third, it's hard to imagine that we're going to be
able to resolve this until we go after their land-based ports.
So I will be happy to get back to you with the results of
our efforts, but you're right. I mean, from the shores of
Tripoli, I mean, we were talking about this at the dawn of the
American Government, and here we are back with 21st century
piracy, and I'm just fed up with it and we need to do more and
we need to make it clearer that the entire world had better get
behind whatever we do and get this scourge resolved.
Senator Kirk. I read from the tea leaves. I think you are
very forward leaning in the administration on this, and I want
to encourage you. I think that's great. And I do think military
action, not necessarily boots on the ground, but military
action----
Secretary Clinton. No, not boots on the ground.
Senator Kirk. Right, but military action. Once they come on
the high seas, they're on our territory. We have overwhelming
military advantage. Since Somalia doesn't have much of any kind
of maritime trade, anybody more than 12 miles off the coast
moving out into the Indian Ocean, basically, I think, is
subject to attack and sinking by international----
Secretary Clinton. Well, they also have these mother ships.
Senator Kirk. Right.
Secretary Clinton. So even if they are small fishing
vessels, that's one thing, but they're now launching their
attacks off of these so-called mother ships. So I think there's
ways to make distinctions.
Senator Kirk. Yes. And a standard procedure would be just
to put a round into the rudder of the ship. At that point, they
run out of food and water, but it's too bad that they made
this----
One last thing then, since I have time. I'm concerned
about, in the age of budgetary constraint, to continue your
momentum in expanding the United States diplomatic footprint in
China.
We don't have a domestic terrorism threat in China, and so
expanding a United States diplomat in a nonclassified
environment with basically an office key and a door lock, I
think is entirely appropriate.
And what U.S. exporters tell me is they follow the flag.
So, for example, we have a very expensive new consulate in
Wuhan that was established, but all those--security standards,
et cetera, generate extraordinary costs. And since we have more
than 100 cities in China of very large size, just putting one
or two diplomats behind a regular office door, I think, is an
acceptable level of risk and has tremendous upside for exports
of the United States.
In a way, too, have you kind of conquer the security god
and move this forward, because I actually--I don't see we have
kind of terrorism danger in Central China, but this would have
a huge upside for United States exporters.
Secretary Clinton. Senator, one of the major issues that I
raised in the QDDR was risk management. We have gone so far
onto the side of trying to think of every possible risk and
then protect against it that I do think it can hobble us.
And so I will take a close look at what more we can do in
China, because China is, as you know, very aggressive
diplomatically all over the world.
Senator Kirk. Right.
Secretary Clinton. And they are increasing their diplomatic
footprint everywhere, and we've got to be competitive,
including within China.
Senator Kirk. That's right. Mr. Chairman, I just think this
is a possibility because it's one of the few countries where we
don't have a domestic terror threat against U.S. diplomats, and
so lower-cost office solutions may be the way to expand the
footprint at low cost to this budget. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. Something that I've been saying
for years, so, obviously, I'm agreeing.
Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Madam Secretary, it's just wonderful to
see you back in the United States Senate, and like all of our
colleagues, we welcome you.
My gosh, 79 countries, 465,000 miles, I mean, that's a lot
of travel to advance America's interest, but it is not only the
time you spent, the mileage you travel and the energy you put
into it, but the results that you've demonstrated.
We're very proud of you as America's top diplomat in the
way you've represented the United States of America, the great
way you've negotiated very important breakthroughs, whether
it's the help with the new NATO construct or continued momentum
in the Middle East with the Palestinians and the Israelis, and
not forgetting the poor and the dispossessed and the women and
children. So we want to thank you.
But as the CEO of the State Department, I'd also like to
salute the men and women who work for you and, therefore, work
for the United States of America, our people in Foreign Service
and our people who work for USAID, often not as valued, not as
treasured, but out there in the front lines.
And in saluting them, I want to talk about the consequences
of the continuing resolution, not only to our diplomatic
issues, to the advancement of soft power that wins the results
where we've expended hard power.
But could you tell me, as we look at this continuing
resolution and the consequences of the continuing resolution
and the consequences of H.R. 1, first of all, what is the
impact on the morale of the State Department knowing that they
face shutdowns, know that they face draconian cuts, and, yet,
at the same time, they are serving in harm's way along with our
most valued military? How is the morale there?
STATE DEPARTMENT MORALE
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, thank you for your
concern. You know, I think morale is very high. It's been high
because we have worked to try to support our diplomats and our
development experts, both in the Foreign Service and Civil
Service as well as the thousands of locally engaged staff that
we employ.
And I think that there is a great sense of mission about
what people are doing. They know, you know, for example in
Senator Coats' old stomping ground of the Embassy in Germany,
we cut the public affairs budget in Germany and the ambassador
there, Ambassador Murphy, worked with us, even though it meant
that he wasn't going to have all the people and the resources,
because we had to move that to the Middle East. We had to move
that to other parts of the world where the need was so much
greater.
And we've had a terrific sense of cooperation. We've had so
many people who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. When I
took over, there were 300 civilians in Afghanistan and they
were on 6-month rotations, and, now, there are 1,100, and
they're there really doing the work that needs to be done.
But, at the end of the day, you know, budgets are about
values. They're about priorities, and if it appears as though
nondefense discretionary means that the Defense Department
keeps getting what they need to fulfill their mission for
America and we've been running as hard as we can to be the
partners that our military wants from us and we don't get that
kind of support, well, obviously, that's going to send a very
loud message that, you know what? After all, we were just
kidding. We're handing Iraq off to you. Just figure out how to
do it. We don't have the money for you. Just get out there and
make it work. I mean, it just doesn't add up. So, of course,
there's going to be a lot of concerns, but this is a really
motivated team we have right now.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I really appreciate the fact that
they're motivated, but they also have to be compensated and
that has to be recognized.
I would hope that those on this subcommittee and those in
the United States Senate would recognize if we do fence off in
our budget deliberations security people that we need to look
at the State Department and as people who were particularly
serving abroad.
But could you tell me the consequences of H.R. 1 on
national imperatives? On page 5 of your testimony, I was indeed
struck by the fact, as you shared with House colleagues, the
concern that this could dramatically impact on Iraq, Afghan,
and Pakistan. Could you share with us what that would mean?
Secretary Clinton. Yes, Senator. Thank you.
Senator Mikulski. You talked about the impact on the Global
Health Initiatives----
Secretary Clinton. Right.
Senator Mikulski [continuing]. With Senator Sherrod Brown's
questions.
BUDGET ISSUES
Secretary Clinton. Right. Well, one-half of the State,
USAID budget increase from fiscal year 2008 base appropriations
has funded the military-to-civilian transition in Iraq, the
civilian surge in Afghanistan and the expanded support of our
efforts to fight terrorism in Pakistan. Significant cuts to the
budget could profoundly compromise ongoing and critical efforts
in those front-line states.
In the Middle East, proposed cuts would force us to scale
back help and undercut our influence at a particularly crucial
time. We would be also cutting back on what I think is an
important part of our economic efforts to create jobs with the
people that literally are out there every day trying to fight
the Chinese or fight the Europeans to make the sale for an
American business located back here at home.
Peacekeeping in critical areas where we help to fund what
is done in Darfur, Congo, and many other places.
We have so many issues that we now see as directly related
to our national security that would be severely impacted, and,
I would argue, derailed by the size of the cut in the House-
passed budget.
Senator Mikulski. That's pretty powerful, and we've also
heard--in fact, it's very powerful.
Baltimore is the home to iconic international agencies that
serve the world, from Catholic Relief Agency, serving the poor
and the dispossessed all over the world, but particularly in
Central and Latin America; the Johns Hopkins School of Public
Health, delivering global health services and training leaders
to be there, and they, too, express concern about this.
But I'd like to shift gears a minute to the Twitter
revolution that's going on in the world and to places like
Egypt, et cetera.
The role of social media has been indeed stunning from a
fruit grower setting himself on fire in Tunisia to the possible
fall of Gaddafi that's imminent on the kinds of questions that
Senator Graham was raising is so powerful, and we would have
never predicted it.
Now, tell me, the State Department has a role in winning
hearts and minds, being up on the latest and greatest media and
so on. What role do you see where, one, you knew what was going
on? And, second, how do you see staying in touch with the young
people of these regions that obviously are yearning, have
aspirations that are not Shahada aspirations? They're economic
and democratic--small--aspirations.
Secretary Clinton. You're absolutely right, Senator. The
evidence is overwhelming that it is economic concerns that are
driving so much of what we're seeing. You know, a university
graduate who had to work as a vegetable seller and then was
harassed by corrupt police looking for a bribe, a Google
employee who was fed up because a young blogger was pulled out
of a cafe and beaten to death by security forces in Alexandria.
So time and time again we see how security and economic
opportunity really collide, and it's being played out in real
time in Twitter, Facebook and other social media.
I started shortly after becoming Secretary of State a kind
of little mini-think tank inside the State Department to see
how we were going to play, and going back to Senator Graham's
question, one of the first things we actually were able to do
was during the demonstrations after the Iranian election when
the Iranian Government tried to shut down social media, these
young people were able to help keep it open, even including
calling and trying to make sure that the companies doing it
understood the importance of that communication network.
So fast forward, we now have a Twitter site in Arabic, a
Twitter site in Farsi. I am putting a lot of our young
diplomats who speak Arabic out on every media you can think. I
did a Web chat with an Egyptian Web site. On 2 days' notice,
they went out into Tahrir Square, they gathered 7,000 questions
for me. We are really trying to play in that arena as best we
can.
And I would only add this, because I'm passionate about it:
The United States did an amazing job during the cold war. We
sent our values, our culture, our inspiration across the Iron
Curtain through Voice of America, Radio Free Europe. I mean, we
were on the front lines.
The Berlin Wall falls, you know, we kind of said, okay,
fine. We're done with that.
We are in an information war, and we cannot assume that
this huge youth bulge that exists, not just in the Middle East,
but in so many parts of the world, really knows much about us.
I mean, we think they know us and reject us. I would argue they
really don't know very much about who we are. They don't have
the memory of World War II and the cold war and Jack Kennedy
and all. They don't have any of that context.
And what we send out through our commercial media is often
not very helpful to America's story. I said this morning before
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that I remember early
in--right after the Afghan war started--meeting an Afghan
general who said he was so surprised because all he knew about
America was that men were wrestlers and women wore bikinis,
because all he ever saw from American television was World Wide
Wrestling and Bay Watch. That was it.
So we have a great cultural export, but we're not competing
in the way we need to compete in the information-values arena.
Al Jazeera is. The Chinese have opened up a global English
network and a network in other languages. Russia has opened up
a global English network. We are missing in action.
You know, we kind of figure, okay. Well, you know, our
private sector we spend gazillions of dollars and we pump out
all of our networks around into hotel rooms around the world.
The fact is most people still get their news from TV and radio.
So while we're being active in on-line new media, we have to be
active in the old media as well.
And I talked with Senator Lugar this morning about our
Broadcasting Board of Governors. Walter Isaacson is the new
chair. He's really committed to this. But I would really
welcome this subcommittee's attention because why are Americans
watching Al Jazeera? Because we don't have anything to compete
with it so they're turning to Al Jazeera. And so let's try to
figure out how we're going to win the information war.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. We'll go next to Senator Coats
and then to Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Coats. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, I
just want to associate with what my colleagues have said about
your extraordinary commitment to a world which has wildfires
all over the place. It's not just one or two things you have to
stay engaged in, and your commitment to that and perseverance
is remarkable. I'm not sure how one person can possibly do all
that you've done and are doing, but we commend you for it.
What's happening in the Middle East, I think, has all of us
raising questions about something I guess we didn't think we
would see in our lifetime. I remember growing up thinking,
well, the wall will never come down. We'll always be dealing
with a cold war. We've seen the extraordinary change that took
place then.
In that regard, we, I think in some cases, saw it coming,
and anticipated not the wall collapse necessarily, but a change
taking place, where we could help foster the growth of
democracy. And there were bumps in the road and it was not
easy, but we engaged there.
Now, we have a whole new situation in the Middle East that
is not dissimilar to the fact that countries under despotic
leadership are suddenly given the opportunity or trying to
seize the opportunity of providing for a more democratic
situation in terms of governship, so forth.
But the question is back then we were not in the financial
situation domestically that we are in now, and so the question
is how do we engage in doing the things that we've been talking
about here, now, with what potentially could be a tremendous
opportunity?
Secretary Clinton. Right.
Senator Coats. I mean, it's easy to look at the negative
side of this--what's happening and say woe is us, and what's
going to happen? There's also potentially a great upside to all
this.
So the question is, at a time of limited resources, how do
we begin to address some of the kinds of engagement that can
help promote a more peaceful, stable democratic type of Middle
East?
The question I have relates to the amount of flexibility
that you have or might need to have and also the ability to say
move funds from certain buckets in a sort of a surge capacity?
And as I look at the various programs that we have in
place, all of which provide important support, I'm just
wondering if it wouldn't be possible--because I think the
budget was developed before much of what's happened in the
Middle East took place--if it wouldn't be possible to try to
steal from Peter to pay Paul, I guess, in some of the programs
that are currently in the budget--for instance, the educational
exchange, the Millennium Challenge account, the Assistance for
Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia account, the U.S. Agency for
International Development development and so forth.
Would it make some sense to look to see where we might be
able to ratchet down or get some savings out of that to
transfer into some type of coordinated effort now in the Middle
East? And if that's the case, what would it take from us to
help you be able to do that?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, I appreciate that,
because we have started that. We have tried to cut back in
areas, particularly in Europe and Eurasia, where we think we
have the ability to do so.
I'm always a little reluctant, because I'll say this today
and then tomorrow there'll be some crisis in the Caucasus and
people will say, well, why weren't you paying attention to
that? So it's a dilemma.
We have tried to keep our base budget as flat as possible,
and in it is the way we run all of the departments.
Now, some of what we generate in the Department--about $700
million on passport fees--goes right into the Treasury.
So we perform the services. We keep having higher demand in
areas that we have to meet for the American people because your
constituents won't like it if we say, well, wait a minute. You
have to wait on your passport, because we're shifting money
into the Middle East.
So we've got to be constantly asking ourselves those
questions, but I think we'll have the opportunity to really
engage in this over the next weeks, because I know that the
Senate is facing a difficult set of decisions.
My only plea is let's not take a cleaver to it. Let's try
to be as surgical as possible in figuring out what is really in
America's national security interests, how we prioritize.
And I agree with you that the region from Morocco to
Bahrain is in a transformational period of change. We have a
lot at stake in what happens there, and we particularly want to
be influential in whatever transition occurs in Tunisia and
Egypt. But we've got to keep our eye on all the other moving
parts, too, because we have energy needs, for example. We have
Iran trying to fill the void with their narrative.
So I think this is an area of great peril, but great
potential, and I will certainly try to work with the
subcommittee to figure out how we can meet the needs there.
But I also have a responsibility to make sure that while
we're focused there we're not leaving Sudan to crumble into
becoming a huge Somalia. So, I mean, it's a constant
evaluation, but we'll certainly work closely with this
subcommittee to try to get to the best possible outcome.
Senator Coats. I assume some of our allies have come to the
same conclusion, that it's in their interest, both from an
energy standpoint, immigration standpoint, social-economic
standpoint, political standpoint to be engaged. What kind of
communications have you had with our friends in Germany, Italy,
France, and other countries that will want to, hopefully, in
some kind of coordinated effort engage in this kind of thing?
Secretary Clinton. That's exactly what we're trying to do.
On Monday, I met with the four foreign ministers from Great
Britain, France, Germany and Italy. I met with the high
representative for the European Union. I met with the Russians,
the Turks, just a lot of people, but particularly with our
European allies to talk about how we're going to coordinate so
we don't duplicate, so that we have a much better sense of how
we're going to deliver on what the people of these countries
are seeking.
I would point out--because I thought it was very
significant--the conservatives in Great Britain have gone
through a very brutal budget-cutting effort, as you know.
However, they increased their commitment to foreign aid, and
they did so because Prime Minister Cameron said, this is how we
demonstrate we're involved, we're leading, we're out there. And
I thought it was an interesting decision on his part, because
he said he thought it was a way of making sure Britain still
had the ability to lead.
So while we coordinate, they're all facing their own
challenges. Some of them are making the decision that this is a
high enough priority that it should go ahead of even domestic
priorities.
Senator Coats. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam
Secretary.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Senator Coats, Ambassador Coats,
and welcome to the subcommittee too.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
Greetings, Madam Secretary, and I must tell you that, as we
listen to your response to the multiplicity of questions that
you have to deal with, that you're as good up front as you are
all of the fronts of the world. And it's been terrific to see
your energy and your vitality taking you to places, and, as I
said when you were here for a moment, you don't even look
tired, which is amazing.
And I don't know whether or not you will outrank all
preceding Secretaries of State for frequent-flyer mileage, but
I think you're quickly approaching that point. And we're so
grateful for the excellent, excellent service that you've
rendered the country and the world, and we want you to
continue.
Madam Secretary, thank you for the reminder that things
done through diplomatic channels might substitute for, in some
cases, military action, and that's a very important reminder,
that we can save lots of lives, lots of grief and lots of money
in the process if we can do that. So we thank you for that.
Now, we've seen that there may be new evidence that Gaddafi
himself ordered the Pan Am 103 bombing, and you mentioned the
number of people that perished, and we had a large number also
in New Jersey. And the former justice minister for Libya told a
newspaper last week, and he said, ``I have proof that Gaddafi
gave the order about Lockerbie.'' And I am pleased that you
said yesterday that the Justice Department would look into this
matter.
Now, is it possible that Muammar Gaddafi could be tried for
murder if captured, and would that be something that we could
pursue? We said that al-Megrahi was the perpetrator, but he got
instructions from the top.
GADDAFI CONNECTION TO PAN AM 103
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, I share your deep
feelings about the bombing of Pan Am 103, because we both
shared constituents who were so deeply and tragically affected
by that, and I think justice must be served.
The United States was very adamantly opposed to the release
of al-Megrahi, and we have a pending investigation in the
United States District Court in the District of Columbia of the
bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.
So we have reached out to our colleagues in the FBI and the
Department of Justice because they have the lead, as you know,
in this, but urging them to evaluate any and all information
for its potential use as evidence in the further investigation
of this case.
Now, I think that anyone who might have been connected--
because I don't think it would have been just him, I think
there are others around him who might also have knowledge or
even participated in the order--should be pursued.
And in the Security Council resolution, we made a referral
to the International Criminal Court, but this is a separate
American investigation. So I think that both should go on
simultaneously.
Senator Lautenberg. I wonder whether there is a point in
time or a point in action when the debate over the no-fly zone
and its complications might be accelerated, if they continue
with their murderous attack on civilians using aircraft. Would
there be any acceleration of pace that might say, hey, enough
of that, and we're going to stop it in its tracks?
Secretary Clinton. Well, I think all of us want to see an
end to the killing. There are a lot of complications. One of
them is that in the Security Council resolution that was passed
there was no authorization for military action. The Arab League
put out a statement this morning saying that they strongly
opposed foreign military intervention. So in addition to the
logistical challenges that are posed to our or any military,
there are very strong political expressions of opposition.
And I think it's important that the United States not be
seen as some radical that Web sites are trying to portray us,
that whatever we did in a military capacity was not for the
people of Libya, but for oil. I mean, we cannot afford for that
to even be a narrative out there.
So this is complicated from every perspective, but NATO,
under Secretary General Rasmussen, is looking into what might
be done through NATO. Our Defense Department is looking into
what might be done through the Defense Department.
My immediate concern right now is that we do everything
possible to support the humanitarian mission. I want to see
American planes and American ships that are bringing food and
supplies and ferrying Egyptians back into Egypt. I want us to
be seen as really actively supporting the humanitarian needs.
And I think it's going to take a lot more consideration before
there'll be any judgment about anything approaching military
action.
You know, General Mattis, CENTCOM Commander, testified--I
don't know if you were there, Senator--at the Armed Services
Committee yesterday, and he basically said, first, you have to
take out all the airfields. There were both pros and cons of
our no-fly zone in Iraq for years.
So I don't want to substitute, certainly, my judgment for
our professional military's assessment. I want to focus on what
I can do, which is the humanitarian mission, and I think having
military assets support us is a really strong message about who
we are as a people.
Senator Lautenberg. I want to last ask one thing, and I
applaud President Obama's rescission on the Mexico City policy,
known as the Global Gag Rule, and the House's fiscal year 2011
continuing resolution would bring back this damaging policy.
What kind of an impact would that have on the
reinstatement, if we did it, the Global Gag Rule, on the return
of mortality and women's health across the world?
WOMEN'S HEALTH
Secretary Clinton. Well, I believe strongly it would be
detrimental to women's health around the world. I think that
what we have tried to do is to follow the law, making clear
that we do not support abortion, but that we do support family
planning and we do support providing quality care to women.
You know, this is a passion of mine, Senator, because there
are still too many places in this world where women are treated
not just as second-class citizens, but hardly human beings. And
we have to support women's health and women's empowerment and
give women a voice in their own lives, which actually is one of
the best tools we have to try to move societies to become more
democratic.
So the administration is committed to ensuring that our
agencies, international organizations and nongovernmental
organizations have the ability to develop and deliver long-
range women's health programs, including reproductive health
programs.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. Senator
Johnson, another new member of the subcommittee. Welcome and
please go ahead, Sir.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
your warm welcome and that of Senator Graham.
Madam Secretary, it is nice to meet you.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you.
Senator Johnson. I'd also like to thank you for your hard
work and efforts. I think it's obviously not gone unnoticed.
I'd like to start out just by asking your evaluation of the
strength and the intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN EGYPT
Secretary Clinton. Senator, this is a continuing assessment
on our part, because there is no doubt that for years the
organization was opposed to President Mubarak and was also
promoting an effort to impose Islamic law on Egypt.
There are those who claim now that they are prepared to
participate in a democratic system, which means that they would
have to compromise, which means that they would have to respect
the institutions, and, in particular, respect the rights of
minorities and women, including the Coptic Christians.
I think that our perspective has been that we think, as
Egypt moves toward constitutional amendments and the laws
necessary to set up political parties, that they must make
absolutely clear that no political party can be committed to
the overthrow of the government, can be unwilling to support an
inclusive society--including Christians, women and others--and
it is going to be difficult to judge until we actually see what
happens, but we have expressed a lot of cautions and we'll
continue to do so.
Senator Johnson. On a scale of 1 to 10, what's your level
of concern about their ability to take over that government and
turn it into an Islamic republic?
Secretary Clinton. Well, I think that the experience that
the world remembers from Iran is a very sobering lesson. When
that government came into being, it was claimed by the
religious authorities that it would be a secular government. It
proceeded to organize itself. It appointed ministers for
finance and defense and everything else you have ministers for.
And then the Ayatollah Khomeini appointed clerics to shadow
each of the ministers, and, within a year, it was a
theological-based government. And, now, it's got this hybrid,
where the real power lies with the clerics, but there's an
elected--so-called elected--president. Everyone is very
concerned, especially in the region, and especially the people
who were part of the movement to bring democracy to Egypt and
similarly, in Tunisia.
You know, Senator, we don't have control over a lot of
what's going on, but I think we do have an obligation to work
with those who we believe are committed to true democracy,
which is not just having an election and then calling it quits,
but supporting the institutions of democracy--an independent
judiciary, a free media and everything else--and it's not clear
to me whether a religiously based party will commit to that,
and we're just going to have to wait and watch.
Senator Johnson. That's fair enough.
I totally agree with you about the power of information,
and we talked about the Internet initiatives. And I'd like to
have your evaluation in terms of the priority of our
information initiative. I mean, what are the components that
you want to most emphasize in that region of the world?
INFORMATION INITIATIVE
Secretary Clinton. You know, I've been consulting with the
new chair of the board of the Broadcasting Board of Governors,
which is our governmental entity that's not in the State
Department--it's connected to the State Department--that runs
our Voice of America, our Radio Free Europe, et cetera.
But I believe that we've got to take seriously
recommendations that were made a year ago in an excellent
report that Senator Lugar and his staff issued about where
we're falling short as a nation, that we're not--really not up
competing.
I'll give you two quick examples, because I hope that you'd
be interested in this. I'd love to work with you. When I became
Secretary of State, I was appalled to learn that the Taliban
owned the airwaves in Afghanistan and in the tribal areas in
Pakistan. They had little FM radio-transmitters on the back of
motorcycles and they were going around threatening everybody,
and, you know, the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan,
and, frankly, the United States military and everybody else,
just kind of threw up their hands, and they'd shut down
broadcasting after dark, and it made no sense to me. I mean,
we're the most technologically advanced country in the world.
So slowly, but surely, we've been trying to take back the
airwaves in Afghanistan against Taliban with the most primitive
kind of communication equipment.
Now, take that as one example where I don't think we were
very competitive--and we have worked like crazy to change
that--and then go to the most extreme where you've got a set of
global networks that Al Jazeera has been the leader in that are
literally changing people's minds and attitudes, and like it or
hate it, it is really effective.
And, in fact, viewership of Al Jazeera is going up in the
United States because it's real news. You may not agree with
it, but you feel like you're getting real news around the clock
instead of a million commercials and arguments between talking
heads and the kind of stuff that we do on our news, which is
not particularly informative to us, let alone foreigners.
Well, that's why I worry that the Chinese are starting a
global network. The Russians are starting a global network, and
we have not really kept up with the times.
So I would commend Senator Lugar's report to you, and I am
ready, able and willing to do anything I can to support us
getting in and leading this communications battle.
Senator Johnson. It's also important what information we
convey, and there's a pretty interesting article in The Wall
Street Journal by Donald J. Kochan--I hope I'm pronouncing his
name correctly--talking about the Arabic Book Program. And his
complaint, if I can typify it as a complaint, is that we were
translating books into Arabic such as ``Who Pays the Price'',
``The Sociocultural Context of the Environmental Crisis'', and
``The Joy Luck Club''.
Are we going to concentrate on providing the types of
information that will actually help them build democracies,
actually help them build a strong economic system?
Secretary Clinton. You know, Senator, I believe--and this
may be--I'm a child of the cold war. I believe our cultural
exports properly presented powerful incentives for democracy
building, because what it does is free people's minds.
You know, there is that famous book, I think it's called
``Reading Lolita in Teheran'', where it's really subversive to
read fiction and literature.
I talked to a lot of the people who were behind the Iron
Curtain. They told me our music kept their spirits up, our
poetry. We used to do a lot in sending American artists around
the world.
So I agree teaching democracy is important, but how do you
teach democracy? I don't think if you just lecture at somebody
that necessarily is the best way, but if you inculcate the
aspiration of the human soul, where people want to be free,
they want to think their own thoughts, as the young tech people
in Tahrir Square did. You know they were living democracy by
expressing themselves.
So I think we have to do both. I think we have to do a
better job of getting America's message, our values, across,
and we have to do a better job in the nuts and bolts about how
do you put together a political party, how do you run an
election, how do you put together a free and independent
judiciary.
So I think it has to be both in order to be really breaking
through to people in ways--especially young people today who
are in our own country--sometimes hard to figure out how best
to reach and touch and teach. I think it's true worldwide.
We've got to be creative.
Senator Johnson. Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. Senator Blunt, then Senator
Hoeven and----
Senator Blunt. Thank you, chairman. And, Secretary Clinton,
thank you----
Senator Leahy. I would note the Secretary has to leave by 4
p.m..
