[Senate Hearing 112-669]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-669
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2013
=======================================================================
HEARING
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 5857/S. 3241
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN
OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER
30, 2013, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of State
United States Agency for International Development
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-336 [DF 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)
Rachelle Johnson (Minority)
Administrative Support
Maria Veklich
LaShawnda Smith (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Page
Department of State: Secretary of State.......................... 1
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
U.S. Agency for International Development........................ 93
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2013
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:04 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Leahy, Mikulski, Durbin, Landrieu,
Lautenberg, Brown, Graham, Coats, 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. Madam Secretary, we are pleased to have you
here. I know this is your first appearance before the Congress
on the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request for the
Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs.
Senator Graham and I have tried to work very, very closely in
this subcommittee, and I appreciate the time both Senator
Graham and I had with you earlier this morning.
Before we begin, I would like to note we are missing a
member of the subcommittee today, Senator Mark Kirk, who has
had a serious health problem. But the indications are that he
is improving, and all of us--both Republicans and Democrats--
wish him a speedy recovery.
The request for the Department of StateState, foreign
operations, and related programs totals $54.7 billion. That is
a 2.6-percent increase more than last year. The increases are
mostly limited to a few areas. Funding for the majority of
programs is frozen at current levels and there are few new
initiatives.
We live in an increasingly competitive and dangerous world.
China's growing military power and global influence pose major
challenges and opportunities for the United States, as it does
for many countries. I worry about whether we are responding as
vigorously as we should.
When you testified before the subcommittee 1 year ago--and
it seems like 100 years ago--the Arab Spring was just starting.
We were witnessing the power of citizens to force their
government to begin a transition to democracy and the
protection of fundamental freedoms.
One year later, we see Syria devolving further and further
into civil war and the slaughter of Syrian civilians. The
Egyptian military and Mubarak holdovers are trying to silence
those who are working for democracy and human rights. The
Government of Bahrain continues to use force against civilians
who are demonstrating peacefully. It is increasingly difficult
to predict what is going to emerge from the chaos in Libya and
Yemen.
But while our intelligence agencies were caught off guard
by the dramatic changes in the Middle East and North Africa, on
the whole I believe the State Department's response has been
commendable. The question is, ``Where we go from here?''
You have spent time there. What are your intentions for
your proposed Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund, for
example? In the midst of all this turmoil and the growing
challenges in East Asia and our own hemisphere, there are
disproportionate uses of resources--in my view, anyway--in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
I think history will show, and this was before your time as
Secretary, that our ambitions in Afghanistan and Iraq were
naive and enormously wasteful. I think we should scale back our
costs in both countries to amounts that can be justified and
sustained.
Despite many attempts and billions of dollars over the
years, it is sobering how little progress we have made in
building a positive, stable relationship with the people of
Pakistan, not to mention its military and civilian leadership.
But the administration's budget proposes more of the same. Part
of me considers this ``budgeting by inertia''.
Yesterday, I returned from Haiti and Colombia. I have seen
notable progress in both countries. I met with President
Martelly, and I should say, incidentally, that he appreciates
very much the interest you and your husband have shown to
Haiti. As you know, my wife and I have gone there many times.
I also believe that President Santos of Colombia deserves
our support, but that support is not unconditional.
I also visited Cuba. I think their government and a vocal,
but small population of Cuban Americans are, in my view, the
primary beneficiaries of our embargo. I told former President
Castro and reiterated to current President Castro that, in some
ways, our embargo is the best thing they have going for them
because they can blame a failed economic and political system
on us. I think our policy there needs to change.
I also want you to know, that our delegation--and there
were six of us--received invaluable help from our Ambassadors
and their staffs in each of the countries we visited. They
worked very hard, especially in a couple of these countries,
when the schedule was changing daily, hourly, a couple times
even while we were in flight.
prepared statement
It is going to be difficult to get a bill through this
year. We will certainly receive an allocation below the amount
requested by the President. It will be difficult, but Senator
Graham and I have worked very closely together, as we have
before.
Actually, for years, with Senator Graham, Senator Mitch
McConnell, and former Senator Judd Gregg, we have gone back and
forth between who is chairman or who is ranking member. We have
always worked together. The American people deserve nothing
less.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Welcome, Madam Secretary. We appreciate that this is your first
appearance before the Congress on the President's fiscal year 2013
budget request for the Department of State, foreign operations, and
related programs.
Before we begin I would like to note that we are missing a member
of the subcommittee today, Senator Mark Kirk. We are thinking of
Senator Kirk and wish him the best for a speedy recovery.
The request for the Department of State foreign operations, and
related programs totals $54.7 billion, which is a 2.6-percent increase
more than last year. However, the increases are mostly limited to a few
areas. Funding for the majority of programs is frozen at current
levels, and there are few new initiatives.
We live in an increasingly competitive and dangerous world. China's
growing military power and global influence pose major challenges and
opportunities for the United States, as it does for many countries, and
I am concerned that we may not be responding to those challenges as
vigorously as we should.
When you testified before this subcommittee a year ago the Arab
Spring was just starting and we were witnessing the power of citizens
to force their governments to begin a transition to democracy and the
protection of fundamental freedoms.
A year later, Syria is devolving further and further into civil
war. The Egyptian military and Mubarak holdovers are trying to silence
those who are working for democracy and human rights.
The Government of Bahrain continues to use force against civilians
who are demonstrating peacefully, and it is increasingly difficult to
predict what is going to emerge from the growing chaos in Libya and
Yemen.
While our intelligence agencies were caught off guard by the
dramatic changes in the Middle East and North Africa, on the whole I
believe the State Department's response has been commendable. The
question is where we go from here and what your intentions are for your
proposed Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund.
In the midst of all this turmoil and the growing challenges in East
Asia and our own hemisphere, the Department continues to focus
resources--disproportionately, in my view--on Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Pakistan.
I believe history will show that our ambitions in Afghanistan and
Iraq were naive and enormously wasteful, and that we should scale back
our costs in both countries to amounts that can be justified and
sustained.
Despite many attempts and billions of dollars over the years, it is
sobering how little progress we have made in building a positive,
stable relationship with the people of Pakistan, not to mention its
military and civilian leadership. Yet your budget proposes more of the
same. It is understandable that some consider it budgeting by inertia.
Perhaps that is overly pessimistic.
Yesterday, I returned from Haiti and Colombia where there has been
notable progress. President Martelly and President Santos deserve our
strong, if not unconditional, support. I also visited Cuba whose
government and a vocal, but small population of Cuban-Americans are, in
my view, the primary beneficiaries of our misguided embargo.
I also want you to know that my delegation received invaluable help
from our Ambassadors and their staffs in each of the countries we
visited. They gave us excellent advice and support.
Madam Secretary, like last year, we are faced with an extremely
difficult budget environment. We will almost certainly receive an
allocation that is below the amount requested by the President, and
getting a bill to his desk will require difficult choices.
But for as long as I have held the gavel of this subcommittee we
have functioned in a bipartisan, cooperative manner. We also work that
way with our House counterparts. Every detail of what we recommend is
open to scrutiny and debate.
I want to thank Senator Graham for being such an active and
constructive partner, and the other members here. We have a lot of work
ahead of us.
Senator Leahy. Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM
Senator Graham. Well, I have nothing to blame my voice on.
I just actually talk this way. But I know you have just gotten
back from some overseas travels, and I really appreciate the
working relationship. It has been fun to understand the world
from a different perspective.
The first thing I want to do is acknowledge the Secretary
of State. I am glad we don't pay you by the mile.
You would bust the budget.
Senator Leahy. Or by the hour.
Senator Graham. Yes, by the hour. But really, on behalf of
all Americans, Secretary Clinton, I really appreciate what you
have done for our country. You are tireless. You travel the
world, it seems to be endless. I know you must have a refueling
probe on your plane. But sometimes we will have differences,
but I know you sincerely care about the state of world affairs,
and I think you represent our country very well on the world
stage, and I just want to say that because I know how hard you
work.
Everything Senator Leahy said is true. Fifty-four billion
dollars, we probably won't get there. It is a 2.6-percent
increase. I would ask my colleagues to think about the world.
Has the world gotten 2.6 percent more dangerous? I would say it
has.
But the foreign aid budget is 1 percent of the budget. When
I ask people at home about foreign assistance, it is a very
tough topic--I think everybody in the Senate agrees with that--
because people need so much to be done here.
I would just tell my fellow citizens and people from South
Carolina, I want to shape the world the best we can, rather
than just follow the world. And if you don't believe military
force is the answer to every problem, which I don't, then we
need an engagement strategy. Sometimes investing in a country
at the right time can pay dividends.
So, yes, the world is in turmoil, but there are a lot of
exciting opportunities to re-engage parts of the world that we
have been shut out.
Tunisia, for one. This new government in Tunisia has a lot
of potential. They believe in free markets. They want a free
trade agreement with the United States. But they have a cash
flow problem for the next couple years. They have just had
snowfall, which is sort of a historic abnormality. Tunisia is a
good example of where, if we could work with the international
community to provide some budget assistance for 2 years, I
think we could turn the country around and have a lot of
business opportunities.
Egypt, strategically, is a very important country. They are
trying to figure out who they are and where to go. The new
government, believe it or not, wants to separate themselves
from the Mubarak era. And the Muslim Brotherhood, when you hear
that term in America, a lot of people get concerned, including
me, given some of the things they have said.
But we met with the Muslim Brotherhood on a recent trip,
and I was impressed with their view of how to grow the economy
in Egypt and their desire not to associate themselves with the
nongovernmental organizations (NGO) law that is being used to
prosecute National Democratic Institute and International
Republican Institute American citizens and their associates.
This is an unjust prosecution. The theory behind the case is
absurd. Ambassador Patterson has done a wonderful job with the
State Department.
I went with Senator McCain and others to deliver the
message to the Egyptian Government that we would not tolerate
this kind of behavior, that we want a good relationship. And
the Muslim Brotherhood issued a statement after our meeting
saying that the NGO law in question was unjust. They intended
to change it when they get full control of the new parliament.
So there are some hopeful things going on in the world. And
I do hope sanctions will work against Iran. No one wants a
conflict with Iran, but no one, I believe, in their right mind
wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
So, as we look throughout Afghanistan and Iraq--Iraq is
very problematic. Afghanistan is at one of the low points, but
I do believe that a strategic partnership agreement, wisely
crafted, can secure our interests in Afghanistan. And to those
who say, ``Is it worth it? We have been there for 10 years'',
the question for me is, ``Can you afford to lose?'' The answer
is ``No''.
We do have a game plan. There is a transition plan in place
with General Allen. There is a military-civilian partnership
plan, where the State Department and the Departments of Justice
and Agriculture work hand-in-hand with our military to create
some economic capacity.
It is a corrupt place, but the people we are working with
that we are mentoring, the younger people of Afghanistan, will
be in charge one day, and they have a very good view of
America. We are just going to have to push through this and not
make emotional responses that are understandable and in many
ways justified. But we have to think strategically.
And that is what I would like to end this, my opening
statement on, is that this is a time of strategic thinking, not
emotional reaction. Republicans and Democrats need to work
together the best we can.
Senator Leahy, it has been a joy to work with you.
Secretary Clinton, I think you have tried to always keep
our national security and diplomatic interests in strategic
terms, not tactical terms.
So I look forward to working with you and your staff to
come up with a budget that is lean and affordable. And what you
are doing in Africa I think has been a case study of how
American assistance can change a continent and change the
relationship between the United States and people of an entire
region. So I look forward to working with you in the future.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Senator Graham.
Like you, when I travel to different parts of the world, I
am always struck and very pleased to hear the respect that
heads of state and foreign ministers have for you. It is
respect because you have earned it.
Madam Secretary, why don't you go ahead, and then we will
ask questions. After Senator Graham and I, we will go back and
forth in the order that people arrived.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much, Chairman Leahy,
Ranking Member Graham, and members of the subcommittee.
It is good to be back here in the Senate again. And I
greatly appreciate the excellent working relationship that we
have had over the last 3-plus years.
I wish also to register my concern and my best wishes for
Senator Kirk. Of course, I wrote him as soon as I heard about
his health challenges, and we all wish him a speedy return.
I also greatly appreciate the travel that both of you have
just described having taken. I think it is absolutely essential
to see what is going on in the world with your own eyes and to
hear from leaders and citizens with your own ears. So let me
express to you and to all members our appreciation.
We know how quickly the world is transforming, from Arab
revolutions to the rise of new economic powers, to a more
dispersed, but still dangerous al Qaeda terrorist threat. In
this time, only the United States of America has the reach,
resources, and relationships to anchor a more peaceful and
prosperous world.
The State Department and United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) budget we discuss today is a
proven investment in our national and economic security, but it
is also something more. It is a down payment on continuing
American leadership.
When I took this job, I saw a world that needed America,
but also one that questioned our focus and our staying power.
So we have worked together to put American leadership on a firm
foundation for the decades ahead.
We have ended one war. We are winding down another. We have
cemented our place as a Pacific power while maintaining our
alliance across the Atlantic. We have elevated the role of
economics within our diplomacy. And we have reached beyond
governments to engage directly with people, with a special
focus on women and girls.
We are updating our diplomacy and development for the 21st
century and finding ways to work smarter and more efficiently.
After the first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development
Review (QDDR), we created two new bureaus, focused on
counterterrorism and energy, and reorganized a third, focused
on fragile states.
Now, like many Americans in our tough economic times, we
have made difficult tradeoffs and painful cuts. We have
requested 18 percent less for Europe, Eurasia, and Central
Asia, preserving our most essential programs, and using the
savings for more urgent needs elsewhere. We are scaling back on
construction, improving procurement, and taking steps across
the board to lower costs.
Now, within the foreign operations budget, the State
Department and USAID are requesting $51.6 billion. That
represents an increase of less than the rate of inflation, and
just more than 1 percent of the Federal budget, even as our
responsibilities multiply around the world.
Today, I want to highlight five priorities.
First, our request allows us to sustain our vital national
security missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and
reflects the temporary extraordinary costs of operating on the
front lines. As President Obama has said, ``The tide of war is
receding.'' But as troops come home, civilians remain to carry
out the critical missions of diplomacy and development.
In Iraq, civilians are now in the lead, helping that
country emerge as a stable, sovereign, democratic partner. This
does increase our civilian budget, but State and USAID are
asking for only one-tenth of the $48 billion the United States
Government spent on Iraq as recently as 2011. The 2013 U.S.
Governmentwide request for Iraq, including defense spending, is
now $40 billion less than it was just 2 years ago. So we think
that this is a continuing good investment to stabilize the
sacrifice that our men and women in uniform, our civilians, and
our taxpayers have made.
Over time, despite the past week's violence, we expect to
see similar Government-wide savings in Afghanistan. This year's
request will support the ongoing transition, helping Afghans
take responsibility for their own future and ensure their
country is never again a safe haven for terrorists who can
target us.
Next door, we have a challenging, but critical relationship
with Pakistan. And we remain committed to working on issues of
joint interest, including counterterrorism, economic stability,
and regional cooperation.
Second, in the Asia-Pacific, this administration is making
an unprecedented effort to build a strong network of
relationships and institutions in which the United States is
anchored. In the century ahead, no region will be more
consequential.
As we tighten our belts around the world, we are investing
the diplomatic attention necessary to do more with less. In
Asia, we pursue what we call ``forward-deployed diplomacy'',
strengthening our alliances, launching new strategic dialogues
and economic initiatives, creating and joining important
multilateral institutions, pursuing a possible opening with
Burma--all of which underscores that America will remain a
Pacific power.
Third, we are focused on the wave of change sweeping the
Arab world. As the region transforms, so must our engagement.
Alongside our bilateral and security support, we are proposing
a $770 million Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund.
This fund will support credible proposals, validated by
rigorous analysis and by the Congress, from countries that make
a meaningful commitment to democratic change, effective
institution building, and broad-based economic growth. In an
unpredictable time, it lets us respond to all of the
unanticipated needs in a way that reflects our leadership and
agility in the region.
This budget request would also allow us to help the Syrian
people survive a brutal assault and plan for a future without
Assad. It continues our assistance for civil society and Arab
partners in Jordan, Morocco, and elsewhere. And I want to echo
Senator Graham's emphasis on Tunisia, a country that I think
deserves a lot of attention and support from the United States.
The budget also provides a record level of support for
Israel, and it makes possible our diplomacy at the United
Nations, and around the world, which has now put in place, with
your help, the toughest sanctions Iran or any nation has ever
faced.
The fourth priority is what I call ``economic statecraft'',
in particular how we use diplomacy and development to create
American jobs, jobs in Ohio, New Jersey, Maryland, Vermont,
South Carolina, and Indiana. We have more than 1,000 State
Department economic officers working to help American
businesses connect to new markets and consumers. We are pushing
back against corruption, redtape, favoritism, distorted
currencies, and intellectual property theft.
Our investment in development helps create the trading
partners of the future, and we have worked closely on the three
trade agreements that we believe will create tens of thousands
of new American jobs. We hope to work with the Congress to
ensure that as Russia enters the World Trade Organization,
foreign competitors do not have an advantage over American
businesses.
And finally, we are elevating development, alongside
diplomacy and defense, within foreign policy. Poverty, disease,
hunger, climate change can destabilize entire societies and sow
the seeds for future conflict. We have to make strategic
investments today to meet even our traditional foreign policy
goals tomorrow.
Through the Global Health Initiative, we are consolidating
programs, increasing partners' capacities, and shifting
responsibilities to help target our resources where they are
most needed and highest impact, including in areas like
maternal and child health. Our Feed the Future Initiative is
helping millions of men, women, and children by driving
agricultural growth and improving nutrition to hasten the day
when countries no longer need food aid at all.
As we pursue these initiatives, we are transforming the way
we do development, making it a priority to partner with
governments, local groups, and the private sector to deliver
measurable results. Ultimately, our goal is to empower people
to create and seize their own opportunities.
These five priorities, Mr. Chairman, are each crucial for
American leadership. And they rely on the work of some of the
most capable, hardest working, and bravest people I have ever
met--the men and women of State and USAID. Working with them is
one of the greatest honors I have had in public life.
So, with so much on the line, we simply cannot pull back.
And I know this subcommittee understands this.
But, for me, American leadership is personal. After 3
years, 95 countries, more than 700,000 miles, I know very well
what it means to land in a plane that says ``United States of
America'' on the side, to have that flag right there as I walk
down the stairs. People look to us to protect our allies and
stand by our principles and serve as an honest broker in making
peace, in fighting hunger, poverty, and disease, to standing up
to bullies and tyrants.
PREPARED STATEMENT
American leadership is not just respected. It is required.
And it takes more than just resolve and a lot of hours in the
plane. It takes resources.
This country is an unparalleled force for good in the
world, and we all want to make sure it stays that way.
So I urge you to work with us to make this investment in
strong American leadership and a more peaceful and prosperous
future.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hillary Rodham Clinton
Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Graham, members of the subcommittee:
it is good to be with you again. I am grateful for your support for
civilian power these past 3 years and eager to hear your thoughts on
the work ahead.
We are living through a time of volatility and possibility. The
Arab world is transforming. The rise of new powers is redrawing the
strategic map, creating new partners, new challenges, and growing
economic competition. Al Qaeda is weakened, but still dangerous. In
this time, only America has the reach, resources, and relationships to
anchor a more peaceful and prosperous world.
The State Department and United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) budget we discuss today is a proven investment in
our national and economic security, but also something more: it is a
down payment on American leadership in a fast-changing world.
When I became Secretary of State, I saw a world that needed
America, but also one that questioned our focus and staying power. Ever
since, we have worked together to put American leadership on a firm
foundation for the decades ahead. We have ended one war and are winding
down another. We have cemented our place as a Pacific power, while
maintaining the most powerful alliance in history across the Atlantic.
We have elevated the role of economics within our diplomacy to create
American jobs and advance our strategic interests. We have reached
beyond governments to engage directly with people--with a special focus
on women and girls.
We are updating our diplomacy and development for the 21st century,
making use of new technologies, partnering with the private sector and
finding ways to work smarter and more efficiently. After the first-ever
Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, we created two new
bureaus focused on counterterrorism and energy and reorganized a third
to prevent fragile states from becoming failed states.
Like many Americans in tough economic times, we have made difficult
tradeoffs and painful cuts. We have requested 18 percent less for
Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia, preserving our most essential
programs and using the savings for more urgent needs elsewhere. We are
scaling back construction, improving procurement, and taking countless
steps to lower costs.
Even as our challenges and responsibilities multiply around the
world, our request represents an increase of less than the rate of
inflation. State and USAID request $51.6 billion, just more than 1
percent of the Federal budget.
Today, I want to highlight five priorities--all made possible by
the investments in this budget.
First, our request allows us to sustain our vital national security
missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. As President Obama says,
``the tide of war is receding''. But as troops come home, civilians
remain to carry out the critical missions of diplomacy and development.
Our request reflects the temporary, extraordinary costs of operating on
the frontlines.
In Iraq, civilians are now in the lead, working to help that
country come through this current period of challenge and uncertainty
to emerge as a stable, sovereign, democratic partner. This increases
our civilian budget, but State and USAID are asking for only one-tenth
of the $48 billion the United States Government spent on Iraq as
recently as 2011. The 2013 United States Government request for Iraq,
including defense spending, is now $40 billion less than it was just 2
years ago. So this approach is saving taxpayers a great deal of money.
Over time, despite the past week's violence, we expect to see
similar Governmentwide savings in Afghanistan, where civilians have
already taken on increased duties. This year's request will support the
ongoing transition, helping Afghans take responsibility for their own
future and ensure their country is never again a safe-haven for
terrorists to threaten America. In Pakistan, we have a challenging, but
critical relationship. We remain committed to working on issues of
joint interest, including counterterrorism, economic stability, and
regional cooperation.
For the past decade, we have been focused--by necessity--on the
places where we face the greatest threats. In the decade ahead, we need
to be just as focused on the areas of greatest opportunity. Which
brings me to another critical priority: the Asia-Pacific region, from
the Indian subcontinent to the shores of the Americas. The Obama
administration is making an unprecedented effort to build a strong
network of relationships and institutions across the Pacific. In the
century ahead, no region will be more consequential.
As we tighten our belts around the world, we are investing the
diplomatic attention necessary to do more with less. In Asia, we are
pursuing what we call forward-deployed diplomacy--from strengthening
our alliances, to launching new strategic dialogues and economic
initiatives, to creating and joining important multilateral
institutions, to our new opening with Burma--to underscore that America
will remain a Pacific power.
Third, we are focused on the wave of change sweeping the Arab
world. We have a significant stake in successful democratic
transitions. And as the region transforms, so must our engagement.
Alongside our bilateral and security support, we are proposing a
$770 million Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund to encourage
major political and economic reforms. This fund will support credible
proposals--validated by rigorous analysis and key stakeholders,
including the Congress--to promote democratic change, effective
institutions, and broad-based economic growth. When countries commit to
making genuine reform, the fund will provide meaningful assistance,
which ultimately puts our partnerships on firmer footing. And, in an
unpredictable time, it lets us respond to unanticipated needs in a way
that reflects our leadership role in the region.
Of course, not all countries in the region are embracing the mantle
of reform and responsibility. This budget request would allow us to
keep our commitment to help the Syrian people survive a brutal assault,
reclaim their country, and plan for a future without Assad.
Our request also supports those working for change at the
grassroots. It continues our assistance for Arab partners in Jordan,
Morocco, and elsewhere. It provides a record level of support for our
ally, Israel. And it makes possible our diplomacy at the United Nations
and around the world, which has now put in place--with your help--by
far the toughest sanctions Iran has ever faced.
The fourth priority is what I call economic statecraft--how we act
at the crossroads of economics and diplomacy. At every turn, we are
asking: How can we use diplomacy and development to strengthen our
economy? We have more than 1,000 State Department economic officers
working every day to help American businesses connect to new markets
and consumers to create opportunities here at home. We are pushing back
against corruption, redtape, favoritism, distorted currencies, and
intellectual property theft. USAID invests in the poorest, most
unstable regions because it is the right thing to do, but also because
it helps create the trading partners of the future. Under the
leadership of U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, we have worked
closely together on three trade agreements that will create tens of
thousands of American jobs. And we hope to work with the Congress to
ensure that, as Russia enters the World Trade Organization, foreign
competitors do not have an advantage over American business.
Finally, we are elevating development alongside diplomacy and
defense within our foreign policy. Poverty, disease, hunger, and
climate change can destabilize entire societies and sow the seeds for
future conflict. We have to make investments now not just to promote
human security, but to meet even our traditional foreign policy goals
down the road.
Through the Global Health Initiative, we are consolidating
programs, increasing efficiencies and shifting responsibilities to host
countries. By driving down costs, we will be able to provide life-
saving HIV treatment for 6 million people by the end of 2013 without
additional spending-accelerating our progress toward President Obama's
vision of an AIDS-free generation. Building on past investments, we are
increasing countries' own health system capacity. That helps us target
our resources where they are most needed and have the greatest impact,
including areas like maternal and child health.
Our Feed the Future initiative will help millions of men, women,
and children--farmers and consumers--by driving agricultural growth and
improving nutrition to hasten the day when countries no longer need
food aid at all.
As we pursue these initiatives, we are transforming the way we do
development. We are partnering with governments, local groups, and the
private sector instead of substituting for them. We are making it a
priority to deliver measurable results, build local capacity and
promote good governance and pro-growth policies to empower people to
create and seize their own opportunities.
These five priorities--the frontline states, the Asia-Pacific, the
Arab transitions, economic statecraft and elevating development--are
each crucial to American leadership. And they are just the beginning of
what we do to serve and safeguard the American people in every region
of the world--including Africa, Latin America, Central Asia, and
Europe. The Department of State and USAID reduce the threat of nuclear
weapons, fight international trafficking, counter violent extremism,
and protect U.S. citizens overseas.
This work is done by some of the most capable, hardest-working, and
bravest people I have ever met--the men and women of State and USAID.
The political officers who worked for thousands of hours to assemble
and hold together a NATO-Arab coalition that helped the Libyan people
reclaim their future--without a single American death. The economic
officers helping American companies take part in the tens of billions
of dollars of construction underway as Brazil prepares for the World
Cup and Olympics. The development officers offering life-saving
treatment. The consular officers who serve as the front line of our
efforts to secure our borders. The public diplomacy officers who tell
the world our story. And the management officers who make everything
else possible. Working with them is one of the greatest honors I have
had in public life.
With so much on the line, from the Arab world to the Asia-Pacific,
we simply cannot pull back. Investments in American leadership are not
the cause of our fiscal challenges, and retreating from the world is
not the solution.
American leadership is personal for me. It is my job everywhere I
go. After 3 years, 95 countries and more than 700,000 miles, I know
very well what it means to land in a plane that says ``United States of
America'' on the side. People look to us to protect our allies, stand
by our principles and serve as an honest broker in making peace; to
fight hunger, poverty and disease; and to stand up to bullies and
tyrants. American leadership is not just respected. It is required. And
it takes more than just resolve. It takes resources.
This country is an unparalleled force for good in the world. We all
want to make sure it stays that way. I urge you to make this investment
in strong American leadership and a more peaceful and prosperous
future.
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
I agree with you that it is a good symbol when you land,
but I suspect the symbol is even more yourself. In some areas
we are basically reintroducing America to the rest of the
world.
You mentioned the Arab Spring. Like everyone, I saw the
uprising in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen. We also see
violent attempts by regimes who want to cling to power--Syria,
especially.
You propose a new Middle East and North Africa Incentive
Fund. Is this substantively different from what we appropriated
for this region during fiscal year 2012, or is it just money
consolidated under one heading? I know it is about $700
million----
Secretary Clinton. Right.
Senator Leahy [continuing]. But I am curious how it
differs.
Secretary Clinton. It is intended to do several things, Mr.
Chairman. We are, of course, grateful for the funding that we
have had in the past that allows us to do the work we do.
But given the fast-moving changes that we are seeing, it is
very hard to predict, sitting here today and even as you go
through the appropriations process, what we are going to need
in October or November.
Senator Leahy. I understand that. Perhaps you could provide
for the record more fully how it differs from the money we have
already given.
In that regard, I would note that Senator Inouye and I had
a hearing last year where we submitted some questions to you,
and we got the responses 11 months later. We will include them
in the record. But at that point, it is impossible to use them
to make any judgments on the budget.
It is going to be a battle royale this year on the budget.
So if questions are submitted, please tell your staff to get
responses as quickly as possible.
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
Regarding the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO), President George W. Bush
announced the United States would rejoin UNESCO as a symbol of
our commitment to human dignity. As you know, we have two 1990
laws that prohibit a United States contribution to UNESCO if
the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) becomes a member.
The PLO became a member. Our $79 million contribution was
cut off. We were doing this to support Israel. It is
interesting. Of course, Israel remains a contributing member of
UNESCO.
They get all the advantages of being a member. We lose our
influence. So it is like saying, ``Here, we will punish the PLO
by hitting ourselves in the head.''
Is there any way we get out of this?
Secretary Clinton. Well, a couple of things, Mr. Chairman.
First, I deeply regret that any questions did not get to
you in a timely manner. I was not aware of that. I checked on
it when I saw some reporting on it, and I can tell you it will
never happen again. I deeply regret it.
Second, I wanted to just respond on the $770 million. You
know, during the course of this last year, based on what the
Congress appropriated, we had to carve out nearly $360 million
from ongoing programs and from global humanitarian assistance
accounts to meet emerging needs in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya.
In addition, we set aside money from the Egypt program,
from the rest of the world, to try to fund what the Congress
agreed with us on, namely the debt swap, and to create another
program that Congress supported, the Enterprise Funds for Egypt
and Tunisia. We pulled money from other programs to address the
ongoing challenges in North Africa and the Middle East, and it
was an awkward, difficult kind of operation.
And if you compare the $770 million that we are requesting
for this fund to what we did in 1989, where we had support for
East European democracy, providing assistance for just Hungary
and Poland alone at $1 billion, and then when we responded in
the aftermath of the Georgia-Russia conflict in 2008, the U.S.
Government committed $1 billion. I think we made the right
investments back in 1989 and 2008. I think we need to recognize
the requirement for such a fund at this point.
And Mr. Chairman, on your third point, you are absolutely
right. Under our laws, we certainly followed the requirements
that we no longer fund UNESCO. We are abiding by the
requirements from the early 1990s. But you are right that
Israel remains a full, dues-paying member of UNESCO. And we
were delighted to help Israel join UNESCO.
And the reason I think they believe it is important is
because you battle out a lot of issues that are critical to
Israel and, I would add, to the United States. But certainly,
the requirement of our law does not permit any room for
discretion.
Senator Leahy. Anybody would do exactly what you did under
our law. I am just pointing out that sometimes these laws,
while they may have great symbolic significance to Members or
certain lobbies can end up really hurting us in the end. I hope
that regarding this one cooler heads may prevail.
IRAQ
Now, you speak of and moving money around in Africa, and
then you talked about Eastern Europe. I am well aware of each
of those times we have had to move it. That is why I worry a
great deal about our Embassy in Iraq, again something you
inherited, but I think it is far too big and too expensive. I
think it is a symbol of grandiose and unrealistic ambitions in
that country.
The administration has a $4.8 billion budget request for
civilian operations and programs in Iraq, particularly relating
to an $850 million police training program. The cost of
providing security and day-to-day needs of employees and
contractors is five times more costly than the actual programs.
Of the 16,000 staff under the Ambassador's authority, more
than 14,000 are for extraordinary support, including more than
8,000 security and life-support contractors.
We have a Shiite government that seems more autocratic
every day, aligned with Iran. They go out of their way to tell
us how little they think of us, and we don't have enough money
for our Embassies where we have other interests, including U.S.
commercial interests. We don't have enough money for the
programs you speak of in Africa and elsewhere, which I think
are very important.
How do we continue to sustain this? I have got to tell you,
just as one Senator, I am finding it harder and harder to vote
for money to continue these programs in Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan. As you were giving your answer on the needs for
Africa and elsewhere--and I agree with you--I look at this
great big, almost like a blinking red light, this budget for
our Embassy in Iraq.
[The information follows:]
The resources requested for fiscal year 2013 in Afghanistan will
play a key role in ensuring Afghanistan never again serves as a safe
haven to al Qaeda or other extremist groups. Foreign assistance
resources will focus on building Afghan capacity to more effectively
manage their own development. The $1.85 billion requested in the
Economic Support Fund for Afghanistan represents our estimate of the
resources that will be required to set a sustainable foundation for an
economically stable, post-transition Afghanistan, Such requests will
gradually decline from a high point of $3.4 billion in fiscal year 2010
in a responsible manner in order to ensure a successful transition and
maintain hard-won gains of the last decade. Foreign operations
resources will ensure a secure U.S. diplomatic and development presence
appropriately sized to oversee our continuing robust cooperation with
Afghanistan.
In the last year, we have taken significant strides toward a
secure and stable Afghanistan through gains on the battlefield, the end
of bin Laden, and strong commitments by the region and international
community to Afghanistan's future at the Istanbul and Bonn conferences.
At the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit in Chicago
later this spring, we hope to join with international partners to
announce a plan to share the burden of training and equipping Afghan
security forces to ensure Afghanistan's long-term stability.
Since 2002, the Government of Afghanistan has made significant
progress in terms of its fiscal sustainability and technical capacity
to govern. Government revenues have increased steadily over the last 5
years, including significant increases in collection of customs duties
and fees for electricity. The Government has also signaled its
commitment to reform through the adoption of a new economic strategy
last year in Bonn which sets specific objectives to combat corruption
and improve governance. This is not to say there have not been
challenges and setbacks. In spite of the challenges though, we remain
determined to meet our goal of transitioning security responsibility to
the Government of Afghanistan by the end of 2014, which should result
in a significant reduction in United States military spending.
Our assistance program in fiscal year 2013 will continue to improve
project sustainability through capacity building to ensure Afghans can
maintain past investments into the future. Nowhere is this more evident
than our investments in the Afghanistan infrastructure sector. Our
fiscal year 2013 assistance request for infrastructure is a 12-percent
decrease from fiscal year 2012 and a 31-percent decrease from fiscal
year 2011; and our major focus is on increasing operations and
maintenance capacity and sustainability as opposed to new construction
projects.
We are also seeking to improve the sustainability of the projects
by increasing the percentage of development projects implemented by the
Government of Afghanistan. These on-budget projects give the Government
of Afghanistan hands-on experience in managing their own development
within tightly defined parameters and with close supervision by USAID.
We also remain committed to support for the Afghanistan Reconstruction
Trust Fund, and the related National Solidarity Program as a means to
improve the capacity of the government to sustain the country's
development.
Development resources have allowed the United States to work in
partnership with Afghans to make major improvements in health,
education and economic growth, but more work is required to ensure
Afghans can continue progress without outside help. Making key
foundational investments now (including energy infrastructure,
sustainable agriculture, and government economic capacity) is important
in fostering a more sustainable and resilient economy.
Secretary Clinton. Well, it is the case, Mr. Chairman, as
you know very well, that we have attempted to do something that
hasn't been done since World War II, which is to take
responsibility for the transition from a very large military
footprint performing a lot of functions inside Iraq,
unilaterally and bilaterally with the new Iraqi Government, and
move toward a normal relationship between the United States and
Iraq. And that does require right-sizing Embassy Baghdad.
And so, we have a robust diplomatic presence in Iraq, not
only in Baghdad, but in Erbil, in Basra, elsewhere. We are
looking to make sure we have a constructive relationship with
the new Iraqi Government and a normal relationship between
sovereign nations.
We have never made any secret of the fact that, even as we
planned and executed the military-to-civilian transition, we
were thinking about the next phase, a methodical plan for
moving in the direction of operations along the lines of how we
operate elsewhere in the world.
And our budget request for fiscal year 2013 shows a
reduction as a result of normalizing operations. This process
is just part of the daily doing business, and we haven't--I
don't think we have moved too quickly, contrary to press
reports. We haven't reduced our presence by 50 percent. But we
do hope over the coming years to be able to normalize by hiring
more Iraqis, which is what we do everywhere in the world,
sourcing more goods locally, reducing our dependence on
contractors, which is very expensive.
So we understand the serious concerns in your question, Mr.
Chairman. And I can assure you that we are trying to move in a
methodical way to do this right, so that what we end up with
represents the importance of this relationship.
Senator Leahy. We will probably have a lot more discussion
about this. Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think maybe I will just pick up where you left off. I
share the chairman's concern--and I know you do, too--about the
security environment in Iraq. I think we are down to 600
American military personnel.
My question is, do you feel, given the conditions in Iraq,
that we can safely operate on the diplomatic and economic
development front?
Secretary Clinton. At this time, our Embassy personnel, our
U.S. mission--which, of course, is not just State and USAID,
but a number of Government agencies--is going about the
business of working with the people and Government of Iraq. We
are obviously focused on ensuring the safety of both our staff
and our contractors. We monitor security hour by hour, and we
know there is no guarantee of safety. But we think we have
judiciously deployed our staff and made everyone aware of the
risks that they face.
Senator Graham. How would you describe the security
environment in Iraq right now? Is it stable, unstable,
somewhere in between?
Secretary Clinton. I think, Senator Graham, it is certainly
far better than at any point in the past. It is more stable and
safe. But there is a continuing unfortunate danger from
extremists. We have seen this in the car bombs and other
attacks, and we are doing our best to make sure our people are
as safe as possible.
This is not the only environment in which our diplomats and
development experts operate with some concern about their
safety. But right now, based on our assessment, we believe it
is a manageable risk in Iraq.
Senator Graham. Well, I think I will probably come out with
a different view of the security situation, and we are going to
have to look at our aid in light of that. I just don't see how
we can effectively engage the Iraqi people, given the
deteriorating security situation. We will have to re-evaluate
our programs there.
So I share Senator Leahy's concern, and I appreciate all
those serving in Iraq, because it is dangerous. And nobody
wants it to turn out well more than I, but I am very concerned
about Iraq.
UNITED NATIONS
Let us talk about the United Nations right quick.
Palestinian statehood being achieved through the United Nations
without negotiations with Israel, I think the administration
opposes that. Is that correct?
Secretary Clinton. That is absolutely correct.
Senator Graham. And I think that is a very wise decision.
We want a two-state solution, but instead of the United Nations
conferring statehood just out of the blue, we want the parties
to sit down and negotiate a peace treaty, then have statehood.
So it is the position of the Obama administration, I think,
is to tell subdivisions of the United Nations please don't
admit the Palestinians through this process. Is that still the
position?
Secretary Clinton. That is still our position.
Senator Graham. So when you are talking about the World
Health Organization (WHO), which is a fine organization, if the
Palestinians applied tomorrow, and WHO agreed to admit them, it
would be the position of this Government that we would no
longer participate. Is that correct?
Secretary Clinton. We would no longer be able to fund WHO.
Senator Graham. And I just think that is the signal to send
the United Nations. You are not doing Israel and the
Palestinian people much of a service when you go around the
peace process.
So I support the idea that United Nations subdivisions not
unilaterally confer statehood on the Palestinians without first
negotiating with the Israelis. And I want to applaud the
administration, and I will continue to push back against any
effort to obtain statehood through that process.
SYRIA
Let us go to Syria right quick. Do you believe that Assad
should be viewed by the international community as a war
criminal?
Secretary Clinton. I think that, based on definitions of
war criminal and crimes against humanity, there would be an
argument to be made that he would fit into that category.
Senator Graham. Is there any effort to make that argument
before the world community?
Secretary Clinton. I think people have been putting forth
the argument, but I also think that from long experience, that
can complicate a resolution of a difficult, complex situation
because it limits options to persuade leaders perhaps to step
down from power.
Senator Graham. Well, I hope we can persuade him to step
down. It doesn't seem to be that we are very successful right
now.
But eventually, he goes. Do you agree with that?
Secretary Clinton. I do. I just don't know how to define
``eventually'' right now.
Senator Graham. Well, sooner rather than later would be the
goal.
Secretary Clinton. Yes.
Senator Graham. And what follows--tell me what follows in
Syria.
Secretary Clinton. It depends upon how it is done, Senator.
That is what we spend a lot of our time worrying about.
We have just had, after 1 year of effort, a transition of
power in Yemen. It was not easy, there was a lot of bloodshed,
a lot of bombing and other activity went on. But eventually,
through persistent diplomacy, and I particularly applaud our
Ambassador on the ground in Sana'a, there was a peaceful
transfer of power after an election that was viewed as widely
credible.
So, in Syria, what we are trying to achieve is something
similar.
Senator Graham. I hate to interrupt, but would you agree
that the level of violence by the regime in Syria is
unprecedented versus the Arab Spring as a whole? That what
Assad is doing, killing citizens by the thousands, using tanks,
is something different than we have experienced in other
places?
Secretary Clinton. Well, there were similarities----
Senator Graham. Other than Libya.
Secretary Clinton. Yes, I was going to say other than--
there were similarities to what Gaddafi both did and attempted
to do in Libya. So there--it is not unprecedented certainly
around the world, but it is----
Senator Graham. In the----
Secretary Clinton [continuing]. The most extreme use of
state violence in the Arab Spring.
Senator Graham. And people always ask me on my side, ``What
do you think about Secretary Clinton?'' I always answer, ``I
have a very high opinion of her.'' And I think one of your high
moments was when you persuaded the President, along with some
other strong women in the administration, not to let Misurata
be slaughtered. I thought that was one of the best things you
did for the world community because it will pay dividends in
Libya.
I would argue that we need to be looking at Syria through
the same prism, that people are literally being slaughtered.
And eventually, arms were supplied to the Libyan opposition,
with training. I am not suggesting we do it, but the Saudi
Arabians have talked about helping the opposition in Syria.
So I would just encourage you to be looking at the Libyan
model for Syria because it did end the atrocities, and for
that, I am very grateful.
Now, Iran. Do you believe the Iranians are trying to
develop a nuclear weapon or peaceful nuclear power?
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Secretary Clinton. Well, as you know, Senator, there has
been intense effort by the intelligence community here in our
country and elsewhere to answer that question. There is no
doubt that they are developing their nuclear capacity. It is
the conclusion of our intelligence community that they have not
made a decision to pursue a nuclear weapon. And that is----
Senator Graham. Have they made the decision to create the
capability to build a nuclear weapon?
Secretary Clinton. That is a point of debate in the
intelligence community, as you know.
Senator Graham. Is it the position of this administration
to deny them the ability to become a nuclear threshold state?
Secretary Clinton. It is the position of the administration
to prevent them from attaining nuclear weapons.
Senator Graham. Would that be the component parts to make a
nuclear weapon?
Secretary Clinton. I am going to stick with what the policy
of the administration is.
Senator Graham. Now I have got to run to the Budget
Committee, but I shall return because this is----
Secretary Clinton. Oh, say a good word for us.
Senator Graham. I will. I am going to go up there and see
if I can put a plug in for your budget. Because you really are
running the State Department in a business-like fashion.
But do you believe, as someone who has spent 700,000 miles
on the road, do you really have any doubt what the Iranians are
up to? I really don't. Because I don't think you build nuclear
power plants at the bottom of a mountain. And if you really
weren't up to any good, why would you be defying the world
community's ability to come in and look at what you are doing?
I just think we need to embrace the idea that the Iranians
are, in fact, developing nuclear capability, and it should be
the policy of the United States not to let that happen.
So, from a personal point of view, do you think they are
trying to develop nuclear capability for weapon purposes?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, I am here as the
Secretary of State and answer on behalf of the administration.
I think the intelligence community's position has been quite
clear.
But I do think, having lived as long as I have lived,
people sometimes say and do things that are at variance with
what one might expect. It still is quite bewildering to me why
Saddam Hussein wanted everybody to believe that he had
chemical, biological, and even nuclear weapons of mass
destruction when, apparently, he did not at that point----
Senator Graham. One last question.
Secretary Clinton [continuing]. In history.
Senator Graham. If we err--if we err in judging Iran, don't
you think we should err on the side of making sure they don't
develop nuclear capability? And the tie goes to us, not them.
Given the behavior of the regime, given the rhetoric of the
President, given all their actions, that it would be a prudent
thing for the United States and the world to assume the worst
about Iran, and not the best?
Secretary Clinton. I think that there is a very clear-eyed
view of Iran and Iranian objectives, and that is why the
President's policy is so clear and adamant, that the United
States intends to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Clinton, it is so great to have you back in the
Senate, and all of your women colleagues in the Senate on both
sides of the aisle continue to extend you an invitation to come
to one of our regular dinners. You have a certain emeritus
status with us.
Senator Mikulski. And again, after 3 years, 700,000 miles,
95 countries, you accomplished a lot. Candor, determination,
leadership, your commitment to--ongoing commitment to the
empowerment of women and girls and children around the world is
legendary, and your emphasis on smart power and diplomacy.
We want to thank you for what you are doing. But as the
Senator from Maryland, I also want to thank you--and thank you,
and by thanking you, thank all of the people who work at the
State Department and our Foreign Service professionals who work
both in this country and around the world. Many of them live in
my own home State. Some have even sacrificed with their lives,
like Ambassador Bartley did at the Khobar Towers.
And our USAID workers. And also those NGO contractors. It
was the University of Maryland who responded to Haiti with our
National Guard. It is Hopkins and its School of Public Health
that is helping in Africa and Nepal. Eliminating blindness
among African children came out of work at Hopkins. And we are
the home of Catholic Relief and Lutheran World Vision.
So I want to thank everybody who works every day with where
you provide the leadership, we help provide the money and the
policies. But it is really--they are a unique group of people
who have boots on the ground. And too often in all the budget
debates, we forget about their salaries. We forget about their
wages. We forget about their healthcare. We forget about their
pensions. And every time we bash the Federal civil service, we
are bashing those who are diplomats who bring the boots on the
ground. So I want to publicly say, ``Thank you.''
DEATH OF MAJOR ROBERT MARCHANTE
But, Madam Secretary, today Maryland is filled with grief.
And let me share it with you.
We woke up this morning to a headline that says this.
``Maryland National Guard Major Died in Afghanistan Shooting''.
Major Robert Marchante was a Maryland National Guardsman who
was 1 of 2 killed at the Interior Ministry. All of Maryland is
in shock--not shock and awe, but shock and awful because of
what happened to him.
It seems that working in this room with another officer--
John Loftis--it appears that he received a shot in the head. We
leave it to our military to do their forensic investigation.
But regardless of how he was killed, he was killed.
I am sorry about the inadvertent burning of the Koran. I
can understand the passion about it. But passion and anger is
not equivalent to assassination.
So this is really sad because this man was a public school
teacher. He was a physical education teacher. He was a big,
bulky guy. He worked in the blue-collar schools in Baltimore
County that you, yourself, have visited on occasions, like at
Steelworker's Hall. And when he got ready to leave for this
deployment, kindergarten children put together a photo album.
And he sat in their classroom in those little chairs--this big,
manly, vigorous guy.
So when we say good-bye to him--it is his wife, his four
children, his grandchild--but children in Maryland are
affected. So you get how we are feeling pretty bad today.
And my question is, ``What do I tell his family?'' What do
I tell his family today? Was it worth it? Because they are
angry. People in Maryland are angry. We went there with the
best of intentions and out of need after we were attacked. You
were the New York Senator. We remember those--the harsh reality
of that brutal 9/11.
But here we are, they are growing dope. Girls still can't
go to school the way we would like to. There is corruption. And
now, because of an inadvertent act, the relationship is so
fragile there is this tumultuous thing.
What do I tell this family? Was it worth it? When are they
coming home? What would you say if you have to make the phone
call that I am going to make this afternoon?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, first, I would express
the deep condolences and concerns that I know you will, as
someone who cares deeply about the people you serve. And there
aren't any words that can tell a wife and four children and
friends and colleagues why any kind of death in combat, in
service to our country, is explicable.
But I would also say that the United States did go to
Afghanistan for a very clear purpose, rising out of the attacks
that originated there. President Obama has set us on a path to
transition out of Afghanistan. This is not an endless
commitment that will take lives far into the future.
But that we have both made progress on the principal reason
we were there, security. Because of our platform and our
presence in Afghanistan, we have been able to target
terrorists, particularly top al Qaeda operatives, including bin
Laden, in their safe havens, and we have made progress in
helping the Afghan people.
Is it what we would want? Is it anywhere near what someone
living in Baltimore would expect from a government, from the
daily life, the human rights? No, it is not. But there are more
positive developments because of the sacrifice and commitment
of our people, our men and women in the military, in the other
aspects of civilian power.
So I could never justify the death of any one person, but I
can with a clear conscience say that the work we have done
there has made America safer and has created the possibility
for a better future for the Afghan people.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
I have other questions, but it is not a lot more than I can
say today.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Senator Coats.
Senator Coats. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, I have said this to you personally. I want
to say it publicly. There are a lot of people on both sides of
the aisle who respect all the hard work that you have put in as
Secretary. It almost makes diplomacy during the cold war look
easy, compared to the fires that are burning all across the
world. Add to that the jet-hopping from place to place, and I
am sure half the time you don't know what country you are in
when you tuck yourself into bed at night, only to get up early
in the morning.
I think we all appreciate the enormity of the tasks that
you have had to deal with over the past 3 years and appreciate
your hard work and commitment to that.
I was a little taken by the comments you made in your
opening statement here, listing your five priorities. Your very
first priority, that this request ``allows us to sustain our
vital national security missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Pakistan. The tide of war is receding, and that results in
significant savings.'' Well, it does because we are pulling our
military out of both Iraq and Afghanistan, and that does
achieve significant savings.
But I mean, can we rest easy on that, as we watch what
happens, listen to the news every day, and review the
intelligence reports? We have got a cauldron of problems. All
across North Africa, very tenuous situations.
And I am just wondering, it can't be easy to sleep at night
knowing that the responsibility, so much responsibility has
been shifted to the Department of State to deal with security--
something that was extremely difficult and continues to be for
the military. Hired contractors and minimal personnel at the
Embassy and so forth just doesn't give me any kind of assurance
that there is a brighter day ahead.
When you add the Iranian issue with the Israeli concerns to
the mix, I think we are looking at a lot of volatility and a
lot of unexpected requirements for the United States, given our
commitment to these various areas. So I just wonder if you
would reflect on that and respond to that issue.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, you are right. It is not
an easy time to be in either your position or mine, looking out
at the world that is so rapidly changing. But I do believe that
drawing down our troops in Iraq, in accordance with the
agreement that was reached in the prior administration--as you
recall, it was an agreement to have our troops out by the end
of last year--focused everybody's attention, including the
Iraqis', on the way ahead. There was no easy answer to whether
it was going to work out well or not, but it was, from our
perspective, necessary to keep faith with what the agreement
had been.
I also think, based on our conversations and agreements
with the new Iraqi Government they are trying to balance in a
very dangerous region themselves. They have expressed on
numerous occasions their desire for United States presence,
United States support, United States training, United States
military equipment. So it is moving into what I call a more
normal relationship. And that means that sometimes we will be
satisfied, and sometimes we will be disappointed by what
happens and what they do.
Similarly, in Afghanistan, the decision by our NATO allies,
which the United States fully supported, reached at Lisbon 2
years ago, to begin a transition to end combat presence in 2014
helped to increase the attention paid to training the Afghan
security forces because, ultimately, this country has to be
able to defend itself. And there has been a lot of progress
made on that front.
But you are right to say what are the questions, what are
the concerns, what are the worries, because we evaluate them on
a regular, ongoing basis, and it is hard to--it is hard to have
any certainty about what is going to happen next because of the
fast-changing transformation that is affecting this region.
Senator Coats. Well, I thank you for your answer.
I would just state to the chairman, I think we will be back
talking about adjustments to this budget before we want to. I
mean, the hope and promise of the future in a number of these
areas isn't being borne out by the reality that is taking place
right now. Hopefully, it will be better, but I have some real
concerns about that.
When I was out of the Senate, I co-chaired with the
Bipartisan Policy Committee, along with former Senator Chuck
Robb, some very, very intensive and detailed studies relative
to the Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons. I can't help but
come to the conclusion, based not only on what we learned
through that whole process, other things that I have learned
since I have been back in the Senate, and what the Iranians
themselves have acknowledged that they are doing, that we are
very, very close, if we haven't already surpassed, the point of
dealing with a situation that could be a total game changer for
the Middle East.
I am not asking you to respond to that. You responded to
Senator Graham. But I think the questions he asked were very
relevant, and I think the situation--from my standpoint is that
we are trying to make the best out of a very bad situation, and
while we are trying to do that, the clock is ticking toward a
nuclear Iran.
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
The last question I have, as my time is running out, on the
UNESCO issue, you said there is no room for discretion. If
there is no room for discretion, why is the $78 million
requested in the budget? Is the administration looking for the
Congress to repeal the current laws?
Secretary Clinton. No, I think that we are wanting to be
prepared about what might happen going forward. We remain
committed to a peace process. We remain committed to
negotiations between the parties. And we hope that there might
be breakthroughs at some point this year.
Senator Coats. Yes. Of course, we have been hoping for that
for about 30 years.
Secretary Clinton. Yes, we have. And I think we have to
continue to hope for it because it is the best outcome for both
Israel and the Palestinian people.
Senator Coats. So if the administration is not really--I
mean, if it is just a hope and a wish and a prayer, we might
have $78 million available for us to shift to other functions.
Is that correct?
Secretary Clinton. Well, I think what--let us see, somebody
just handed me a note, and it could be applied toward the
UNESCO assessment, should the Congress pass legislation to
provide authority to waive restrictions, which was debated
within the Congress at the end of last year, on appropriations.
So I think it was an effort to be prepared in the event that
situations developed well in the Middle East, or the Congress
decided to provide waiver authority.
Senator Coats. But there is no request from the
administration for the Congress to do that. Is that correct?
Secretary Clinton. Not in--is there? Yes, I think there is.
I think there is in the budget. Yes.
Senator Coats. In the budget. But is there----
Secretary Clinton. I think that what--honestly, Senator,
what we are trying to do is to figure out how to represent the
United States. I mean, it is, as the chairman points out,
somewhat ironic that Israel continues to pay its dues to
UNESCO.
Senator Coats. How much do they pay? Do you know?
Secretary Clinton. Oh, it is done on the basis of their
budget and their size. So it is nowhere near what we pay.
And much of what they support in UNESCO, which is why they
continue to participate despite the association of the
Palestinians, is to stand up for things we believe in, like
Holocaust education, like preventing people from pursuing the
designation of certain groups or institutions in a way that
would be inimical to Israel's interests. And we are the ones
who fought for years to get Israel into UNESCO.
So we are in an odd position, to be honest.
Senator Coats. Has Israel made a request to the United
States that we fund this?
Secretary Clinton. You know----
Senator Leahy. We ought to have our own request, and not
Israel's or any other country's request.
Secretary Clinton. Yes. No----
Senator Coats. No, I mean the implication here is that,
well, since Israel is still funding it and participating in it,
then that we ought to go ahead and do it.
Senator Leahy. Well, we can't do it. Our law doesn't allow
us----
Senator Coats. Exactly.
Secretary Clinton. No, we don't--we can't. We can't do it.
Senator Coats. Exactly. So there is no waiver provision?
Secretary Clinton. No.
Senator Coats. It has to be--the law has to be repealed.
Senator Leahy. That is right.
Senator Coats. And it is unlikely that it probably will
happen in this year, based on how I read the House of
Representatives----
Senator Leahy. Well----
Senator Coats [continuing]. And the stalemate that has gone
on. I was just wondering if the administration is asking us to
go forward and----
Senator Leahy. Well, we don't have to repeal it. We can
provide a waiver. Some of us feel we should at least have a
waiver in there because it looks rather foolish that we say we
are doing this to support Israel, but Israel continues to fund
UNESCO. And----
Senator Coats. But if there is no room for discussion, how
can we provide a waiver?
Senator Leahy. Well----
Secretary Clinton. So there could be a----
Senator Leahy. By amending the law.
Secretary Clinton. Yes.
Senator Leahy. A waiver is a waiver. We would amend the law
to add a waiver to it. We do this in a number of areas, as the
Senator knows from his own experience here in the Senate and as
an ambassador. We have done this to give discretion to both
Republican and Democratic administrations in areas where they
should have it.
Secretary Clinton. Could I just add----
Senator Leahy. I would say my own personal view, that I
think it is somewhat incongruous to say we are doing this to
show solidarity with Israel, and they say, ``Yes, okay, but we
are going to stay.''
Go ahead.
Secretary Clinton. Well, look, I mean, we continue to
discourage very actively and we oppose Palestinian membership
in international organizations. That is our position.
Senator Leahy. Which I do, too.
Secretary Clinton. We work on it. We reach out to countries
all the time.
But there are costs to the United States. I mean, Senator
Graham asked about the WHO. Suppose there is an outbreak of
some kind of new flu, and we are out of it. I mean, this is
just not as clear-cut as I wish I could say it is. Because our
position is very clear. We oppose it. We are doing everything
we can to prevent it. But there are some organizations, like
the International Atomic Energy Agency, WHO, the Food and
Agriculture Organization--a long list of them--where the United
States has very real interests.
And so, having a waiver, if our diplomacy were to fail and
there was an offer of associate membership, it is not a
recognition of statehood. That cannot be in any way bestowed.
But they can become some sort of associate or even full member
in an organization that we also have an interest in.
I mean, I just think it is a more challenging set of
questions than--nobody doubts our singular focus and support
for Israel. That is clear beyond any reasonable doubt
whatsoever. But even though we oppose, that doesn't mean we can
stop other organizations and even our European friends from
going forward.
So it is just--I think it raises questions. And having a
waiver that would be exercised under only the most serious
consequences might be worth looking at.
Senator Coats. Yes, it is a dicey issue, no matter what.
Secretary Clinton. It is.
Senator Coats. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Leahy. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And I include
myself in the Clinton fan club.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg. And I say thanks for all the people
that I talk to, bump into, and so forth, and Secretary
Clinton's name comes up, they are all plaudits. Hillary, you
are doing a great job, and we are all proud of you.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very, very much.
