[Senate Hearing 113-729]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-729
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED
PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2015
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 5013/S. 2499
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2015, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of State
United States Agency for International Development
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
[GRAPHIC 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 PUBLISHING OFFICE
87-254 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland, Chairwoman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Vice
TOM HARKIN, Iowa Chairman
PATTY MURRAY, Washington THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
JACK REED, Rhode Island LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas MARK KIRK, Illinois
JON TESTER, Montana DANIEL COATS, Indiana
TOM UDALL, New Mexico ROY BLUNT, Missouri
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
MARK BEGICH, Alaska MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
Charles E. Kieffer, Staff Director
William D. Duhnke III, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
TOM HARKIN, Iowa LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois MARK KIRK, Illinois
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana DANIEL COATS, Indiana
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire ROY BLUNT, Missouri
MARK BEGICH, Alaska MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
Professional Staff
Tim Rieser
Nikole Manatt
Janet Stormes
Paul Grove (Minority)
Adam Yezerski (Minority)
Administrative Support
Maria Veklich
LaShawnda Smith (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Page
Department of State: Office of the Secretary..................... 1
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
United States Agency for International Development............... 59
----------
Back Matter
List of Witnesses, Communications, and Prepared Statements....... 119
Subject Index.................................................... 121
Department of State: Office of the Secretary................. 121
United States Agency for International Development........... 121
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2015
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:43 a.m., in room SH-216, Hart
Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Leahy, Landrieu, Shaheen, Coons, Graham,
Kirk, Coats, Blunt, and Boozman.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF JOHN F. KERRY, SECRETARY
opening statement of senator patrick j. leahy
Senator Leahy. Good morning. Only because these guys have
the job I always wanted to have, to be one of the
photographers, I don't want to call them off too quickly.
Senator Graham. It is never too late for a career change.
Senator Leahy. I was recently speaking to a group of
prosecutors in Vermont, and I said the best job I ever had was
as a prosecutor. I don't know why I ever left it. Five hands
went up in the room and said, ``We'll trade.'' But I didn't.
I do appreciate the Secretary being here. He has a very
busy and peripatetic schedule. The Secretary and I have been
friends for decades, and I will say publicly what I told
Secretary Kerry privately: I am extremely impressed and proud
about the way he has embraced what is, especially these days,
one of the most difficult jobs in the world. And it is hard to
imagine anybody who walked into that job more qualified or
prepared than you. I appreciate what you have done. I think the
world appreciates what you have done.
Senator Mikulski is on the floor right now. She is an
active member and strong supporter of the subcommittee, and
thanks to her and Senator Shelby, we got our bills done last
year. We are going to do everything possible to get them
finished this year.
You and I have talked about how it makes it a little easier
if you know exactly how much money you are going to have or
don't have.
I also want to take a moment, I don't want to create
problems for him at home, but I want to acknowledge Senator
Graham.
Senator Graham. We need to move on.
Senator Leahy. He travels around the world to see how our
programs are working or not working. He and I have a close
friendship, and we have tried to keep this subcommittee as
nonpartisan as possible.
Senator Graham. Absolutely.
Senator Leahy. He has been a strong defender of the
national interests that the budget protects, and we have tried
to bring, each time, our bill to the floor with both of us
voting for it.
Obviously, today we are focused on Russia's invasion of
Ukraine, and there will be questions about that, but there is
also Iran, Syria, Egypt, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
North Korea, Venezuela, Sudan. It is an exhausting list.
And, Mr. Secretary, fortunately, you are able to work 40
hours a day, and juggle all of this. But with all this going
on, the American people have all but forgotten about
Afghanistan and Iraq, two enormously costly military ventures
that went terribly awry. We and the people of these countries
will be paying for these mistakes and for the care of wounded
soldiers and their families for lifetimes to come.
Iraq alone will eventually cost the U.S. taxpayers $2
trillion, the only war this country has ever fought without a
tax to pay for it. We just put it on a credit card.
Around the world, we see civil society organizations and
journalists harassed and persecuted, many forced to flee their
countries. Independence of the judiciary, fundamental to any
democracy and fragile in many countries, is under threat.
Violence and discrimination against women; shortages of water,
energy, food; climate change; religious extremism; trafficking
in arms, drugs, people, and wildlife; there is no issue that
this Secretary or subcommittee can ignore.
The world looks more dangerous to many of us than it did
during the Cold War. I don't think anyone could say that the
administration's 2015 budget request for this subcommittee is
excessive. In fact it is half a billion dollars, $536 million,
below the 2014 level.