Senator Blunt. I thought you were going to say by 3:45 p.m.
I'm pleased that----
Senator Leahy. Roy, I'd never do that to you.
Senator Blunt. Well, Secretary, it's been an impressive
hour-and-a-half. Thank you for your service. Thank you for your
hard work all over the world for our country, and I thought--my
view is that the State Department has been generally leading by
some days and--at least by some hours and occasionally some
days statements that need to be made about Egypt and Libya and
other places, and I appreciate that.
This is probably not the right subcommittee for this and
this is probably not the right question for you, so it's not a
question as much, just go on the record. I really don't agree
that the no-fly effort in Libya should be that difficult. I
know what the military is saying at this point, but I do
remember after the first Desert Storm what happened in Iraq
when we let Saddam get his helicopters in the air and get his
airplanes in the air, and it was a tragedy and a travesty then.
And whatever we could do out of the--you know, the near
bases in the Mediterranean or other places, I frankly think the
threat of a no-fly zone, if we could put any group together, so
it wouldn't be solely an American effort, a United States
effort is worth vigorously pursuing. And a tragedy is happening
there now and you're speaking up on it and I appreciate that,
but I would think we could do more.
The other thing I want to say, I thought the veto in the
United Nations last week was a good thing to do and I'm glad to
see that we're doing that.
At the same time, the United Nations, just a few weeks ago,
said that the human-rights situation in Libya was pretty good.
Fortunately, yesterday, they changed their minds and decided it
wasn't so good.
A couple of appropriations questions here at an
appropriations hearing. One is on your core budget request. How
does the 2010 level compare with the 2008 level in the core
budget?
2008 VS. 2010 CORE BUDGET LEVEL
Secretary Clinton. Let's see. Let me turn to my staff here
and----
Senator Blunt. Actual appropriating questions are really
surprising.
Secretary Clinton. Yes, I know.
Senator Blunt. I get that.
Secretary Clinton. This is amazing, Senator. I'll get that
to you in a second. I promise.
Senator Blunt. Well, the other question I'll ask, after you
get that answer, is how does the 2008 core budget--I understand
and am going to be pretty supportive of the extraordinary
things that you're being asked to do now that would not
normally be in the core, but the second question I'd have is
how does the 2008 core compare to what the House did? Did they
use your budget to get other budgets above 2008 or are you
below 2008?
So the question is: How does this budget compare to the
2010 level----
Secretary Clinton. Core to core.
Senator Blunt. How does that compare to what the House did?
Does anybody have that there behind you? Could you give me
those answers?
Secretary Clinton. They will. They're looking at that
little tiny print. They'll get it.
Senator Blunt. All right. Well, while they're looking--
we'll come back to that. I think on the Iran Sanctions Act,
which I actually negotiated in the House and have complained
both to the State Department under your leadership and under
Secretary Rice's that I didn't think we were aggressive enough,
but my last letter on this was 2009, and, hopefully, we're--I
think we've had one company now that we have taken specific
action against, and I will continue to think we should be more
aggressively using the tools we have there.
There was another thing that we did in 2008 which was the
Iran Freedom Support Act. I know we've designated human rights
abusers, but under the other part of that, the Freedom Support
Act, no funds have ever been requested under that particular
title.
Do you have a sense of that, whether funds are coming from
some other place in the State Department budget or maybe we're
just not utilizing that because we don't think it's the time to
do that, but----
Secretary Clinton. Senator, there is a lot of efforts going
on, but I would like to be able to get back to you, because
some of those matters are not in my bailiwick. They are in
other agencies, so I'd like to pull it together for you and
then present it to you.
Senator Blunt. Okay. So that question is, why has the
administration--I think that would come through State, but it
might not be exactly something you're looking at every day--not
requested the use of funds pursuant to the Iran Freedom Support
Act?
And the other would be has it allocated any funds under the
Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI)?
MEPI
Secretary Clinton. Yes. In fact, that's one of our
strongest programs, so called MEPI, which, you know, started in
the Bush administration, but we've continued it, and we think
it's a very important tool. So we have quite a bit of funding
coming out from MEPI.
Senator Blunt. And is it used in Iran?
Secretary Clinton. No.
Senator Blunt. Okay. So then my question then would be what
are we doing with Iran Freedom Support and why not?
And, now, do we have the answer to the other questions, the
actual appropriating questions?
Secretary Clinton. The fiscal year 2008 is a 36-percent
reduction from the 2010 core budget, so 36 percent off of $47
billion.
Senator Blunt. So there was a 36-percent increase from 2008
to 2010.
Secretary Clinton. Right.
Senator Blunt. And how much of a decrease from 2010 was
there then in the House-passed budget?
Secretary Clinton. Sixteen percent.
Senator Blunt. Sixteen?
Secretary Clinton. Yes, Sir.
Senator Blunt. So the House still has the Department quite
higher than it was in 2008 in its core functions.
Secretary Clinton. Well, they included the OCO functions as
well. So it's 16 percent off of everything, and that's been
hard for us to figure out, because some of this was very
specific language. I mean, whatever finally comes out of the
Congress I hope does give us some flexibility and not try to go
account by account, because what we have found in looking at
what the House did, it would severely impact what we were doing
in the OCO budget.
And, you know, part of what we've been doing since 2008,
which Dr. Condoleezza Rice started and which I then picked up,
is to try to meet the needs that we saw around the world,
because, from our perspective, the world is very different than
it was in 2008. We have far more responsibilities.
But I think we owe you a kind of explanation of that, so
that you can compare apples to apples, if you will.
Senator Blunt. Well, I want to do that, and I want to
compare apples to apples, because I really do want to be
supportive of the extraordinary things you're being asked to
do, particularly filling the gap as others leave Iraq. And it's
easier for me to do that if I'm comfortable that we have really
divided those in a way we all understand that some things are
going to have to happen in this spending picture. And so core-
to-core comparison would be helpful for me, and I will expect
you to get that.
Secretary Clinton. Yes.
Senator Blunt. I'm glad you will, and, again, thank you for
your work, and thank you for your ability to talk about so many
issues so well for a good long period of time.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Senator Blunt. Senator Hoeven,
former Governor, and welcome to our subcommittee.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Madam Secretary, thanks for being here. I know you've been
on for almost 2 hours now.
Secretary Clinton. That's all right.
Senator Hoeven. And I know with the pace you've been going
at--thanks so much for being here and for your work on behalf
of our country.
I want to follow up on a couple of things that have been
brought up. The first one is I think Senator Graham talked to
you about the Keystone XL pipeline. We're very familiar with
that. It goes through North Dakota. And, of course, we're a big
oil-producing State now. We work a lot with Canada.
The Keystone pipeline actually comes down our Eastern
Border and goes from the oil sands in Canada all the way down
into Texas or Cushing, I'm not exactly sure, but the XL now is
on our Western Border, actually just in the very eastern border
of Montana.
I understand you declined to comment at this point, but I
just want to tell you I think it is very good to be bringing
down more oil from Canada for our country's needs.
Also, from North Dakota, we are building an on-ramp to that
pipeline. So, in addition to the heavy crude that comes from
Canada, from the oil sands in Canada, light sweet crude from
North Dakota will be put on that pipeline as well, and we'll be
producing more than 120 million barrels of oil this year. We're
now the fourth-largest producer among the States. So that's a
real opportunity and wanted to make sure you're aware of it,
and, of course, appreciate your consideration.
On the siting, we will certainly work with you and be as
helpful as we can in that process. And, again, we work a lot
with our Canadian neighbors on energy issues.
On the no-fly zone, I want to add my support for that
effort. I think a no-fly zone is something that we can and
should do with our allies as expeditiously as we can, and being
a Governor for 10 years and seeing not only our guard, but
reserves and active forces, they're amazing, and I know that
they can do the job.
I'd like you to comment, if you would, given the budget
constraints that we have, how can we do the best job possible
in terms of managing our foreign aid in a way where we
influence the outcomes, for example, in the Middle East, not
only in terms of providing foreign aid, but in terms of
withholding foreign aid to get people's attention? How do we
influence these events in the Middle East?
And what do you see resulting in terms of the kinds of
governments that we're going to see in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya,
and Yemen and all these places?
And I want to ask one more--because then I'm going to just
let you go, so I don't use up a lot more of my time--talk a
little bit about Iran's nuclear ambitions and how that plays
into this equation, too, if you would.
FOREIGN AID
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, first, I appreciate the
contributions that North Dakota is going to make to our energy
needs. I wasn't aware of that, so I appreciate being informed.
I think we are trying very hard to utilize our foreign aid
in a positive behavior-influencing way, and every country is
different, to be obvious about it.
The Tunisians are anxious for our help. I met with the
Tunisian foreign affairs secretary when I was in Geneva. They
remember that the United Sates stood for their independence
back in the 1960s. They'd like to see us involved in helping
them. Tunisia has never been a country that we've paid maybe
enough attention to, but it's a small country. It has a chance
to really make it as democracy if it gets the right help.
Egypt is very sensitive about getting foreign aid. They
don't want foreign aid. They want economic aid, and they draw a
distinction there. And so as we deal with our Egyptian
counterparts, we have to be very sensitive to their belief that
they've been around 7,000 years and they can do this pretty
much on their own, and so part of what we have to do is figure
out how best to work with them.
In a country like Yemen, it is a very unsettled situation.
It is a country with many different forces at work and there
are secessionist movements in both the north and the south. Al
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is headquartered there. It's a
very poor country. You know, right now, it's not at all clear
what's going to happen to President Saleh and his ruling party.
So we are watching and trying to do as much as we can to
influence what he does and what the opposition does in order to
glide to a better outcome.
But I think it is also important to stress that one of the
reasons why we're so adamant about Iran not getting nuclear
weapons is because we don't want them to be able to intimidate
their neighbors, to be able to influence their neighbors, to
threaten their neighbors by their being a nuclear-armed
country.
Imagine what we would be facing if Libya had not given up
its nuclear weapons in 2003. That was a long negotiation. It
was a successful negotiation. I personally worked to get the
last highly enriched uranium out of Libya. But imagine where
we'd be if this regime had nuclear weapons.
So, similarly, with North Korea, with Iran, we never take
our eye off that ball, because that is so important to what
we're trying to achieve. And Iran is--even though Iran has no
relations with the opposition and, in some cases, are in
adversary relationship with Sunni Muslim Brotherhood groups or
other groups that are not of their choosing, they are doing
everything they can to influence the outcomes in these places.
So this is a fast-moving, very difficult set of individual
cases, but I think you're right to ask that we look at them
across the region and factor in Iran, because Iran is going to
do everything they can to influence the outcome, and we've got
to be there, and we've got to do everything we can to prevent
that from happening.
Senator Hoeven. How are they working right now to influence
these outcomes and affect the governments that result after
these uprisings?
Secretary Clinton. Well, for example, Senator, we know that
through their proxy, Hezbollah, in Lebanon they are using
Hezbollah, which is a political party with an armed wing, to
communicate with counterparts in Egypt, in Hamas, who then, in
turn, communicate with counterparts in Egypt. We know that they
are reaching out to the opposition in Bahrain. We know that the
Iranians are very much involved in the opposition movements in
Yemen. So either directly or through proxies they are
constantly trying to influence events there. They have a very
active diplomatic foreign policy outreach.
Senator Hoeven. And, Mr. Chairman, if you'd indulge me for
just one more question, and we're working to counteract that
how?
Secretary Clinton. Well, in every way we can. That's why we
are in these countries with our teams of experts, our aid
experts, our diplomats. I sent Under Secretary Bill Burns, a
former ambassador to Jordan, into the region to do a full
survey. I've got Assistant Secretary Jeff Feltman in Bahrain as
we speak working with the government there to try to help them
understand what it's going to take to resolve this political
standoff.
Our ambassadors in Yemen, Egypt, you name it, are working
hard. Our former ambassador or still our ambassador to Libya,
but who was out of the country because of a dispute with the
Gaddafi regime is working hard to reach out to everybody going
on in the opposition in Libya.
So, I mean, we have diplomats. We have development experts.
We have military. We have an enormous outreach that is working
right now. Because what I have found, Senator, is that most
people want us to be helpful, but they don't want us to be
taking a leading role. And so how we deliver on the aid they're
seeking without looking as though we're trying to take over
their revolution is our challenge.
But it's also the challenge for the Iranians. You know,
they don't have a lot of friends, but they're trying to curry
more friends. So it's a constant effort on our part, and I have
to have the resources and the flexibility to be able to move
people around and try to figure out the best way for us to be
successful.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Senator Graham. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, this has been
an outstanding hearing. You've done a great job. We've all
learned a lot.
I think Rich is going to provide us some pipelines, what
would the $14 billion difference between the House continuing
resolution and the 2012 request, what would that mean to
operations throughout the world, and that way we can make a
good decision.
I doubt if either number holds, the House number or the
President's number. Somewhere in the middle is probably where
we're going to be, but if the House number makes sense, I'm all
for it. I just want to know how it's affected.
And one last question about Iran, because that was very
fascinating to listen to. I don't believe it's possible to
contain a nuclear-armed Iran. I think the ripple effect would
be devastating. What's your thought on that? Could you contain
a nuclear-armed Iran?
Secretary Clinton. Well, I hope we never reach that
question, Senator, because I think it would be very
destabilizing in the region. I think it would prompt other
countries, particularly those with the means, to seek their own
nuclear weapons program.
We saw what happened when India got its program. Pakistan
immediately had to get its program. And when the genie is out
of the bottle, it is really hard to know what's going to happen
next. So I think we have to be as vigorous as possible in
trying to prevent that from happening.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Madam Secretary, I think we've heard this from both sides
of the aisle; you've given us an amazing tour of the world. You
and I also often talk privately in other venues and I know it's
not just in these hearings, and we are very fortunate to have
you representing the United States.
I think the bottom line, though, for so many of the things
you pointed out that you do and that the United States has to
do for its own national security, is that it's hard to do if
the resources are cut off. We either pay now or we pay later.
If the resources are cut it off, we don't have much that we can
do.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
One last thing that comes to mind, of course, is our
assistance for refugees. Both Republican and Democratic
Senators have expressed concern about the plight of refugees,
but the House just cut U.S. assistance for refugees by 40
percent. Yet, there are continuing the problems in Darfur,
Burma.
There are also Iraqi, Afghan, Palestinian, refugees, and
more have been displace in the past few weeks in areas where we
have an enormous interest. We have assisted refugees for years
and this has resulted in good will and helps America's
interests greatly including in our fight against terrorism.
But the cold reality is the other body has just cut the
refugee budget by 40 percent. At some point, we have to pay
attention to reality more than rhetoric. So I appreciate what
you've been saying here today.
[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
Question. Tom Friedman of the New York Times recently described our
relations with the Arab world this way:
``Keep your oil prices low, don't bother the Israelis too much and,
as far as we're concerned, you can do whatever you want out back. You
can deprive your people of whatever civil rights you like. You can
engage in however much corruption you like. You can preach whatever
intolerance from your mosques that you like. You can print whatever
conspiracy theories about us in your newspapers that you like. You can
keep women as illiterate as you like. You can under-educate your youth
as much as you like.''
Friedman says it was that attitude that enabled the Arab world to
be insulated from history for the last 50 years--to be ruled for
decades by the same kings and dictators.
Those days are changing in ways few predicted, and our relations
with Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, and Libya will change because of it.
Another Middle East expert quoted in the New York Times said this:
``There has to be a major rethinking of how the United States engages
with that part of the world. We have to make clear that our security no
longer comes at the expense of poor governance and not rights of the
people.'' Do you agree, and if so, how do you see our relations
changing with any of the other countries in that region whose
governments remain in power?
Answer. The United States has always had to make difficult
calculations as it balances its interests. In the case of Egypt, for
example, it was indeed in our interest to support Egypt following the
Camp David Accords. The 30 years of peace that followed allowed for
both Israel and Egypt to develop and strengthen in a particularly
challenging region. Moreover, our closeness to certain governments
enables us to have conversations with them about things like democracy
and human rights--conversations that we would not be able to have
otherwise. It is probably not a coincidence that the same Egyptian
military that we have supported for the last 30 years chose not to fire
on protesters.
In fact, we talk about these things with other governments because
it is in our strategic national interest to do so--to promote good-
governance and openness in Middle Eastern societies. I said at the
Forum for the Future in Doha last January that ``in too many places, in
too many ways, the region's foundations are sinking into the sand . . .
If leaders don't offer a positive vision and give young people
meaningful ways to contribute, others will fill the vacuum.'' By
helping Middle Eastern societies transition toward more democratic
systems of government, we will definitively repudiate the extremist
narrative that feeds on repression and isolation.
The United States maintains an active agenda promoting reform in
the region. Our Ambassadors and Embassies across the region are fully
engaged in these issues, whether through public statements, private
diplomatic conversations, or targeted programming. Recent events only
reaffirm the importance of our assistance efforts in the region,
particularly those that support the development of economic
opportunities and civil society.
We are committed to enduring partnerships with our regional allies.
As events in the region have unfolded, we have maintained close contact
with them, engaging leaders by phone and in person, as my recent trip
to Egypt and Tunisia illustrates.
In our interactions with our partners, we have explained the core
principles guiding us in the region, emphasized our conviction that
stability in the Middle East will be enhanced by respecting the rights
and aspirations of the people of the region, and reiterated our strong
commitment to supporting a more peaceful and prosperous Middle East in
close consultation with all our regional partners. We will continue to
engage our colleagues along these lines in an effort to secure greater
participation and prosperity for all.
Question. As corrupt dictators are being deposed in North Africa
and the Middle East, and Great Britain, Switzerland, France, and the
United States are seizing property and freezing bank accounts, as they
should. But it was long suspected, and could have been readily
verified, that those corrupt officials had foreign bank accounts, as
well as extravagant estates, private jets and yachts--paid for with
money stolen from their people. By amassing vast fortunes, they are
that much more determined to hold onto power even if it means using
violence. Do you agree that we should go after these ill-gotten gains
long before things get to this point, and if so, what changes in law or
policy would that require?
Answer. Foreign corruption adversely affects the United States;
including our pursuit of U.S. national security interests, foreign
assistance goals, and the security of the United States from
transnational crime and terrorism. High-level corruption, or
kleptocracy, perpetuates the cycle of poverty, instability, and crime
that denies the most vulnerable nations and people prosperity.
Addressing corruption, including kleptocracy, is an important foreign
policy objective of the Department of State.
With respect to specific legislative and/or policy recommendations
for strengthening U.S. law to guard against corrupt officials hiding
assets in the United States or abusing our financial system, the
Department of State defers to the Justice Department (DOJ). The
Criminal Division's Asset Forfeiture and Money laundering section (DOJ/
AFMLS) leads DOJ's Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative, which is
designed to target and recover the proceeds of kleptocracy that find
their way into our banking and financial systems. DOJ/AFMLS is
currently litigating civil forfeiture cases involving assets stolen
from countries victimized by high-level corruption and is developing
legislative proposals to strengthen U.S. law in this area.
While operational authority to pursue proceeds of corruption (so-
called ``stolen assets'') resides with other agencies of the U.S.
Government, the State Department promotes a wide variety of diplomatic
and programmatic initiatives to prevent proceeds of corruption from
being stowed abroad in the first place.
Since 2003, the United States has worked with the international
community to deny kleptocrats and their assets any safe haven in the
territories and financial systems of other countries. In 2003, at the
G8 Summit in Evian, France, the United States strongly promoted
adoption of the No Safe Haven policy, aimed specifically at senior
corrupt public officials. We successfully advocated for adoption of
similar principles in the Summit of the Americas and Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation fora. Most recently, the United States was able to
secure adherence to the No Safe Haven principle in meetings of the G-20
leaders. The United States is working assiduously to promote
implementation of this commitment. The United States implements No Safe
Haven for corrupt officials through Presidential Proclamation 7750 and
section 7084 of the 2010 appropriations act and its predecessors.
The U.S. Government also supports the development and
implementation of standards to prevent money laundering, including of
proceeds of corruption. The Departments of State, the Treasury, and
Justice act as leaders in the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and
provide support to many of the FATF-Style Regional Bodies. The United
States supports the FATF's current work to clarify and strengthen,
where appropriate, relevant standards, including for beneficial
ownership related to customer due diligence and legal persons, and the
identification and application of enhanced due diligence for
``politically exposed persons'' (PEPs). The United States was a pioneer
in providing due diligence requirements in the PATRIOT Act to assure
that transactions for private banking accounts of senior foreign
political figures, close family, and associates did not involve the
proceeds of corruption.
Additionally, the United States led the development of,
participates in, and strongly supports many global instruments that
target issues such as corruption and kleptocracy, including the UN
Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), the Convention on Combating
Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business
Transactions, and other regional treaties and initiatives such as the
Inter-American Convention against Corruption and the Council of
Europe's Group of States against Corruption. These legal instruments
lead parties to take measures to prohibit bribes to foreign public
officials in the conduct of international business, and they require
governments to adopt the strong preventive measures and robust criminal
justice tools that are necessary to prevent, deter, and prosecute
corruption domestically. In some cases, these treaties also require
parties to establish anti-money laundering regimes including measures
requiring enhanced scrutiny of PEPs.
Further to the 2006 Strategy to Internationalize Efforts against
Kleptocracy: Combating High-Level Public Corruption, Denying Safe
Haven, and Recovering Assets, the United States has sought to encourage
other countries to adopt and apply tools against kleptocracy, including
tools for the recovery of stolen assets. The United States led
negotiation of the novel Asset Recovery chapter of UNCAC, which
provides tools for intergovernmental cooperation to trace, freeze,
seize, and return proceeds of corruption. The United States continues
to work with partners to raise and discuss approaches for further
concrete implementation of the UNCAC asset recovery provisions. The
Departments of State and Justice worked together in the last UNCAC
Conference of States Parties to secure agreement by the 143 parties to
recommit to action on asset recovery and to set the road map for
further cooperation. The United States also collaborates with other
leading organizations and initiatives that are promoting best practices
and facilitating asset recovery capacity building, such as the Camden
Asset Recovery Information Network, INTERPOL, and the Stolen Asset
Recovery (StAR) Initiative.
To recover stolen assets, countries need capacity to investigate
and substantiate requests for international legal cooperation. A range
of ongoing U.S.-sponsored technical assistance is targeted to build
capacity to recover corruption proceeds. The United States has posted
asset recovery country advisors in pilot countries to build capacity
related to mutual legal assistance. The United States has also provided
financial and expert support to asset recovery workshops in various
regions.
U.S. law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities work closely
with counterparts in other governments on investigations and mutual
legal assistance to support recovery of assets, with the support of the
State Department where appropriate. The United States has repatriated
corruption proceeds in several significant cases in recent years. For
example, the United States has confiscated and repatriated to Peru
corruption proceeds worth more than $20.2 million connected to the
criminal conduct of former Peruvian intelligence chief Vladimiro
Montesinos and his associates. Similarly, as a result of close
investigatory cooperation, the United States was able to forfeit and
repatriate to Nicaragua more than $2.7 million connected to the
criminal conduct of former Nicaraguan Tax and Customs Minister Byron
Jerez.
Question. From everything I read and hear, the Middle East peace
process--as it has traditionally been called--is going nowhere. Last
week The Wall Street Journal quoted a member of the Palestinian
Liberation Organization's Executive Committee saying: ``If negotiations
are not an effective tool of peacemaking, what do we need them for? ''
Other accounts describe U.S. officials declaring the Roadmap dead.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian Liberation Organization disbanded the
cabinet and there is talk of creating a unity government with Hamas.
Iran is becoming more threatening, Israel is more isolated than ever,
and settlement construction and the demolition of Palestinian homes in
the West Bank continue.
Does the Roadmap still reflect the administration's policy? Does a
two-state solution still have viability, or is it just a talking point?
What is the alternative?
Answer. Our goal is to pursue and achieve comprehensive peace in
the Middle East, central to which is a resolution of the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict based on the two-state solution. Ending the
conflict through the two-state solution is the only way to achieve long
term security, preserve Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, and
realize the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people to a
viable, contiguous, and democratic state of their own.
The Obama administration has joined the Quartet in underscoring the
need of both parties to adhere to previous agreements and obligations,
including adherence to the Roadmap. We have reaffirmed that unilateral
actions taken by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of
negotiations and will not be recognized by the international community.
The tough issues between Israelis and Palestinians can only be solved
through a negotiated agreement.
That is why we continue to pursue a dual track approach, both
elements of which are key to peace and stability for Israel and the
region: serious and substantive negotiations on permanent status issues
and an equally vigorous institution building track that supports
Palestinian Authority efforts to build, reform, and sustain critical
institutions so that they are prepared for statehood.
Question. What is the State Department doing to control the cost of
Embassy construction and operations and maintenance, and what are you
doing to be sure you are achieving the right balance between security
and public access to our Embassies?
Answer. Embassies and consulates are more costly to design and
build as compared to traditional office buildings because the
Department must comply with very strict security standards. The
Department is working to develop and use every possible mechanism to
control costs while building to comply with statutory requirements and
respond to the realities of a dangerous world. Our new diplomatic
facilities are designed and constructed in accordance with U.S.
building codes, using American-made materials and industry best
practices to the greatest extent possible.
Going forward, our Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) is
undertaking a Design Excellence program to ensure that the next
generation of facilities will incorporate best-value practices through
the use of systems and materials that are easier to maintain and
operate in the long term. In addition, all new construction projects
are designed and constructed to achieve a minimum LEED Silver
certification from the U.S. Green Building Council. Given the added
sophistication of these modern platforms, we have also undertaken
several initiatives to improve the cost-effectiveness of operation and
maintenance at these facilities.
The Department, and other overseers of major construction work, is
subject to the vagaries of the market, especially the rising costs for
petroleum, steel, and concrete. The Department works to control
construction, operations, and maintenance costs through:
Value Engineering.--Use of construction industry best practice
review of each project to ensure optimum function of each
building component.
Constructability Reviews.--A review of the project to identify
planning modifications that will make it less expensive/easier
to construct.
Preventative Maintenance.--Use of a significant portion of
limited maintenance funding to perform preventive maintenance,
thus avoiding larger repair costs in the future.
Competitive Bids.--Construction projects are awarded through a
competitive bidding process which ensures fair market value.
Management Reviews.--Monthly project performance reviews with
senior managers to ensure that project budgets and schedules
are maintained.
Sustainability.--Green building initiatives hold down operation,
maintenance and utility costs, including exploiting renewable
energy sources such as photovoltaics, geothermal heating and
cooling, natural daylighting, LED lamps, solar hot water
heating, and automated controls. Water conservation is
addressed through rainwater harvesting, waterless urinals, dual
flush toilets, and other low-flow fixtures.
Maintainability Reviews.--Reviews of all construction designs
prior to contract award to identify inefficient operational
features.
Unfettered public access to our Embassies is, unfortunately,
impossible in today's security environment. Nonetheless, the Department
designs facilities to separate public areas such as consular and public
diplomacy from more sensitive functions. The Department also works to
integrate protective security features into the general architecture of
our buildings and use unobtrusive surveillance and detection equipment
throughout. Going forward, through our OBO Design Excellence
initiative, we are working to improve the design of our overseas
facilities in a number of different ways to ensure that they are
welcoming and physically represent the U.S. Government to the host
nation in a positive way.
In addition, in some locations the Department is working to enhance
U.S. Government outreach to foreign publics through American Centers
that are physically separated from our Embassy or consulate, as well as
maintaining existing centers. This past year, we successfully
established a new center in Jakarta, with another American Center in
the works for Rangoon.