I want to ask kind of a philosophical question here. All of
us are dismayed by what we see in Afghanistan. The brutality
that exists there is shocking.
And The New York Times now has taken to publishing pictures
on the front page of the terrible deeds taking place there--a
young woman being hauled out of her house by a bunch of men
because her uncle did something. And the standards that we see
in some of these countries are incomprehensible to those of us
who--in this country, with all of our freedoms.
What do we do about these things in our calculus, when we
say, ``Look, we have got to defend the relationship with the
country,'' to us and the bigger picture, the fact that, in
Afghanistan, they behave so abominably compared to our
standards--drugs that keep addiction going in our society, no
central law and order programs.
What do we do, Madam Secretary, about a situation that we
see throughout the world, where you are forced to make contacts
with people whose behavior is just, again, not to be
understood?
HUMAN RIGHTS
Secretary Clinton. Well, I share your concern, Senator. One
only has to look back in the history of the 20th century to see
behavior that was totally inexplicable, beyond the pale of
anything that the human spirit or conscience could abide.
I think we live with many different levels of human
behavior regarding human rights, women's rights. It is not
confined, by any means, to one country. It is, unfortunately,
found in many parts of the world. But because we have invested
so much in our efforts to try to help the people of
Afghanistan, I think that it is understandable that you, your
constituents, our media would be focusing on what is happening
there.
It is difficult to have a broader picture, but the lives of
so many Afghans have been expanded, broadened, and improved in
the last decade because of the efforts of the United States and
our international partners. You are certainly not going to hear
from me any conclusion that the country has been transformed.
It is a short period of time in historical terms. But it is
fair to say that progress has been made.
And we have invested an enormous amount of blood and
treasure in Afghanistan. We do have a stake in trying to help
work toward the best possible outcome, and that is what we are
doing now.
We are working with our allies on the potential for a
political resolution through a reconciliation process. We are
working to provide greater support to the Afghan security
forces so they can defend themselves. We continue to support
many aspects of their social system, from education to health.
So there have been a lot of improvements, but it is still
quite difficult for many of us to see what still goes on in
that society. But I want to put it in a broader context than
just to focus on what is so distressing to us.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes. It is difficult. And I am sure it
causes you a lot of grief and worry, you are so close to the
situation.
FAMILY PLANNING
In recent years, congressional opponents of contraception
have sought deep cuts to international family planning
programs. What happens, Madam Secretary, if they succeed in
cutting the family planning programs? What is the penalty? What
is the cost of that in real terms?
Secretary Clinton. Well, the cost is financial. The cost is
in women's lives. The cost is to undermine what many of the
very same opponents claim is their priority--namely, to prevent
abortions--because we want to stay focused on improving
maternal and child health. And there is no doubt at all that
family planning services are absolutely essential to improving
both maternal and child health.
Working through our Government, with other governments,
with NGOs, with expertise, capacity-proven track records, we
have made a big difference in women's health. You know, global
estimates, Senator, indicate that by helping women space births
and avoid unintended pregnancies, family planning has the
potential of preventing 25 percent of the maternal and child
deaths in the developing world. Family planning is the best way
we have to prevent unintended pregnancies and abortion.
So I know that it is a very controversial issue, but
numerous studies have shown that the incidence of abortion
decreases when women have access to contraception. And
therefore, I strongly support what this administration is doing
in trying to provide the means to improve the health of women
and children around the world.
EGYPT
Senator Lautenberg. The 2012 omnibus spending bill
prohibits Egypt from receiving aid from us unless you certify
that Egypt is meeting its obligations under the peace treaty
with Israel. What is your assessment of Egypt's progress toward
them?
Secretary Clinton. There is no indication that any--there
is any intention or action at this time to undermine the peace
treaty. In fact, we hear of a continuing commitment by the
authorities in Egypt. We consult closely, as you might expect,
with our Israeli partners on this. So, at this time, there
seems to be an ongoing commitment to the importance of the Camp
David accords to Egypt.
Senator Lautenberg. The--which of the surrounding
countries, surrounding Iran, can we comfortably say that they
are really doing what they can to help influence the other
neighboring countries?
When I was in Turkey a couple of years ago, I met with Mr.
Erdogan, the President, and he declared that, well, Hamas was
not a terrorist organization, is their civil service
organization, and that Syria is their best friend. And I know
they are unhappy about the flood of refugees that are flowing.
But who is there that among--what about the Arab countries?
Would they like to see action taken? They are under the same
risk umbrella that Israel and any other countries are.
Secretary Clinton. Well, I think, Senator, that we have
been encouraged by the support we have received across the
world, not just in the region, in the enforcement of the
sanctions against Iran. We have had to go to a number of
countries and point out businesses that operated within their
boundaries, that needed to be reined in, and otherwise would be
sanctioned if they didn't stop doing trade and commerce with
Iran. We are getting everyone lined up better than I think some
might have expected.
I think also the P5+1, the permanent members of the
Security Council plus Germany, are in the process of evaluating
the Iranian response to the letter sent by Lady Ashton on
behalf of the P5+1 to resume negotiations, and that includes
Russia and China. We are in constant contact with our Arab
friends in the gulf about the threats that they face, the need
they have for defensive measures.
TURKEY VERSUS SYRIA
And certainly, circumstances have changed in the last year.
Turkey is leading the charge against Syria and Assad right now.
Of course, they would have preferred to resolve matters
peacefully, convince Assad not to be slaughtering his people.
When that proved unsuccessful, they have been very committed to
finding ways to support the Syrian people.
So this is an ongoing consultation, Senator.
Senator Lautenberg. May I ask one last question, Mr.
Chairman? Fairly simple, this one.
PAN AM 103 BOMBING
You testified last year that we have worked with the FBI
and the Justice Department, on the continuing investigation
into the Pan Am 103 bombing. Libya's ambassador to the United
States has also assured me that his government will conduct a
thorough investigation.
Now, has any progress been made on the investigation of Pan
Am 103 since--in the last year?
Secretary Clinton. Well, I think it is fair for me to say
that this is primarily a Department of Justice responsibility,
but we have had intensive discussions with our counterparts in
Libya. We have made it clear to them of the great importance of
this state--of this case to the United States, our
determination to bring those responsible to justice. And the
investigation remains open. We are working to obtain new
information.
I think it is only in the last few months that there could
even be any assurance that we would get answers, because of the
conflict ending, this new government trying to get into
operation. But I want you to know, because of your deep
interest in this, Senator, this is always at the top of my list
whenever I talk with any Libyans.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Senator Brown.
Senator Brown. And I thank you very much, Secretary
Clinton, for joining us and for your outstanding public service
for so many years.
I follow on Senator Lautenberg's question on Libya. This is
the 40th anniversary of the Munich Olympics massacre, where 11
Israeli athletes were killed. One of those athletes was an
American citizen, David Berger from, I believe, Shaker Heights,
Ohio, Cleveland area. I spoke with his 90-plus-year-old father
last week.
I know the Department is working to compensate victims of
Gaddafi's terrorism. Walk me through where things are with
getting compensation and accountability for David Berger and
his teammates, if you would.
Secretary Clinton. I may have to take that one for the
record, Senator, because clearly, we are pursuing a lot of the
cases that we believe can be traced back to the Gaddafi regime.
Some of those cases have been settled, and therefore, there is
no further litigation or negotiation to be pursued.
I am not familiar with where the specific case that you
just mentioned rests, so I will get you information for the
record.
[The information follows:]
The Department of State extends its deepest sympathies to the
family of David Berger and the other victims of the 1972 terrorist
attacks in Munich. We are currently looking into the matter, and would
be prepared to discuss appropriate measures with you or your staff at a
future date.
Senator Brown. And we will follow up on that----
Secretary Clinton. Yes.
Senator Brown [continuing]. With some of the questions I
probably won't have time to ask today on Syria, Sri Lanka, and
a couple other things.
Secretary Clinton. Okay.
TRADE UNIONS/WORKER RIGHTS
Senator Brown. At last year's hearing, you and I had an
exchange about the role that trade unions played in the Arab
Spring, especially in Tunisia and Egypt. You suggested that we
should do more to support trade unions around the world, much
like we did in the 1970s and 1980s with Lech Walesa and
Poland's Solidarity movement.
In China today, workers continue to suffer from poor work
conditions. We have read about the--and talked about the
700,000 workers for Foxconn, and those related, who make Apple
computer products. And we hear much about many of these issues.
A new generation of young migrant workers in China has
grown more vocal in asserting their rights, including strikes
at auto parts factories. While the auto industry and the auto
rescue is working well in my part of the country--well beyond
Ohio, but my part of the country, we know, in terms of auto
parts, we have seen from 2000, from permanent normal trade
relations until now, about an 800-percent increase in our trade
deficit, just unilaterally or bilaterally with China, an 800-
percent increase in our trade deficit there.
But more to the point, what is--what can the State
Department do to help workers in China increase their capacity
to organize and protect their rights? What potential do you see
in China and our role for an increase--and our role
contributing to increased democracy in the Chinese workplace?
Secretary Clinton. Well, let me just make three quick
points because this is a very important issue.
As I said last year, we have upped our emphasis on labor
issues in the State Department. We have beefed up the personnel
and the attention we are paying to labor issues. We are more
actively participating in international labor meetings because
the United States believes that if we can put together a
greater coalition of countries and trade unions who are
concerned, we will have more impact.
WORKER RIGHTS
Specifically with respect to China, the trends suggest that
there will be increasing economic pressures on the Chinese
business and government to be able to respond to working
conditions, wages, and the like, and that if we just project
out, a lot of that will come from people organizing. And we are
very supportive of that. We think that workers organizing on
behalf of themselves and having their voices heard is a
critical component of real democratic development.
Senator Brown. How does that manifest itself? If I am a
Chinese worker that has come from the countryside, as many do,
to work in an auto parts plant in Wuhan or Xi'an, how do I know
that the U.S. Government really does care about that?
Secretary Clinton. I am not sure you would because what we
fund are lawyers who bring cases on behalf of people who aren't
paid, who are made promises about working conditions that
aren't fulfilled. It is a huge country, and I don't think it is
particularly broadly known that we are doing what we can
through our democracy and human rights work to zero in on
working conditions in China and elsewhere.
So I don't know that the worker you are talking about would
know it. But we are helping to create a body of law and
expectations that will, I believe, eventually filter down to
even that worker. That there will be a greater awareness of
people's rights, as we are now seeing emanating from the
village democracy movements, where people are speaking out for
themselves.
Senator Brown. So talk to me for a moment along those same
lines. When American elected officials in--or American
officials, excuse me, meet with their Chinese counterparts,
whether it is the President meeting with Vice President Xi
last--a week or so ago, or when he met with a number of us in
the Senate, are we bringing up--is the President, are you, or
are other officials--not very many Senators are, frankly, and
should be, in my view. But there are other things to bring up,
too, so I am not sitting in judgment of my colleagues.
But are we bringing up those issues of worker rights in
these bilateral private meetings? Can you assure me that we
are?
Secretary Clinton. I can assure you that we are bringing up
human rights in every meeting with any Chinese interlocutor.
That includes freedom of religion, freedom of expression,
assembly, association, which certainly includes labor rights,
organizing rights.
In our human rights dialogue, in our legal experts'
dialogue, that is right up there with other areas of our
concerns about human rights and their lack of definition and
enforcement in China.
Senator Brown. Okay. Thank you.
And I urge you--and I know your sentiments, and I know you
want to, and I urge you to continue that and encourage you to
send that through the administration perhaps more than it has
been.
SOMALIA
Last question. I want to ask you about Somalia. Somalia is
approaching 20 years as a stateless society in the Horn of
Africa. It has become a target for those who want to cultivate
vulnerable young people to a life of terrorism.
Are you confident that the budget request gives you the
tools needed to help in whatever way we can, especially if we
see another famine next year like this year?
Secretary Clinton. Well, I just attended a very well-
organized conference on Somalia in London that the UK
Government put together. And I don't want to overstate it, but
I think that we have a plan that is not just a U.S. plan, but
an international plan.
As you know, the United States is the largest humanitarian
donor to the Horn of Africa region. That includes Somalia,
where we invested $210 million in humanitarian assistance last
fiscal year.
We are encouraged at what we see in political development.
We are encouraged in what we see as military success against
al-Shabaab. The United States just supported an increase in
African Union Mission to Somalia forces and funding that we are
going to have to fund, to try to finish off al-Shabaab in
Somalia. And I think our assistance is yielding results.
Now our big challenge is on the political side. The
transitional federal government (TFG) has been given until
August of this year to meet certain internationally agreed-upon
obligations--to have a constitution, to have new parliamentary
elections for a smaller, hopefully more effective parliament.
And we are putting great pressure on the existing TFG to
fulfill those promises.
So conferences can come and go, but I think this particular
one was--set some very clear benchmarks on humanitarian relief,
military security action, and political reform.
Senator Brown. Thank you.
I will have additional questions on the global questions
and inquiries with you on the Global Fund and Sri Lanka and
Syria.
So, thank you, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Leahy. Senator Durbin.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN
Senator Durbin. Madam Secretary----
Secretary Clinton. Hello, Senator.
Senator Durbin [continuing]. It is good to see you.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you.
Senator Durbin. And thank you for what you are doing for
our country.
You have done two things recently that I want to make a
comment on, I thought were very powerful and very important.
Your statement about Russia and China failing to join us in the
United Nations Security Council on what would have been a
powerful statement against the killing, the wanton killing
taking place in Syria was one of the best. There was no
cloaking your feelings.
You felt very strongly about those victims across Syria,
and I think you were right to call Russia and China to task for
what I consider to be an--I will say this--an irresponsible
position they have taken when it comes to the Syrian conflict.
Thank you for that.
Second, the situation in Afghanistan with the
unintentional, though controversial, destruction of the Korans
put you and the President in an extremely difficult position.
You had to make it clear that it was something that did not
reflect the feelings or values of this country, and you did
your best to calm down the situation, as did the President.
I think that was what leadership is all about. And when
several political voices this last Sunday raced to the Sunday
shows to be critical of those statements, they ought to talk to
the families of the men and women serving our country in
Afghanistan, who want them to come home safely.
What you said was the right thing for our country and the
right thing for those families. So I want to thank you for both
of those statements at the outset.
HAITI
May I speak to you for a moment about Haiti? Senator Leahy
just returned with a delegation. I was there a few weeks ago.
You have an abiding interest as Secretary of State and through
your husband, the former President, and the work that he has
done.
I feel disappointment. Garry Conille, the Prime Minister
for a few weeks only, is now gone, and President Martelly is
looking for his fourth Prime Minister in the short period of
time he has been there. There are so many things that need to
be done in this impoverished country still recovering from an
earthquake, but there is one in particular that I want to call
your attention to.
My impression in traveling around is, as you reported to
Senator Brown, we do many good things around the world that the
average person on the street never knows. We still do them
because it is the right thing to do. There are things which we
can and should do that really affect the hearts and minds of
people.
Port-au-Prince, an NGO named GHESKIO, G-H-E-S-K-I-O, a
woman, Dr. Deschamps, takes me on a tour and points to a piece
of machinery on the ground. And she says to me, ``This is our
new well and water pump. We had to drill down 600 feet. We
found clean, fresh water. We draw it to the surface, put it in
a reservoir, treat it with chlorine, and provide clean drinking
water to 120,000 people in Port-au-Prince.''
And I said, ``Who paid for the well?'' She said, ``You
did.'' The Paul Simon Water for the Poor Program, which is
funded at a very modest level, thanks to Senator Leahy, but
enough. For $25,000, this well with clean water helped this
group protect more than 100,000 people from the threat of
cholera.
I said to President Martelly, you could do this all over
Port-au-Prince, and we can help you. For modest amounts of
money, we can provide clean drinking water, which is a basic,
as you and I have discussed many times.
Tell me, as you look at Haiti and things like this, what
are we doing that not only makes a difference, but may be
appreciated by the people who live there?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, thank you for your
opening two comments. I greatly appreciate both of them. And
thank you for asking about Haiti because we have been focused
on Haiti even before the earthquake in this administration.
And you know, we have made a considerable investment that
has produced results for the people of Haiti. We are well aware
of the challenges that remain. But your question really goes to
the dilemma we face in trying to provide assistance that
produces results and that people know we are doing.
You know, we do a lot to help people all over the world,
that water well that you are talking about. But I am still not
satisfied that we do a very good job in conveying to the world
what we do, what the American taxpayer pays for us to do. I am
not satisfied. I think that there is so much that you can be
proud of.
And like you, I travel all over the place. I see the clean
drinking water projects. I see the agricultural seed products.
I see the maternal and child health clinic projects. I see all
of this.
But oftentimes, people don't know, in the country where we
are helping them or in our own country what we are investing
in. So there is a lot that we could do better, and we are
working to try to improve that.
Second, we are doing a lot to try to make our aid
sustainable. And by that, I mean except for humanitarian
emergencies, like after an earthquake or in the Horn of Africa
with a famine, where we have to just come in and help save
people's lives, we need to be asking ourselves, is what we are
doing likely to be sustainable by our friends with whom we are
partnering, either in their public sector or their NGOs?
And we are moving very much toward country-owned, country-
directed aid. Well, that is kind of change for a lot of our
folks.
So there is an enormous amount of ferment going on in our
development efforts, including with USAID, but not exclusively
there because some other of our Government agencies contribute
as well.
Senator Durbin. I have one last question, and it relates to
a speech which you gave many years ago as First Lady in Chicago
at a dinner at the Hilton Hotel honoring our mutual friend Bill
Brodsky. You had just returned from a trip to India, and you
said something which has stuck with me ever since, in case you
don't think you make an impression on people. You did.
You said, ``If I go to one of the poorest countries on
Earth and I can only ask one question to find out how they are
doing and what their chances are, it would be this. How do you
treat your women?''
Secretary Clinton. Right.
Senator Durbin. I remembered that, and I have asked that
question wherever I have gone.
And it led me to introduce legislation which has passed the
Foreign Relations Committee twice and the Senate, which has
been stalled in the House of Representatives, on the issue of
child marriage.
CHILD MARRIAGE
Secretary Clinton. I know. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Durbin. And I just hope that you can, at the G8
meeting or in other avenues, open up some conversation here.
What happens to those poor little girls----
Secretary Clinton. Mm-hmm.
Senator Durbin [continuing]. Who become victims of a child
marriage, it ruins their lives, and sometimes literally kills
them with an early pregnancy they can't handle.
Secretary Clinton. Right.
Senator Durbin. So I hope you can join the voices that are
on both sides of the aisle here that are promoting that
legislation.
Secretary Clinton. We strongly support it. We were deeply
disappointed that it died in the House, for reasons that I
don't think were directly relevant to the purpose of the bill.
So we want to work with you and with a bipartisan coalition in
the House to try to get it passed this year.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Senator Leahy. If I can take a chairman's prerogative here
to praise Senator Durbin, who has been a----
Senator Durbin. Take all the time you need.
Senator Leahy [continuing]. Consistent voice on this and
other issues that come also before the Judiciary Committee.
But you, Madam Secretary, from your days as First Lady have
been very consistent on this, and as a member of the U.S.
Senate. You have continued as Secretary of State.
I have to think that there are, as a result of some of the
efforts that have gone on, there are young women who may never
know you or Senator Durbin, or any of the rest of us, all they
will know is their lives are better. I think that is what we
strive for.
If we don't do that, then we don't deserve the privilege we
have as citizens of this country and, in our case, citizens who
do not have to worry about those kinds of things.
So I thank you both.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Senator Landrieu.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Madam Secretary, it is always wonderful to see you. And
thank you for your leadership.
And I also want to thank Senator Durbin and Leahy for their
initiative on child marriage and want to join them in
supporting that initiative.
I also want to commend you for your work with the Director
of USAID on your reform efforts for how we deliver foreign aid.
I think it is a major departure, but an important departure,
Mr. Chairman, that I am sure you are aware the Secretary and
Dr. Shah have been developing, which is to purchase more of the
supplies and goods from the countries that we are attempting to
serve. Because it then has the added benefit of not only
putting in the well, or building the hospital or the clinic,
but you are also stimulating the local business and local
entrepreneurship.
Can you comment briefly about that initiative? And are you
pleased with the way it is moving forward? Is there anything we
can do to be more supportive?
QUADRENNIAL DIPLOMACY AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Secretary Clinton. Well, Senator, first let me thank you
for your very important focus on aid and particularly on
everything that we are trying to do for children around the
world.
As part of our first-ever QDDR that I directed, we have all
taken a hard look at how we can do our business more
efficiently, produce better results in State and USAID. And
under Dr. Rajiv Shah's leadership, USAID is moving forward on
their agenda on how we can improve procurement, how we can
improve the information technology platforms that USAID uses.
In fact, how does USAID and State work closer together to
eliminate duplication and redundancy so that our separate
missions are not wasting money on things that are essentially
just the logistical part of being out in the world.
So I think that on these indicators--and I can get you a
fuller response for the record--of procurement, shifting toward
more locally purchased goods and services saves money and gives
us, therefore, more bang for the buck in delivering the aid
that we are looking for. Looking at how we deploy people is
giving Administrator Shah more flexibility so that he can more
quickly move people from location to location.
Increasing the coordination between USAID and State, so
that we are not reinventing the wheel every time there is an
emergency. USAID leads on humanitarian emergencies. State leads
on political conflict emergencies.
So we are really trying to do what we do better. We think
it is part of our obligation. And I am very proud of what USAID
is doing.
Senator Landrieu. Well, please give us any specific updates
as you can and keep us posted. I particularly want to be
supportive.
VULNERABLE CHILDREN
Second question, on vulnerable children.
Secretary Clinton. Mm-hmm.
Senator Landrieu. As you know, several years ago--and
Senator Leahy has supported this set-aside in the budget to
focus on, and it was authorized, but the Senator also supports
it--a couple of hundred million dollars for orphans and
vulnerable children. And under your leadership and with the
State Department and with this subcommittee, we have been
trying to focus that money--which is a large amount, but small
in relation to all of the PEPFAR money and others--on programs
that can help better connect and serve children that are out of
family care. And you agreed and spoke at the first conference
directed.
Can you give us a brief update about how the State
Department or USAID can be a little bit more focused on trying
to reach to those children who are just out of family care?
They are either on the street, they are in institutions. How
are we better connecting them to families, which every child
deserves a permanent loving and protective family?
Secretary Clinton. Well, you have been such a leader on
this. And you know, what we are trying to do is, number one,
work with other nations to do more themselves to take care of
their vulnerable children. Because you are right. We have
children in sweatshops. We have children on the streets. We
have children being trafficked into brothels. I mean, we have
terrible kinds of situations for too many vulnerable children
around the world.
So we are tightening laws and regulations. We are training
workers, judges, and police officers to just get them to focus
on their own children. Because no matter how generous we would
want to be, we are just a small part of the solution.
But with respect to what we are doing, we are working to
improve adoption systems and out-of-home care for vulnerable
children around the world. We had more than 9,000 children
finding permanent homes through inter-country adoption last
year. We know that is an important part of what we can do to
help these vulnerable children.
We have to make sure that there are no scandals associated
with them, that you don't have child kidnappings and thefts and
all the other terrible things that go along with it. So we are
pushing hard for broad-based acceptance of the Hague Convention
on Adoption.
So we have a multi-pronged strategy, which you have helped
us support by having the Congress be a partner, and we want to
continue doing that.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
And my final question--I do want to mention Haiti, and the
opportunity that I had to go down to Haiti about a year-and-a-
half ago. I look forward to getting briefed by the chairman on
his recent visit and just want to encourage our work. I know it
is difficult.
LATIN AMERICA
My final question, though, is about Latin America. The
budget, and the President has recommended--which is hard for me
to understand, and I know all budgets are tight--a $92 million
reduction for the Western Hemisphere.
With the recent escalation of drug trafficking in Guatemala
particularly, the devastation in El Salvador due to the recent
disaster that happened there--an unnamed storm, but nonetheless
delivered as much rain and devastation as a named hurricane
would just recently.
How are we justifying this reduction, and are you concerned
about it? And what can we do to show our support for these
emerging Latin American democracies that are so important?
Secretary Clinton. Well, I think, Senator, here is a
potentially good news story, just to a great extent.
Our assistance in the hemisphere seeks to promote citizen
security. We have three of the most violent--well, the three
most violent countries in the world are in Central America. We
want to help them continue their work to develop durable
democratic institutions, encourage economic and social
opportunity, and emphasize clean energy, as they try to link up
all of their people with electricity.
So the decrease in the fiscal year 2013 request reflects a
trend toward lower costs--lower costs, first, because what we
have learned is how to be more efficient in our security-
related institution building programs. We are focusing on fewer
areas of development in USAID, in light of the overall economic
progress in the hemisphere.
So, for example, our request for citizen security programs
is declining in part because two of our largest recipients--
Colombia and Mexico--are transitioning from periods of
intensive capital investment--building police academies,
building prisons, building courthouses--to equipment and
training, and they are really looking at how they are
sustainable. And I think this Congress should be very proud of
the work we have done in Colombia and in Mexico over the last
15 years.
And we are also trying to be smarter about how we ask Latin
America to help itself. We have some booming economies that are
beginning to be aid donors themselves. So, for example, in
Central American security, it has taken us some time, but we
have invested heavily in diplomatic outreach to get Latin
America, Canada, the European Union, specific European
countries, all to work with us, so that we would leverage the
resources we put in.
So, I think, by and large, it is a good news story. But if
there are specific areas that you remain concerned about, I
would be very happy to know about that.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Senator Leahy. Senator Hoeven.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN HOEVEN
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being with us today. The
first thing I would like to ask you about is the situation with
our NGO workers in Egypt who have been detained because of a
travel ban. I was recently there with Senator McCain and also
Senator Lindsey Graham, our ranking member, and several other
Senators.
We had an opportunity to meet with the detainees. And of
course, they are at the Embassy, our Embassy there. One of the
detainees is from North Dakota. And so, I had an opportunity to
visit with her, which I appreciated very much.
We also met with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Freedom and
Justice Party, the speaker of their parliament, and others. And
actually, the day after we were there, the Muslim Brotherhood,
Freedom and Justice Party, put out a statement that I thought
was very helpful. And I am appreciative of Senator McCain and
Senator Graham for leading that group over there to try to
encourage that the travel ban be lifted.
But it hasn't been. So I am very concerned. And I would
just ask you to give me whatever update you can on your efforts
to get our seven American NGO workers back here to the United
States.
Secretary Clinton. Well, first, Senator, thank you for
going to Egypt. Thank you for traveling to these countries that
are incredibly important to our future peace and security.
We are engaged in very intensive discussions with the
Egyptian Government about finding a solution. We have had a lot
of very tough conversations, and I think we are moving toward a
resolution. But I don't want to discuss it in great detail
because it is important that they know that we are continuing
to push them, but that we don't necessarily put it out into the
public arena yet.
So I will--now that I know one of the NGO workers is one of
your constituents, we will stay in very close touch with you.
Senator Hoeven. Well, I appreciate that. I appreciate your
efforts. And again, I certainly want to do anything I can do to
help, but certainly we want to do everything we can to see that
our workers, our Americans, get home safe and sound.
Secretary Clinton. Yes.
Senator Hoeven. And of course, beyond that, we want to
build a good relationship with this new democratic government
in Egypt.
So there is a lot at stake here, and I know you are hard at
work on it. And I appreciate it very much and look forward to
staying in close contact with you.
The other item I wanted to bring up is the sanctions on
Iran. My background is banking. And so, I understand when you
have no access to funding, it puts a lot of pressure on you.
Now, through the National Defense Reauthorization Act,
which included the Kirk-Menendez amendment, we put sanctions on
Iran's Central Bank. These are very effective. I mean, those
sanctions basically provide, I guess is the way I should put
it, that any country or company that tries to buy oil from Iran
has to pay for it through Iran's Central Bank, and they can't
do it and deal with the United States banking system.
That is a powerful sanction. But it needs to be fully
implemented, and we can't grant exceptions. And that is why
Senator Graham and myself and others are sponsoring a
resolution supporting the administration, and calling on them
to fully implement that sanction and to not allow exceptions.
I know that creates diplomatic pressure with friends like
South Korea, with countries like India and others that buy oil
from Iran. But this is our chance to really put pressure on
Iran to stop their nuclear ambitions, short of other options,
including, obviously, a military strike.
I feel we need to impose those sanctions as aggressively as
we can. I am asking you to do that. Would you please comment on
that?
IRAN SANCTIONS
Secretary Clinton. Well, we totally agree with you,
Senator. And we are implementing the new Iran sanctions
aggressively. The President issued an Executive order on
February 6 that blocks assets under United States jurisdiction
of all Iranian banks, also makes it clear that both the
Departments of the Treasury and State are expected to enforce
the sanctions absolutely.
We have been traveling the world, high-level teams from the
Departments of the Treasury, Energy, and State, to explain what
the sanctions are to counterparts around the world. We are very
frank in these discussions about the requirements of U.S. law.
And we have seen a lot of action. A broad range of
countries are making decisions to reduce their dependence on
Iranian crude, unwind their dealings with the Central Bank of
Iran.
We are also pushing very hard to make it clear that we will
help countries that have a significant dependence on Iranian
crude to try to find alternatives. It is something that they
have to look for. They can't just stop cold turkey, and not
have anything fueling their economies. Some of our major--our
friends who are major producers have set forth their
willingness to try to make up the difference. So we have had a
positive reaction.
Just for your information, the EU member states--I mean,
you take some of those countries were dependent up to 30, 35
percent on Iranian crude--and Japan have been among the most
visible. They have been taking extraordinary steps to try to
comply with our sanctions and deny revenue to Iran.
We have seen increasing difficulty by Iran in importing and
exporting products. They cannot purchase third-party liability
coverage for their vessels. So we have stopped them from being
insured, which means they can't travel. So European--or travel
with insurance. So European and Asian companies are actually
moving more quickly in reducing their imports and their
purchases than we thought they would be able to.
So, we are just relentlessly pressing them, Senator. We are
going to do the very best we can to help them.
I would say that we have some unique situations. I mean,
look at Japan, which lost so much of their electricity
production because of the earthquake and the Fukushima nuclear
power plant meltdown. They have been reducing their imports
from Iran in the range of 15 to 20 percent since last year
because we have been working with them and talking to them, and
they are aggressively seeking out new suppliers. But they have
got to find new suppliers.
We have got some challenges there. Libya is not back up the
way it needs to be. We are now sanctioning Syria. So their
contribution is not what it needs to be. But I can assure you,
we are working as aggressively as we can to try to meet these
very tough sanction targets.
Senator Hoeven. Mr. Chairman, I will just wrap up here with
this comment.
Again, thank you, Madam Secretary, for joining us this
morning. We are working to help you in the Senate in terms of
imposing those sanctions. That is our best shot to really apply
pressure to the Iranian Government to stand down its nuclear
ambitions, and we will continue to try to help make those
sanctions as effective as possible.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
I know the Secretary has to leave in just a couple of
minutes, but I am going to yield first to Senator Graham, and
then I have one last question.
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT WITH TUNISIA
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And we are going to try to do this in 3 minutes. Okay?
Tunisia. Do you support the efforts of trying to open up a
dialogue regarding our free trade agreement with Tunisia?
Secretary Clinton. I do support that. I know that----
Senator Graham. That is good. That is enough.
Secretary Clinton. Okay. All right.
Senator Graham. All right. Do you support reprogramming
money to help Tunisia get through their budget shortfall for
the next 2 years?
Secretary Clinton. I do support that.
Senator Graham. And you will seek other countries to
support Tunisia?
Secretary Clinton. And we are doing that as you speak, Mr.
Graham.
EGYPT
Senator Graham. Egypt. Do believe the cases against the NGO
workers are legitimate?
Secretary Clinton. No, I do not. Now----
Senator Graham. Do you--good answer.
Do you believe that it would be unsafe for our people to
appear in Egyptian court, given the security environment that
exists today in Egypt?
Secretary Clinton. I don't want to go any further than I
have in saying that----
Senator Graham. Fair----
Secretary Clinton [continuing]. We are hoping to resolve--
--
Senator Graham [continuing]. Fair enough.
Secretary Clinton [continuing]. These very soon.
Senator Graham. I really believe that would be a mistake.
And I understand where you are coming from.
If you were asked today to certify Egypt as complying with
all the conditions in the appropriations bill for receiving
aid, could you do so?
Secretary Clinton. I am not going to answer that either at
this point----
Senator Graham. Good enough.
Secretary Clinton. Okay.
Senator Graham. Okay. Egypt just needs to listen.
Secretary Clinton. Yes.
Senator Graham. That she is not saying yes.
Okay. Afghanistan. Is it worth it for us to have a
strategic partnership agreement? Is it in our national security
interest?
Secretary Clinton. It is absolutely in our national
security.
Senator Graham. And I hope and pray that Karzai understands
that this is the last, best chance for Afghanistan to be stable
and have a bright future, and take the administration up on
this offer.
Thank you very much for all you have done for our country.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
LEAHY/GRAHAM AMENDMENT
Just to follow up on one thing that Senator Graham said.
Does Egypt now realize that the Leahy-Graham amendment on Egypt
is a reality?
Secretary Clinton. I think they are coming to understand
that, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Secretary Clinton. It is.
Senator Leahy. All our people who go over there to speak
with them understand----
Secretary Clinton. Yes, Sir.
Senator Leahy [continuing]. That it is real. Because that
was not always clear at the beginning.
LEAHY AMENDMENT
I have one other question. We have the Leahy amendment,
which prohibits aid to units of foreign security forces that
violate human rights. It does have some strong supporters in
the State Department, but it also has detractors. I often hear
of efforts to narrowly interpret the law in a way contrary to
its intent. In the past, we have had some Embassies that
applied it only to funding for training and not for equipment,
which would be a flagrant misreading of the law.
Can you assure me that there is guidance to our U.S.
Foreign Service officers, who are responsible for applying the
law, that they will accurately reflect what we intend and what
the law says.
Secretary Clinton. Well, I believe that we do implement the
Leahy amendment in a consistent way across the world. The
vetting process requires that the Embassy, Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights, and Labor, the relevant regional bureaus all
agree that a candidate either is or is not eligible for
assistance, and that is what we are going to continue to do.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
I should note, just to make sure we have it clear in the
record, that while Israel will remain a member of UNESCO I am
told they are not planning to make their assessed contribution
this year. They also realize our law, which was done to support
them contrary to our interests, is a law that provides no
wiggle room.
I would hope that we would at least be able to amend the
law. I think it would be more helpful to Israel to amend the
law to give you the same kind of waiver we have given past
administrations for similar laws.
SRI LANKA
I also want to commend you for your efforts to pursue
accountability for the perpetrators of war crimes in Sri Lanka.
I hope you will continue to support international efforts to
bring the Sri Lankan war criminals to justice, even though
their own courts don't.
I will take that nod to be a ``Yes.''
LAND MINES
Finally, the United States has completed its review on the
use of antipersonnel landmines, something we haven't used in 20
years. They're banned by 156 countries, including all our NATO
allies. We spend a fortune cleaning up landmines every year.
But we're treated as an outsider because we haven't joined the
treaty.
Do you know when a recommendation will go to the President
on this?
Secretary Clinton. I have been hoping that the process
would be completed as soon as it could be. So far, that has not
yet occurred.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Leahy. I see. Well, you and I will have more
conversations on that.
I will keep the record open until Friday for any further
questions.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. Can we do more to engage with the Chinese on the whole
range of issues, from climate change to human rights, piracy of
intellectual property, and military cooperation?
Do you agree that we should continue supporting partnerships
between United States universities and nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs) with counterparts in China to strengthen the rule of law and
environmental health and safety in China?
Answer. Building a positive, cooperative, and comprehensive
relationship with China is an important part of the United States'
reinvigorated engagement with the Asia-Pacific. In 2012, we will
continue to deepen our bilateral engagement with China in a wide
variety of areas, including human rights, intellectual property rights
and rule of law, climate change and other environmental and health
issues, and military-to-military dialogue.
Specifically, we will continue to use forums such as the Strategic
and Economic Dialogue, Strategic Security Dialogue, Human Rights
Dialogue, Legal Experts Dialogue, Consultation on People-to-People
Exchange, Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT), JCCT IPR
Working Group, Ambassador's IPR Roundtable, Joint Commission on Science
and Technology Cooperation, EcoPartnerships Program, Ten-Year Framework
for Cooperation on Energy and Environment, and more than 50 other
ongoing regional and functional subdialogues we have with China to
advance our interests, promote universal values, strengthen the
international system that we have helped shape, and build our relations
with an increasingly influential China.
Partnerships between United States and Chinese universities, NGOs,
and subnational entities are an increasingly vital part of the
bilateral relationship. Not only do programs such as the U.S.-China
EcoPartnerships and the 100,000 Strong Initiative enjoy broad support
from both sides, they provide new mechanisms for strengthening China's
institutions and introduce positive aspects of the United States to the
next generation of China's social, educational, and political leaders.
We also believe that it is vitally important to continue to support
engagement between United States NGOs and universities and their
Chinese counterparts through programs that advance the protection of
human rights, the development of the rule of law and civil society, and
the promotion of religious freedom in China. These programs offer low-
cost investments in reform that will offer long-term dividends for the
United States. Furthermore, such engagement broadens understanding
between our societies, empowers Chinese civil society organizations to
advocate for their fellow citizens' rights, and promotes our strong
interest in expanding peaceful and positive relations with China.
It is only through increased connection at all levels that we can
develop open and honest exchanges, build bilateral trust, reduce the
risk of misunderstanding, and address areas of disagreement.
Question. For fiscal year 2013 you are requesting $2.1 billion to
house, protect, and support our diplomats and aid workers (in
Afghanistan), and another $2.5 billion for programs. The total
represents a $1.1 billion--or a 30-percent increase for the State
Department and United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) above the current level. Given our track record in Afghanistan
where it seems that the more ambitious and costly our goals the worse
the results, is it really responsible to spend all that money? With the
latest fiasco with the Koran burnings, how are we going to have
confidence that our investments can and will be sustained by the
Afghans?
Answer. The resources requested for fiscal year 2013 in Afghanistan
will play a key role in ensuring Afghanistan never again serves as a
safe haven to al Qaeda or other extremist groups. These funds are
crucial to enable us to complete preparations for Afghanistan's
assumption of full security control throughout its territory in
December 2014.
We continue to carefully assess the security situation in
Afghanistan following recent violent incidents. However, these
incidents have not prevented us from carrying out programs and
implementing essential construction projects in Afghanistan. United
States forces will remain in Afghanistan in fiscal year 2013 and
provide the security support necessary to implement our plans.
Foreign assistance resources will focus on building Afghan capacity
to more effectively manage their own development and foreign operations
resources will ensure a secure United States diplomatic and development
presence appropriately sized to oversee our continuing robust
cooperation with Afghanistan. In the last year, we've taken significant
strides toward a secure and stable Afghanistan through gains on the
battlefield, the end of bin Laden, and strong commitments by the region
and international community to Afghanistan's future at the Istanbul and
Bonn conferences. At the NATO Summit in Chicago later this spring, we
hope to join with international partners to announce a plan to share
the burden of training and equipping Afghan security forces to ensure
Afghanistan's long-term stability. Since 2002, the Government of
Afghanistan has made significant progress in terms of its fiscal
sustainability and technical capacity to govern. The Government of
Afghanistan's revenues have increased steadily over the last 5 years,
including significant increases in collection of customs duties and
fees for electricity. The government has also signaled its commitment
to reform including through the adoption of a new economic strategy
last year in Bonn, which sets specific objectives to combat corruption
and improve governance. This is not to say there have not been
challenges and setbacks. In spite of the challenges, we remain
determined to meet our goal of transitioning security responsibility to
the Government of Afghanistan by the end of 2014, which should result
in a significant reduction in United States military spending.
Our program in fiscal year 2013 will continue to improve project
sustainability through capacity building to ensure Afghans can maintain
past-investments into the future. Nowhere is this more evident than our
investments in the infrastructure sector. In fiscal year 2013 our
request for infrastructure decreases by 12 percent from fiscal year
2012 and 31 percent from fiscal year 2011; our major focus is on
increasing operations and maintenance capacity and sustainability as
opposed to new construction projects.
We are also seeking to improve sustainability by increasing the
percentage of development projects implemented by the Government of
Afghanistan. These on-budget projects give the Government of
Afghanistan hands-on experience in managing their own development
within tightly defined parameters and with close supervision by USAID.
We also remain committed to support for the Afghanistan Reconstruction
Trust Fund, and the related National Solidarity Program as a means to
improve the capacity of the government to sustain the country's
development.
Development resources have allowed the United States to work in
partnership with Afghans to make major improvements in health,
education and economic growth, but more work is required to ensure
Afghans can continue progress without outside help. Making key
foundational investments now (including energy infrastructure,
sustainable agriculture, and government economic capacity) is important
in fostering a more sustainable and resilient economy.
Fiscal year 2013 will be a critical year in establishing our
enduring presence in Afghanistan in secure facilities that will permit
our diplomatic staff to carry out programs and engage with Afghan
partners after the security transition process is complete. In addition
to Embassy Kabul, our plan is to establish platforms in Jalalabad in
the east and Kandahar in the south in addition to the two current
consulate locations in Mazar e Sharif and Herat. If facilities are to
be ready in these locations in 2014, we must do much of the work to
prepare them in 2013.
Question. You are requesting more for military and economic aid for
Pakistan than last year, even though our relations have grown
progressively strained. The Pakistani military is deeply suspicious of
the United States and is not cooperating fully with our efforts against
al Qaeda and the Taliban. Our supply lines through Pakistan are not
moving. Corruption is endemic. The Pakistani people are as virulently
anti-American as ever. We need a constructive relationship with
Pakistan, but business as usual is not the answer. Why are you
proposing to provide another $2.2 billion for the same kinds of
activities as in the past?
In 2010, a video of Pakistani soldiers summarily executing
suspected Taliban prisoners was posted on the Internet. General Kayani
pledged to conduct an investigation, but since then we have heard
nothing. This was not an isolated case of alleged war crimes by
Pakistani soldiers. The Taliban has also summarily executed Pakistani
police captives. Do you know if any Pakistani soldiers have been
punished for these crimes?
Answer. Despite recent challenges and tensions, our core national
security interests in Pakistan are as urgent and compelling as ever,
and we remain committed to a productive, respectful relationship with
Pakistan. While Pakistan's Parliament is undertaking a review of the
relationship, the results of which we expect to be issued in the coming
weeks, we continue to engage with Pakistan on our key interests such as
counterterrorism and achieving our goals in Afghanistan.
Although similar to fiscal year 2012 funding levels, the fiscal
year 2013 request represents a 25-percent decrease from fiscal year
2012 request levels. It reflects resource and implementation
constraints, while remaining sufficiently robust to send a consistent
statement of our intention to continue cooperating with Pakistan on our
joint interests, including building Pakistan's counterterrorism and
counterinsurgency capacity to help disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al
Qaeda.
While the events of 2011 led to a downturn in our relationship, we
have been consistent in our continued support of the Pakistani people
and their democratically elected civilian representatives, not with the
goal of winning a popularity contest, but because we take the long-term
view. We think a stable, democratic, tolerant, prosperous Pakistan,
which can provide alternatives to extremism for its population, is good
for the security of the region and the national security of the United
States. Civilian assistance is an important part of achieving that
long-term goal. A goal we share with the Pakistanis is to continue to
foster opportunities to move toward ``trade not aid'', and our fiscal
year 2013 budget will help build trade and investment in Pakistan,
which must ultimately drive Pakistan's growth and reduce its dependence
on foreign assistance.
There are serious governance and human rights problems in Pakistan
and we continue to both report on and raise these with the government.
In this particular case, in October 2010, Chief of Army Staff Kayani
ordered a board of inquiry to investigate the video and the
allegations. We continue to ask the Pakistani Government for the
results of this investigation. However, to date, we have not been made
aware of its findings.
Question. The Leahy amendment, which prohibits aid to units of
foreign security forces that violate human rights, has some strong
supporters in the State Department and I want to thank you for some of
the recent steps that have been taken to more vigorously implement and
enforce the Leahy amendment. However, it also has its detractors, and I
often hear of efforts to narrowly interpret the law in ways that are
clearly contrary to its intent. Most importantly, I understand that
many U.S. Embassies have required vetting of individuals to determine
their eligibility under the Leahy amendment to receive U.S. training,
but have not vetted their units which may have a history of human
rights violations. Vetting units is a core concept of the Leahy
amendment. It is against the law to provide any form of assistance--
training, equipment, or anything else--to any person who either belongs
to a unit credibly alleged to be involved in gross violations of human
rights or who personally is involved in such violations. Can you assure
me that the guidance for every U.S. Foreign Service Officer who is
responsible for applying the law will accurately reflect these core
principles, and that top officials in the Department will be informed
of the importance of fully implementing the law?
I would also be grateful to have your assurance that foreign
governments will be informed if assistance is being withheld from
specific units under the Leahy amendment. As you know, this also is
specifically required by the law.
One important goal of the law is to end the impunity for members of
foreign security forces who violate human rights. Consequently, the law
also directs that the United States must offer assistance to help bring
to justice individuals who have committed gross violations. Who within
the Department is tasked to implement this legal requirement? What
funds have been allocated to carry out this requirement of the law? Can
you provide me any examples since the law was first enacted when the
United States offered such assistance?
Finally, I believe that the Leahy amendment and the reputation of
the United States and of the Department of State have suffered because
of the refusal by the Department to provide public information about
how seriously the Department takes the law, how much effort it devotes
to implement it, and how many cases are affected by the law. I
understand that it may be important in rare cases to keep certain
information confidential concerning the law in order to protect
intelligence sources and methods. But many of the atrocities subject to
the law are reported in news articles and other public sources. At a
minimum, I would appreciate it if you would provide me--in
nonclassified form--aggregate information about the implementation of
the Leahy amendment over the last 12 months, including the following:
--What is the Department's best estimate of how many times units or
individuals have been denied approval under the Leahy amendment
vetting process;
--What is the Department's best estimate of the number of times that
a request for vetting was not finally approved either because
approval was denied or for any other reason; and
--What is the Department's best estimate of the number of countries
in which a vetting request was denied or otherwise not approved
under the Leahy amendment.
Answer. Please be assured that all levels of the Department
involved in security assistance are well aware of the Leahy amendment
and all Foreign Service Officers and others in the Department charged
with implementing the law are aware of the requirements. As you know,
the Department has established a robust vetting system called INVEST
(INternational VEtting and Security Tracking) which is now in use by
Embassies worldwide to conduct Leahy amendment vetting. By replacing
the former cable-based process, the INVEST system has greatly
facilitated efficient vetting of security force units and individual
candidates nominated to receive State-funded training and assistance,
as well as Department of Defense (DOD) training. The INVEST system
includes detailed policy and procedural instructions for conducting
vetting in compliance with the Leahy amendment. We have vetted in
excess of 200,000 nominees since the system became fully operational in
January 2011.
If at any time during the vetting process we determine that a
nominee cannot receive assistance because there is credible information
of gross human rights violations, or incomplete information that
prevents us from completing vetting on the nominee, the nominee is not
approved for assistance. In these circumstances, the host country is
asked to nominate a replacement candidate or to provide additional
information to allow vetting to be completed.
With respect to unit vetting, we understand that units or
individual candidates from units credibly implicated in gross human
rights violations cannot be provided assistance under the Leahy
amendment. The Department is issuing additional guidance on this point
that highlights the explicit provision in this regard recently added by
section 620M(d)(5), and to ensure that all involved in the vetting
process are aware of the unit vetting requirement.
Regarding notification of host governments, we recognize on several
fronts the value of conveying to partner governments when we have
identified credible information of gross human rights abuses by its
officials and seek to comply with this legal requirement. Embassies and
senior level United States Government officials engage host governments
at every opportunity to raise specific human rights concerns, and to
offer assistance in bringing violators to justice.
The Department does not have a specifically designated program to
assist foreign governments in bringing individuals to justice, nor do
we have funding set aside for this purpose. However, the Department
does have more than 260 law enforcement and justice programs worldwide
designed to enhance the rule of law, human rights, and good governance.
As such, in some countries, such as Colombia, the Department supports,
within the Prosecutor General's office, a specialized Human Rights Unit
which identifies human rights violators and seeks to bring them to
justice.
In the past year, 1,766 individuals and units have been denied
assistance or training due to credible information about gross human
rights violations, or where vetting was suspended due to discovery of
derogatory human rights information that could not be resolved before
the training deadline. An additional 12,571 candidates did not receive
assistance or training because they were submitted for vetting with
insufficient information, additional requested information was not
received in time, or they were not submitted in time to complete
vetting. While the number of candidates not approved to receive
assistance is important, it is also significant to note that, due to
the broad awareness of the Leahy amendment, our Embassy staffs
frequently work to prevent the nomination of units and individuals that
are known to have credible information that implicates them in gross
human rights violations, and where the host country has not taken
effective steps to bring the responsible members to justice. In effect,
this extends the effect of the Leahy amendment beyond those cases where
assistance is denied by vetting.
On occasion, derogatory information on issues that would not
trigger the Leahy amendment surfaces and candidates are rejected as a
matter of policy. In some instances, candidates are re-submitted at a
later date with additional information and favorably vetted for follow-
on training or assistance. The INVEST system is set up so that if a
candidate is not favorably vetted at all steps in the process, the
candidate is not approved and the training or assistance is not
provided. In the past year, candidates from 46 countries have not
passed vetting and have thus been denied training or assistance.
changing united states role in the asia-pacific region
Question. Over the past couple of months you have made the point
that as the United States withdraws and reduces its commitments in Iraq
and Afghanistan, we must begin an increased and strategic investment in
the Asia-Pacific region. I don't see this shift in focus reflected in
the fiscal year 2013 budget request. What specific investments are you
proposing?
Answer. Looking forward to the next decade, we recognize no region
will be more important to the United States than the Asia Pacific.
Overall fiscal constraints in the foreign affairs budget have placed
limits on our ability to increase direct State Department and USAID
resources to the region in fiscal year 2013. However, we have been able
to elevate our commitment to the region through a strategy that is
multifaceted, involving close coordination with the full spectrum of
interagency partners to make sure our diplomatic, defense, and
development efforts are aimed at increasing U.S. investments in the
region in key areas. Foreign assistance is but one aspect of our
strategy to deepen our engagement with the region and the fiscal year
2013 budget reflects strategic choices that must be made as the budget
becomes more constrained. It is important to look at the whole picture
of what we are sending to the region.
Substantial Millennium Challenge Corporation compacts that were
recently signed will bring more than $1 billion of American assistance
to Indonesia and the Philippines in the next 5 years. In addition, we
are substantially increasing our consular resources in the Asia-Pacific
to address an unprecedented increase in demand for United States visas.
This is not entirely evident in the East Asia and Pacific chapter of
the fiscal year 2013 congressional budget justification, since the
budget tables do not take into account fee-funded positions and
expenditures, such as consular officers and some construction expansion
projects. In China, we are expanding our consular presence at every
single post, and visa issuances have more than doubled in the last 5
years.
Diplomatic efforts are also an essential part of our longstanding
and ongoing engagement in the region. They are a critical component of
how we pursue and achieve our strategic objectives, but are not
captured by figures like development assistance dollars. For example,
we successfully concluded our implementation review process for our
major free trade agreement with Korea, which entered into force on
March 15 of this year, and are now working aggressively on the Trans
Pacific Partnership. Our enhanced engagement with Burma and our
strategy to match ``action-for-action'' to encourage the country's
reform process has already shown signs of progress including a
substantial release of political prisoners. These efforts have already
produced real results, such as new strategic dialogues across the
region with emerging partners, strengthened alliances, and expanded
engagement with the region's multilateral fora including the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the East Asia
Summit, as well as deepening regional cooperation on a range of
economic issues through Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation--which all
work to advance U.S. interests.
In addition, we have established the Lower Mekong Initiative with
four nations sharing the Mekong, and launched the Indonesia
Comprehensive Partnership and Partnership for Growth in the
Philippines. The budget request reflects the administration's continued
support for and commitment to these important initiatives.
As part of the National Export Initiative and the new focus on
economic statecraft, our diplomats are also helping United States
companies learn about the massive infrastructure development
opportunities in the ASEAN region, particularly Indonesia. We believe
that our companies are best-placed to bring world-class capabilities
and state-of-the-art technology toward this endeavor and in the process
create jobs for Americans on the homeland.
We remain more committed than ever to the region and to making sure
America remains a leader in the Pacific arena.
Question. I want to commend State Department for its efforts to
pursue accountability for the perpetrators of war crimes in Sri Lanka.
The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) committed terrible
atrocities, and we are all glad they are defeated, but the Sri Lankan
army also violated the laws of war and thousands of civilians died as a
result. Unfortunately, so far the Government of Sri Lanka has not
punished anyone. Will you continue to call for international mechanisms
to investigate these crimes and bring Sri Lankan war criminals to
justice?
Answer. We are deeply concerned about the events of the final
months of the conflict, including reports that there could have been as
many as 40,000 civilian deaths. We support a full accounting of, and
accountability for, serious allegations of international humanitarian
law and international human rights law violations that occurred in the
final months of the conflict.
The United States has maintained a consistent dialogue with the
Government of Sri Lanka regarding the issues of reconciliation and
accountability since the end of the conflict in May 2009, and is
concerned that without genuine reconciliation and accountability, the
country could return to conflict.
The United States is supporting a resolution at the March UN Human
Rights Council session that calls for action on important steps toward
accountability and reconciliation, while expressing the international
community's concern about delays on implementation of such measures. It
also encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to communicate what it
intends to do to implement the constructive recommendations of its own
Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, advance reconciliation,
strengthen democratic institutions, and address accountability.
While domestic authorities have primary responsibility to ensure
that those individuals responsible for violations of international
humanitarian law and international human rights law are held
accountable, international accountability mechanisms can become
appropriate in circumstances in which a State is unable or unwilling to
meet its obligations. The Government of Sri Lanka needs to demonstrate
that it is able and willing to meet these obligations. If they do not,
there will be growing pressure from the international community for an
international accountability mechanism.
Again, we support a full accounting of, and accountability for,
serious allegations of international humanitarian law and international
human rights law violations that occurred in the final months of the
conflict.
Question. The President issued an Executive order last month to
improve visa and foreign visitor processing. I was glad to see this
because we have been trying to get the Department to improve the
tourist visa process for several years and included language in the
fiscal year 2012 bill directing the Department to reduce visa wait
times, particularly for citizens from China and Brazil and to improve
the way the Department forecasts the demand for tourist visas.
What is the status of the improvements that the Department is
planning and implementing and have wait times gone down for Chinese and
Brazilians who want to visit the United States? Are there any
improvements that you want to make but can't and need the Congress'
help?
Answer. We are confident that we will meet the goals of the
Executive order. Our ongoing efforts to increase staff, expand or
improve existing facilities, and implement internal efficiencies are
paying off. Interview wait times in China are currently under 7 days.
Missionwide, wait times have averaged less than 30 days for all but 2
of the past 18 months. In Brazil, wait times missionwide have fallen
from more than 100 days to just weeks at some posts. The longest wait
time in Brazil is less than 30 days, a significant accomplishment.
Demand for visa services in China and Brazil continue to increase
in 2012. Our consular sections accommodated 33 percent and 62 percent
growth, respectively, in the first 4 months of this fiscal year, as
compared to the same period last fiscal year. We expect demand to
remain at these levels in Brazil, and to increase in China over the
traditional spring and summertime ``high season'', as prospective
university and college students begin to apply for visas. Staffing
flexibility is critical to keeping interview wait times down during
this period, and we are deploying the first group of limited noncareer
appointment consular adjudicators in March and April 2012 to support
the expected demand increase.
Although we chiefly rely on our internal observations to predict
future visa demand, we also consider the Department of Commerce's
Forecast of International Travelers to the United States as a key
indicator of potential demand for visa services among some of the
fastest growing economies, including China and Brazil.
We appreciate congressional interest in this topic and we value
constructive congressional oversight of our visa function. As we are
meeting the goals of the Executive order, we must not forget that every
visa issuance decision is a national security decision, and that there
will be visa adjudication cases for which additional review would be
warranted.
Question. The fiscal year 2013 budget request proposes a $226.9
million cut in funding for refugee assistance and resettlement
programs. Given what we know the needs are, how can we justify this?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2013 request includes $1.675
billion for the Migration Refugee Assistance and the Emergency Refugee
and Migration Assistance accounts. While this represents a decrease in
funding available for humanitarian programs supported by these accounts
in fiscal year 2012, it represents a $30.3 million increase from the
President's fiscal year 2012 request for these accounts. This increase
reflects the administration's ongoing commitment to humanitarian
programs, while taking into account current budget constraints. The
administration remains dedicated to providing robust support for
humanitarian programs worldwide.
Question. Has the Government of Israel obtained bulldozers or spare
parts for bulldozers with Foreign Military Financing (FMF) assistance
since January 2009?
In April 2011, the State Department informed me that a foreign
military sale (FMS) (IS-B-ZLT $24.5 million) of 33 nonarmored (plus an
option for an additional 12) D9-R bulldozers was completed on July 27,
2010 and that ``to date, the contract was awarded by the U.S. Army on
December 15, 2010 with an estimated delivery date for all 33 of 250
days (i.e., on or about 21 Aug 11)''. Were these bulldozers delivered
as estimated in April 2011? For what purpose(s) were they provided? Is
this information related to the contract still accurate today?
When was the last sale of bulldozers or spare parts for bulldozers
to Israel either through a direct commercial sale or under the FMS
program, and for how many, what type, and for what purpose?