Question. Your fiscal year 2012 request includes $3.7 billion for
Department of State operations in Iraq, including buildings, personnel,
security, and helicopters. This does not include the cost of the State
Department's programs there, which are also rising sharply.
While we understand that the United States military costs in Iraq
are going down, this is a 72 percent increase more than the State
Department's fiscal year 2010 operations in Iraq, and represents almost
one-third of the fiscal year 2012 budget request for Department of
State operations worldwide. I am concerned that the civilian transition
envisioned by the administration may be financially unsustainable.
What steps has the Department of State taken to prioritize the
goals of the transition from a United States military to a civilian
presence in Iraq, and what are the goals?
The Department of State has identified $3.2 billion of its fiscal
year 2012 Iraq operations costs as ``temporary and extraordinary.''
What does temporary mean in this context? Two years? Five years? Ten
years?
Answer. The fiscal year 2012 budget request for programs in Iraq
will continue to help the Government of Iraq, and the Iraqi people,
bridge economic and security gaps. Our consulates in Basrah and Erbil,
though located in temporary facilities, are permanent. We expect our
consulate in Kirkuk, which is along the Arab-Kurd fault-line, as well
as our significant Iraq-wide security assistance programs and our
Police Development Program (PDP), to last approximately 3-5 years. We
will continue to reduce our presence as our programs are transferred to
other U.S. Government entities, Government of Iraq ministries, or
participating international organizations.
Planning.--The magnitude of this transition is unprecedented, and
the security environment is very challenging. In anticipation of the
planned U.S. military drawdown, we have sustained an intensive, 2-year
effort both within the Department of State and with our partners across
the U.S. Government. This process has included daily involvement of
both Deputy Secretaries of State and close coordination with United
States Forces-Iraq and the Department of Defense (DOD). In addition,
DOD and the Department of State have created Iraq Transition
Coordinator positions, in order to lead our respective departments in
the final planning and implementation of the transition. We continue to
work daily with DOD and other agencies to implement and, as necessary,
adjust our planning, and resolve any issues that may arise. We are on
track to complete the transition successfully.
In planning for continued engagement following the withdrawal of
U.S. forces, the Department of State has worked hard to include only
essential elements. There are currently 14 planned sites:
--the Embassy;
--two permanent consulates in Erbil and Basrah;
--a temporary consulate in Kirkuk;
--air hubs at Sather Air Base, Basrah, and Erbil;
--police training centers at Contingency Operating Station (COS)
Erbil and Joint Security Station (JSS) Shield (the third
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement [INL] site is
collocated with consulate Basrah); and
--four OSC-I sites at Forward Operating Base (FOB) Union III,
Besmaya, Taji, and Um Qasr.
We need secure, centrally placed locations to conduct the broad
engagement required to achieve our policy goals.
Baghdad.--In Baghdad, JSS Shield will serve as the main hub for
INL's PDP. This site is located adjacent to the Ministry of Interior
and Baghdad Police College, where INL will conduct substantial
mentoring, training, and advising.
Erbil.--Erbil will serve as a platform for United States economic
programs in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. Erbil will also be our focal
point for engagement with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). KRG
participation in the coalition government is critical to foster
national unity, political reconciliation, and stability. Consulate
Erbil will also provide a platform for engagement by U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID), DOJ, INL, and other government
agencies.
Not all personnel and operations can be housed at the existing
consulate site in Erbil. Therefore, INL's PDP hub in the north, a small
number of DOJ personnel, all Embassy air aviation personnel, and
logistics and management personnel will be housed at COS Erbil.
Basrah.--Development of Iraq's hydrocarbon industry is essential to
providing revenues to improve basic services like power, water,
security, and education. Our consulate in Basrah will continue to
assist development efforts of reserves in Southern Iraq. Consulate
Basrah will also house DOS, USAID, DOJ, INL (including the PDP), and
Department of Homeland Security personnel.
Kirkuk.--The status of Kirkuk remains one of the most volatile
issues in Arab-Kurd relations. Consulate Kirkuk, along with the United
Nations, will continue to address political, economic, and governance
issues designed to support a political agreement on the status of
Kirkuk. Consulate Kirkuk will also provide a platform for engagement by
INL, DOJ, and other agencies.
OSC-I.--The four OSC-I sites will provide engagement on critical
security cooperation and security assistance programs at strategic
centers where key FMS cases continue. The OSC-I headquarters is planned
for FOB Union III across from the Embassy and close to the Ministry of
Defense. It will manage security cooperation and assistance activities
throughout Iraq. The Besmaya OSC-I site will be located within the
Iraqi Army's Besmaya training complex--the primary center for Iraqi
ground forces training and delivery location for several major FMS
cases.
The OSC-I Taji site is at the Iraqi Army's logistics center, and
will facilitate the development of the ISF's logistical and sustainment
capability and manage rotary-wing FMS cases. Finally, the OSC-I site at
Umm Qasr is in Iraq's only naval base, which is critical to protecting
Iraq's oil infrastructure. The site will support security cooperation
activities with the Iraqi Navy as well as manage FMS naval cases.
Aviation.--Three aviation hubs (Baghdad, Erbil, and Basrah) are
being established to provide transportation of personnel to and from
the sites listed above and to other sites (including PDP visits). Air
operations will also provide security for Chief of Mission personnel,
quick reaction capabilities, and medical evacuation. The three sites
are required to provide coverage based on locations supported and range
of aircraft, using a hub and spoke concept that employs fixed- and
rotary-wing aircraft for maximum efficiency.
Question. Pakistan cannot feed or educate many of its people who
live in poverty. Yet on February 1, the New York Times reported that
Pakistan's nuclear weapons program has continued to grow, and that it
now has about 100 nuclear weapons and enough nuclear material for 40-
100 additional weapons, including plutonium bombs. It is on course to
becoming the fourth-largest nuclear power, ahead of France. In the past
decade American taxpayers have provided $10 billion in aid to Pakistan,
much of it for the military, but also for education, health, electric
power, and other needs that the Pakistani Government should be paying
itself. Since money is fungible, are we, in effect, indirectly
subsidizing their nuclear program?
You have indicated that the Department of State will press Pakistan
on tax reform and corruption to ensure that American taxpayers are not
footing the bill for Pakistan's poor when its own elite pay little or
no taxes and widespread corruption may interfere with USAID goals. How
has the State Department improved monitoring of United States aid to
ensure it achieves the intended purposes? What reforms, if any, has
Pakistan undertaken to improve the lives of its people?
The administration has vowed to channel most United States aid
through Pakistani Government agencies and local contractors. What
portion of all United States aid to Pakistan is distributed this way?
Answer. United States assistance to Pakistan is aimed at building
partnership based on mutual goals and values, fostering long-term
stability, and improving the daily lives of Pakistanis. As such, the
funds we provide are used to improve the security, prosperity, and
stability of Pakistan. We work together with the Government of Pakistan
to identify and pursue initiatives that are aligned with our shared
objectives, while ensuring accountability and oversight of United
States funding. When we choose to provide assistance to a particular
sector in Pakistan, we negotiate with the government to ensure that our
funding is in addition to, rather than replacing, the Government of
Pakistan's intended investment in that sector.
A robust set of accountability mechanisms is also an integral part
of our civilian assistance program, to ensure the funds are used to
improve the lives of Pakistanis, as the funds were intended. USAID
conducts pre-award assessments to ensure systems are in place to ensure
the proper and transparent use of funds, and INL uses extensive
inspections and end-use monitoring. The State Department Office of the
Inspector General and its USAID counterpart have been able to conduct
audits on a number of Pakistani organizations. Also, Pakistan's Supreme
Audit Agency, the equivalent of our General Accountability Office, has
been cooperative in reviewing and auditing programs. All of our
programs must have appropriate accountability and transparency measures
in place before we release any funding.
We remain concerned about Pakistan's continued development of its
nuclear arsenal, and this is a topic that we regularly discuss with
them, including in the Security, Strategic Stability, and
Nonproliferation Group, 1 of the 13 working groups that meet under the
U.S.-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue framework.
The Government of Pakistan has recently taken steps to expand its
revenue base and improve its ability to provide the services its people
need. Three new tax ordinances and the rescission of several sales tax
exemptions are expected to generate $620 million in the fourth quarter
of Pakistan's fiscal year 2011 (March-June). Pakistan has also taken
steps to adjust fuel prices and electricity tariffs to reflect more
accurately the costs of providing fuel and electricity. We must
continue to work with Pakistan to encourage the adoption of permanent
and more comprehensive reforms to help put Pakistan on a path to fiscal
stability and economic prosperity.
We believe that implementing a portion of United States assistance
through Pakistani institutions is critical to building capacity,
strengthening our partnership, and fostering long-term development.
This year, we expect that roughly one-half of the civilian assistance
provided to Pakistan will be implemented through Pakistani Government
agencies, whether Federal or provincial, and about 12 percent of USAID-
managed funding is implemented through Pakistani non-governmental
organizations. We are working to ensure that United States assistance
is aligned with Pakistani priorities and has accountability mechanisms
in place to ensure proper use of the funds.
Question. The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement was signed 6 years
ago. From what I understand, U.S. exporters have a lot to gain from
this agreement. One of the biggest problems for passage of the
agreement is the history of assassinations and threats against
Colombian trade unionists, which the former Colombian Government never
treated as a priority. President Santos and Vice President Garzon--a
trade unionist himself--say they are trying to investigate and punish
those responsible for these crimes, but they have been in power less
than 7 months so it is too soon to know if they will succeed. Is the
Colombian Government doing all it can to investigate and prosecute
these crimes? What more needs to happen before the administration sends
the agreement to the Congress and fights for its passage
Answer. President Santos has made great progress in improving the
environment for labor rights in Colombia. The Santos administration
has:
--denounced threats to labor and human rights leaders;
--increased penalties for violence against human rights defenders;
--made clear it respects the role of labor and human rights groups;
and
--increased funding for its protection program, which now covers more
than 11,000 at-risk individuals.
Additionally, Colombia's Prosecutor General's Office reports that
it is investigating more than 1,300 labor-related cases, and has
obtained 344 convictions.
Despite this progress, the Colombian Government realizes it must do
more to address lingering concerns over labor violence. The Santos
administration will continue to work closely with the Prosecutor
General's Office to remedy the shortfalls that Office is currently
facing and develop a strategy to resolve the backlog of labor homicide
cases.
The U.S. Government has made clear to Colombia that three areas of
concern must be addressed:
--the protection of internationally recognized labor rights;
--prevention of violence against labor leaders; and
--the prosecution of the perpetrators of such violence. We understand
these concerns are shared by the Santos administration, and we
are encouraged by their recent actions, but more needs to be
done.
On February 9, U.S. Trade Representative Kirk announced the
President had directed him to intensify our engagement with Colombia to
resolve the outstanding issues as quickly as possible this year. As we
work with Colombia to address remaining issues, we will reinforce the
significant progress Colombia has made in addressing human rights and
labor issues.
Question. It would be hard to think of any higher priority for our
Embassies than protecting Americans abroad, and helping them when they
are in trouble. Thousands of Americans are victims of crimes in foreign
countries every year, including murder. We try to help the families get
justice where investigations are cursory, the justice system is
corrupt, and convictions are rare--cases like Bradley Will, a
journalist who was killed in Mexico; Kate Puzey, a Peace Corps
volunteer killed in Benin; and Rachel Corrie who was killed in Gaza.
Years have passed and their families are still waiting for justice.
What is the Department's policy when an American is killed, the
investigation is flawed, and there is no justice? Shouldn't there be a
consequence? At what point do we withhold aid?
Answer. The provision of services to U.S. citizens who have been
victims of crimes overseas is one of the highest priorities of U.S.
Embassies and consulates. When U.S. citizens are killed overseas, and
specifically in the cases cited above, the U.S. Embassy requests on a
regular and recurring basis that the host government provide status
updates on the criminal investigation. We make these requests in the
form of diplomatic notes, and in meetings between Embassy officials and
foreign government contacts at all levels, which serve both to
communicate our on-going interest in the case and push for thorough,
credible, and transparent investigations.
Bilateral foreign aid is developed on the basis of overall good
relations and our goals with a country and may or may not be influenced
by a judicial failure--depending on the role and responsibility of the
host government. Often our foreign assistance includes support to
improve and strengthen the capacity of partner country law enforcement
and judicial institutions as well as support for civil society and
independent media to hold government institutions accountable to
citizens.
Personnel at our posts overseas receive training on how to
communicate effectively with victims of crime and understand their
reactions to trauma. Embassy employees identify local resources
available to victims of crime in their district, and keep friends and
family back home informed of the situation in accordance with the
victim's wishes. While we cannot provide legal services to the victims,
we do assist victims of crime and their families in managing the
practical consequences of overseas crime by providing information about
the local criminal justice system, explaining how it might differ from
our judicial system, and providing a list of local attorneys. We
continue to provide assistance as appropriate during their time
overseas and help identify resources available to them at home if they
choose to return to the United States.
Question. In 2009, the administration made ``Afghanization'' of aid
a major goal. Did the administration meet its goal of 40 percent of
assistance delivered through the Afghan Government or local
nongovernmental organizations by December 2010? What proportion was
delivered through the government?
Answer. In fiscal year 2010, USAID provided 35 percent of its
assistance on-budget through the Afghan Government. In fiscal year
2011, we estimate that between 37 and 45 percent of State and USAID
development assistance--distinct from stabilization programs--will be
on-budget, based on our fiscal year 2011 base appropriation request
level.
In 2012, State and USAID aim to meet the London Conference goal of
channeling at least 50 percent of development aid through the Afghan
Government's core budget. The 50 percent goal is a shared
responsibility, however, in that it requires the Government of
Afghanistan to take critical steps to ensure its ministries and
agencies are prepared to effectively and accountably implement
assistance.
Question. Corruption remains a real problem. How confident are you
that United States assistance provided directly to the Afghan
Government or contracted to Afghan businesses is being used effectively
and not being diverted to illicit purposes?
Answer. A major ongoing focus of our anti-corruption efforts is
safeguarding U.S. assistance funds. The United States Government has
only provided funding directly to the Afghan Government in instances
where the capacity for oversight and accountability at a Ministry has
been determined to meet our standards or when the funds can be
administered through trustworthy mechanisms, such as the Afghanistan
Reconstruction Trust Fund. To further strengthen U.S. assistance
against corruption, we have systems in place to examine civilian and
military contracting practices and establish better oversight of our
funds. The military Task Force Shafafiyat (``Transparency'' in Dari),
which includes within it Task Forces 2010, Spotlight, and Nexus, is
working along with the Embassy to identify the scope of the corruption
problem and develop solutions in the areas of U.S. contracting
practices, personal security contracts, and counternarcotics. There are
provisions built into our civilian and military contracts to counter
opportunities for corruption, both high- and low-level. Civilian and
military agencies are sharing information about contractors, improving
contractor and sub-contractor vetting and supervision, and blacklisting
companies which violate United States or Afghan laws.
Question. What success has the civilian aid effort had in
establishing effective programs in areas being opened up by U.S.
troops--for example, in Helmand and Kandahar provinces? How has
insecurity in these areas affected the ability of aid workers to move
about and deal directly with the Afghan people they are there to help?
Answer. Over the past year in Southern Afghanistan, the
insurgency's capability and scope in Kandahar and surrounding districts
have been curbed and its momentum slowed. There is cause for cautious
optimism. USAID has played a critical role as part of the United States
Government strategy to help elevate civilian Afghan leadership, to hold
security gains through the fighting season, and to lay the ground for
longer-term development.
Some examples of successes:
--Under USAID's RAMPUP project, a debris removal program in Kandahar
City was rolled out in Districts 1, 2, 3, and 9 in February
2011. The program will eventually employ approximately 1,200
people each week to remove accumulated debris in 10 districts
of the Kandahar municipality.
--Under the Afghanistan Stabilization Initiative (ASI), a pomegranate
project benefited nearly 600 people, including farmers, traders
and their assistants, who received training and quality-control
monitors. Branded ``Kandahar Star'', 25 metric tons of the
fruit were shipped to Dubai and sold to upscale retailers such
as Carrefour. An additional 16 metric tons were shipped to
Canada, and more than 4 metric tons were shipped to India. From
these shipments, Afghan farmers realized significantly higher
payments for their fruit than they would have received on local
markets. The ASI has also procured essential equipment for FM
radio stations to be set up at several forward operating bases/
PRTs in Southern Afghanistan. The new stations will serve as a
vital communication tool for Afghan Government institutions to
solicit community feedback and input regarding government
performance, services desired, and other important issues for
the population. Providing local citizens with improved access
to information will counter the Taliban's message of violence
and allow for participation in the governance process.
Due to the security situation in these areas, prudent and judicious
measures must be taken to ensure staff safety. Leaving compounds or
private residences in high-threat environments requires a great deal of
coordination with the local security contingent as well as approval
from the regional security officer (RSO), who sets security practices
for Chief of Mission personnel. Under Public Law 99-399 (Omnibus
Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986), Chiefs of Mission
(COMs) and Embassy RSOs can be held personally accountable when there
is serious injury or loss of life of COM personnel. Due to the nature
of the security situation in areas of Afghanistan, USAID currently
relies extensively on dedicated Quality Assessment/Quality Control (QA/
QC) contractors, along with the military, implementing partners, and
foreign service nationals to help monitor programs.
Question. Last year, in response to a request from this
subcommittee, the State Department provided a preliminary report on
crimes against humanity and war crimes in the final months of the
internal conflict in Sri Lanka. I and other Senators would like to
receive an updated report on this subject, including an assessment of
investigations by the Sri Lankan Government and the United Nations, and
whether the people responsible for these crimes have been appropriately
punished. Will you ask the Office of the Ambassador for War Crimes to
provide us such a report?
Answer. In response to your request, the Department of State will
provide an update of our previous reports of October 22, 2009, and
August 11, 2010.
Question. The administration proposes to reduce the Assistance to
Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia account by more than 15 percent in
fiscal year 2012. Given the number of important U.S. interests in the
region--stability in the Balkans, preventing conflict in the Caucasus,
supporting groups fighting for human rights and the rule of law in
authoritarian societies from Russia to Azerbaijan to Uzbekistan--
doesn't such a large cut signal that we are disengaging from a region
where we need to continue working to solidify our relations?
Answer. The U.S. commitment to the region has not changed.
Southeastern Europe, Eurasia (including the Caucasus) and Central Asia
remain vitally important in terms of United States foreign policy
interests. Reductions in assistance to the region have been driven by
the difficult budget environment. Within that context, the President's
request reflects a reallocation of resources to other global demands,
weighing factors such as progress made, the work of other donors and
U.S. assessments of the key remaining challenges in the region.
egypt
Question. ABC television reported on February 11 that the United
States paid for executive jets for President Mubarak and top members of
his government. I have tried to get more information about this. Do you
know if this happened and what funds were used? Can you assure us that
we are not buying planes like that for other governments?
Answer. Egypt has used Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to enhance
airlift capability for its National Command Authority. The Egypt VIP
Aircraft Program (Peace Lotus) has provided the Government of Egypt
with Gulfstream (GIII and IV) executive jets via Foreign Military Sales
and Direct Commercial Sales. The first of these aircraft was acquired
in 1984 and the last was purchased in 2002. Some aircraft were acquired
using solely national funds while others were acquired using a
combination of national funds and FMF funds. Egypt partly covers the
cost of maintenance of the aircraft with national funds. Egypt's FMF
share of the acquisition and maintenance of these aircraft was
approximately $333 million, out of a total cost of approximately $378
million.
In addition to Egypt, the Israeli Air and Space Command has
acquired, via FMF a number of the Gulfstream aircraft.
Questions. Another report that triggered many concerns was that
tear gas used against peaceful protesters by Egyptian police came from
the United States. Are we providing this type of ``crowd control''
equipment to the security forces of other repressive governments that
might use it against their citizens, and if so, can we be confident
this will stop?
Answer. Tear gas and similar equipment are manufactured and sold to
provide nonlethal options to disperse large crowds and prevent
violence. There is currently no blanket restriction on the sale of
nonlethal crowd-control items to countries that are otherwise not
subject to United States or United Nations Security Council arms
embargo. However, as a matter of policy we can deny export licenses for
tear gas on a case-by-case basis if we believe the tear gas will be
misused by the end user.
All recipients of U.S.-origin defense articles or services are
required to comply with numerous end-use restrictions and conditions,
as specified in the foreign military sales Letters of Offer and
Acceptance and direct commercial sales licenses. Most importantly,
these conditions require full U.S. access to equipment provided so that
we may monitor how it is being used.
Question. Will you do a full Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (SEIS) for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline project, as
requested by the Environmental Protection Agency and by many Members of
Congress, which addresses in detail the issues I and other Senators
wrote to you about in our letter to you on October 29, 2010?
Answer. The Department of State expects to release a Supplemental
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) for the proposed Keystone
XL pipeline project in mid-April. The SDEIS contains information that
the State Department feels would benefit from further public input,
including issues addressed in your letter such as life-cycle greenhouse
gas emissions, pipeline safety, environmental justice, and petroleum
market impacts. The public will have 45 days to comment on the SDEIS
after a Federal Register notice is published. Following issuance of a
Final EIS, the State Department will solicit public comment and host a
public meeting in Washington, DC, before it makes a determination under
Executive Order 13337 on whether issuance of this permit is in the U.S.
national interest.
Question. The Commission on Wartime Contracting released its second
interim report on February 24, 2011. This report included a number of
recommendations to address the underlying causes of poor outcomes of
contracting and to institutionalize the changes to the Federal
contracting processes in contingency operations such as Iraq, Pakistan,
and Afghanistan. Two key findings are the lack of the agencies'
internal capacity, including senior managers' ability, to oversee
contracts, manage contractors, and control contract costs; and the
over-reliance on contractors, particularly in contingency operations.
What specific steps is the Department of State taking to reform its
procurement process and improve the managers' ability to manage
contracts, particularly in areas of contingency operations? Also, it
has been several years since the Department instituted the 1 percent
procurement fee for all procurement awards. What improvements and
changes have been instituted by the Department of State as a result of
this fee? What evidence does the Department of State have that it is
cost effective and meeting the procurement needs of the Department?
Answer. The Department experiences continuous contingencies in our
daily operations around the world under challenging conditions. As
needed, the Department creates task forces and working groups to deal
with these situations. The Department of State continues to centralize
procurement operations in the Bureau of Administration's Office of
Logistics Management (A/LM), and its branches, the Regional Procurement
Support Offices (RPSO); we find this model to be most effective in
supporting contingency situations during natural disasters such as the
Haiti earthquake, as well as during ongoing stabilization and
reconstruction as in Afghanistan and Iraq.
the quadrennial diplomacy and development review (qddr) and contracting
Question. In December 2010, the Department of State issued its
first ever QDDR, which provides a blueprint for elevating American
``civilian power'' to better advance our national interests and to be a
better partner to the U.S. military. The QDDR sets out four key
outcomes for the State Department and USAID, one of which is working
smarter to deliver results for the American people, including managing
contracting and procurement to achieve our mission effectively and
efficiently.
We have begun implementing the QDDR to improve contracting
oversight; some specific examples are as follows:
Elevate the Status of Contract Oversight Personnel.--As initial
steps, this summer we plan to create a Contracting Officer
Representative (COR) Award to highlight contract administration
achievements by the COR, and publish an article in State
Magazine highlighting the importance of contract administration
and the valuable role of the COR.
Link Oversight Duties to Performance Evaluation.--In January
2011, we issued Department notices reminding staff of work
elements for CORs and Government Technical Monitors (GTMs).
Expand Training.--Training will be expanded by launching a
skills-based COR class, expected no later than May 2011. The
Department also adopted the Federal Acquisition Certification--
Contracting Officer Representative (FAC-COR) requirements for
initial and continuous training in the business and technical
skills of contract administration; additional information is
presented below.
Elevate Accountability for Planning and Oversight of Large
Contracts.--As part of the QDDR process, the Department of
State instituted a requirement for the Assistant Secretary of a
Bureau with a service contract with expenditures exceeding $25
million per year to certify that adequate contract
administration resources have been identified to manage the
contract.
As a fee-for-service organization, charging bureaus a 1 percent fee
on all Department of State procurements, we have the resources to
surge. Since the fee was implemented in 2008, we have hired 102
additional staff for contract administration.
The Department of State uses very few cost-reimbursement contracts.
Embassy construction and most major programs are fixed price. The
Department of State uses competition to drive cost conscious
operations, as with our Worldwide Protective Services (WPS) contract,
where task orders are competed among the eight contract holders.
increased contract management and oversight
Question. The Department of State has increased contract management
and oversight both by its professional acquisitions staff, and by
program offices that utilize contract support.
Acquisitions/Training.--As noted above, we have increased our
training to enhance the skills of our contracting personnel. The Office
of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), Letter 05-01, Developing and
Managing the Acquisition Workforce, requires that the Federal
Acquisition Institute (FAI) develop a certification program for
contracting professionals in civilian agencies that reflects common
standards for education, experience, and training.
In general, for contracting officers series GS-1102, the Department
of State requires each acquisition professional to complete FAI's
certification program, consistent with the OFPP letter, which reflects
common standards of education, experience, and training among civilian
agencies. These common standards serve to improve the workforce
competencies and increase career opportunities. They are being
implemented by the Office of the Procurement Executive and Head of
Contracting Activity at the Department of State. The full training
requirements for FAC-COR certifications for GS-1102 can be found at
www.dau.mil or www.fai.gov. For complex contracts such as the WPS, all
CORs are required to be level II- or level III-certified.
Program Offices.--We agree with the Wartime Commission's
observation that the Department's program offices need to plan
effectively for COR support. INL and the Bureau of Diplomatic Security
(DS), the two bureaus most heavily involved in overseas contingency
contracting, are both significantly increasing resources to support
contract administration.
In general, all Department of State CORs, per the Procurement
Executive Bulletin No. 2010-20 are required to obtain FAC-COR
certification, which entails completion of Foreign Service Institute
Course No. PA 178 Contracting Officers Representative (40 hours); or PA
296 How to Be a Contracting Officers Representative (online version);
or equivalent other agency commercial COR training as approved by the
Office of the Procurement Executive.
Diplomatic Security.--The private security contractors (PSCs) who
protect our diplomats in high-risk environments perform an essential
function that enables the conduct of American diplomacy in the places
where it is needed the most. The Department of State has worked hard to
enhance oversight of PSCs, and DS has further developed its plan for
oversight and operational control of PSC personnel. For the DS WPS
contract issued in September 2010, DS has increased staffing to
administer the contract and its task orders to ensure contract
compliance. Key oversight elements for the WPS contract are listed in
Attachment A.
INL Improvements.--INL has taken steps since 2006 to improve
contract administration and program management, including for
operations in conflict areas, in response to a variety of oversight
community recommendations as well as INL's own managerial initiatives.
Among the improvements are enhanced financial management, contract
administration and oversight standard operating procedures and
additional education for our personnel that strengthen INL's management
and operations in those venues. Beginning in 2006, INL used the
findings from three internal reviews of our Iraq and Afghanistan
contract administration processes and controls to develop a new
contract administration framework, with tougher contract oversight,
invoice reviews, and reporting requirements. Key among the improvements
was the establishment of an office that provides contract oversight and
supports program management for Afghanistan and Iraq as well as
increased staffing for contract administration and program management
at headquarters and in the field. Specific INL improvements are listed
in Attachment B.
In conclusion, the Department of State has implemented many
improvements in its contract oversight and management, and will
continue to do so as we execute the QDDR initiatives. The Department of
State has taken very seriously the recommendations of the Wartime
Commission as well as other oversight organizations to increase our
contract oversight staff and elevate this function to the status that
it deserves. We will continue our efforts to improve our contracting
administration and oversight.
Attachment A
diplomatic security--oversight for wps contract
Key elements of oversight under WPS, currently deployed in Iraq
include:
--Ensuring appropriate levels of professionalism and responsive
operational responsibility through direct operational control
and oversight of security contractor personnel:
--DS Special Agents at each post serve as managers for the Static
Guard and Personal Protective Security programs;
--DS Special Agents at each post serve as CORs and Assistant CORs
(ACORs) for the direct management and oversight of the WPS
contract to assist the Contracting Officer;
--DS personnel at each post are assigned as GTMs to assist the COR
and ACOR in the oversight of the WPS contract.
--Direct-hire DS personnel (DS Special Agents or Security
Protective Specialists) provide operational control of
protective motorcades.
--Collocation of contractor life-support areas on Embassy,
Consulate, or Embassy branch office compounds will enhance
after-hours oversight of contractor personnel;
--Revised mission firearms policies further strengthen post's rules
on the use of force, and less-than-lethal equipment has
been fielded as a means to minimize the need to employ
deadly force;
--Video recording and tracking systems are installed in each
motorcade;
--All incidents involving a weapons discharge or other serious
incidents are thoroughly investigated by the Regional
Security Officer (RSO); and
--The Office of Acquisitions Management has a dedicated, qualified
team of contracting officers and contract specialists
assigned to administer PSC contracts. They will make
regular field visits to each post to conduct reviews of PSC
contracts.
--Improving the image of the security footprint through enhanced
cultural sensitivity:
--Mandatory country-specific cultural awareness training for all
security contractors prior to deployment to Iraq;
--Revised standards of conduct, including a ban on alcohol; and
--Interpreter support provided for protective security details.
--Achieving greater efficiencies through new contract terms:
--One set of terms and conditions enhances the ability to provide
uniform, appropriate, and consistent oversight;
--Reduced acquisition timelines;
--Larger number of qualified base-contract holders, thereby
increasing competition for each task order while
controlling costs;
--Timely options in the event a company fails to perform;
--More efficient program management compared to multiple, stand-
alone contracts;
--Computerized tracking of contractor personnel to aid in reviewing
personnel rosters used to support labor invoices; and
--Regional auditors from the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)
will be assigned to each company receiving a WPS task
order.
Attachment B
inl oversight improvements
Since 2006, INL has implemented a variety of contract oversight
improvements:
--Instituted more precise Statements of Work (SOWs) and more specific
interagency agreements;
--Employed the use of Quality Assurance Surveillance Plans (QASPs) to
more closely monitor contract performance;
--Required the use of a credible inventory system for use by foreign
assistance contractors, which meets Defense Contract Management
Agency (DCMA) requirements; and instituted an annual inventory
system for contractor purchased property to reinforce
accountability measures already employed through INL's end-use
monitoring procedures;
--Increased the number of program officers and contract
administration personnel in the field and at headquarters;
--Defined specific roles and responsibilities for contract
administration staff which includes greater specificity in
defined standard operating procedures for invoice validation
and review;
--Improved the accessibility of contract management staff to COR
files by instituting remote electronic access from the field to
headquarters;
--Engaged the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) to conduct
incurred cost audits of our task orders for Iraq and
Afghanistan; and
--Required contractors to provide more frequent and detailed cost
reporting and detailed work plans prior to the commencement of
work.
conflict stabilization operations
Question. The fiscal year 2012 request includes a proposal to
change the name of this program from Civilian Stabilization Initiative
(CSI) to Conflict Stabilization Operations (CSO). Besides a proposed
name change, what substantive changes are proposed for this program?
What evidence does the Department of State have that the CSO
deployments to date have been successful in responding to countries in
conflict or crisis? Why does the program require 200 active and 2,000
stand-by corps members?
Answer. CSO is more than a name change; it reflects the increased
emphasis on conflict prevention as a core mission and as a distinct
discipline within the Department of State and USAID. It builds on the
accomplishments and experience of the CSI, which currently funds the
Civilian Response Corps (CRC), the Office of the Coordinator for
Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS) and their critical work in
Afghanistan, Sudan, Kyrgyzstan, and many other fragile and conflict
areas around the world. CSI was originally envisioned primarily as a
means to support rapid response to countries already in conflict. CSO
recognizes that preventing and mitigating conflict early is more cost
effective and beneficial. Indeed, since most current conflicts are
recurring, prevention and response cannot be treated separately.
For example, Sudan risked a return to civil war if key elements of
the Comprehensive Peace Agreement were not implemented. We sent CRC
members to Southern Sudan to help ensure the referendum on self-
determination took place on time and in a credible fashion. CRC members
have facilitated resolutions to local violent disputes that threatened
to vastly complicate Southern Sudan's move to independence. At the
request of Embassy Bishkek, S/CRS established a temporary assistance
facility in the southern city of Osh after an outbreak of violence
between the Uzbek and Kyrgyz communities. Not only did it give the
Embassy a better understanding of the situation, but the platform put
the United States in much better position to support Kyrgyz efforts to
maintain stability and rebuild community relations. The value of these
deployments--in lives and money saved--is immeasurable when compared
with the alternative of violent conflict.
We are strengthening the CRC, using the recently completed force
review, to ensure that we have the right skills and experience among
responders, to include both generalists with skills in conflict
assessment, mitigation and resolution and strategic planning, and
specialists who bring sectoral expertise in such areas as rule of law,
public health, and border controls. The CRC are deployed in
Afghanistan, Sudan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Iraq, the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, and the Central African Republic. In order to respond to
these and other priorities of the United States, we need to have enough
Active responders so that a portion are in the field, others are in
training, and others are developing and disseminating lessons from the
field and otherwise supporting deployments. The Standby Component
provides needed depth and flexibility and, because they are already
Federal employees, come at no cost to the CSO until they are deployed.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Question. In your congressional budget justification, Madam
Secretary, I was pleased to see that your ``strategic priority is to
reinvigorate U.S. economic leadership'' in the East Asia and Pacific
area. You then describe this November's Asian-Pacific Economic
Conference (APEC) 2011 leader's meeting as ``an unmatched opportunity
to demonstrate U.S. economic leadership in the region''. I am pleased
to see that the State of Hawaii, which will be hosting the meeting, is
putting considerable effort into showcasing such opportunities on the
Islands. Could you elaborate on how, specifically, you intend to
showcase U.S. business opportunities and how they might intersect with
Hawaii's economy?
Answer. As we strive to meet President Obama's goal of doubling
exports by 2015, we are looking to the growing Asia-Pacific region for
greater export and investment opportunities for U.S. businesses. As
host of APEC this year, we will exercise our leadership to deliver
practical, concrete outcomes at the leaders' meeting in Hawaii in
November that will strengthen and deepen integration in the region by
addressing barriers to trade and investment. Through this work in APEC,
we will make it cheaper, easier, and faster to do business in the Asia-
Pacific, putting America's businesses, particularly its small and
medium-sized enterprises, from Hawaii and the rest of the United States
in a much better position to trade competitively and invest in the
region.
APEC's CEO summit will be held alongside the leaders' meeting,
providing an unparalleled opportunity for U.S. businesses by drawing
thousands of economic and business leaders from around the region and
the world. U.S. CEOs will be able to engage with global leaders and
other CEOs from around the region and the world, to showcase their own
products and services and discover additional business opportunities
through networking during the CEO summit.
The leaders' meeting will also provide the State of Hawaii with a
significant opportunity to showcase itself as an investment
destination, as well as for Hawaii's businesses and industries to
highlight their products to the large number of leaders, ministers,
officials, and business leaders gathered in Honolulu. Furthermore,
Hawaii's economy will benefit from the large scale of the events, which
will create a significant demand to supply the requirements for the
meetings themselves and to meet the demands of the large number of
officials, business leaders, and other visitors the meetings will bring
to Honolulu.
Question. With as many as 21 world leaders attending the APEC 2011
leader's meeting, I remain concerned that ancillary or contingency
security costs may fall on, and overly burden, State and local budgets
in Hawaii. Are you comfortable with your Department's level of
coordination with the White House and the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), and do you feel assured that the funding will be fully
sufficient at all levels?
Answer. The Department is comfortable with our level of
coordination with the White House and DHS, specifically the cooperation
between the Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the U.S.
Secret Service, which has been productive.
As you are aware, the funding levels for fiscal year 2012 have not
been set. At this time the Department of State estimates that the cost
we will incur to support security for the APEC leaders meeting will be
approximately $4,525,000. As APEC approaches and the number of
protective details becomes more certain, the costs will be adjusted
accordingly.
Current law does not provide authority for the Department of State
to reimburse State and local law enforcement entities in Hawaii for any
costs they may incur as a result of the APEC leaders meeting.
Question. A good way to demonstrate U.S. economic leadership is by
showcasing and promoting our leadership in education, if not also
leadership training. The East-West Center now boasts of a worldwide
network in excess of 57,000 alumni. Much like Department of Defense
Regional Centers, the East-West Center has successfully introduced
students to American values, built expertise and professionalism, and
established a network that continues to bring together people from
across a vast region to exchange views on issues of common concern.
Just 2 weeks ago, more than 130 graduate students from 48 universities
in 26 nations gathered to present their research at the East-West
Center's 10th annual International Graduate Student Conference. How, do
you think, could we build on the success of the East-West Center as a
model for cost-effective public diplomacy that nurtures long-term
partnerships between nations?
Answer. As the importance of United States relations with the Asia-
Pacific region continues to grow--including with China as an emerging
global power and Indonesia as the world's most populous Muslim nation--
the relevance of the East-West Center's role in promoting better
understanding among our nations and peoples is clear. Established by
the U.S. Congress in 1960, the Center serves as a key national resource
by fostering better relations and understanding among the peoples of
the United States, Asia, and the Pacific Islands through education and
dialogue on critical issues of common concern. Its success in bringing
together people and institutions from multiple sectors--including
government, academia, journalism, and the private sector--serves as a
model for promoting regional collaboration, intellectual capacity
building and the development of effective policy options.
The East-West Center serves as a forum for meetings between
officials and leaders of Asia and the Pacific and their U.S.
counterparts, offering a unique venue and expertise to foster
cooperation and encourage the sharing of ideas. It continues to provide
significant support to our efforts to prepare for the United States'
hosting of APEC's economic leaders' meeting this coming November in
Honolulu.
The Center's 58,000 alumni form a significant international network
of influence in government, international organizations and educational
institutions, and U.S. Embassies support and benefit from the efforts
of these alumni overseas. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India and
Prime Minister Najib Razak of Malaysia are among current Asia-Pacific
leaders with East-West Center experience. Another Center alumnus,
Chinese Vice Minister of Education Hao Ping, has a key role in
promoting enhanced educational cooperation with the United States. The
Center's biannual alumni conferences convene hundreds of alumni,
testimony to the lasting value of the Center experience.
In terms of a cost-effective investment in public diplomacy, the
East-West Center has been successful in its ability to leverage
significant amounts of nonappropriated sources--40 percent in the
fiscal year 2010 budget--for its national mission. And the East-West
Center continues to strengthen and diversify its sources of support,
including from the private sector.
As an institution serving the U.S. national interest, the Center's
programming also benefits from the unique ethnic and cultural diversity
of the State of Hawaii. We encourage the Center to continue its efforts
to strengthen its leadership programs for graduate students, young
professionals and young women leaders. The Center also helps Americans
improve their understanding of the Asia-Pacific region by working with
high schools and colleges around the country, strengthening U.S.
capacity to engage with this critical region in the future. As it
builds on its legacy of long-term ties, the East-West Center will
continue to be a vital part of the overall U.S. public diplomacy effort
in Asia and the Pacific in the years ahead.
Question. The Asia-Pacific region continues to grow both in terms
of opportunities as well as challenges. It appears that our imports
from Asia are increasingly coming from China at the expense not only of
United States domestic suppliers but perhaps also of our other trading
partners in the region. As China's business capabilities grow, should
we be concerned that our erstwhile trading partners in the region might
be elbowed out of their own domestic and regional markets--if not also
the United States market? If so, is it a consequence of less than fair
trade?
Answer. The Asia Pacific is one of the most dynamic regions in the
world today, and the growth and prosperity of the United States are
strongly intertwined with the growth and prosperity of the region. As
such, the President's National Export Initiative (NEI), which aims to
help double United States exports within 5 years and support millions
of American jobs, is focusing on China and other emerging high-growth
markets. Our policy is to expand the opportunities provided to
Americans from a growing China.
As the world's second-largest economy and largest developing
country, China is an important contributor to global economic growth.
In 2009, when global output declined for the first time in 60 years,
China's aggressive stimulus measures supported not only Chinese
economic growth but that of its trading partners, contributing to a
fall in China's trade surplus that year from 8 percent to 5.1 percent
of GDP.
Indeed, China has become the largest export market for many Asia-
Pacific countries, including industrialized countries such as Japan and
South Korea. Resource rich countries, such as Australia and Indonesia,
have benefited from increases in commodity prices brought on by strong
Chinese demand. Still other Asia-Pacific exporters have become part of
a globalized supply chain in which products assembled in China are
increasingly composed of parts produced elsewhere. Indeed, a
substantial share of the value added in the goods we import from China
comes from components manufactured in other Asian countries.
But our trade relations with China are not without problems. To
ensure a level playing field, we need to address a range of issues,
including market access, indigenous innovation, currency, and
intellectual property protection and enforcement. This administration
is addressing these trade concerns with Chinese authorities at the
highest levels, including with President Hu Jintao during his recent
visit to Washington. The United States has worked and will continue to
work with China to create an open environment for trade with the United
States and others.
Question. In your testimony, you claim that you have ``re-engaged
as a leader in the Pacific . . .'' Could you please give examples of
your re-engagement?
Answer. The United States has worked hard to renew its strong
relationships with and commitment to the Pacific Islands. The region is
of vital importance to Asia-Pacific regional stability and to our
shared interests in maritime security, climate change, energy security,
sustainable fisheries, and protecting biodiversity. Moreover, the
Pacific nations play an important leadership role on global issues,
particularly in the United Nations and in supporting international
peacekeeping missions.
The United States is strengthening our ties with our Pacific Island
partners in both multilateral and bilateral arenas, and we are
constantly looking for ways to increase and better focus our
cooperation in the Pacific region, particularly in the areas of
capacity-building, training and technical assistance.
The new Embassy compound we are about to open in Suva, Fiji, will
be the largest mission of any country in the Pacific. Embassy Suva's
expanded regional offices will support better engagement in public
diplomacy, the environment, science and technology, public health,
defense, and labor throughout the region.
In August 2010, Assistant Secretary for East Asian Affairs Kurt
Campbell attended the Pacific Islands Forum Post-Forum Dialogue in
Vanuatu with the largest U.S. delegation ever, including key personnel
from the Pentagon and Pacific Command (PACOM), the Department of the
Interior, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID). We plan to take an even larger delegation to the
2011 meeting this September in Auckland to demonstrate our whole-of-
government approach to addressing shared concerns in the Pacific.
The annual meeting I established in 2009 with Pacific Island
leaders on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly in New
York demonstrates in a tangible way how much the United States values
the relationships with the islands. The leaders very warmly embraced
the effort. I plan to meet with Pacific leaders every year in New York.
Building on the urgent request for support from the Pacific Small
Island States, we have committed $12 million in fiscal year 2010 funds
specifically for climate adaptation projects and related programs, and
we requested an additional $9.5 million in fiscal year 2011 and in
fiscal year 2012. To help administer these new programs, USAID is
finalizing plans for a new office in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea
this year. Funding for climate will be an essential component of our
relationship--and a critical element in the regional effort to meet
increasingly severe climate-related challenges. The State Department's
Regional Environmental Office in Embassy Suva, Fiji, is working closely
with USAID as it increases its engagement in the region.
The first United States Ambassador to Palau assumed office in 2010.
We concluded a $215 million economic assistance agreement under the 15-
year review of the Compact of Free Association with Palau.
The State Department is aggressively pursuing negotiations to
extend the Multilateral Treaty on Fisheries (also known as the South
Pacific Tuna Treaty) and the associated Economic Assistance Agreement
through which we provide $18 million annually in economic support funds
to Pacific Island countries. We are also the single largest contributor
to the voluntary Special Requirements Fund for Small Island Developing
State members of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission.
We recently concluded an agreement with Kiribati establishing a
``Sister Marine Sanctuary Arrangement'' between the two largest marine-
protected areas in the world. Kiribati supports a number of counter-
terrorism and regional security objectives, and the arrangement is a
model for bilateral cooperation on marine conservation issues.
We have expanded our cooperative maritime law enforcement through
``Shiprider'' agreements with the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Marshall
Islands, Micronesia, Tonga, and Palau, allowing local law enforcement
officers to embark on select U.S. Coast Guard vessels and aircraft to
patrol their national waters, looking for trafficking victims,
contraband, illegal fishing, and weapons. The Coast Guard is looking to
expand this program this year to other Pacific Island countries.
We have provided more than $1.5 million in aid for cyclone- and
tsunami-related disasters in the region since 2009, and we continue to
build national capacity through ongoing disaster management training
and disaster preparedness exercises provided by PACOM's Center for
Excellence and others. USAID has financed the pre-positioning of
disaster response supplies in warehouses in Micronesia.
Pacific Island participation in the International Visitor
Leadership Program rose by approximately 20 percent in 2010, while
Fulbright scholarships are at the highest level in 10 years. These
programs build relationships that span generations and target up-and-
coming leaders.
The U.S. Navy's Pacific Partnership program will deploy its 11th
annual mission to the Pacific Islands region from March 2011-July 2011
to perform humanitarian and civic assistance activities in Micronesia,
Papua New Guinea, Tonga, and Vanuatu. These activities build
partnerships and strengthen relations.
The Department of State-led Energy Governance and Capacity
Initiative embarked upon a wide range of technical assistance in 2010
to assist Papua New Guinea (PNG) in building institutional capacity and
financial management capability in their energy sector while meeting
U.S. foreign policy objectives. This program includes promoting energy
security as well as furthering political and economic stability in PNG.
In partnership with the World Bank and the Government of Papua New
Guinea, the United States will co-host in Port Moresby this May a
first-ever meeting of Pacific Island regional leaders to discuss
maternal health and economic empowerment. The United States is also
supporting new efforts to increase political participation by women in
the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea, particularly in the latter's
national elections in 2012.
Next year, pending congressional approval, and based both on need
and the success of current programs, the United States will double its
contribution to fight HIV and AIDS in Papua New Guinea, through the
President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), from $2.5 million
in 2010 and 2011 to $5 million in 2012.
We recently completed a 3-month, $1 million project to clear
unexploded WW II ordnance on Bougainville, Papua New Guinea. We are
developing plans for a similar project on Guadalcanal in the Solomon
Islands this year.
The United States has increased law enforcement training in a
number of areas, in collaboration with PACOM's Center for Excellence,
the Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Drug
Enforcement Agency. We are working with a number of the Pacific Island
countries to focus greater efforts toward combating trafficking in
persons.
In response to a request from the Department of State, the
Department of Homeland Security has added all Pacific Island countries
to the annual list of countries eligible for H-2B visas in order to
help qualified citizens take advantage of opportunities for which they
are eligible.
Our Regional Labor Office in Fiji promotes workers rights and
vocational training, as well as anti-trafficking of forced laborers.
This not only improves the lives of working men and women, but it
increases labor mobility throughout the region.
As part of the Clinton-Okada agreement, Japan and the United States
agreed to coordinate through the APEC forum a special climate change
adaptation initiative focused on the Pacific Islands.
The United States already supports several regional organizations
in the Pacific, and the Department of State is considering increasing
funding this year for the Secretariat of the Pacific Community. We are
encouraging the World Bank to renew its engagement, and we continue to
support the Asian Development Bank.
We appreciate the consistent support we receive from Pacific Island
countries at the United Nations and the ongoing contributions of many
in the region to global security efforts. The United States, through
its various agencies, will continue to support the development and
welfare of our friends in the Pacific. Enhancing engagement and
``stepping up our game'' in the Pacific is a foreign policy priority
for the United States.
Question. In your testimony, you describe how the State Department
is leading a major civilian surge in Afghanistan which, alongside the
military offensive, will set the stage for a diplomatic push by and
with the Afghans to split the Taliban from al Qaeda. Is this the end
state--or, for your agency, the performance measure--you seek? Are you
currently negotiating to end Taliban support for and protection of al
Qaeda? If the Taliban fully agree and honor such an agreement while
still waging essentially a civil war against the central government,
would the United States need to remain in the conflict?
Answer. As President Obama stated in his December 1, 2009 speech at
West Point, our overarching goal is to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat
al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent it from
threatening America and our allies in the future. To achieve that goal,
we must deny al Qaeda a safe haven, reverse the Taliban's momentum, and
deny it the ability to overthrow the Afghan Government, and increase
the capacity of the Afghan National Security Forces and government, so
that they can handle internal and external threats. We must do this
with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is
inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.
As articulated in Secretary Clinton's Asia Society speech on
February 18, the Afghan Government has the lead on peace and
reconciliation with the Taliban and the other elements of the
insurgency in Afghanistan, and we strongly support that lead. At the
same time, we have made clear our own red lines--that in order to
reconcile and rejoin Afghan society, insurgents must agree to cease
hostilities, break ties with al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and
agree to abide by the Afghan constitution. If the Taliban were to agree
to sever ties to al Qaeda and its allies but without ceasing
hostilities with the Afghan Government, they would not meet all of
these red lines.
Question. Is our new support for Yemen, if not also Somalia,
essentially a consequence of our success in squeezing out al Qaeda from
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq? If our new investments are successful
in denying safe havens in Yemen and Somalia, could we find ourselves
expending similar resources for more and more countries as al Qaeda
pursues future safe havens? At what point do they run out of safe
havens that we would need to deny?
Answer. We appreciate your question regarding safe havens and al
Qaeda. Denying al Qaeda and its affiliates safe haven in some countries
or regions will continue to be a challenge. We believe, however, it is
possible to achieve the President's objective to disrupt, dismantle,
and defeat al Qaeda. The recent success of the operation against Osama
bin Laden and the Arab Spring both, in their own different ways, are
signs of progress against the terrorist organization. While we continue
to face threats and risks, there is reason for hope and genuine
opportunities for us to make progress against al Qaeda and terrorism
going forward.
To provide some additional detail: in recent years, the United
States and its partners have made progress against al Qaeda in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. It is premature, however, to suggest
al Qaeda has been squeezed out of those areas. In Iraq, United States
and Iraqi security forces have had some success in combating al Qaeda
in Iraq; however, al Qaeda in Iraq elements remain and networks
continue to operate in Ninewa, Diyala, and eastern Anbar provinces and
Baghdad. The same is true for Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Government
of Afghanistan, in concert with the International Security Assistance
Force and the international community, continues its efforts to
eliminate terrorist safe havens and build security. However, many
insurgent groups, including al Qaeda, continue to use territory across
the border in Pakistan as a base from which to plot and launch attacks
within Afghanistan and beyond. Despite the Government of Pakistan's
increased efforts to combat al Qaeda, the federally Administered Tribal
Areas (FATA), Baluchistan, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, southern Punjab, and
other parts of Pakistan continue to be used as safe havens for al Qaeda
terrorists.
While we have had some success against al Qaeda in Yemen, al Qaeda
in the Arabian Peninsula remains a significant threat. We are providing
training, technical assistance, and equipment to strengthen the
capacity of Yemen's security forces. However, despite increased
assistance and cooperation and heightened Yemeni operations against al
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the group continues to find safe haven
in Yemen and, given the current political unrest, this is likely to
continue into the near future.
In Somalia as well, despite United States Government and African
Union efforts, the fragile hold on power of Somalia's Transitional
Federal Government (TFG), a protracted state of violent instability,
long-unguarded coasts, porous borders, and proximity to the Arabian
Peninsula, continues to make Somalia an attractive location for
terrorists. Al-Shabaab, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization
whose leadership is supportive and connected to al Qaeda, controls most
of Southern Somalia. The United States has been a strong supporter of
the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM). AMISOM plays a critical
role in supporting the Djibouti Peace Process by protecting
Transitional Federal Institutions and TFG personnel, and by securing
critical infrastructure in Mogadishu, including the airport and the
seaport. The United States has obligated more than $258 million to
provide equipment, logistical support, and training for AMISOM Ugandan
and Burundian peacekeepers since the mission deployed in 2007.
Despite our efforts listed above terrorists enjoy safe haven in
sparsely populated and ungoverned territories in Africa. Al Qaeda in
the Islamic Maghreb is based primarily in Northeastern Algeria, but
factions also operate from a safe haven in Northern Mali. We have and
will continue to provide assistance and support to these governments in
order to deny terrorists a safe havens in North Africa.
Denying safe havens plays a major role in undermining terrorists'
capacity to operate effectively and forms a key element of U.S.
counterterrorism strategy. Through technical assistance, training and
the provision of equipment we aim to improve the capacities of partner
nations so that they can effectively deny terrorists a safe haven in
their countries. As this is not solely a law enforcement issue, we have
also sought to help countries increase their provision of basic
services, such as healthcare and education. In addition, we will need
to continue to work to undermine al Qaeda's narrative to deny the group
a continuing flow of recruits. The challenges we face are considerable,
but we believe a blend of policies will allow us to achieve our
counterterrorism objectives and, in particular, to increasingly close
down safe havens for al Qaeda.
Question. I appreciate how you have split your ``war expenses''
from the Department's ongoing and longer-term needs. I believe it shows
that you are requesting little more than the 2010 levels for your core
budget, while putting in context the civilian agency contributions to
our efforts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. Your example on Iraq
is, I find, quite vivid. Was your Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
budget developed in full coordination with DOD's OCO budget?
Answer. The State Department's OCO budget request was closely
modeled on and informed by the DOD's OCO account. Our two agencies face
similar types of extraordinary and temporary costs associated with
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. These include higher personnel
expenses, enhanced security needed to operate in a high threat
environment, new facilities to support expanded operations and the
greater logistical demands such as fuel costs and transportation of
personnel. This approach clearly identifies the additional demands
these operations place on both agencies, and highlights that they are
temporary and separate from our base budgets. The administration's
overall OCO request also reflects coordination between the Department
and DOD as the frontline states transition from military- to civilian-
led missions. For example, the Department is adopting roles previously
taken on by the military in Iraq, while also taking over responsibility
for funding some security forces training in Iraq. By presenting our
OCO budgets in the same manner, the administration is able to provide a
more complete picture of the overall costs of these operations. And
finally, the OCO approach highlights lower costs that are achieved as
the nature of these missions change. This is especially true in Iraq,
where lower DOD spending far offsets a much smaller increase in the
State Department budget in fiscal year 2012.
Question. Please give a couple of examples of how the leading
recommendations of your Quadrennial Diplomacy and Defense Review (QDDR)
will translate into significant savings by your Department and USAID.