Would bulldozers or spare parts for bulldozers transferred to
Israel, either through direct commercial sales or under the FMS or FMF
programs, be permitted to be used for Palestinian home demolitions
under the standard conditions provided in section 505 of the Foreign
Assistance Act? Have such transfers been subject to any restrictions on
their use for Palestinian home demolitions? Have they been used for
Palestinian home demolitions?
Answer. Under FMS case IS-B-ZLT, Israel received 33 commercially
configured, custom-built, nonweaponized, nonarmored Caterpillar D9R
Bulldozers and associated tool sets, storage chests, diagnostic
equipment, and spare parts. Israel procured these bulldozers under a
contract awarded on December 15, 2010. As part of this case, the
Government of Israel has the option of purchasing 12 additional
bulldozers. It has not exercised that option to date.
The bulldozers were shipped to Israel beginning on April 28, 2011,
and ending on August 5, 2011. The spare parts, tools, and storage kits
were delivered on September 23, 2011. The purpose of the bulldozers was
to support the activities of the Israeli Defense Forces. The Israeli
Ministry of Defense is the stated end user in this case.
There are a number of general military applications for bulldozers
including earthworks, digging moats, mounting sand barriers, building
and demolishing fortifications and structures, recovering overturned or
damaged armored fighting vehicles, clearing landmines, detonating IEDs
and explosives, clearing terrain obstacles and opening routes for
armored fighting vehicles and infantry.
At this time, there are no open requests for bulldozers from
Israel. The U.S. Government decided as a matter of policy in 2007 that
due to earlier incidents of concern, if Israel wants to purchase
bulldozers using FMF, Israel must use FMS channels and authorities.
Israel can, however, use its national funds to purchase bulldozers from
commercial sources worldwide.
The sale of Caterpillar spare parts is done through FMS channels
against a blanket open ended spare parts case on an as-needed basis.
This ensures economies of scale based on high volume procurements for
certain parts in DOD inventory.
Although we are in contact with several Israeli NGOs and
organizations like United Nations Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs that track Palestinian home demolitions, they do
not appear to keep records of what type of bulldozer is used for each
demolition, nor do we track individual bulldozers for each demolition,
nor do we track individual bulldozers within the Israeli fleet.
Therefore, we have no information as to whether bulldozers purchased
with United States funds were used in home demolitions. We do note that
the Road Map calls for Israel not to demolish homes or property as a
punitive measure.
Question. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and other
human rights groups have denounced recent human rights violations in
Bajo Aguan, Honduras. Has the United States Ambassador to Honduras made
any public statements regarding such violations?
The United States has provided training and support to the Honduran
army's 15th Battalion in the past. Please describe the role of the 15th
Battalion's role, if any, in the Bajo Aguan region. Are there any plans
to provide assistance to this Battalion in fiscal year 2012 or fiscal
year 2013?
To which units of the Honduran army is the administration planning
to provide assistance in fiscal year 2013, and for what purposes?
Have any members of the Honduran police forces been arrested,
charged, or punished for human rights violations in the Agu n region?
Answer. The Department of State closely follows the land conflict
in the Bajo Aguan region of Honduras. United States Ambassador to
Honduras Lisa Kubiske has expressed concerns about the violence both
publicly and in meetings with Honduran officials. In February, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Kathleen
Fitzpatrick visited Honduras, where she referenced the conflict in a
public statement and raised the issue in private meetings with Honduran
officials. In November 2011, the Department of State sent officials to
the Bajo Aguan to meet with leaders of farm worker collectives,
representatives of security forces, and landowners. The following
month, Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human
Rights Maria Otero visited Honduras, where she met with Honduras'
Secretary of State for Justice and Human Rights. The United States
Government was pleased to see the February 2012 agreement, brokered by
Honduran officials, to sell cultivated land to farm workers and address
the root causes of the conflict.
Contrary to reports from several human rights groups, the Honduran
Army's 15th Battalion is not participating in the Xatruch II operation
in the Bajo Aguan, designed to prevent confrontations between farm
workers and private security guards. A DOD-funded U.S. Special Forces
detachment assists in training members of the 15th Battalion in areas
including medical care and marksmanship. All training activities
emphasize the importance of protecting human rights.
The United States Government provides security assistance to the
Honduran armed forces to support its efforts to more effectively
control its national territory, participate in peacekeeping operations,
respond to natural disasters, and conduct search-and-rescue operations.
In addition to the 15th Battalion, the United States Government
provides training to the Honduran Army's 1st Special Forces Battalion,
among other units. Consistent with the Leahy amendment and department
policy, the Department of State conducts background investigations of
potential recipients of security training from the Department of State,
as well as from certain Department of Defense training programs, to
ensure that they have not committed gross human rights abuses.
Honduran authorities are investigating 11 police officers for
alleged human rights abuses in the Bajo Aguan and the surrounding
region. Four of those officers have been arrested, and an additional
four are suspended pending completion of the police investigations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Question. Madam Secretary, I appreciate the focus you have always
given to Asia and the Pacific during your tenure. I commend the
administration for its announcement earlier this year to shift the
focus of United States foreign policy to Asia. Given this interest
could you please elaborate on the strategy that the Department would
like to pursue engaging our Pacific partners?
Answer. Looking forward to the next decade, we recognize that the
Asia-Pacific region will continue to increase in importance to the
United States and we understand that our diplomatic presence and
engagement should reflect the significance the region will have for our
country. We are working smartly to elevate our commitment to the region
through a strategy that is multifaceted, involving close coordination
with the full spectrum of interagency partners to make sure our
diplomatic, defense, and development efforts are targeted toward our
highest priorities.
The Pacific Island countries remain vital to U.S. interests due to
our shared history, defense partnerships, commercial links, people-to-
people connections, and consistent alignment on key UN issues. I have
met with Pacific Island leaders the last 2 years on the margins of the
UN General Assembly to discuss issues of mutual concern and highlight
our shared interests in working together.
Our strong strategic position in the Pacific is the foothold for
our pivot to the broader Asia-Pacific region. Increasingly, outside
powers compete for regional influence. Our challenge in 2012 is to
maintain our historical pre-eminence through increased high-level
engagement, leveraging whole-of-government capabilities, and regional
partnerships to deliver mutual benefits.
Specifically, we look to implement a Pacific component to President
Obama's strategic pivot that will promote democracy and good
governance, sustainable economic development, regional trade and
investment, and U.S. commercial interests, help with regional concerns,
including climate change, energy, and health, and advance our security
engagement in the Pacific. I look forward to working closely with you
to secure congressional passage of the pending legislation to implement
the results of the mandated 15-year Compact Review. Provisions of this
legislation will help ensure that Palau achieves budgetary self-
sufficiency over time as it continues to stand with us as a staunch,
dependable, and democratic ally.
We look to underscore our commitment to the region and its
institutional architecture through active engagement at the upcoming
6th Pacific Leaders Meeting, the 50th anniversary of Samoan
independence, the Pacific Island Forum, WWII 70th anniversary
commemorations, and the second annual interagency Pacific island visit.
We will continue working collaboratively to expand educational and
health services, empower Pacific island women, build regional
capacities, and strengthen trade and investment, including with the
leaders of the Freely Associated States. In addition, we will build
upon United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
programs for climate change adaptation and health, seek ways to
mitigate high-energy costs, and explore partnerships for addressing
noncommunicable diseases in the region.
Question. Madam Secretary, I was very impressed with the Asia
Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting last November in Hawaii. I
wish to commend you and your Department for the hard work put into
making it a tremendous success. I believe the meetings served as a
wonderful opportunity to showcase the United States as a Pacific power.
Since the success of APEC, I understand efforts are moving forward with
the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. Would you please
elaborate on other economic related initiatives the administration is
undertaking to move forward in a complimentary manner to our security
efforts?
Answer. The United States has positioned itself to maintain its
global leadership role in the 21st century. The world is changing, and
security is increasingly shaped in financial markets, in agricultural
trade, on factory floors, and in diplomatic negotiations. When people
have food to eat, when their children have schools to attend, and when
they live in a prosperous economy, people feel secure. This security
extends beyond borders when stable economies engage, integrate, and
cooperate to each others' mutual advantage. With this understanding,
American power in the 21st century will also depend on our economy and
on our trade. By promoting the development of next-generation economic
rules of the road, we are working with our global partners toward the
emergence of a stable, competitive, transparent, and balanced global
economy.
This work not only seeks to establish an open, free, transparent,
and fair economic system in which American enterprise can prosper, but
also promotes positive interactions between parties that might
otherwise be suspicious of one another. By building a 21st century
trade system based on competition, this process works against the
development of conflicts rooted in economic inequity. The trust and
interdependence that develop through economic engagement help secure
the peace that is required for prosperity in the United States of
America, and abroad.
In 2011, APEC leaders committed to reduce significantly barriers to
trade in environmental goods; adopt market-driven innovation policies;
improve the regulatory environment; and launch the Policy Partnership
on Women in the Economy as well as the Travel Facilitation Initiative.
These measures represent progress on an agenda to improve sustainable
economic growth and regional stability. By promoting an active and
outcomes-focused APEC, the United States is working with partners to
establish rules of the road for 21st century trade based on free-market
principles and open competition. Through working with our neighbors in
APEC, we are bringing our economies toward a harmonized system where
American businesses can compete on a level field of play. This work is
conducted through APEC in a nonbinding, consensus-based fashion that
builds mutual understanding and interconnectivity between members and
promotes positive interactions and signaling between economies as they
develop increased ties and interconnectivity.
Furthermore, we and our Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) partners
are working hard to establish a high-standard regional free trade
agreement that will similarly increase regional economic integration
and reduce barriers to trade and economic growth. TPP negotiators made
substantial headway during the 11th round of negotiations held in
Melbourne, Australia in March. In April, a number of the issue working
groups are holding intersessional meetings.
We have also increased our economic engagement with Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). President Obama was the first U.S.
President to attend the East Asian Summit last year, and our first
resident ambassador to ASEAN, David Carden, is now in place in Jakarta,
Indonesia. ASEAN's goal to establish a fully integrated economic
community by 2015 complements both our other economic initiatives as
well as our security work: the link between the two is growing in Asia,
where states increasingly view economic strength, rather than just
military might, as a measure of power.
We are increasing the role of the private sector in our
engagements. The APEC Business Advisory Council and APEC CEO Summit are
two such initiatives that are bringing businesses into the fold of
trade policy. We are also meeting the President's goal to attract
greater foreign direct investment as part of the SelectUSA initiative,
with our missions overseas engaging directly with foreign companies
looking to invest in U.S. cities.
The Department has established a new ``Direct Line'' program to
increase U.S. private sector access to our Embassies and consulates
overseas in a way that will improve the Department of State's and the
U.S. Government's responsiveness to stakeholder interests. The Direct
Line program complements the President's National Export Initiative
(NEI), which directs the State Department to use every asset available
to expand American exports and, in turn, to create jobs.
The President's NEI is leveraging our diplomacy to promote American
jobs. As productivity rises, companies need fewer employees to meet
their goals. Thus, in order to create more jobs, we have to expand our
existing trade relationships and create new ones. That is why a broad
cross-section of businesses, from high-tech companies to heavy
equipment manufacturers to Montana grain growers, supported passage by
the United States Congress of the trade promotion agreements with
Colombia and Panama. They know that securing more favorable market
access is essential to increasing our exports, jobs, and
competitiveness. We're also building a 21st century smart border with
Mexico that supports security and competitiveness on both sides. The
bottom line is that geography matters. It is a comparative advantage to
be embraced, and we neglect it at our own peril.
Latin America is home to dynamic companies, entrepreneurs, and
innovators who purchase technology and equipment and help drive
competitiveness and innovation in American businesses. This is good
news for the people of Latin America as well as for the United States.
Our energy security depends on this hemisphere. Latin America alone
accounts for approximately one-third of our imported oil, with Mexico
our second-biggest supplier. So as we move toward a clean-energy
economy, Latin America's role will have to grow. And already, we are
working on renewable energy technology and resources with Mexico,
Brazil, the Caribbean, and across the region, thanks in part to
President Obama's leadership in launching the Energy and Climate
Partnership of the Americas.
Seven of the 10 fastest-growing economies in the world will be in
sub-Saharan Africa, making sub-Saharan Africa the world's last economic
frontier. We have a number of programs and initiatives in place to
counter the perception that Africa remains a risky place for United
States business, despite record rates of return over the past 5 years.
The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) provides our best tariff
treatment to goods coming from eligible African countries, and we use
the annual AGOA Forum to discuss decreasing barriers to trade,
increasing transparency, and fostering intra-regional trade. We are
ramping up our work with Africa's regional economic communities in an
effort to duplicate some of APEC's success in promoting regional trade
and increasing the role of the private sector. This year's AGOA Forum
will focus on energy and infrastructure, two key components of
increasing economic growth. The State Department will also lead an
interagency U.S.-Africa Business Conference to help United States and
African companies in the energy, transportation, and water/sewage
industries connect and form partnerships. With African companies
providing local expertise and United States companies providing access
to United States technology and capital, these partnerships help Africa
realize desperately needed infrastructure improvements to sustain
economic growth.
The Partnership for Growth (PfG) program is a partnership between
the United States and a select group of countries to accelerate and
sustain broad-based economic growth. PfG involves rigorous joint
analysis of constraints to growth, the development of joint action
plans to address these constraints, and high-level mutual
accountability for implementation. Two countries in sub-Saharan
Africa--Tanzania and Ghana--have been identified as PfG countries.
These are just a few of the initiatives in Africa we have dedicated to
the pursuit of economic integration, food security, healthcare, and
development, through which we will see economies grow and stability
increase.
In Europe, as tariffs have fallen in recent decades, nontariff
measures or ``behind the border'' barriers to trade and investment have
come to pose the most significant obstacles to our trade. Regulators in
both the European Union (EU) and the United States aim for the same
strong protections for the health and safety of our citizens, for our
environment, and for our financial systems. But differing approaches to
regulation and to the development of standards can create barriers and
slow the growth of trade and investment. Reducing unnecessary
differences can create opportunities. One way we are seeking to
minimize the impact of unnecessary regulatory divergences on trade and
investment is to examine closely our respective regulatory processes
and to try to identify ways to make them more compatible and
accessible. The Transatlantic Economic Council and the U.S.-EU High
Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum have spurred new discussion on our
respective approaches to risk analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and the
assessment of the impact of regulation on trade.
These initiatives represent the focus on economics, trade, and
economic security that the Department of State has implemented across a
large and diverse portfolio. This work positively enhances economic
growth and security of the United States by building a sustainable,
balanced, free, and fair global economic environment.
Question. Secretary Clinton, the East-West Center was established
by the Congress to promote education and cultural understanding between
the United States and our neighbors in the Pacific. It puzzles me as to
why the President's request once again results in a cut given the
renewed focus on the Asia-Pacific region. The Center works to promote
people-to-people connections and building the relationships that are so
important to regional peace and stability. Other important programs
promoting public diplomacy and exchanges, like the Mansfield Foundation
and U.S.-Asia Institute were cut. I am interested in the reasoning
behind this action and in light of the shift in strategic focus, and
how the Department intends to achieve some of the same interactions
these two institutions promote.
Answer. Fostering strong relationships with the Asia-Pacific region
in a wide variety of spheres is a very high priority for the Department
of State. We continue to view the East-West Center as a key national
resource for education and dialogue on critical issues of common
concern and to foster people-to-people connections to promote regional
peace and stability. The State Department has supported the work of the
Mansfield Center for many years as well.
During my tenure as Secretary of State, I have visited and spoken
at the East-West Center and have met the Center's leaders as well as
participants in its educational programs. I can personally attest to
the Center's effectiveness and am committed to sustaining its work.
Last year, I was pleased to appoint an exceptionally strong group of
new U.S. members to the Center's Board of Governors. These five new
appointees participated in the March 2012 meeting of the Board in
Honolulu and are actively engaged in overseeing and supporting the
Center's work. I am very optimistic about the knowledge, energy, and
ideas that these distinguished individuals will bring to the Center in
areas such as program development, alumni activities, financial
administration, and fundraising.
As you are well aware, the stringencies of the current budget
environment have affected Federal agencies as well as nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs), universities, and other institutions. We
recognize that reductions in appropriated funding have required the
East-West Center to make painful choices. The Center has been strategic
and responsible in implementing spending reductions. The Center has
also shown creativity and resourcefulness in competing for other
funding, including from U.S. Government sources. A long-time recipient
of cooperative agreement awards from State's Bureau of Educational and
Cultural Affairs (ECA) for the U.S. South Pacific and U.S. Timor Leste
Scholarship programs, the Center has also been selected through
competition to receive awards for Student Leader Institutes and Citizen
Exchanges projects from the ECA Bureau. The State Department also
recently identified the Center as the appropriate U.S. institutional
partner for a major new project focused on English language teaching in
ASEAN countries, funded by the Government of Brunei, and has been
coordinating closely with the Center on that activity. The Center has
also received funding from our Embassy in Pakistan for journalism
exchanges, reflecting its expansion of activity with South Asia.
Recently, the Center won a grant from the National Endowment for the
Humanities for Asian studies programs at U.S. community colleges, an
important sector of U.S. higher education.
Based on its sustained work in the area of outreach, development
and alumni engagement, I understand that the Center is also seeing
increases in private sector contributions. I am hopeful that the
members of the Board of the Governors, together with the Center's
management and staff, will be successful in continuing to diversify the
Center's sources of financial support while maintaining robust and
effective programming in its key areas of endeavor.
With respect to the Mansfield Fellowship Program, funding has not
been reduced for fiscal year 2013. The State Department continues to
support the spirit of the Mansfield Program and is working to develop a
more robust and higher impact exchange through more effective
implementation of the allotted funding. We want to work with the
Mansfield Foundation to explore new ways to promote two-way exchanges
with Japan that support capacity building and the bilateral
relationship.
The State Department appreciates the work of the U.S.-Asia
Institute to strengthen U.S.-Asia/Pacific relationships. The Institute
has not been a recent recipient of funding from the Bureau of
Educational and Cultural Affairs or the Bureau of East Asian and
Pacific Affairs.
Question. Our national security interests in the Pacific continue
to grow, and the rise of China as a regional power concerns many
people. The sea lanes and open waterways are increasingly important. I
am interested to learn how the administration intends to engage with
our partners in Southeast Asia, and in particular the Philippines?
Answer. Our national security and economic interests in the Pacific
continue to grow as the Asia-Pacific region increasingly becomes a key
driver of global politics and commerce. As a Pacific nation and
resident power, the United States has a national interest in freedom of
navigation, the maintenance of peace and stability, respect for
international law, and unimpeded lawful commerce in the region's
maritime spaces. We share these interests with countries in the region
and the broader international community.
We engage closely with our allies and partners to reinforce these
interests via the region's multilateral institutions. We believe by
engaging with and strengthening Asia's architecture, the region's
multilateral forums can more effectively reinforce the system of rules
and responsibilities, including freedom of navigation, that form the
basis of an effective international order. Since 2010, the United
States has used the ASEAN Regional Forum in particular to advance a
concerted, region-wide diplomatic effort to protect navigational rights
and freedoms within the South China Sea. As half the world's merchant
tonnage flows through this body of water, this was a consequential
undertaking.
Additionally, we are building our bilateral relationships with
Asia-Pacific partners to help address areas of common interest,
including enhancing our humanitarian and disaster relief capabilities
and countering transnational maritime threats like piracy, illegal
fishing, and environmental degradation. With the Philippines, a long-
time treaty ally, we are stepping up our bilateral engagement on a wide
range of issues, particularly with regard to maritime security. Last
summer, we provided a decommissioned United States Coast Guard cutter
to the Philippines and intend to provide a second cutter in the coming
months. We also conduct a wide range of joint training activities,
including our 28th annual ``Balikatan'' (``Shoulder-to-Shoulder'')
exercise taking place during April 2012, which will focus on disaster
preparedness. As we move forward in our consultations with our
Philippine allies, including the upcoming visit of their Foreign and
Defense secretaries to Washington, we will discuss ways of further
enhancing our robust cooperation through expanded joint trainings,
increased United States ship and aircraft visits, and support for
Philippine defense modernization.
Question. Japan is one of our closest allies in the region, and
last year the United States Government responded as a whole to the
March 11, 2011, earthquake, tsunami, and subsequent nuclear emergency.
I believe these efforts have reaffirmed the importance of our
relationship with the Japanese. It is regrettable that our special
relationship with Japan is now focused on the planned relocation of
United States marines from Okinawa to Guam, and the challenges facing
this agreement. In February, both governments announced in a joint
statement the de-linking of the relocation being contingent on the
construction of the Futenma Replacement Facility. In addition, the
number of marines relocating to Guam was reduced and the balance of
marines will be rotating throughout the region. I am interested in what
your thoughts are about both governments moving forward on the
relocation of United States forces, as well as the security cooperation
between the United States and Japan.
Answer. The United States-Japan Alliance remains indispensable to
the security of Japan and the United States and to the peace,
stability, and economic prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region in the
21st century.
The close and effective cooperation between Japan and the United
States in response to the March 11, 2011, disasters demonstrated the
special bond enjoyed by our two countries and contributed to the
deepening of the Alliance.
The United States conducted a strategic review of its defense
posture in Asia in order to achieve a more geographically distributed,
operationally resilient, and politically sustainable force structure in
the region. Japan welcomes this initiative.
As part of this effort our two governments are engaged in ongoing
official discussions to adjust current United States posture plans set
forth in the Realignment Roadmap, including the unit composition and
numbers of marines moving from Okinawa to Guam. We are also discussing
the delinking of both the movement of marines to Guam and resulting
land returns south of Kadena from progress on the Futenma Replacement
Facility.
As our February 8, 2012 statement noted, the discussions between
our two governments will continue over the weeks and months ahead. It
is our hope to reach mutual understanding on these issues quickly to
enable more focus on larger Alliance goals and objectives.
We recognize the importance of the presence of United States forces
in Japan, including in Okinawa, to maintain deterrence and strengthen
Alliance capabilities in view of the current evolving regional security
environment. We also are committed to reducing the impact of U.S.
forces on local communities, including in Okinawa, to help ensure a
sustainable United States military presence in Japan.
We remain committed to the construction of the Futenma Replacement
Facility at the Camp Schwab Henoko-saki area and adjacent waters. We
believe that the current Futenma Replacement Facility plan is the only
viable way forward.
Both the United States and Japan agree that the development of Guam
as a strategic hub, with an operational Marine Corps presence including
marines relocated from Okinawa, remains an essential part of the
Alliance's Asia-Pacific Strategy.
We have made progress in a number of significant areas since the
2006 Realignment Roadmap and are resolved to continue making progress
toward realizing its objectives.
The essential role of the Alliance is to maintain regional security
and stability. To meet existing and emerging challenges, we continue to
work to strengthen Alliance capabilities by adapting our cooperation,
modernizing our forces, enhancing interoperability, and cooperating in
the development of new technologies. As our two nations work to deepen
and broaden cooperation, our shared values, democratic ideals, common
interests, and respect for human rights and the rule of law remain the
foundation of the Alliance.
Our Alliance has never been more important or been faced with more
significant challenges. Accordingly, both sides are committed to
continuing to take steps to deepen the intensity of consultations and
coordination on the full range of security, strategic, and political
issues that face the region and the world.
Question. The South and Western Pacific are also very important
areas to the United States. The Department is engaged in diplomatic
negotiations with Pacific Island countries on many levels including
important fisheries-related treaties. Could you please provide an
update on the status of those negotiations?
Answer. The United States is currently engaged in negotiations to
extend and amend the 1987 Multilateral Treaty on Fisheries with the 16
Pacific Island Parties to the Treaty. After slow progress initially,
recent sessions of the negotiations have been generally more positive.
However, more work remains before an agreement is reached.
An earlier sticking point was the Government of Papua New Guinea's
May 2011 decision to withdraw from the Treaty. Had the Government of
Papua New Guinea maintained that position, the Treaty would have ceased
to have effect by its own terms in May 2012. However, the Government of
Papua New Guinea announced in January 2012 that it would revoke its
instrument of withdrawal from the Treaty, providing an additional year,
until May 2013, to conclude the negotiations. This was a positive step,
and concurrently negotiators made progress in narrowing differences
between the two sides. Even so, much work remains and at the most
recent negotiating round in February in Honolulu, the parties agreed on
an accelerated timetable of meetings, with four negotiating sessions
scheduled before the end 2012.
At the February round the United States was able to further advance
our understanding of the parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) Vessel
Days Scheme. However, negotiators were not able to further narrow
differences over the level of fishing opportunities afforded to the
U.S. purse-seine fleet and the overall financial package due to
linkages to the March 26-30 annual meeting of the Western and Central
Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC8) where regional levels of fishing
effort and other conservation measures were to be discussed.
At the WCPFC8 meeting, the members agreed to a new baseline for
purse-seine fishing effort in waters under the national jurisdiction of
the PNA. This outcome should allow the PNA to make more vessel days
available to the U.S. fleet, which up to this point has been one of the
major constraints to progress in these negotiations.
The United States is looking ahead to the next session in June in
Auckland, New Zealand, where, based on the outcomes of the WCPFC8
meeting, we expect to be able to make more progress on the central
issues.
Question. The Pacific nations have seen an increased interest by
China and others in ``big dollar'' diplomacy. Last summer you were very
gracious to meet with me about the Compact of Free Association (COFA)
and discuss the impacts of migrants on the State of Hawaii. I would
appreciate learning about the Department's plan for diplomatic
engagement with COFA countries, and how resources provided through the
Compacts may be better directed to address some of their pressing
needs. Additionally, in Public Law 112-74, the subcommittee included
report language regarding COFA countries. Specifically, the Department
was directed to work with through the U.S. Government's interagency
process to help reduce the burden on affected jurisdiction. Could you
please provide an update on this process?
Answer. The Department of State is responsible for U.S. foreign
relations with the Freely Associated States (FAS) and continues to
coordinate closely with other Federal agencies, especially the
Departments of the Interior, Defense, and Health and Human Services, on
addressing pressing needs. The considerable financial assistance that
we provide the FAS through our respective Compacts helps enable these
countries to achieve budgetary self-sufficiency over time and continue
to stand with us as staunch, dependable, and democratic allies. Through
the Joint Economic Management Committee (JEMCO) meetings with the
Government of the Federated States of Micronesia and the Joint Economic
Management and Financial Accountability Committee (JEMFAC) meetings
with the Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the United
States works collaboratively with the island governments to improve
program and economic performance, specifically in the priority sectors
of health and education. Similarly, with congressional enactment, the
legislation approving the Palau Compact Review Agreement will require
Palau to commit to economic, legislative, financial, and management
reforms, such as the elimination and prevention of operating deficits
and reductions in the national operating budget.
We recognize the complexity of the impacts of the Compact and their
cross-cutting implications for U.S. domestic programs and international
relations. Both the FSM and RMI governments recognize the costs that a
small percentage of their emigrating citizens place on the limited
resources of U.S. jurisdictions where the migrants have settled in
large numbers. The intent of the Compacts' immigrations provisions is
to allow FAS citizens to work, study, and live in the United States as
contributing members of the American community, as well as to bring
their education and work skills back to the FAS to improve their
economies. Many--if not most--migrants follow the intent of these
provisions.
We continue to work collectively through the interagency, including
with the Departments of the Interior, Defense, Homeland Security, and
Health and Human Services to encourage the FAS governments to
proactively address this complex problem. On March 14, an inaugural
Pacific Island Leaders Addressing Compact Impact (PILACI) meeting was
convened by the United States Government in Guam, with representatives
from the Departments of the Interior and State, including FAS
Presidents, Governors of Micronesia and the affected jurisdictions,
Federal agency representatives, and the three FAS ambassadors to the
United States. Participants agreed on the need to respond to the
Government Accountability Office's (GAO) call for better impact data.
Representatives from Hawaii agreed to provide its reporting template,
to be shared with Guam, Saipan and American Samoa, to see if the
parties could agree on appropriate metrics to address the GAO's needs.
Moreover, all FAS presidents expressed a willingness to assist the
United States by collecting the data and helping to identify those with
highly contagious diseases for ``no-fly'' listings.
We will work together with the Department of the Interior to
identify U.S.-based NGOs and organizations that have contributed or are
currently contributing to the education and health fields in the FAS.
Representatives from Guam noted the significant burden FAS citizens
place on the criminal justice system--approximately 30 percent of
prisoners serving time in Guam are FAS citizens. The Governor of Guam
expressed an interest in repatriating ``minor'' offenders back to the
FAS--the FAS presidents agreed to take a closer look at this issue. The
next PILACI will convene in 6 months.
My staff, the interagency, and our ambassadors in the FSM and RMI
continue to urge both governments to direct human and financial
resources to address the Compact impact challenges.
Question. China's military rise in the region is both welcomed and
watched with caution by many of our Asian partners. Over the last few
years, we have grown more concerned by its assertive nature with regard
to sea control and territorial disputes. Furthermore, it is North
Korea's major trading partner and benefactor. China is also asserting
itself around the globe, in particular, in Africa. In the United
States, many people are concerned about the issue of currency
manipulation and unfair trade practices. The administration should
receive credit for its work to bring trade disputes before the World
Trade Organization. Would you please provide your perspective on United
States engagement with China on security, economic, and human rights
issues?
Answer. Developing positive and stable United States-China
relations is in the interests of both countries, the Asia-Pacific
region, and the world. We seek a positive, cooperative, and
comprehensive relationship with China that brings concrete benefits to
the American people and have said repeatedly that we welcome the rise
of a strong, prosperous, and successful China that plays a greater role
in world affairs. To these ends, the Obama administration is pursuing a
three-pronged strategy for engagement with China.
The first element of our approach to China begins with robust
engagement across the Asia-Pacific region. A peaceful and prosperous
region provides the best foundation to support strong and stable United
States-China relations. We are therefore reinforcing our enduring
alliances, reaching out to forge new partnerships with emerging powers,
and strengthening the region's multilateral institutions.
America has renewed and strengthened our bonds with our allies--
Japan, Republic of Korea, Thailand, Australia, and the Philippines--and
we have deepened our partnerships with India, Indonesia, Vietnam,
Malaysia, Singapore, and New Zealand. Meanwhile, we have passed the
Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and we continue to make progress in
negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership to help create new
opportunities for American companies and new jobs for American workers.
We have also pursued unprecedented engagement in the East Asia Summit,
the ASEAN Regional Forum, and other multilateral regional institutions.
Taken together, America's renewed commitment to Asia provides a context
and avenues for our engagement with China.
The second element of our engagement strategy with China is to
focus on building bilateral trust. We seek to build habits of
cooperation that help us build mutual trust, manage disagreements, and
prevent crises that might result from misunderstanding or
miscalculation. We have established a historic level of high-level
engagement with Beijing, including a record number of meetings between
our presidents, and sustained interactions across our governments. A
notable example of our efforts is the Strategic and Economic Dialogue.
We have also launched a Strategic Security Dialogue with China to bring
together senior civilian and military officials to address those issues
that most threaten to undermine mutual trust and confidence in the
relationship. We have continued the U.S.-China Legal Experts Dialogue
to broaden and deepen understanding on issues related to the rule of
law between our two governments.
In addition, we have established a number of other functional and
regional sub-dialogues, and we are looking to make progress this year
on improving our military-to-military relations. Both President Obama
and President Hu have stressed that a healthy, stable, and reliable
military-to-military relationship is an important component of our
overall bilateral relationship.
Building trust, however, is not just a project for our governments.
Our peoples must continue to forge new and deeper bonds as well. This
is why we have launched the U.S.-China Consultation on People-to-People
Exchange and public-private programs such as the 100,000 Strong
Initiative that is sending more American students to China.
The third element of the administration's engagement strategy is
our commitment to expanding economic, political, and security
cooperation with China. Our countries share a number of common goals
and face a number of common challenges. We will continue seeking
opportunities to work together across the array of international and
regional issues, including the global financial crisis, international
development, nuclear proliferation, piracy, climate change, and
terrorism.
On the economic front, we will continue to be assertive in securing
the win-win economic relationship we can and should have with China. We
want to engage in more trade and investment with China because we
believe in the benefits that come with greater economic activity and
healthy competition. But for it to be healthy, it has to be fair,
rules-based, and transparent. So we will continue to urge China to make
reforms, including allowing its currency to appreciate more rapidly;
providing greater market access for American companies, goods and
services; increasing intellectual property protection; and ending
policies that discriminate against United States firms while unfairly
favoring their Chinese competitors (particularly state-owned
enterprises). We are also working to increase Chinese investment in the
United States, which will generate more jobs for American workers.
Finally, and crucially, the issue of human rights remains at the
heart of American diplomacy and central to our engagement with China.
In our discussions with Chinese officials, we reiterate our calls for
the release of political activists imprisoned for exercising their
universal human rights. We frequently urge China to address policies
that have caused tensions in Tibetan and Uighur areas, resume
substantive dialogue with the Dalai Lama or his representatives,
protect the fundamental freedoms of expression, assembly, and religion,
and uphold the rights of civil society actors to exist in a framework
of the rule of law. We believe that when China fulfills its
international obligations of respecting and protecting universal human
rights, it will benefit the Chinese people, advance the long-term
peace, stability, and prosperity of China, and ultimately enhance the
United States-China relationship and China's role in the world.
China today represents one of the most challenging and
consequential bilateral relationships the United States has ever had to
manage. The relationship does not fit neatly into black-and-white
categories like friend or foe, and instead has elements of both
cooperation and competition. United States engagement with China is
therefore grounded in reality, focused on results, and true to our
principles and interests.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
Question. I very much applaud your efforts to strengthen
independent civil society and nongovernmental organizations (NGO)
around the world. Can you outline how the President's request will
support the strengthening of democracy, human rights groups, and labor
unions around the world both through funding by the State Department
and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)? How are State
and USAID strengthening worker rights in Arab Spring countries that
have seen trade unions leading efforts for democratization?
Answer. The President's request for fiscal year 2013 includes $2.84
billion for State Department and USAID programs to strengthen
democracy, human rights, and governance worldwide. Under this broad
rubric, both the State Department and USAID plan programs to strengthen
labor unions and worker rights.
The State Department's programs focus on administration priorities
to:
--build trade unions' capacity to advocate for internationally
recognized worker rights and engage in collective bargaining;
--enable trade unions to participate as informed, effective partners
in national policy decisions;
--promote the institutions of social dialogue and the development of
modern industrial relations systems;
--organize vulnerable workers, with particular emphasis on informal
sector workers, women, and youth.
The State Department locates programs in priority countries chosen
on the basis of:
--the level of working conditions;
--opportunity to drive sustainable change; and
--alignment with broader U.S. policy priorities.
The State Department encourages labor laws and practice to reflect
internationally recognized standards, especially on freedom of
association and the right to collective bargaining. Worldwide, the
State Department's labor officers work across a range of issues to
shape policies related to international labor affairs and support
overall U.S. foreign policy. Among other things, they research and
report on key labor issues, including worker rights and labor
relations.
The State Department supports worker rights in Arab Spring
countries through a variety of programs. In Egypt and Tunisia, in
particular, we are helping to:
--increase awareness of fundamental labor rights;
--organize vulnerable workers; and
--strengthen the independence and representativeness of established
and new trade unions and their efforts to advocate for
increased freedom of association.
Region-wide, we are helping build worker organizations' economic
and legal literacy to enhance their ability to engage constructively in
public policy debates.
USAID supports administration priorities through its Global Labor
Program (GLP), implemented by the Solidarity Center, which promotes
international core labor standards, works to improve workers' access to
justice, and supports independent, democratic labor unions and NGOs.
The program has several innovative components including:
--a global program for technical leadership with special focus on
rule of law:
--gender equity;
--global organizing;
--the informal sector;
--migration; and
--trafficking in persons; and
--regional programs to promote core labor standards in Africa, Asia,
Eastern Europe, and Latin America;
--focused 5-year country programs in Ukraine, Georgia, Bangladesh,
Cambodia, South Africa, Liberia, Mexico, Honduras, and Brazil;
and
--state-of-the-art monitoring and evaluation, including impact
evaluations of labor programming in three countries.
USAID coordinates regularly on the GLP with the Department of State
and Department of Labor.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Question. Madam Secretary: I want to express my gratitude for your
work as First Lady, Senator, and now as Secretary of State on behalf of
children living outside of family care. The mission of finding
permanent families for children who have been orphaned, abandoned, or
otherwise irrevocably separated from their parents, both domestically
and internationally, has been dear to both of our hearts for some time
now. I appreciate your presence at last year's the Way Forward Event
and for Dr. Rajiv Shah's opening remarks (and your letter of support)
at the first ever U.S. Government Evidence Summit on Protecting
Children Living Outside of Family Care.
While we all know instinctively that family care for children is an
essential part of healthy development, the research truly indicates
that young children, age 2 and younger, are best raised in families
rather than in institutional care. The family is the basic unit
necessary for a child's proper growth and development, and I believe
that our country's aid to developing countries will be ineffective if
it does not incorporate initiatives to strengthen child welfare systems
to ensure bright futures for all children. For this reason, I am
concerned that the President's fiscal year 2013 budget rarely addresses
international assistance to strengthen child welfare systems in
developing countries. It seems to me that United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) and the Department of State have
invested in strengthening health systems internationally, but there is
little mention of programs specifically aimed at strengthening child
welfare systems and their workforces.
Do you believe that the fiscal year 2013 budget includes a
sufficient emphasis on vulnerable children's issues and child welfare
systems strengthening? Which Department of State and USAID programs
provide technical assistance to developing governments so that they
might do a better job of reuniting children with birth families or
connecting orphaned children with foster or adoptive families?
Answer. Thank you, Senator. You have been one of the Senate's
greatest champions for vulnerable children, particularly children
outside of family care. I appreciate your dedication to these children
and your efforts to ensure that the U.S. Government is doing the most
it can to improve the lives of children facing adversity globally.
U.S. Government departments and agencies are doing good work on
behalf of the world's most vulnerable children. More than 30 offices
within seven departments--which include the Departments of Agriculture,
Defense, Health and Human Services, Labor, State, the Peace Corps, and
USAID--provided approximately $2.8 billion to implementing partners in
fiscal year 2010 for 1,710 projects to assist vulnerable children and
their families in 107 countries. USAID manages more than 65 percent of
the U.S. Government's investment in programs for vulnerable children
overseas.
The largest single investment for orphans and vulnerable children
is channeled through the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
(PEPFAR), which includes a 10-percent earmark for orphans and
vulnerable children--currently more than $300 million per year.
Implemented primarily by USAID, this funding supports a range of child
welfare and protection services, including prevention of and response
to child abuse, exploitation, neglect and family separation, as well as
poverty reduction, family strengthening, and efforts to ensure access
to basic services, such as health, education, shelter, and legal
protection. In fiscal year 2010, PEPFAR programs reached more than 3.75
million orphans and vulnerable children.
USAID's Displaced Children and Orphans Fund (DCOF) also plays a
critical role in our efforts to help other nations to do more
themselves to take care of their vulnerable children. With $13 million
per year, DCOF provides technical assistance to benefit vulnerable
children, especially children without or at risk of losing family care.
In fiscal year 2011, DCOF programs reached 130,000 children and
families. For example, DCOF support strengthened national child
protection systems in Cambodia, Liberia, Ethiopia, and Guatemala.
Programs in Moldova and Armenia enabled children to remain with their
families by preventing children from being placed unnecessarily in
institutional care. In Sri Lanka, 483 children from 64 targeted
institutions (55 private children's homes and nine States' homes) in
the three provinces were reunified with their families.
Programs assisting highly vulnerable children are managed and
implemented per legislation and agency mandates. However, regardless of
the causes and consequences of their vulnerability, our programs must
strive to build and strengthen sustainable child protection systems
that effectively address the needs of all vulnerable children.
Following the U.S. Government Evidence Summit on Protecting
Children Outside of Family Care last December, U.S. Government
interagency partners committed to developing whole-of-government
guidance and strategy to better protect children in adversity,
particularly those without family care. This strategy is in process and
will be completed by July 2012. Our interagency strategy development
team has my fullest support.
I am also extraordinarily pleased that USAID has assigned a
renowned expert in international child protection, Dr. Neil Boothby, as
the U.S. Government Special Advisor and Senior Coordinator to the
Administrator on Children in Adversity under Public Law 109-95: The
Assistance for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing
Countries Act of 2005. I know that Dr. Boothby is fully committed to
promoting comprehensive, coordinated and effective U.S. Government
efforts on behalf of vulnerable children and their families.
Question. The administration has said that it wants to make foreign
aid more effective and efficient and has made some progress on this,
particularly through the USAID Forward agenda. For example, I've been a
supporter of procurement reform and was pleased to see that just this
past month, USAID simplified its regulations so that the agency can
support smaller businesses in the United States and abroad--supporting
economic growth in areas that really need it--when buying goods and
services.
On procurement reform, what steps have been taken to help both
small U.S. and developing country businesses know about and take
advantage of these recent regulatory changes?
Answer. On January 10, 2012, USAID published in the Federal
Register (77 FR 1396) a revised, final regulation concerning source and
nationality requirements for procurements. It became effective February
6, 2012. The revised regulation:
--authorizes procurements in the recipient and other developing
countries along with the United States, as the Congress
directed in the Foreign Assistance Act, via a new default
geographic code of 937;
--eliminates the requirement to determine the ``origin'' of a
commodity--a difficult task in today's globalized economy--and
simplifying and clarifying source and nationality requirements
to restrict procurements from foreign government controlled
vendors; and
--streamlines procedures, including those necessary to obtain a
waiver in the event goods or services are needed from any other
country or region.
USAID provided a 45-day public comment period on the proposed rule.
USAID received 16 external comments, including comments from USAID
partners that have received USAID funding, trade associations that
represent them, and other interested parties. Comments received were
discussed and reflected in the publication of the proposed rule. USAID
believes that input from small U.S. businesses were reflected in these
comments.
The revised regulation is a far-reaching step toward simplification
of USAID's procurement procedures and toward achieving Agency
Implementation and Procurement Reform Objective 2, Strengthening Local
Civil Society and Private Sector Capacity, and Objective 4, use U.S.
Government resources more efficiently and effectively. As part of our
outreach to traditional USAID implementing partners, USAID held an
informational briefing on the new regulation at Inside NGO in early
February, and will be holding additional briefings on IPR Objective 2
related reforms with InterAction and the Professional Services Council
over the next few months. As the new regulation does not specifically
target U.S. small businesses, USAID does not have outreach sessions
specific to the regulation targeting that group.
The USAID Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
(OSDBU), which spearheads IPR Objective 3, Increase Competition and
Broaden USAID's partner base, provides various services to promote
maximum practicable opportunities to U.S. small businesses. These
include outreach sessions, counseling, monitoring planned procurements
to identify potential small business opportunities, and a mentor/
protege program to aid in the development of small businesses to serve
as potential prime or subcontractors. OSDBU also provides small
business programs training to USAID acquisition personnel both in
Washington, DC and at several overseas missions. Similarly, the Office
of Acquisition and Assistance, which spearheads IPR Objective 4, has
developed a USAID Partner Community Outreach Plan to improve our
business communications and enhance access to information for new and
existing partners.
In the field, USAID has held a series of training/workshops on
Local Capacity Development at the USAID missions in Senegal, Ghana,
Haiti, Mozambique, Ukraine, Kenya, El Salvador, Thailand, Egypt, and
South Africa, where USAID has trained U.S. Direct Hire and Foreign
Service National (FSN) staff from more than 55 USAID missions on best
practices for working directly with local organizations. The field-
trainings included information on the changes to source and nationality
regulation, and how to hold industry and business days and other
outreach events with local civil society and private sector entities to
inform them about USAID programs and opportunities to participate in
solicitations.
Question. What else is the administration doing to ensure that more
U.S. aid goes directly to or is channeled through foreign government
and local civil society and private sector partners? What benchmarks or
measures are employed to ensure that these aid recipients are using
U.S. funds appropriately?
Answer. On a global basis, USAID has established a target to
obligate 30 percent of its USAID-managed assistance through local
mechanisms--governments, NGOs and private firms--by 2015. This is a
global target, and we recognize that each country situation is unique.
USAID will track progress toward achieving this goal on an annual
basis.
USAID's policy for use of government-to government mechanisms (G2G)
is prudent, reasonable, measured, phased, and based on a sincere desire
to achieve sustainable development, to create a world in which
governments chosen through their democratic means, deliver adequate
goods and services to their people through transparent and accountable
financial management systems. In order to do this in a responsible
manner, USAID has developed a rigorous due diligence process called the
Public Financial Management Risk Assessment Framework.
The Framework involves a multi-stage process. The first stage is
called the Rapid Appraisal. It covers issues affecting country-level
fiduciary risk, such as country commitment to development,
transparency, and accountability of public funds. The Rapid Appraisal
also examines political or security factors that exacerbate fiduciary
risk such as existence and quality of policies, legal and institutional
framework, and systems. This appraisal provides USAID with a high-level
snapshot of fiduciary risks associated with use of the country's public
financial management (PFM) systems and helps inform the decision
whether USAID should move forward and undertake a more rigorous, formal
Stage 2 Risk Assessment. In Stage 2, USAID identifies, and where
appropriate, proposes measures to mitigate fiduciary risks at the
country, sector, or subnational government level. The identification
process, usually outsourced to an international consulting or auditing
firm, or a Regional Inspector General-certified local audit firm,
includes professional examination of the actual PFM, including
procurement and inventory management, systems. Such investigation
includes limited testing at the transaction level and other
investigatory techniques such as tightly focused interviews and
documentation reviews to ensure that a comprehensive and detailed
examination is completed. Mitigation measures resulting from this risk
identification and investigation process can include requirements that
government institutions meet specific operational standards prior to
receiving fund advances or are subject to close program monitoring for
viability and realistic planning.
USAID is devoting significant management resources to
implementation of the Framework. Professional full-time staff has been
hired in several bureaus and in the Chief Financial Officer's office
for quality assurance and technical support to the field.
Implementation teams have been assigned by several regional and
technical bureaus to manage the effort. USAID is conducting specific
PFM and risk management training for implementation staff.
In addition, USAID's new Country Development Cooperation Strategy
and Project Design processes specifically incorporate consideration,
but do not mandate use, of G2G mechanisms and direct implementation
through local civil society and private sector organizations. Both the
Framework and the new country strategy and project design guidance have
been addressed in a coordinated and disciplined manner in recent
meetings of Mission Directors, Mission Controllers, and Mission
Contracting Officers in an effort to reach all levels with the message
of risk management and sustainable development. USAID is developing
specific guidance for evaluating G2G and direct implementation through
local civil society and private sector organizations.
For direct awards with local civil society and private sector
organizations, USAID has held a series of field-trainings on Local
Capacity Development at the USAID missions in Senegal, Ghana, Haiti,
Mozambique, Ukraine, Kenya, El Salvador, Thailand, Nepal, Egypt, and
South Africa, where USAID has trained US Direct Hire and Foreign
Service National staff from more than 55 USAID missions on best
practices for working directly with local organizations. USAID also has
established a Washington-based Technical Assistance and Field Support
Working Group to respond to field requests for local capacity
development support.
To ensure that more U.S. aid goes directly to local civil society
and private sector partners, USAID has revised agency policy on the use
of fixed obligation grants in order to provide field missions with a
more flexible grant model to use with local civil society
organizations. USAID also has sought and received legislative authority
to limit competition for contracts with local organizations up to $5
million provided that doing so would result in cost savings, develop
local capacity, or enable USAID to initiate a program or activity in
appreciably less time than if competition were not so limited. Finally,
USAID has issued a revision to Assistance Exceptions to Competition
Policy to reduce the documentation requirements for limited competition
for assistance awards to local organizations, and to establish a new
exception to competition for transition awards to local organizations
that have been sub-recipients in the past.
USAID is devoting significant management resources to ensure that
U.S. aid that goes directly to local civil society and private sector
partners is used appropriately. To that end, USAID has established
Local Capacity Development Pilot Teams in Egypt, Kenya, South Africa,
Peru, and the Philippines comprised of senior Foreign Service National
staff and Junior Officers under the Development Leadership Initiative
and led by experienced U.S. Direct Hire Foreign Service Officers in
order to discern and disseminate best practices in working with local
organizations. USAID also has been working closely with auditors from
USAID Inspector General Office to develop a pre-award survey for use
with local organizations and to revise the standard provisions for
awards to local organizations to ensure that our requirements are clear
and understandable.
Question. Since 2004, the U.S. Government has disbursed close to $2
billion to help children affected by HIV/AIDS fight the epidemic in 26
countries through PEPFAR. In 2011, the State Department's Office of the
Global AIDS Coordinator released results of an external review of
PEPFAR's Orphans and Vulnerable Children (OVC) portfolio, and I was
happy to read about the successes of these programs. For example, the
report documents PEPFAR's intentions to empower more indigenous
partners, moving away from the use of large international NGOs,
universities, and private foundations as prime implementers (or prime
partners) of programs, in order to ensure country ownership and
ultimately, sustainability.
Answer. PEPFAR continues to prioritize facilitating country
ownership and sustainability through increasing use of local
organizations as partners. PEPFAR prioritizes capacity-building of
partner governments to strengthen the institutional response to the
needs of children affected by AIDS. These are key elements of the
transition toward a more locally led response.
Significant efforts are under way through both international and
local NGOs and partner governments to build local capacities through
various activities, such as social welfare workforce strengthening
(SWWS). Such systems strengthening efforts are best facilitated through
government-to-government work and through international NGOs, Schools
of Social Work and professional organizations that can facilitate
cross-fertilization and learning among social welfare workforces across
the world.
Smaller indigenous organizations and the individuals who lead them
have benefited significantly from the broader experience that these
partnerships bring. In many PEPFAR countries, for example,
opportunities for staff and volunteers to receive training (at
certificate and degree level) in child and family welfare practice has
dramatically increased due to such cross-border partnerships.
Organizational capacity building, including mentorship and skills
building in financial management and resource development, have also
featured prominently in NGO-to-NGO partnerships aimed at ensuring civil
society's long-term role in the response to children.
Question. Can you give us a progress update on this transition from
the use of larger, international organizations to more indigenous,
local organizations as partners?
Answer. A review of the current portfolio shows that 14 percent of
all HKID funding in fiscal year 2011 went directly to local
organizations as prime partners, and nearly one-third (51 out of 161)
of all prime partners were local, as shown in the accompanying list.
The awards listed include partner government ministries, as well as
local NGOs, as both are essential to ensuring country ownership and
sustainability. In addition, a large majority of awards to other
partners include significant and strategic sub-awards to community and
local organizations. To make it possible for more direct awards to such
organizations going forward, PEPFAR is working to increase the number
of organizations capable of handling U.S. Government funding directly,
as described in the previous answer. It is essential for this
transition to ensure that local organizations have the capacity to
manage and utilize funds. Thus, awards to international NGOs include
mandatory, significant work with local organizations to intensively
build technical and management capacity, so they can successfully
transition to managing larger awards.
Question. What percentage of PEPFAR funds through the OVC portfolio
(also known as HKID programs) are currently awarded to large
international NGOs, universities, and private foundations versus
smaller indigenous organizations?
Answer. PEPFAR-implementing agencies hold partner contacts and,
therefore, conduct all potential audits. The implementing agencies
conduct audits per internal policies and procedures. Below are
responses from the major PEPFAR-implementing agencies, per their
protocols and the public availability of their audits:
--Department of Defense (DOD) adheres to the single audit
requirements as stated in Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Circular A-133, which governs audit requirements of grant
recipients. In a single audit, an independent auditor reviews
the programs and management practices. Audits are made public
via the Federal Audit Clearinghouse Web site.
--U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)/Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) requires all of its
grantees who expend $500,000 or more during their fiscal year
to provide an audit that is in accordance with Government
Auditing Standards, as specified in 45 CFR 74.26(d), as part of
the terms and conditions of the notice of grant award.
--CDC actively tracks, monitors, and follows-up on the status of
PEPFAR audit submissions. CDC does not currently make public
the result of audit findings, but can provide copies of the
audit reports submitted by PEPFAR grantees.
Question. Does PEPFAR audit all of the organizations that receive
PEPFAR funds, including all sub-partners, and are these results made
publicly available?
Answer. USAID's Office of Inspector General (OIG) is responsible
for conducting and supervising audits related to USAID's programs and
operations, which includes activities funded by PEPFAR. USAID ADS
Chapters 590-595 (available on USAID's public Web site) cover in detail
the Agency's policy directives and required procedures for audits
performed by USAID OIG. USAID OIG also has its own public Web site that
contains a general overview of its operations (http://www.usaid.gov/
oig/index.html). Audit activities include performance audits of
programs and management systems, financial statement audits required
under the Chief Financial Officers Act, and financial-related audits of
grantees and contractors.
USAID conducts pre-award and postaward audits of activities
conducted by our prime partners. Although USAID does not conduct direct
audits of sub-partners, the Agency holds its prime partners responsible
for all activities of their sub-partners. Pursuant to the PEPFAR
Leadership Act, as amended, each year, USAID OIG participates in a
coordinated interagency audit plan that covers PEPFAR. Here is the
fiscal year 2012 plan: http://www.usaid.gov/oig/public/plans/
2012_Coordinated _Audit_Plan.pdf
In accordance with the Inspector General Act, USAID OIG also
submits a Semiannual Report to Congress (SARC): http://www.usaid.gov/
oig/public/semiann/semiannual_recent.htm.
In addition, USAID OIG generally makes its program audit reports,
including those related to the Agency's HIV/AIDS programs, available on
its Web site at: http://www.usaid.gov/oig/public/public1.htm.
PEPFAR activities conducted by USAID are also subject to reviews
and audits by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). USAID's
policy directives and required procedures for GAO audits are set forth
in ADS 593. GAO's audit reports are also available to the public on the
GAO Web site: www.gao.gov.
Question. According to UNICEF, 64 percent of people in developing
countries who are living with HIV/AIDS are female. How many of these
smaller PEPFAR partner organizations are women-led and women-focused?
Answer. It is not possible to provide a figure as to the share of
PEPFAR OVC prime partners that are women-led and women-focused, since
we do not collect that level of data. PEPFAR does work to ensure that
its OVC programs are fully responsive to the special needs of the girl-
child. Efforts in this area include protection from violence and
coercion, support for education and income generation, and addressing
harmful male norms.
Question. Within Central America, the deteriorating security
situation threatens citizen safety. Narcotics traffickers continue to
establish trafficking routes to and through the region. The continued
expansion of national and transnational gangs creates communities of
fear where illicit organizations are effectively in control. At a time
when many of our regional partners are fighting a brutal battle in
their countries against organized crime, the President's fiscal year
2013 request recommends that the State Department make a $5 million cut
from enacted fiscal year 2012 levels to the Central America Regional
Security Initiative (CARSI). The President recommends that the
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement Account
appropriation to the Western Hemisphere be reduced by $92 million for
fiscal year 2013. Can you please explain the President's logic in
making such a sizeable reduction to this appropriation for the Western
Hemisphere, when drug-related violence and narcotics trafficking is at
an all-time high?
Answer. We share your concern regarding the citizen security crisis
in Central America, and the accompanying factors that bring violence to
the region. The problem is large and complex, but the United States is
committed to continuing to work with Central American governments, as
well as other donor nations and institutions, to support the region's
efforts to reverse the deteriorating state of citizen security.
Through its programming and policy advocacy, CARSI seeks to reduce
the region's levels of crime and violence, support prevention efforts
for at-risk youth and those living in marginalized communities, and
strengthen rule of law institutions. The Bureau of International
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) and USAID are implementing
CARSI programs capable of being replicated or ``nationalized'' by host
nations. Examples of this are Model Police Precincts, the opening of
youth outreach centers and vocational training centers, and the
development of ``Municipal Crime Prevention Strategies'' in communities
at-risk. CARSI also supports border security professionalization,
assistance for judicially authorized wire intercept programs, seized
asset programs, and the training and vetting of specialized
investigative units.
Since fiscal year 2008, the United States has committed $361.5
million to these efforts. The administration requested $100 million for
CARSI for fiscal year 2012; however, we plan on allocating $105 million
for CARSI (INCLE: $60 million; ESF: $45 million), pending final
congressional approval. The administration's fiscal year 2013 request
of $107.5 million will represent a 2.3-percent increase more than the
fiscal year 2012 actual allocation for CARSI (INCLE: $60 million--no
change; ESF: $47.6 million--5.7-percent increase).
Citizen security is a priority for the people of Central America
and the hemisphere. The administration's proposed fiscal year 2013
$91.8 million reduction in Western Hemisphere INCLE funding largely
accounts for the continuing transition of counternarcotics and rule of
law programs to the Government of Colombia as it continues to build and
strengthen its capacities, which reflects the success of United States
assistance investments. In fact, Colombian capacity has reached the
point where they are providing law enforcement training and assistance,
in cooperation with the United States, in both Mexico and Central
America. In Mexico, the fiscal year 2013 INCLE request decrease
reflects a reorientation of efforts in Mexico from the acquisition of
equipment to training, mentoring and capacity building, all of which
are lower cost and provide long-term sustainability.
Given the proximity of Central America to our own border, and the
efforts of transnational trafficking organizations in Central America,
Colombia and Mexico, we will continue our commitment to Central
American and in the hemisphere to sustain our efforts and support our
partners in addressing their most pressing citizen security, rule of
law and prevention challenges.
Question. The U.S. Congress voted to ban military aid to Guatemala
in 1990 due to concerns regarding human rights abuses committed by the
Guatemalan army. Today, the ban remains in place as a partial
restriction that limits Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and
International Military Education and Training (IMET) funding to the
Army Corps of Engineers, the Navy and the Air Force, allowing only
expanded IMET to the Guatemalan army. The fiscal year 2012 omnibus
appropriations bill which passed through the Congress last December
states that funding to the army will only be considered in fiscal year
2013 if the army complies with a series of stipulations, including ``a
narrowly defined mission focused on border security and external
threats, cooperation with civilian investigations and prosecutions of
cases involving current and retired officers and with the CICIG, and .