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget for the Department
of State and USAID are informed by the overarching direction and
priorities set by the Presidential Policy Directive on Global
Development and the QDDR. The budget recognizes that development
progress is essential to promoting America's national security and
economic interests, as well as our values. In particular, Secretary's
Clinton's cover letter to the 2012 congressional budget justification
highlighted priorities related to our support for diplomatic and
military engagement in key frontline states (Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Pakistan); Presidential initiatives in food security, climate change,
and global health; as well as humanitarian assistance, conflict
prevention, and crisis response. Within the State and USAID budget, and
consistent with the QDDR and Presidential Policy Directive on Global
Development, we are prioritizing these areas in our development agenda,
as well as economic growth and democratic governance programming that
are essential for reducing long-term dependence on foreign aid and
increasing sustainability.
Efficiency, program evaluation, and fiscal responsibility are major
components of the QDDR. At the release of the QDDR in December, the
Secretary noted that ``We are redefining success based on results
achieved rather than dollars spent.'' We will minimize costs and
maximize impacts, avoid duplication and overlap, and focus on
delivering results.
The cost avoidance from this focus on efficiency and fiscal
discipline are reflected in the President's fiscal year 2012 budget
request for the Department and USAID. It is a budget for tight times,
with core expenses growing just 1 percent more than comparable fiscal
year 2010 levels. When the Department's $8.7 billion Overseas
Contingency Operations request is combined with the Pentagon's war
costs in Iraq and Afghanistan, the total U.S. Government spending on
these conflict zones drops by $41 billion, highlighting the savings
that can be reached through a whole-of-government approach to our
Nation's most difficult challenges. Finally, the budget reflects tough
choices, including slowing the expansion of the Foreign Service and
reducing development assistance to more than 20 countries by at least
50 percent.
Fundamentally, the QDDR builds U.S. civilian power. This inherently
creates lasting cost-effective benefits for American taxpayers and
enhances our national security through preventative measures. It costs
far less to deploy a diplomat to defuse a crisis than it does to field
a military division if that conflict is allowed to grow. Civilian power
is a wise investment for the United States, and through the reforms
that the Department and USAID have laid out, it will pay dividends for
years to come.
--____
Question Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
Question. With respect to Cyprus, the United States' policy has
been to support a Cyprus settlement, under the auspices of the United
Nations, based on a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation with a single
sovereignty and international personality and a single citizenship,
with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded, and
comprising two politically equal communities as provided by the
relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions, and the High
Level Agreements of 1977 and 1979.
As such, the fiscal year 2011 budget included the following
language that recognized the reunification of Cyprus as an opportunity
to advance United States interests in the region and requested $11
million in Economic Support Funds (ESF):
``The fiscal year 2011 request for Europe and Eurasia is for Cyprus
and is focused on encouraging the eventual reunification of the island
by building support for the peace process, increasing the capacity of
civil society to advocate for reconciliation and reunification, and
furthering the economic integration of the island.''
That request previously has been supported by the Congress through
the appropriations process for years now. However, language on Cyprus
is not included in the President's budget proposal for fiscal year
2012. Will you continue to illustrate U.S. promotion of reunification
of the island through the Economic Support Fund?
Answer. The United States goal in Cyprus is to build regional
stability through a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus dispute. In
fiscal year 2012, the administration is requesting $3.5 million for
Cyprus. This foreign assistance will allow the administration to
continue to support programs focused on encouraging the eventual
reunification of the island by building support for the peace process,
increasing the capacity of civil society to advocate for reconciliation
and reunification, and furthering economic integration.
Despite the administration's continued belief in the importance of
a settlement and in the value of United States programs, the request
for Cyprus has been reduced from previous levels in order to allow for
the distribution of assistance resources to other global priorities. If
the ongoing peace process yields results in 2011, the administration
will reassess its approach to ensuring a smooth transition and
demonstrate U.S. support for implementation of a sustainable
settlement.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
Question. Last year's supplemental appropriation included $25
million specifically for reforestation in Haiti. However, it appears
that such funds may instead be being used by United States Aid for
International Development (USAID) for loosely defined reforestation
programs that do not include the actual long-term replanting of
sustainable trees.
Can you please elaborate on how USAID is using these specific
supplemental Haiti reforestation funds, including how much of the $25
million is being spent on the actual replanting of sustainable tree
cover?
Answer. Thank you for your continued interest in Haiti. Like you,
USAID is concerned about deforestation, and we are committed to an
appropriate and sustainable natural resources management program.
Through the use of funds provided in the fiscal year 2010 Supplemental
Appropriation Act, we will be better able to address the underlying
causes of deforestation:
--acute poverty;
--rapid population growth; and
--unplanned urbanization.
Your concern about deforestation in Haiti is well placed. USAID has
learned from past experience working in Haiti that classic
reforestation approaches, in which planting begins at the bottom of a
hillside and continues until the entire hillside has been planted with
seedlings, are not the best means of mitigation, especially when those
trees planted have no value to the farmers. For successful
reforestation to occur, it is critical to improve soil conservation by
converting hillsides to tree-based perennial agriculture. Because of
the heavy pressure on Haiti's hillsides, trees that have no value are
typically replaced with a crop that does. In contrast, trees that have
value are frequently managed like a crop.
While tree cover in three major Haitian forests stands at 1
percent, if trees that are grown for crop export (e.g., mango and
cacao) are taken into account, the tree cover estimates increase to 10-
15 percent. This is because the value of the tree grown for export is
greater than the value of the trees that can be cut down for charcoal.
Farmers will maintain these trees that provide sustained and higher
economic value. This analysis indicates that a solution driven by
changing the market dynamics that strengthens tree crop value chains is
a more effective avenue to encourage reforestation in Haiti.
USAID-funded projects have in recent years increased tree crop
cover by strengthening tree crop value chains (e.g. mango, cacao,
coffee, and avocado). These include efforts by the Pan American
Development Foundation (PADF) and the Haiti Hillside Agricultural
Program, both now completed, and two ongoing projects, Economic
Development for a Sustainable Environment (DEED) and Watershed
Initiative for National Natural Environmental Resource (WINNER). For
example, USAID's WINNER agro-forestry activities expand perennial cover
on hillsides to reduce erosion and improve soil conservation, while
promoting alternative energies to lower the demand for charcoal and
fuel wood. WINNER strengthens value chains for tree crops and focuses
on those crops with high-value yields (such as mango) that act as an
effective incentive to hillside farmers to plant and manage perennial
crops. During fiscal year 2010, the first full year of operations,
WINNER helped 131 farmer associations to set up 133 tree nurseries and
transplant a total of approximately 1 million trees, of which 30
percent were fruit trees and 70 percent were multi-purpose trees.
Please reference below chart for details.
Reforestation programs funded by the fiscal year 2010 Supplemental
Appropriation Act will contribute over the long term to replanting
sustainable trees for mango and cacao in Haiti by using a value-based
approach that strengthens tree crop value chains and assists in
producing seedling stock. USAID projects have provided the critical
proof-of-concept for a market-led approach to reforestation, an
approach that incentivizes farmers to take care of high-value trees,
ensuring long-term impact. This is the approach that USAID has taken
with its ongoing programs (WINNER and DEED) and will continue to apply
in projects currently under design, including those to be funded by the
supplemental appropriation.
NUMBER OF TREE PLANTS PRODUCED DURING WINNER'S TWO AGRO-FORESTRY CAMPAIGNS IN 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of tree Number of Number of
Number of seedlings to tree seedlings local
Region nurseries produce (life actually organizations
of project) produced involved
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First agro-forestry campaign:
Cul-de-Sac plain............................ 11 220,000 138,093 1
Kenscoff/Petion-ville....................... 9 155,000 144,479 9
Gonaives.................................... 7 132,000 140,086 7
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total campaign 1.......................... 27 507,000 422,658 17
===============================================================
Second agro-forestry campaign:
Arcahaie/Cabaret............................ 12 400,000 105,452 12
Gonaives.................................... 27 540,000 438,492 27
Kenscoff/Petion-ville....................... 63 4,638,000 401,068 19
Mirebalais/Saut d'Eau....................... 27 1,020,000 353,757 72
Cul-de-Sac plain............................ 4 120,000 109,470 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, campaign 2......................... 133 3,718,000 1,408,239 131
===============================================================
Total, campaigns 1 and 2.................. 160 4,225,000 1,830,897 148
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAID anticipates that a minimum of 50 percent, or $12.5 million,
of the $25 million in natural resources management funds provided by
the supplemental appropriation will support activities related to tree
planting, including agro-forestry, reforestation, shade-grown cacao,
and mango, and other related programs designed to increase forest cover
in Haiti, in accordance with the intent of the Congress and as
specified by legislation. The use of increased tree cover to reduce
soil erosion will strategically protect agricultural investments made
in targeted lowland plains, provide sustainable sources of income for
rural households, and serve as incentive to expand area under tree
cultivation in the future.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Leahy. Thank you, the subcommittee is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., Wednesday, March 2, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the Chair.]
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2012
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:02 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Leahy, Mikulski, Kirk, and Tim Johnson.
U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
STATEMENT OF DR. RAJIV SHAH, ADMINISTRATOR
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY
Senator Leahy. Good morning.
Today we are going to hear testimony from Dr. Rajiv Shah,
Administrator of the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID), on the Agency's fiscal year 2012 budget
request. Most of us know Dr. Shah well, and welcome him here.
About 15 months ago the Administrator took charge of an
agency that has struggled for many years with serious
management and programmatic weaknesses. At the time, I offered
him congratulations and condolences, but I was delighted he
accepted the challenge.
When he first testified here, last April, I said that too
often this subcommittee and others had encountered at USAID
instances of arrogance and detachment from the impoverished
reality of the people in countries where USAID operates, and
we'd encountered poorly designed projects, mega-contracts that
were touted as success stories, but which enriched the
contractors more than they helped the intended beneficiaries,
and taxpayer money was wasted.
If you want to change the bureaucracy--any bureaucracy,
changing the culture takes time. I continue to believe strongly
that USAID needs to become a more efficient, accessible,
flexible, and less risk-averse agency that rewards creativity
and focuses on building the capacity of local people and
governments in countries where the United States has interests.
That's just about everywhere in the world. But I have seen
steady process under Administrator Shah. And I compliment you
for that. I mentioned out back when we were talking, I've read
your speeches. You have not whitewashed problems the way some
others did in the past. You've talked about them, you've
addressed them directly, and I think that's why we see
improvements. But USAID still has a long way to go.
As long as I've been either chairman or ranking member of
this subcommittee I have said that, contrary to what some say,
USAID has an essential role to play in projecting U.S. global
leadership and helping to protect U.S. interests around the
world. I hear that from people in business and from our
military. Anyone who doubts that has not seen what I've seen,
whether it's when President George H. W. Bush asked me to go to
Vietnam and see whether we could use the Leahy War Victims Fund
there, or to the West Bank, or to Afghanistan, to so many other
places. There are countless examples where USAID has had a
profound, positive impact in ways that directly advance United
States interests.
Recently I was in Haiti. That country's going to face
daunting challenges for years to come and no one can dispute
that USAID is helping to save lives and helping the Haitian
people of the country recover.
So, it's not a question of whether your mission is integral
to our national security--everyone from President Reagan to
General Petraeus has recognized it is. But I want to know, Dr.
Shah, how you're making the changes to ensure that USAID
carries out that mission in the most cost-effective way.
Senator Graham's staff, my staff, and their counterparts in
the House have been working extraordinarily hard to try to,
one, stay within our budget constraints, but also make sure we
spend the money wisely. More than one-half of fiscal year 2011
is past. We're only now finalizing the budget, which is going
to require USAID, like other agencies, to scale back.
The President has requested significant increases in
funding for USAID in fiscal year 2012 because of our security
interests around the world. I believe much of what he requested
is justified. I believe it is in our national interest to do
more to help build stable democracies and vibrant economies
around the world. But, I don't see those increases coming.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Blunt regrets he could not be present, but has
submitted a prepared statement for the record. Senator Kirk is
here. Senator Graham's schedule suddenly changed, and I
understand that. I'll yield to Senator Kirk, and then we'll go
to questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Roy Blunt
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you Director Shah for being here
today. You and I had a chance to visit last week in my office and I
appreciated the chance to hear from you directly on some of these
topics.
Obviously your organization's mission to promote development and
provide aid of all kinds to areas of the world in need is something
that is both morally right and helps improve America's image in the
world.
Unfortunately our budget realities mean that we just can't do as
much for as many people as we would like to.
I appreciate hearing about your efforts to bring greater efficiency
to United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and
implement policies you've witnessed firsthand while working in the
private sector and with private sector partners. I've always said that
government is the last place where you measure how much you care about
something by how much money you spend on it instead of the results you
see. I believe USAID should be focused on results and I hope that's the
direction you're taking the agency.
I mentioned this during our meeting the other day, but I want to
get it in the record. There's a program at USAID called Scholarships
for Education and Economic Development and it has a partnership with
St. Louis Community College. I believe this partnership has been
successful and I believe the leaders of that community college want to
see it continue. So I'm hopeful it will and that these students from
Latin America will continue to benefit from spending time in the St.
Louis community learning from my constituents about a lot of very
practical skills that they can take back to their own communities.
I encourage you to continue working closely with other U.S.
Government agencies. We hear a lot from our military and security
leaders that USAID programs are a real added value to our efforts
wherever U.S. troops are engaged. I believe that when our diplomatic,
aid, and military agencies operate jointly and seamlessly, that is the
best way to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being well-spent and with
the maximum input of leaders with all kinds of experience. I know that
bureaucratic challenges await every effort to integrate these agencies
and I want to emphasize that the Congress should be doing everything it
can to back up leaders who want to see these agencies better cooperate.
I also hope you'll continue to keep the Congress apprised of your
programs in parts of the world that we need to be paying a lot of
attention to. I know you've already briefed me personally on ongoing
efforts in some particularly challenging places like Egypt, Yemen,
Afghanistan, and Iraq. I appreciate that and will look forward to your
feedback as those programs and many others are implemented in the
months and years ahead.
Thank you again for your time today and I'm looking forward to
hearing from you and asking some questions.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARK KIRK
Senator Kirk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we're looking
forward to Senator Graham leading our side.
I'm new to this subcommittee, but not to this bill. I think
the first foreign operations bill I worked on was the fiscal
year 1984 supplemental 27 years ago, and remember USAID
administrators who have come and gone--I think my first one was
Peter McPherson that I worked with as a staffer with the House
International Relations Committee, helped to draft the
legislation that made you part of the State Department. And I
think that was because of critical problems that USAID
basically told the State Department in critical moments in our
history, like in El Salvador, that they could jump off our
cliff, and, it was not in our budget, it was not part of the
development goals, and so we weren't going to provide critical
assistance needed to help the El Salvador peace process. And I
think for leaders of the Congress at the time, that's why we
rolled you into the State Department--to make you a tool of the
Secretary of State, rather, sort of, as a lone ranger out there
in bureaucracy land, which is what USAID had been.
We're pretty proud of the USAID team in Benghazi right now
and the support that you're giving, although I'm very worried
about the sustainability of your effort. Should Ajdabiya fall,
my guess is that you guys are going to bug out, and then the
question is, what happens to everyone else? I think that's
because of a critical lack of United States air power that will
be unable for us to protect the humanitarian mission, which, as
my understanding was, the whole point of this operation in
Libya.
I've also been worried about sustainability of USAID
efforts elsewhere. The heart and soul of USAID is its immediate
disaster response and support for the enabling environment
around U.S. troops. And oftentimes we've seen that when the
security environment gets robust, as we would say, USAID and
its partners bug out. We saw the collapse of alternative
development programs in Helmand province, which was the central
core of the effort for the U.S. military, and the lack of USAID
and its partners being able to hang in there with U.S. troops
was disturbing.
We also saw USAID trying to electrify Western Afghanistan--
a key part of the effort--with a project at Kajaki Dam, but
they've been unable to actually carry that out. And I think we
have largely abandoned the last turbine that was supposed to go
in there. And it's been a very long and tortured effort to get
power to Kandahar, which, as General McChrystal and General
Petraeus have said, is the central focus of our efforts in
Afghanistan, and I've been worried about just how slow USAID
has been in providing that effort.
But I'm most worried about USAID abandoning, apparently, a
Partner Vetting System (PVS) to make sure that funds stay out
of terrorist hands in the West Bank in Gaza. We have the
distinct possibility, according to USAID inspector general
audits at West Bank in Gaza, that we may be funding both sides
of this conflict, and I will be asking you later why you have
failed to meet commitments and timelines that you set before me
when I was a House Member, and look very much forward to your
answers on that.
And, Mr. Chairman, back to you, thank you.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Dr. Shah, please feel free to go ahead, Sir.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DR. RAJIV SHAH
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
subcommittee. I appreciate the chance to be here today, and I
want to thank you all for your commitments to U.S. engagement
efforts around the world, and to USAID in particular.
As the chairman noted, I've been in this role now for more
than 15 months. The first 2 to 3 of those months were certainly
consumed by managing an interagency response to the tragic
earthquake in Haiti. While that was an all-consuming exercise
for me, it was also an opportunity for me to see what Senator
Kirk just referred to as the heart and soul of our efforts--our
ability to move quickly in times of humanitarian crises, and
our willingness to take on risks in order to serve some of the
most vulnerable people around the world.
Following that experience we launched two major efforts
last year--a Presidential Study Directive on development and a
Quadrennial Development and Diplomacy Review (QDDR), both of
which were designed to evaluate and assess how we could do a
better job executing our mission abroad.
The Presidential Study Directive set some clear strategic
guidelines for us to build on the development of sustainable
systems, build local capacity around the world, and move away
from service delivery that just requires ongoing investment
without building that kind of sustained local capacity. It also
directed us to be more focused on growth and good governance as
major underlying factors for successful development, and
encouraged us to make science, technology and innovation a
major focus of how we try to bring the cost of achieving
results down on a sector-by-sector basis.
The QDDR resulted in part in endorsing a set of reforms
I've called USAID Forward. Those reforms cover budget, policy,
human resources, procurement, science and technology, and
evaluation. And in each of those areas I think we've made real
progress in implementing a new strategic direction and new
operating principles for our Agency and our teams around the
world.
I look forward to discussing them with you, and I recognize
that this kind of complete reform of a Federal bureaucracy is a
difficult task to undertake.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the staff at USAID
which has across the board been supportive of the efforts we're
undertaking--especially certain members of our teams, both here
in Washington and around the world, that have really become
champions for the USAID Forward reform agenda, and taken it
upon themselves to be creative and use their insights in
implementing these guidances in case after case after case.
Ultimately, the purpose of these efforts is to drive better
results, and to drive them in areas such as our Feed the Future
program. I had the chance to visit a new partnership we've
developed with Walmart that is allowing communities in the
Guatemalan highlands in the western part of that country to
escape a decades-long situation of poverty and child hunger and
malnutrition.
I've had a chance to see our Global Health Initiative in
action. We are now looking at data coming back from the
President's malaria initiative that shows a 30 percent
reduction in the number of children under the age of 5 who die
from all causes because of our efforts to get a low-cost,
insecticide-treated bed net, some indoor residual insecticide
spraying, and improved treatments to hospitals and communities
where kids get malaria and often die.
And I've had the chance to deeply engage with our
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Haiti, and other missions. My most
recent trip was to Afghanistan. While I was there I had the
chance to sit with a group of women who had come together in a
shura that was part of a program called the National Solidarity
Program of which USAID has been a strong supporter. They
represented many of the positive attributes of our new gender
policy across the Agency and in that country.
I understand that our reforms are critical because our
mission is critical. We need to be an ever-improving partner to
the United States military in national security operations. We
want to be continually more effective in places around the
world, like El Salvador, which has become one of the
Partnership for Growth countries where we are essentially
coordinating the interagency partnership with El Salvador to
help build on the track record of building local institutions
and allowing that country to have a more dynamic, growth-
oriented economy that can serve as a pillar for the region of
Central America.
And I recognize that these reforms will not happen
overnight. It takes a lot of hard work. It takes people being
willing to try things differently. It takes wonderful and
committed partners in the Congress in both the Senate and the
House to both give the reforms a chance and to continue to
encourage us with your guidance and your support and your
specific comments regarding issues upon which we need to take
action on in order to accelerate our reform agenda.
PREPARED STATEMENT
At the end of the day this country deserves an outstanding
and premier development Agency that needs to be aligned
absolutely with the Secretary of State and our State
Department's diplomatic priorities. It needs to work in a
spirit of partnership with the military. And I think in all of
those areas we've improved our performance significantly. But
ultimately we want to deliver real results for the American
people. We think we're on that path. And I look forward to your
continued guidance and support.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Rajiv Shah
introduction
Thank you very much Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Graham, and
members of the subcommittee. I am honored to join you here today in
support of the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request.
Before beginning my testimony, I want to briefly comment on the
U.S. Agency For International Development's (USAID) response to the
devastating earthquake and subsequent tsunami in Japan and the
remarkable events taking place in the Middle East.
In Japan, USAID is leading the United States Government's response,
coordinating an interagency effort with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, and the Departments of State, Energy, Defense, and Health
and Human Services. We also have deployed a Disaster Assistance
Response Team--including urban search and rescue specialists and
nuclear experts--to support Japanese emergency response efforts. I'd
like to thank the brave men and women on these teams for their enormous
courage. USAID has provided 10,000 personal protective equipment sets--
including suits, masks, gloves, decontamination bags, potassium iodide,
and other supplies--to help those working near the contaminated zone in
Fukushima Prefecture.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the Japanese people at this time,
and we will continue to work closely with the Government of Japan to
respond to their requests for assistance as quickly as possible.
USAID also has led the humanitarian response to recent events in
the Middle East. As we speak, USAID teams are working on the Tunisian
border with Libya and in Egypt, helping deliver assistance to those
affected by conflict. In Eastern Libya, we have delivered health kits
capable of providing basic care to 40,000 people, with more en route.
We have also provided key support to the World Food Programme, which
has moved more than 10,900 tons of food in and around Libya, enough to
feed more than 650,000 people.
We will work with counterparts to help the people of the region
realize their democratic aspirations through a credible transition.
Drawing on experience USAID has gained over decades, we will help
countries strengthen civil society, extend the rule of law, and create
more transparent and accountable democratic governance.
results
Both the President and Secretary Clinton have emphasized that
development is as important to our Nation's foreign policy as diplomacy
and defense, and as a result have actively championed the goal of re-
establishing USAID as the world's premier development agency.
Representing less than 1 percent of the Federal budget, the
President's fiscal year 2012 request balances difficult trade-offs with
a clear-eyed assessment of where we can most effectively achieve
dramatic, meaningful results for the American people and the developing
world.
The President's request includes significant investments in
bipartisan initiatives promoting global health and food security, the
foundations of which were laid by the previous administration and
bipartisan supporters in the Congress.
Representing the largest portion of the President's budget request
for foreign operations, the $8.7 billion USAID and State are requesting
for the Global Health and Child Survival account will allow us to
transform HIV/AIDS from a death sentence to a manageable disease for
more than 4 million HIV-positive patients, reduce the burden of malaria
by one-half for 450 million people and prevent hundreds of millions of
child deaths from preventable diseases by providing them vaccines and
bed nets.
Our Global Health Initiative is designed to efficiently deliver
these results. Rather than create separate facilities to treat separate
diseases, we will save money and expand the reach of coverage by
integrating treatments into single points-of-care. In Kenya, we worked
with President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief to couple HIV/AIDS
treatment with maternal and child health services. As a result, we've
extended the availability of reproductive health services from two to
all eight of the country's districts, at no increase in cost.
We can also help countries develop their own agricultural sectors,
so they can feed themselves. For the $1.1 billion we are requesting for
bilateral agricultural development programs, we will be able to help up
to 18 million people in up to 20 countries--most of them women--grow
enough food to feed their families and break the grips of hunger and
poverty.
We chose these potential countries for our Feed the Future
initiative selectively, based on their own willingness to invest in
agriculture, undertake reforms, and encourage coordinated investment
from other donors, foundations and private companies, leveraging our
investments several-fold. We have worked closely with these countries
to develop rigorous agricultural strategies that will bolster the
success of our initiative.
But our foreign assistance will not just assist people abroad; it
will benefit us here at home.
from the american people, for the american people
Our assistance represents the spirit of our country's generosity;
captured in USAID's motto: ``From the American People''. Recent events
underscore the critical importance of our humanitarian assistance
request.
But now more than ever, it is critical that the American people
understand that our assistance also delivers real benefits for the
American people: it keeps our country safe, and develops the markets of
tomorrow.
Keeping America Safe
By elevating the role of democracy, human rights and governance, we
help to consolidate freedom in new and fragile democracies and expand
liberty in authoritarian and semi-authoritarian countries. We also
support the rebuilding of failed and fragile states during and after
conflict, forging new compacts between State, civil society and the
private sector that lead to increased stability and ultimately keep
Americans out of harm.
As Secretary of Defense Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral
Mullen, and General Petraeus have all emphasized, we need a fully
engaged and fully funded national security presence, including the core
components of our Nation's civilian power: the State Department and
USAID.
This year, for the first time, the President's budget designates
$1.2 billion of USAID funding for Afghanistan to a separate account
called the Overseas Contingency Operation account. This transparent
approach, modeled upon the Defense Department's well-established
example, distinguishes between temporary costs and our existing budget
in an effort to consistently budget for Defense, State, and USAID
spending.
In the most volatile regions of Afghanistan, USAID works side-by-
side with the military, playing a critical role in stabilizing
districts, building responsive local governance, improving the lives of
ordinary Afghans, and--ultimately--helping to pave the way for American
troops to return home.
For example, we are helping to improve agricultural yields in the
Arghandab Valley. As a result, farmers shipped the first agricultural
exports out of Kandahar in 40 years. We have also helped rebuild the
civil service in the Southeast and helped fuel a 40 percent reduction
in the growth of opium poppies that fund Taliban operations.
In Northwest Pakistan--the current base of operations for al Qaeda
and the Pakistani Taliban--USAID staff and partners undertake enormous
personal risk administering more than 1,400 small-scale development
projects. In the Malakand province, they have helped rebuild 150
schools so children there can become productive members of their
economy, instead of turning to extremist madrassas.
Our work in promoting national security is not just limited to
active zones of conflict. Throughout the world, USAID is deploying
development specialists today to strengthen democracies, rebuild
livelihoods and build strong health and educational systems so that we
do not have to deploy our troops tomorrow. As Secretary Gates has said:
``Development is a lot cheaper than sending soldiers.''
In Southern Sudan, the USAID mission worked with partners to
design, procure, and pre-position ballots and supplies months before
the recent referendum on independence. That foresight helped ensure the
referendum, which many predicted would never occur, proceeded
peacefully and successfully, but also left us prepared in the event it
would not.
Developing the Markets of Tomorrow
In addition to strengthening our national security, USAID's work
also strengthens America's economic security.
Today, long-time aid recipients like India, Indonesia, Poland,South
Korea, and other emerging economies have become America's fastest
growing markets. Exports to developing countries have grown six times
faster than exports to major economies and today they represent roughly
one-half of all U.S. exports.
In 2009, we exported more than half-a-trillion dollars in American
goods and services to those countries, and 97 percent of those
exporters were small-and-medium sized U.S. companies. That is why for
every 10 percent increase we see in exports, there is a 7 percent
increase in the number of jobs here at home.
We need to accelerate the economic growth of tomorrow's trade
partners, ensuring those countries grow peacefully and sustainably.
But beyond these impacts, winning the future will depend on
reaching the 2-3 billion people currently at the bottom of the pyramid
who will come to represent a growing global middle class. By
establishing links to these consumers today, we can effectively
position American companies to sell them goods tomorrow.