. . publicly disclosing all military archives pertaining to the
internal armed conflict.'' Does the Department of State concur with
these requirements and do you believe that the Guatemalan army is ready
to receive regular IMET funding?
Answer. In 2011, then-Guatemalan President Alvaro Colom formally
requested the U.S. Congress eliminate restrictions it has placed on FMF
and IMET funding for the Guatemala army. Newly inaugurated President
Perez Molina has also expressed interest in having the current
restrictions lifted, citing the need to increase the capacity of the
Army in order to combat current security threats, including
narcotrafficking. The Department of State has indicated to the
Guatemalan Government that we are willing to discuss the restrictions
on IMET and FMF funding. It is very early in the Perez Molina
administration. We will need to thoroughly assess the military's
commitment and progress with regard to human rights, internal reform,
and other key issues, including the criteria identified in the
conference report accompanying this year's appropriations act. The
Department will continue to work with other U.S. Government agencies
and the U.S. Congress to determine the way forward on this important
issue.
Question. We're witnessing one of the coldest winters on record
across Europe and Central Asia, leading to a humanitarian crisis for
already vulnerable populations such as women and children in
Afghanistan and Pakistan. Tragically, the New York Times recently
reported the deaths of at least 22 young children in Kabul's informal
settlements and estimates that 144 per 1,000 children die due to poor
conditions and cold weather in both formal and informal camps. The
State Department estimates that there are close to 3 million Afghan
refugees in Pakistan and Amnesty International reported that there are
now 400 new Afghans internally displaced (IDP) as a result of conflict
and natural disaster every single day, adding to a total population of
half a million IDPs. Though your fiscal year 2013 budget increases
funding to strengthen diplomatic capacity in the frontline states,
funding is reduced for the humanitarian assistance programs that are
critical when responding to crises of this nature and when driving
longer-term, strategic development.
Will you please clarify whether increased funding for frontline
states, including the modest growth in foreign assistance funding for
Afghanistan, will help make up for the 13-percent cut to programs
funded through the Migration and Refugee Account? How will this affect
the refugee response in Afghanistan and Pakistan? What specific
programs funded through the Migration and Refugee Account will account
for the cut?
Answer. Maintaining support for humanitarian programs in South Asia
is a priority for the Department. The President's fiscal year 2013
request for the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account includes
$107.8 million for humanitarian activities in South Asia, including
those assisting Afghan refugees throughout the region. While this does
reflect a decrease from what the Department expects to provide from the
MRA account for programs in South Asia in fiscal year 2012, the fiscal
year 2013 MRA request for South Asia actually reflects a slight
increase from the President's fiscal year 2012 MRA request for South
Asia of $106 million and what the Department programmed in fiscal year
2011 (also $106 million).
As the programs that the MRA account supports respond to ever-
changing humanitarian needs and are ongoing in areas that are often
unstable and difficult to access, Department programming through the
MRA account must remain as flexible as possible from year-to-year to
meet humanitarian needs worldwide. As such, while needs for Afghan
refugees will remain high in fiscal year 2013, it is yet unclear what
particular programs within South Asia might receive reduced support as
a result of decreased available funding. It is important to note that
in addition to funds included in the fiscal year 2013 MRA request, the
Department also expects to utilize some of the 2-year fiscal year 2012
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) MRA funds to help meet gaps in
assistance for Afghan refugees in fiscal year 2013.
A significant portion of USAID's humanitarian assistance in
Afghanistan is assisting people displaced in both formal and informal
settlements. Providing assistance to IDPs has been a central component
of USAID/OFDA's strategy since 2001. USAID/OFDA has funded programs
that have specifically targeted IDPs and returnees, as well as programs
that have targeted vulnerable populations. In response to the severe
winter this year, USAID/OFDA mobilized partners Save the Children/U.S.
and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to provide cold
weather-related emergency relief supplies, included blankets, winter
clothing, shoes and shelter materials, to approximately 28,000 of the
estimated 30,000 residents of the Kabul Informal Settlements (KIS). To
quickly address humanitarian needs of newly displaced people, USAID/
OFDA supports the pre-positioning of emergency relief supplies in
strategic locations throughout Afghanistan, which relief agencies draw
upon when population displacement or other emergency needs occur, such
as recent avalanches. USAID/OFDA's active programs addressing
humanitarian needs in Afghanistan total more than $36 million, with
$17.7 million already programmed in fiscal year 2012.
Other nonhumanitarian funding for Frontline States included in the
fiscal year 2013 request, while not directly targeted at immediate
humanitarian assistance efforts, does continue to lay the groundwork
for long-term sustainable economic development, improved governance as
well as increased access to healthcare and education which will help
the people, government, and regional partners resolve some of the
issues driving the refugee crisis.
Question. Can you also clarify whether the Middle East and North
Africa Incentive Fund (MENA), created and designed in the fiscal year
2013 President's budget request as ``incentivizing long-term economic,
political, and trade reforms to countries in transition and to
countries prepared to make reforms proactively'', will provide
humanitarian aid in the region? Will monies allocated to the
International Disaster Assistance and Migration and Refugee Assistance
accounts now prioritize regions other than the Middle East and North
Africa?
Answer. The MENA-IF represents a new approach to the Middle East
and North Africa through demonstrating a visible commitment to reform
and to the region; tying assistance to reform agendas; and providing
flexibility for contingencies in order to take advantage of new
opportunities. To support this new approach, this Fund has broad
authorities to allow the United States Government to better respond to
political changes in the Middle East and North Africa and incentivize
meaningful and sustainable political and economic reforms by tying
these reforms to significant levels of U.S. assistance.
The MENA-IF will address three types of needs:
--Longer-term transition incentives;
--Immediate transition/stabilization contingencies; and
--Regional program platforms.
The MENA-IF could potentially be used to fund humanitarian
assistance within the context of immediate transition/stabilization
contingencies. However, the MENA-IF is not designed to alter the
prioritization processes of specific global accounts as funding
decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
Question. Even as we watch the events across the Middle East, we
must not forget that achieving peace between Israel and the
Palestinians is critical to stability in the region. How do you plan to
help get the parties to resume direct negotiations to move the peace
process forward?
Answer. We continue to believe that direct negotiations are the
only way to make progress toward achieving the two-state solution. The
Jordanians hosted several rounds of discussions in January between the
Israeli and Palestinian negotiators. We were encouraged by the
atmosphere of the talks, which were generally positive. We are now
consulting with the Quartet, Jordan, and other international partners
to find ways to continue these talks. The biggest challenge will be
building trust between the parties. Last September, the Quartet put
forward a framework that presents a negotiating alternative. Both sides
have told us that this is their preferred path, but both sides must
take steps to improve the climate. The Quartet Principals plan to meet
in New York in March, to discuss Jordanian Foreign Minister Judeh's
efforts to bring the parties together. The Quartet Principals will hold
a meeting in April to discuss next steps toward implementing their
September statement. Recent unrest in East Jerusalem and the West Bank,
and Gaza rocket attacks underscores the importance of the parties
continuing their dialogue; a political vacuum only increases the risk
of heightened tension and instability on the ground, which both parties
want to avoid.
Question. In 1989, I wrote a law--known as the Lautenberg
amendment--that has helped hundreds of thousands of victims of
religious persecution escape and come to the United States to live in
freedom. What will be the impact on persecuted religious minorities
around the world--particularly in Iran--if this law is not renewed?
Answer. If the Lautenberg amendment is not renewed, the impact on
religious minorities would be limited to those from Iran and the former
Soviet Union who are not otherwise able to meet the United States
definition of a refugee contained in the Immigration and Nationality
Act that is applied to other refugees admitted to the United States.
The reduced evidentiary standard contained in the Lautenberg amendment
currently benefits certain religious minorities from Iran and the
former Soviet Union. Individuals who are members of religious groups,
including those who are members of religious minorities, from any
country who cross an international border are eligible to seek the
protection of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR), which may include resettlement to a third country, including
the United States, if it is determined to be the best durable solution
for an individual applicant.
In addition to those Iranian religious minorities who take
advantage of the direct application program that the Department of
State operates in Austria, many Iranians who have suffered persecution
in their home country, including religious minorities, seek protection
in Turkey. For many years, the Government of Turkey has proven to be a
strong partner in refugee protection, and UNHCR has referred thousands
of Iranians, including religious minorities, for third country
resettlement. Since 2006, the United States has admitted more than
5,500 Iranian refugees from Turkey for permanent resettlement. Non-
renewal of the Lautenberg amendment would not have an impact on UNHCR's
referrals of persecuted Iranian religious minority refugees in Turkey.
Question. What impact do you believe the treatment of United
States-based democracy and human rights workers in Egypt will have on
United States-Egypt relations moving forward? What is the State
Department doing to ensure nongovernmental organizations (NGO) can
continue to effectively operate in Egypt?
Answer. We continue to be deeply concerned about the operating
environment for NGOs in Egypt in light of the Egyptian Government's
investigation into foreign funding of these organizations and the
criminal charges filed against Egyptian, American, and European NGO
staff. Although some NGO staff facing these charges were able to depart
Cairo, we have not shifted our attention away from this issue. We
remain fully engaged and consistently press the Supreme Council of the
Armed Forces (SCAF) at the highest levels to drop criminal charges and
allow NGOs in Egypt to operate without undue state interference. We
have also emphasized to new members of parliament the importance, as
part of Egypt's democratic transition, of revising the Egyptian legal
framework regulating NGOs, which does not meet international standards
for respecting freedom of association. As Egyptians look toward an
elected president taking power in July 2012, we plan to continue these
conversations on the legal reforms necessary to ensure a thriving
Egyptian civil society. In addition, we will continue to look for ways
to use our assistance to support a pluralistic civil society,
particularly as we begin conversations with emerging leaders in
parliament about our future assistance relationship with Egypt.
Question. The 2010 State Department Quadrennial Diplomacy and
Development Review (QDDR) incorporated an unprecedented emphasis on
gender integration in foreign policy programs, recognizing it as a key
approach for effective development. How does the fiscal year 2013
budget further this emphasis on gender integration?
Answer. As you note, the QDDR commits the Department of State and
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to elevating
investments in women and girls and to ensuring that gender issues are
addressed throughout the program cycle and in all bureaus and missions.
These are important objectives in their own right, and are also
powerful catalysts for economic growth and human development. Global
challenges, including transitions to peace and democracy, global
health, climate change and food security, cannot be solved without
explicit recognition of the different roles and contributions of women
and men.
USAID has formulated a new policy on Gender Equality and Female
Empowerment, updating a 30-year-old policy. In March, we intend to
issue the first-ever secretarial policy directive on promoting gender
equality. Both policies contain specific steps to ensure that State and
USAID advance the status of women and promote gender equality in policy
development, strategic planning, budgeting and programming, monitoring
and evaluation, and management and training practices.
The fiscal year 2013 budget includes estimates by operating units
that $1.68 billion will be attributed to support gender equality in
foreign assistance:
--$301 million in activities primarily targeted at gender equality
and/or women's empowerment;
--$1.231 billion in activities in which gender equality or women's
empowerment is one component of a larger set of activities; and
--$147 million to address gender-based violence, which includes
activities aimed at preventing and responding to gender-based
violence that results in physical, sexual, and psychological
harm to either women or men.
Detailed budget information is available in the Selected Key
Interest Areas--Gender of the fiscal year 2013 Foreign Operations
Budget request (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/185014.pdf
on page 306).
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Sherrod Brown
Question. You are requesting $10.9 million for Sri Lanka in
Development Assistance and $6.6 million in International Military
Education and Training and $350 million in Foreign Military Financing
(FMF). Has the Sri Lankan Government has proven it deserves this
funding considering the lack of effort to include the innocent Tamil
population in a multicultural society following the civil war. Can you
provide more detail on these requests?
Answer. The Department requested $10.9 million in Development
Assistance, $626,000 in International Military Education and Training
(IMET), and $450,000 in FMF for Sri Lanka in fiscal year 2013.
Development Assistance.--Sri Lanka is still recovering from nearly
three decades of conflict. U.S. Government assistance supports that
transition through development and stabilization efforts. As Sri Lanka
moves beyond the conflict, the United States Government is committed to
helping communities return to normalcy as quickly as possible. Programs
target ethnic minorities and religious groups in the Eastern and
Northern Provinces. Foreign assistance includes support for:
--counterterrorism activities and secure border trade;
--advocacy for human rights;
--strengthening of democratic institutions; and
--stabilization and revitalization of the economies of the East and
North.
Although economic growth in Sri Lanka has been strong, that growth
is not equitably spread across the East and North, where the majority
of Tamil and Muslim communities are settled. Reintegrating these
communities into the economic fabric of Sri Lanka is a necessary
component of reconciliation, and a key goal of United States Agency for
International Development's (USAID) economic assistance to Sri Lanka.
Likewise, good governance programs focus on the sub-national level to
create responsive democratic structures in communities of formerly
displaced residents in the East and North.
Foreign Military Financing and International Military Education and
Training.--The United States has focused its military engagement on
activities that support our security interests, impart professionalism,
and promote respect for human rights. Sri Lanka is a capable and
willing partner in maritime security and peacekeeping. It is
strategically located along the busiest shipping lanes in the Indian
Ocean; actively combats violent extremism, trafficking, and piracy; and
is one of the largest contributors to United Nations peacekeeping in
the world. The United States' modest FMF program in Sri Lanka will
support our shared security interests by increasing Sri Lanka's ability
to patrol and monitor its waters. Through the IMET program, Sri Lankan
officers will be able to participate in professional military education
courses in the United States, where they will learn alongside American
officers and be exposed to United States military norms and practices.
The United States has engaged only cautiously with the Sri Lankan
military since the end of the civil war in May 2009 because of our
expectation that the Government of Sri Lanka must first hold
accountable those individuals who violated international humanitarian
law and international human rights law during the conflict. The
administration has carefully calibrated the U.S. military engagement
strategy to reflect security objectives as well as progress in
advancing human rights, reconciliation and accountability. Before we
deepen our engagement, the Government of Sri Lanka must make meaningful
progress on promoting human rights, revitalizing democratic
institutions and practices, respecting international humanitarian law,
and ensuring accountability for past and ongoing abuses.
Question. The budget request will allow the United States to meet
its $4 billion pledge to the Global Fund for tuberculosis (TB). That is
great. However round 11 funding will be limited to existing countries
in the programs and no new until as late as 2014.
Do we need a ``new pledge''?
Answer. For continued progress on AIDS, TB, and malaria, the world
needs a robust, functioning Global Fund. This year's request of $1.65
billion will allow the administration to fulfill its historic pledge to
seek $4 billion (fiscal years 2011-2013) for contribution to the Global
Fund. The U.S. Government remains committed to this pledge and to the
Fund. One important reason is because each $1 the U.S. invests in the
fund leverages $2.50 from other donors. An increased U.S. investment at
this time is crucial for increasing the commitment of others to meet
our shared responsibility.
Question. Do we need to revisit how we approach the Global Fund in
light of these developments?
Answer. The November 2011 changes in the Global Fund's financial
situation prompted its board to focus available resources on the
continuation of ongoing programs while the Fund transitions to a new,
more flexible, and sustainable approach. In accordance with its new 5-
year strategy, the Global Fund will move away from project-based,
rounds-based funding to a more predictable funding model. It will work
with partner countries to identify and finance high-impact, evidence-
based interventions grounded in countries' national disease strategies.
The Global Fund has the necessary resources and remains on track to
support more than $8 billion in grant renewals and new grant
commitments between now and the end of 2013. These commitments will
allow countries to continue and, in many cases, continue to scale up,
successful and ambitious programs to fight AIDS, TB, and malaria. The
Global Fund will remain a major financing mechanism for the fight
against the three diseases. Efficiencies that have been achieved in the
past three funding rounds and in other areas will allow several
countries to increase the number of patients receiving AIDS or
tuberculosis treatment. Thus more people--not fewer--will receive
access to these services in the coming 2 years. The board took several
steps to make resources available to support grant renewals,
outstanding round 10 grant commitments, and the continuation of
essential prevention, treatment, and care services. The Global Fund has
instituted eligibility and prioritization policies that better target
resources to countries with the greatest need and least ability to pay.
In addition, new counterpart financing requirements ensure that
recipient countries contribution a significant and growing share of
resources to their disease response. The Strategy 2012-2016 and
Consolidated Transformation Plan, both strongly supported by the United
States, will both facilitate this transition to greater country
ownership and increase the impact of Global Fund grants.
Question. Which investments will do the most over the long term to
promote and achieve our global health objectives? Are we reaching the
right balance?
Answer. We believe the fiscal year 2013 budget request strikes the
right balance between bilateral and multilateral investments--both have
critical roles to play. To fight AIDS, the U.S. bilateral program
cannot meet the challenge alone, and is most effective with a robust
Global Fund. This year we have a unique opportunity to ensure the
bilateral program continues to meet the President's goals while also
strengthening our most critical donor partner in the global AIDS
response--the Global Fund.
President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the Global
Fund have developed and expanded over the past several years, at the
country level, they have become interdependent in terms of
implementation and achieving success. If either the Fund or PEPFAR
bilateral are under-resourced, there will be negative repercussions for
both programs that will threaten our ability to achieve a sustainable
response. The United States continues to work to increase collaboration
between PEPFAR and Global Fund-financed programs on the ground to reach
more people in more countries with higher-quality services and directly
leverage the results of the Global Fund.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham
Question. What programs are being conducted by the State Department
and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to
encourage United States businesses to invest in Libya?
Answer. Promotion of United States economic interest is a key
priority for the State Department, and given that the Libyan Government
has stated their country is ``open for business'', particularly for
those countries that supported the revolution, the Department--in
coordination with the interagency--has focused on identifying
opportunities to encourage United States businesses to invest in Libya
and aligning United States Government resources to support these
potential investments.
State Department Economic Bureau Assistant Secretary Fernandez and
United States Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz hold monthly conference
calls with United States businesses to discuss opportunities and share
advice for investment and trade in Libya. Each call discusses a
different sector for potential United States investment. The last two
calls were devoted to the security and healthcare sectors,
respectively. Assistant Secretary Fernandez is also leading a United
States trade delegation to Libya in late April, which is being
organized by the U.S.-Libyan Business Association. In January, Libyan
business leaders visited the United States. Reverse trade delegations
from Libya to the United States are also being planned by both U.S.
Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) and Embark, which will focus on
sectors ranging from transportation to energy. The monthly conference
calls with U.S. business and the trade missions have been met with
great enthusiasm by both American business and the Libyans and will
continue for the foreseeable future.
Recognizing early on the immense potential for United States trade
and investment in Libya, the Department prioritized posting a
commercial officer to Tripoli. He is funded by the Department's Bureau
of Conflict and Stabilization Operations but is an employee of the
Department of Commerce. His responsibilities include:
--meeting regularly with U.S. businesses;
--facilitating meetings between United States business
representatives and the Libyan Government and private-sector
leaders; and
--reporting on the general investment and trade climate in Libya.
As part of the $25.6 million in fiscal year 2011 Middle East
Response Fund (MERF) assistance to Libya, the Department has allocated
approximately $3 million to USTDA for an economic growth and trade
facilitation program. More specifically, USTDA will partner with Libyan
leaders to identify vital reconstruction and human capacity building
projects for Libya, which will provide strategic opportunities for the
implementation of United States goods, services, and technologies. The
program will fund various activities including feasibility studies,
pilot projects of United States technology and technical assistance,
reverse trade missions, and training symposia.
Promoting joint United States-Libya public-private partnerships
will be integral to United States Government assistance programs,
particularly in public health and higher education. USAID is providing
$2 million to assist the Libyans in building the capacity of their
medical rehabilitation centers to better treat the war wounded. USAID
will use this project to leverage much larger investments from the
Government of Libya which should create opportunities for the
Government of Libya private sector to sell medical equipment and
technology to Libya. During his visit to Washington in early March,
Libyan Prime Minister el-Keib specifically requested the Secretary's
support in facilitating linkages between United States and Libyan
higher education institutions. The Government of Libya is interested in
funding scholarships for young Libyans to pursue university education
and vocational training in the Government of Libya. Since the Prime
Minister's visit, the Department in coordination with Embassy Tripoli
has begun developing a joint Libyan-U.S. Higher Education Task Force
that will identify opportunities for scholarship programs with United
States institutions of higher education and promote partnerships with
United States academia and job-training centers and Libyan
institutions. The Department is also funding the Aspen Institute to
bring a delegation of U.S. university and community college officials
to Tripoli to discuss partnership opportunities. The commercial officer
at Embassy Tripoli is facilitating a similar trip in April for two
United States vocational training consortia, MUCIA and TEEX, to meet
with Libyan officials on possible educational exchanges.
The Libyan diaspora is a deeply committed, yet largely untapped,
source of innovative, entrepreneurial solutions to poverty and economic
development in Libya. USAID is working with the African Diaspora
Marketplace, a public private partnership with Western Union, which
seeks to boost economic opportunity in Africa by providing United
States-based diaspora entrepreneurs seed capital ($50,000) and
technical assistance through a business plan competition that will help
start or expand businesses in all regions of Africa. These businesses
will help create jobs, generate income, and provide needed services in
the countries where they work.
Question. What steps are the State Department and Department of
Defense (DOD) taking to recover Libyan Man-Portable Air Defense Systems
(MANPADS)? What is being done to ensure weapons don't find their way
into Gaza or other conflict areas?
Answer. The Department of State has allocated $40 million to date
to assist Libya in securing and disabling weapons stockpiles,
particularly MANPADS. To date this support has underwritten surveys of
more than 1,500 bunkers at 134 Ammunition Storage Areas (ASAs) by
Libyan-led inspection teams. Thus far these teams have helped to
identify, recover, and secure approximately 5,000 MANPADS and
components.
The work to secure and recover Libya's weapons stockpiles is a
long-term effort. Now that we have completed our initial rapid sweep
across the country, we are entering what we call phase 2. This involves
helping the new Libyan Government conduct a full inventory of all
weapons stockpiles, as well as assisting them to improve border
security to help detect and interdict illicit activity.
The Department continues to engage with countries in the region to
provide information on the potential proliferation dangers, offer
assistance with border security, and advise on potential steps to
improve aviation security. We are supporting Libya's neighbors to take
steps to prevent illicit arms flows, particularly to interdict the
transport of MANPADS across borders. The MANPADS Interagency Task
Force--which includes representatives from the Departments of State,
Defense, and Homeland Security, among others--has visited Algeria,
Mali, Niger, Chad, Mauritania, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Israel, and the
headquarters of the African Union. These visits have facilitated the
exchange of ideas and the coordination of action on the situation in
Libya, and have assisted efforts to strengthen border and airport
security and reduce proliferation across the region. Additionally, the
Departments of Defense and State are working with many partner
countries in the region to build capacity in critical areas such as
counterterrorism and border security.
The participation of key U.S. Government agencies on the
Interagency MANPADS Task Force allows for close internal coordination
in developing approaches, implementing assistance, and engaging
governments through appropriate channels. This has resulted in both
policy and programs that are synchronized and that ensure our resources
have a targeted and efficient impact to confront the MANPADS threat.
The U.S. Government is also working closely with a group of allies
and partner countries that are committed to mitigating the MANPADS
threat. We greatly appreciate the pledge from the United Kingdom for at
least 1.33 million pounds sterling ($2.1 million USD) along
with a team of technical experts to support and coordinate MANPADS-
specific activities. We also commend Canada for their pledge of $1.6
million Canadian ($1.61 million USD); the Netherlands for their
contribution of 900,000 Euros ($1.2 million USD); Germany for their
contribution of 750,000 Euros ($980,000 USD); France and Italy for
their significant contributions, and other allies and partners who have
contributed to this effort.
Question. What programs are being considered to support training of
Libyan militias into regular military and police forces, and which
countries will be involved in providing such training?
Answer. In support of the transitional Government of Libya we are
exploring targeted training programs to consolidate Libya's
revolutionary fighters into regular military and police forces in
coordination with the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) and
international partners. There were an estimated 200,000 revolutionary
fighters during the revolution. The Government of Libya and UNSMIL
report that Libya's Warrior Affairs Committee has registered 148,000
fighters to date. Assisted by the international community, the
Government of Libya has announced a 3-year plan to integrate 25,000
revolutionaries into their regular military and 25,000 into their
police forces. The remaining revolutionary forces will be reintegrated
into civilian life through initiatives to develop small and medium
enterprises, or through new educational and training opportunities.
Police Forces.--The international community has taken significant
strides in leading the training efforts for the new Libyan police
forces. We anticipate Jordan will sign a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) with the Ministry of Interior (MOI) to train 10,000 new police
cadets in basic police curriculum. Turkey has signed an MOU to train
for 750 Libyan officers. In addition to the 750, Turkey has agreed to
provide courses in VIP protection, document verification, incident
response, and hostage recovery. Italy has offered courses in crowd/riot
control, investigation techniques, human rights training for police
managers, and maritime security. Kuwait has delivered fire-fighting
vehicles and ambulances to the MOI and Ministry of Health. The United
Kingdom and Germany are working together on forensic training and the
EU is conducting a border management assessment to redevelop Libya's
border management capacity.
Military Forces.--The Libyan Ministry of Defense (MOD) has launched
an assistance coordination mechanism to keep track of assistance to the
armed forces, avoid duplication, and identify gaps. The French have
conducted joint maritime training with the Libyan Navy. Qatar has
committed to MOD assistance, most recently by building a Joint Crisis
Management Coordination Center for the Government of Libya and
international community as a resource for police, the armed forces, or
border security. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) military has presented
several assistance proposals to the Government of Libya, including
rebuilding training facilities in Libya, but has not received any real
engagement or response to date.
We are preparing to implement targeted training programs to augment
the Government of Libya and international efforts. In chronological
order, beginning in late March we will deploy a security sector
transition coordinator to U.S. Embassy Tripoli who will coordinate our
border security and MOI training efforts. In April, we will deploy a
team from the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation,
Office of Export Control Cooperation, to conduct a 1-week training of
Libyan MOI, MOD, and customs officials who will be leading the efforts
to develop and integrate Libya's border security forces. We are
planning to offer the Defense Institution Reform Initiative (DIRI)
program to Libyan Prime Minister el-Keib during his March 2012 visit.
If accepted by the Government of Libya, DIRI will provide a team of
experts, to advise the MOD on rightsizing their security forces and
integrate rebel fighters into the Libyan armed forces. Over the summer
we will send an assessment team from our Bureau of Counterterrorism to
scope training programs on Anti-Terror Assistance.
Question. Last year, the Congress directed the State Department to
assist American victims of Libyan terrorism regarding the use of the
frozen assets of former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi for
compensation. As you are aware, it is possible that the compensation
fund for American victims of Libyan terrorism established pursuant to
the Libyan Claims Resolution Act could have a shortfall. Please
describe efforts the Department is undertaking to:
--establish contingency plans in the event of a shortfall;
--engage in state-to-state negotiations with the new Libyan
Government to ensure American victims of Libyan state-sponsored
terrorism receive full compensation in accordance with awards
set forth by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission; and
--use assets belonging to Muammar Gaddafi, the Gaddafi family and
advisors currently under U.S. control to compensate these
American victims of terrorism.
Answer. The Department believes that it is premature to determine
whether there will be a shortfall in settlement funds. The Foreign
Claims Settlement Commission (FCSC) is still in the process of
adjudicating and, in some cases, establishing the appropriate levels of
compensation for many of the claims that were referred to it as part of
the Libya claims program. The FCSC must be allowed to complete more of
this work before a projection regarding the sufficiency of settlement
funds can be made. In the event of a shortfall, the International
Claims Settlement Act of 1949 establishes that each claimant who
receives an award from the FCSC will receive a pro rata share of the
available settlement funds up to the full amount of that award.
Regarding possible state-to-state negotiations, the 2008 U.S.-Libya
Claims Settlement Agreement provided for the ``full and final
settlement'' of terrorism-related claims against Libya and its public
officials in exchange for the $1.5 billion settlement amount. Given the
terms of this agreement, there does not appear to be a legal basis for
seeking additional compensation from the Government of Libya at this
juncture. Doing so could well undermine our efforts to secure
compensation for other U.S. nationals through similar claims
settlements with other governments in the future.
Furthermore, frozen Gaddafi family assets would not be an
appropriate source of additional funds for these claims, which the
United States has already settled through the 2008 U.S.-Libya Claims
Settlement Agreement. This would similarly undermine the United States'
ability to conclude similar claims settlements on behalf of U.S.
nationals in the future. Moreover, those Gaddafi family assets that are
in the United States have been frozen pursuant to legally binding U.N.
Security Council Resolutions. Those resolutions indicate that any
frozen assets shall be used for the benefit and in accordance with the
needs and wishes of the Libyan people. If the United States were to
unilaterally decide on an alternative disposition of these assets, it
would undermine our ability to obtain similar U.N. action in the future
and could expose the United States to claims under international law.
In any event, we are not aware of any Gaddafi family member
interest in the assets that comprise the amounts reported publicly by
the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) as blocked pursuant to the
Libya sanctions program. We understand that the only property reported
to OFAC as blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13566 that might contain
an interest of a Gaddafi family member is nonliquid property regarding
which valuation would be difficult to ascertain and that may have no
significant value.
Question. How is the administration preparing for the potential
influx of refugees from Syria to neighboring countries, and what
funding is contained in the fiscal year 2013 budget request to address
this potentially significant humanitarian crisis? Do you have an
estimate of the number of Syrians that may seek refuge in Jordan, and
what impact might these refugees have on Jordan's economic and
political stability?
Answer. The United States is providing more than $10 million in
humanitarian assistance to support those affected by the violence in
Syria, including those who have fled to neighboring countries. This
assistance includes $3.5 million to the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); $3 million to the International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC); $3 million to the World Food Program
(WFP); and support for other international nongovernmental partners
(NGOs).
Assistance through UNHCR, ICRC, and NGOs is delivering critical
medical services and supplies, food, water, blankets, hygiene kits,
heaters, and winter clothing to displaced and conflict-affected
Syrians. This funding will also provide support for host families who
are sheltering displaced Syrians within Syria and in neighboring
countries.
United States efforts also include bolstering existing regional
stockpiles of humanitarian supplies and equipment to be delivered to
those Syrian communities in greatest need. These stockpiles of food and
other emergency relief supplies are a result of the growing
international effort to rush humanitarian aid into Syria to alleviate
the suffering of vulnerable communities as access and conditions allow.
U.S. Government humanitarian assistance has been provided from the
Migration and Refugee Assistance and International Disaster Assistance
accounts. In coordination with other donors, the Department of State
and USAID will continue to ensure our partners have the support they
need in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013 to maintain these
critical humanitarian operations from these and other accounts, as
needed.
The Government of Jordan has stated that up to 80,000 Syrians have
entered Jordan since the unrest in Syria began in March 2011, though
the vast majority have not requested or required humanitarian
assistance. The Government of Jordan, in partnership with a range of
United Nations agencies, is providing protection and assistance to
about 10,000 displaced Syrians (4,205 of whom are currently registered
with UNHCR) in the form of food, shelter, healthcare, and education.
While the State Department does not have an estimated number of Syrians
that may seek refuge in Jordan, we expect that the numbers will
continue to climb while the violence in Syria is ongoing.
The Government of Jordan has engaged in contingency planning for
increased outflows of Syrians, and is coordinating with the United
Nations and other international humanitarian partners to prepare for
increased needs. United States Government officials meet regularly with
Jordanian Government officials, humanitarian partners, and
beneficiaries to assess the effectiveness of the international
community's humanitarian response, as well as to plan for a range of
contingencies as the situation in Syria continues to evolve.
Jordan has been a generous host to a number of refugee communities,
including Palestinian and Iraqi refugees. That said, it is important to
note that Jordan could face a serious domestic political challenge if
large numbers of Palestinian refugees from Syria begin to cross the
border. The international community will support Jordan's efforts to
manage the influx of displaced persons from Syria by providing adequate
protection and assistance to this vulnerable population in order to
minimize the impact on Jordan's political and economic stability.
Question. The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $250 million
in economic assistance and $1.3 billion in military aid for Egypt.
Given the Minister of International Cooperation's complicity in the
crackdown on civil society, will the State Department continue to
coordinate U.S. assistance through that ministry? What other options
exist for the delivery of United States economic assistance for Egypt
that excludes the Ministry of International Cooperation?
Answer. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces has pledged to hand
over power to an elected president by July 1, who will govern alongside
the two houses of parliament elected earlier this year. We will discuss
fiscal year 2012 and future Economic Support Funds with this new
government in order to support Egypt's democratic transition. Our
diplomacy, public messaging, and assistance are all designed to support
the aspirations of the Egyptian people for a democratic future and
promote respect for human rights.
Question. Would you support enlarging the authority of the Special
Inspector General for Iraq to examine how United States economic
assistance for Egypt has been used over the past 5 years by the
Ministry of International Cooperation?
Answer. We believe that the USAID Inspector General is fully
capable of evaluating past and future United States assistance to
Egypt.
Question. What are the administration's plans for future democracy
and governance programs for Egypt?
Answer. We continue to view a robust and pluralistic civil society,
credible elections, broad-based participation in political life,
protection of universal human rights, and the development of
representative institutions as central to a successful democratic
transition in Egypt. We believe our democracy and governance programs
in these areas can make a positive difference for Egyptians.
tunisia's budget shortfall
Question. Does the Government of Tunisia seek budget support from
the United States, and for what purposes? What level of funding for
such support is being contemplated?
Answer. While the January 2011 revolution favorably reset Tunisia's
political calculus, the abrupt change of power, followed by domestic
and regional security and labor-related unrest, shook investor
confidence, caused tourism revenues to plummet and truncated
remittances from Libya, dealing the Tunisian economy a significant
blow. The fiscal deficit has widened, particularly as tourism revenues
have plummeted and tax revenues have been impaired by disruptions to
production in Tunisia's interior due to strikes and civil disturbances.
Tunisia's Government passed a 2012 budget on December 31, which
reflected the priorities of the previous interim government. The
current government will incorporate its own priorities by enacting a
2012 budget supplement, which has been approved within cabinet and went
to the Constituent Assembly in early April. As a result of this budget
supplement, the Tunisian Government is now projecting a budget deficit
of 6.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) (approximately $3.1
billion). The government faces $1.6 billion in external debt service in
2012 ($1.2 billion in principal and $0.4 billion in interest) or about
3.4 percent of GDP.
The Tunisian Government has officially requested a budget support
loan from the African Development Bank (AfDB), but must negotiate
conditions on the loan. AfDB staff do not envision any projects in the
next several months. If it were to agree to provide a budget support
loan and design a reform matrix (with the World Bank and European
donors, as in 2011), the AfDB would not disburse any monies until late
2012. In addition, Qatar, the World Bank, and Agence France Development
(AFD) pledged to provide budgetary support to Tunisia in 2012.
Tunisia's economic challenges are peaking at the same time that the
Tunisian people are more empowered to demand more from their
government. Tunisia has fewer resources with which to increase spending
temporarily to stimulate economic growth and support the social
programs upon which the Tunisian public relies. Without short-term
intervention, Tunisia's economic recovery may be impaired by continued
domestic instability and further loss of investor confidence. A strong
U.S. commitment of immediate bilateral support--particularly if it
unlocks additional financial support from other sources--will help
Tunisia fill this void.
Tunisia's successful democratic transition is critical for U.S.
interests in the region, and will send a signal to others undergoing
their own transitions. The Government of Tunisia has made clear to
several senior United States officials, including congressional
delegations, the need for immediate financial assistance to address
Tunisia's critical budgetary shortfall and help them through their
current difficult period of transition. Given the importance of
demonstrating strong immediate United States support for Tunisia and
the nature of the economic problems to be addressed in Tunisia, we
propose to use the cash transfer to pay eligible external debt to
international financial institutions. Our plan is to deliver this
assistance by paying $100 million worth of the debt the Tunisians owe
to the World Bank and the African Development Bank. This will free up
funds in their own budget for other priority activities in support of
their new democracy. This will also assure accountability and
transparency.
supporting tunisia's financial needs--update on loan guarantee
agreement
The United States plans to provide some relief for Tunisian
budgetary pressures by using $30 million legislatively authorized for a
sovereign loan guarantee. A bilateral guarantee could leverage a $400-
650 million borrowing instrument, assuming a 5-year maturity and 100-
percent guarantee of principal and interest, which may change based on
Tunisian preferences. However, the Tunisians have indicated that they
want a longer maturity, which would decrease the leveraging effect of
our loan guarantee to between $250-$500 million. We are discussing with
the Tunisians the possibility of combining with the World Bank for a
hybrid guarantee that could increase the program to approximately $750
million, assuming a 10-year maturity with 100-percent guarantee of
principal and interest. Provided the Tunisian Government is ready to
make the requisite decisions, we plan to sign an agreement by May,
which is possible regardless of whether Tunisia prefers a bilateral or
hybrid guarantee.
$100 million cash transfer option
The United States Government could provide a $100 million cash
transfer to the Government of Tunisia for short-term fiscal relief as
the Tunisian Government manages the next phase of Tunisia's democratic
transition and attempts to undertake foundational economic reforms.
From a foreign policy perspective, a cash transfer for Tunisia would
demonstrate the United States' support for Tunisia's democratic
transition. Structured appropriately, a bilateral cash transfer
agreement would permit us to align United States action squarely behind
the stabilization of the Tunisia economy and provide a quick-impact
cash infusion to the Government of Tunisia in the near term and allow
the United States to take a leadership role and persuade other donors
to provide similar assistance. Within Tunisia, a cash transfer would
help the Tunisian Government weather the current fiscal storm. Tunisia
aims to ameliorate postrevolution social demands through public
spending until the economy recovers, despite flagging fiscal revenues.
The Tunisian Government believes this approach is essential to
consolidating political reforms as it battles a high rate of
unemployment. We would provide the $100 million cash transfer grant in
a single tranche, with disbursement before the end of the first half of
U.S. fiscal year 2012.
In general, cash transfers can be designed in different ways
depending on the objectives of the program. We considered three
different approaches:
--paying debt owed to international financial institutions (IFIs),
such as the World Bank and African Development Bank;
--paying for commodity goods; and
--paying commercial debt.
We chose the first option because of its speed, transparency, and
accountability.
Question. What steps can be taken to restore some semblance of
stability and safety in the Sinai? What can be done to ensure that the
Sinai doesn't become a haven for terrorists, including al Qaeda?
Answer. Improving security in the Sinai is a complex issue that
calls for engagement on many fronts. We are encouraged by the fact that
the Egyptian Government has undertaken counterterrorism operations in
the area and announced the formation of a Sinai Development Authority
to address security challenges. However, more can be done to encourage
and support development for residents of the Sinai, the absence of
which is the root cause of crime and unrest. We will continue to engage
with the Egyptian Government at the highest levels on this issue to
convey the importance of restoring security to the Sinai, while also
offering our support. In addition, we look forward to working with
Egypt's next elected government on solutions to this important issue.
Question. Do you believe the Multinational Force and Observer (MFO)
should remain in the Sinai? Should it be expanded?
Answer. The current context of unprecedented and fast-paced
regional change has shown that the MFO's role is more important than
ever to promoting continued confidence between the two Treaty of Peace
parties, Egypt and Israel, and to offering the parties concrete
mechanisms to manage jointly and effectively their response to the new
security challenges. The MFO has played an important role for decades
in promoting peace and stability in the region and continues to have
the strong support of the United States, Egypt, and Israel.
Unprecedented Egyptian military deployments into the Sinai, as agreed
upon by the parties, have resulted in significant additional
verification work for the MFO and its Civilian Observer Unit. Any
changes to the MFO's mission must be formally requested by the Treaty
parties. With respect to civilian and military personnel levels, the
MFO has indicated to the Treaty parties and to the United States that
it does not at present seek any increase in present staffing.
Question. The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $770 million
for a new Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund (MENA-IF) to
address myriad challenges arising from political transitions in those
regions.
Why do we need this fund when account structures already exist to
respond to crises--including fiscal year 2013 requests for the Complex
Crises Fund ($50 million); International Disaster Assistance ($960
million); Office of Transition Initiatives ($57.6 million); Global
Contingency Fund ($25 million); and Conflict Stabilization Operations
($56.5 million)?
What countries do you expect to benefit from MENA-IF, and what
types of programs will be supported?
Do you support the use of these funds to address economic needs in
the region, including in Israel, should military action be undertaken
to address the Iran nuclear issue?
Answer. The MENA-IF represents a new approach to the Middle East
and North Africa through demonstrating a visible commitment to reform
and to the region; tying assistance to reform agendas; and providing
flexibility for contingencies in order to take advantage of new
opportunities. To support this new approach, this Fund has broad
authorities to allow the U.S. Government to better respond to political
changes in the Middle East and North Africa and incentivize meaningful
and sustainable political and economic reforms by tying these reforms
to significant levels of U.S. assistance.
While contingency/response funds are available for rapid responders
to deploy and support new initiatives, these accounts are not
structured to provide long-term funding or be used to incentivize
reforms. Additionally, using global funds as a major source of response
to the Arab Spring carries opportunity costs for these global programs,
and risks reducing the U.S. Government's ability to respond to other
needs around the globe. While these accounts have provided funding to
Middle East contingencies this year, it was at a great opportunity cost
to operations in other areas.
For purposes of MENA-IF planning, the following countries are
included:
--Algeria;
--Bahrain;
--Egypt;
--Iran;
--Jordan;
--Kuwait;
--Lebanon;
--Libya;
--Morocco;
--Oman;
--Qatar;
--Saudi Arabia;
--Syria Tunisia;
--UAE;
--West Bank/Gaza; and
--Yemen.
Funding programs in Israel or Iraq is not contemplated except to
the extent that regional initiatives may touch on these countries.
Specific projects will depend on the countries involved; however,
initiatives should address the following key priorities:
--Political, economic, and judicial/rule of law reforms that protect
and promote human rights, political participation, democratic
institutions, independent civil society, and quality under the
law; that advance progress in meeting citizen demands for
political participation; and that create conditions for
economic growth, primarily through strengthened international
trade and investment and by fostering a more vibrant private
sector.
--Security sector reforms that emphasize civil-military boundaries,
protection of human rights, and security that serves to protect
people--not authoritarian regimes; and
--Regional integration and trade promotion reforms that would reduce
trade barriers and allow implementation of the President's
Trade and Investment Partnership Initiative for the Middle
East.
Question. The Secretary of State's comments in the November 2011
edition of Foreign Policy outlines the administration's strategic
``pivot'' to the Asia-Pacific region: How is the ``pivot'' evidenced in
the fiscal year 2013 budget request?
Answer. Looking forward to the next decade, we recognize no region
will be more important to the United States than the Asia Pacific.
Overall fiscal constraints in the foreign affairs budget have placed
limits on our ability to increase direct State Department and USAID
resources to the region in fiscal year 2013. However, we are working
smartly to elevate our commitment to the region through a strategy that
is multifaceted, involving close coordination with the full spectrum of
interagency partners to make sure our diplomatic, defense, and
development efforts are targeted toward our highest priorities. Foreign
assistance is but one aspect of our strategy to deepen our engagement
with the region.
The efforts of our diplomats are an essential part of our
longstanding and ongoing engagement in the region. They are a critical
component of how we pursue and achieve our strategic objectives, but
they are not fully captured by statistics. For example, we successfully
concluded our implementation review process for our free trade
agreement with Korea, which entered into force on March 15 of this
year, and are now working aggressively on the Trans Pacific
Partnership. Our enhanced engagement with Burma and our strategy to
match ``action-for-action'' to encourage the country's reform process
has already shown signs of progress including a substantial release of
political prisoners. This type of work does not have a price tag that
accurately reflects its true value.
These efforts have already produced real results, such as new
strategic dialogues across the region with emerging partners,
strengthened alliances, and enhanced engagement with the region's
multilateral fora including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN) and the East Asia Summit, as well as deepening regional
cooperation on a range of economic issues through APEC. In addition, we
have established the Lower Mekong Initiative with four Southeast Asian
countries sharing the Mekong, and launched the Indonesia Comprehensive
Partnership and Partnership for Growth in the Philippines. The budget
request reflects the administration's continued support for and
commitment to these important and often new initiatives.
We have also coordinated closely with our interagency partners to
significantly increase assistance to the region. Substantial Millennium
Challenge Corporation compacts that were recently signed will bring
more than $1 billion of American assistance to Indonesia and the
Philippines in the next 5 years.
We are substantially increasing our consular resources in the Asia-
Pacific to address an unprecedented increase in demand for U.S. visas
throughout that region. In China, we are expanding our consular
presence at every single post, and visa issuances have more than
doubled in the last 5 years.
As part of the National Export Initiative and the new focus on
economic statecraft, our diplomats are helping U.S. companies learn
about the massive infrastructure development opportunities in the ASEAN
region, particularly Indonesia. We believe that our companies are best-
placed to bring world-class capabilities and state-of-the-art
technology toward this endeavor and in the process create jobs for
Americans on the homeland.
Question. What additional steps is the State Department considering
to upgrade the United States presence in Burma in light of expanded
engagement, and how will the appointment of a U.S. Ambassador impact
the responsibilities of the Special Envoy?
Answer. In response to recent signs of political and economic
opening, our ``action-for-action'' strategy aims to support those who
pursue reform and to encourage further reforms in Burma. Following a
substantial release of political prisoners in January, the President
announced that the United States would upgrade diplomatic ties by
exchanging Ambassadors. This action will enable us to strengthen our
ongoing high-level dialogue with senior government officials and pro-
democracy groups, deepen and establish long-term ties with the Burmese
Government and people, and identify new possibilities to support the
reform process.
We expect our Ambassador, once nominated by the President and
confirmed by the Senate, to work in close coordination with the Special
Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma. There are several
instances where the United States has diplomatic representation in
country at the Ambassadorial level and Ambassadorial rank
representatives who work in Washington and play a key coordinating role
with the international community.
The upgrade in diplomatic ties will also advance our efforts to
sustain reform, including supporting the efforts of international
financial institutions to conduct assessment missions and provide
limited technical assistance to assist Burma with prioritizing and
sequencing its poverty alleviation and development needs. We have also
taken steps to resume counternarcotics cooperation, to restart
humanitarian cooperation with a World War II remains recovery program,
and to invite Burma into the Lower Mekong Initiative. We also continue
to seek ways to expand United States assistance for microfinance and
health activities in Burma. In response to increased desire to develop
civil society, we are renovating our American Center in Rangoon to
increase its capacity for outreach and identifying ways to enhance our
education and exchange programs to increase our people to people
activities. We will consider further actions following the April 1 by
elections, which serves as the next major benchmark for measuring
progress on reform in Burma.
Question. What are the anticipated costs of sustaining the Afghan
army and police following the withdrawal of United States forces, and
is this a cost that the State Department will be responsible for
bearing?
Answer. As the lead United States agency for security matters in
Afghanistan, the Department of Defense is working with the Government
of Afghanistan and the international community to analyze Afghanistan's
post-2014 security needs, including the size and estimated cost of an
effective Afghan National Security Force (ANSF). We understand that
analysts are predicting some decline following the current build-up to
a ``surge'' force of 352,000 army and police, but the precise size of
Afghan forces will ultimately be conditions-based, responsive to the
needs of the Afghan people, and sustainable. The United States
Government has not yet decided whether to recommend changing the
current model of the Department of Defense leading the training and
funding of the ANSF. As transition progresses, we will continue to
assess whether and at what point the Department of State would take on
a role in funding the ANSF and will be sure to closely coordinate with
the Congress on any request.
Question. The Afghan Government has made a request that the United
States turnover all detainees currently at Parwan prison by March 7. In
your assessment, does the Afghan Government have the capability to
process the 3,088 prisoners currently at Parwan prison?
Answer. In partnership with President Karzai and the Afghan
Government, the United States completed a crucial milestone in our
transition to Afghan lead when General Allen co-signed a memorandum of
understanding on detention operations with Afghan Defense Minister
Wardak on March 9. This agreement will transfer detention facilities in
Afghanistan to Afghan control over the next 6 months, under guidelines
designed to ensure an orderly, secure, and humane hand over of
responsibility. We refer you to the Department of Defense on specific
questions related to the Detention Facility in Parwan.
Question. What is the status of the funds allocated for the
Afghanistan Rule of Law Coordinator? Has it made a difference in
streamlining the process and, if so, how?
Answer. The Interagency Rule of Law (IROL) team has been actively
engaged in the programming of $25 million of fiscal year 2011 funding
dedicated to the Embassy's Ambassador-level Coordinating Director for
Rule of Law/Law Enforcement (CDROLLE) programs. Working with USAID and
INL, they set objectives, and identified potential programs where these
funds could further key policy goals. This approach capitalizes on the
strengths and flexibility, and management oversight of teams in place.
The Embassy's Ambassador-level CDROLLE is shaping programs to meet our
U.S. Government rule of law objectives and the $25 million has proven
to be a manageable sum to further our efforts.
The CDROLLE at Embassy Kabul, currently Ambassador Stephen
McFarland, has policy direction over all State rule of law funding and
sets guidance for these programs. The CDROLLE signs off on all new
rules of law programming efforts, and frequently conducts site visits
to provide oversight. The legislation has helped make clear that all
rule of law programming must be coordinated under Ambassador
McFarland's authority.
USAID reprogrammed $7 million to launch a grants solicitation for
rule of law and anti-corruption proposals. In addition, $2 million was
set aside--$1 million each from USAID and INL--for a new quick-impact
``Access to Justice'' grants program. This new small grants program
will provide CDROLLE with a flexible, quick-impact grants capability,
responsive to immediate and longer-term needs in support of improving
access to justice, building judicial capacity, addressing gender-
specific legal problems, and empowering civil society. INL is working
with the IROL and the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) rule of law
advisors to identify rule of law needs at the sub-national level and
will develop programs for its $16 million allocation.
CDROLLE has managed to tap into the talent within the Embassy in
open discussions, and to go out to the field where rule of law advisors
from State, USAID, and the military can provide direct inputs on
project ideas, priorities, and field needs. Even though the answers
varied considerably from province to province, USAID and State's INL
bureau working together with CDROLLE have been able to modify and to
adjust their programming to take those inputs into consideration.
Moreover, this process is strengthening the interagency, whole-of-
government approach and is providing the CDROLLE with greater insight
and involvement into INL and USAID programs.
Rule-of-law priorities under discussion include support for legal
education (with priority to students--the next generation--over
existing justice sector personnel); building civil society capacity in
anti-corruption (shifting the focus of funding from prosecutions to
oversight); pilot projects for alternatives to incarceration;
improvements to access to justice, particularly for women; increasing
legislative reform efforts to include a multitiered approach to
addressing deficiencies in penal and commercial laws; broadening legal
awareness; increased funding to the CDROLLE ``Access to Justice''
grants program; and ensuring adequate monitoring and evaluation of all
efforts.
Question. Additionally, what is the State Department's assessment
of the IROL training that is currently being offered by the Rule of Law
Collaborative at the University of South Carolina under contract with
the Judge Advocate General office?
Answer. The training offered by the Rule of Law Collaborative
provides several advantages to the United States Government. First, it
provides a forum for rule of law program officers to network with each
other, share programming ideas, and reflect on lessons learned. Second,
it provides basic legal familiarity courses particularly for program
officers who may have a generalist background in foreign affairs, but
not in rule of law programming. Third, it introduces ideas and people
from the wider legal development community to government program
officers, ensuring that they are familiar with current standards,
ideas, and practices.
Question. The DOD contract with the Rule of Law Collaborative runs
out in August 2013.
Given the scheduled draw-down of United States forces in Iraq and
Afghanistan and regime changes occurring in the Middle East and North
Africa, does the State Department appreciate the value and utility of
continuing interagency rule of law training and programming currently
being supported by DOD, and is the State Department capable of leading
such effort in the future? What would be the most effective funding
mechanism to support interagency rule of law coordination and training
programs under the auspices of the State Department?
Answer. The Department of State greatly appreciates the value of
the Rule of Law Collaborative and the role it plays in fostering
interagency cooperation and education. The Department looks forward to
continuing current discussions with the subcommittee on the best
mechanism for engagement with the Collaborative upon the completion of
the DOD contract.
south africa
Question. The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $459 million
for HIV/AIDS programs in South Africa.
What is the plan for graduating South Africa from this assistance,
and who will pick up the costs (the South African Government or
multilateral institutions, such as the Global Fund)?
What other countries receiving U.S. assistance to combat HIV/AIDS
are expected to graduate within the next 5 years?
What communications strategy exists to highlight the success of
U.S. foreign assistance in these countries?
Answer. Progress in South Africa exemplifies the second phase of
President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), with its emphasis
on sustainability and country ownership. The South African Government
has provided significant support for the HIV response exemplified by
the fact that they have always purchased the antiretroviral drugs for
their HIV treatment programs. However, in recent years, the South
African Government further ramped up its investment in its national
HIV/AIDS response to $1.1 billion in 2011, with a commitment to
increase its funding to $1.3 billion in 2012. Along with this increase
in funding, the South African Government will also assume increased
direct responsibility for implementation of the national HIV response.
As South Africa steps up its financial and political commitment to the
HIV/AIDS response, PEPFAR's role will shift from directly funding
treatment of patients to primarily supporting health systems and
providing technical assistance. Over the next 5 years, we anticipate a
gradual step-down in United States funding as care and treatment
programs are transitioned into the primary healthcare system and
managed and funded by South Africa. Successful management of this
transition will mean more comprehensive and efficient healthcare for
all South Africans. The South African Government and United States
Government will work together to communicate the benefits of these
shifts, highlight the continued rapid scale-up of the national HIV and
tuberculosis (TB) response, maintain a high-quality continuum of care,
and ensure that all patients continue to receive care and treatment
services without interruption. The two governments are now in
negotiations around a Partnership Framework Implementation Plan (PFIP),
which will define opportunities and timeframe to decrease PEPFAR
investments in care and treatment programs where the South African
Government is able to take on a greater financial burden, as well as
specific capacity-building activities necessary to support this
transition.
Global Fund resources also contribute to the transition. PEPFAR
provided a one-time $120 million investment for antiretroviral (ARV)
commodity/procurement assistance over fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year
2010 to help supplement the national supply in the face of drug
shortages and planned scale-up. This bridge funding was structured to
allow South Africa time to strengthen national procurement systems and
the pharmaceutical supply chain. The South African Government's new
tender to procure drugs resulted in more than a 50-percent reduction in
the cost of ARV drugs. Contributions from the Global Fund will help to
ensure that financial resources are available to capitalize on these
cost savings and allow the South African Government to put more South
Africans on treatment. Two-thirds of the $303 million Round 10 Global
Fund grant is dedicated to the purchase of pharmaceuticals, and it will
supply about 10 percent of the total expenditure for ARV drugs.
Our transition plan in South Africa will be linked to the South
African Government increasing management of the prevention and
treatment of HIV/AIDS and will include close collaboration with other
donors and institutions like the Global Fund to continue to reduce
costs and increase the impact of financial commitments. While United
States Government funding will gradually step-down, the overall funding
for HIV in South Africa will be stable or increasing, primarily through
South African Government resources. This will be an important success
story in the development of country-led responses to the HIV pandemic.
botswana
Botswana and Namibia are examples of other countries that are
expected to take on a greater portion of their own HIV response in the
coming years, allowing the United States Government to focus resources
on a more limited technical support role while continuing to meet
established goals. Since PEPFAR made initial investments in Botswana in
2003, the Government of Botswana has consistently increased its
political and financial commitment to addressing the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
Since PEPFAR's inception, the Government of Botswana has taken over a
growing share of previously PEPFAR-supported treatment activities, such
as purchasing all antiretroviral drugs. The Government of Botswana is
now taking on even more treatment costs with its move to treatment
below a CD4 count of 350 in April 2012, while PEPFAR will provide
technical assistance with provider training and lab capacity.
The PEPFAR Botswana team, together with the Government of Botswana,
is developing a transition plan that focuses on reducing the U.S.
Government investment in direct service delivery for care and treatment
and Prevention of Mother to Child Transmission (PMTCT) and increasing
investment in providing technical assistance to the Government of
Botswana. The capacity of Botswana to continue services for care and
treatment and PMTCT is strong, and the overall funding available for
the HIV response in country will likely remain stable due to the
continued commitment of the government. As the United States Government
and the Government of Botswana continue to dialogue about the
transition of programs to national funding, the PEPFAR Botswana team
will monitor the quality of services provided to ensure that Batswana
infected and affected by HIV/AIDS continue to receive high-quality
services.
namibia
The Government of the Republic of Namibia currently contributes 50
percent of financing for the national HIV/AIDS response, and has
committed to increasing its financial contribution to 70 percent of the
costed need by 2015/2016. As articulated in the Partnership Framework
between the United States Government and Government of the Republic of
Namibia, over the next few years the U.S. Government will move away
from direct support of service delivery to increased provision of
technical assistance. Of particular importance, the Government of the
Republic of Namibia has agreed to absorb many U.S. Government-funded
healthcare worker positions into the public health system. In addition,
the Government of the Republic of Namibia will fully fund the purchase
of commodities for HIV services. Discussions continue around the rate
at which overall U.S. Government financial investments will decrease
over the next 5 years. The decline in U.S. Government spending will be
carefully monitored to ensure the quality of services remains high.
president's emergency plan for aids relief communications strategy
PEPFAR is a major asset to U.S. public diplomacy efforts worldwide
and specifically in countries where PEPFAR invests. In the majority of
PEPFAR countries, an interagency PEPFAR communications working group
composed of implementing U.S. agencies convenes to strategically
publicize and promote PEPFAR programs under one U.S. Government
umbrella. PEPFAR communications strategies vary at the country level,
but overall seek to highlight key programmatic messages to inform
partner governments, the development community in that country, and
foreign publics on HIV/AIDS services supported by the U.S. Government
and their successes. As shifts in available PEPFAR funds are made, U.S.
Government communicators will convey them. Yet most importantly,
communicators will have an opportunity to showcase the strides made and
the lives saved.
food security
Question. The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $1 billion
for the Feed the Future Initiative, which seeks to improve agriculture
productivity through research, innovation and development, and to
improve farmer access to markets and nutrition.
What portion of the budget request will support the use of
genetically modified seed, and what impact would the use of such seed
have on food productivity in Africa?
Answer. The fiscal year 2013 budget request for agricultural
research under Feed the Future (FTF) does not explicitly delineate
planned activities based on the use of genetic engineering. However,
historical (pre-FTF) obligations for agricultural research and
development activities using genetic engineering are $13.8 million,
$16.5 million, and $14.9 million in fiscal year 2011, fiscal year 2010,
and fiscal year 2009, respectively. These amounts represent 16, 26, and
24 percent of the total agriculture and development budget in fiscal
year 2011, fiscal year 2010, and fiscal year 2009, respectively.
Genetic engineering specifically, and more broadly biotechnologies,
have significant roles in increasing agricultural productivity and
resilience, particularly in light of climate change and the need to
improve the nutritional value of staple foods. It is one tool among
many that we must deploy to improve productivity in a time of declining
resources. Consequently, U.S. agencies are working with countries to
develop genetically engineered plant varieties that address
agricultural challenges for which conventional approaches have been
unsuccessful, partnering with both the public and private sector to
ensure equitable access to technologies developed using biotechnology,
and helping partner countries develop science-based biotechnology
regulations to ensure product safety and efficacy.
U.S. Government-funded research to unlock the potential of
biotechnology, both through genetic engineering and other biotechnology
techniques, is underway in several countries, including the development
of:
--Disease-resistant bananas in Uganda;
--Virus-resistant cassava in Kenya and Uganda;
--Insect-resistant cowpeas in Nigeria and Ghana; and
--Nitrogen-efficient maize and rice, and salt-and drought-tolerant
rice in sub-Saharan Africa.
On the regulatory side, USAID supports the Program for Biosafety
Systems (PBS), which is managed by the International Food Policy
Research Institute. PBS has contributed to the passage of biosafety
laws in Kenya, Nigeria, and Ghana, along with the first-ever field
evaluations of genetically engineered crops in Uganda and Nigeria, all
of which pave the way for the adoption and commercialization of biotech
crops in those countries.
The Department of State and USAID will continue the support
highlighted above through the fiscal year 2013 Feed the Future budget
request of $142 million for agriculture research and development. Of
the requested amount, USAID plans to provide more than $10 million to
promote the role of biotechnology in increasing agriculture
productivity.
Question. What are the major obstacles to the use of genetically
modified seed and what incentives can the U.S. develop for encouraging
the use of such seed in Africa?
Answer. Misinformation about biotechnology--the claim that it is
inherently harmful--is a key obstacle. There continue to be
misperceptions about the safety of products derived from modern
biotechnology. This has led some policy makers in Africa to be hesitant
in adopting the technology. Overcoming the reservations of policy
makers about the potential risks of biotechnology, including concerns
about the impact on trade, is perhaps our greatest challenge.
Inadequate public awareness about the potential benefits of
biotechnology in enhancing food security, improving livelihoods, and
mitigating climate change is another barrier.
Going forward, the absence of enabling environments, such as
biotechnology laws and regulatory systems that would allow needed
investments in the technology, will likely be the most significant
barriers. With the enactment of biotechnology laws and establishment of
regulatory systems, a significant amount of capacity building and
resources would also be needed in Africa to conduct science-based risk
assessments for biotech products and crops in the pipeline. Without
such systems in place to either adopt the technology or to authorize
the importation of biotech products in an expeditious fashion, trade
disruptions occur and farmers and industry are not incentivized to
produce biotech crops.
Ultimately, individual African governments will have to make the
decision to accept and adopt biotechnology for the good of their
people; we are seeing some signs that biotechnology is slowly gaining
acceptance in Africa. Prior to the 2008 food price crisis, many African
countries were reluctant to consider biotech crops for fear of losing
access to important international markets, particularly in Europe where
opposition to biotechnology is strong. Increasingly, however, African
countries are making decisions based on their own domestic needs. In
addition, scientists are developing more staple crops, such as cassava
and sorghum, which meet African needs but do not raise trade concerns.
The United States Government aids African governments interested in
developing biotechnology to develop science-based, transparent
regulatory systems and to build research capacity, while conducting
outreach programs to increase awareness about the use of biotechnology
as a tool to achieving greater food security. In fiscal year 2012, the
Department of State, in consultation with other agencies, has
identified seven African countries--Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania,
Malawi, Mozambique, and Uganda--to focus its biotech outreach efforts
where we believe the necessary local policy conditions exist for the
adoption of biotechnology. We will utilize the Department's Biotech
Outreach Funds to advance this effort, in coordination with and in
support of ongoing USAID and USDA biotech-related activities.
Question. How is the Feed the Future Initiative coordinated with
the work conducted by other organizations, specifically the Gates
Foundation?
Answer. Central to Feed the Future efforts is a partner country-
driven approach to addressing the root causes of hunger and poverty.
Recognizing that agriculture depends on the strength of a range of
institutions working and investing together, building new markets and
supply chains, sustainably taking new initiatives to scale and
improving global economic potential, we are leveraging the private
sector, philanthropic and NGOs, and diaspora communities as we work
with host-country partners in a comprehensive way to address global
food security needs.
Specifically, USAID works closely with the Gates foundation through
both joint funding and complementary programs in agricultural research.
Some examples include jointly supported efforts in developing cassava
varieties resistant to devastating viruses in Africa through
biotechnology, promoting and adapting conservation agriculture for
climate resilience in South Asia under the Cereal Systems Initiative
for South Asia, and training the next generation of female agricultural
scientists under the Agricultural Women in Agricultural Research and
Development program. In addition, USAID and the Gates foundation are
two of the largest donors to the Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research centers and actively participate in the
governance of the system. Our investments to support the African-led
Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa are also complemented by
support for aflatoxin control in Africa through the Gates Foundation
and the UK's Department for International Development. These
investments fall in line with the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture
Development Program's priority of making aflatoxin control central to
improved food security in Africa.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Kirk
Question. In your view, should United States policy allow Iran to
become a nuclear threshold state?
Do you consider ``containment'' to be a viable United States policy
with regard to the Iran and its nuclear program?
How would you define failure in the administration's current Iran
policy?
In your view, can the United States allow Iran to acquire a nuclear
weapons capability?
Answer. The administration has been unequivocal about its policy
toward Iran. A nuclear-armed Iran would be counter to the national
security interests of the United States, and we are determined to
prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. This is a top national
security priority for the Obama administration, and our dual track
strategy of pressure and engagement is aimed at preventing such a
destabilizing development. We must also counter Iran's destabilizing
actions in the region and beyond, including Iran's sponsorship of
terrorist organizations. We must also spare no effort to advance
America's broader interests in democracy, human rights, peace, and
economic development throughout the region. Containment would not allow
us to achieve these broad goals.
Question. On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the fiscal
year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law, including
the Menendez-Kirk amendment (section 1245) imposing sanctions against
the Central Bank of Iran (CBI). In its implementing rule, the
administration gave you broad discretion to define a country's
``significant reduction'' in crude oil purchases from Iran and to grant
exceptions to sanctions related to petroleum transactions.
Can you provide a detailed description of the State Department's
efforts in working with our international partners--particularly China,
India, and Turkey--to ensure their compliance with CBI sanctions? What
has been their response thus far?
Answer. This administration has applied unprecedented economic
pressure on Iran through a whole-of-government effort, to force its
government to return to the negotiating table, and prove the exclusive
peaceful nature of its nuclear program.
Since the enactment of the NDAA for fiscal year 2012, the State
Department has engaged in an extensive diplomatic campaign, and
numerous administration officials have travel led across the globe, to
urge states to reduce their imports of oil from Iran and end their
transactions with CBI, as well as to implement their own national
measures against Iran.
Our efforts have had significant success. In fact, we worked
closely with the European Union and welcome their January 23 decision
to ban all new contracts for, among other things, the import, purchase,
or transport of Iranian crude oil by its member states, and to impose
sanctions on Bank Tejarat and CBI. We have also engaged Japan in
constructive discussions on the implementation of these sanctions, in a
spirit of very strong cooperation. We have had productive discussions
with many other countries, including Turkey and India, to explain the
law, urge them to reduce their oil imports, and underscore the
importance of diversifying their energy supplies.
Furthermore, we have engaged China, at every opportunity, to
discuss the implementation of the NDAA sanctions, urge its government
to significantly reduce its imports of Iranian crude, and press its
companies not to ``backfill'' the business of other firms that have
taken the responsible course and departed Iran's energy sector.
Question. Section 7041(a) of the fiscal year 2012 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (Public Law 112-74) stipulated that no aid shall be
provided to the Government of Egypt unless that government is committed
to ``holding free and fair elections; implementing policies to protect
freedom of expression, association, and religion, and due process of
law.''
In light of the recent actions by the Egyptian Government with
regard to the trial of foreign nongovernmental organization (NGO)
employees, including American citizens, do you believe that Egypt
currently meets the requirements under Public Law 112-74?
Do you believe the United States should provide assistance to an
Egyptian Government that does not comply with the Camp David Peace
Accords?
What is the administration's policy toward the Muslim Brotherhood
and the Salafists now positioned to control Egypt's parliament? What
can we do to ensure the current round of elections will not be Egypt's
last?
Answer. Egypt has made important progress in its transition by
holding credible parliamentary elections and preparing for presidential
elections in advance of the commitment by the Supreme Council of the
Armed Forces to hand over power to a civilian president by the end of
June. We remain deeply concerned about ongoing human rights abuses and
restrictions on civil society, and we continue to urge the Egyptian
Government to drop its charges against Egyptian and international NGO
staff and revise laws on association to meet international standards
and to respect the right of all people to associate freely.
With regard to freedom of expression, we are encouraged by the
proliferation of Egyptian media outlets and the use of social media
over the last year, but we remain concerned about the government's
detentions of bloggers and journalists by military prosecutors.
Although the military lifted the emergency law except in cases of
``thuggery'', this exception is so broadly defined that the law has the
potential to limit full freedom of association and expression.
With respect to freedom of religion, we remain concerned about the
continuing lack of accountability for many incidents of sectarian
violence that have occurred before and after the revolution. Egypt has
made some strides, notably through the passage of anti-discrimination
amendments to the penal code, but more needs to be done to protect
religious freedom.
The Egyptian Government has reaffirmed its intent to uphold the
1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, and both sides have a profound interest
in maintaining it. In the event that circumstances change, we retain
the flexibility to make adjustments to our assistance program at any
time. We will continue to emphasize in our discussions with Egypt's new
and emerging leaders that it is in Egypt's strategic interest to
continue to abide by the treaty obligations.
Egyptians have elected new representatives to both houses of
parliament. We are committed to engaging with the full spectrum of
Egypt's parliamentarians, whether they are Islamists or secularists,
and building a partnership with Egypt's next government. In doing so,
we will continue to stress our support for democratic principles,
including the rights of women and religious minorities, and a
commitment to nonviolence and regional peace and security.
Our diplomatic outreach and assistance to Egypt during this
critical period is designed to facilitate Egypt's successful transition
to a civilian, democratic government that meets the aspirations of
Egyptians. We will continue to engage with the Egyptian Government,
members of civil society, the business community, and our international
partners to support a truly democratic and lasting system of government
in Egypt.
Question. Japanese media reported that the United States Government
administration would grant Japan an exception to petroleum-related
sanctions based on an 11-percent reduction in Japanese crude oil
purchases from Iran--is this correct? If not, what threshold will you
define as qualifying for the ``significant reduction'' requirement?
Answer. The Departments of Energy, State, and the Treasury have
sent teams of senior-level officials all over the world for frank
discussions on the sanctions provisions in the NDAA for fiscal year
2012.
While we cannot detail here our specific discussions for reasons of
confidentiality and regard for proprietary information, we've had
positive responses from a number of countries. Japan, despite hardships
and the loss of energy capacity after Fukushima, reduced significantly
its imports of crude oil from Iran in the second half of 2011. Japan's
oil industry has aggressively sought out new suppliers as an
alternative to Iran. In a different set of circumstances, the European
Union took legally binding action to reduce its crude oil imports from
Iran to zero. That helps illustrate why it is in our best interest to
engage each country on actions it can take, and not present a level
that could understate what is possible.
Decisions on what constitutes having ``significantly reduced'' in
terms Iranian crude oil purchases will require renewal every 180 days.
Question. From a diplomatic perspective, how do you set one
threshold of ``significant reduction'' for one country and set another
threshold for a second country?
Answer. We look at a number of sources of information in
considering whether a country has ``significantly reduced'' its volume
of crude oil purchases from Iran.
For example, we may take into account for how much crude oil a
country consumes in the aggregate and how much comes from sources other
than Iran. By way of illustration, a country which consumes 100,000
barrels per day of oil from Iran out of a total crude consumption of 1
million barrels per day has more scope for quick reductions than a
country for which Iran is a more significant--or even the sole--
supplier. Our goal is for countries to demonstrate significant and
sustainable reductions in crude oil imports from Iran, recognizing that
the means used to achieve this outcome may vary based on individual
circumstances.
Question. Section 7041(e) of Public Law 112-74 prohibits aid to the
Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) if the LAF ``is controlled by a foreign
terrorist organization'' and stipulates that fiscal year 2012 funds
only be available ``to professionalize the LAF and to strengthen border
security and combat terrorism.''
In your view, what influence does Hezballah have on the LAF?
How would you assess the progress of the LAF's training and
performance?
Answer. While we continue to have concerns about Hezballah's
influence within the body politic, we do not believe this government to
be ``Hezballah-run'', nor do we assess that Hezballah wields any
meaningful influence over the LAF. Currently, Hezballah holds 2 out of
30 cabinet seats--the same number it held in the previous government of
Saad Hariri. In fact, Prime Minister Najib Mikati and his centrist
allies in the cabinet have been successful in maintaining the
government's commitment to Lebanon's international obligations, despite
pressure from Hezballah and other pro-Syrian factions within Lebanon to
do the opposite.
We carefully watch for any attempt by Hezballah, Syria, or Iran to
establish influence over the LAF. To date, the LAF has resisted these
efforts and prioritizes its relationship with the United States. The
LAF's Commander, General Jean Khawagi, reports to the Lebanese Cabinet
and to the Prime Minister and is independent of any specific political
faction in Lebanon.
United States security assistance in Lebanon is targeted at
building the LAF's professionalism and capacity as it relates to three
specific goals:
--implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1701 to ensure
stability south of the Litani river;
--maintaining internal security and preventing a violent spillover
from Syria; and
--combating terrorism.
With the support of United States assistance and training, the LAF
maintains a presence in all areas of Lebanon, including Southern
Lebanon and the area south of the Litani (as called for by UN Security
Council Resolution 1701).
Recent examples of successful LAF operations include effective
counter-rocket patrols south of the Litani, which led to the arrest of
rocket-firing perpetrators in December 2011; the dismantling of a large
narco-terrorism ring in late February 2012; and a series of low-scale,
pre-emptive counterterrorism operations since last year which have
prevented al Qaeda from gaining a foothold in Lebanon. On February 12,
2012, the LAF mounted a major operation to intervene and stop a
sectarian clash in the Northern Lebanese city of Tripoli. LAF units
were able to interpose themselves between combatants, stop the
fighting, and made a number of arrests and seizures of weapons.
Furthermore, the LAF continues to cooperate with United Nations
Interim Force In Lebanon to maintain stability along the blue line
between Lebanon and Israel. The LAF's commitment to maintain stability
was on display when it prevented violence by Palestinian groups during
the June 5, 2011 ``Naksa day'' protests.
As we have briefed in the past, the LAF maintains an impeccable
end-use record; there is no evidence that any U.S. assistance has been
transferred to Hezballah or other unauthorized users. The Department of
State will continue to implement end use monitoring, vetting, and other
existing safeguards designed to minimize the risk that Hezballah or
other terrorist organizations will benefit from U.S. assistance
activities.
next steps
Question. What are the next steps in United States policy toward
Syria?
Would you support providing direct United States assistance to
Syrian opposition groups, including self-defense aid to the Free Syrian
Army?
Answer. The United States is taking concrete action along three
lines:
--providing emergency humanitarian relief to the Syrian people;
--ratcheting up economic and diplomatic pressure on the regime; and
--encouraging the opposition to unite around a platform of outreach
to Syria's minorities and peaceful, orderly political
transition.
We are continuously consulting with the like-minded partners on
ways to pressure the regime to end violence and enable a political
process to move forward. Moreover, we have built an international
coalition dedicated to the same goals and methods, one that has been on
display in the United Nations (UN) General Assembly and the recent
Friends of the Syrian People conference.
On February 24, the United States along with 60-plus members of the
Friends of the Syrian People made commitments to get humanitarian aid
to the suffering Syrian people, to increase diplomatic pressure and
tighten sanctions on Asad and his regime, to strengthen the transition
planning of the opposition, and to support the efforts of United
Nations envoy Kofi Annan and the Arab League (AL) to end the violence
and begin a true dialogue that will lead to the change the Syrian
people deserve. Since the inaugural meeting, the European Union
announced its 12th round of sanctions against the Asad regime, which
were expanded on February 27 to include Syria's central bank and trade
in precious metals and diamonds. Joint UN/AL Special Envoy Kofi Annan
announced plans to travel to Damascus to meet with the Asad regime and
will present a proposal to end violence and unrest in Syria, increase
access for humanitarian agencies, release detainees, and start an
inclusive political dialogue. It is not clear that he will be able to
make progress. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov intends to meet with the
AL's Syria Committee on March 10. We look forward to advancing these
goals at the next Friends of the Syrian People meeting in Turkey.
On the humanitarian front, the Friends of the Syria People meeting
resulted in pledges of tens of millions of dollars in humanitarian
assistance for the Syrian people. Although United Nations
Undersecretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Response
Coordinator Valerie Amos was not granted authorization to travel to
Syria in late February, we have urged Syrian authorities to grant
immediate and unfettered access as soon as possible. As part of its
ongoing emergency food operation targeting 100,000 conflict-affected
individuals in Syria, since February 20, the World Food Program has
delivered 16,850 family food rations--sufficient to feed approximately
84,000 people for 1 month--to Syrian Arab Red Crescent (SARC)
warehouses in 11 governorates. The SARC had distributed more than 7,000
WFP food rations to beneficiaries in 11 designated governorates,
although several of the worst-affected areas within the governorates
remain inaccessible due to insecurity. The Organization of Islamic
Cooperation also announced that Syrian authorities had granted the
group permission to send humanitarian aid to Syria.
arming opposition
We have not seen our role to date as one of injecting arms and
munitions into Syria or encouraging others to do so. As I have said,
``There is every possibility of a civil war. Outside intervention would
not prevent that--it would probably expedite it. As you try to play out
every possible scenario, there are a lot of bad ones that we are trying
to assess.''
We have been very resistant to the idea of pouring fuel onto the
fire ignited by the Asad regime. Rather, we have defined our role
largely in terms of encouraging a peaceful transition by working to
isolate this outlaw regime diplomatically, crimping its cash flow, and
encouraging the opposition to unite around a platform of outreach to
Syria's minorities and peaceful, orderly political transition.
Moreover, we have built an international coalition dedicated to the
same goals and methods, one that has been on display in the UN General
Assembly and the recent Friends of the Syrian People conference.
For now, we assess that a negotiated political solution is still
possible and is the best way to end the bloodshed and achieve a
peaceful transition to democracy, but as the Secretary recently said in
London, ``There will be increasingly capable opposition forces. They
will, from somewhere, somehow, find the means to defend themselves as
well as begin offensive measures.''
Question. Do you find it inconsistent that as Russia continues to
supply the Assad regime with weapons, the United States Government
continues to do business with Russian state arms company
Rosoboronexport?
Answer. We have voiced our concerns about Russian weapons sales to
Syria repeatedly, both publicly and through diplomatic channels with
senior Russian officials. Last August, Secretary Clinton publicly urged
Russia to cease arms sales to Syria. We will continue to press Russia
on any activities that contribute to the Syrian regime's violent
crackdown or threaten regional stability.
The Mi-17 helicopter purchase effort, conducted directly through
Rosoboronexport, is critical to building the capacity of the
Afghanistan security forces. This in no way excuses Rosoboronexport for
its activities with Syria, but our acquisition of these helicopters is
part of our ongoing strategy to hand over the security of Afghanistan
to its people. For additional specific questions regarding U.S.
contracts with Rosoboronexport, I must refer you to the Department of
Defense.
Question. Given Russian support for Assad's brutal attacks against
the Syrian people, would you now agree that the administration's push
to provide Russia access to sensitive United States missile defense
data and technology was misguided?
Answer. The administration is extremely disappointed that the
Russian Federation vetoed our attempts to pass a United Nations
Security Council resolution condemning the situation in Syria. We have
voiced our concerns about Russian weapons sales to Syria repeatedly,
both publicly and through diplomatic channels with senior Russian
officials. Nevertheless, cooperation between the United States of
America and the Russian Federation is necessary for many security-
related issues.
Like previous Republican and Democratic administrations, this
administration is committed to missile defense cooperation with Russia.
The United States continues to assess what information it would be in
our interest to share with Russia and others regarding the capabilities
of United States missile defense systems. This assessment will affect
information shared directly, during tests, and in any future
cooperation. It is administration policy that the United States will
only provide information to Russia that will facilitate enhance the
effectiveness of our missile defenses.
We will not provide Russia with information about our missile
defense systems and capabilities that would in any way compromise our
national security. We will, however, continue to press Russia on any
activities that contribute to the Syrian regime's violent crackdown or
threaten regional stability.
Question. The conference report to Public Law 112-74 mandates that
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) produce a report to the
Appropriations Committees of the House of Representatives and the
Senate outlining the steps that would be required to transition
services currently provided in the West Bank by the United Nations
Works and Relief Agency (UNRWA) to the Palestinian Authority (PA).
Answer. The State Department regularly cooperates with GAO in its
efforts to respond to congressionally mandated reporting requirements,
and we will offer our complete cooperation in response to the
conference report request for the GAO to conduct an assessment of the
ability of the PA to assume responsibility for any of the programs and
activities conducted by UNRWA in the West Bank and the actions that
would be required by the PA to assume such responsibility. The U.S.
Government has extensive oversight of UNRWA and uses every mechanism
possible to enhance due diligence on U.S. funds provided through the
organization. United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) is currently working with GAO on its audits concerning fiscal
year 2010 and fiscal year 2011.
UNRWA has the sole United Nations mandate to assist Palestinian
refugees until there is a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. UNRWA's mandate is governed by the UN General Assembly. UNRWA
provides essential humanitarian and education support to refugees in
the PA-controlled West Bank that is beyond the financial and
organizational capacity of the PA at present. We look forward to the
day that UNRWA is no longer needed, but this need will continue until
there is a resolution to the Palestinian refugee question in the
context of a negotiated peace.
Question. Will you commit to providing the GAO complete cooperation
and access to information needed to fulfill this mandate, including
information related to the PA's accounting and payment systems?
The State Department has posted copies of its 2010, 2011, and 2012
Framework for Cooperation between UNRWA and the Government of the
United States of America on the State Department's Web site. The
Frameworks can be accessed at http://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/
frameworknew/index.htm. Upon request, we would be happy to brief the
Senator or interested staff in additional detail on other relevant
agreements or documents between UNRWA and the Government of the United
States of America.
Question. Can you provide my office with copies of all frameworks,
agreements, understandings, or contracts signed and/or agreed to
between UNRWA and the Government of the United States of America for
all years since 1950?
Who was responsible for negotiating the Framework for Cooperation
between UNRWA and the Government of the United States of America for
2011, who will be responsible for negotiating the next framework for
cooperation and when will the next framework be signed?
Answer. The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM)
leads the annual framework negotiations with UNRWA for the Department
of State, in consultation with State Department colleagues. The 2012
Framework for Cooperation was signed on December 16, 2011, by PRM
Acting Assistant Secretary David Robinson and UNRWA Commissioner
General Filippo Grandi. A copy of this Framework is available on the
State Department's Web site. The 2012 Framework is effective January 1,
2012 through December 31, 2012. Negotiations for the 2013 Framework
will begin in August 2012.
Question. Pursuant to report language in Public Law 112-74, how
does the State Department plan to prioritize the protection of
vulnerable ethno-religious minorities in Iraq, specifically the Chaldo-
Assyrian communities in the Nineveh Plains?
Would you support the establishment of an autonomous region in the
Nineveh Plains consistent with Article 125 of the Iraqi constitution?
Answer. Security for Iraq's minority communities is a high priority
for the United States Government. We continue to work with the
Government of Iraq and Iraq's religious and ethnic minority communities
to address the challenges faced by these communities in Iraq.
The Government of Iraq provides security for churches and has hired
members from Iraq's minority communities to serve in the Government of
Iraq's Facilities Protection Services (FPS), which is charged with
protecting religious entities in Iraq. Hiring of minority FPS officers
was a request of the minority communities and we have been pleased to
see the Government of Iraq maintain its commitment to this issue as
well as provide increased protection during Christian holidays. Through
the Department's Iraq Police Development Program (PDP), United States
trainers and advisors work with Iraq's Interior Ministry to improve
internal security in a manner that is consistent with international
policing and human rights and support efforts to build a police force
that is inclusive of all Iraqis.
Article 125 of the Iraqi Constitution ``guarantees the
administrative, political, cultural, and educational rights of the
various nationalities, such as Turkomen, Chaldeans, Assyrians, and all
other constituents.'' Some minorities refer to ``administrative''
rights as the right to create an autonomous region, or province, for
minorities in Iraq. The United States Government believes the creation
of an autonomous region for minorities in Iraq is a sovereign issue for
minority communities and the Government of Iraq to decide. The
Department notes that the position within the communities on the
creation of an autonomous region remains divided.
To encourage Iraq's minorities to work together on issues of common
interest, the Department has supported the U.S. Institute of Peace
(USIP) in the creation of a ``Minorities Caucus'' within Iraq's Council
of Representatives to provide legislative training and capacity
development to enable Caucus members to speak with one voice to the
highest levels of the Iraqi Government. The Caucus has been able to
promote minority rights through legislation. USIP's Rule of Law program
also established the Alliance of Iraqi Minorities, a network of 10
minority NGOs and more than 30 leading activists equipped to provide
input on minority concerns to local and national government officials.
Moving forward, we will continue to support Iraqi-led initiatives
to help create conditions for Iraq's minorities to remain in Iraq.
Question. In response to my October 2011 letter regarding perimeter
protection of United States facilities in Iraq, the State Department
wrote that ``with the exception of two temporary facilities, all sites
in Iraq under Chief of Mission Authority . . . meet or exceed
requirements established by the Overseas Security Policy Board
(OSPB).''
How many temporary facilities that the State Department will
operate have been (or are being) constructed in Iraq? Can you identify
temporary facilities that do not meet the required OSPB standards? Have
you investigated and identified why these facilities do not meet these
standards and what alternatives exist to ensure that these requirements
are met?
Answer. How many temporary facilities that the State Department
will operate have been (or are being) constructed in Iraq?
The Department maintains seven temporary compounds in Iraq:
--Baghdad Policy Academy Annex (BPAX, formerly Joint Security Station
Shield);
--Embassy Annex Prosperity;
--Baghdad Diplomatic Support Center (BDSC, formerly Sather Airbase);
--Consulate General Basrah;
--Consulate General Erbil (Ankawa);
--Consulate General Kirkuk; and, Erbil Diplomatic Support Center
(EDSC).
Can you identify temporary facilities that do not meet the required
OSPB standards?
At the time of the Department's response to Senator Kirk's October
2011 letter, three \1\ Department of State temporary facilities--BPAX,
Embassy Annex Prosperity, and BDSC--had pending waivers to OSPB and
Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (SECCA)
standards. Subsequently, Embassy Annex Prosperity has been granted a
waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Department's previous response referred to two facilities.
This was an oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we are in various stages of requesting waivers and/or
exceptions for Consulates General in Erbil, Basrah, and Kirkuk, and
EDSC.
Question. Have you investigated and identified why these facilities
do not meet these standards and what alternatives exist to ensure that
these requirements are met?
Answer. All Department facilities throughout Iraq are subject to
OSPB (12 FAH-6 H-114.4) policies and SECCA requirements. The need to be
mission-capable by a certain date, on a given site, and with due
attention to the cost of these temporary sites meant that in some cases
compliance with one or more standards was not possible. The Department,
therefore, utilized exception and waiver procedures. Waivers and
exception packages identify the deficiencies for each site and allow
the Department to give careful consideration to operating in a facility
that does not meet OSPB or SECCA standards. This is done by evaluating
the risks, and deciding when security considerations permit the
standards to be waived in a particular case.
Where OSPB and SECCA standards could not be met, the following
mitigation strategies were utilized as temporary measures for temporary
facilities:
--Overhead protective systems are in place at BPAX, BDSC, and
Consulate General Basrah. These systems result from a threat-
driven initiative by Post, rather than a regulatory
requirement.
--T-Walls backed by Jersey barriers to meet anti-climb and anti-ram
requirements are in place or being installed for perimeters at
EDSC, Prosperity, BPAX, BDSC, Consulate General Basrah, and
Consulate General Erbil.
--T-Walls for side-blast mitigation around offices and living spaces
are used at EDSC, Prosperity, BPAX, BDSC, and Consulate General
Basrah. As stated in the Department's response to Senator
Kirk's October 2011 letter, T-Walls provide limited blast
mitigation. The Department worked to transfer the majority of
these barriers from the Department of Defense to stretch
limited financial resources and be good stewards of public
monies while meeting the need for expediency in a contingency
operating environment.
--Robust perimeter guard towers are employed at all Department of
State sites, except Consulate General Erbil and EDSC. These
towers are a DS-supported initiative in response to the
evaluation of potential threat rather than to a regulatory
standard. The Department continually monitors the risk levels,
the mitigation strategies in place, and any change in the
expected length of occupancy of these temporary facilities. If
additional measures are required, including full compliance
with the applicable standards where possible, we will act.
Question. As required by section 7046(c) of Public Law 112-74, are
you prepared to certify that Pakistan is ``not supporting terrorist
activities against United States or coalition forces in Afghanistan''
or ``cooperating with the United States in counterterrorism efforts
against the Haqqani Network''?
Answer. I do not want to presuppose or prejudice the findings of
any certification review, but I assure you that we will diligently and
thoroughly consider the certification requirements set forth in the
statute and all the relevant facts when determining whether Pakistan is
cooperating with the United States against the Haqqani Network.
Question. What steps is the administration taking to press Turkey
to end its blockade of Armenia and to normalize relations without
preconditions?
Answer. The Obama administration strongly supports the efforts of
Turkey and Armenia to normalize their bilateral relations. The United
States maintains an ongoing dialogue with Turkish and Armenian
officials at all levels on these issues, and we will continue to
support the courageous steps taken by individuals in Armenia and Turkey
to foster a dialogue that acknowledges the history they share in
common.
The U.S. Government also supports a number of track II initiatives
to enhance people-to-people connections, building a foundation for
reconciliation on which our foreign policy goal of peace, stability and
normalization can grow. Our Embassy in Ankara supported youth
leadership seminars with Armenian, Turkish, and American participants;
university exchanges have focused on tourism development; and English
teacher training has examined the role of language to promote cross
cultural ties. The USAID mission in Armenia funded a large Armenia-
Turkey project implemented by the Eurasia Partnership Foundation from
2010 to 2012, and plans to continue supporting cross-border programs in
the coming fiscal year. Our Embassy in Yerevan supported a multi-
national youth orchestra for cultural dialogue through music. Both
Embassies provide small grants to local NGOs and alumni of U.S.-funded
exchange programs to support cross-border reconciliation projects.
Question. On December 13, 2011, the House of Representatives
unanimously passed a resolution calling on Turkey to return Christian
churches and properties (H. Res. 306).
What efforts has the administration undertaken in this regard and
what has been Turkey's response? Are you satisfied with the response?
Answer. The return of the property of minority religious
communities in Turkey is an important goal of this administration, and
we have repeatedly raised this issue with Turkish officials at the most
senior levels. Religious minority groups continue to face challenges in
Turkey, but we are encouraged by the concrete and important steps the
Government of Turkey has recently taken to address historical
grievances and promote religious freedom.
In August 2011, for example, Prime Minister Erdogan issued a decree
allowing religious minorities to apply to reclaim churches, synagogues,
and other properties confiscated 75 years ago. Several properties have
already been returned to the 24 minority religious community
foundations which have applied thus far. In November 2010, the
Government of Turkey returned the Buyukada orphanage to the Ecumenical
Patriarchate, in line with a ruling by the European Court of Human
Rights. Separately, speaking to the press on the issue of the re-
opening of Halki Seminary, Deputy Prime Minister Bozdag said in
February the government would ``support such a move.'' He went on to
say, ``The main debate is on the status of the school; it is not about
permission.'' We will continue to urge the Government of Turkey to
follow through on this commitment.
The redrafting of Turkey's constitution also represents a
significant development for Turkey's minority religious communities.
Parliament speaker Cemil Cicek has reached out to Orthodox, Jewish,
Armenian, and Syriac leaders during this process. On February 20, the
Ecumenical Patriarch was invited to address the Turkish Parliament for
the first time in the history of the republic. In his address he
acknowledged ongoing challenges when it comes to religious freedom in
Turkey, but also noted the positive changes taking place when he
remarked, ``Unfortunately, there have been injustices toward minorities
until now. These are slowly being corrected and changed. A new Turkey
is being born.''
We welcome these positive steps but also recognize that more needs
to be done. This administration will continue to monitor Turkey's
progress closely, in consultation with the religious communities
affected, urging the Government of Turkey to return all properties
confiscated from minority religious communities to their rightful
owners.
Question. As you know, there have been increasing ceasefire
violations in Nagorno Karabakh (NK), most recently resulting in the
death of an Armenian soldier. Azerbaijani officials have continued to
make aggressive statements that undermine stability in the region,
including threats made in March and April 2011 to shoot down civilian
aircraft over NK. Last month, President Aliyev said, ``It's not a
frozen conflict, and it's not going to be one.'' In light of these
developments, is it your view that the Government of Azerbaijan
continues to meet all conditions for a waiver under section 907 of the
FREEDOM Support Act, including that aid to Azerbaijan ``not undermine
or hamper ongoing efforts to negotiate a peaceful settlement between
Armenia and Azerbaijan''?
Answer. Armenia and Azerbaijan have expressed support for the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group
process to achieve a peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. In a joint statement with Russian President Medvedev in Sochi
in January 2012, Presidents Aliyev and Sargsian committed to accelerate
reaching agreement on the Basic Principles, which provide a framework
for a comprehensive peace settlement. As a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk
Group, the United States remains committed to assisting the sides in
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to reach a lasting and peaceful
settlement. To this end, the United States calibrates its assistance to
ensure that it is not usable in an offensive operation against Armenia
or Azerbaijan, does not affect the military balance between Armenia and
Azerbaijan, and does not undermine or hamper ongoing efforts to
negotiate a peaceful settlement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The
United States most recently exercised its authority to waive section
907 of the FREEDOM Support Act on February 10, 2012.
Question. On January 26, 2012, you stated that the Armenian
genocide is ``a matter of historical debate.'' Do you believe that the
administration's current policy that fails to recognize the Armenian
genocide serves to promote reconciliation in the region and speak
clearly to America's moral principles and values?
Do you stand by your 2008 statement that, ``[T]he horrible events
perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against Armenians constitute a clear
case of genocide,'' and that ``[o]ur common morality and our nation's
credibility as a voice for human rights challenge us to ensure that the
Armenian genocide be recognized and remembered by the Congress and the
President of the United States''?
Answer. The United States recognizes the events of 1915 as one of
the worst atrocities of the 20th century. Every April 24 the President
honors the victims and expresses American solidarity with the Armenian
people on Remembrance Day. We mourn this terrible chapter of history
and recognize that it remains a source of great pain for the people of
Armenia and of Armenian descent, and for all those who believe in the
dignity and value of every human life.
The President has said in his April 24 Remembrance Day statements
that the achievement of a full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the
facts of what occurred in 1915 is in all our interests. He also has
said that the best way to advance that goal is for the Armenian and
Turkish people to address the facts of the past as a part of their
efforts to move forward. He strongly supports the efforts of Turkey and
Armenia to normalize their bilateral relations. The President believes
that together, Armenia and Turkey can forge a relationship that is
peaceful, productive, and prosperous. We believe that full
normalization of relations between these two neighbors is important for
the future of both countries and for stability in the region.
Question. Do you support any official restrictions on
communication, contacts, travel, or other interactions between United
States and Nagorno Karabakh Government officials?
Answer. As a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, the United States
remains committed at the highest levels to assisting the sides of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to achieve a lasting and peaceful settlement.
We continue to engage leaders in order to reach agreement on a
framework for such a settlement, which then can lead to a comprehensive
peace treaty. No country, including Armenia, recognizes the self-
declared independence of the so-called ``Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.''
However, the U.S. Co-Chair of the Minsk Group travels regularly to
Nagorno-Karabakh to meet with the de facto authorities there, as part
of the overall effort to engage all the populations that have been
affected by the conflict.
kosovo
Question. According to USAID, ``Kosovo is the youngest country in
Europe with more than 50 percent of Kosovars aged 25 or younger. The
growing youth population that is unemployed (estimates range from 50 to
75 percent), disengaged, and disconnected is emerging as an urgent
issue for the newly independent state.'' In an effort to foster
stability and economic development, would you support prioritizing
United States assistance for Kosovo with a focus on education? Can you
please provide an update on your efforts in regard?
Answer. The U.S. Government supports a wide range of programs
designed to create economic growth and long-term, sustainable
opportunities, including in the fields of education and workforce
capacity development. Both State and USAID recognize that professional
and vocational education is key to stability and growth in Kosovo and
throughout the region.
USAID has supported the basic education sector in Kosovo by
engaging in activities in learning assessment, curriculum and
professional development, including the introduction of technology in
math and science, and management capacity, consistent with the Kosovo
Ministry of Education's reform strategy. As a result of a strong
partnership USAID developed with the Government of Kosovo, United
States Government funding for basic education in Kosovo was not
allocated after fiscal year 2011, as the Government of Kosovois now
contributing resources in order to meet program objectives in this
sector.
Higher education funds support results-oriented programs to address
specific issues related to human resource development and higher
learning. Our assistance is aimed at supporting the development of
Kosovo's educational institutions, particularly those that will have a
direct impact on Kosovo's economic growth and democratic stability.
USAID and State are reviewing options to expand financial support
for bilateral educational exchanges between Kosovo and United States
universities and colleges. USAID is currently engaging in feasibility
analysis to determine the needs of strategically selected Kosovo higher
education institutions in priority developments areas. The assessment
will also address institutional partnerships, faculty exchanges and
student scholarships, as these contribute to building and strengthening
Kosovo's development institutions and societal transformation.
We anticipate that USAID will make specific recommendations to the
State Department no later than summer 2012 on a plan for expanded
support for higher education in Kosovo.
Question. When do you expect the joint State-USAID Partner Vetting
System (PVS) pilot to become fully operational?
Answer. State and USAID will jointly deploy the five-country
vetting pilot. Both organizations needed to undertake a series of
regulatory actions and system modifications to begin to vet in the
pilot countries, and in accordance with the fiscal year 2012
Appropriations Act language, intend to deploy the pilot prior to
September 30, 2012.
Question. Would you support expanding PVS globally?
Answer. The countries selected for the pilot represent a range of
risks, and are located where both State and USAID have comparable
programs. The pilot program is intended to generate information so that
State and USAID can ``test'' certain assumptions related to the use of
vetting and risk assessment tools as a means to prevent funding and
support of terrorist organizations. State and USAID will collect and
analyze information during the pilot to determine the costs and
benefits of this type of vetting. This evaluation will include
analyzing whether vetting is successful in preventing the funding and
support of terrorist organizations; what the level of risk is for such
funding without vetting; and what impact vetting has on the efficient
and effective implementation of United States foreign assistance
programs. At the conclusion of the pilot program, State and USAID will
determine whether it is appropriate to implement a partner vetting
system more broadly, and/or make changes to the risk-based model it
employs.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
egypt
Question. What impact would cutting all United States foreign aid
to Egypt have on our relationship? Do we know if United States aid is a
condition for Egypt's continued adherence to the Camp David Accords?
Answer. Cutting all United States foreign aid to Egypt would
severely hamper our ability to protect vital national security
interests in the region and support a successful transition to
democracy in Egypt. As we begin a new chapter in our relationship with
an elected Egyptian Government, our assistance demonstrates continued
commitment to the United States-Egypt strategic partnership that has
been a linchpin of regional peace and security for more than 30 years.
In this vein, our Foreign Military Financing (FMF) supports our
critical partnership with Egypt on regional security, counterterrorism,
and efforts to stop arms smuggling. FMF also allows Egypt's military to
maintain its readiness and interoperability with United States forces,
which is essential for effective cooperation on regional threats.
Since 1975, our economic assistance has made a transformative
impact on the lives of Egyptians by supporting advances in a wide range
of fields, including education, healthcare, agriculture,
entrepreneurship, and governance. Our Economic Support Funds also play
an important role in promoting economic growth and fiscal stability in
Egypt, which in turn helps ensure that Egypt can establish stable
democratic institutions. Ending economic assistance to Egypt would cast
doubt on our support for this transition and damage our relationship
with the Egyptian people.
Although much of our bilateral assistance has been provided since
the Treaty of Peace between Egypt and Israel, the United States is not
a party to the treaty and is not obligated to provide continued
assistance to Egypt. Our security and economic assistance is designed
to promote stability, democracy, and economic prosperity--interests the
United States shares with Egypt.
Question. Now that United States nongovernmental organizations
(NGO) are no longer operating in Egypt, what kinds of channels does the
United States have to positively impact Egypt's democratic transition?
Answer. Despite the Egyptian Government's investigation into
foreign funding of NGOs, NGOs continue to operate in Egypt in a variety
of roles supported by donors from around the world, including the
United States. Many Egyptian NGOs continue to perform work that
promotes human rights and holds the Egyptian Government accountable;
for example, throughout Egypt's parliamentary elections, dozens of
Egyptian NGOs organized networks of election ``witnesses'' who were
deployed to make sure the vote was fair and transparent.
However, we remain deeply concerned that the Egyptian Government
continues to pursue criminal charges against the staff of National
Democratic Institute, International Republican Institute, Freedom
House, the International Center for Journalists, and the Konrad
Adenauer Foundation; Egypt's laws on associations and their
implementation appear contrary to Egypt's international obligations and
commitments regarding human rights and fundamental freedoms. We will
continue to register these concerns and defend publicly and privately
the critical role civil society plays in any successful democracy.
We will also continue to employ all the tools at our disposal to
support Egypt's democratic transition. Our diplomacy, public messaging,
and assistance are all designed to support the aspirations of the
Egyptian people for a democratic future and promote respect for human
rights, and we will seek to support the voices of those Egyptians who
are pressing for positive change. The Supreme Council of the Armed
Forces has pledged to hand over power to an elected president by July
1, and we expect a democratically elected civilian to take power on
that date.
In anticipation of this new government, we have also begun engaging
extensively with Egypt's newly elected parliamentarians, presidential
candidates, and other rising political leaders. In all of these
conversations, we have emphasized the importance of respecting
democratic institutions and the universal human rights of all Egyptian
citizens, including freedoms of expression, association, and religion.
Question. Given the increasingly chaotic situation on the Sinai
Peninsula, it appears the Egyptian Government is incapable for the
moment of guaranteeing the stability of that region. What kinds of
things can the United States be doing to positively impact the Sinai
area, and can that be accomplished with directed security assistance?
Answer. Improving security in the Sinai is a complex issue that
calls for engagement on many fronts. We are encouraged by the fact that
the Egyptian Government has undertaken counterterrorism operations in
the area and announced the formation of a Sinai Development Authority
to address security challenges. However, more can be done to encourage
and support development for residents of the Sinai, which is the root
cause of crime and unrest. We will continue to engage with the Egyptian
Government at the highest levels on this issue to convey the importance
of restoring security to the Sinai. In addition, we look forward to
working with Egypt's next elected government on solutions to this
important issue.
iran
Question. Is containment of Iran's future nuclear threat a real
option for U.S. national security? If not, is there any real option
outside of prevention?
Answer. The administration has been unequivocal about its policy
toward Iran: A nuclear-armed Iran would be counter to the national
security interests of the United States, and we are determined to
prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. This is a top national
security priority for the Obama administration, and our dual-track
strategy of pressure and engagement is aimed at preventing such a
destabilizing development. As we have said, however, no options are off
the table.
Question. During this hearing last year, we discussed the option of
using funds from the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) to
assist groups looking to make Iran a more pluralistic society. Has the
State Department begun using MEPI funds for this purpose?
Answer. The State Department is not using MEPI funding to support
Iran projects.
However, since 2004, the State Department has used a different
appropriation to help Iranian civil society make its voice heard in
calling for greater freedoms, accountability, transparency, and rule of
law from its government.
Additional information about Iran programming is available to you
and your staff in a classified briefing.
Question. What kinds of diplomatic initiatives is the
administration taking with regard to some of our more reluctant
international partners on sanctions? Russia, China, India?
Answer. The administration has held very candid conversations about
implementing sanctions with a number of countries, including China,
India, and Russia. As I have testified, countries in a number of cases,
both in government and business, are taking actions that go further and
deeper than their public statements might indicate.
In the cases of China, India and Russia, all three share our goal
of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and we have worked
with each on this objective, both bilaterally and in multilateral fora.
pakistan
Question. What overall direction is the United States relationship
with Pakistan heading right now? How does ongoing United States foreign
assistance contribute to that trend?
Answer. Despite challenges in the bilateral relationship, the
United States and Pakistan recognize that it is in both of our
strategic interests to continue a meaningful engagement. At this time,
Pakistan's Parliamentary Committee on National Security is conducting a
review of the bilateral relationship. The completion of the
Parliamentary Review will offer an important opportunity to refocus our
engagement to ensure that it is enduring, strategic and defined more
clearly. The United States respects Pakistan's sovereignty and desires
to achieve a more balanced relationship, in part through this Review.
Both Pakistan and the United States share an interest in ensuring a
stable, tolerant, democratic and prosperous Pakistan. Our civilian
assistance programs, focused primarily on five priority sectors of
energy, economic growth (including agriculture), stabilization of the
tribal border areas, education, and health, with a cross-cutting focus
on helping Pakistan strengthen civilian governance, help support that
objective. As such, civilian assistance has continued uninterrupted
throughout recent challenges in the relationship. By working with the
Pakistani Government and non-governmental institutions to strengthen
the country's economy, governance, and capacity to deliver public
services, we make Pakistan a stronger partner for bilateral
cooperation. In the long-term, we seek to support Pakistan's economy
with an emphasis on trade over aid.
Counterterrorism and counterinsurgency remain primary United States
national security interests in Pakistan. Our security assistance
programs continue to focus on strengthening Pakistan's capabilities in
counterterrorism and counterinsurgency, and on promoting closer
security ties with the United States. Since May 2011, the
administration has slowed some of our security and military assistance,
reflecting the reality that some of these programs are tied to the
level of cooperation in our overall relationship. We continue to
calibrate and review the delivery of security assistance to ensure that
it is in line with our shared objectives and based upon Pakistan's
cooperation. We are looking at ways to adjust our programs to ensure
they continue to meet our national security objectives.
russia
Question. The U.S. Congress may face a critical decision this year
as it considers the idea of allowing Russia Permanent Normal Trade
Relations to comply with commitments under the World Trade Organization
(WTO). Because the United States already consented to Russia's joining
the WTO before the Congress could act, this decision is now just about
whether or not United States companies can take advantage of WTO rules
in Russia. Why did the United States consent to allow Russia to join
the WTO before the Congress could properly consider this important
issue, especially during a time when so many of Russia's other actions
are challenging to basic tenets of U.S. policy?
Answer. Today, the United States has few effective tools to resolve
issues with Russia when United States exporters of goods and services
are adversely affected by actions of the Russian Government. When
Russia is a member of the WTO, Russia will be subject to the same rules
that other WTO members must comply with, as well as additional
commitments that we negotiated over nearly two decades to address
United States trade concerns. WTO members, including the United States
if Permanent Normal Trade Relations are extended to Russia, will have
recourse to WTO dispute settlement procedures to address any
noncompliance on Russia's part. The United States made no new
commitments or concessions to Russia to achieve this situation.
During the negotiations, State, United States Trade Representative
(USTR), and other agencies consulted closely with several congressional
committees on the terms and timing for Russia's accession to the WTO.
Before joining the consensus among WTO members to invite Russia to join
the WTO, we discussed the terms for accession and the need to invoke
the provisions of the WTO agreement that prevent application of the
Agreement between the United States and Russia until we withdraw our
invocation of that provision. One of the strengths of the WTO is that
members have taken a pragmatic approach and avoided taking actions for
nontrade reasons.
We are sensitive to the need for the Congress to consider all
aspects of our relationship with Russia and are willing to discuss
these issues with you and your colleagues as we work together on steps
that will allow us to reap the benefits of an improved trade
relationship with Russia and find ways to persuade Russia to change
other actions and policies.
Question. After the largest default in history 11 years ago,
Argentina effectively turned its back on more than $81 billion in
international bonds. Many of these bonds were issued under U.S. law.
More than 100 United States court judgments have ordered Argentina to
fulfill its debt obligations to United States creditors, but Argentina
has not complied. Is the State Department taking any steps to protect
the interests of these U.S. creditors?
Answer. On the margins of the Cannes G-20 Summit in November,
President Obama discussed with President Fernandez de Kirchner the need
for Argentina to normalize its relationship with the international
financial and investment community, and he urged Argentina to take
concrete actions with respect to repayment of outstanding arrears and
complying with final and binding arbitral awards. Senior State
Department officials and others in the administration have followed up
with Argentine officials to reinforce the President's message.
We believe it is in the mutual interest of Argentina and the United
States, that Argentina resolves its longstanding obligations to
creditors and arbitral award holders. Failing this, Argentina's access
to United States financial markets remains sharply curtailed.
By meeting its obligations to creditors and investors, Argentina
would send a strong signal that it welcomes and encourages foreign and
domestic investment that is crucial for the sustained economic growth.
Argentina's arrears to United States Government agencies total about
$550 million, and U.S. Government effort, including the Paris Club of
official creditor nations, is appropriately focused on recovering full
payment on these loans extended on behalf of American taxpayers. We
also continue to use every opportunity to urge Argentina to resolve the
claims of private American bondholders and investors
In meeting its obligations to creditors and investors, Argentina
will send a strong signal that it welcomes and encourages foreign and
domestic investment that is crucial for the sustained economic growth.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Hoeven
Question. The Senate Appropriations Committee's report to accompany
the fiscal year 2012 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
bill noted the historic flooding which occurred along the Souris River
in 2011. The Committee recommended ``that the Department of State
request that the International Joint Commission, through the
International Souris River Board, review ``Annex A'' of the 1989
bilateral agreement for Water Supply and Flood Control in the Souris
River Basin and identify revisions to improve bilateral flood control
efforts.'' Please provide an update about the State Department's
efforts to start a process of revising ``Annex A.''
Answer. At the International Joint Commission's (IJC) International
Souris River Board's last meeting on February 22, 2012, the Board
approved establishing a Task Team to lead the review of Annex A of the
1989 agreement. The Board currently is developing a Terms of Reference
for the Task Team. Once it is constituted, the Task Team will develop a
proposal to the IJC's International Watersheds Initiative to support
the review of the annex.
Question. What is the administration's message to the pro-democracy
movement in Iran as we apply sanctions to the regime?
Answer. As we've moved to levy more extensive sanctions against
Iran, we have made clear to the Iranian people that these steps emanate
from our deepening frustration with the choices made by the Iranian
regime. Our message to the Iranian people and the pro-democracy
movement is that the regime should be held accountable for the
suffering it has brought upon the country through the choice it has
made at the expense of the Iranian people. The President has continued
to reiterate that Iran faces a choice (most recently in the State of
the Union Address):
``Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from
getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to
achieve that goal. But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still
possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its
obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.''
I have also expressed support for the Iranian people, noting our
efforts to counter the Iranian regime's efforts to place an electronic
curtain around the Iranian people. As a part of a promise to the
Iranian people that we will counter the regime's electronic curtain,
the Department of State continues to work with the Department of the
Treasury to publicize clarifying guidance regarding the exportation to
Iran of software and services that will empower ordinary Iranians to
communicate with others outside Iran.
We will also continue to speak out against Iranian human rights
abuses and work through multilateral for a to ensure that Iranian
voices are heard.
As we continue to amplify this message, we hope that more and more
Iranians will understand that the United States seeks deeper
connections with the Iranian people that create new possibilities for
mutual understanding.
Question. What does the fiscal year 2013 budget request do to
support the advancement of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law
in Iran?
Answer. Since 2004, the State Department and USAID have prioritized
the advancement of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Iran
by supporting projects to help Iranian civil society amplify its voice
in calling for greater freedoms, accountability, transparency, and rule
of law from its government.
Our fiscal year 2013 budget request seeks to continue supporting
similar initiatives that promote access to new media, encourage freedom
of expression, strengthen civil society capacity and advocacy, and
increase awareness of and respect for human rights, the rule of law,
good governance and political competition.
Additional information about Iran programming is available to you
and your staff in a classified briefing.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Leahy. And we are just about on time.
Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., Wednesday, February 28, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2013
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:08 a.m., in room SD-226, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Leahy and Graham.
UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
STATEMENT OF RAJIV SHAH, M.D., ADMINISTRATOR
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY
Senator Leahy. Good morning Dr. Shah and thank you for
being here. We will be discussing the U.S. Agency for
International Development's (USAID) budget.
It has been a little more than 2 years since you became
USAID Administrator, and I know you had to start addressing the
serious cultural and programmatic problems you inherited that
have plagued USAID for years. You have plenty to be proud of.
USAID's programs have helped to improve agricultural
productivity, rather than countries having to import food.
USAID has increased the enrollment of girls in schools, which
is extremely important. USAID has also saved countless lives
from malaria and other diseases.
We also understand that in any bureaucracy as large as
USAID change doesn't come easily, and so while you have made
progress there is a long way to go.
We included several provisions in the Department of State,
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs bill last year to
support USAID's procurement reform.
We have asked USAID for recommendations of other ways the
Congress could amend the Federal acquisition regulations. I
have said to you privately and publicly that I am concerned
that a few large U.S. contractors and nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) obtain the majority of USAID funding.
Eight years ago, the Congress created the Development
Grants Program, a small fund to support innovative proposals
including small, mostly local NGOs. But I see what happens so
often, USAID has taken a good idea and either failed to
implement it or redesigned it in such a way that it thwarts our
intent.
I think you have to fundamentally reform the way USAID does
business. If the changes we have asked for simply end up
shifting a whole lot of money to big contractors in developing
countries, that is not the reform we seek.
A related concern is sustainability of USAID's programs.
The World Bank recently analyzed the sustainability of
nonsecurity assistance in Afghanistan. They estimated that by
2014 between $1.3 billion and $1.8 billion will be needed just
to maintain and operate the programs that are currently
underway.
The majority of our assistance programs are funded by
USAID. There is just no way at all that an impoverished,
corrupt government--and the Karzai government is corrupt--can
come up with that kind of money, even if it wanted to. This
concern is not limited to Afghanistan. Sustainable development
became a popular slogan a decade or so ago, but we need more
than slogans.
I think a lot of what USAID does is well-intentioned, but
not sustainable. We hear of programs that are not pursued
because program officers are afraid to try something new and
may fail, and I understand that. But if USAID is unwilling to
try new things, we simply end up continuing to fund projects
that produce mediocre results.
Your budget requests include disproportionate amounts for
Afghanistan and Iraq. That is wishful thinking.
Billions of people today live in conditions that would be
condemned if they were animals living in the United States. Yet
these are human beings. Corrupt leaders plunder their
countries' natural resources as though they were their personal
bank accounts while their people scavenge for food.
We are racing toward 9 billion people in the world. The
demand for food, water, land, and electricity outstrips supply.
We see what may be coming, and these are all things that you
know as well as I, and you see them every day.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We want to hear from you, but first, of course, from
Senator Graham, who I should point out has followed the
tradition of this subcommittee where both the chairman and
ranking member have worked very closely together, just as
Senator Gregg and I did and Senator McConnell and I did when
each one of us was either chairman or ranking member.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Welcome Dr. Shah and thank you for being here. This morning we will
discuss the United States Agency for International Development's
(USAID) budget request for fiscal year 2013.
It has been a little more than 2 years since you became USAID
Administrator and began to address the serious cultural, management,
and programmatic problems you inherited that have plagued USAID for
years.
We appreciate your efforts. You are taking steps to improve
efficiency and reduce costs, which are reflected in your budget
request. USAID also has plenty to be proud of thanks to investments
that have improved agricultural productivity, increased the enrollment
of girls in school, and saved countless lives from malaria and other
diseases--to name just a few examples.
We also recognize that, as much as we wish it were otherwise, as
with any large government bureaucracy, change does not come easily at
USAID. In fact, I would say that after 2 years and lots of hard work,
you are at first base.
Last year we included several provisions to support USAID's
procurement reform. We have also asked for recommendations of other
ways the Congress could amend the Federal acquisition regulations, if
they impose onerous or unnecessary requirements on USAID.