Make no mistake: our success is intertwined with the progress of
those around us. By fully funding the $2.9 billion USAID is requesting
for its Development Assistance account, we will save lives, expand
global freedom and opportunity and crucially strengthen America's
national and economic security.
reform
Because development is critical to our national security and future
prosperity, USAID has worked tirelessly to change how we work with all
of our partners.
Consistent with the President's Policy Directive on Global
Development and the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review
(QDDR), we have launched a series of reforms we call USAID Forward.
Learning, Monitoring, and Evaluation
To ensure our assistance is effective, we are taking monitoring,
evaluation, and transparency seriously. In 1994, USAID conducted nearly
500 independent evaluations. By the time I arrived, only 170
evaluations were submitted to Washington, despite a threefold increase
in programs managed. In many instances, these evaluations were
commissioned by the same organizations that ran the programs.
To end this practice, we introduced a new evaluation policy that is
quickly setting a new standard in our field. We are requesting $19.7
million to implement this policy and provide performance evaluations
for every major project, conducted by independent third parties, not by
the implementing party themselves. And we will release the results of
all of our evaluations within 3 months of their completion, whether
they tell a story of success or failure.
Combating Fraud, Waste, and Abuse
We are fighting vigorously to prevent and respond to fraud, waste
and abuse, and to ensure a culture of vigilant oversight. I have
created a new suspension and debarment task force led by our Deputy
Administrator Don Steinberg and staffed with talent across our agency.
This task force will provide a coordinated effort to closely monitor,
investigate and respond to suspicious activity.
Private Sector Partnerships
We are also placing a renewed emphasis on economic growth, driven
by private sector investment. In all aspects of our work, we are
relying much more on leveraging private sector investment and building
public-private partnerships in countries committed to good governance
and pro-business reforms.
For example, through the Feed the Future initiative, we have
launched groundbreaking new partnerships with Kraft, General Mills, and
Wal-Mart in Ghana, Tanzania, El Salvador, and Guatemala to connect poor
farmers to local and international food markets. And in Haiti, we are
supporting Coca-Cola's initiative to promote the Haitian mango juice
industry.
These efforts strengthen the sustainability of our economic growth
work, while also improving the bottom line for American companies.
Science, Technology, and Innovation
Across our portfolio, we are seeking new ways to harness the power
of science, technology and innovation. For our request of $22.1
million, we will recapture USAID's legacy as the leader in applying
scientific and technical solutions to the challenges of development.
We have developed a new venture capital-style investment fund--the
Development Innovation Ventures Fund--so we can support start-ups,
researchers, and nonprofits focused on the problems of the developing
world. We are requesting $30 million to continue using this simple, but
highly competitive business model to sustainably scale innovative
solutions to development challenges.
By providing seed capital to incentivize the emergence of these
innovations, we practice development with an exit strategy. This fund
has already funded several projects, including an easy-to-use self-
administered test for pre-eclampsia, the leading cause of maternal
mortality in the world.
In Haiti, instead of rebuilding brick-and-mortar banks devastated
by the earthquake, we are partnering with the Gates Foundation to begin
a mobile banking revolution in the country. By allowing Haitians to
save money and make transactions on their cell phones, we are
encouraging local wealth creation and cutting back on corruption and
wage-skimming.
This approach forms the foundation of a new series of grant
challenge partnerships USAID introduced just last month. Rather than
building hospitals and power plants throughout the developing world,
USAID will partner with foundations, foreign governments, inventors and
engineers to generate new, low-cost innovations that can help countries
skip the need for some of this physical infrastructure.
Procurement
Fundamentally, all of the reforms I have outlined are designed to
achieve the same result: to create the conditions where our assistance
is no longer necessary.
The President's budget request puts this approach into practice. It
cuts development assistance in at least 20 countries by more than one-
half, including 11 countries where all bilateral Development Assistance
has been eliminated. It also terminates USAID missions in three
countries. And it reallocates almost $400 million in assistance and
shifts 30 Foreign Service positions toward priority countries and
initiatives.
USAID must continue to do its work in a way that allows our efforts
to be replaced over time by efficient local governments, thriving civil
societies and vibrant private sectors. That is why we have launched the
most aggressive procurement and contracting reforms our agency has ever
seen. Instead of continuing to sign large contracts with large
contractors, we are accelerating our funding to local partners and
entrepreneurs, change agents who have the cultural knowledge and in-
country expertise to deliver lasting, durable growth.
These procurement reforms are crucial to delivering assistance in a
much more effective and evidence-based way, generating real results
faster, more sustainably and at lower cost so more people can benefit.
To implement the QDDR and USAID Forward, implement our procurement
reforms and deliver development gains more cheaply and efficiently for
the American people, it is crucial that USAID's fiscal year 2012
operational request of $1.5 billion is fully funded.
We can only make these reforms meaningful if we can bring in the
contracting officers, controllers, and technical advisors who can
provide accountability and oversight over our contracts and grants and
safeguard taxpayer funds.
As we continue the Development Leadership Initiative begun under
President Bush, with strong support from the Congress, we plan on
filling key staffing gaps in priority countries and frontline States.
By bringing in experts in conflict and governance, global health,
agriculture, education, economics and engineering, we can restore the
technical capacity our agency has lost over time, and has had to
contract at far greater expense.
conclusion
The evidence is clear: development saves lives, strengthens
democracies and expands opportunity around the world. It also keeps our
country safe and strengthens our economy. But our development
assistance also expresses our American values.
When we protect girls from sex trafficking in Asia, stop
deforestation in Latin America or help Afghan girls return to school,
we express American values.
When Americans see a neighbor in need, or witness suffering and
injustice abroad, we respond; we mobilize; we act. We are a generous
people. That fact was never clearer than when 20 million American
families donated money to Haiti relief; more than watched the Super
Bowl.
USAID is proud to put American values into action--distributing
antimalarial bed nets donated by school children, supporting faith-
based organizations that help ease suffering abroad, and engaging all
Americans in solving the greatest global challenges and generating
results.
Right now is a critical moment in our country's history. As a
Nation, we are making a lasting determination about the future of our
country, and the future of our global leadership.
Now is the time when America must decide whether it will engage and
lead the world, actively using its tools of development, diplomacy, and
defense to improve human welfare and freedom across the globe . . . or
whether it will retract, leaving many of its poorest, most fragile
global partners without assistance, and leaving other emerging global
powers like China to promote alternative economic and political models.
Budgets are an expression of policy; they are an expression of
priorities. But fundamentally, they are an expression of values.
Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much, Dr. Shah.
CUTBACKS IN FOREIGN AID
You'd mentioned that some people are misinformed about what
foreign aid is. A recent national poll said that most Americans
think it accounts for between 20 percent and 40 percent of our
budget. Of course, it's less than 1 percent. And they assume
that it's a form of charity, a giveaway. But USAID spent $1.6
billion on goods manufactured in the United States--100 times
more than it spent on goods manufactured outside the United
States. That's why everybody--Presidents, Republicans and
Democrats, and our military leaders--have supported it. But
there is going to be, there will be cutbacks, I assume. There
will be programs eliminated.
Give me a couple of good reasons to support foreign aid,
and what you think may be cut.
NATIONAL SECURITY AND JOBS IN THE UNITED STATES
Dr. Shah. Well, I appreciate the comment and the question.
I believe our performance in places like Afghanistan and
Pakistan are central to our national security priorities. Over
the last 15 months we have dramatically increased our oversight
capabilities and operational presence in those places,
consistent with an integrated civilian-military plan that we
are enacting with General Petraeus in Afghanistan and with our
colleagues in Pakistan.
We have pursued--I think to great effect--a strategy and an
approach in Southern Sudan that enabled our diplomatic efforts
to be successful by supporting a peacefully conducted
referendum. We now keep our fingers crossed and continue to
work in partnership to ensure an effective and nonviolent
resolution to the succession of South Sudan.
And I think in Haiti we're making real progress in certain
areas. I'm proud of our efforts in mobile banking that I think
are going to develop an innovative and important mechanism for
banking and financial transactions based on mobile phones that
will reach many, many more clients than older traditional
systems. We've seen our efforts to get clean water to people,
and to build basic systems that do that generate real results
and help prevent the further spread of critical diseases like
cholera. And we know we are making progress on efforts like the
industrial park in the North that will create 20,000 jobs and
bases for improved housing and economic opportunity.
In all of these settings, our work contributes to and is a
critical part of our national security. And it is how we
project our values abroad. It is enabling our economy to be
more vibrant and dynamic, and it's helping to create jobs at
home.
EXAMPLES OF BUSINESS--CORPORATE--PARTNERSHIPS
I was with the President in India when we were launching a
unique partnership as part of our Feed the Future Program, and
we visited a micro-irrigation provider who was selling small-
scale farmers a very cheap micro-irrigation plastic piping
technology that was powered by a solar panel, and they've sold
hundreds of thousands of those in India. Well, the solar panels
are made in Georgia, and now they're building a plant in
Michigan. And it allows us to reach a market of very poor
farmers throughout rural South Asia, while creating hundreds of
jobs here in the United States.
That's just one example. Across the board, our businesses
are telling us that they want to engage in real partnerships so
that they can cultivate the markets of the future and they can
be active participants. And they find our partnerships ever
more streamlined and efficient in helping them make those
engagements--businesses like Walmart, PepsiCo in Ethiopia, and
a number of other major firms in the southern part of----
USAID'S RESPONSE TO BUDGET CUTS
Senator Leahy. But, what are some of the things that will
have to be cut if your budget falls short?
Dr. Shah. Well, they're really in two categories. One is,
we've proposed a set of reallocations and we've used our new
budget capability to really identify tough tradeoffs that we've
made in order to move money to better-performing efforts. We've
proposed in the fiscal year 2012 budget request a series of
investments that continue to build on the most results-oriented
programs.
The ones I'm most focused on with respect to your question
are programs like the President's malaria initiative, which has
shown a tremendous capability to reduce child death in Africa.
That program will expand into new countries like Ethiopia and
the Democratic Republic of Congo, really going after big
reservoirs of high-malaria-prevalence communities. And we would
not be able to expand a program that works and generates
results without that.
The other area would be our Feed the Future initiative.
We've seen how high food prices in 2008 led to more than 36
food riots around the world and real instability in countries
where people spend a huge percentage of their income securing
food and feeding their families. Feed the Future is a program
that works. It's targeting 18 million people, to move them out
of poverty and hunger, in 20 countries. But we simply won't be
able to continue the program and the investments in those 20
countries if we're not able to secure the fiscal year 2012
budget as the President has proposed.
PROCUREMENT REFORMS AND MONITORING
Senator Leahy. In your congressional budget justification
there is a statement that USAID is conducting a series of
business process reviews; key management processes and
functions to support the Agency's development outcomes more
effectively; to accomplish this, USAID is utilizing a
systematic repeatable approach, including diagnosis,
optimization, implementation, and assessment--this bureaucratic
gobbledygook doesn't tell us anything.
I tried to find a coherent description of these reforms. I
couldn't. Now, I was not an English major in college, but I do
read a lot and I wish you would just tell us in English--what's
your most important procurement reform?
And then when you talk about monitoring--we had the
problem, of course, at Afghanistan's central bank prior to your
being here--USAID had a $92 million, 5-year contract with them,
with Deloitte. And, I assumed that they would tell us if they
saw fraud. They never did. The inspector general said USAID
found out about the fraud when The Washington Post ran an
article about it. They issued $850 million in fraudulent loans.
If we're going to be doing this, how do we make sure the
contractors are honest? How do we--I don't want
``optimization'' and ``robustibadation'', and the rest of the
stuff. I want to know who's there with the green eyeshades
keeping track of things?
Dr. Shah. Senator----
Senator Leahy. It's a general question.
Dr. Shah. On your----
Senator Leahy. Good luck.
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Sir.
On your point on congressional budget justifications,
you're absolutely right. I have myself struggled greatly with
the way they read. And we are taking the guidance from your
team very seriously and will in future submissions have a more
plain-English approach to that--which is something I'm seeking
across every effort in our bureaucracy and across the Federal
Government.
EXAMPLES OF REFORMS USAID HAS UNDERTAKEN
With respect to procurement reform, we've really taken on
some very fundamental reforms. The first is building local
capacity development teams in our missions around the world. We
have a plan for expanding the numbers that we do. But what we
do is we build a team that includes a first tour officer, a
more seasoned Foreign Service officer, local staff that
understand the context and institutions locally; have them
develop a game plan for getting a higher percentage of total
USAID commitments directly to local institutions and
organizations. And that's making a big difference.
I had a chance personally to meet with the first 50 or so
members of these teams, and I really believe, I mean, they have
a huge amount of passion and commitment to this. They're doing
important work and innovative work. We've made a number of
specific policy changes in order to enable them to be
successful. And----
Senator Leahy. I want that work to show. I mean, I don't
want it to get----
Dr. Shah. Absolutely. Yes.
Senator Leahy [continuing]. Consumed in this.
Dr. Shah. As another example, we've been breaking down
these Indefinite Quantity Contract (IQC), which are these very
big contracts, into smaller chunks and into things that are
more broadly competed and allow for more firms to be
essentially winners within an IQC. There's a good example of
that with respect to our construction and vertical structures
programs in Afghanistan, where they worked hard to break a big
IQC into four smaller components--three or four smaller
components--that have a greater amount of competition to get
you better results for American taxpayers.
Third, we've created a board on acquisition and review of
large contracts, and a suspensions and debarments task force.
And we have been aggressive about pursuing enhanced
accountability across all kinds of partners--public and private
sector.
MONITORING PROGRAMS IN AFGHANISTAN
With respect to Kabul Bank, we have canceled the component
of the contract that I believe you were referring to. We do not
believe that Deloitte, or USAID, or the U.S. Government writ
large could have stopped the massive fraud that existed there.
But, the concern that I had was that the structure of the
project----
Senator Leahy. But nobody knew about it. That's the
problem.
Dr. Shah [continuing]. Precluded--exactly--precluded
information from coming to sources it should have been coming
to. And that's just wrong. So, we're reviewing a broad range of
our efforts there.
In Afghanistan, we've launched a project that we call A-
cubed, or, Accountable Assistance for Afghanistan, and I look
forward to talking a little bit more about the different
programs within that.
But I think over the past 15 months the progress and the
improvement in contract management and oversight in Afghanistan
has been tremendous. I believe there's still a long way to go,
and I welcome the cases where we find things that we can then
go after or cancel, so that we can keep the teams really
focused on implementing the A cubed initiative and doing that
aggressively. Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Senator Kirk, I've gone way over my time and I apologize.
Please go ahead.
Senator Kirk. No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
PVS--SENATOR KIRK'S INQUIRY
In November 2007, the USAID Office of Inspector General
said that ``our audit determines that USAID's policies,
procedures and controls are not adequate to ensure against
providing assistance to terrorists on the West Bank.'' USAID
properly responded in July of that year with a PVS, and you
spent $2.5 million taxpayer dollars on setting that system up.
In September--or, I'm sorry. Then you, in January 2009,
USAID published its final rule on the vetting system. In May,
Jacob Lew testified before my old committee that this PVS is in
the rulemaking process, and it's our intent to become final.
In June 2009, the PVS rule was made final. In March 2010,
you appeared before me when I was a House Member and you said,
``We are prepared for USAID programs, for the PVS to roll out
this year''--that was 2010--``and we will come out with very
specific plans on March 16.'' That was March 16, 2010.
On April 2, then, in a response to a letter from me, you
said, you wrote in writing to me that ``We will be putting this
out within 1 month, and should be ready to launch the program
by the end of the summer.'' Meanwhile, you've just been getting
pounded by your own inspector general, who says that ``We have
no way to ensure compliance in March 2011.'' Your inspector
general said that the program was vulnerable to inadvertently
providing material support to organizations for persons who
commit, threaten--or, threaten to commit or support terrorism
without the knowledge of USAID in the West Bank and Gaza. You
also--the inspector general also said that, ``Our Office of
Compliance specialists provided mission management summary
reports of instances of noncompliance with vetting
requirements. However, the position now has been vacant since
March 1, 2010. Mission management no longer receives any of
these reports.''
Boy, this is not looking good for your running of this
program--like, really terrible. How do you answer?
USAID'S PVS AND OTHER ANTI-TERRORIST PROGRAMS
Dr. Shah. Well, the PVS in West Bank and Gaza has been up
and running. It has not stalled. We are seeking a new person to
fill the position, but we're able to continue to implement the
program with respect to that point.
The point that you referred to about our prior conversation
on this I can speak to. As you know all of our missions
complete antiterrorism risk-based assessments on an annual
basis, and----
Senator Kirk. No, I----
Dr. Shah [continuing]. We check our partners----
Senator Kirk [continuing]. Don't--I'm asking----
Dr. Shah [continuing]. Against lists maintained by the
Office of Foreign Asset Control. And before awards are made,
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are required to certify
that they do not provide any material support to terrorists. In
addition, we require partners to adhere to basic U.S. law
which, of course, forbids furnishing of assistance to terrorist
entities. And we've established the mechanism that you
described in the West Bank and Gaza, which we feel is
effective, and the inspector general has supported that. We've
also applied that mechanism in different forms to Somalia,
Yemen, and Afghanistan.
At the beginning of this administration, USAID had
developed--and in the context of those conversations--a very
specific PVS program to test out more broadly. At approximately
that time, the Congress passed an annual appropriations bill
which directed us to apply the program equally to State and
USAID, and Jack Lew, who was the Deputy Secretary at the State
Department at the time, and I worked through carrying out that
directive for many, many months.
Since that time, we've worked to develop a very specific
joint pilot program with the State Department. We propose to
roll it out in five or so countries. We've tried to assess a
range of threat environment----
Senator Kirk. So, wait a minute. So, after promising me
that you would roll it out as of May 16, 2010, you're now
promising to re-roll it out a year later?
Dr. Shah. Well, I'm, well, what I wanted to suggest is, we
have the pilot designed, ready to go with the State Department
as we were directed to do. And we would like to----
Senator Kirk. Well, let me go back. Why----
Senator Leahy. Let him finish.
Senator Kirk. Yes.
Senator Leahy. I'll give you a chance to go back.
Dr. Shah. And we would at this point like to consult with
the Congress. But the specific congressional directive around
this particular pilot is something we are committed to do in a
manner that covers both State and USAID, and covers similar
types of projects and programs in a range of threat
environments as is our interpretation of the guidance.
That has not stopped us from being ever more aggressive
about partner vetting--especially in specific high-threat
environments in Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia where the West
Bank, Gaza PVS approach has been one that we've been more
aggressively pursuing in those places.
And frankly in Afghanistan in particular, where through the
terrorist threat financing cell task force 2010 and the
Accountable Assistance for Afghanistan program, we have a very
robust effort that identifies individuals, brings in the U.S.
intelligence community, as well as the military, in that
process. And that's been a real priority for us over the last
15 months.
So I just want to make the distinction between the pilot
congressional directive, which we are trying to meet in a joint
State-USAID manner, and the efforts in Afghanistan and other
places, where we're trying to be very robust on our own in the
context of accountable assistance for these particular
environments there.
Senator Kirk. I didn't ask about Afghanistan.
Dr. Shah. Okay.
Senator Kirk. So let's go back to May 16. Why did you miss
the target?
Dr. Shah. Well, I did not mean to mislead in any context.
My understanding at that point in time was we had a pilot ready
to go. I didn't know what it would take to turn that into a
joint State-USAID pilot. It took longer than I think any of us
would have liked. But we're at that point now where we have it.
It's ready. It's designed. And we seek congressional
consultation before rolling it out.
Senator Kirk. So can you give me a date now that's more
valid than the date you gave me?
ANTICIPATING THE ROLL-OUT DATE OF THE PILOT PROGRAM
Dr. Shah. Sir, I have learned from this exercise not to
pick a date here. But we certainly have a----
Senator Kirk. Just let me----
Dr. Shah [continuing]. A proposal that we'd like to have
feedback on.
Senator Kirk. So you are unable to give a date to assure--
you've got a $495,000--or $95 million funding request, and you
are unable to say that you will put in a previously designed
and paid-for system in place to ensure--or let me ask you this.
How many UNRWA unions are controlled by Hamas right now?
Dr. Shah. Well let me answer--I can't answer the second
question. Let me try to answer the first. I would like us to
implement this pilot as has been directed as quickly and
efficiently as possible.
Obviously, my desire to get there was delayed by the
efforts we undertook to make this a joint State and USAID
pilot, and we do want to do this in a manner that has
appropriate congressional consultation so that we know that the
countries we've selected and the range of threat environments
and the data that come back from the pilot meet all of the
needs, and help us learn about how to then roll this out in a
broader way. So----
Senator Kirk. So it could be another year.
Dr. Shah. I don't think it will be another year. I think we
can come up here right away with the actual consultation on the
pilot plan, and based on feedback from our partners in the
Congress, then roll it out.
Senator Kirk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Leahy. Okay. Thank you, Senator Kirk.
Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And really thank
you and your staff for your, just, steadfast work, not only in
this budget, but in all others, really, to look out for the
poor and marginalized in the world.
Dr. Shah, I'd like to first of all welcome you to the
Agency.
Dr. Shah. Thank you.
Senator Mikulski. You have a unique background with your
M.D., your work with the Gates Foundation, your initiatives in
global health, and now this very hands-on experience. So we're
glad to see you.
During this time when Federal employees are being so bashed
and trashed, I would like to thank the staff of USAID, both
here and those who serve abroad, for, really, what they do.
Many serve in harm's way. If you're an USAID worker you're
always in a place that's either dirty or dangerous or both. And
I just want to--I'm going to express my appreciation to them.
As the Senator from Maryland, I represent many faith-based
organizations that are deeply involved with USAID--Catholic
Relief, Lutheran Refugee Services, and others. So we know what
you do, and we know what you're supposed to do. And I'm going
to make sure you have the right resources to really do the job.
THE IMPACT OF BUDGET CUTS ON USAID'S PROGRAMS, ESPECIALLY IN NICARAGUA
I want to get right to the impact of cuts in foreign aid. I
just mentioned Catholic Relief, and I know that they operate a
$7 million program in Nicaragua, helping close to 6,000 women
participate in growing coffee. They actually cultivate hundreds
of acres, and they even signed a U.S. Fair Trade deal or a
United States--there's this whole one group that's a United
States, United States Fair Trade-certified company. They,
themselves, have been empowered. They're now creating jobs in
Nicaragua, and they're also helping create jobs in this
country.
Could you tell us, with the impending cuts, will you be
able to sustain the Nicaraguan Empowerment Initiative--not only
the Catholic Relief, but--there? And also, how do these cuts
focus particularly on these empowerment initiatives that lead
to economic self-sufficiency, which is one of the, is always
one of the most potent forces in a country?
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Senator. And I want to thank you
specifically for your comments about our staff and our and
their efforts around the world at this challenging time.
With respect to how these cuts would affect us, and your
specific question about Nicaragua, we really would not be in a
position to, at this point, suggest any program could be
protected. We don't, of course, know what the range of the cuts
might look like, and we don't know exactly where our fiscal
year 2011 reality will put us. So we will work through that in
the coming days and weeks.
But it is certainly fair to say that the things that are
most at risk are the initiatives that have been started or
expanded, really, over the last 3 to 5 years, since much of
this discussion does seem to start with a 2008 baseline
conversation. And in that respect the programs that would be
most vulnerable are unfortunately some of the most efficient
programs because, on a bipartisan basis, starting with
President Bush and continued by President Obama, we have
proposed increases in specifically those areas where we believe
we get the most bang for our buck, and where, as you put it, we
are able to get real economic empowerment that allows us to
have an exit strategy on our assistance.
FTF AND FOOD SECURITY
The, perhaps the most important example of that is the Feed
the Future initiative, which builds on President Bush's
significant budget proposal between fiscal year 2008 and fiscal
year 2009 to really re-energize American assistance in the area
of agriculture and food security around the world--the project
you mentioned sounds like it's one of those--and was in
response to the 2008 food price crisis that moved 100 million
people back into a state of chronic daily hunger.
Today we face a similar issue with food prices and with the
consequence of it, and we've structured, I think, a very
effective program in 20 countries, where countries, in order to
participate, have made their own commitments to dramatically
expand their investment, have committed to reform their laws to
allow for improved foreign direct investment and local private
sector investment, and where our dollars leverage other donors
and the private sector quite dramatically. And it's precisely
those efforts, efforts like our major WalMart partnership in
Central America that will reach tens of thousands of farm
households and allow for real sustained economic development at
very high leverage to the U.S. taxpayer, because we only pay to
help the farmers plug into the WalMart purchasing agreement.
You know, that's, those are the types of programs that----
Senator Mikulski. Well, I want to come back and talk
about----
Dr. Shah [continuing]. Will unfortunately be at risk.
USAID'S RELIEF AND ASSISTANCE EFFORTS IN HAITI
Senator Mikulski [continuing]. Partnerships in a minute.
But I'd like to go now--first of all, I think, I appreciate
that answer. I'd like to go to Haiti. You know, there are so
many headline issues, my gosh, the Jasmine Revolution, the
terrible tragedy unfolding in Japan. But there is Haiti that
had a tremendous response of the United States of America. Our
Government's involved, we are working through these fantastic
faith-based NGOs.
Could you tell us where you see in 2012 the sustained
effort in Haiti and what you think, in order to keep that
commitment to a country in our own hemisphere, what we need to
ensure?
Dr. Shah. Certainly, we have a, we've had a very structured
and focused effort in Haiti. We have spent considerable time
designing an international development strategy for Haiti that
is Haitian-led and that is implemented in tight coordination
with an institution called the Interim Haiti Reconstruction
Corporation that essentially helps integrate and ensure
coordination is effective across international partners.
Our efforts focus in areas like agriculture, an industrial
park in the North, expanding access to energy to create the
basis for economic growth, and health and education.
You know, all of these efforts are pretty fundamental to
the future of Haiti being able to be a more dynamic, more
viable, more economically self-sufficient country. And in many
of these areas we're starting to see some early results--like
in agriculture, where our efforts have, in certain areas,
demonstrated the doubling of total productivity for a country
that is still very much an agrarian economy. And we've worked
with partners like Coca-Cola to help them engage in Haiti and
create a real supply chain, especially around mango juice and
products like Haiti Hope, which get us more leverage on our
dollars.
Senator Mikulski. Well, first of all, my time is up and
thank you for that answer. We want to have ongoing
conversations with you. I'll be meeting with these NGOs next
week.
PARTNERSHIPS FOR FUTURE CONVERSATION
Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up, but there, you should
know there are two partnerships on, you know, that I want to
have further conversation.
First of all, the women of the Senate on a bipartisan basis
are going to be getting together, working with the Secretary,
then back to you with ideas on, really, what's going on in the
Middle East, and that we don't lose ground with women. So we're
doing that on a bipartisan basis, led by Senator Hutchison and
myself.
The second thing is, will be these private sector
partnerships. That's another conversation.
PROGRAMS TO AID HAITIAN AMPUTEES
But, Mr. Chairman, on Haiti, you'd be interested to know,
under your good work we took an idea that you're known for--so
many of the problems that happened in Haiti led to the building
collapses, led to the horrific amputations of people. You
remember when we were in Africa together, so many years ago,
and I saw the outstanding job you did by creating a local
facility where people had lost their legs and ankles due to
land mines. Under Senator Leahy's leadership--he'll be too
modest to tell you--we actually--he actually helped fund,
creating a factory where they made low-cost limbs to put people
literally back on their feet again.