I have long voiced my concerns with the way a few large U.S.
contractors and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) obtain the vast
majority of USAID funding. Years ago I created the Development Grants
Program, a small fund to support innovative proposals of small, mostly
local NGOs. But USAID has done what it does too often--take a good idea
and either fail to implement it or redesign it in such a way as to
thwart the original intent.
I hope you can tell us what you expect from the changes to USAID's
procurement process, because they need to fundamentally reform the way
USAID does business. If these changes just end up shifting resources to
big contractors in developing countries that is not the reform we seek.
Another concern is the sustainability of USAID projects. The World
Bank recently analyzed the sustainability of nonsecurity aid in
Afghanistan and estimated that by 2014 between $1.3 and $1.8 billion
will be needed just to maintain and operate the programs that are
currently underway. The majority of those programs are funded by USAID.
There is no way that impoverished, corrupt government can come up
with that kind of money even assuming it wanted to.
This concern is not limited to Afghanistan. ``Sustainable
development'' became a popular slogan a decade or so ago, but slogans
don't get you very far. USAID does a lot of good, but I worry that too
much of what USAID does, while well-intentioned, is not sustainable.
We also hear of innovative projects that USAID has not pursued
because program officers are afraid to try something new and fail. I
understand that, but we need to balance accountability of taxpayer
dollars with a willingness to try promising new approaches to
development. It may make less fiscal sense to continue funding projects
that produce mediocre results, than it does to fund new ideas even if
it means taking some risk.
Your fiscal year 2013 budget request for USAID operating expenses
and programs totals slightly less than what was enacted for fiscal year
2012, including disproportionate amounts for Afghanistan and Iraq
which, in my view, are more a reflection of wishful thinking than what
can be effectively used.
Today, we face similar fiscal challenges as we did last year. To
those who think this budget is some kind of luxury or charity we can't
afford, I would say take a look at the world around us.
Despite progress in many countries, billions of people live in
conditions that would be condemned if they were animals living here,
while corrupt leaders plunder the country's natural resources as if it
were their personal bank account. As the Earth's population races
toward 9 billion and the demand for food, water, land, and electricity
outstrips supply, it does not take a rocket scientist to foresee what
the future may hold.
We ignore these forces at our peril, and while USAID cannot
possibly solve these problems alone we need to get the most for our
money. I want us to work together to bring about the kind of
transformative changes at USAID that this country, and the world,
needs.
Senator Leahy. Senator Graham.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
That is very true. I have enjoyed working with you and your
staff. And you know, being the ranking Republican, talking
about foreign assistance is not popular, in general, but I
think very necessary. And I just want to say I think you have
done a great job.
I think USAID is changing for the better, that you have
thought outside the box, that your cooperation with the
military in Afghanistan evolved over time to where USAID
actually coordinates with it. Our civilian-military partnership
in Afghanistan is as good as I have seen it. We are making sure
that the dollars we spend on the USAID side fits into the
strategy to withdraw and transition.
In Iraq, I share Senator Leahy's concerns. I just--I am not
so sure that the security footprint in Iraq can be maintained
by a civilian contractor force, and I am very worried about the
ability to get the dollars out the door into the hands of
people and transform the country because of lack of security.
And I couldn't agree with Senator Leahy more. We are going to
have to redesign our footprint in Iraq.
But as far as Africa is concerned, I really enjoyed my
visit over there a month or so ago. I met your people on the
frontlines. Between President Clinton and President George W.
Bush, we have done a very good job.
And I know Senator Leahy has been supportive of trying to
get dollars from the American taxpayer to do three things--
create a counterweight to China. China is all over the
continent of Africa, and their desire to help the people, I
think, is secondary to their desire to own the resources that
the people have.
I do worry about safe havens for al Qaeda and other
terrorist organizations developing in Africa. And the third
thing is that make sure that our money is being spent to create
economic growth in the future for American companies. We have a
lot of efforts going on in Africa to deal with AIDS and malaria
and other diseases where we have a transition plan.
I want people to understand that the foreign aid budget is
about 1 percent of the total budget and that under
Administrator Shah's guidance and Secretary Clinton, we are
trying to find ways to transition. It is not an endless,
perpetual amount of money being spent to combat AIDS and
malaria. We are creating systems that can be sustained in
Africa by local governments, by the national governments.
I applaud your efforts to come up with a transition plan.
Some places would be quicker than others, but there is a desire
to build people up so they can help themselves.
On food security and agriculture development, I really
applaud your efforts to try to get the Europeans to be more
reasonable when it comes to the use of hybrid seeds and other
farming techniques that will allow Africa to double or triple
their food production, just by using modern farming practices.
Your association with ONE, the Gates Foundation, and faith-
based organizations are the way to go.
There is a lot of goodwill from the American people, apart
from their Government. There are a lot of churches involved in
Africa, a lot of private foundations all over the continent
that are delivering quality services, and I want to make sure
that we partner with the private sector in an appropriate way.
As far as Afghanistan, sustainability is a question, but I
think General Allen has a good military plan to withdraw. And
post-2014, I do believe it is in our national security
interest. The foreign assistance account is a tool to be used
to protect America.
There are many ways to protect this country. Sometimes it
is military force, but it doesn't have to be that way all the
time. Sometimes it is just helping the population with
devastating problems like AIDS and malaria, building up a
relationship with younger people which is going to take more
than 1 day.
And the chairman is right. The Karzai government is very
difficult to deal with. Corruption is rampant. But having been
there about a dozen times, I can tell you there is a new
generation coming through the system that will have a different
attitude about Afghanistan. This is going to take a while.
People from age 25 to 45 have been mentored by our
military, by our civilians, and there are better days ahead in
Afghanistan. We are just going to have to push through and get
a new generation of leadership, and it does matter what happens
in Afghanistan.
I worry tremendously about Pakistan. Pakistan, to me, is
the place most likely to fall if we don't get it right in
Afghanistan, and I look forward to hearing from Administrator
Shah about what we can do in Pakistan with a deteriorating
relationship.
When it comes to Egypt, I want to be involved and be
helpful, but the Egyptian parliament has made some statements
that I would say at best are unnerving. And they have got to
decide what they want to be. If you want to be a country that
tears up the treaty with Israel and brings disdain upon the
Israeli people and basically go back into the darkness in terms
of the way women live and minorities in Egypt, that will be a
choice you will make, and the price will be heavy for the
future of the Egyptian people.
You can have Islamic conservative governments. That is
totally understandable to me. But those governments have to
reach out not only to their neighbors, but the world at large
and so that win foreign partnerships.
So I think you have done a very good job. We can always do
better, but I look forward to hearing from you about what we
can do to help you and all those in your care and guidance.
So, thank you and to those people who are out front in Iraq
and Afghanistan and other places, I know you are accepting
personal danger, but you are doing a good job for the country.
Senator Graham. Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Please go ahead, Dr. Shah.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF RAJIV SHAH, M.D.
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Graham,
members of the subcommittee.
I am honored to join you to discuss the President's fiscal
year 2013 budget request for USAID. I would like to start by
thanking Senator Kirk and wishing him a continued speedy
recovery. He has been someone who has spent time with me and
has significantly supported our efforts and our agenda and our
reforms.
Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Graham, on behalf of our
agency, I really do want to thank you for the tremendous
support and guidance you have offered to our agency and our
efforts.
Senator Leahy, you have, as you continue to do today,
challenged us to reform the way we do business, to expand the
way we think about development, to be open to new partners,
innovations, and new ways of solving traditional development
problems. We have tried to heed that call and, I believe, have
made real progress, and we will continue to stay very focused
on that agenda.
Senator Graham, you have challenged us to work more
effectively with our military partners, with the private
sector, with the American public, including faith-based
organizations. I think in all of those areas, we have taken and
made real strides and will continue to stay committed to that
path of engagement and cooperation.
Two years ago, President Obama and Secretary Clinton called
for elevating development as part of America's national
security strategy and foreign policy approach. This required us
to be more effective and responsive in a broad range of
priorities.
Frontline states, such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq;
quickly reacting to the political transitions in the Arab
Spring; expanding our engagements in a concerted and forceful
way with the private sector in order to enable them to be a
counterweight to the way China and others engage in places like
Africa; and to focus on delivering core results in our basic
areas of business.
Avoiding food insecurity and hunger; helping to improve
health, in particular helping children survive; expanding
access to water and sanitation and education to kids who are
vulnerable; and responding to humanitarian and complex crises.
And all the while staying focused on gender issues and on
expanding the access to basic democratic governance and human
rights.
The President's fiscal year 2013 budget request enables us
to implement an ambitious set of reforms we call USAID Forward.
We have prioritized and focused and concentrated in many
different parts of our overall portfolio.
In global health, we have reduced the number of places
where we will work on maternal health from 64 to something
closer to 40 and concentrated resources in the 24 countries
where we think we can get the most lives saved for the dollars
we invest.
In ``Feed the Future'', our signature food security effort,
we have closed programs in Kosovo, Serbia, and Ukraine so we
can reinvest resources in places like Tanzania, where we are
seeing improved new seed varieties rapidly increase food
production and a pathway to end child hunger and malnutrition.
With guidance from the Quadrennial Diplomacy and
Development Review and Presidential Policy Directive on Global
Development (PPD), our budget prioritizes this set of basic
reforms. We have taken the call to be more innovative in our
programs. We have launched grand challenges in development that
have helped us reach thousands of new partners and seek
innovative new proposals to lower the cost of saving lives at
birth or come up with new ways to use technology to ensure that
all children have the opportunity to read and achieve basic
literacy outcomes.
In those two grant programs alone, we have literally
reached more than 1,100 new partners who have sent in proposals
and who we can now work with and engage with. We have launched
the Development Innovation Ventures Fund, a portfolio of
innovative investments, more than one-half of which use clear,
randomized control methodologies, which is the gold standard to
evaluate outcomes so we can study and learn from small and
focused investments.
We have put in place a new evaluation approach that has
been recognized by the American Evaluation Association as the
gold standard across the Federal Government, and they have, in
fact, encouraged other agencies to adopt some of the principles
and operational approaches we have put into practice.
But most important, we are trying aggressively to change
the way we partner, to partner more directly and in a more
collaborative way with institutions of faith that do incredible
work around the world, to focus on exactly what Senator Leahy
mentioned, reforming how we do procurement to work with local
institutions, including setting specific targets across our
more than 80 missions to ensure that we move resources to the
most efficient opportunities we have.
This work, taken together, allows us to concentrate on some
of our specific priorities, and I would like to spend a moment
to just articulate what they are.
First, we continue to maintain a priority for the frontline
states and to expand our work in the Arab Spring. I look
forward to being able to discuss some of the efforts we are
making in those areas, but they are, I believe, responsive to
the guidance and dialogue we have had over the past 2 years in
that respect.
Second, we are focused on global health. At $7.9 billion,
this is the single largest item in the foreign assistance
budget. This budget, we believe, will allow us to make and live
up to the President and Secretary's extraordinary commitments
in this space: to expand the PEPFAR program to treat 6 million
patients, thanks to a significant reduction in the cost of
treatment; to expand our efforts to save children's lives by
pulling together the incredibly effective President's Malaria
Initiative with a number of other programs designed to improve
nutrition and child survival, especially in the first 48 to 72
hours of life; and by focusing on seeking efficiencies in our
maternal health programs so we could expand services while
lowering costs.
Next, our priority is food security. This budget includes
significant resources for the President's ``Feed the Future''
program. We continue to believe that food security is a
national security priority, and we believe we saw that come
together just these past 6 months in the Horn of Africa, where
the worst drought in more than six decades affected more than
13 million people.
USAID led a significant humanitarian response across
international partners, feeding more than 4.6 million
individuals and saving countless lives in the process. But we
know that it is more efficient and more effective to help
countries transition from food aid to being able to grow their
own food, have their own modern food systems and agricultural
systems, and achieve self-sufficiency.
In the 20 Feed the Future priority countries, we have seen
agricultural productivity go up at more than 8 times the rate
that we see it in the rest of the world, with a 5.6-percent
improvement in agricultural food production on an annual basis
in those 20 countries.
We believe those kinds of results will help move hundreds
of millions of kids out of poverty and hunger over time if we
stay focused, we partner with the private sector, we use new,
effective, and proven technologies, and we bring our capacity
to measure results and ensure that progress is being made
especially for women, who continue to provide most of the labor
in these farm economies.
Finally, I would like to conclude with a thank you to our
staff. Our teams work incredibly hard and take extraordinary
risks. Those risks have been quite visible in recent weeks in
Afghanistan, as our staff and our partners, many of whom work
directly with counterparts in the Afghan Government and with
civil society organizations, have had to take on new
precautions to protect themselves.
But we also have colleagues taking risks in all parts of
the world. And just this morning, I got an email from one of
our Foreign Service nationals who works in Zimbabwe to support
democracy and civil society organizations in that difficult
environment.
He takes tremendous personal risks every day in order to
just come to work, but he sent a note that said that he does
this because he genuinely believes that the efforts we make are
helping to make the world fairer and more just for his children
and all of our children.
PREPARED STATEMENT
And it is really that spirit that motivates our staff, that
motivates our teams, and that has led to a tremendous amount of
commitment to this set of reforms that we have discussed and to
these priorities. And I look forward to taking your questions.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rajiv Shah, M.D.
Thank you Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Graham, and members of the
subcommittee. I am honored to join you to discuss the President's
fiscal year 2013 budget request for the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID).
Two years ago, President Obama and Secretary Clinton called for
elevating development as a key part of America's national security and
foreign policy. Through both the Presidential Policy Directive on
Global Development and the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development
Review, they made the case that the work USAID's development experts do
around the globe was just as vital to America's global engagement as
that of our military and diplomats.
The President's fiscal year 2013 budget request enables USAID to
meet the development challenges of our time. It allows us to respond to
the dramatic political transformations in the Middle East and North
Africa. It helps us focus on our national security priorities in
frontline states like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. And it
strengthens economic prosperity, both at home and abroad.
This budget also allows us to transform the way we do development.
It helps countries feed, treat, and educate their people while
strengthening their capacity to own those responsibilities for
themselves. It helps our development partners increase stability and
counter violent extremism. It supports those who struggle for self-
determination and democracy and empowers women and girls. And it helps
channel development assistance in new directions--toward private sector
engagement, scientific research and innovative technologies.
I want to highlight how the investments we make in foreign
assistance help our country respond to our current challenges, while
delivering results that shape a safer and more prosperous future.
efficiency, trade offs, and u.s. agency for international development
forward
While foreign assistance represents less than 1 percent of our
budget, we are committed to improving our efficiency and maximizing the
value of every dollar. American households around the country are
tightening their belts and making difficult tradeoffs. So must we.
Even as we face new challenges around the world, our budget
represents a slight reduction from fiscal year 2012.
We've prioritized, focused, and concentrated our investments across
every portfolio. In global health, we propose to close out programs in
Peru and Mexico as those countries take greater responsibility for the
care of their own people.
We've eliminated Feed the Future programs in Kosovo, Serbia, and
Ukraine and reduced support to Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia by
$113 million to reflect shifting global priorities and progress over
time by some countries toward market-based democracy.
And we're keeping our staffing and overall administrative costs at
current levels, even in the midst of a major reform effort. It is
through that effort that I spoke about last year--USAID Forward--that
we've been able to deliver more effective and efficient results with
our current staffing profile and operating budget.
Our budget prioritizes our USAID Forward suite of reforms.
That funding allows us to invest in innovative scientific research
and new technologies. Last year, our support of the AIDS vaccine
research through President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)
led to the isolation of 17 novel antibodies that may hold the key to
fighting the pandemic. And we're working with local scientists at the
Kenyan Agricultural Research Institutes to develop new drought-
resistant seed varieties of sorghum, millet and beans, as well as a
vitamin-A rich, orange-fleshed sweet potato.
It helps us conduct evaluations so we know which of our development
efforts are effective and which we need to scale back. The American
Evaluation Association recently cited our evaluation policy as a model
other Federal agencies should follow.
It allows us to partner more effectively with faith-based
organizations and private companies. In fact, the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development recognized USAID as the best
amongst peers in driving private sector partnerships and investment.
And through our procurement reform efforts, among the most far-
reaching and ambitious across the Federal Government, we are
aggressively seeking new ways to work with host country partners
instead of through more costly consultants and contractors. This effort
will make our investments more sustainable and hasten our exit from
countries, while cutting costs.
For instance, in Afghanistan, we invested directly in the country's
Ministry of Health instead of third parties. As a result, we were able
to save more than $6 million.
That investment also strengthened the Afghan health ministry, which
has expanded access to basic health services from 9 percent of the
country to 64 percent. Last year, we discovered the true power of those
investments; Afghanistan has had the largest gains in life expectancy
and largest drops in maternal and child mortality of any country over
the last 10 years.
In Senegal, we are working with the government--instead of foreign
construction firms--to build middle schools at a cost of just $200,000
each. That helps strengthen the government's ability to educate its
people, but it is also significantly more cost effective than enlisting
a contractor.
When we do invest money in partner governments, we do so with great
care. Our agency has worked incredibly hard to develop assessments that
make sure the money we invest in foreign governments is not lost due to
poor financial management or corruption.
With your continued support of this effort, we can expand our
investments in local systems while building the level of oversight,
accountability, and transparency that working with a new and more
diverse set of partners requires.
The Working Capital Fund we've requested would give us a critical
tool in that effort. The Fund would align USAID's acquisition and
assistance to USAID's program funding levels through a fee-for-service
model, so that our oversight and stewardship is in line with our
program and funding responsibilities. The result will be improved
procurement planning, more cost-effective awards, and better oversight
of contracts and grants.
supporting strategic priorities and strengthening national security
We will continue to support the growth of democracies around the
world, especially in the Middle East and North Africa where the
transformative events of the Arab Spring are bringing down autocratic
regimes and expanding freedom.
State and USAID have requested $770 million for a new Middle East
and North Africa Incentive Fund to respond to the historical changes
taking place across the region. The Fund will incentivize long-term
economic, political, and trade reforms--key pillars of stability--by
supporting governments that demonstrate a commitment to undergo
meaningful change and empower their people. State and USAID will
continue to play a major role in helping the people of this region
determine their own future.
In Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan USAID continues to work closely
with interagency partners including the State and Defense departments,
to move toward long-term stability, promote economic growth, and
support democratic reforms. Civilians are now in the lead in Iraq,
helping that country emerge as a stable, sovereign, democratic partner.
Our economic assistance seeks to expand economic opportunity and
improve the quality of life throughout the country, with a particular
focus on health, education and private sector development. With time,
Iraq's domestic revenue will continue to take the place of our
assistance.
In Afghanistan, we've done work to deliver results despite
incredibly difficult circumstances. We established our Accountable
Assistance for Afghanistan--or A3--initiative to reduce subcontracting
layers, tighten financial controls, enhance project oversight, and
improve partner vetting. And with consistent feedback from the Congress
we are focusing on foundational investments in economic growth,
reconciliation and reintegration and capacity building, as well as to
support progress in governance, rule of law, counternarcotics,
agriculture, health, and education. We continue to focus on the
sustainability of these investments so they ultimately become fiscally
viable within the Afghan Government's own budget.
In Pakistan, our relationship is challenging and complex, but it is
also critical. Our assistance continues to strengthen democratic
institutions and foster stability during a difficult time. Crucial to
those efforts is our work to provide electricity. Over the last 2
years, we've added as many as 1,000 megawatts to Pakistan's grid,
providing power to 7 million households. We've also trained more than
70,000 businesswomen in finance and management and constructed 215
kilometers of new road in South Waziristan, expanding critical access
to markets.
the global health initiative
Thanks in large part to the bipartisan support we've had for
investments in global health, we're on track to provide life-saving
assistance to more people than ever before. Although this year's budget
request of $7.9 billion for the Global Health Initiative is lower than
fiscal year 2012 levels, falling costs, increased investments by
partner governments, and efficiencies we've generated by integrating
efforts and strengthening health systems will empower us to reach even
more people.
That includes PEPFAR, which will provide life-saving drugs to those
around the world afflicted with HIV and expand prevention efforts in
those countries where the pandemic continues to grow. We can expand
access to treatment and lift a death sentence for 6 million people in
total without additional funds.
We're also increasingly providing treatment for pregnant mothers
with HIV/AIDS so we can ensure their children are born healthy. And
because of breakthrough research released last year, we know that
putting people on treatment actually helps prevention efforts--
treatment is prevention. All of these efforts are accelerating progress
towards President Obama's call for an AIDS-free generation.
Our budget request also includes $619 million for the President's
Malaria Initiative, an effective way to fight child mortality. In
country after country, we've shown that if we can increase the use of
cheap bed nets and anti-malarial treatments, we can cut child death--
from any cause, not just malaria--by as much as 30 percent. In
Ethiopia, the drop in child mortality has been 50 percent.
Last year, we commissioned an external, independent evaluation of
the Presidential Malaria Initiative's performance. That report praised
the Initiative's effective leadership for providing ``excellent and
creative program management''.
And we will continue to fund critical efforts in maternal and child
health, voluntary family planning, nutrition, tuberculosis and
neglected tropical diseases--cost-effective interventions that mean the
difference between life and death.
feed the future
Last year, the worst drought in 60 years put more than 13.3 million
people in the Horn of Africa at risk. Thanks to the humanitarian
response led by the United States--and the investments we made in the
past to build resilience against crises just like these--millions were
spared from the worst effects of the drought.
But as is well known, providing food aid in a time of crisis is 7
to 10 times more costly than investing in better seeds, irrigation and
fertilizers. If we can improve the productivity of poor farmers in
partner countries, we can help them move beyond the need for food aid.
And we can prevent the violence and insecurity that so often
accompanies food shortages.
That's why we are requesting $1 billion to continue funding for
Feed the Future, President Obama's landmark food security initiative.
These investments will help countries develop their own agricultural
economies, helping them grow and trade their way out of hunger and
poverty, rather than relying on food aid.
The investments we're making are focused on country-owned
strategies that can lift smallholder farmers--the majority of whom are
women--out of poverty and into the productive economy. All told, the
resources we're committing to Feed the Future will help millions of
people break out of the ranks of the hungry and impoverished and
improve the nutrition of millions of children.
We're also leveraging our dollars at every opportunity, partnering
with countries that are investing in their own agricultural potential
and helping companies like Walmart, General Mills, and PepsiCo bring
poor farmers into their supply chain.
These investments are working.
In Haiti--where we continue to make great strides thanks to strong
congressional support--we piloted a program designed to increase rice
yields in the areas surrounding Port-au-Prince. Even while using fewer
seeds and less water and fertilizer, Haitian farmers saw their yields
increase by almost 190 percent. The farmers also cut 10 days off their
normal harvest and increased profit per acre. Today, that program is
being expanded to reach farmers throughout the country.
These results complement our work to cut cholera deaths to below
the international standard. And we worked with the Gates Foundation to
help nearly 800,000 Haitians gain access to banking services through
their mobile phones.
And in Kenya, Feed the Future has helped more than 90,000 dairy
farmers--more than a one-third of whom are women--increase their total
income by a combined $14 million last year. This effort is critical,
since we know that sustainable agricultural development will only be
possible when women and men enjoy the same access to credit, land and
new technologies.
Overall, since we began the initiative in 2008, our 20 target
countries have increased their total agricultural production by an
average of 5.8 percent. That's over eight times higher than the global
average increase of 0.7 percent.
building resilience
We all know that a changing climate will hit poor countries
hardest. Our programs are aimed at building resilience among the
poorest of those populations.
By investing in adaptation efforts, we can help nations cope with
these drastic changes. By investing in clean energy, we can help give
countries new, efficient ways to expand and grow their economies. And
by investing in sustainable landscapes, we can protect and grow
rainforests and landscapes that sequester carbon and stop the spread of
deserts and droughts.
That work goes hand-in-hand with our efforts to expand access to
clean water to people hit hard by drought. In 2010 alone, those efforts
helped more than 1.35 million people get access to clean water and 2
million people access to sanitation facilities. Increasingly, we're
working with countries to build water infrastructure and with
communities to build rain catchments and wells to sustainably provide
clean water. We're currently in the process of finalizing a strategy
for our water work designed to focus and concentrate the impact of our
work in this crucial area.
strengthening education
Last year, we made some critical decisions about how we strengthen
global education. Since 1995, USAID's top recipients have increased
primary school enrollment by 15 percent. But even as record numbers of
children enter classrooms, we have seen their quality of learning
sharply drop. In some countries, 80 percent of schoolchildren can't
read a single word at the end of second grade. That's not education;
it's daycare.
The strategy we released last year will make sure that our
assistance is focused on concrete, tangible outcomes like literacy. By
2015, we will help improve the reading skills of 100 million children.
conclusion
Thanks to these smart investments, every American can be proud that
their tax dollars go toward fighting hunger and easing suffering from
famine and drought, expanding freedom for the oppressed and giving
children the chance to live and thrive no matter where they're born.
But we shouldn't lose sight that these investments aren't just from
the American people--as USAID's motto says--they're for the American
people. By fighting hunger and disease, we fight the despair that can
fuel violent extremism and conflict. By investing in growth and
prosperity, we create stronger trade partners for our country's
exports.
And above all, by extending freedom, opportunity and dignity to
people throughout the world, we express our core American values and
demonstrate American leadership.
Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much.
I have met many of these dedicated people in places all
around the world where often times they are working under very
difficult circumstances.
I noticed it was reported today that Thomas Lubanga, who is
a rebel leader in Congo, had been captured, tried, and found
guilty of outrageous crimes. Last week, 50 million people
watched a YouTube video about Joseph Kony and the Lord's
Resistance Army (LRA), who terrorized civilians in Central
Africa for two decades.
About 12 years ago, Tim Rieser from my staff went to Uganda
to see what kind of aid we could bring to families whose lives
were destroyed by Joseph Kony. You have been providing
humanitarian aid to the victims, including the families and
children who were abducted.
USAID and State have expanded an early warning radio
network for vulnerable communities. The Leahy War Victims Fund
has been used to provide artificial limbs, wheelchairs, and so
on. So we have been doing a lot for years, long before
attention was brought to this, and I included up to $10 million
for these programs in the last appropriations bill.
I understand the administration supports expanding the
State Department's Rewards for Justice program to cover war
criminals like Joseph Kony. What do you plan to do with the
2012 funds that we provided you?
Dr. Shah. Well, thank you, Sir, for the question. I want to
thank you for your incredible leadership on this issue for a
much longer period of time than well before YouTube was even in
place.
And the Leahy War Victims Fund is one of the many tools
that you have encouraged us to deploy over the past two decades
to address this challenging issue including--the other tools
include the international disaster assistance account and the
development assistance account, both of which we have deployed
aggressively over the last decade to try to meet needs that are
created by an incredibly unjust situation.
The video to which you referred has been seen by so many
people, and it does highlight the basic actions and approach of
LRA. Our approach has been to focus on humanitarian relief and
recovery in places like Northern Uganda, which are now cleared
in some degree of the LRA.
We have seen internally displaced persons return to their
communities, and we support those returns, providing people
opportunities for education, employment, to re-enter their own
economy, mostly by supporting agriculture, which is the primary
economy in Northern Uganda.
But we also know that there are efforts that need to be
made in the Central African Republic, in the Democratic
Republic of Congo, in South Sudan. And in those areas, we have
expanded our efforts to support recovery, offering psychosocial
support for children, offer humanitarian assistance ranging
from food and water and other basic necessities, but also cash
for work opportunities to be engaged in short-term employment,
creating roads and helping their economies get back together.
We remain very, very focused on this issue, and I just want
to thank you and our partners, partners like Catholic Relief
Service that is reaching 24 communities in South Sudan.
Partners like Vodacom that are helping to establish cell towers
that will enable a greater degree of protection.
The program you mentioned around expanding radio access and
programming to help warn communities ahead of time and a whole
range of other activities, some of these things take some
learning, as we are trying a lot of new things in order to
offer protection to the population and to meet needs
thereafter.
Senator Leahy. Keep me posted on this, and please know that
it is a priority and has been a priority for some time.
We watch our children playing safely at playgrounds--it
used to be my children, now my grandchildren. It is hard to
conceive of something like that happening.
Over the years, American taxpayers have provided tens of
billions of dollars in economic aid to Egypt for programs
administered by USAID. Very few Egyptians seem to know this. It
has come out, in the last year especially, that apparently year
after year the money was channeled through Egyptian Government
ministries for programs that corrupt Egyptian officials took
credit for.
Now we see anti-Americanism rampant in Egypt. I agree with
the comments Senator Graham made about Egypt earlier.
We have seen the same thing in Pakistan after billions of
dollars in United States aid went there. We are giving billions
of dollars to these countries, but the American people who are
paying for it often get no credit for it. A lot of it is
siphoned off by corrupt officials. How do you respond?
Dr. Shah. Well, I think our focus has been ensuring that
the investments we make generate results. And I just want to
start by saying that whether it is Egypt or Pakistan, I think
when the American people see the actual results--28 percent of
irrigated farmland in Egypt was created by USAID partnership,
the water and sanitation system in Cairo, the number of girls
in school, and a 30-year externally validated health student
that showed the gains in women's health because of our
partnerships. That said, it is critical that those gains are
made more visible to people in the countries.
That is why we are working more directly with civil society
organizations and with local organizations. That is why we
recently looked at just what our USAID press presence is in
Pakistan and found that every month there are about 1,000
references to USAID that are mostly positive in the news. That
is often not enough to overwhelm the broader context, but----
Senator Leahy. We should follow up on that because, as
Senator Graham also said, getting foreign aid bills passed is
not the most popular thing back home.
The Budget Control Act of 2011 includes automatic
reductions in mandatory and discretionary spending beginning in
2013 if an additional $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction is not
enacted by January 15, 2013.
If no legislation is passed before 2013, the Congressional
Budget Office estimates the fiscal year 2013 discretionary
funding levels would be reduced by 7.8 percent. I understand
the amount of the final reduction would be determined by the
Office of Management and Budget using its own estimates.
What is going to be the impact of a 7.8 reduction in
USAID's fiscal year 2013 budget for operations and programs,
and what preparations are you taking in the event this
mandatory reduction is implemented?
Dr. Shah. Well, thank you for the question.
In terms of what impact a reduction like that would have
is, as we have discussed previously, it would essentially shut
down our ability to implement the reforms we are putting in
place. USAID today has a $70 million per full-time equivalent
(FTE) contract oversight capacity. The standard across the
Federal Government is $35 million per FTE.
We have been trying to build up our staff, our contracts
officers, our procurement capacities, taking in consideration
the recommendations of the wartime contracting commissions and
what we have learned about what it takes to implement serious
accountability to hold our partners to account and to ensure
that we are more directly engaged with the local institutions
that you spoke about earlier, Sir. And our ability to do those
types of things in an environment where we are cutting staff
and presence and resources by that percentage would be severely
impeded.
On the program side, the programs that would be most
affected, I fear, are the ones that we all believe deliver some
of the most extraordinary results. Efforts like our Global
Health and our Feed the Future priorities since those have been
the ones that have been the areas of most recent investment
focus and growth.
And so, we are working hard to come up with contingency
plans, but we are also hopeful that scenario will not come to
pass and believe that it would be inefficient if it did.
Senator Leahy. Well, I hope it doesn't come to pass. As a
bumper sticker slogan, talking about these kind of cuts sounds
great. It can be very popular, especially in a Presidential
election year. The reality is something else, so that is why I
raise it.
Senator Graham, please.
Senator Graham. Well, I want to echo what you said about
sequestration. It is the dumbest way in the world to achieve
savings. It will decimate the military, $600 billion on top of
the $480 billion we are trying to reduce spending by over the
next decade. It is a blind hatchet approach to try to get our
budget in balance.
You may not know the answer to this, but you can get it to
us later. Of all the USAID programs from around the world, you
know, every dollar that you are responsible for, what
percentage of the Federal budget would you think that would
equate to?
Dr. Shah. Well under, I think State and USAID together----
Senator Graham. No, just USAID.
Dr. Shah [continuing]. Is right around 1 percent, and USAID
is about one-half of that total budget, even less than one-
half. So it would be probably less than one-half a percentage
point.
Senator Graham. Okay. Let us talk about that one-half a
percentage point and what we get for it. In terms of China and
Africa, what is your assessment of the Chinese involvement in
the continent of Africa?
Dr. Shah. It has been--the defining trend in Africa over
the last decade has been a rapid increase in Chinese investment
and subsidy for Chinese companies to invest. Most of those
investments appear to be focused on resource extractive
industries, and not all of them have followed, as you would
imagine, the international norms and standards around
transparency, around anti-corruption, around ensuring that
benefits accrue to local populations.
The United States continues to be tremendously popular, and
it is----
Senator Graham. Can I just stop you there?
Dr. Shah [continuing]. In Africa because of our work.
Senator Graham. In Ghana, I think we had an 80-something-
percent approval rating. And when I went all over Africa, the
Chinese presence was dominant. Would you agree they are making
a play for the continent of Africa, the Chinese?
Dr. Shah. Absolutely.
Senator Graham. They are trying to basically gather up the
natural resources of a continent blessed with a lot of natural
resources, and they are doing it in a way, don't you think,
Administrator Shah, that instead of focusing on the population,
making sure they can benefit from these resources, they are
using some unsavory tactics, to say the least. Do you agree
with that?
Dr. Shah. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Senator Graham. Eighty-five percent of the people in
Tanzania, I was told, have no access to power from a grid or
running water. Is that correct?
Dr. Shah. I believe so.
Senator Graham. Okay. But all of them have cell phones.
Just about everybody I met had a cell phone, but no running
water, no power. The continent of Africa is underpowered. Is
that fair to say?
Dr. Shah. Absolutely.
Senator Graham. So one of the benefits of our engagement in
Africa, helping people and trying to make the governments more
responsible, responsive to the people is that somebody is going
to provide the resources to help the whole continent achieve
power, right?
Dr. Shah. And coupled with African investment itself, yes.
Senator Graham. So I would like that to be the United
States, not China. There is so much business to be done in
Africa between a continent and the United States on the food
side. What opportunities exist for American companies to be
involved in agricultural development in Africa? Is that a good
business opportunity?
Dr. Shah. I personally believe it is probably the best
agricultural business opportunity that exists over the course
of 20 or 30 years. We have done a lot at USAID to work better
with business and to let American businesses be part of
partnerships that help to tap into an African common market
that is----
Senator Graham. Will that create jobs here at home?
Dr. Shah. They absolutely do, including our programs, for
instance, in Ethiopia with Pepsi that now are trying to reach
30,000 chickpea farmers, efforts to help United States
entrepreneurs create and sell innovations like solar-powered
flashlights to rural communities. Many of those are the
innovative business models of the future, and either U.S. firms
and entrepreneurs will be part of that large common market as
it evolves, or we will cede that ground to others.
Senator Graham. Is it fair to say 10, 15, 20 years ago that
AIDS was rampant throughout the continent about to take out an
entire generation of people, women and children?
Dr. Shah. Certainly, and I think people saw that the
structure of the epidemic specifically killed people who were
in their productive earning years and, therefore, had outsized
and destructive effects on the economies in Africa.
Senator Graham. And mother-to-child AIDS growth was
phenomenal. The children would be infected at birth. Is that
correct?
Dr. Shah. Yes. It was one of the leading causes of child
infection and then morbidity.
Senator Graham. Well, between Presidents Clinton, Bush, and
Obama, how would you rate our efforts to control mother-to-
child AIDS transmission, and generally, are we turning a corner
when it comes to AIDS in Africa?
Dr. Shah. We are. And in fact, both the President and
Secretary have made the commitment to ensure that our
leadership continues to deliver in the future a generation free
from AIDS. Today, we have a global commitment to completely
eliminate mother-to-child transmission so no child is born with
AIDS.
That means treating pregnant women and----
Senator Graham. What kind of results are we getting?
Dr. Shah. Extraordinary results in that program. It is
called Preventing Mother-to-Child Transmission. That is a
highly efficient way to eliminate transmission to children.
Senator Graham. I had a chance to go and see the program in
action in Ghana and Tanzania and South Africa, and I was just
astounded what a little bit of money can do spent well.
On the malaria side, what kind of progress are we making to
address this really devastating disease?
Dr. Shah. Yes. I think the recent external data reviews of
the malaria program have shown that it is by far the most cost-
effective way to save a child's life on the planet.
Senator Graham. Now the Gates Foundation and ONE and other
organizations, they are doing things apart from the U.S.
Government. Is that correct?
Dr. Shah. They are, but also in partnership with us. And
through a unique partnership with the Gates Foundation and
others called the Global Alliance for Vaccines, we were able to
lower the cost of new vaccines by 70 percent and expand access.
Senator Graham. Well, I am going to invite you to Clemson
University, where they have a logistics graduate degree
program, and they are coming up with a way to deliver vaccines
in a more-efficient way, the actual delivery of vaccines to the
people who need them.
And we have a rule of law center we are developing at the
University of South Carolina Law School, and I know USAID is
very involved in rule of law development, particularly in
developing frontline state nations. We will invite you down to
look at that program.
And Don Gressett, who served as a detailee, has been really
great. So thanks for his services.
Now when it comes to Iraq, I think Senator Leahy and I
share a concern. How many people do you have in Iraq?
Dr. Shah. Well, if you include our Foreign Service
nationals, it is more than 100. If you look at just U.S. direct
hires, it is closer to 40.
Senator Graham. Okay. How much money are you intending to
spend on Iraq?
Dr. Shah. I would have to check the exact number. I think
it was around $200 or $250 million.
Senator Graham. What is the security environment like there
now?
Dr. Shah. I am sorry. The number for fiscal year 2013 is
$263 million. The security environment is challenging. It is
more challenging today than it was 6 months ago, and of course,
as we are having this transition, we are also seeking and have
been on a path of transition of the USAID programs. Iraq,
increasingly and appropriately, is taking on more of the costs
of implementing these programs themselves.
Senator Graham. Right. I just want to echo what Senator
Leahy said. I think our footprint in Iraq is too big. Fourteen
thousand contractors providing security, most of the money goes
to security, not to the actual training of the police and other
programs. And we are just going to have to re-evaluate that in
light of the changes.
Now when it comes to Afghanistan, how many people do you
have in Afghanistan?
Dr. Shah. More than 400.
Senator Graham. Okay. How would you evaluate the people
that you interact with, younger people in Afghanistan? Do you
have any insight to share with the subcommittee about what you
see on the ground in terms of younger Afghan partners?
Dr. Shah. Sure. Sir, I think that my interactions with our
partners who fit that description are, of course, self-selected
to be more creative, entrepreneurial, and capable. We have been
impressed with the capacity of some of those individuals to
lead efforts on behalf of their country.
Some are in ministries, ministries like the Ministry of
Agriculture, that have implemented to great success a program
that is funding small- and medium-sized agricultural
entrepreneurs that will largely be the source of economic
growth for the next 5 to 6 years.
Senator Graham. Senator Leahy mentioned something I think
is very true. If you are an American out there and you are
spending all this money on Afghanistan, you see the cross being
burned and the President being burned in effigy, that is
certainly not reassuring.
But is there another side to Afghanistan? Are there things
that do not make it on TV that we should know about and maybe
be encouraged about?
Dr. Shah. Well, there is that other side. There is this
other side that is focused on the results that we have seen
over the last decade. The largest reductions in maternal
mortality anywhere on the planet, more than 7 million kids in
school, 35 percent of whom are girls, whereas there were none
in school previously. Ten or so percent annualized growth rate,
and more than 1,800 kilometers of road that were created to
support that economic growth, more than tripling energy access
to the population and the business population.
Those types of gains are critical to success, but the
challenge going forward and as it has been the President's
policy and what something USAID has really led on is ensuring
that we make the shift to efforts that can be sustained over
the long run.
Senator Graham. Right. And we have a transition plan to put
Afghans in control of Afghanistan. Is that correct?
Dr. Shah. We do on the military side. We absolutely do on
the development program side. I issued a sustainability
guidance last year. We reviewed more than 65 programs. We found
more than 20 that failed the sustainability review and
restructured those programs to be more aligned.
Senator Graham. I think that has been a great breakthrough,
and I don't want to take too much more of your time here.
Now this Joseph Kony that Senator Leahy spoke about, who
is--I don't know how you would describe him other than just the
worst of humanity. Is the Taliban in the same league as this
guy?
Dr. Shah. The things we have seen Joseph Kony do are
brutal. The things that we have seen at different points in
history the Taliban do are also very, very challenging. The
thing that we stay very focused on as a development agency is
ensuring that we build the basis for a sustainable, inclusive,
and stable society. And that is why when there were no girls in
school, now having millions of girls in school is such an
important accomplishment that absolutely needs to be sustained.
It is why, as we go forward with the President's policy to
achieve a political and military strategy that allows us to
bring troops home, we are very focused on protecting women's
rights and protecting girls in particular and ensuring that we
continue to support civil society and women leaders in
Afghanistan, many of whom have done just extraordinary things
in partnership with us over the last few years.
Senator Graham. Well, thank you for your service and to all
those under your command. You have done a great job.
Thanks.
Dr. Shah. Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Here in this subcommittee we have supported
USAID's procurement reform. We included several provisions in
the fiscal year 2012 bill, including 2-year availability for
operating funds, funding increases for procurement staff and
training, and authority for USAID to limit competition to local
organizations for awards less than $5 million.
We supported USAID's effort to change its internal
procurement policies. Your budget request proposes additional
legislative changes and funding. What would they do beyond what
we have already done?
Dr. Shah. Well, first, thank you, Senator, for your
extraordinary and specific support for procurement reform and
for ensuring that America has a development agency that is
capable of delivering value for every tax dollar that is spent
in trying to make the world a better place.
That is really what this procurement reform is about. In
this budget, we request a working capital fund to ensure that a
small percentage of allocated resources go in a dedicated way
to building out the contracting capacity and the capacity for
oversight and accountability so that we continue to make the
transition from very costly and sometimes Western-dominated
implementation mechanisms to local institutions.
Because ultimately, our goal is to build capacity, not
dependence. And ultimately, our goal is to identify those local
leaders who have to have their own ownership of success, as
opposed to doing things for them. And that takes effort. It
takes doing risk assessments of local organizations to ensure
we can protect taxpayer dollars.
It takes a more active on the ground presence to make sure
we are combating corruption and ensuring that money is not
lost. It takes extra effort to monitor and evaluate programs so
that we can guarantee that every major investment will have an
externally valid evaluation public within 3 months of
completion.
Senator Leahy. Let me give you an example of where I think
you can look. There is a small NGO working in an impoverished
country, a place where most people have no access to modern
healthcare. They have a corrupt and repressive government, but
this small NGO has been implementing successful programs to
diagnose and control malaria for 20 years.
The Congress asked USAID to do more in this area. You
solicited proposals. Somehow this local NGO was cut out of the
picture, and two large U.S. NGOs were selected. One has
experience in malaria but has never worked in the country. The
other has worked in the country, but not on malaria.
I am just wondering why we fund big NGOs that have no track
record in a country if we have a small NGO that has a good
track record?
Dr. Shah. Well, honestly, Sir, we got here over decades.
The agency over two decades has experienced 60-percent staff
attrition and a 300-plus-percent increase in its programmatic
responsibilities, most notably in dangerous, wartime
environments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The combination of those two things led to contracting out
of way too many core functions. Designing programs, searching
for partners, engaging directly with local staff, learning
about what is working, what is not working, using those
learnings to then make changes and to insist on, document, and
report on actual results. That is the basis of the USAID
Forward reforms, but they are contingent upon our ability to
rebuild the balance and rebuild our core staffing.
I thank you personally for the support for the development
leadership initiative and for the new Foreign Service officers
and procurement officers we have been able to hire. And I can
assure you that we have focused those additional energies and
resources on precisely this challenge.
Under the procurement reform, we will go from approximately
9 percent in 2009 to approximately 30 percent in 2015 in terms
of our total programmatic allocations to local institutions.
And we are doing that in a careful, measured way.
Every one of our countries has specific targets for helping
to achieve that global aspiration. And when we get there, we
will be a much more nimble, much more-efficient enterprise.
Senator Leahy. It worries me and it is symptomatic of other
places, and there is not a limitless amount of money. For
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, the President's fiscal year
2013 budget request for USAID operations is $331 million, plus
$84 million in overseas contingency operations funding.
That is a 35-percent increase from 2011. It is a larger
percentage every year of your total operating budget. The
operating budget in fiscal years 2011 and 2012 for these
countries was 17 percent of USAID's operating budget. For
fiscal year 2013, the budget request is 22 percent of the
total.
We provided this administration and the one before it
billions of dollars for Afghanistan. Think about what will
happen when the funding tap dries up. You have issued a report
on guidance and sustainability of assistance for Afghanistan,
but your total request for fiscal year 2013, $1.85 billion, is
only $87 million less than the fiscal year 2012 estimate.
How is that sustainable? I acknowledge in many areas the
Afghans have moved forward, but with a corrupt, anti-American
Government, but are we approaching a point where all of USAID
is going to be in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan?
Dr. Shah. No, Sir. I don't believe we are. I believe that
in Afghanistan, we, as USAID, are a small part of the
investment this country has made in lives and in dollars. We
are very, very small in comparison to the overall military
expenditure. But we are a big part of helping to create the
conditions that will allow our troops to come home safely and
quickly.
In order to live up to that mission, we have had to more
than triple our staffing in Afghanistan to implement a program
we call the A-Cubed, or Accountable Assistance for Afghanistan
effort. We have had to go to 100-percent local cost accounting.
We have had to do much more monitoring and evaluation and a
significant number of program redesigns to ensure that we have
a more-effective focus on sustainability.
In just the last few years, we have seen Afghan Government
revenues from local collections, customs collections, and
collecting revenue related to energy more than triple. That is
a trend that we need to absolutely stay focused on in order to
ensure there is some degree of sustainability for the gains
that we have all seen.
Going forward, our focus will be sustainability, revenue
collection, economic growth that is based in the agriculture
and food sector for the next 5 to 7 years and the mining sector
beyond that. And we believe we are putting forth budgets that
will help lay the groundwork for that and allow the American
people to save 10, 20 times the proposed expenditure because of
our ability to draw down our troops.
Senator Leahy. I supported our mission to go into
Afghanistan because the mission was defined as to capture or
kill Osama bin Laden. That was 10, 11 years ago. Shortly after
that time, he apparently left Afghanistan and went elsewhere.
We have been there ever since, and it is almost as though we
overlook the fact, and I hate to use the term, but it is
``mission accomplished''. We got Osama bin Laden.
We have long since been supporting extensive nation-
building. Perhaps I can be convinced it can succeed. I haven't
been yet.
Let me ask you one last question and then yield back to
Senator Graham. For several years, USAID has been implementing
a program, which was begun by the Congress, which funds
partnerships between United States universities and NGOs with
counterparts in China to strengthen the rule of law and
environmental health and safety.
I have met some of the Chinese participants in this
program.
They are impressive and courageous people. They are
standing up for environmental health and safety in China. This
is not the safest thing to do. Some Members of the House have
held up this funding on the ground that the Chinese Government,
not USAID, should pay for it and it somehow hurts American
businesses.
Actually, I think it helps to level the playing field.
American companies are contributing funds to support it. How do
you feel about this program?
Dr. Shah. Well, Senator, the fiscal year 2013 budget
request does not include any funds for the Chinese Government.
Our request is focused on assistance to Tibetan communities and
to address the threats that may emanate from China with respect
to pandemic diseases in a partnership with the Centers for
Disease Control (CDC).
So that is what we believe the priority is and believe
that, in fact, we have gone even farther and worked through
entities like the Global Fund to try and create a situation
where China is no longer necessarily a recipient of funds, but
is more of a global donor to those types of mechanisms that
help effectively prevent disease spread.
Senator Leahy. So you don't think there should be these
partnerships between United States universities and NGOs in
China to strengthen the rule of law in environmental health and
safety?
Dr. Shah. No, Sir. We do. I was just highlighting that
those are not programs that run through in any way the Chinese
Government. That they support----
Senator Leahy. I understand that.
Dr. Shah[continuing]. NGOs outside of the government.
Sorry.
Senator Leahy. Well, I am confused. Are you in favor of
these programs or not?
Dr. Shah. So I would have to come back to you on the
specific program. I know that our efforts have supported NGOs
in areas like human rights and rule of law outside of those
efforts.
Senator Leahy. Can you get back to me within 1 week?
Dr. Shah. Absolutely.
Senator Leahy. Sometimes when we ask these questions, they
go--not just to you, but to everybody else--they go into some
kind of a dark hole and with a feeling that perhaps there is a
limited attention span on the part of some of us in the
Congress. On this matter, I have a long attention span.
So if you could get back to me within 1 week?
Dr. Shah. We certainly will. And let me also say we do
support these efforts. I just want to come back with something
more specific. But we will do that within 1 week.
[The information follows:]
United States Agency for International Development Programs To
Strengthen Rule of Law and Environmental Safety in China
The United States pursues a long-term strategy vis-a-vis China to
protect and promote U.S. national interests and values. United States
Agency for International Development's (USAID) fiscal year 2013 budget
request is limited to funds for activities that preserve the distinct
Tibetan culture and promote sustainable development and environmental
conservation in Tibetan communities through grants to U.S.
organizations, and for health programs to address pandemic diseases.
With regard to your question about partnerships between United
States universities and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to
strengthen rule of law and environmental safety in China, consistent
with congressional intent, USAID has operated programs since 2006 that
focus on activities in environmental, administrative and criminal law,
energy use and management, and regional trafficking in endangered
species.
These programs address development challenges that have regional
and international reverberations for U.S. communities and companies.
For example, USAID environmental law programs include:
--The U.S.-China Partnership for Environmental Law strengthens and
improves China's environmental regulatory system through
partnerships involving United States and Chinese universities,
government agencies, and NGOs. The program works through
collaborative partnerships and training for lawyers, scholars,
law students, judges, regulators, and lawmakers.
--USAID works with the Institute for Sustainable Communities, a U.S.
NGO, to establish environmental health and safety (EHS)
academies to train factory managers (paid for by trainees or
Chinese employers) to improve environmental safety practices
for Chinese workers and communities. EHS academies help ensure
that Chinese factories comply with international standards;
they help to level the playing field for U.S. companies and
reduce air pollution that reaches U.S. shores.
Mr. Chairman, partnerships do not stop with NGOs and universities.
USAID programs in China have leveraged important contributions--
financial and technical--from U.S. companies including General
Electric, Honeywell, Wal-Mart, Alcoa, and Pfizer. GE alone has
contributed more than $2.8 million for USAID's China programs. The EHS
academies program plans to become fully self-sustaining and serves as
an example of initial USAID seed funding that leads to sustainable,
long-lasting impact.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you.
And these hearings are very informative and helpful, and I
will give you my 2 cents worth about Afghanistan. I agree with
Senator Leahy on a lot in this effort to craft a foreign
operations account that is more focused on results, that allows
us to transition to country control, no matter where we are at.
But I have always believed that we are fighting an idea,
not just a person, that killing bin Laden is a great
accomplishment for the United States. President Obama deserves
a lot of credit for making, I think, a very tough call.
But we don't want to make him larger in death than he was
in life, and the way I think we have become safe in the war on
terror is not just killing the leaders of terrorist
organizations, but empowering those who would fight these guys
in their own backyard if they could. So I have come to conclude
that about 80 percent of the people in Afghanistan have
absolutely no desire to go back to Taliban control because it
was a miserable life.
You couldn't do anything other than what they told you you
could do, and from a woman's point of view, it was just
barbaric. And from the average young person's point of view, it
was a miserable existence, and they have had a taste of it, and
they don't want to go back.
The problem is capacity. You have got to have capacity to
meet will. That is why I think we can be successful in
Afghanistan because, based on my view of the country, there is
a lot of will to change Afghanistan. The problem is that their
government, as Senator Leahy says, is very dysfunctional. This
is trying to create a democracy out of 30 years of chaos is
difficult.
But when it comes to Afghanistan, how many times have you
been, Director Shah?
Dr. Shah. Well, Senator, I believe we met for the first
time out there, and I appreciated that opportunity. I don't
know, four, five, six? I would have to----
Senator Graham. Is it your sense that the people of
Afghanistan, as a collective body, want to move forward?
Dr. Shah. That is my sense, of course.
Senator Graham. Okay. And I believe it is in our national
interest that they move forward. Any place they can move
forward where the Taliban used to reign is a good deal. Places
going back into Taliban control after an effort to squash them
is probably not the right signal to send to Iran and other
places.
But let us talk about Egypt. The Arab Spring to me is a
defining opportunity for change in the Arab world, and people
mentioned Egypt to me, and Senator Leahy and I are very much
concerned about what is going on in Egypt right now. And I had
high hopes for the Arab Spring.
The fact that Islamic conservatism is on the rise when you
displace secular dictatorships is of no surprise to me because
religious people were pretty suppressed in Libya, Tunisia, and
Egypt. But what does concern me is the attitude that is
emerging in some sectors of the political space in Egypt about
the way to move forward.
What advice would you give this subcommittee about how to
engage Egypt and the Arab Spring in general?
Dr. Shah. Well, thank you, Senator. Thank you for your
recent efforts in Egypt to help advance our approach.
You know, USAID has played a major role in Eastern Europe
during political transitions and transformations and learned
that it takes both time and persistence. There will be ups and
downs along the way. And it takes flexibility, flexibility to
invest in creating capable political processes in engaging
beyond Government-to-Government engagements, but with local
civil society.
In supporting the private sector so there is a more dynamic
set of opportunities----
Senator Graham. Is that why we need to make sure you have
democracy assistance, development programs in the USAID budget?
Dr. Shah. That is, Sir. I think those programs have been
uniquely important in this setting. This budget also has a
request for a $770 million Middle East Incentive Fund that we
intend----
Senator Graham. Can I just point out to the subcommittee
how important that fund is? Tunisia is, I think, one of the
better stories in development and progress stories. They have a
budget shortfall of about $1 billion. This fund you just
acknowledged is trying to do a loan guarantee program so they
can borrow money.
Do you know the status of that? Are you familiar with that
at all?
Dr. Shah. I am. I am not sure of the immediate status of
that, but we have been pursuing a number of efforts there,
including helping to set up an enterprise fund. And this budget
includes a request for that. And a number of other efforts we
have taken to build public-private partnerships with
information and communications firms to create more jobs.
Senator Graham. Well, I know the subcommittee here is
trying to reprogram $100 million--I can't remember from what
account--to create a fund to challenge the rest of the world to
invest in it as kind of a transition to your program, where we
can come up with about $1 billion to help the Tunisians get
through a budget shortfall.
They seem to be very focused on reforming their economy,
privatizing industries, and making a more free market situation
in Tunisia. So I just want to let you know that I think the
subcommittee on both sides would be very interested in trying
to create some short-term assistance for Tunisia.
What is your view of Tunisia? How does it seem to be going?
Dr. Shah. Well, I had the opportunity to visit Tunisia and
a number of the senior administration officials have. We are
very optimistic about and President Obama and Secretary Clinton
have directed us to really do everything we can to be helpful
through this transition. They are, as you mentioned, putting in
place tough, but important reforms to enable entrepreneurs to
start businesses easier, to access capital more effectively.
They have the potential to provide information technology
services to the region and including some of the southern
European countries. And so, they have benefited from
partnerships we have helped establish with Microsoft and Cisco
and others that will help employ more Tunisian youth.
And we have helped their local civil society organizations
create processes----
Senator Graham. I think they want a free trade agreement
with the United States. Is that----
Dr. Shah. I am sure they do.
Senator Graham. Yes, and I think that is encouraging. So I
just want to echo what you are saying about Tunisia. I think we
have a good strategy, but it is imperative that we deliver
quickly when it really does matter. We have got to get these
loan guarantees, agreements done so they can--people are
hopeful. They are ready for change, and the government has got
to deliver.
And Tunisia has got an Islamic conservative coalition, but
they seem to be embracing free-market economies and tolerance
for minorities. So anything we can do in Egypt, Tunisia, and
Libya, let us do.
So thank you. If there is anything else the subcommittee
can do to help be engaged in the Arab Spring, let us know
because every 6,000 years you get a chance for democracy in
Egypt. I hope it doesn't pass. I hope we don't fail, and I hope
more than anything else, the Egyptian people do not fail on a
chance to start over.
And one last thought about Egypt. The parliament has said
some things that are very chilling. It is probably more
symbolic than it is substantive. But I think Senator Leahy and
I, one Republican and one Democrat from different political
spectrums and perspectives, really do want to engage the world
in a constructive fashion. But we are not going to throw good
money after bad.
And if we are not welcome and if people don't want our
assistance, we are not going to force it on them. So I hope we
can find a way to make Egypt a showcase of what can happen when
people have free choices to make.
So thank you very much and continue the good work.
Dr. Shah. Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. I concur with that, too.
The thing is we all want you to be successful everywhere
you are. We also know that we only have a certain amount of
money available and a certain number of people. We also realize
that each country is different.
Egypt, I think, is very important to that part of the
world. They will have to decide what kind of government they
want. I get frustrated when I see one more government that
might become a theocracy. We have to watch it carefully.
I was in Cuba a couple of weeks ago, and USAID has
democracy and human rights programs there. Some have been
controversial here in the Congress. Certainly they create a lot
of controversy in Cuba. We all want to see a democratic Cuba
where human rights are respected.
I am one who feels, and in fact I have said this to Fidel
and Raul Castro personally, that in some ways our embargo has
been one of the best things going for them. They can have a
failed economic and political system and blame it on us. What
we get out of it, of course, is looking foolish to the rest of
the world that a nation as powerful as the United States
maintains an embargo on a country that poses no threat to us.
I don't know what benefits there are, but we have what we
have. If USAID has programs in Cuba that break Cuban laws, even
though they may be laws you and I would totally disagree with,
there are consequences.
I do not agree with the kind of censorship that goes on in
Cuba. I do not agree at all with their restrictions on the
Internet and travel. I am not suggesting otherwise. I don't
agree with what they do there, but neither do I agree with what
we do with the embargo.