We took that idea, and through the advice of the John
Hopkins School of Public Health found out who else was doing
that, and we're now doing that in Haiti. So I took your idea,
went to the Bloomberg School of Public Health to see what
others were working on it, and we're doing that. And
literally--it's not a big initiative, Sir, but, you know, your
idea, I think, had such great impact, and, my God, to lose a
leg, and not being able to work or farm or whatever.
So I just wanted to mention that to you because of your
leadership in this area.
Senator Leahy. Well, I would thank you.
And I might say to Senator Johnson, too, I was just down in
Haiti a couple weeks ago and visited one of the areas where
they give prosthetics to amputees. I saw children the age of my
grandchildren who've lost arms and legs and learning how to
walk and then people my age who've lost arms and legs and
learning how to walk.
But I mentioned, Dr. Shah, one of the--basically a
volunteer, a doctor from Belgium who's there, so we could speak
in French--and when I thanked him for what he was doing he
grabbed my arm and he said, ``Pour les enfants''--For the
children.
And it's a very difficult, very difficult time. Johns
Hopkins is, of course, I can't--I stand behind nobody in my
admiration of Johns Hopkins. I'm glad we've done that.
Senator Johnson, you've been waiting patiently. Please go
ahead, Sir.
Senator Tim Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Shah, thank you for coming before the subcommittee here
today.
I'm pretty new here in town. But I guess I'd first of all
like to second Senator Mikulski's comments regarding USAID
workers. On a recent trip to Pakistan and Afghanistan I met
some USAID workers, and they're just fine individuals. They're
working hard to try and do good things, and I certainly believe
that U.S. foreign aid can be a real positive influence
throughout the world, enhance the reputation of the United
States.
But I think it's unfortunate with our fiscal situation,
where we're running $1.5 trillion or more annual deficits,
money's extremely tight. So, it's just critically important
that any funds that we do expend are done in an incredibly
efficient and effective manner.
So, I guess the first question I have is, your total budget
is about $24 billion, is that correct? Just, you----
Dr. Shah. Yes.
REALLOCATIONS OF FUNDS AND THE NEED FOR EFFICIENCY
Senator Tim Johnson. Okay. Do we have any sense for how
much of that money really is siphoned off, that really is not
going for what it's intended?
Dr. Shah. Certainly. I would step back a moment and say,
across our requests, especially in fiscal year 2012, we've
tried to be very rigorous about finding reallocations within
our portfolio. So instead of asking for additional resources
for core priorities and for the types of results we've been
talking about, we've really looked hard at the things we do,
things we can stop doing, and areas we can get efficiencies.
Examples of that include eliminating a number of positions
in Western Europe and Japan and places where we have
development counselors working with other donor countries--not
to say their activities weren't important, but the costs of
keeping them there were very high, and we think we can do that
work virtually based out of our team in Washington.
We have proposed shutting down a number of our missions
around the world in order to lower the overall cost basis of
our operating expenses, and we've proposed major reductions--
more than 50 percent programmatic reductions--in a range of
small programs and smaller missions in order to really be more
focused and selective in how we apply our investment and our
resources.
In addition to that, we've proposed $400 million of
specific cuts and reallocations in the fiscal year 2012 budget,
and I could walk through examples of that. But they are all
designed to allow our portfolio to be more optimized against
the results we seek in terms of reduction of hunger, promotion
of child survival, improving democratic governance and
opportunities for that, especially in the Middle East, and
fulfilling our core national security priorities in places like
Afghanistan and Pakistan.
OVERSIGHT OF FUNDING REALLOCATION
Senator Tim Johnson. Okay. But, again, that's speaking to
efficiency, which is extremely important. But the question I
asked really had to do with just funds going to--like Senator
Kirk was talking about--potentially, foreign terrorists. I
mean, going to uses for which they're not intended. I mean,
have you, do you have any estimate on that at all? Is there any
study that's been prepared within your agency to try and figure
out what that potential number might be out of $24 billion?
Dr. Shah. Well, I'll say, when we identify those cases we
go aggressively into canceling those programs, seeking
prosecution, as we have done in a number of instances this past
year and as we are doing more aggressively now that we've
implemented some of the aspects of our procurement reform and
contract oversight efforts. So, we don't have an aggregate
number if we knew a certain amount of money was going for an
inappropriate and illegal purpose, we would immediately cancel
that project or program and immediately seek restitution and
prosecution, no matter who the partner was, in terms of
exploring that.
I've told the teams this. In Federal Government in general,
I think, there's sometimes a reluctance to have bad news
highlighted. I've said I want to see these examples because the
more of these we find and the more we can ferret out, and the
more we can seek restitution, prosecution--whatever is most
appropriate--is part of our measure of success in improving our
accountability. And that's what we're trying to do with our
procurement reforms and our Accountable Assistance for
Afghanistan program.
CONSEQUENCES OF CONTRACT VIOLATION
Senator Tim Johnson. So, have your team, or has your team
brought you, brought to your attention those types of
instances? And give us a couple examples.
Dr. Shah. Well, they certainly have this past year. Some of
what is currently under consideration are ongoing suspensions
or legal cases that I, perhaps, can't really speak to in a
public setting. But some of them are publicly acknowledged. We
had malfeasance in certain programs in Afghanistan and
Pakistan. We shut down those contracts and programs, and
together with the Department of Justice, sought restitution
from a number of partners. We have changed the way accounting
and reporting takes place with respect to partners in those
settings, so that we have more visibility on subcontracts and
subcontracts of subcontracts, and tried to collapse the number
of layers in our contracting so that we simply have more
visibility. That has helped us identify even more cases where
we are actively seeking actions against them.
I don't know if it would be appropriate for me to describe
them in this setting, but I'm happy also to speak privately or
come back to your office with some of the cases----
Senator Tim Johnson. Okay.
Dr. Shah [continuing]. And how we've tried to handle them.
Senator Tim Johnson. Fair enough.
SPENDING PRIORITIZATION AND ALLOCATION OF FUNDS
With a $24 billion a year budget, what method do you use,
or, how do you prioritize your spending? I mean, are you
familiar with Bjorn Lomborg's work in terms of, you know, cost
benefit and actually putting dollars to where it has the most
benefit?
Dr. Shah. I am. In fact I worked very closely with Bjorn
when I was at the Gates Foundation because our basic approach
was about allocating resources against where you get the best
results. I think you've seen that in how we've structured our
food security program, where we find it is more efficient, more
results-oriented and more sustainable for us to invest in
agricultural development in low-income countries than in
either, you know, basic food aid--although we need to be able
to respond to emergencies in that context--or in dealing with
the consequences of large-scale hunger and famine. So, we've
focused on 20 specific countries where our money gets leveraged
by others, and where we can document very specific results in
terms of people moved out of poverty, and children who are
moved out of a state of hunger and stunting.
In health we've done the same thing. We've looked across
every business line in our global health portfolio, identified
where we not only save the most lives, but where we do it at
the lowest unit cost, and proposed a strategic approach forward
that prioritizes immunization, malaria, HIV prevention, and a
number of other areas where we think we can bring the cost
structure of getting the outcomes down significantly. And in
areas like tuberculosis, for example, we've restructured our
efforts to invest in new diagnostic technologies, because
that's part of getting the whole cost structure to be more
effective in that space. So, those are just examples. We're
doing that across all of our areas, like water and education,
and a number of other priorities.
But, I'd be remiss if I didn't also note that some of our
budgeting at a macro level is, of course, tied to national
security priorities, and so it's a combination. In certain
accounts we can be very focused on sheer numbers and unit
costs, and in other accounts there are a broader set of
considerations that are taken into account that define
allocation.
Senator Tim Johnson. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Shah.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Senator.
EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS IN HAITI
We talked about Haiti, we talked about overhead. I was in
Haiti a couple of weeks ago and one of the things I looked at,
because we'd seen a New York Times article was the fact that
Sean Penn's organization, which manages one of Haiti's largest
camps of displaced persons, is doing rubble removal and home
reconstruction, and spends only 3.2 percent on overhead. You
have an area where there's been a flood--you walk through a few
days later and they can point to the mark where the water was,
but the water's gone. The rubble, in a lot of these streets,
was way over my head and had to be removed with picks and
shovels and wheelbarrows and they've cleared street after
street.
Now, if they can do that with only 3.2 percent overhead,
why can't other USAID grantees and contractors operate like
that in Haiti and other countries?
I say this because I know a lot of people, well-known
people, go to Haiti for a day or so and say, ``Oh, we've got to
do something'', and talk about it and leave, but Mr. Penn has
lived in those camps for months. He's out there working every
day with the people, and they're actually getting things done.
Why can't that be replicated? Of course, it would help if you
had a government that cared more about the Haitian people than
about itself.
Dr. Shah. Well, you know, with respect to Haiti in
particular we have been trying to assess--as a criteria for
letting contracts and exercising programs--overhead costs, and
using that as a core criteria for resource allocation. It's
hard----
Senator Leahy. Yes, but it's been 2 years. It's time to get
it done. I mean they----
Dr. Shah. Well, and we are. And we are. We're able to do
that.
Senator Leahy. Cholera season is coming.
Dr. Shah. I will say that it's hard to know. What different
people count in overhead is very different, and I have found
that the biggest disparities are often not quite as large as
they appear.
That said----
Senator Leahy. Was the New York Times wrong in that 3.2
percent?
Dr. Shah. I don't know the details of----
Senator Leahy. Okay.
Dr. Shah [continuing]. Sean Penn's organization. I give him
a huge amount of credit for both his efforts and what J/P
Haitian Relief Organization is doing, and we've been partnering
with them, as you know, Sir, in a number of different effective
efforts.
USAID'S APPROACH TO CONTRACT REFORM
But overall, you're absolutely right to highlight this. And
what we've done is, we've actually mapped out the flow of a
development dollar through different systems--the contract
system, the grants assistance system, cooperative agreements,
tools like our Development Credit Authority that get us more
private sector leverage from the spending of our resources. And
in our budget allocations, we're now using the basic cost of
doing business as criteria to propose reallocations.
The other thing we're doing in our contracting reform is
basically setting guidelines to reduce the overheads that are
embedded in contractors. We're able to do that more generally
in some specific contexts. It's harder to do in security threat
environments where those overheads can be very large, but are
required to be able to conduct the work in insecure settings.
Senator Leahy. Everybody wants to help out in a tragedy. I
just want to make sure that it's the people that get helped
out.
Dr. Shah. Sir, and I----
GOVERNMENT IN HAITI
Senator Leahy. In Haiti, where I see a lot of expensive
vehicles and operations, I also see a lot of people living
under tarps and trying to bathe in polluted streams and it's
almost overwhelming. It was a poor country to begin with, and
now it's worse. Do you think with a new government things will
improve? Do you have any early sense about that?
Dr. Shah. Well, it undoubtedly is too early to tell, and I
should probably leave it at that, in the sense that we're at a
provisional result at this point.
Senator Leahy. Will you be working--when the new government
is sworn in, will you be working--will USAID be working with
them?
Dr. Shah. Absolutely.
Senator Leahy. Okay.
Dr. Shah. And we have been working through the Interim
Haiti Recovery Commission with the Prime Minister, with the
government very, very closely. And we do that, of course, hand-
in-glove with the State Department to manage that relationship
and to make sure that it's effective.
I will just validate your point that on case after case, we
achieved big breakthroughs in things like rubble removal when
the government stepped in and made some decisions. Sometimes
that took time to get there, but we do see real progress once
those decisions are made and once they enable that.
So the point about working in partnership not only applies
in Haiti, but applies everywhere we work, and we've really
changed--frankly, we've changed our promotion precepts and how
we allocate our senior managers to different mission director
posts, and made the number one criteria for both promotion and
for how we allocate our people, a criteria we call ``inclusive
leadership,'' but, essentially, a measure of whether people are
effective at working well in the interagency, and being good
partners with NGOs and private firms and local governments.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND AFGHANISTAN
Senator Leahy. I think USAID is being asked to do the
impossible in Afghanistan. I've talked to General Petraeus.
I've talked to others about this. That's a country with every
imaginable problem. The ingredients for sustainable development
really don't exist. You're being pressed to spend money as fast
as possible. I think in a few years there may be little to show
for the huge amount of money spent there.
I'm for helping Afghanistan, but the government's not a
reliable partner. I've visited there. I've talked with our men
and women in uniform. They're trying to do the impossible.
They're doing it bravely. But I wonder if their short-term
goals are really compatible with long-term sustainable goals.
What are USAID's long-term goals? Ten years after 9/11,
having borrowed for the first time in American history, for a
war, we borrowed the money--instead of having a surtax or
something to pay for it--we borrowed the money for two $1
trillion wars, and we've not got an awful lot to show for it.
What are we going to see 5 years from now in Afghanistan?
Dr. Shah. Well, Sir, I would start with the findings of
this year's Afghanistan and Pakistan annual review that the
President conducted, and concluded that our core area where we
need to improve our progress in Afghanistan is in making the
gains that have been realized in security, development, and
governance more sustainable and more durable.
Senator Leahy. How are you going to do that when a
government in Kabul turns power over to warlords, and
oftentimes corrupt groups in other parts of the country, and
say, ``Here, go ahead and have Sharia law. Do whatever you
want.''
Dr. Shah. So, to implement----
Senator Leahy. ``But we're living well in Kabul.''
IMPLEMENTATION OF AFGHANISTAN PROGRAMS--GOALS AND CHALLENGES
Dr. Shah [continuing]. This approach, we've been more
focused on accountability in our assistance--and I talked
through our A-cubed effort. We are also working in closer
partnership with the government on improving delivery of
assistance into districts and into provincial implementation
mechanisms. And some examples of that are areas like
agriculture, where I think we've seen real progress since we've
made a strategic shift to invest more in that area. We're
seeing improved yields, and we're seeing improved aggregate,
economic activity in the agriculture sector, and we're starting
to see real exports in that sector. I just visited a program
that will have lasting, decades-long benefit where entire
regions of Nangarhar province are developing vegetables, and
now they're meeting higher processing and packaging standards,
and selling to----
Senator Leahy. And they were a huge export market for much
of that part of the world. But the transmission lines aren't
there. I mean, is it going to continue, that the water can be
shut off if bribes aren't paid? It worries me that----
Dr. Shah. Well, look, I would just say--we know that this
is a difficult environment in which to work. We've implemented
what we call a sufficiency audit, or a sustainability audit,
across all our programs to be able to prioritize those that
meet the President's guidance of sustainability and durability
in benefit.
The areas where we're optimistic we'll have strong programs
include agriculture, power and roads, health and education, a
mobile payment system that will improve the way the civil
servants are paid and reduce graft and corruption, and programs
like the National Solidarity Program that just went through a
pretty rigorous third-party review and showed good results.
So, we are doing this as part of an integrated civilian-
military plan. The goal is to resource transition--and we know
that USAID and the civilian side of this is an important
partner to the military in achieving that goal. And we're
trying to be the voice for effective sustainability of
programs.
Senator Leahy. I think with our diplomats and our military
you have very good partners. I don't see it on the other side.
I hope you're right. I must admit that I'm virtually at the end
of being willing to support activities in Afghanistan when
we're not getting the support we should from the Afghan
Government.
I look at what's happening in Pakistan. They tell the
Central Intelligence Agency yesterday--don't attack those
people who are out there killing you, or we'll allow people to
kill those who are bringing oil to your soldiers who are
risking their lives, and we'll just kill the truck drivers, as
they have several times.
ACCESS TO SAFE DRINKING WATER
I mean, my frustration level is very, very high, and that's
a New England understatement. But we also have, I hear about
cutting funding for international family planning, and I think
about safe drinking water. You may wonder how those go
together. The world's population is destined to go to 9 billion
or higher. Millions of people have no safe water. Many others,
usually women and children, have to walk long distances to get
small amounts of it, sometimes through minefields. I think
you're going to find wars being fought over water within a
decade, just as they now fight over oil. I think you're going
to find--and we already have regional conflicts over water.
Anything you can do to stop that? We are just tossing all the
problems of the world on you, Dr. Shah, so tell us how we
approach that one.
Dr. Shah. Well, first, I very much appreciate your raising
that issue. It is very important to us, and the Secretary in
particular has issued a number of statements on the subject of
safe drinking water and available water.
The way we are approaching it is really through a new
approach. We're in the process of developing a new strategy
that more closely ties investments in clean drinking water and
water that's available for productive uses--agriculture and
others--to core goals around saving lives, reducing labor spent
collecting water--mostly women and girls' labor--and improving
economic productivity, mostly in the agriculture sector. And we
think by tying our programs to those three specific outcomes,
we will be more effective at both implementing programs,
getting results, reporting those results, and building support
for a more effective effort there.
Senator Leahy. Well, the implementation--that's not a one-
size-fits-all thing. I mean, the implementation might be
different in Southern Africa than it might be in the Middle
East. It might be----
SAFE DRINKING WATER--APPLICATION OF TECHNOLOGY AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Dr. Shah. Absolutely. And in fact, this is an area where
our new focus on science and technology, which frankly is not
new for the Agency--this was an agency that did a lot of work
in science and technology decades ago--but our new focus there
has real potential and real promise.
I have just recently reviewed a series of clean water
purification strategies that would lower the costs of some of
our programs significantly if we could validate and get those
technologies out there--everything from a low-cost ceramic
filter that can be locally developed, to UV water purification
systems where local communities can install them and they can
be self-sustaining over time.
And I think you, in our prior hearing highlighted an
article about entrepreneurship in development. And this is an
area in particular--since the poor tend to pay, frankly, more
than the middle class pays per unit of clean drinking water in
most developing countries--this is an area that's very ripe for
the kind of entrepreneurship you've championed. And we took
your guidance seriously and have developed a series of
programs, like the Development Innovation Venture Fund and
others, that we think will meet that gap and enable more
experimentation, but also better outcomes at lower costs in
this particular field.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Senator Johnson.
Senator Tim Johnson. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
I'd first like to say, I believe the United States on the
whole has a very positive impact on the world. We're extremely
compassionate people, so the purpose of the foreign aid is
certainly, first of all, to help people in a very meaningful
way hopefully to have very long-term consequences on their
countries and on their lives.
PROMOTION OF AMERICAN IMAGE THROUGH USAID EFFORTS
I think the question I have is, you know, it's, definitely
a secondary purpose, though, of U.S. foreign aid is so the
United States gets credit for it--so it enhances our
reputation; so that people around the world think kindly of the
compassion that the American people share with them. So, I
mean, we spend $24 billion a year through your agency. That
doesn't even count the amount of money we spend through our
military help when disaster strikes.
So I guess that's the first question I have, is, what are
we doing within your Agency to make sure that we do obtain
maximum credit for what our efforts are, and for, really, the
sacrifice the American people are making in providing that
foreign aid?
Dr. Shah. Well, you know, we believe that that secondary
purpose is important. And we need to be focused on how to make
that real, as a realized benefit of our investments abroad.
Sometimes the strategy prioritizes branding and clear
visibility for specific projects, commodities, individuals that
are part of large-scale relief efforts--most notably after, for
example, the Pakistan floods where we saw, because of a very
strong United States response where we were the first partner
with the most capability, but also a real spirit of history and
partnership with the Pakistani relief agencies, that we
actually saw significant increase in the Pakistani people's
appreciation for the United States Government role there. And
so we understand that and take that seriously.
I personally believe that a big part of what will
ultimately garner the credit that we seek is the sincerity and
the way in which we conduct the work. And that is why we've
taken the Secretary's guidance, the President's guidance to be
good partners pursuing mutual accountability far more
seriously. And, you know, just around the world in our projects
and programs, we're consulting with heads of state, we're
consulting with local communities, we're consulting with small-
scale farmers and local civil society organizations.
That sometimes slows down the implementation of programs.
But, frankly, it helps us build the kind of partnership, and
helps us learn in a way that improves, I think, the
effectiveness of those programs and the sustainability over
time of those efforts. So in general, that's a trade-off we've
been willing to make in order to get a better outcome over
time. And I think where we've done that, the feedback I've
gotten, certainly, has been that that has been appreciated and
that people see this as a different way of working that is
something that garners us more recognition and more value.
LONG-TERM GOALS OF FOREIGN AID
And then the final thing I'd say is, I think you get more
credit by taking on big things and leaving benefits that are
lasting that people can point to. South Asia certainly
remembers that the United States was the primary partner in the
Green Revolution, helped build universities and train hundreds,
if not thousands, of fellows and technical experts, and build
those rich university partnerships with the United States.
We're re-casting ourselves, and doing that again in the
context of our Feed the Future program, so that we can leave
the kind of human capital and local leadership that can sustain
over time and have all of these really capable, well-educated
technical leaders that can say they were the beneficiaries of
concrete U.S. investments. And that's something that we've have
more focused on--especially in areas like food and health, but
also in terms of our science and technology partnerships with a
number of countries around the world. So, to me that's how you
sort of live out good practice, and then get credit and
attribution for those felt behaviors.
Senator Tim Johnson. I would just encourage you to make
that a priority, because I think from the American people's
standpoint probably their greatest frustration--in addition to
the fact that it's getting more and more difficult to afford
this--but, the fact that we're not liked very well around the
world, even though we expend so much money trying to help
people out.
So--and speaking of frustration, let me have that be my
final question here, is, you've been on the job now for 15
months. I mean, what's your greatest frustration trying to work
within USAID to accomplish your objective?
Senator Leahy. Now, here's your chance to give a very
straightforward question--or, very straightforward answer. It
may get you fired, but go ahead. Let loose.
Dr. Shah. Can I give you two?
Senator Tim Johnson. It's on your nickel here.
Dr. Shah. Well----
Senator Tim Johnson. What I want you to be is honest.
COMPLEXITY OF PROCUREMENT SYSTEMS
Dr. Shah. Well, personally, I've found, the two
frustrations I've found are--the procurement system and the way
it operates I think is far more complex than it needs to be.
And at first, I thought, well that's about efficiency, so one
of those business process reviews generated this report that is
our game plan for cutting our procurement cycle time by almost
one-half. And they're all actions that we can take without
congressional activity, et cetera.
But what I realized over time is the complexity of the
system doesn't cost more and lengthens the time from idea to
action, and therefore impact. It actually pushes off some of
the most creative and innovative partners--whether they are
large businesses, or small entrepreneurs, or local NGOs, or
government ministries--that, we really should be thinking about
how we're building capacity so that we can achieve the
President's goal of leaving a vibrant civil society, effective
private sector, and real capable local governments, and we
have, over time, an exit strategy.
So I realize it's a much more fundamental thing than
procurement reform--and I almost regret that I called it
``procurement reform'', because it's really about how we
deliver assistance and how partners around the world that
either work with us or don't, feel who we are, what we value,
what we care about.
Our teams have made some real progress and done some really
courageous things to create new procurement tools that are more
like results-based payment systems for small grants and small
projects, as opposed to the kind of, do a big contract and then
count every single process input, which costs a huge amount of
money and doesn't tell you if you're necessarily getting the
result you seek.
So I think the reform of our procurement system to me has
been probably the most exciting opportunity born out of the
greatest frustration.
HUMAN RESOURCE MISMANAGEMENT AND CREATION OF INCENTIVES FOR INNOVATION
On the second thing I would just say--and this might get me
fired--it's just, the way human resources are managed in the
Federal Government is a very complex, challenging issue. And
you really want to reward performance; you want to reward
people who've taken real risks. We have really innovative
leaders who've gone out to Afghanistan, who've gone to Haiti
and, in very difficult environments, have done very creative
things. And we're trying to come up with ways to recognize that
kind of leadership and reward it and to incentivize that kind
of leadership in our junior officers--who frankly bring a lot
of their own creative non-Government experience to the task.
And I've worked hard to create systems that get them more
exposure and more ability to connect their ideas to impact.
But those are two things that I find challenging, but also
as big fundamental opportunities. And I thank our teams in
those areas for time and again coming up with creative
solutions to help us do some of the more innovate things we've
done. For example, we just launched this great partnership
called Saving Lives at Birth with five other partners, where
for every $1 we spend, we get $3 of theirs, and we're really
targeting the 1.6 million women and children who die either
during childbirth or in the first 48 hours. And it's going to
be a fantastic lifesaving effort at very low cost. And our
procurement and general counsel and acquisition teams came up
with creative solutions to allow us to do that. So, we've just
got to keep working at it and we'll stay very focused on that.
Senator Tim Johnson. Well, I've been here a little more
than 3 months--that's a pretty common theme. You're not--
unfortunately you're not alone in your frustration.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
SMALL-SCALE IMPACT OF AMERICAN AID EFFORTS
Certainly, Senator Johnson raises a question about whether
we're liked or not liked. I was struck by what you're saying
about things that people can really see, and sometimes it's a
small thing. I complimented you earlier on one that did that
will have a real impact. You worked with the Smithsonian to
save some treasured murals, which they thought were lost when
one of the cathedrals collapsed in Haiti. These will be--that's
part of their patrimony. It's a relatively small amount of
money, but a generation from now people will still talk about
the fact the Americans saved it.
When I was first in the Senate, 30 years after World War II
was over, and going through Europe and elsewhere, and having
people come up and say, ``You know, the Americans came in and
they helped us plant gardens, they did--I mean, some were
spectacular things like the Berlin airlift, but others were
smaller ways of helping us.'' This is in countries that we had
fought against. And now these are the same people whose sons
and daughters are in the government and we have to work with,
and who created a NATO alliance that eventually saw the
collapse of the Warsaw Pact.
Sometimes its small things. You don't necessarily get your
return that year, or 20 years, or 30 years. But it's like
Fulbright scholarships. I find so many times in other parts of
the world, you find that the finance minister, or the deputy
defense minister, or others had studied, or members of their
families had studied here, and they have personal ties.
I know there have been several times recently in some very
tough spots in the world--and you can imagine which they are--
where people here in the United States were having private
conversations with either their counterparts, or others in
these countries, lowering the tension because of the exchange
programs that we've done.
IMPORTANCE OF SMALL PROPOSALS
I'll finish with this on the small issues. One complaint I
get about USAID is that an individual, or a small organization
may have a very creative, unsolicited proposal. It comes in,
and USAID looks at it, redesigns it, requests more proposals,
and bigger contractors come in. The big contractor comes in,
``Oh, yes, you wanted to do a whiz bang 1, but I can do a whiz
bang 5, which is 10 percent better--it's going to cost you 300
percent more and take longer to implement'', and so on.
And we talked about the War Victims Fund with prosthetics
and all. They wisely kept that small, using local materials,
not going to people who make the $300,000 prosthetics, but
something that could be made locally, and it worked.
President George H.W. Bush had wanted to do something in
Vietnam, and he had asked me about using it there. We worked it
through an NGO--the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation. And
I'll just tell one story that's always stuck with me. My wife
and I, John Glenn and his wife, and a couple of others went
outside Saigon to where they were building prosthetics and
wheelchairs. Not buying them, but building them there, hiring
the people. You'd pay a couple thousand dollars for a
wheelchair in a hospital but here they were making them
probably for under $100.
The thing that struck me, there was a small man, he had
lost his legs and had been crawling for decades. He was sitting
there and he was going to get one of the wheelchairs. And he
just stared at me as they explained the Leahy War Victims Fund
and so on--and I remember going back and telling President Bush
about this after. When they finished the speeches, they asked
me to pick him up and carry him to his wheelchair. He just
stared at me. And I thought he must hate me--my size,
everything else, an American. I picked him up. I carried him to
the wheelchair. I put him down in it. I was wearing an open-
necked shirt. I started to get up. He grabbed my shirt, pulled
me down and kissed me.