Alan Gross, who is a USAID contractor, has served 2 years
as a prisoner in Cuba for implementing a USAID program. The
Cubans agree that he is not a spy, that he is not anything
other than a USAID contractor. But his case has become an
obstacle to progress on some issues between the United States
and Cuba.
Have you reviewed the program that he was involved with?
Many of us will continue to work to get him released and back
to his family. Have you considered expanding into areas in Cuba
like private sector development?
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Senator.
First, thank you for mentioning Alan Gross' case and for
your personal efforts to help him seek freedom and be free from
his current situation.
Senator Leahy. Senator Coons of Delaware and I met with
him, and then I personally raised his case with President Raul
Castro, the Foreign Minister, and the head of their National
Assembly.
Dr. Shah. Well, we very much appreciate those efforts. The
State Department is leading our efforts to try to negotiate his
release and has been very focused on that. We have also taken
some special measures to support his family through what is a
very difficult situation.
We have reviewed that case, and based on that review and a
more comprehensive review of our efforts, we have presented a
budget request for $15 million this year that we believe is
consistent with our law. It is consistent with basic
international human rights conventions. And it is focused on
those areas where we think our partners are going to be able to
implement some of these programs.
With respect to expanding efforts to private sector
development, we are currently restricted from pursuing broad
expansions in those areas. And I am very focused on making sure
that if we are putting resources into something, we are
confident the conditions are in place to deliver results. And
it probably goes without saying under current circumstances, it
seems that is not particularly the case in this situation.
Senator Leahy. Does that include private sector
development? I met with a number of people in Cuba including,
ironically enough, representatives of foreign companies. These
companies were from Germany, Canada, France, Mexico, and
elsewhere. They all say with unity ``Please keep your
embargo.'' They want to keep the United States out of Cuba
while they get a foothold.
They say it with only a little bit of a smile. But there is
some private sector development in Cuba. Certainly not what you
and I would want, but it is a change from just a few years ago.
Will you look at whether that is an area we could expand
into?
Dr. Shah. We will certainly look into that and look forward
to learning more about your views from your trip and who you
met with and what your opinions are based on that.
Thank you.
Senator Leahy. I also went to Haiti. I have been there a
number of times. I know you have. I wanted to see the progress
that was made in downtown Port-au-Prince. It was different than
it was a year ago. The progress is still slow, but it is more
encouraging.
I met with President Martelly. In past times when I have
been there, I have heard over and over from people that they
want a government that cares more about the Haitian people than
it does about itself, and maybe they have that now. I hope they
do. I look at all the lost opportunities after the earthquake
when the government could not or would not even respond, though
there was an enormous amount of aid available to make life
better for so many people there.
One thing that goes way beyond even housing or any other
issues is the possibility of cholera. I am told that the danger
remains high, and of course, if it were to happen there, it
could spread to a number of other countries. The Dominican
Republic, of course, as it is on the same island, but also
Jamaica, Mexico, Brazil, and so on.
Do you think the Haitians are prepared to respond to
another cholera epidemic?
Dr. Shah. Senator, I appreciate your raising Haiti. I think
the progress has been extraordinary, given the circumstances,
and we all want to see things move faster, but take some
encouragement from what is happening in agriculture and
establishment of improvements in education, improvements in
access to mobile banking services and other types of
innovations there, and some of the bigger private investments
that are creating jobs in the industrial park in the north and
hotel construction in Port-au-Prince.
You mentioned President Martelly, and we continue to work
closely with him, hope he will appoint a new Prime Minister
soon because that is a critical position for our partnership.
Senator Leahy. Incidentally, we urged him to move as
quickly as he could on that.
Dr. Shah. Great. And with respect to cholera, we were the
major partner in rapidly moving resources to make sure that
rural communities in particular had clean water, had access to
medical services, oral rehydration, and brought the cholera
disease, the case fatality rate down to I believe it is now 0.4
or 0.5, which is below--or 0.04, which is below the--no, I am
sorry, 0.4 or 0.5, which is below the 1 percent, which is the
international target.
Of course, if there is a new expansion or epidemic of
cholera, that would place a tremendous amount of strain on
their already-strained health services capacity. In the last
situation, it was really the United States, USAID, and the CDC
working together to address and tamp down cholera.
And I suspect if it were to--if it were to go out and
become an epidemic again, it would again require a significant
external response in order to quickly save children's lives.
Senator Leahy. I have talked with our ambassador there who
is a very, very good ambassador, but he is about to leave and
going to Dubrovnik, as I understand. It is something we may
want to keep watching.
Let me add one last thing on Feed the Future, and you have
given more personal attention to that than anybody has. The
administration has requested $1 billion in fiscal year 2013 as
part of that initiative. The first page of the Feed the Future
Web site says USAID is going to help tackle global food
security. Nobody would disagree with that as a goal.
We have provided more than $2 billion for these programs.
Is this a 3-, 5-, or a 10-year initiative? How will we know
that we are succeeding, and what is the timeframe that you see?
Dr. Shah. Well----
Senator Leahy. Incidentally, I support you on this. I just
want to know how we measure success.
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Senator.
I think success for our Feed the Future partnership with
countries and governments is measured in a number of ways.
First, we need to make sure that other countries are also
living up to the commitments that were made in 2009 at the
L'Aquila summit. The United States is living up to them, and we
are holding others to account in a very transparent and public
way.
Second, this initiative is in part different because we
asked more of our partners. We said we will do business
differently, partner with the private sector, measure results,
invest in local institutions. But we want to see the kind of
policy reforms that will generate extraordinarily effective
results.
And so, we continue to work on that aspect of the effort,
and that is a critical ingredient. But the third and most
important piece is we are measuring outcomes. So I can tell you
today that the agricultural productivity growth rate in the
countries where we are working is I think it is 5.6 percent,
which is higher than the international average, which is 0.7
percent.
That is because we are investing in new technologies. We
are working with women farmers. We are measuring outcomes. We
have put in place a women's empowerment index, which for the
first time across all partners will measure whether women are
getting benefits from these programs, report on that in a very
transparent way, and allow us to program against it.
And most importantly, we measure the actual outcomes we
care about, families that move out of poverty and children who
are malnourished chronically, and we are starting to see
reductions there. And my recent favorite example is Bangladesh,
which for the first time certain parts of Bangladesh are
becoming self-sufficient in rice. And that is leading to
improved outcomes for children's nutrition.
Senator Leahy. Years ago, I was chairman of the Senate
Agriculture Committee, and I tended to upset some of the
agriculture lobbies here in the United States because I was
urging that we help countries grow their own food rather than
buy it, especially when it means buying food in the United
States and shipping it there. Some in the farm lobby loved
that, of course, because it gave them a market.
I remember there were a couple of places in Africa that I
visited where they could raise food, but the market for it was
20 miles away, and the condition of the roads was so poor it
would take 2 or 3 days to travel that 10 or 20 miles. Of
course, for perishable produce, this didn't work.
Why don't we spend some money--we don't have to build the
George Washington Parkway--to build a road like the dirt road
that I live on in Vermont, where they could actually go 25, 35
miles an hour and bring the food in an hour's time to market.
That is just one example.
Keep me posted what you are doing on food security. I
applaud you for it.
Dr. Shah. May I make a comment, Senator?
Senator Leahy. Sure.
Dr. Shah. You know, we agree entirely. I believe it is 8 to
10 times less costly to help countries achieve food security
and sustainability on their own self-sufficiency, as opposed to
providing food aid during emergencies. Well, of course, we are
always going to be there when people are struggling.
Senator Leahy. Well, you have a tsunami. You have an
earthquake. No country can move it as quickly and easily as we
can.
Dr. Shah. That is right.
Senator Leahy. I want people to have the ability during
normal times to be able to produce their own food.
Dr. Shah. Absolutely. The other thing I would say, Sir, is
that Feed the Future is a partnership across the entire Federal
Government, and Secretary Tom Vilsack and the Department of
Agriculture has been a major partner, working with us to
improve phytosanitary standards in Central America so food can
enter into Wal-Marts, value chains there, which is helping to
move thousands of farmers out of poverty.
We have partnered to address wheat rust, which is a disease
in wheat that is starting to expand in Eastern Africa and
threatens the food supply there, but could easily threaten the
food supply anywhere else in the world. And our partnerships
are helping to create international research efforts that are
very modern and very effective and, ultimately, offer very
direct protections for American farmers as well.
The food supply is just much more interconnected today than
it ever has been.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Leahy. A stable food supply will bring countries
that much further toward having a stable government and
democracy.
I will keep the record open for 1 week for the submission
of written questions.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
afghanistan, pakistan, and iraq operations
Question. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget request for
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) operations
in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq operations total $331 million,
including $84 million in Overseas Contingency Operations funding. This
is 35-percent higher than fiscal year 2011. Not only does the cost for
USAID operations in these three countries continue to rise, it is
becoming a larger percentage of USAID's total operating budget. In
fiscal year 2011 and 2012 the operating cost for these countries was 17
percent of USAID's total operating budget, and in fiscal year 2013 the
cost is 22 percent of the total.
How does this make sense given all the obstacles to implementing
sustainable programs in these countries, and the pressing needs in so
many other parts of the world?
Answer. The fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Frontline
States of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq reflects the level needed to
maintain current on-going operations in countries critical to our
national security. The fiscal year 2013 Operating Expense (OE) request
for these countries is based on the most recent projections for
security and other operational conditions and is not a result of new
programs or staffing increases above approved levels. Since USAID's
overall fiscal year 2013 OE request is a relative straight line of the
fiscal year 2012 appropriation, as security and other operating costs
increase in the Frontline States it takes up a larger percentage of the
USAID's total operational budget. As an agency, we have made the
necessary trade-offs to fully support operational requirements in
countries that are critical to our national security.
Development assistance to Afghanistan and Pakistan remains a
critical component to supporting our core U.S. national security
objective to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda, as well as to
deny safe haven to it and its affiliates in the region. The fiscal year
2013 OE request for Afghanistan and Pakistan reflects the cost of
implementing and providing proper oversight of the program funds
appropriated in prior years. We must provide and maintain a high level
of oversight in order to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. Given a
vastly improved recruiting and hiring process it was only this fiscal
year that USAID reached the full approved civilian surge level of 333
OE funded American staff on the ground in Afghanistan. As a result of
reaching the full approved staffing level this year, the fiscal year
2013 budget request represents the first time USAID has fully budgeted
for the civilian surge for an entire fiscal year. The full approved
staff level of 333 OE-funded Americans includes a tripling of oversight
staff, contract officers, comptrollers/financial management officers,
and lawyers. We have also increased the number of field officers
outside of Kabul, all of whom are working to improve project
performance and oversight of U.S. taxpayer funds. USAID, working with
State and the National Security Council-coordinated interagency
process, is in the process of determining the most-effective transition
of staff levels in fiscal year 2013 and 2014 ensuring that the staffing
levels support the overall transition and the administration's civilian
assistance objectives.
In Pakistan, the staffing levels reflect the tripling of assistance
since fiscal year 2008 in support of our core objectives in the region.
We have increased the number of critical oversight staff (i.e.,
contracting officers, financial management officers, and lawyers). The
increased number of United States staff also reflects United States
presence in the Consulates in Lahore, Karachi, and Peshawar in order to
increase the oversight and effectiveness of assistance program
implementation. As assistance levels have tripled since fiscal year
2008, we have doubled the number of United States direct hire and
Pakistani staff over that same period in order to improve oversight.
USAID's operational costs are increasing as the embassy and USAID
address security concerns and other operational challenges.
Based on the most recent projection for operations in the current
fiscal year as reported in the Congressional Budget Justification
(CBJ), USAID operating requirements in fiscal year 2012 were revised
downward from $75.3 to $53.8 million. For fiscal year 2013, the budget
request for Iraq is $66.2 million, which accounts for USAID now paying
life-support costs for mission personnel through the Department of
State's International Cooperative Administrative Support Services
(ICASS) program, the costs of and estimates for which can vary
frequently. However, USAID's actual operating costs for fiscal year
2014 are likely to continue trending downward due to both operational
efficiencies and changing circumstances on the ground in Iraq.
afghanistan sustainability
Question. For years this administration and the one before it has
provided billions of dollars in aid to Afghanistan with little thought
for how the programs would be maintained once the funding tap dries up.
I was encouraged that in June 2011, USAID announced its ``Guidance on
Sustainability of Assistance for Afghanistan''. Yet your total budget
request for the Economic Support Fund for Afghanistan for fiscal year
2013--$1.85 billion--is only $87 million les than the current fiscal
year 2012 estimate. Given how Afghanistan looks today I do not consider
$1.85 billion a ``sustainable'' level. How has this guidance influenced
USAID's programs?
Answer. The Administrator's Sustainability Guidance is reflected in
the significant changes in programming that we have undertaken in
Afghanistan. A major phase of the interagency sustainability review of
USAID's Afghanistan program recently concluded. USAID also conducted
the sustainability review in consultation with the Afghan Government
and in collaboration with other donors.
While the overall level of spending in fiscal year 2013 is roughly
in line with the fiscal year 2012 enacted level, that funding level is
consistent with U.S. Government and expert views, including those of
the World Bank, as to what is necessary to lay a foundation for an
economically sustainable, post-transition Afghanistan. As a result of
USAID's sustainability review, the country program is focused on
fostering economic growth; enabling increasingly effective governance;
and fostering a more resilient and capable population able to advocate
for government services. If funding were to decline dramatically in
fiscal year 2013, we believe there would be negative effects on both
the transition in 2014 and on the viability of the gains in civilian
development.
Consistent with the principles of sustainability, USAID will
continue to increase the proportion of its on-budget assistance to the
Afghan Government, contingent upon the proper oversight and requisite
safeguards, while drawing down investments in less sustainable forms of
assistance.
USAID will also continue the next phase of the sustainability
review with the Afghan Government to ensure that programming reflects
shared priorities, and that programs not addressing core objectives are
phased down, eliminated, or assumed by other donors. For instance, the
economy of Afghanistan lacks trained and skilled workers. Therefore,
our assistance will increasingly focus on higher education and
vocational training to ensure Afghanistan has the workforce required to
grow its economy over the critical transition years.
We are also focusing on strengthening government capacity to
maintain roads, bridges, schools, and other infrastructure built over
the last 10 years, rather than continuing to build new infrastructure.
We are targeting economic growth and agriculture investments towards
provinces where economic zones can generate the greatest number of
private sector led business and job growth. In addition, we are
reorienting our ``clear/hold'' stabilization programing from 17
provinces down to the 9 that are most critical for the
counterinsurgency effort. Finally, we are focusing our efforts in
health and basic education on consolidating and maintaining the gains
that have been made in these sectors rather than on expansion.
pakistan
Question. Since 9/11 we have spent billions of dollars in Pakistan.
Most has been military aid, but several billions have been for
humanitarian and development programs administered by USAID. Yet the
Pakistani people's view of the United States does not seem to have
improved at all. In fact it may be worse.
Are the programs we are funding in Pakistan sustainable; what are
you doing to strengthen civilian democracy in Pakistan and with what
results; and why has all this aid had so little impact on the
Pakistanis' opinion of the United States?
Answer.
sustainability and civilian democracy
After a careful review of the Pakistan assistance portfolio during
the first half of 2011, we have determined that it remains in the
United States interest to continue to provide civilian assistance which
addresses the priorities of the Pakistani people and their
democratically elected representatives. Continuation of civilian
assistance remains an important tool to furthering our objective of
building more capable civilian state institutions, fostering economic
growth, and building non-state institutions that can serve as checks on
political and military power. It also demonstrates United States
staying power in the region by empowering the middle class and other
drivers of long-term change in Pakistan. Despite challenges, over the
long-term, a tolerant, democratic, and economically stable Pakistan
both benefits the Pakistani people and advances United States national
security, as well as security in the region.
Our approach of providing a substantial percentage of the country
program in the form of local direct assistance contributes to
sustainability by strengthening the capacity of those ministries of the
Government of Pakistan, in provincial government, and in other
important entities with whom we work, such as the FATA Secretariat.
Similarly, our work with Pakistani nongovernmental organizations (NGO)
builds capacity and sustainability in civil society. For example, we
have worked closely with the FATA Secretariat to strengthen their
financial management and procurement mechanisms, but more broadly
strengthen their ability to communicate with constituents and be more
responsive to the people of the FATA. Another example is our work in
Sindh Province. USAID will be helping the Sindh Department of Education
manage resources and monitor school construction. This is essential to
ensuring results can be maintained and local governments can become
responsible for service delivery.
Beyond governmental capacity-building, our multi-sectoral strategy
aims to build long-term sustainability within important sectors, such
as the energy sector. The U.S. Signature Energy Program in Pakistan has
invested in policy reform, capacity building and efficiency
improvements to reduce power losses and increase revenues, as well as
targeted infrastructure investments to increase electricity generation.
This effort has yielded significant results. By the end of 2013, these
investments will have added 900 megawatts (MW) of power to the grid,
including the completion of the Gomal Zam Dam in South Waziristan, one
of Pakistan's restive tribal areas. Going forward, we will continue to
support infrastructure projects but, complementing those infrastructure
programs, U.S. efforts will also help GOP institutions build the
capacity needed to manage the power sector effectively and implement
policy reforms that will strengthen commercial performance in the
short-term and increase access to power in the mid- to long-term. These
efforts will be undertaken through ongoing technical assistance and
implementation of improved commercial operation of power distribution
companies and demand-side load management initiatives.
We will also continue important cross-cutting activities that
strengthen governance, transparency, and gender equality through
programs such as the Political Parties Development Program, the Anti-
Fraud Hotline, and the Gender Equity Program.
In addition, we are working to expand the ability of civil society
to engage in government oversight and policy advocacy, combat
corruption, improve the status of women, and address the pressing needs
of communities. For example, the Political Parties Development Program
will work to improve the democratic performance of political parties to
strengthen their ability to address constituent needs and grass-roots
concerns by helping parties conduct their own research, analysis, and
training for the formulation of increasingly responsive and informed
platforms and policies, as well as implement internationally recognized
standards for internal democracy and transparency. This work builds on
previous USAID investment in Pakistan's democracy and governance that
continues to provide long-term sustainable benefits. For example,
USAID's prior work with the Election Commission of Pakistan, including
improving and updating Pakistan's voter registry, will be essential to
the integrity and legitimacy of upcoming general elections that are due
no later than May 2013. Those elections would mark the first civilian
transfer of power in Pakistan's history.
public opinion
Pakistani public opinion of the United States has historically been
extremely low for a variety of reasons. During 2011, several events
occurred--Wiki Leaks, the Raymond Davis incident, May 2, and the
November cross-border incident--that have provided further challenges
to the effort to improve Pakistani public opinion of the United States.
We have continued to implement a strong branding policy in
Pakistan, as detailed in a briefing provided for your staff last year.
In 2012, USAID will focus efforts on raising Pakistani awareness of
United States assistance. A recent USAID-funded study suggests that 64
percent of Pakistanis are not aware of USAID at all and 86 percent are
not aware of specific USAID projects.
While USAID does not anticipate that increased awareness of United
States civilian assistance will dramatically change historic trends in
Pakistani public opinion of the United States, we believe increased
awareness can have a long-term impact on public opinion. Past
experience shows that greater awareness of U.S. civilian assistance
does help improve overall perceptions of the United States.
Accordingly, USAID is working closely with the Embassy Islamabad
Public Affairs Section to positively message United States civilian
assistance and increase Pakistani public awareness. The USAID mission
in Pakistan has contracted with one of Pakistan's leading media groups
to design and implement integrated information campaigns, primarily
using television and radio as a vehicle. USAID runs a weekly Urdu
language radio show that features USAID projects in Pakistan and is
broadcast across 70 percent of the country. We have also created a
series of documentaries about our projects, which are being broadcast
on local TV stations. Additionally, USAID has engaged a local research
company to conduct public opinion research that will be used to inform
our strategic communications efforts and evaluate its effectiveness.
While our relationship with Pakistan is complex, Pakistan's future
remains vital to our national security and regional interests. As
challenging as the last year has been, we have many shared interests,
and it is important we continue to find a way to act on those
interests, even as we work through difficult issues.
cuts in global health funding
Question. The President proposes to cut funding for the neglected
tropical disease program from $89 million in fiscal year 2012 to $67
million in fiscal year 2013. These diseases afflict the poorest people
in the world. I am told that more than 532 million neglected tropical
disease treatments have been distributed in 21 countries since fiscal
year 2006, but this cut would cause a sharp drop in the number of
people treated and in the number of countries served. The President
also proposes to cut funding for maternal and child health by $27
million, and for malaria programs by $31 million. We have worked hard
for years to build up these programs. Why do these cuts make sense?
Answer. In light of the constrained fiscal environment, USAID made
difficult decisions in the development of the fiscal year 2013 budget.
For the Neglected Tropical Disease (NTD) program, USAID remains
committed to the control of NTDs and the advances made by this program
and will strategically plan resources to ensure the greatest outcomes
of the funding provided for this purpose.
USAID's NTD program has expanded from five countries, when the
program began in 2006, to 20 countries in 2012. To date, the program
has delivered more than 500 million NTD treatments to 200 million
people. Documentation of control and elimination of the targeted
diseases on a district-level basis is now underway. In order to
continue toward national level control and elimination, USAID will
continue to prioritize those countries closest to elimination.
USAID's NTD program leverages billions of dollars' worth of
pharmaceutical donations each year. Pharmaceutical partners have
significantly increased their donations because of the demand USAID's
support for treatment programs has created. USAID will continue to
advocate for other partners to increase their support and commitments
to NTDs so the gains made to date are not lost and we can continue to
maximize the leverage from these pharmaceutical partners.
Every year in developing countries, 7.6 million children younger
than age of 5 die, two-thirds of which are preventable. USAID goals are
to reduce under-5 mortality by 35 percent and maternal mortality by 30
percent across assisted countries. Substantial mortality reduction for
mothers and children in the developing world is the result of a
strategic use of resources from donors, governments, and families
themselves. Mortality reductions are achieved by USAID investments in
maternal and child health (MCH), malaria, nutrition, and family
planning programs. USAID's maternal and child health resources are
focused in the 24 MCH priority countries under the Global Health
Initiative, which account for more than 70 percent of under-5
mortality.
In fiscal year 2013, USAID will expand investment in vaccines
through our contribution to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and
Immunization (GAVI Alliance), where the U.S. Government will take
advantage of the ability to leverage resources from other donors and
increase the effectiveness of this investment. Immunization programs
presently prevent approximately 2.5 million under-5 deaths each year.
By expanding the coverage of existing vaccines and introducing new
immunizations, we believe we can save the lives of 4 million children
over just the next 5 years. To do this, we need to deliver routine
vaccines in new combinations, as well as introduce new vaccines against
childhood killers, which includes acute respiratory infections and
diarrheal disease to all children, and especially hard to reach
children who are presently not receiving any vaccinations. The impact
of the new pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, which protects against acute
respiratory infections, could reduce the deaths from childhood
pneumonia by up to 500,000 every year. Similarly, the rotavirus vaccine
that combats diarrhea could save 300,000 children who die every year
from extreme diarrhea.
Fiscal year 2012 increases in funding for the President's Malaria
Initiative (PMI) have allowed for the expansion of activities and
geographic coverage within both Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of
the Congo (DRC), which together account for almost one-half of all
malaria cases in Africa, while maintaining coverage and sustaining
gains in the remaining PMI countries. Further expansion of program
activities in Nigeria and the DRC will be possible with the fiscal year
2013 budget request level. PMI will continue to collaborate closely
with other donors and partners to seek cost savings and sustain the
gains achieved in focus countries.
joseph kony and the lord's resistance army
Question. Your fiscal year 2013 budget request does not mention the
Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) or anything about implementing the LRA
Disarmament and Recovery Act. Is that an oversight? What more could be
done to help Kony's victims recover, to support the early warning
network and the disarmament and reintegration of former LRA combatants,
especially child soldiers?
Answer. While a specific LRA line item is not included in the
fiscal year 2013 budget, USAID will continue to assist those affected
by the LRA in Uganda, the Central African Republic (CAR), the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and South Sudan with
humanitarian and development assistance in fiscal year 2013. USAID's
fiscal year 2013 CBJ includes approximately $82 million for
reintegration, recovery and development of conflict-affected
populations in Northern Uganda, including 1.8 million people who had
been displaced by the LRA. USAID's fiscal year 2013 budget request also
includes funding for development programs in South Sudan, a portion of
which will be in LRA-affected areas (the southwestern region of the
country) and could benefit individuals affected by LRA violence. USAID
assistance in Western Equatoria State includes construction of feeder
roads that will enable agricultural products to get to market, market
electrification assistance, basic education services, primary
healthcare delivery, English language instruction via radio programs,
technical assistance to improve the quality of the water supply in the
area, and fertilizer and seed distribution programs.
USAID will continue to utilize humanitarian assistance funds to
address emergency needs in the DRC, CAR, and South Sudan related to the
impact of LRA violence, including food security, economic recovery,
health and protection assistance, as well as continuing reintegration
assistance for children formerly abducted by the LRA. USAID, in
conjunction with the Department of State's Bureau for Population,
Refugees, and Migration (PRM) will continue to monitor the humanitarian
needs of LRA-affected communities and deliver needs-based humanitarian
assistance throughout the region. In addition, we have launched a new
Counter-Trafficking in Persons policy and are elevating our focus on
trafficking in and around conflict areas; we will be particularly
focused on the DRC.
Question. How do you regard the potential for social media to
inform the public and rally support in response to crises--whether to
stop the effects of climate change, punish war criminals in Sri Lanka,
or some other compelling issue?
Answer. USAID recognizes that social media is a proven catalytic
force in global politics and requires timely, consistent, and relevant
communication to be effective. Social media has great potential to both
inform the public and rally support around a cause, and when harnessed
correctly, positions USAID to be truly effective in engaging directly
with myriad development stakeholders. In times of immediate crisis,
like natural disaster or conflict situations, user-generated social
media content often provides the world with the first glimpses of the
disaster. These on-the-ground testimonials can be vital in rallying
support for direct action, thus resulting in a timelier and ultimately
more-effective response to distressed areas.
With longer-term crises, like famine, drought, or public health
issues, a more measured and intentional approach can and should be
taken. Social media provides a streamlined, yet far reaching, avenue
for engaging the public in the places where they both consume and share
content within their immediate circles of influence and beyond. A
strong social media campaign can leverage the critical opportunity to
reach not only our natural audiences, but their extended audiences as
well. The primary key to that virality is providing timely and relevant
content of a quality that is worth sharing.
To that end, USAID partnered with the Ad Council in September 2011
to raise awareness of the serious plight of more than 10 million people
who have been at risk from the famine, war, and drought affecting the
Horn of Africa. Through this partnership, USAID produced several public
service announcements (PSAs), which featured celebrities, professional
athletes and well-known personalities, and have aired nearly 20,000
times, reaching an audience of more than 45 million people. These same
PSAs garnered more than 150 million forward actions through Facebook,
Twitter, email, and YouTube, and increased attention to and support for
the efforts to ameliorate the situation in the Horn of Africa.
Internationally, USAID's missions utilize various social media
platforms with increasing regularity, and within the last year, USAID
has seen an exponential increase specifically with engagement via
Facebook and Twitter accounts. Recognizing the need to engage with
development stakeholders in a meaningful way through the social media
realm, USAID is actively working toward institutionalizing demonstrated
successes and best practices by supporting its missions' use of these
platforms. Further, the State Department (Embassy Public Affairs
Sections) and USAID (Communications Offices) work together in the field
to improve their communications collaboration and develop cohesive
strategies that incorporate USAID outreach efforts, leverage different
networks, and reach relevant target audiences. This information is also
shared with the USAID Washington Social Media team to further promotion
via domestic audiences.
development grants program
Question. I started the Development Grants Program (DGP) several
years ago to provide a relatively small amount of money--$45 million
out of a total Development Assistance account of more than $2 billion--
to provide small NGOs with grants of less than $2 million for
innovative proposals. The purpose was to support mostly local NGOs that
cannot compete for big USAID grants. Unfortunately, USAID did not
implement the program as intended.
One of the key goals of your procurement reform is to be able to
support more grants to smaller NGOs. But given your track record with
the DGP, it is hard to be optimistic. Why can't these DGPs be made
available for projects in any sector--agriculture, environment,
education, democracy and governance, water and sanitation, you name
it--at any USAID mission that receives a proposal that qualifies?
Answer. In its first 3 years of programming, the DGP has been
successful at broadening the USAID partner base by providing direct
grants to 38 small U.S. private voluntary organizations and 104 small
local NGOs, the majority of which had not received any prior direct
USAID funding. In addition to providing small grants, the program
continues to provide capacity building to strengthen the organizations
and provide critical program support to missions.
DGP is valued by missions and has become an important way that
missions directly engage with small nontraditional partners that have
access to underserved communities. In many instances, DGP relationships
have grown into long-term partnerships supporting core mission goals.
In Zambia for example, under the DGP, a local NGO implemented a
Water and Sanitation program in schools which increased sustainable
access to safe drinking water and sanitation facilities, improved
hygiene, and addressed environmental issues that impacted education
quality and learner performance. The structured and consistent support
to the local NGO under the DGP resulted in effective planning,
implementation and monitoring of activities as well as a strong
collaboration and positive working relationship with government
officials, schools, communities and other key stakeholders. Valuing the
local NGO's reach into the most rural communities, the mission, with
its own funds, more than doubled the size of the award to the
organization and now considers them as a strong development partner in
its Water and Sanitation program.
All of USAID's programs must address the balance between
development priorities and budget realities. In the context of the DGP,
USAID finds that mission capacity to program through local
organizations and a greater number of smaller partners is increasing to
meet the same goals. Further, unlike the first 3 years of programming
in which all of the DGP funds were encumbered with sector directives,
in fiscal year 2012, more than one-half of the appropriated funds will
not be required to be used with specified sectors.
haiti
Question. Some public health experts say the international response
to the cholera epidemic was fraught with problems, the incidence of
cholera in some parts of Haiti today remains among the highest in the
world, the danger of another cholera epidemic in Haiti is high, and the
country is far less prepared to respond than it was a year ago. If
cholera were to spread to Jamaica, Mexico, or Brazil, it could be
disastrous. How do you respond to these concerns? Do you believe the
United States Government's support for cholera management in Haiti is
sufficient to prevent another epidemic; and, if so, why?
Answer. Experts view the rapid spread of cholera within the
region--with the high mortality rates seen during the early onset in
Haiti--as highly unlikely, in large part, because sanitation systems
are more advanced, and access to healthcare is greater.
As the rainy season approaches, our focus continues to be on
supporting the Haitian Government in the prevention and treatment of
cholera. The U.S. Government has integrated cholera response into our
long-term health programming, ensuring that we are helping to combat
the disease as long as it continues to threaten the country. The United
States Government has also taken precautions by prepositioning cholera
response commodities throughout Haiti. Though spikes in cases are
possible with the onset of the rainy season, the fact that the case-
fatality rate has remained less than 1 percent for several months is
good indication that people understand what to do when symptoms occur
and that the system itself is able to manage the cases that occur.
Since the cholera epidemic began a year-and-a-half ago, USAID has
provided cholera treatment through our health service delivery sites,
which provide access to care for approximately 50 percent of the
Haitian population. Today, the U.S. Government continues to manage the
epidemic primarily through our basic health services. All sites in
USAID's network are capable of treating new cholera cases. All staff
are appropriately trained, and commodities such as oral rehydration
salts and IV fluids are on hand to treat patients.
In addition, the U.S. Government continues to support improvements
in access to safe drinking water, improved sanitation, and hygiene for
the people of Haiti, as these represent long-term solutions to the
cholera epidemic and to many other public health problems that hinder
the health of the Haitian people and the development of the Haitian
nation. To date, the U.S. Government has spent more than $73 million to
fight cholera in Haiti.
protecting forests and indigenous people
Question. Last year, we transferred the position of Advisor for
Indigenous People from the State Department to USAID. Do you know if a
search is underway to fill that position? It is important because USAID
gets involved in everything from building roads to logging in tropical
forests which directly impact indigenous people, and their governments
often run roughshod over their rights and territories. We are seeing
that today in Peru, where the Amazon is being carved up for oil, gas
and logging concessions, and I want to be sure there is a person at
USAID with authority who indigenous people have access to who will look
out for their interests.
Answer. USAID shares your commitment to elevating the interests of
indigenous peoples, which are currently integrated into many areas of
programming, including land tenure and property rights, forestry and
biodiversity, resource governance, rule of law, human rights, and
community health programs.
With respect to the position of the Advisor for Indigenous Peoples
Issues, which was transferred to USAID with the passage of the fiscal
year 2012 appropriations bill, we are working at the highest levels of
USAID to determine the appropriate scope of duties for this position,
its optimal home within the organization, and associated resource
requirements. We look forward to consulting with your staff to move
this forward as expeditiously as possible.
evaluation policy
Question. USAID adopted a new evaluation policy in January 2011
which changed the requirements for evaluating the effectiveness of
USAID projects and programs. I agree that the way USAID evaluates the
effectiveness of its programs needs to be more credible, but I worry
that the emphasis on quantitative analysis is overly-simplistic and
focuses on short-term impact, rather than longer-term outcomes which
can be influenced by many factors. I am not sure your results will be
accurate. How do you respond?
Answer. USAID's Evaluation Policy has been recognized by the Center
for Global Development for ``fostering a new culture, of transparency
and learning.'' The American Evaluation Association has also cited the
policy as a model other Federal agencies should follow. USAID's
Evaluation Policy was created to recommit USAID to ``obtain systematic,
meaningful feedback about the success and shortcomings of its
endeavors'', and this includes stronger quantitative and qualitative
analysis. The Policy does not place an emphasis on quantitative
analysis to the exclusion of other methods. Rather it requires that
USAID-funded evaluations use methods that generate the highest quality
and most-credible evidence that corresponds to the questions being
asked, taking into consideration time, budget, and other practical
considerations. Given the nature of development activities, both
qualitative and quantitative methods yield valuable findings, and a
combination of both is often optimal.
To ensure that USAID's evaluations address longer-term outcomes,
evaluation requirements are written into the guidance for the missions'
Country Development Cooperation Strategies (CDCS). Missions identify
longer-term outcomes of the USAID country program in the CDCS and
specify indicators to routinely track change and evaluation questions
to be addressed over the period of the strategy. In addition to the
CDCS, evaluation is integrated throughout the USAID Program Cycle,
which includes long- and medium-term outcomes and includes developing
and implementing policies and strategies, project design and
implementation, performance monitoring, and learning from experience to
improve development outcomes and inform resource requests.
The Evaluation Policy and USAID's efforts to build evaluation
capacity, particularly in missions, to conduct high-quality evaluation
will lead to increasingly accurate, unbiased, relevant, and transparent
evaluations. USAID is investing in classroom training in evaluation
methods for staff, creating tools, and resources to guide staff and
partners, and providing direct technical assistance to staff engaged in
evaluation design and management. USAID's Bureau for Policy, Planning
and Learning and USAID technical and regional bureaus are working on
the sectoral and multi-country learning that complements mission
evaluations and tracks longer-term outcomes. For example, the new
Center for Democracy, Human Rights and Governance has established the
Evaluating Democracy and Governance Effectiveness initiative; a
comprehensive, long-term program to measure the impact and
effectiveness of various approaches to democratic development and
incorporate the findings into USAID policies and programs through
outreach, training, and field support.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Question. Dr. Shah, I commend the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) in its efforts to improve the delivery of foreign
assistance in more-efficient ways. With the President's announced shift
in our national security strategy to focus more on the Asia-Pacific
region, would you please elaborate on enhancements, new areas of
interest, or ways USAID will strengthen its work in the region?
Answer. USAID has responded to the administration's focus on the
Asia-Pacific region by enhancing existing programs, expanding into new
areas of focus and strengthening our collaborative work in the region.
We will work with Asian countries facing management, governance, and
social challenges that impede progress and growth. USAID will enhance
key bilateral relationships, such as those in the Philippines and
Indonesia, where U.S. Government partnership agreements are elevating
broad based, inclusive economic growth as development priorities.
In Burma, where emerging reform presents a new opening, United
States Government officials have been able to travel to Burma to meet
with government officials and civil society to determine the country's
development needs. On April 4, 2012, following Burma's successful by-
elections, USAID announced the re-establishment of an in-country USAID
mission in Rangoon as part of the United States Government's commitment
to support the Burmese people, reform-minded governmental officials and
other Burmese leaders who are seeking constructive engagement to
advance reform in the country.
USAID Forward and Procurement Reform policies are changing the way
we conduct business--broadening our collaborative partner base and
making it easier for small businesses, local institutions, and other
donors to partner with us. As two examples:
--USAID's work with Association of Southeast Asian Nations Dialogue
partners supports regional program coordination, climate change
initiatives, disaster management and regional trade; and
--USAID efforts promote important multi-donor and multilateral
coordination on issues such as the development of hydro-power
on the Mekong River.
Question. Senate Report 112-85, the Senate's State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for fiscal year
2012, which was referenced in the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
House Report 112-331, directed the Secretary of State to follow
guidance included in Senate Report 112-74 related to the Compact of
Free Association (Compact) agreements with the Federated States of
Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), and the
Republic of Palau. It also directed the Secretary to work within the
U.S. Government interagency process to address the domestic impacts of
Compact migrants on affected jurisdictions. Could you please explain
what, if any, involvement and role USAID has in this process?
Answer. USAID is responsible for United States disaster assistance
and reconstruction services in the RMI and the Federated States of
Micronesia (FSM), which the United States Government is obligated to
provide as stipulated in the Compact. While our disaster response and
reconstruction program does not directly address the domestic impacts
of Compact migrants, it does support these countries' ability to
anticipate and mitigate the effects of natural disasters. Our efforts
help reduce the number of Compact citizens who will have to migrate to
the United States due to disasters.
Question. With respect to the Compact countries, currently, the
Departments of the Interior and State participate in the Joint Economic
Management Committee and Joint Economic Management and Fiscal
Accountability Committees to strengthen the management and
accountability of assistance provided to Compact countries. This
involves a review of the development plans and other planning and
budget documents of the governments, as well as monitoring the progress
being made toward sustainable economic development and budgetary self-
reliance. USAID's mission is development assistance to countries for
the purpose of helping them gain stability and sustainability. I
believe this is an area USAID's experience and technical expertise
would be invaluable, and would be interested to learn what involvement
USAID may have in this process and what it might be able to lend to the
Departments of the Interior and State.
Answer. USAID has more than 50 years of experience in partnering
with governments to build sustainable institutional capacity in
developing countries. We have developed technical expertise in
improving governments' capacity to formulate and implement economic
development plans; improve fiscal stability; reinforce anticorruption
measures; and strengthen rule of law. While USAID's program is limited
to disaster assistance in the RMI and FSM, we welcome opportunities to
share our technical expertise in other areas critical for the Compact
countries' sustainable economic development.
When the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the
Department of Homeland Security was responsible for disaster assistance
under the Compact, that FEMA's role was restricted to disaster relief
and reconstruction. USAID is now able to fulfill the U.S. Government's
obligations under the Compact, while helping to strengthen each
country's capacity for disaster mitigation, response, recovery, and
reconstruction at both national and community levels. USAID will work
with the Departments of the Interior and State to ensure our programs
are complementary in building sustainable institutional capacity.
Question. I am interested in learning what USAID's plans are for
development assistance in the larger context of the South and Western
Pacific, and what it is currently undertaking in this key strategic
area.
Answer. USAID seeks to play a key role in deepening U.S. Government
engagement in the Pacific region. Our programs in the Pacific are
regionally focused, but target South and Western Pacific countries,
including Papua New Guinea (PNG), RMI, FSM, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau,
Samoa, Solomon Islands, Fiji, Vanuatu, and Tonga.
The value of U.S. Government presence is magnified by our programs'
focus on issues that pose the greatest socio-economic threat to the
Pacific island countries:
--Mitigating the negative impacts of global climate change in a
region that is among the most vulnerable in the world to the
adverse effects of climate change, but least able to respond;
--Addressing the impact of HIV/AIDS in PNG, which suffers from the
highest HIV/AIDS epidemic rate in the Pacific; and,
--Strengthening democratic institutions in PNG and Fiji, where
democracy is still fragile.
To further maximize the impact of our programs, USAID:
--Collaborates and leverages the funding of key donors in the region,
including Australia, New Zealand, and Japan and other
multilateral organizations such as the United Nations, the
World Bank, and Asian Development Bank;
--Supports key regional institutions; and
--Forges greater synergy and unity of effort among the different U.S.
Government agencies working in the region for a more-effective
``whole-of-government'' approach that makes the best use of
limited resources.
The opening of USAID's satellite office in Port Moresby, Papua New
Guinea in October 2011 is a recent example of increased U.S. engagement
in the region. USAID's presence has contributed to expanding the U.S.
Government's outreach and diplomatic capacity in the region.
Question. Would you please tell me what USAID's plan for economic/
development assistance is for the country to the Philippines?
Answer. A team of economists from the United States and the
Philippines analyzed and identified the country's most binding
constraints to growth. To ensure the Government of the Philippines
ownership of the new approach, the analysis was a collaborative effort
and included development objectives outlined in the Philippines
Development Plan (PDP), 2011-2016. The PDP is a document developed by
the Government of the Philippines that closely aligns with the United
States' 5-year strategy from 2012-2016. Under the new strategy, USAID
will focus on two key areas to address economic/development assistance
in the Philippines:
--regulatory reform; and
--fiscal space
areas identified as among the most critical constraints that prevent
the Philippines from realizing its full economic potential.
The United States Government supports the Government of the
Philippines measures to reduce the cost of doing business, improve the
investment climate, ensure that import regulations are science-based,
and ease restrictions on market entry. Rule of law and judiciary
reforms will support these critical initiatives. The Government of the
Philippines has committed to streamlining business procedures
(predictability, reliability, and efficiency) at national and local
levels to reduce the country's cost of doing business and they have
committed to improving the overall investment climate through
regulatory reforms. The Government of the Philippines is pursing
implementation of the Anti-Red Tape law and a Philippine Business
Registry system to establish an on-line system for national business
registration.
Improving fiscal space is the second key area on which USAID will
work. Low government revenue due to a narrow tax base and ineffective
expenditure management, caused in part by favoritism in government
contracting, inhibit growth. Through this strategy, programs will
address inefficient revenue generation, strengthen tax collection
enforcement and improve expenditure management of the Government of the
Philippines agencies.
Question. In your testimony, you spoke about the focus being given
to North Africa and the Middle East, especially following the
revolutions in the region early last year. How does USAID plan to
sustain its various assistance, economic and reform oriented, while
shifting focus to the Asia-Pacific region and maintaining the current
operational tempo in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Answer. In North Africa and the Middle East, USAID will remain an
active and sustained partner as the region transforms. As the U.S.
Government shifts focus to the Asia-Pacific, we are utilizing our
resources differently. Through innovation and reinvention, USAID will
expand focus to the Asia-Pacific while sustaining our current efforts
elsewhere. In October 2011, USAID opened an office in Port Moresby,
Papua New Guinea, to manage programs throughout the Pacific Islands.
Additionally, USAID will re-open its mission in Rangoon to better serve
the nascent democratic process in Burma and provide increased oversight
to our on-going programs.
USAID is in the midst of finishing a comprehensive portfolio review
in Afghanistan. Last June, Administrator Shah issued Sustainability
Guidance that mandates all programs in Afghanistan be reviewed and
adjusted to ensure they are implemented with the driving principles of
accountability, sustainability, and social and gender inclusion, and
that they be implemented in partnership with the Afghan government.
Allocation of aid resources will increasingly be based on maximizing
capacity-building initiatives and development impacts as aid budgets
shrink to enable a viable Afghan transition.
USAID's projects in Iraq transitioned from stabilization assistance
to development assistance beginning in 2009. The State Department,
USAID, and our other U.S. Government partners continue to meet the
challenge of operating successfully in a dynamic environment while
still maintaining the safety of our personnel by:
--Contracting third-party monitoring and evaluation specialists who
have greater access to project sites, are less limited by
security concerns, and possess local knowledge.
--Employing local Iraqi professionals to provide an additional layer
of oversight and greater access to project sites,
beneficiaries, and counterparts.
--USAID employs more than 1,100 implementing personnel in Iraq,
nearly 1,000 of whom are local Iraqi employees, or 90 percent.
Question. The American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (ASHA) program
is very important to assisting our friends and partners overseas. I
have been very supportive of ASHA in the past, in particular its work
in Israel. Would you please explain how much an average ASHA grantee
receives, and how many grantees ASHA supports? Finally, I have
supported efforts by the Israel Center for Excellence in Education
(ICEE) in the past, and I understand they have benefited from ASHA
support many years ago. Dr. Shah, would you please explain how the
grant process has changed over the years, and if ICEE submitted a grant
application, I would be interested in learning about its current
status.
Answer. USAID's ASHA program administers a worldwide grant program
that reflects both the pioneering spirit and the generosity of citizens
of the United States. USAID appreciates your past and future support of
the program, including its work in Israel.
In order to ensure an equitable distribution of ASHA funds to
entities whose proposals best support the program's objectives, ASHA
conducts a fair and competitive process in order to allocate grant
funds each year. On average, ASHA receives approximately 80-100
applications in response to the annual Request for Applications. Of
that number, 25-35 new grants are awarded annually. The individual
grant awards range from $150,000 to $2,000,000.
USAID/ASHA has recently modified the grant process in the last year
by utilizing www.grants.gov as the means to post its Request for
Applications. fiscal year 2012 funding requests are currently being
reviewed by a USAID Technical Evaluation Committee, and it is
anticipated that final agency recommendations will be made in June or
July 2012.
ICEE did not submit an application for this past grant application
cycle, which ended October 31, 2011. We appreciate your show of support
and encourage ICEE to apply to the upcoming grant application cycle,
which will be available on www.grants.gov in June or July 2012.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
Question. While I commend the efforts being made by the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID) to cut waste in the
delivery of its assistance, I wish to assure that we maintain a broad
connection between democracy and labor rights groups in the United
States with their counterpart partners in developing nations. This is
especially important when we want to promote such groups around the
world, often in countries where direct associations with the U.S.
Government is problematic. Can you tell me how USAID is balancing the
important role these intermediary organizations play with its efforts
at greater localization of assistance contracts?
Answer. USAID will continue to offer significant support to
international democracy and labor rights groups, particularly as they
support local counterpart organizations.
The connection between local organizations in developing countries
and democracy and labor organizations in the United States is supported
through the Agency's guidance regarding incorporation of Local Capacity
Development into USAID project designs. Building strong partnerships
between local and American organizations that respond to similar
issues, or have similar organizational missions, can facilitate the
emergence of stronger promotion of democracy and labor rights.
Considering the potential value of such relationships is part of
appropriate project design, and is reinforced through the guidance that
is shared with missions.
This is especially true in the area of international labor rights
programming. USAID supports U.S. intermediary organizations, like the
Solidarity Center and the International Labor Rights Fund, in order to
leverage specialized expertise to strengthen unions and labor rights
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in developing countries and
connect them to the global labor movement. A good example of this is
USAID's $37.5 million Global Labor Program (GLP) Leader with Associates
Award, a 5-year program with the Solidarity Center that is currently
active in nine countries and four regions (Africa, Asia, Latin America,
and Eastern Europe). Due to the Solidarity Center's successful capacity
building of local unions and labor rights NGOs, this support helps
prepare the type of local organizations that USAID seeks to strengthen
through local capacity development and localized assistance contracts.
USAID recognizes that support to U.S. intermediaries like the
Solidarity Center and the International Labor Rights Forum, a
consortium partner in USAID's Global Civil Society Strengthening
Program, is important to this effort.
USAID also promotes democracy groups in developing countries by
encouraging USAID missions to incorporate them into the monitoring and
evaluation of USAID programs that use partner country systems, thus
bringing a more-sustainable form of accountability to developing
country governments. This is reflected in USAID's policy on the use of
partner country systems.
Question. I very much applaud your efforts to strengthen
independent civil society and NGOs around the world. Can you outline
how the President's budget request will support the strengthening of
democracy, human rights groups, and labor unions around the world
through funding by USAID? How is USAID strengthening worker rights in
Arab Spring countries that have seen trade unions leading efforts for
democratization?
Answer. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2013
includes $2.84 billion for State Department and USAID programs to
strengthen democracy, human rights and governance worldwide. Under this
broad rubric, both the State Department and USAID will plan programs
to:
--ensure free and fair elections;
--promote freedom of association and strengthen civil society
organizations;
--support human rights organizations in their monitoring and advocacy
efforts; support independent media; and
--strengthen labor unions and worker rights.
USAID's programs promote freedom of association, working to ensure
that NGO laws provide an enabling environment for a vibrant,
independent civil society sector. USAID also builds the organizational
capacity of NGOs to advocate on behalf of constituents, influence
policy dialogues, and hold governments accountable for their
performance. In the Middle East, USAID's programs focus on empowering
new actors, including women, youth, minorities, and other communities
that have been excluded from political and economic power.
USAID support for workers' rights revolves around the GLP,
implemented by the Solidarity Center, which promotes international core
labor standards, works to improve workers' access to justice, and
supports independent, democratic labor unions and NGOs.
USAID has workers' rights programs in Ukraine, Georgia, Bangladesh,
Cambodia, South Africa, Liberia, Mexico, Honduras, Brazil, Peru,
Colombia, Kyrgyzstan, and Vietnam. While USAID does not have specific
programs focusing on workers' rights in the Middle East and North
Africa, the Department of State's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights
and Labor is supporting independent trade unions in Egypt. USAID
coordinates its programming closely with the Department of State.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
vulnerable children
Question. In just 9 days, the inspirational video created by the
American nongovernmental organization Invisible Children--which focuses
on Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) leader Joseph Kony--has attracted more
than 78 million views on YouTube and generated hundreds of thousands of
dollars in donations on its release day alone. Louisiana constituents,
particularly younger Louisianans, have been contacting my office
nonstop in support of the ``Kony 2012'' movement with phone calls and
emails. Though the size of the LRA is dwindling and Joseph Kony is now
thought to be operating from the Congo or the Central African Republic
(CAR), some 440,000 Ugandans have been displaced by the conflict--most
of them children.
Do you mind detailing the United States Agency for International
Development's (USAID) support for these conflict-affected children and
former child soldiers in Uganda?
Could you explain USAID's efforts to restore the livelihoods of
conflict-affected children? Is there a focus on reconnecting these
children with the families from which they were kidnapped?
Answer. USAID has been heavily engaged in addressing the needs of
LRA-affected communities since the late 1980s, when USAID began
providing humanitarian assistance in Northern Uganda. Although the
threat of the LRA has shifted from terrorizing communities in Northern
Uganda to CAR, the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan, USAID
remains committed to addressing the needs of affected populations,
including children, in Uganda. In fiscal year 2011, USAID provided
approximately $102 million in assistance to Northern Uganda. The needs
of children, women, and other vulnerable groups are addressed through
programs that promote reconciliation, restore livelihoods and rebuild
the region. USAID programs do not isolate child soldiers, but rather
integrate them and their unique needs into our programs designed to
promote reconciliation. By linking the specific needs of formerly
abducted persons with those of their communities, USAID ensures a
whole-of-community approach that addresses both the short- and long-
term needs of conflict-affected children and former child soldiers.
USAID programming to support conflict-affected children and their
communities in Northern Uganda include:
--psychosocial support;
--vocational and leadership training;
--peace education;
--livelihoods training and agricultural extension;
--community consensus-building; and
--provision of family support social services.
As the needs in Northern Uganda have evolved from short-term,
quick-impact transition initiatives to longer-term development, USAID
has transitioned its work in Northern Uganda to address these long-term
issues. As an example, the Supporting Access to Justice, Fostering
Equity and Peace program is a new 5-year program that continues peace
and reconciliation efforts in LRA-affected areas and proactively
addresses emerging development issues and conflict drivers, such as
land disputes and government service delivery.
USAID began transitioning from providing emergency food assistance
to internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the camps to supporting the
return of IDPs to their former homes. Since 2006, USAID/FFP has
provided more than $100 million in title II Development Food assistance
benefiting 87,000 families in 21 districts in Northern Uganda. This
assistance has included:
--support for increased agriculture production;
--HIV/AIDS awareness;
--infrastructure development;
--maternal and child health and nutrition; and
--water, sanitation, and hygiene.
procurement reform
Question. The administration has said that it wants to make foreign
aid more effective and efficient and has made some progress on this,
particularly through the USAID Forward agenda. I've been a supporter of
procurement reform and was pleased to see that just this past month,
USAID simplified its regulations so that the agency can support smaller
businesses in the United States and abroad--supporting economic growth
in areas that really need it--when buying goods and services. The
President's fiscal year 2013 budget requests that $16 million be
appropriated to the USAID operating expenses account to support the
USAID Forward agenda, and particularly procurement reform. The request
notes that several new civil service positions are needed to implement
procurement reform to develop smaller contracts appropriate for partner
country systems.
What other local procurement activities are envisioned by this $16
million?
Answer. The $16 million identified in the President's fiscal year
2013 budget for procurement reform includes $13 million in fiscal year
2012 appropriated operating expenses (OE) and $3 million in the fiscal
year 2013 appropriation. Per the fiscal year 2012 statement of managers
provision that at least $25 million of the appropriation be made
available for procurement reform in fiscal years 2012 and 2013, the $13
million reflects the carryover funding for fiscal year 2013 activities.
Hence, only $3 million for 16 new civil service positions for
procurement reform is requested for appropriation in fiscal year 2013.
With the additional funding, USAID will be able to field more
acquisition personnel to support the increased local procurement
activities and related local capacity development interventions.
Additional work includes the need to complete pre-award surveys for
local organizations that have never had a direct award with the U.S.
Government, assess the capacity development needs of the organizations,
and provide capacity-building support to ensure accountability for U.S.
taxpayer funds and compliance with U.S. law and policy requirements.
Question. Additionally, what steps have been taken to help both
small U.S. and developing country businesses know about and take
advantage of these recent regulatory changes?
Answer. USAID has increased and focused its outreach efforts to
both small U.S. and developing country businesses to inform them of the
Implementation and Procurement Reform Initiative and opportunities for
direct and indirect partnership implementing USAID-managed development
resources. For U.S. small businesses, USAID's Office of Small and
Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) conducts on-going outreach
activities at both USAID-sponsored events and external small-business
conferences. These outreach efforts provide forums for OSDBU to counsel
U.S. small businesses seeking contracting opportunities at USAID. In
fiscal year 2012, OSDBU will take part in more than 25 small-business
outreach events, including hosting the 5th Annual USAID Small Business
Conference. This conference provides a forum for U.S. small businesses
to hear from senior USAID leadership and program officials regarding
IPRI and future contracting opportunities at USAID. Additionally, OSDBU
conducts periodic Vendor Day sessions with all categories of U.S. small
businesses.
For developing country business, the Agency's Partner Community
Outreach Plan, available at http://www.usaid.gov/business/
USAIDPartnerCommunityOutreach
Plan.pdf, provides guidance to USAID personnel on outreach to new and
existing partners. Missions have started holding ``Industry Days'' and
``Pre-solicitation Conferences'' and inviting local organizations to
participate. For example, the USAID mission in Rwanda recently held a
``How to Do Business with USAID'' for potential local applicants for a
health award solicitation. The USAID mission in Philippines held
similar events for solicitations in the Economic Growth and Democracy
and Governance sectors. In Egypt, the USAID mission held a series of
outreach events attended by more than 1,400 people to learn about the
process for submitting applications under an Annual Program Statement.
As part of a series of field-based Local Capacity Development training/
workshops, USAID personnel have been trained on mapping local civil-
society and private-sector organizations to identify prospective local
partners and assess their capacity to implement activities. Missions
are encouraged to invite prospective local partners to ``Partner
Exchange Days'', which provide opportunities for prospective
implementation partners to provide feedback on project designs and
identify potential partnerships, and ``Pre-Proposal Conferences'',
which provide information on upcoming solicitations, and invite local
organizations to participate.
central america
Question. Within Central America, the deteriorating security
situation threatens citizen safety. Narcotics traffickers continue to
establish trafficking routes to and through the region. The continued
expansion of national and transnational gangs creates communities of
fear where illicit organizations are effectively in control. At a time
when many of our regional partners are fighting a brutal battle in
their countries against organized crime, the President's fiscal year
2013 budget request recommends that the State Department make a $5
million cut from enacted fiscal year 2012 levels to the Central America
Regional Security Initiative (CARSI). The President recommends that the
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement Account
appropriation to the Western Hemisphere be reduced by $92 million for
fiscal year 2013. Can you please explain the President's logic in
making such a sizeable reduction to this appropriation for the Western
Hemisphere, when drug-related violence and narcotics trafficking is at
an all-time high?
Answer. We share your concern regarding the citizen security crisis
in Central America, and the accompanying factors that bring violence to
the region. The problem is large and complex, but the United States is
committed to continuing to work with Central American governments, as
well as other donor nations and institutions, to support the region's
efforts to reverse the deteriorating state of citizen security.
Through its programming and policy advocacy, CARSI seeks to reduce
the region's levels of crime and violence, support prevention efforts
for at-risk youth and those living in marginalized communities, and
strengthen rule of law institutions. The Bureau of International
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) and USAID are implementing
CARSI programs capable of being replicated or ``nationalized'' by host
nations. Examples of this are Model Police Precincts, the opening of
youth outreach centers and vocational training centers, and the
development of ``Municipal Crime Prevention Strategies'' in communities
at-risk. CARSI also supports border security professionalization,
assistance for judicially authorized wire intercept programs, seized
asset programs, and the training and vetting of specialized
investigative units.