You know, there are things that can be done, that can make
a difference.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
So look at those small proposals. This was one of them. If
you or I lost a leg, it would be a bad thing, but we'd go and
our insurance company would pay part of it, and they'd say,
``Well, you know, a couple thousand dollars more and you can
get even a better one.'' We'd take out our checkbook and pay
for it.
Here, we're talking about people with a few hundred dollars
a year in income. Let's do the things that work, because that
builds respect for our country. But more than just building
respect--let's be altruistic. We're the wealthiest, most
powerful nation on earth. We have certain moral
responsibilities and we sometimes forget about that.
Dr. Shah, thank you very much for being here.
Dr. Shah. Thank you.
[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 Daniel K. Inouye
afghanistan
Question. It is my understanding that the Karzai government's
threat to impose back taxes on private security firms has many of those
contractors threatening to withdraw from Afghanistan. I am concerned by
reports from aid workers in the country about observed empirical
increases in the number of kidnappings in areas like Kabul. Could you
please explain what U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
is doing to ensure the safety of foreign and Afghan locals working on
development projects? Also, would you please explain what steps, if
any, are being taken by USAID in conjunction with the Department of
State to address the matter of alleged criminal involvement by Afghan
Government officials?
Answer. Over the first 5 months of calendar year 2011, there has
been an average of 30 security incidents per month involving USAID
implementing partners, making 2011, to date, the second most active
year since 2003 when incidents were first collected. During calendar
year 2010, the monthly security incidents involving USAID implementing
partners almost doubled from 2009, to 57 from 29, respectively.
With the increase of attacks, USAID has taken steps to improve the
security of our implementing partners. Our goal is to provide rapid and
accurate security assistance information to implementing partners,
improve the ability of United States Government and International
Security Assistance Force (ISAF) personnel to respond effectively to
emergency situations, and raise the confidence and preparedness of
implementing partners so they can continue to operate in higher-risk
environments.
USAID issued a data call, and our security unit is now maintaining
a database of approximately 250 implementing partner locations
throughout Afghanistan to facilitate communication. We have placed a
Regional Security Safety Officer (RSSO) in RC-South, and are in the
process of assigning RSSOs to the other regional commands. These
officers will help coordinate with ISAF/USFOR-A and partners at the
field level to improve responsiveness to implementing partner requests
for assistance. On May 9, 2011 Mission Director Earl Gast issued a
mission order, establishing a Vetting Support Unit that will screen
non-U.S. parties, and will actively engage with the Afghan Finance
Threat Cell and CENTCOM vetting systems. This system will help us
identify potential malignant actors, and prevent them from gaining
access to USAID assets.
Question. I commend you for your efforts to reform USAID's business
processes and systems. Implementing reforms and a change in culture is
always a challenging endeavor. What is your vision for, and where do
you hope to see, USAID in 5 years?
Answer. My vision is that USAID will be among the world's premier
development agencies playing a critical role in our Nation's prosperity
and security as we contribute to a more secure and prosperous world for
all. I recognize this is a broad goal and, as always, success is in the
details. Here is how we will move forward on those details in the next
5 years:
--We will hire and retain the most talented foreign service officers,
training them to work in a world that presents new challenges
and demands the best from all of us.
--We will focus on investing in sustainable solutions including
strengthening host country systems and local institutions so
that the U.S. taxpayer reaps the benefits of countries that are
excellent trading partners and allies.
--We recognize that development has become a high priority for many
small and large companies, philanthropists, and nongovernmental
organizations. We will broaden and deepen our partnerships with
them, leveraging their expertise and financial resources to
drive the most cost effective and sustainable results for our
foreign policy objectives.
--We will work seamlessly with all United States Government agencies
deployed abroad as the principal voice for the importance of
development as a way to demonstrate our values and support the
growing number of emerging democracies and markets.
--We will report regularly and transparently on the results we
achieve, dollar for dollar, and talk openly about those
failures or shortfalls that we must learn from and remedy. To
achieve this ambitious goal, we will streamline our reporting
systems to make them more understandable to the lay person
whose tax dollars support our efforts abroad.
--And last but not least, we will be recognized for our cutting-edge
activities and tools that mobilize the best solutions the
United States can bring to the world in solving problems such
as fragile democratic governments, malnutrition, illiteracy,
endemic illness, climate change, as well as other challenges.
pacific basin
Question. The Pacific Basin, particularly countries in the Western
Pacific were cited as an area that the United States would like to re-
engage in a meaningful way. The Western Pacific is of significant
strategic importance to the United States in a manner that may have
been forgotten toward the end of the cold war.
From a national security point of view the Western Pacific is a
counterbalance to China's growing influence in the region particularly
with respect to sea lane access. With the emphasis on leveraging both
hard power, force projection by the Department of Defense (DOD), and
soft power, diplomatic and foreign assistance, please elaborate on
plans, if any, for USAID activities in this area of the Pacific.
Answer. USAID plans to open an office in Port Moresby, Papua New
Guinea in 2011 under the authority of USAID's mission in Manila,
Philippines to oversee programs in the Pacific region.
One program-funded staff will manage USAID's regional environmental
programs and the HIV/AIDS program in Papua New Guinea.
USAID programs in the Pacific are regionally focused, but target
Western Pacific countries, including Papua New Guinea, Republic of the
Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Samoa,
Solomon Islands, Fiji, and Tonga.
Environmental degradation threatens the existence of some Pacific
island-nations and is the top priority for the region in this century.
USAID's environmental programs will mitigate the effects of weather-
related disasters, support climate change adaptation strategies, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and protect tropical forests in the Pacific
islands.
USAID funding will also develop the technical capacity and
coordination of two key regional organizations: the Secretariat of the
Pacific Community and the Pacific Regional Environmental Program.
Papua New Guinea is the most populous country in the South Pacific
and has the highest rate of HIV/AIDS in East Asia and the Pacific.
USAID's HIV/AIDS programming will strengthen Papua New Guinea's health
system, promote awareness and prevention activities, and provide
treatment for HIV-positive individuals.
coordination
Question. I truly appreciate your initiative and efforts to ensure
me and my staff are kept informed of USAID's activities following the
devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan. As the lead agency on
coordination of the U.S. response to international disaster assistance,
I am curious to learn your thoughts on how that coordination went in
the immediate aftermath. In addition, I am interested to find out how
you believe coordination may be improved, and any lessons learned from
Haiti and Japan.
Answer. The U.S. Government response to the recent earthquake and
tsunami in Japan required immediate and close coordination between
United States Government agencies and the Government of Japan. The
United States typically would not be requested to assist in a country
with significant domestic response capacity. The magnitude and nature
of the disaster in Japan (earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear crisis),
coupled with the United States Government's unique capabilities, led to
a robust, well-coordinated multi-agency response tailored to the unique
circumstances presented by this crisis.
Just more than 1 hour after the earthquake struck, USAID's Office
of Foreign Disaster Assistance (USAID/OFDA) activated a Response
Management Team (RMT) in Washington, DC, and two Urban Search and
Rescue Teams and a Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) for
deployment to Japan to coordinate the response efforts. At the same
time as the United States Government and the Government of Japan were
focused on the immediate lifesaving response, the potential nuclear
disaster quickly became a main focus. USAID augmented the DART and RMT
with experts from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) Federal Occupational Health to provide urgent
technical assistance. The DART, including the team of nuclear experts,
coordinated daily with their counterparts in the Japanese Government.
In addition to coordinating the nuclear issues, USAID's DART
conducted assessments and worked to ensure that essential relief items
reached those most in need. This required coordination between the
Government of Japan, USAID and the DOD. While most of the supplies for
the relief effort were already in the country, there were logistical
problems in transporting relief supplies due to fuel shortages and
damaged roads. The DART, which included three USAID military liaison
officers, utilized the Mission Tasking Matrix system to confirm
humanitarian needs and or requests, identify organizations that had
supplies to transport and task DOD with transport of goods utilizing
their extensive lift capacity in the region. The speed and efficiency
of this coordination was essential not only to ensure that needed
supplies quickly reached affected areas, but also to avoid a flood of
well-intended, but poorly coordinated material aid from outside Japan,
which would have overwhelmed an already strained transport system in
the early days of the response.
Very early in the response, multiple Japanese ministries requested
support from numerous United States Government entities on an ad hoc
basis, which created a risk that urgent requests for relief or
technical assistance could be missed and not reach those most in need.
USAID met daily with DOD, DOE, HHS, NRC and other agencies, as well as
the Government of Japan, to share information and reinforce the DART as
the central coordinating body through which all requests to the United
States Government were evaluated. The DART also worked with the Embassy
to establish a single point of contact to receive requests from the
Government of Japan.
As assistance to the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear events
transitioned from emergency response to the current phase, USAID
collaborated with the United States Embassy in Tokyo to form the
Bilateral Assistance Coordination Cell (BACC), the current United
States Government focal point for receiving, vetting, and responding to
the Government of Japan requests for continued technical assistance to
respond to the nuclear issues. The BACC systematized the coordination
of the response to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant crisis
through the formation of technically oriented working groups, such as
radiation monitoring, data sharing, stabilization of the reactors, and
broader strategy for joint nuclear response. These groups meet
regularly with the Government of Japan counterparts. The meetings occur
at the political, working, and technical levels to coordinate the
nuclear response activities. The United States Government has provided
the Government of Japan with data and specialized monitoring equipment
and training that demonstrate our ongoing commitment to Japan and
provide the United States Embassy continued access to critical
monitoring data with potential implications for the people of Japan,
including United States citizens.
As seen in the response to the earthquake in Haiti, the United
States Government responses to significant disaster events are
increasingly interagency in nature. The United States Government
learned from the Haiti response that we must develop a flexible and
clearly articulated United States Government response strategy that
assigns responsibilities to appropriate participating agencies based on
the unique circumstances presented in a given crisis. The Japan
response demonstrated the effectiveness of the interagency approach
where host country requests and United States and international offers
of assistance are channeled through a central coordinating body.
research and development programs
Question. There are many people who may not know about USAID's
research and development programs. I am curious to learn of USAID's
current efforts in research and development, and where you hope to
steer them in 5 years.
Answer. USAID has a strong history of transforming development
through science and technology--from the successful use of oral
rehydration therapies to the Green Revolution. As USAID expands and
deepens its internal science and technology capabilities, the agency
will support and expand technical expertise through access to
analytical tools like Geospatial Information Systems (GIS). Over the
next 5 years, the agency will continue to build science and technology
capacity in developing countries through cooperative research grants,
by improving access to scientific resources, by providing expanded
opportunities for higher education and training, and by enabling
entrepreneurs in the public and civil sectors to use technology to
reach rural populations that have previously been difficult to reach.
Several key efforts are outlined below.
An investment in agricultural research today contributes to the
growth and resilience of the food supply tomorrow. USAID's Feed the
Future initiative is launching an agricultural research strategy this
summer that will focus on ways to improve long-term yields, transform
production systems, and enhance nutrition and food security. Combined
with other agricultural investments, improved technologies and
practices will help feed an ever growing global population despite
depleted land availability, threatened water supplies, and a highly
unpredictable climate.
USAID's Grand Challenges for Development (GCD) provide a framework
to focus the agency--and development community--on solvable problems
with key scientific and technical barriers to their solution. This is a
multi-year approach that incorporates and encourages innovative science
and technology-based answers to both newly emerging and age-old
questions. USAID issued the first Grand Challenge for Development in
Global Health--``Saving Lives at Birth'', which was launched on March
9, 2011, in partnership with a host of other bilateral and multilateral
donors. More information on the Grand Challenges can be found at:
http://www.savinglivesatbirth.net/. Over the next several years, USAID
will expand GCD, leveraging the resources of other development partners
around other solvable development challenges.
Through the Partnerships for Enhanced Engagement in Research (PEER)
program, USAID will provide grants to developing country researchers
collaborating with NSF-funded researchers in the United States. Funds
will help equip laboratories, provide stipends for graduate students,
and support training and other activities associated with research.
Projects will focus on topics of interest to USAID, such as food
security, water, biodiversity, and climate change adaptation. The
program intends to build relationships between researchers and
institutions that will endure over time. This program will leverage
more than $100 million of NSF research funding in developing countries.
USAID assesses health conditions in developing countries and
develops, tests, adapts, and introduces appropriate products and
interventions within the context of strengthening local health systems.
Key highlights of USAID's current health research and development
activities include:
--Support for the Center for the AIDS Program of Research in South
Africa, which in 2010 provided the first proof of concept that
a microbicide could safely and effectively reduce the risk of
heterosexual transmission of HIV from men to women.
--The USAID-supported International AIDS Vaccine Initiative study
which provided the first evidence that a new vaccine technique
could effectively control viral replication in vaccinated
animals.
--The development of new antimalarial drugs, and their subsequent
submission for regulatory approval.
--Support for research that improves, reduces costs, and speeds up
diagnostics for tuberculosis.
--Support for a clinical trial of a female-controlled, long-acting
contraceptive that does not require daily attention from women
or the availability of trained health providers.
--Research on the most effective lifesaving postnatal practices in 40
high-mortality countries.
--Studies that demonstrated the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness,
and feasibility of community-based care in promoting neonatal
health and survival.
--Applied research to increase the availability and uptake of oral
rehydration solution treatment to reduce diarrhea-related
morbidity and mortality in more than one dozen countries.
--Studies on the effectiveness of community-based treatment of severe
pneumonia in Pakistan.
--The establishment and strengthening of surveillance systems to
sample and test the quality of medicines throughout the world.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
haiti reforestation--supplemental
Question. Last year's supplemental appropriation included $25
million specifically for reforestation in Haiti. However, it appears
that such funds may instead be being used by United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) for loosely defined reforestation
programs that do not include the actual long-term replanting of
sustainable trees. Can you please elaborate on how USAID is using these
specific supplemental Haiti reforestation funds, including how much of
the $25 million is being spent on the actual replanting of sustainable
tree cover?
Answer. USAID shares your concern about deforestation, and we are
committed to an appropriate and sustainable natural resources
management program. Through the use of funds provided in the fiscal
year 2010 supplemental appropriation, we plan to address the underlying
causes of deforestation:
--acute poverty;
--rapid population growth; and
--unplanned urbanization.
USAID has learned from experience in Haiti that classic
reforestation approaches are not effective. When planted trees provide
little or no economic incentive to farmers they are typically replaced
with a crop that does. In Haiti, successful reforestation has occurred
where hillside farming is replaced by tree crops or improved pasture
that provide income while improving soil conservation and controlling
erosion.
USAID-funded projects have in recent years increased tree crop
cover by planting high-value trees, such as mango, cacao, coffee, and
avocado. For example, a USAID initiative, known as the Watershed
Initiative for National Natural Environmental Resource (WINNER), has
expanded perennial cover on hillsides to reduce erosion and improve
soil conservation, while promoting alternative energy sources to lower
the demand for charcoal and fuel wood. During fiscal year 2010, the
first full year of operations, WINNER planted about 1 million trees, of
which 30 percent were fruit trees and 70 percent were multi-purpose
trees.
Reforestation programs funded by the fiscal year 2010 supplemental
appropriation will contribute over the long term to replanting
sustainable trees for mango and cacao in Haiti by using a value-based
approach that strengthens tree crop value chains and assists in
producing seedling stock.
USAID anticipates that at least 50 percent, or $12.5 million, of
the $25 million in natural resources management funds provided by the
supplemental appropriation will support activities related to tree
planting, including agro-forestry, reforestation, shade-grown cacao,
and mango, and other related programs designed to increase forest
cover.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Kirk
ninevah plains region
Question. The U.S. Congress has appropriated around $30 million
since fiscal year 2008 to assist vulnerable religious communities in
Iraq, especially in the Nineveh Plains region. As you may know, last
November, a bipartisan group of Members of Congress and Senators
requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conduct an
audit of these funds, following concerns from community leaders that
the funds designated by the Congress have either not reached their
intended recipients or they were unaware of funding and grant
opportunities. How have United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) efforts to date been successful in reaching the
objectives set out by the Congress to assist vulnerable communities in
the Nineveh Plains in a transparent and effective manner? Has USAID
engaged directly with these minority groups in rendering decisions on
relevant grants and their recipients?
Answer. USAID has posted a representative at the Provincial
Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Mosul and in Erbil since 2007 and will
have a representative at the consulate in Erbil who will provide
coverage for Ninevah after the PRTs close down at the end of June 2011.
USAID PRT representatives meet with Iraqi counterparts and
beneficiaries whenever possible and work through our implementing
partners to ensure effective assistance to all Iraqi beneficiaries
including ethnic and religious minorities and other vulnerable
populations. The Iraq Rapid Assistance Program (IRAP) which was
completed in September 2010 provided grants to local Iraqi
nongovernmental organizations implementing community development
programs including in Ninevah. The process of grant making included
formal explanations to organizations whose proposals were turned down.
fiscal year 2008 base directive
The Congress inserted its first $10 million funding directive for
Iraq's religious and ethnic minorities in the fiscal year 2008 base
appropriations. USAID/Iraq agreed to meet this directive through
existing programs. These included:
--the Community Stabilization Program (CSP);
--Community Action Program (CAP);
--Provincial Economic Growth (Tijara);
--Agribusiness (Inma); and
--the Iraq Conflict Mitigation Program.
The CSP worked to achieve economic and social stability in urban
Iraqi communities. The CSP program helped meet the fiscal year 2008
base directive through activities that achieved:
--More than 51,900 long-term jobs;
--Disbursing grants than totaled $78.6 million for nearly 10,300
businesses;
--Graduated nearly 41,500 Iraqis from vocational training courses;
--Created 9,930 apprenticeships; and
--Assisted 339,000 young people through sports and arts programs.
This project activity was focused in urban areas where religious
and ethnic minorities coexisted.
CAP worked at the grassroots level to foster citizen involvement
and assist local communities to clearly identify their priorities,
develop local solutions, and use their skills to mobilize their
resources to meet their needs. For the fiscal year 2008 base directive,
CAP worked with religious and ethnic minority communities to improve
health and education, small-scale infrastructure, and income generation
through local apprenticeships in local communities where religious and
ethnic minorities exist.
The Provincial Economic Growth (Tijara) program supported the
directive and continues to provide loan capital through microfinance
institutions, as well as training and technical assistance which
benefit all Iraqis, including ethnic and religious minorities.
Previously, the Al-Tadhamun institution in Northern Iraq dedicated
funds to ethnic and religious minorities from a $2 million grant. USAID
helped Al-Tadhamun establish its office and recruit its staff and board
of directors.
USAID/Iraq's Agribusiness Program (Inma) worked to increase the
competitiveness and profitability of the Iraqi agricultural sector by
raising productivity and lowering costs. Some 175 members of the
minority community living near the Bartilla and Al-Qosh feedlots in
Northern Iraq benefited from training in record keeping, animal health
and selection, red meat production, and ruminant nutrition.
Through USAID Inma's microcredit initiative with Al-Thiqa in
Northern Iraq, more than 562 people were trained to provide additional
credit for minority borrowers. Some 240 people were trained in hay and
alfalfa production at the Elya forge production facility in Ninawa
Province. Other minority groups were trained in olive oil production
and marketing by the Zayton Olive Association in Northern Iraq.
The Iraq Community-based Conflict Mitigation Program (ICCM) focused
on assessing local communities throughout Iraq where conflict existed
and then worked with the community on projects that would help mitigate
tensions.
In fiscal year 2008, ICCM completed conflict assessments in
Bartilla and Tal Kayf communities where religious and ethnic minorities
were under pressure. Based on the assessments' results, ICCM designed
projects to mitigate the primary conflict factors in these and other
communities, with a special focus on youth programs which helped to
create tolerance in the community for all religious groups.
USAID continues to track funding for this directive through the
CAP. As of May 2010, USAID has tracked more than $17 million in funding
to the fiscal year 2008 base appropriations directive, which is $7
million more than the requirement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAID program Funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community Stabilization Program......................... $2,500,000
Community Action Program II............................. 2,000,000
Community Action Program III............................ 7,063,072
Provincial Economic Growth--Tijara...................... 2,000,000
Agribusiness--Inma...................................... 3,115,000
Community-based Conflict Mitigation..................... 500,000
---------------
Total............................................. 17,178,072
------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal year 2008 supplemental directive
The Congress inserted an additional $10 million directive for
Iraq's religious/ethnic minorities in the fiscal year 2008 supplemental
appropriations bill. The Department of State and USAID agreed to
support this directive together. The Department of State and USAID met
the fiscal year 2008 supplemental directive of $10 million for
religious and ethnic minorities by programming through the Provincial
Reconstruction Teams' (PRT) Quick Response Fund (QRF)/Iraq Rapid
Assistance Program (IRAP). The remainder of the directive was fulfilled
through the U.S. Office for Foreign Disaster Assistance (USAID/OFDA)
and through USAID's Civil Society and Conflict Mitigation program.
USAID's IRAP program supported economic and social development
programs and civil society conflict-mitigation efforts country-wide
through regional centers. IRAP assistance to Iraqi minorities focused
on the Ninawa Plain which is home to many minority groups including the
Shabaks, Turkmens, Christians, and Yazidis.
IRAP support included the establishment of water networks, road
repairs, school buildings, microfinance programs, income generation
initiatives, health awareness, and agricultural support for minority
farmers. Examples of assistance include:
--water network projects in Tal Keif and Tal Usqof districts of
Ninawa;
--primary schools in predominantly Christian, Turkmen, and Shabak
communities; and
--the restoration of a destroyed Shabak village in Ninawa Province.
Since 2003, USAID's OFDA has provided humanitarian assistance
throughout Iraq, mainly supporting conflict affected Internally
Displaced Persons (IDPs) and other vulnerable populations with disaster
relief. In fiscal year 2009, USAID/OFDA in the Northern Iraq districts
of Tal Kayf and Hamdanya, distributed nonfood items (blankets, etc.),
food Items and hygiene kits to about 2,000 Iraqi minority families.
USAID's Civil Society and Conflict Mitigation (CSCM) program helped
provide grants to minority communities for conflict mitigation projects
such as providing human rights and rule of law education, community-
building activities focusing on religious tolerance, and promoting
religious tolerance through youth activities in minority communities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAID program Funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq Rapid Assistance Program........................... $8,367,329
Civil Society and Conflict Mitigation................... 314,032
U.S. Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance.............. 629,000
---------------
Total............................................. 9,310,361
------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal year 2010
In the fiscal year 2010 base appropriations the Congress again
inserted a $10 million directive for Iraq's religious/ethnic
minorities:
The Department of State is planning to meet this $10 million
directive through its QRF program. The PRT in Ninawa is working with
local minority community organizations to develop project proposals for
funding.
fiscal year 2011
USAID/Iraq continues to assist communities where religious and
ethnic minorities exist through the Community Action Program III (CAP).
As mentioned earlier, the CAP program works with local communities to
help identify needs and build their capacity by working with their
local councils. In Ninawa and Kirkuk, the CAP program continues to work
with local communities on small-scale infrastructure projects such as
educational facilities and other public spaces, improving health, water
and electricity services, and apprenticeships that offer income-
generation skills.
In addition, USAID's new Access to Justice Program will assist
Iraq's religious and ethnic minorities. The Access to Justice program
will assist professional legal associations, nongovermental
organizations (NGOs) offering legal assistance, civic education and
advocacy, law schools and government institutions improve their support
and services to vulnerable and disadvantaged Iraqis, including women,
widows, orphans, religious and ethnic minorities, the impoverished,
internally displaced people and refugees, detainees, and the
incarcerated (including juveniles).
In November and December 2010, OFDA assisted 331 of 762 Christian
families displaced from Baghdad and Mosul with nonfood relief items
including blankets, stoves, mattresses, and kitchen sets. OFDA assisted
143 families in Ninawa, 80 families in Erbil, 59 families in
Sulaymaniyah, and 49 families in Dahuk.
nagorno-karabakh
Question. As you know, Nagorno-Karabakh continues to face serious
humanitarian and economic development challenges. Since 1998, USAID has
spent $35 billion in assistance to Nagorno-Karabakh to address these
challenges, which represents around 60 percent of what the U.S.
Congress has authorized you to spend over this period. What are the
notable achievements of USAID efforts to aid Nagorno-Karabakh since
1998? Does the discrepancy between the amounts authorized and spent
represent that USAID efforts have been able to ``do more with less'' ?
If not, how can the U.S. Government more effectively aid the people of
Nagorno-Karabakh?
Answer. Since 1998, the United States has provided more than $35
million in humanitarian assistance to victims of the Nagorno-Karabakh
(NK) conflict, including food, shelter, emergency and medical supplies,
access to quality healthcare and water, and demining projects.
United States Government assistance in Nagorno-Karabakh has
achieved notable impact in targeted areas of support.
Health.--108 health facilities were renovated and supplied with
basic medicine, equipment, and furniture, including 5 Regional
Maternity Houses; training was provided to medical professionals
throughout Nagorno-Karabakh; and mobile medical teams visited 16
communities to provide basic health services benefiting 6,200 people.
Infrastructure/Shelter.--1,533 shelters, 3 community centers, and 5
schools were renovated.
Microfinance.--More than 3,000 women received loans to support
subsistence agriculture.
In Water.--60 potable water systems were renovated and upgraded,
including 4 irrigation canals. Currently, the United States Government
is supporting a new potable water project that is helping to expand
access to clean water in the city of Stepanakert.
Demining.--The ongoing demining activity has resulted in the
clearance of 72 percent of the battle area and 93 percent of anti-
personnel and anti-tank mines, returning lands to the rural population
for agricultural use.
Programs in Nagorno-Karabakh are funded through a Eurasia Regional
budget line within the overall Assistance to Europe, Eurasia and
Central Asia (AEECA) account; this budget line funds a number of other
regional priorities, including the U.S. contribution to the
Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe. Since 2001, there
has been more than a 60 percent decline in the overall AEECA account,
as well as a sharp decline in the Eurasia regional budget. Despite the
budget decreases and competing priorities, the level of U.S. support to
Nagorno-Karabakh has remained constant, and the programs continued to
achieve notable accomplishments during that period as noted above.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Leahy. Without anything further, we'll stand in
recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., Tuesday, April 12, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Blunt, Senator Roy, U.S. Senator From Missouri, Prepared
Statement of................................................... 60
Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, Secretary, Department of State..... 1
Summary Statement of......................................... 5
Durbin, Senator Richard J., U.S. Senator From Illinois, Questions
Submitted by management and Creation of Incentives for Innovation
Implementation of Afghanistan Programs_Goals and Challenges
Importance of Small Proposals
Long-term Goals of Foreign Aid
Monitoring Programs in Afghanistan
Nagorno-Karabakh
National Security and Jobs in the United States
Ninevah Plains Region
Oversight of Funding Reallocation
Pacific Basin
Partner Vetting System_Senator Kirk's Inquiry
Partnerships for Future Conversation
Procurement Reforms and Monitoring
Programs to Aid Haitian Amputees
Promotion of American Image Through USAID Efforts
Reallocations of Funds and the Need for Efficiency
Reform
Research and Development Programs
MS Run-Time Library - Copyright (c) 1990, Microsoft Corp Safe Drinking Water_Application of Technology and Entrepreneurship
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]