Since fiscal year 2008, the United States has committed $361.5
million to these efforts. The administration requested $100 million for
CARSI for fiscal year 2012; however, we plan on allocating $105 million
for CARSI (INCLE: $60 million; ESF: $45 million), pending final
congressional approval. The administration's fiscal year 2013 budget
request of $107.5 million will represent a 2.3-percent increase more
than the fiscal year 2012 actual allocation for CARSI (INCLE: $60
million--no change; ESF: $47.6 million--5.7-percent increase).
Citizen security is a priority for the people of Central America
and the hemisphere. The administration's proposed fiscal year 2013
$91.8 million reduction in Western Hemisphere INCLE funding largely
accounts for the continuing transition of counternarcotics and rule of
law programs to the Government of Colombia as it continues to build and
strengthen its capacities, which reflects the success of United States
assistance investments. In fact, Colombian capacity has reached the
point where they are providing law enforcement training and assistance,
in cooperation with the United States, in both Mexico and Central
America. In Mexico, the fiscal year 2013 INCLE budget request decrease
reflects a reorientation of efforts in Mexico from the acquisition of
equipment to training, mentoring and capacity building, all of which
are lower cost and provide long-term sustainability.
Given the proximity of Central America to our own border, and the
efforts of transnational trafficking organizations in Central America,
Colombia and Mexico, we will continue our commitment to Central
American and in the hemisphere to sustain our efforts and support our
partners in addressing their most pressing citizen security, rule of
law and prevention challenges.
Question. The U.S. Congress voted to ban military aid to Guatemala
in 1990 due to concerns regarding human rights abuses committed by the
Guatemalan army. Today, the ban remains in place as a partial
restriction that limits Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and
International Military Education and Training (IMET) funding to the
Army Corps of Engineers, Navy and Air Force, allowing only Expanded
IMET to the Guatemalan army. The fiscal year 2012 omnibus
appropriations bill, which passed through the Congress last December,
states that funding to the Army will only be considered in fiscal year
2013 if the Army complies with a series of stipulations, including ``a
narrowly defined mission focused on border security and external
threats, cooperation with civilian investigations and prosecutions of
cases involving current and retired officers and with the CICIG, and .
. . publicly disclosing all military archives pertaining to the
internal armed conflict.''
Does USAID concur with these requirements and do you believe that
the Guatemalan army is ready to receive regular FMF and IMET funding?
Answer. The Department of State has indicated to both the current
and past Guatemalan governments that we are willing to discuss the
United States congressional restrictions on IMET and FMF funding for
the Guatemalan army, and we have encouraged the Guatemalans to discuss
the restrictions with Members of Congress. While it is early in the
Perez Molina administration, going forward we will thoroughly assess
the military's commitment and progress with regard to human rights,
internal reform, and other key issues, as outlined in the manager's
report accompanying this year's appropriations act. The Guatemalan
military is responsive to civilian political authorities, it has a
human rights and international humanitarian law training program, and
has provided key complementary support to law enforcement as part of
Perez Molina's strategy to improve citizen security. The Guatemalan
military is also continuing to work with representatives of the Central
American archives to explore the possibility of putting the conflict-
era military archives online through the University of Texas. It has
earned significant international and Guatemalan public respect for its
work in support of peacekeeping operations, disaster response, and
recovery efforts.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
Question. Recent events have underscored the importance of the
current United States strategy to continue withdrawing our troops from
Afghanistan. What role do you see the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) playing in Afghanistan after our
troops have left the country?
Answer. Afghanistan faces a critical turning point in the next few
years. Insecurity, corruption, the narcotics trade, and political
instability continue to pose challenges to fragile gains in development
and governance. The drawdown of international combat forces and the
associated economic impact will slow growth. But as the recently
concluded U.S.-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) makes
clear, we will stay engaged in Afghanistan for the long-term, providing
the Afghan people support so that they can pursue a future of greater
stability and dignity.
The path to sustainable stability in Afghanistan requires continued
commitment to civilian assistance, but increasingly through efforts
that will boost Afghan self-sufficiency. The signing of the SPA is a
major accomplishment and pivotal milestone on this path. The United
States commitment to seek funding from the Congress for continued
economic assistance is contingent on the Afghans fulfilling their
commitments and obligations to strengthen accountability, transparency,
oversight, and the effectiveness of government institutions. Through
the SPA, we seek to cement an enduring partnership with Afghanistan
that strengthens Afghan sovereignty and stability while promoting
respect for the constitution, human rights, and the advancement of
women.
We have prioritized our assistance portfolio to make foundational
investments that will enable transition to full Afghan security
responsibility, and help to ensure Afghans increasingly have the skills
and resources necessary to chart their own future. USAID plans to
invest in priority sectors that are critical to private sector-led
economic growth:
--agriculture;
--extractive industries;
--trade; and
--human capacity development.
In addition, we are working with the Afghan authorities to ensure
credible and inclusive national elections in accordance with the Afghan
constitution, including by supporting and strengthening political
parties and civil society coalitions to participate fully in an
inclusive and representative democracy.
In one of the most food-insecure countries on Earth, our
agriculture assistance will help significantly boost crop yields, farm
income, access to markets, and reduce dependence on opium poppy for the
80 percent of Afghans who make their living from subsistence farming.
Afghanistan's endowment of mineral wealth provides enormous
opportunities to expand industry, trade corridors, and revenues, but
presents significant potential pitfalls as well. USAID will work with
the Afghan Government and the private sector to improve the investment
climate, increase Afghan capacity to create and implement a policy and
regulatory framework that meets international best practices, and
transparently report and manage resource flows so that they benefit the
Afghan people.
As you well know, Afghanistan remains a poor country and as such,
we cannot, and should not, set unrealistic goals. USAID is making
difficult choices to sharpen our focus--reducing infrastructure
investments in order to support the government to maintain the
infrastructure it already has. Likewise, we are cementing, rather than
expanding, gains in health and education, and are reorienting
stabilization efforts to more directly support the transition and a
sustainable Afghanistan.
The G8, Chicago, and Tokyo conferences will be instrumental in
engaging the Afghan Government and international community to advance
our diplomatic and civilian efforts in the region.
Question. On the 2-year anniversary of the Haiti earthquake this
year, I wrote to the State Department expressing concern about the slow
distribution of aid to the region. In January, the State Department
responded by noting the many challenges that State and USAID have faced
in distributing this aid. Understanding that USAID faces considerable
challenges, what are you doing to speed the distribution of aid?
Answer. The United States Government continues to move forward in
programming our funds to meet the needs of the Haitian people. Since
our response to you on January 19, 2012, we have made significant
strides in accomplishing our goals set forth in our Post-Earthquake USG
Haiti Strategy. As of March 1, 2012, USAID shelter solutions benefited
64,478 households--or more than 322,000 people-- approximately one-
fifth of the 1.5 million people estimated to have been displaced by the
earthquake. Overall, internally displaced persons (IDPs) are down to
490,545 from the estimated 1.5 million after the earthquake. In
addition, our efforts have removed 2.31 million cubic meters of
rubble--almost one-half of all the rubble that has been removed.
We have also made progress in longer-term development solutions.
Our agricultural programs are increasing farmer incomes and
productivity. The 2011 harvest produced increased yields in corn (+368
percent), rice (+118 percent), beans (+85 percent), and plantains (+21
percent). The 2012 planting season will incorporate new innovations in
productivity and continue the progress being made.
We have also successfully launched $6 million in programs to
benefit vulnerable populations, specifically people with disabilities.
These efforts will improve access to services, and the legal and policy
environment, train health personnel to better understand and attend to
their needs, and strengthen advocacy groups focused on this effort.
Also, a $22 million human rights program is now underway which will
protect the rights of children, women, and youth.
We have addressed several key obstacles such as staffing shortages
and procurement support. As a result, our pace of programming continues
to accelerate, while still adhering to the requisite environmental and
seismic data assessments.
The resignation of Prime Minister Conille may unfortunately slow
down development efforts. For our programs to function better and be
implemented faster, we need a Haitian Government that is fully engaged
and that is showing no tolerance for corruption and reaffirming its
commitment to democracy and rule of law. Such engagement will also
serve as a signal to other donors that their investments will be
worthwhile and spent effectively.
Question. It is critical that gender issues are integrated
throughout all of our foreign aid programs, so I was pleased to see
that USAID recently released a new policy on gender equality and
women's empowerment. What metrics will you use to specifically
determine the impact this new gender policy is having on women and
girls around the globe?
Answer. USAID's newly updated policy on Gender Equality and Women's
Empowerment mandates the Agency to monitor the impacts of our
investments on males and females and to measure our results in specific
ways. To that end, USAID will measure performance in closing key gender
gaps and empowering women and girls; ensure that our monitoring and
evaluation methods include gender indicators that measure progress
toward gender equality and women's empowerment; and ensure that
projects collect and use sex-disaggregated data.
USAID has already put in place various metrics to determine the
impact of our investments. USAID's Feed the Future Initiative developed
an enhanced monitoring and evaluation system that will comprehensively
track the impact of our work on women and girls using a newly designed
Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index created in collaboration with
the International Food Policy and Research Institute and Oxford's
Poverty and Human Development Initiative. The Index is the first
measure to directly capture women's empowerment and inclusion levels in
the agricultural sector. It focuses on five areas:
--decisions over agricultural production; and
--power over productive resources such as:
--land and livestock;
--decisions over income;
--leadership in the community; and
--time use.
Women are considered to be empowered when they meet the
requirements in some combination amounting to 4 of the 5 areas. The
Index also takes into consideration the empowerment of women compared
with men in the same household, based on asking women and men the same
survey questions. The Index will be used to monitor and evaluate
programs in all 19 Feed the Future countries to ensure that our efforts
are empowering women and supporting the essential role they play in
reducing hunger and advancing prosperity.
In 2011, the State-USAID Performance Plan & Report system was
significantly revised and the entire Foreign Assistance indicator suite
was re-engineered. This new system includes seven output and outcome
indicators on gender equality, female empowerment, and gender-based
violence that Operating Units will use in Performance Management Plans
and Reports for tracking progress toward implementation results and
measuring impact across programs. The seven indicators are:
--Number of laws, policies, or procedures drafted, proposed, or
adopted to promote gender equality at the regional, national or
local level.
--Proportion of female participants in U.S. Government-assisted
programs designed to increased access to productive economic
resources (assets, credit, income, or employment).
--Proportion of females who report increased self-efficacy at the
conclusion of U.S. Government-supported training/programming.
--Proportion of target population reporting increased agreement with
the concept that males and females should have equal access to
social, economic, and political opportunities.
--Number of laws, policies or procedures drafted, proposed, or
adopted with U.S. Government assistance designed to improve
prevention of or response to sexual and gender-based violence
at the regional, national, or local level.
--Number of people reached by a U.S. Government-funded intervention
providing GBV services (e.g., health, legal, psycho-social
counseling, shelters, hotlines, other).
--Percentage of target population that views gender-based violence as
less acceptable after participating in or being exposed to U.S.
Government programming.
These seven indicators were designed to be broad so that they can
be used across various sectors--from health to democracy and governance
to economic growth. Already, missions have asked implementing partners
to begin collecting data and set targets for these indicators that can
be used in fiscal year 2013 performance reports.
Question. If we do not take real steps to stop the worst effects of
climate change, what additional resource burdens will USAID face in
trying to meet development goals in our partner countries?
Answer. Climate change is already expected to exacerbate existing
development pressures and most heavily impact the poor in developing
countries. If steps are not taken to stop the worst effects of climate
change, the impacts undoubtedly will be greater and place additional
burdens on USAID programs, as well as countries that can least afford
to handle them. Among the additional resource burdens USAID and its
partners will face are:
--Additional obstacles to achieving development goals in food
security, health, and economic growth. More variable rainfall,
stronger storms, and temperature changes, driven by unmitigated
climate change, have the potential to reduce agricultural
productivity. Agricultural productivity is projected to decline
in some continents, especially Africa and South Asia, at a time
of rapidly growing demand for food, threatening the success of
USAID's food security investments. The combined climate change
impacts of warming and ocean acidification are projected to
result in nearly all coral reefs classified as threatened by
2050, impacting the roughly 500 million people who depend on
reef ecosystems for their protein. Similarly, increased
incidence of flooding and drought, saltwater intrusion into
drinking water supplies, and the migration of disease vectors
into new areas (such as mosquitoes carrying malaria) will
affect public health by undermining access to clean water and
sanitation, undercutting nutritional gains, and changing
disease distribution patterns and prevalence. Reduced
agricultural productivity, combined with increased disease
burdens and increased economic losses from climate change-
related damage will undermine effort to achieve sustainable
economic development in USAID-partner countries as well as
place additional burdens on the Agency.
--Increased demand for humanitarian assistance. Unmitigated climate
change is likely to increase the severity and frequency of
natural disasters, such as floods and droughts. USAID already
spends significant resources responding to both immediate
humanitarian and long-term reconstruction needs after natural
disasters. These needs would increase with the number and
severity of disasters. Rising sea levels will render some
densely populated coastal areas uninhabitable, creating
``climate refugees'' who will be forced to move to higher
ground.
--Increased need to respond to conflict and political instability.
Any humanitarian crises, caused or exacerbated by climate
change will undermine the social, economic, and political
stability of our allies and partners, leaving them less able to
help address other global challenges. Climate change may
exacerbate water scarcity and increase conflicts; it could
trigger displacement and contribute to national and regional
resource governance tensions, threatening U.S. national
security objectives in key regions of the world. The U.S.
military, USAID, and intelligence community consider climate
change to be a ``threat multiplier.''
Question. Worldwide, there are more than 200 million women who want
to delay or prevent pregnancy but lack access to modern contraceptive
methods. What new approaches and innovations is USAID supporting to
meet these family planning needs? Additionally, how do investments in
international family planning help USAID achieve the goals of the
Global Health Initiative?
Answer. Expanding the availability, accessibility, and voluntary
use of family planning is vital to safe motherhood and healthy
families, reduces abortion and mother-to-child transmission of HIV, and
has profound health, economic and social benefits for families,
communities, and nations. Voluntary family planning programs that
enable couples to choose the number, timing and spacing of their
children are a key intervention in achieving the Global Health
Initiative goal of preventing 54 million unintended pregnancies.
By allowing women to delay and space births, family planning could
prevent as many as one-third of the 350,000 maternal deaths that occur
each year. In the developing world, an estimated 90 percent of infants
whose mothers die in childbirth will die by their first birthday.
Family planning helps women have healthier children, and increases the
likelihood that infants will survive and remain healthy.
To help the more than 200 million women with an unmet need for
family planning, USAID supports all the key components of effective
family planning/reproductive health programs--service delivery,
performance improvement, contraceptive supply and logistics, health
communication, biomedical and social science research, policy analysis
and planning, and monitoring and evaluation. In addition, USAID puts
special emphasis on program approaches and issues that are under-
resourced in country programs but hold promise for accelerating
progress, including contraceptive security, integrated family planning/
HIV and family planning/maternal and child health programming,
community-based approaches, voluntary access to long-acting and
permanent methods, gender, reaching youth and underserved populations,
and equity in access to services.
USAID also works to expand access to family planning through social
science, operations and contraceptive research. These efforts include
promoting a greater understanding of the gap between unmet need and
planned family planning use through the social network, and developing
a compendium of best practices in family planning/HIV integration.
Question. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget request includes
$770 million for the establishment of a new program Middle East and
North Africa (MENA) Incentive Fund (IF). What type of programs and
activities is USAID expecting to support with this new Fund? What
requirements will be made of recipient groups or countries that receive
this aid?
Answer. The MENA IF represents a new approach to the Middle East
and North Africa by demonstrating a visible commitment to reform and to
the region; tying assistance to reform agendas; and providing
flexibility for contingencies in order to take advantage of new
opportunities. USAID will work with State Department and other
interagency partners through a process that develops shared objectives
consistent with U.S. foreign policy goals. Deploying the fund will
require close coordination.
What type of programs and activities is USAID expecting to support
with this new Fund? MENA IF will address three types of needs as
follows:
Longer-Term Transition Incentives.--The bulk of the fund will be
focused on activities supporting governance and economic reform
including activities such as:
--Private sector development, including jobs growth;
--Seed money for larger investments and multilateral projects;
--Loan guarantees;
--Governance reform assistance;
--Enterprise funds; and
--Technical assistance to improve transparency, human rights, free
trade, and regional integration.
Immediate Transition/Stabilization Contingencies.--In addition, a
portion of the MENA IF will be available for short-term support for
newly transitioning countries including activities focused on the
following:
--Short-term economic stabilization (e.g., fiscal support);
--Assistance in managing immediate political transition processes;
--Civil society strengthening;
--Emergency technical support;
--Humanitarian assistance and human rights investigations;
--Transitional justice programs;
--Security sector support; and
--Bolster capacity to engage with newly emerging democracies.
Regional Program Platforms.--MENA IF also includes the base funding
for the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) ($65 million), and
USAID's Office of Middle East Programs (OMEP) ($5 million). MEPI
cultivates locally led change by supporting civil society in every
country of the MENA region where the United States has a diplomatic
presence. OMEP provides surge capacity and region-wide scope for
development activities that respond to regional transition and reform.
What requirements will be made of recipient groups or countries
that receive this aid? MENA IF provides incentives to support
transitioning governments who demonstrate a clear commitment to
political and economic reform. Recipients will be required to submit
credible political, economic, and/or security reform proposals for
activities that demonstrate significant economic returns or progress in
quality of governance. Policies and procedures for programming of
assistance will govern proposal identification, implementation,
monitoring, and evaluation. This will include, among other things,
clearly defined conditions and benchmarks for measuring and achieving
individual program success.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham
Question. What are the specific impacts of sequestration on United
States Agency for International Development operations and programs?
Answer. We urge the Congress to enact balanced deficit reduction
legislation that avoids sequestration. If necessary, the administration
will be addressing important technical questions concerning sequester,
but now is the time to focus on enacting the balanced framework
proposed in the President's budget.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Kirk
veterans hiring
Question. According to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM),
the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has the
lowest percentage of veteran hires and the second-lowest number of on-
board veteran employees among all executive branch agencies. According
to OPM, in fiscal year 2010, veterans made up 5.6 percent of USAID's
workforce, as compared to State Department's 16.7 percent, the Labor
Department's 17.8 percent, or even the National Science Foundation's
5.7 percent.
Why is USAID unable to effectively recruit veterans?
Answer. USAID has made substantial progress in recruiting veterans.
In fiscal year 2011, USAID implemented a wide range of outreach,
recruitment, and marketing initiatives to increase veteran hiring.
These efforts resulted in a marked increase of new veteran hires from
5.6 percent in fiscal year 2010 to 8.5 percent in fiscal year 2011.
USAID continues to make significant progress this fiscal year. During
the first quarter of fiscal year 2012, 11 percent of USAID's new hires
were veterans.
Question. What specific steps beyond OPM's hiring preferences is
USAID taking to engage our veterans and substantially increase its
number of veterans on staff? Does USAID have any specific veteran
hiring programs?
Answer. USAID has implemented a number of creative strategies to
increase the number of veterans in USAID. First, we hired a seasoned
full-time professional as the Veterans Employment Program Manager with
primary responsibility for executing all aspects of the Veteran's
Employment Initiative and serving as an advocate to promote veteran
recruitment, hiring, and retention within USAID. Second, we initiated a
vigorous internal referral program to target vacancies for veterans as
soon as they arise. The program allows USAID hiring managers to contact
the Veterans Employment Program Manager to fill their positions quickly
with qualified veteran candidates using the Special Appointing
Authorities for Veterans. These Special Appointing Authorities enable
veterans to be referred for consideration prior to the posting of a job
announcement. Twenty-five percent of all veterans hired in fiscal year
2011 were referred from this program. Third, USAID sponsors quarterly
Federal employment workshops at USAID headquarters at no cost for
separating and retiring military members and spouses. Finally, USAID
has increased the number of veterans hired through our formal Student
Internship Program and continues to partner with a wide variety of
Military Transition Assistance Programs and Veterans Rehabilitation
Organizations. The specific types of transition assistance we provide
include resume writing, workshops on the Federal application process,
and interviewing skills. These are only a few examples of the many
proactive initiatives USAID has implemented to hire more veterans.
Question. How many veterans currently work for USAID and in what
capacities are they primarily employed? Do their USAID positions align
with previous military experience, including conducting development and
diplomacy on the front lines? What specific skills gained by our men
and women in uniform during their service can advance USAID's mission?
Answer. Currently, there are 306 veterans employed at USAID (8
percent of the workforce). There are 204 veterans employed in the Civil
Service, 101 employed in the Foreign Service, and 1 veteran employed as
an Expert Consultant. Veterans are employed in a myriad of professional
and administrative positions in both the Civil Service and the Foreign
Service, including the position of Chief of the Office of Human
Resources' Outreach and Marketing team, which leads recruitment.
Our veterans' previous military experience allows them to
transition directly into positions conducting development and diplomacy
on the front lines. For example, during fiscal year 2011, USAID hired
15 veterans on term-limited appointments to the Foreign Service to work
on critical priority programs in Afghanistan and Pakistan, allowing a
seamless transfer of skills gained in uniform to assist in advancing
USAID's mission in the field.
The discipline and work ethic that our veteran men and women bring
to bear, coupled with their technical skills, make them well suited for
a variety of positions at USAID. Veterans at USAID are currently
working in occupations such as acquisition, administration, information
technology, communications, security, human resources, engineering,
public policy, finance, and education.
partner vetting system
Question. When do you expect the joint State-USAID Partner Vetting
System (PVS) pilot to become fully operational?
Answer. The Department of State and USAID are working closely to
implement the pilot program. The schedule is dependent upon several
factors including the rulemaking process which mandates a specific
comment and review period; upgrades to the database functionality to
incorporate the secure portal; and, the completion of the Department of
State's iteration of the PVS database. USAID and the Department of
State expect to begin the deployment to the pilot missions by September
30, 2012 as required by Public Law 112-174.
Question. Would you support expanding PVS globally?
Answer. The Department of State and USAID consider the pilot PVS
program to be a true test, with a view toward providing both agencies
with a deeper understanding of the ways to mitigate risk in the
provision of foreign assistance and safeguard U.S. taxpayer funds, as
well as, to determine the feasibility and utility of developing a
worldwide system. The pilot will ensure that countries will be selected
with a range of terrorist threat levels, rather than simply selecting
five countries with high threat levels, to provide a broad range of
useful data for evaluation. At the conclusion of the pilot program,
USAID and the Department of State will evaluate the results and make
determinations regarding future applications of the vetting process.
somalia
Question. Can you provide an update on USAID's assistance efforts
in Somalia, including on the ground presence, applicable restrictions
on USAID operations, and any efforts to expand the scope of USAID
operations?
Answer. Since early 2011, the United States has provided more than
$252 million to respond to humanitarian needs in Somalia. USAID
humanitarian programs focus mainly on providing emergency food
assistance and supporting immediate recovery in food security, economic
recovery, protection, health, water, sanitation, and hygiene
activities. USAID development programs complement these efforts by
focusing on improving good governance, increasing economic growth,
enhancing education and livelihood opportunities, reducing the appeal
of extremism, and promoting stabilization in recovering areas.
Due to the highly insecure environment, the U.S. Government has no
permanent staff presence in Somalia; however, USAID works closely with
international and local organizations working in the country to
implement USAID-funded programs. USAID staff members located in
Nairobi, Kenya, and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, manage humanitarian and
development programs. USAID uses a third-party contractor to monitor
its work in-country, interspersed with limited in-country travel by
USAID staff to monitor programs, meet with partners, and build
relationships with key stakeholders.
USAID is expanding its development and stabilization programming to
areas vacated by al-Shabaab such as Mogadishu and along the Kenya and
Ethiopian border. In terms of humanitarian assistance, access
constraints, ongoing insecurity, and population displacement affect the
provision of humanitarian assistance for affected populations in
Somalia. Al-Shabaab controls many parts of central and Southern Somalia
and has prevented 16 relief agencies from operating in areas under the
group's control since November 2011. In addition, al-Shabaab terminated
the agreement under which the International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC) was allowed to deliver aid in January 2012 and revoked the
permission of another organization to operate in areas under the
group's control in March 2012.
USAID's efforts are critical to prevent a deterioration of
humanitarian conditions or a reversal of recent food security gains.
Question. On February 3, 2012, the United Nations declared the end
of famine conditions in Somalia.
Do you share this assessment and if so, how do you expect it to
impact USAID operations in fiscal years 2012 and 2013?
Answer. The United Nations based its February 2012 declaration that
famine had ended in Somalia on findings from the Famine Early Warning
Systems Network and the U.N. Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit.
USAID concurs with this assessment. While famine no longer exists due
to a favorable harvest and increased humanitarian assistance, high
levels of food insecurity, malnutrition, and other emergency conditions
still exist.
The situation remains extremely fragile and conditions could
deteriorate due to another anticipated season of below-normal rainfall
combined with the loss of household assets, constraints to humanitarian
access, insecurity, and displacement.
In fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013, USAID plans to continue
providing humanitarian assistance for Somalia in response to identified
needs and evolving conditions.
Question. Following the decision by the al-Shabaab terrorist
organization to ban all international organizations from distributing
aid to al-Shabaab-controlled territories, you wrote to the Congress on
December 8, 2011 that USAID is working ``to determine the impact of
this ban and identify alternative options for delivering humanitarian
assistance'' to these areas.
Can you provide additional details regarding these efforts?
Answer. As of mid-March 2012, Al-Shabaab was preventing 16 relief
agencies from operating in areas under the group's control and halted
the operations of two others. These agencies include several large U.N.
agencies and international relief organizations that had facilitated
logistics and supply chains for other relief agencies. However, a
number of international and local relief agencies continue to operate
in areas of Central and Southern Somalia controlled by al-Shabaab.
Al-Shabaab's ban on humanitarian organizations has substantially
reduced relief activities in affected areas. The number of
beneficiaries reached by the Food Assistance Cluster--the coordinating
body for food-related assistance in Somalia--decreased from
approximately 2.6 million in October to 1.6 million in January due to
access challenges. This affected 7 of the 18 Cluster partners and
created notable nutritional gaps in the Bay, Bakool, and Middle
Shabelle regions. The ban also interrupted the distribution of
essential health supplies, limiting access to life-saving
interventions. Affected populations in the Bakool, Bay, Hiraan, and
Middle Shabelle regions did not receive food vouchers in January as a
result of the ban.
As of mid-February, USAID's partners continued to coordinate to
provide humanitarian assistance in nonpermissive areas to address
shortages in health, nutrition, water, sanitation, and hygiene supplies
as a result of the ban. As humanitarian access levels in Somalia
change, USAID staff will continue to identify and support implementing
partners and approaches that can best meet humanitarian needs.
Question. Can you provide an accounting of USAID's distribution of
assistance to Nagorno Karabakh (NK) for fiscal year 2011 and fiscal
year 2012 to date, including a complete description of the projects,
purpose, funding, and an assessment of goals achieved?
Answer. United States assistance supports our diplomatic efforts,
including Armenia's reconciliation with Azerbaijan, and resolution of
the conflict over NK. Our humanitarian assistance is also helping to
stabilize the region and prevent future conflict. Our commitment to NK
assistance has remained steadfast despite the decline in overall
funding and competing priorities. During fiscal year 2011, the United
States provided $2 million in humanitarian assistance to the people of
NK. A similar amount of assistance is planned for fiscal year 2012.
U.S. assistance is roughly split between humanitarian demining and
potable water projects. The demining activity, implemented by HALO
Trust since 2001, focuses on clearing mines and returning lands to the
rural population for agricultural use. Thus far 94 percent of anti-
personnel and anti-tank mines and 71 percent of the battle area have
been cleared. Upon the current project's completion in December 2012,
the U.S. Government will have invested more than $7.6 million in
demining.
We are concluding a potable water program which is expanding access
to clean water in the city of Stepanakert. The program, totaling $2
million upon completion this year, supports improvements to two
independent water systems in Stepanakert which are expected to benefit
more than 20,000 people. Water supplies are being improved through
priority repairs to water mains, sand traps, and dikes; providing for
rehabilitation and modernization; and installing water meters.
Question. Can you provide the results of all needs assessments that
USAID has conducted with regard to the NK since December 2007?
Answer. In March 2012, USAID, through an independent consultant,
conducted a rural water sector needs assessment. The final report is
expected in mid-April. USAID is planning to conduct a thorough
assessment on the remaining minefield clearance in NK in July 2012. The
assessment will also be implemented by an independent consultant.
Question. In rendering aid decisions concerning NK, do USAID
officials interact and consult with their counterparts in the NK
Government? Can you provide details of such interactions concerning
fiscal year 2011 assistance or fiscal year 2012 to date? Are there any
restrictions in place for any such interactions?
Answer. The U.S. Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group has the U.S. lead
in mediating the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and travels frequently to
Nagorno-Karabakh. USAID personnel have traveled to Nagorno-Karabakh in
the past with the concurrence of the U.S. Co-Chair to implement
humanitarian aid programs. USAID's non-American local staff visits NK
to monitor the two ongoing projects. For program coordination purposes,
non-American local staff may meet with community leaders, municipality
representatives, or representatives of particular services such as the
water operations and maintenance unit and the rescue team (which
includes a demining section), but does not discuss future funding
decisions with central NK authorities.
Question. Pursuant to report language in Public Law 112-74, how
does USAID plan to assist vulnerable ethno-religious minorities in
Iraq, specifically the Chaldo-Assyrian communities in the Nineveh
Plains?
Answer. To date, the United States Government has provided about
$40 million in assistance to Iraq's minority communities. This includes
Iraq's Christian communities including the Chaldo-Assyrians in the
Ninevah Plains. Assistance has included both short-term humanitarian
and long-term development projects.
In 2010-2011, USAID assisted minority communities in the Ninevah
Plains with various community development projects. USAID also provided
apprenticeships to help members of these communities gain the skills
needed to sustain their development. USAID-funded microfinance
institutions benefiting minority communities in the Ninevah Plains are
focusing on expanding access to credit to promote private sector growth
which generates jobs and increases incomes.
Access to Credit.--USAID is providing additional funding to
existing USAID-supported microfinance institutions, small- and medium-
enterprise lending units, vocational training and apprenticeships
available to minorities in the Ninevah Plains and other vulnerable
groups.
Access to Justice.--USAID assists minorities in the Ninevah Plains
by increasing awareness of their rights as well as avenues for
receiving remedies from the government through legal clinics and as
well as by Iraqi civil society partners, including professional legal
associations, law schools, human rights nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs), and government partners.
Civil Society.--USAID supports Iraqi civil society efforts to
advocate on behalf of minorities to improve national, provincial, and
local governments' responsiveness to needs identified by local
communities.
Governance.--Broad-based improvements in Iraqi livelihood and
democratic governance will also directly and indirectly benefit Iraqi
minority communities. In fiscal year 2013, USAID expects to fund
governance and livelihoods projects. These projects will improve the
effectiveness of Iraqi governance at all levels and encourage
community-based development through partnerships with civil society
organizations, among others.
Question. According to USAID, ``Kosovo is the youngest country in
Europe with more than 50 percent of Kosovars aged 25 or younger. The
growing youth population that is unemployed (estimates range from 50
percent-75 percent), disengaged, and disconnected is emerging as an
urgent issue for the newly independent state.''
In an effort to foster stability and economic development, would
you support prioritizing United States assistance for Kosovo with a
focus on education?
Can you please provide an update on your efforts in this regard?
Answer. USAID currently supports the basic education sector in
Kosovo by enhancing school management capacities at the municipal
level, strengthening the assessment of learning outcomes, and improving
in-service teacher professional development and certification.
Consistent with the Ministry of Education's reform strategy, USAID
improves the capacity of primary schools to provide a modern education
through advanced teacher professional development, as well as
introducing technology for science and math teaching. The USAID basic
education program enhances skills in Kosovo's youth that are important
to Kosovo's economic future.
Higher education funds support results-oriented programs to address
specific issues related to human resource development and higher
learning. Our assistance is aimed at improving systems and processes in
Kosovo institutions, particularly those that will have a direct impact
on Kosovo's economic growth and democratic stability.
USAID is currently engaging in a feasibility analysis to determine
the needs of strategically selected Kosovar higher education
institutions in priority developments areas. The assessment will also
address institutional partnerships, faculty exchanges and student
scholarships, as these contribute to building and strengthening
Kosovo's development institutions and societal transformation.
west bank/gaza
Question. Can you provide a list of all NGOs that received funding
(with name of group, funding amount, account/bureau providing funds,
and purpose) from USAID in fiscal year 2011 and so far in fiscal year
2012 for accounts/programs/projects operating in Israel, the West Bank
and Gaza?
Answer. USAID/West Bank and Gaza Economic Support Fund (ESF)
Bilateral Program.--The international organizations referenced below
are all prime recipients of USAID/West Bank and Gaza managed fiscal
year 2011 ESF funding. This first set of responses focuses on prime
recipients. We will provide shortly a second tranche of information
that will include the sub-awards. Total fiscal year 2011 funding
obligated to date is $37.55 million. The bulk of fiscal year 2011 ESF
for West Bank and Gaza program funds have not been obligated yet due to
congressional holds on these funds in place until very recently. Fiscal
year 2012 funds have not been obligated yet. USAID will first notify
the Congress of our plans for fiscal year 2012 funding, and only after
that, can obligation occur.
Name of Group: Chemonics International
Fiscal Year 2011 Funded Amount: $12.1 million
Purpose:
Palestinian Authority Capacity Enhancement (PACE)
PACE works with Palestinian Authority (PA) agencies and ministries
to expedite service delivery, improve financial and human resource
management, and enhance accountability and transparency.
The Palestinian Justice Enhancement Program (PJEP)
PJEP aims to strengthen the justice sector by building public
confidence and respect for institutions and the rule of law.
Palestinian Health Sector Reform and Development Project (Health
Flagship Project)
The Health Flagship Project works with the Palestinian Ministry of
Health (MOH) to improve the core areas identified in the Palestinian
National Health Strategic Plan:
--governance;
--human resources for health;
--access to quality services; and
--healthy behaviors.
The project also connects health clinics, the communities they
serve, and the private sector.
Trade Facilitation Program (TFP)
The movement and access of Palestinian goods within the West Bank
and to/from Gaza, and in and out of Israel and neighboring countries,
remains key to all other economic growth objectives. TFP stimulates
trade in the West Bank and Gaza and facilitates cargo movement through
crossing points allowing Palestinian enterprises to generate employment
and economic opportunities.
Investment Climate Improvement (ICI)
ICI assists the PA in adopting and implementing laws, regulations,
policies, and procedures to improve the Palestinian business and
economic climate and promote domestic and foreign investment.
Name of Group: AMIDEAST
Fiscal Year 2011 Funded Amount: $900,000
Purpose:
Model Schools Network (MSN)
MSN improves the quality of basic education (grades 1-9) in the
Palestinian territories. The MSN program focuses on the professional
development of teachers and administrators within the model school
network, particularly in the areas of English, math, and science.
Name of Group: Education Development Center, Inc.
Fiscal Year 2011 Funded Amount: $1.1 million
Purpose:
Palestinian Youth Empowerment Program (Ruwwad)
Ruwwad builds the leadership capabilities of youth by engaging them
in community service learning including:
--civic engagement;
--economic opportunities;
--leadership skills; and
--sports and culture.
Name of Group: International Youth Foundation
Fiscal Year 2011 Funded Amount: $1.4 million
Purpose:
Youth Entrepreneurship Development Program (YED)
YED prepares in and out-of-school youth ages 14-29 for the job
market by equipping them with the employment and entrepreneurial skills
needed to find jobs in the public and private sector or to start their
own businesses.
Name of Group: American Near East Refugee Aid
Fiscal Year 2011 Funded Amount: $3 million
Purpose:
Emergency Water and Sanitation and Other Infrastructure (EWAS II)
EWAS II provides rapid response and emergency relief primarily in
the water and sanitation sectors, and in other sectors as needed. This
project improves the supply of potable water to Palestinian communities
facing serious water shortages by rehabilitating, expanding, and
upgrading small- and medium-scale water and sewage systems. EWAS II
also supports the improvement of basic Palestinian infrastructure needs
by building and rehabilitating community health facilities, classrooms,
and community and youth centers.
Name of Group: CHF International
Fiscal Year 2011 Funded Amount: $1.3 million
Purpose:
Local Government and Infrastructure Program (LGI)
LGI promotes good local governance practices and provides the basic
infrastructure necessary for sustainable improvements in the quality of
life for Palestinians. LGI strengthens local government capacity to
respond effectively and efficiently to community needs through capacity
building, institutional development, and service delivery skill
enhancement initiatives; promotes and institutionalizes good governance
practices; encourages public involvement through participatory
governance mechanisms; and enhances the capacity of the Ministry of
Local Government to assume regulatory, policy development, and
strategic planning responsibilities.
Name of Group: Development Alternatives Inc.
Fiscal Year 2011 Funded Amount: $5,263,000
Purpose:
Enterprise Development for Global Competitiveness Project
The Enterprise Development for Global Competitiveness Project
improves access to markets for Palestinian Small and Medium
Enterprises. Additionally, it improves economic growth and access to
services through the development of local business associations and
business service providers.
Name of Group: Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.
Fiscal Year 2011 Funded Amount: $5.8 million already obligated
Purpose:
Infrastructure Needs Program II Architect and Engineering Contract (INP
II)
INP II Architect-Engineering provides design, engineering,
operations and maintenance, and construction management services
required to implement multi-discipline, high-quality construction
projects in the West Bank.
Name of Group: United Nations World Food Program (WFP)
Fiscal Year 2011 Funded Amount: $4 million
Purpose:
Assistance to Vulnerable Groups
The WFP provides high-quality food assistance (direct food
distribution and electronic food vouchers) to help meet basic food
needs and improve dietary diversity of the most vulnerable and food
insecure nonrefugee populations in the West Bank and Gaza.
Name of Group: Mercy Corps
Fiscal Year 2011 Funded Amount: $1,550,000
Purpose:
Palestinian Community Assistance Program (PCAP)
PCAP addresses infrastructure recovery needs through tangible
improvements in community infrastructure and housing; supports economic
recovery and development through the creation of income generation and
business development opportunities; and promotes social recovery
through community outreach programs focused on mental well-being,
childhood education, humanitarian assistance, and cash-for-work
programs.
Name of Group: CARANA
Fiscal Year 2011 Funded Amount: $687,000
Purpose:
Enterprise Development and Investment Promotion (EDIP)
EDIP supports the development of businesses and business
associations to achieve increased production and better marketing of
their products and services. EDIP improves the capacity of Palestinian
businesses to integrate into domestic and international markets through
initiatives with business associations.
Name of Group: International Relief & Development; American
Intercontinental Constructors, LLC; CDM Constructors Inc; BLD Services,
LLC; APCO/ArCon; The Morganti Group
Fiscal Year 2011 Funded Amount: $450,000
Purpose:
Infrastructure Needs Program II Construction (INP II)
INP II provides critical infrastructure that promotes economic
growth, and helps the PA address both immediate and long-term
infrastructure needs. INP projects include the construction and
rehabilitation of roads, water systems and distribution networks,
wastewater systems, schools, and other necessary facilities.
conflict management and mitigation grants program
The organizations referenced below are all expected to receive
fiscal year 2011 funding as part of the congressionally mandated fiscal
year 2011 Conflict Management and Mitigation program which is managed
at post by both USAID and U.S. Embassy Tel Aviv. The recipients of
fiscal year 2012 funds for this program have not yet been decided.
Name of Group: The Economic Cooperation Foundation
Funding Amount: $1 million
Purpose:
Jenin-Gilboa-Nablus-Haifa: Cooperation Zone
Economic growth requires cooperation, personal interaction, and
joint planning among neighbors. This program is expected to promote
people-to-people activities in Jenin, Gilboa, and Haifa cross-border
area in tourism, trade, and infrastructure planning to support the
economic development of the region. The program will bring together
local and national authorities and civil representatives to strategize
and promote economic development.
Name of Group: Catholic Relief Services
Funding Amount: $1 million
Purpose:
The Gemini Project
The program will build the capacity of Arab and Jewish youth from
Israel to engage in civil debate and encourage increased civic
engagement using nonviolent approaches.
Name of Group: The Hand in Hand Center for Jewish-Arab Education in
Israel
Funding Amount: $1.08 million
Purpose:
Shared Community/School Integration
Hand in Hand works to integrate Jews and Arab children in schools,
and to integrate the communities where these schools are located by
generating people-to-people activities among the residents and
increasing interactions between community members.
Name of Group: Mercy Corps
Funding Amount: $1.19 million
Purpose:
Technology for Peace
The program will bring Palestinian and Israeli youth,
entrepreneurs, and companies together to pursue the shared interest in
information and communication technology (ICT) as an enhancing tool
both for peace activism as well as for economic collaboration and
growth. This 18-month program, designed in collaboration with three
local partners in Israel and the West Bank, seeks to promote peace
activism through the enhanced use of social media, to build the
capacity of Palestinian youth in collaboration with Israeli companies
and joint Palestinian/Israeli youth activities in ICT, and to encourage
economic cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians in the ICT
sector.
Name of Group: The Parents Circle--Families Forum
Funding Amount: $700,000
Purpose:
Where Parallel Lines Meet
The project engages Israeli and Palestinian participants in an
effort to promote peace and reconciliation.
Name of Group: Israel/Palestine Centre for Research and Information
Funding Amount: $1 million
Purpose:
Jewish and Arab Israeli Youth Defining Shared Citizenship Through
Collaborative Community Programs
This program will help Jewish and Arab Israeli youth, living
together in mixed cities in Israel, redefine the nature and quality of
their citizenship, promoting a shared citizenship with shared
responsibilities. Reconciliation and cooperation between these groups
of youth will be fostered through collaborative community programs that
serve a common goal and by facilitating the organization of programs by
the youth that are beneficial for both communities living in the target
cities.
Name of Group: Mifalot--Hapoel Tel Aviv Soccer Club's Education and
Social Project
Funding Amount: $900,000
Purpose:
United Soccer for Peace
This is an Israeli Arab training program for coaches using soccer
as a tool for peace education, conflict resolution, and community
development in marginalized populations. Mifalot will use soccer to
cultivate the proper environment for growth leading to social change.
The aim is to train young men and women as licensed soccer coaches,
cultivate them as community leaders, and at the same time instill in
them values of peace and conciliation. The program is based on a grass
roots approach toward peace and conciliation, starting with
geographically and socially marginalized populations, populations
normally ignored in the people-to-people dialogue.
Name of Group: The Maccabim Association
Funding Amount: $93,000
Purpose:
Goals for Peace
This program recognizes that Arab and Jewish children have minimal
contact with each other in their formative educational years. This has
resulted in a lack of trust and tolerance of each other based on the
prejudices and stereotypes of their families, communities and a biased
media. This program will implement joint Jewish-Arab soccer activities,
as well as computer classes and dialogue programming to reach
marginalized groups that normally would not have an opportunity to be a
part of these activities and to provide an opportunity for interaction.
The program uses soccer as an educational tool for increasing
cooperation and team work, respect for rules and each other, and to
enhance communication and dialogue among participants.
Name of Group: Arab-Jewish Community Center
Funding Amount: $100,000
Purpose:
Jewish-Arab Class Exchange Program
This program recognizes that the majority of Jewish and Arab youth
have not been previously exposed to one another and is expected to
contribute to increased tolerance and respect.
Name of Group: The State University of New York (SUNY) New Paltz
Institute for Disaster Mental Health
Funding Amount: $96,917
Purpose:
Families First: A Palestinian-Israeli People-to-People Approach To
Assist Children and Caregivers as a Means of Conflict
Mitigation and Reconciliation
The program recognizes that children raised in this environment are
likely to absorb and echo the violence that surrounds them. It will
bring together Palestinian and Israeli health and social service
professionals to work in partnership to work to prevent long-term
conflict by addressing short-term mental health needs of children and
families.
Name of Group: The Arava Institute for Environmental Studies
Funding Amount: $561,438
Purpose:
Mitigating Trans-Boundary Waste-Water Conflicts
This program aims to address, help reduce, and prevent further
wastewater conflicts and disputes between Israel and the West Bank.
Name of Group: Seeds of Peace
Funding Amount: $951,745
Purpose:
On Common Ground
The program is designed to provide Palestinian and Israeli young
leaders between the ages of 14-32, as well as local educators, with
experiences, skillsets, and resources to find common ground on the core
issues within and between their societies that perpetuate conflict and
prevent peace.
Name of Group: Sipurei Yerushalayim (Jerusalem Stories)
Funding Amount: $100,000
Purpose:
Storytelling Encounters: A Model Approach for Transforming Israeli-
Palestinian Perceptions
The program seeks to make Israelis and Palestinians understand and
humanize each other through the use of storytelling, photographs, and
video and will build on this tested approach to train Israeli and
Palestinian youth leaders in a series of joint workshops so that they
can introduce the power of storytelling as a conflict transformation
tool to broader audiences throughout Israel and the West Bank.
Name of Group: Kids Creating Peace
Funding Amount: $100,000
Purpose:
Sach-Ten: A Uniquely Interactive Reconciliation and Leadership Program
for Israeli and Palestinian Youth
The Sach Ten program is a recognized professional peace education
program coordinated by the Israeli Ministry of Education and several
leading Palestinian schools and educational institutes.
middle east regional cooperation
The Israeli and Palestinian organizations listed below are all
current recipients of USAID-managed ESF funding under the Middle East
Regional Cooperation program, funded through prior year funding. MERC's
$3 million fiscal year 2011 ESF was received in fiscal year 2012, and
its distribution is dependent upon the completion of ongoing reviews of
grant applications, expected to be finished by June 2012. MERC has not
yet received its fiscal year 2012 funding.
MERC is a competitive research program that funds joint Arab-
Israeli research grants to address shared development problems and
promote direct collaboration between Arab and Israeli researchers,
students, and institutions. MERC accepts jointly authored Arab-Israeli
research proposals on any research topic that the applicants can
justify as likely to produce a lasting development result. The program
funds a wide variety of scientific research, but most projects focus on
subjects such as agriculture, water resources, health and the
environment.
The following Israeli NGOs are current MERC recipients and
illustrative of the Israeli institutions expected to receive fiscal
year 2011 and 2012 funds:
--The Arava Institute for Environmental Studies;
--The Assaf Harofeh Medical Center;
--Bar-Ilan University;
--Ben-Gurion University of the Negev;
--The Galilee Society;
--Hebrew University of Jerusalem;
--Shaare Zedek Medical Center;
--The Technion Institute;
--Tel Aviv University; and
--The University of Haifa.
The following Palestinian NGO are current MERC recipients and
illustrative of the Palestinian institutions expected to receive fiscal
year 2011 and 2012 funds:
--Al-Quds University;
--Augusta Victoria Hospital;
--Beit Jalla Hospital;
--Bethlehem University (a subsidiary of the Roman Catholic Church);
--The Biodiversity and Environmental Research Center;
--Caritas Baby Hospital, Children's Relief of Bethlehem;
--The Environmental Protection Research Institute;
--The House of Water and Environment;
--The Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committee; and
--The Princess Basma Center for Disabled Children.
MERC funds are typically awarded to Israeli Government ministries
and NGOs that serve as prime grantees and issue sub-awards to partner
institutions in six Arab countries and Israel. Of the 37 projects
active in 2011, 29 had been awarded to Israeli prime grantees, 5 to
Jordanian primes, and 3 to primes in the United States. All of the
Palestinian institutions listed above are sub-grantees of Israeli
primes. Many institutions are on more than one project.
american schools and hospitals abroad
USAID's Office of American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (ASHA)
provides grants to competitively selected private, nonprofit
universities and secondary schools, libraries, and medical centers
abroad. The list below represents grants for Israeli and Palestinian
institutions that received fiscal year 2011 ASHA funding. Fiscal year
2012 funding decisions have not been made at this time.
U.S. Organization: Trustees of the Feinberg Graduate School of the
Weizmann Institute
Organization Name: Feinberg Graduate School of the Weizmann
Institute of Science
Funding Amount: $1,000,0000
Purpose: To acquire critically needed scientific instrumentation
for Feinberg Graduate School educational and research activities in
science education, energy/environment, and genome-based biomedicine
programs.
U.S. Organization: Hadassah Medical Relief Association, Inc.
Organization Name: Hadassah Medical Center
Funding Amount: $1,600,000
Purpose: To acquire American-manufactured equipment and state-of-
the-art surgical equipment that will improve patient care at Hadassah
Medical Center.
U.S. Organization: Friends United Meeting
Organization Name: Ramallah Friends School
Funding Amount: $1,000,0000
Purpose: To expand classroom capacity for art and music
instruction, upgrade existing facilities to make them handicap
accessible, update classroom technology, renovate guest rooms, and
install photovotaic hybrid power plant.
U.S. Organization: American Committee for Shaare Zedek Hospital in
Jerusalem, Inc.
Organization Name: Shaare Zedek Medical Center
Funding Amount: $500,000
Purpose: To replace obsolete equipment with American-standards
models by purchasing new defibrillators, a new EKG system and new
recovery monitors for the Post Anesthesia Care Unit.
U.S. Organization: American Society of the Most Venerable Order of
the Hospital St. John of Jerusalem
Organization Name: St. John's Eye Hospital Group
Funding Amount: $300,000
Purpose: To purchase a set of highest-quality diagnostic and
surgical equipment and instruments to expand the existing retinal care
unit to benefit 10,000 patients annually.
U.S. Organization: American Friends Tel Aviv University
Organization Name: Tel-Aviv University
Funding Amount: $325,000
Purpose: To purchase American equipment for research to develop
vaccines and therapies for HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, and other diseases
prevalent and deadly in Africa and third world countries.
U.S. Organization: American Friends of The Hebrew University
Organization Name: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Funding Amount: $500,000
Purpose: To purchase next-generation genomic DNA sequencer and
accessory liquid handling work station, essential for research
uncovering roots of human disease to promote diagnosis, prognosis, and
treatment.
Question. Does USAID track the public statements made or events
held by USAID-funded NGOs with regard to incitement against Israel or
Jews?
In a yes or no answer, do you believe USAID should provide funds to
NGOs in Israel, the West Bank or Gaza that compare the State of Israel,
Israelis, Jews, or Zionism to Nazis?
In a yes or no answer, do you believe USAID should provide funds to
NGOs in Israel, the West Bank or Gaza that support boycotts of,
divestment from or sanctions against the State of Israel?
In a yes or no answer, do you believe USAID should provide funds to
NGOs that accuse Israel of ``the slaughter of Palestinian children'',
``massacre'', ``cultural genocide'', ``war crimes'', or ``apartheid''?
Answer. The United States has firmly and consistently condemned
incitement to violence and called on both sides to take action to end
such activity.
Under the Roadmap for Peace brokered by the Quartet in 2003, both
Israel and the Palestinian Authority are committed to ending
incitement. The Palestinian Authority has made significant progress
since the 1990s in combating official incitement to violence through
measures that include undertaking revisions of official PA textbooks
and reducing inflammatory rhetoric.
We continue to work in a variety of ways to combat incitement.
Also, in ongoing discussions with senior Palestinians, we continue to
stress the importance of avoiding any actions that would constitute
incitement.
USAID also employs robust and effective measures to ensure that all
of our assistance to the Palestinian people is only used when, where,
and by whom we have authorized.
Local NGOs that receive U.S. assistance, including sub-grantees,
are vetted to ensure no terrorist connections. In addition to vetting,
USAID has in place other mandatory anti-terrorism procedures including
the requirement that an NGO receiving USAID assistance first sign the
anti-terrorism certification, mandatory clauses in contracts and grants
reminding awardees of their duty to comply with U.S. laws, and
monitoring and audits of all programs in order to safeguard U.S.
investments. These anti-terrorism procedures are described in more
details below:
Vetting.--Before making an award of either a contract or a grant
to a local NGO, the USAID West Bank/Gaza mission checks the
organization against lists maintained by the Office of Foreign
Assets Control within the Department of the Treasury. The
mission also checks all non-U.S. organizations and their
principal officer, directors, and other key individuals through
law enforcement and intelligence community systems accessed by
USAID's Office of Security. The mission collects the
individual's full name, government-issued photo identification
number, and the individual's date and place of birth.
Anti-Terrorism Certification.--All NGOs applying for grants from
USAID are required to certify, before award of the grant will
be made, that they do not provide material support to
terrorists.
Mandatory Clauses.--All contracts and grants also contain a
mandatory clause reminding awardees of their duty to comply
with U.S. laws and Executive orders prohibiting assistance to
terrorist organizations.
Monitoring and Audits.--Once an award has been made, USAID has
established procedures to safeguard U.S. investments and ensure
the transparency and integrity of U.S. assistance. In order to
ensure that funding through local and U.S. NGOs is used only
for agreed-upon purposes, all NGOs are required to submit
quarterly financial reports to USAID on how funds are spent.
The annual appropriation act requires an audit of all direct
USAID grantees, contractors and significant subgrantees and
subcontractors on an annual basis to ensure, among other
things, compliance with vetting. In addition, the annual
appropriation act requires a Government Accountability Office
audit of the WB/G program, including the cash transfer.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Leahy. Thank you all for being here.
I don't want to embarrass her, but there is one member of
the audience who I first knew of when she was just 3 days old,
Suphada Rom, and I want to take a moment to say hello to her
before I leave.
Thank you.
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Senator.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearings were concluded, and
the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Blunt, Senator Roy, U.S. Senator From Missouri, Questions
Submitted by...................................................
88.............................................................
Brown, Senator Sherrod, U.S. Senator From Ohio, Questions
Submitted by...................................................
65.............................................................
Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Department of State............................................
1..............................................................
Prepared Statement of........................................
9..........................................................
Summary Statement of.........................................
6..........................................................
Durbin, Senator Richard J., U.S. Senator From Illinois, Statement
of.............................................................
30.............................................................
Graham, Senator Lindsey, U.S. Senator From South Carolina:
Questions Submitted by......................................66, 140
Statements of................................................
4, 95......................................................
Harkin, Senator Tom, U.S. Senator From Iowa, Questions Submitted
by............................................................55, 131
Hoeven, Senator John, U.S. Senator From North Dakota, Questions
Submitted by...................................................
91.............................................................
Statement of.................................................
35.........................................................
Inouye, Senator Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii, Questions
Submitted by..................................................47, 128
Kirk, Senator Mark, U.S. Senator From Illinois, Questions
Submitted by..................................................79, 140
Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana:
Questions Submitted by......................................56, 133
Statement of.................................................
33.........................................................
Lautenberg, Senator Frank R., U.S. Senator From New Jersey,
Questions Submitted by.........................................
63, 136........................................................
Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont:
Opening Statements of........................................ 1, 93
Prepared Statements of....................................... 3, 94
Questions Submitted by......................................40, 121
Shah, Rajiv, M.D., Administrator, United States Agency For
International Development......................................
93.............................................................
Prepared Statement of........................................
100........................................................
Summary Statement of.........................................
97.........................................................
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Secretary of State
Page
Additional Committee Questions................................... 40
Arming Opposition................................................ 82
Botswana......................................................... 77
Changing United States Role in the Asia-Pacific Region........... 44
Child Marriage................................................... 32
Death of Major Robert Marchante.................................. 19
Egypt........................................................25, 38, 88
Family Planning.................................................. 25
Food Security.................................................... 77
Free Trade Agreement with Tunisia................................ 38
Haiti............................................................ 30
Human Rights..................................................... 24
Iran............................................................. 89
Sanctions.................................................... 37
Iraq............................................................. 13
Kosovo........................................................... 87
Land Mines....................................................... 40
Latin America.................................................... 34
Leahy:
Amendment.................................................... 39
Graham Amendment............................................. 39
Namibia.......................................................... 77
Next Steps....................................................... 82
Nuclear Weapons.................................................. 17
$100 Million Cash Transfer Option................................ 71
Pakistan......................................................... 90
Pan Am 103 Bombing............................................... 26
President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Communications
Strategy....................................................... 77
Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review..................... 33
Russia........................................................... 90
Somalia.......................................................... 29
South Africa..................................................... 76
Sri Lanka........................................................ 40
Supporting Tunisia's Financial Needs--Update on Loan Guarantee
Agreement...................................................... 71
Syria............................................................ 16
Trade Unions/Worker Rights....................................... 27
Tunisia's Budget Shortfall....................................... 71
Turkey Versus Syria.............................................. 26
United Nations................................................... 15
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization........12, 22, 39
Vulnerable Children.............................................. 34
Worker Rights.................................................... 28
U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Additional Committee Questions................................... 121
Afghanistan:
Sustainability............................................... 122
Pakistan, and Iraq Operations................................ 121
American Schools and Hospitals Abroad............................ 149
Building Resilience.............................................. 103
Central America.................................................. 134
Conflict Management and Mitigation Grants Program................ 146
Cuts in Global Health Funding.................................... 124
Development Grants Program....................................... 126
Efficiency, Trade Offs, and U.S. Agency for International
Development Forward............................................ 100
Evaluation Policy................................................ 128
Feed The Future.................................................. 102
Haiti............................................................ 127
Joseph Kony and the Lord's Resistance Army....................... 125
Middle East Regional Cooperation................................. 149
Pakistan......................................................... 123
Partner Vetting System........................................... 141
Procurement Reform............................................... 133
Protecting Forests and Indigenous People......................... 127
Public Opinion................................................... 124
Somalia.......................................................... 141
Strengthening Education.......................................... 103
Supporting Strategic Priorities and Strengthening National
Security....................................................... 101
Sustainability and Civilian Democracy............................ 123
The Global Health Initiative..................................... 102
United States Agency for International Development Programs To
Strengthen Rule of Law and Environmental Safety in China....... 114
Veterans Hiring.................................................. 140
Vulnerable Children.............................................. 133
West Bank/Gaza................................................... 144
-