I know our costs in Iraq have decreased, but there are
several areas where I see potential problems, particularly the
cut in funding for refugees and other humanitarian programs.
And I worry about the Western Hemisphere, including
Colombia. If there is a peace agreement to end the conflict in
Colombia--and I support what President Santos is doing at some
political risk to himself; I traveled there and talked to him
about this--we are going to want to help him secure that peace.
The many challenges that we face as a Nation, the costly
mistakes since 9/11 that damaged our image and eroded our
influence, I would like to think that when it comes to foreign
policy, Democrats and Republicans can learn from history and
learn to speak with one voice for the sake of the United States
and its people.
I would like to think that after fighting two long,
inconclusive wars, the Secretary's diplomatic efforts in the
Middle East and with Iran would have strong bipartisan support.
Right now, we don't need a Democratic foreign policy or a
Republican foreign policy. We need an American foreign policy
that is rooted in our values and the example we set and which
we can credibly ask others to follow.
prepared statement
I will yield to Senator Graham, and then, Mr. Secretary,
the floor will be yours, unless the chairwoman comes and wishes
to speak.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
We are here to discuss President Obama's fiscal year 2015 budget
for the Department of State and foreign operations.
Mr. Secretary, welcome. I want to say how impressed I am by the way
you have embraced what can only be described as one of the most
challenging jobs in the world. It is hard to imagine anyone more
qualified for it, and we are very fortunate to have you there.
I also want to recognize our committee chairwoman, Senator
Mikulski, who has long been an active member and strong supporter of
this subcommittee. Thanks to her and Senator Shelby, we got our bills
done last year and we are going to do everything possible to finish our
work this year by October 1.
I also want to acknowledge Senator Graham. He travels around the
world to see how programs are working--or not working--and he has been
a strong defender of this budget and the important national interests
it protects.
This subcommittee has produced bipartisan bills for as long as I
have been here, and we intend to work the same way this year.
The world today is focused on Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and we
will have many questions about that. But there is also Iran, Syria,
Egypt, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, North Korea, Venezuela,
Sudan--it is an exhausting list. The Secretary is juggling them all.
Yet with everything else going on, it is almost as if Congress and
the American people have forgotten about Afghanistan and Iraq, two
enormously costly military adventures that went terribly awry. We and
the people of those countries will be paying for those mistakes, and
for the care of our wounded soldiers and their families, for lifetimes
to come.
Around the world, civil society organizations and journalists are
harassed and persecuted. Many are forced to flee their countries. The
independence of the judiciary, fundamental to any democracy and fragile
in many countries, is under threat.
Violence and discrimination against women; shortages of water,
energy and food; climate change; religious extremism; the trafficking
in arms, drugs, people, and wildlife--there is no issue that the
Secretary or this subcommittee can ignore.
The world today looks more dangerous to many of us than it did
during the Cold War, and I don't think anyone can credibly say that the
administration's 2015 budget request for this subcommittee is
excessive.
In fact, it is $536 million below the 2014 level. While our costs
in Iraq have decreased there are several areas where I see potential
problems, particularly the cut in funding for refugees and other
humanitarian programs.
I also worry about the Western Hemisphere, including Colombia. If
there is a peace agreement to try to end that conflict--and I support
what President Santos is doing, at some political risk to himself--we
will want to help him secure the peace.
With the many challenges we face as a Nation and the costly
mistakes since 9/11 that damaged our image and eroded our influence, I
would like to think that at least when it comes to foreign policy,
Democrats and Republicans can learn from history and find ways to speak
with one voice.
I would like to think that after fighting two long, inconclusive
wars the Secretary's diplomatic efforts in the Middle East and with
Iran would have strong bipartisan support.
We do not need a Democratic foreign policy or a Republican foreign
policy. We need an American foreign policy that is consistently rooted
in our values and the example we set, and which we can credibly ask
others to follow.
After Senator Graham makes his opening remarks Mr. Secretary the
floor will be yours.
We will then have 7-minute rounds of questions in order of
appearance.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really have
enjoyed this committee. I want to compliment the members on our
side. At a time of $17 trillion national debt and a country
being financially strapped, bipartisanship has reigned when it
comes to the 1 percent of the budget that the country has
available to us to affect outcomes throughout the world and
help people in a way that will help us.
So Senator Coats is a former Ambassador to Germany. Mark
Kirk is sort of legendary in his understanding and support for
Israel and the Middle East.
And when I hear at home, ``If we just got rid of foreign
aid, our problems would be solved,'' I understand people
feeling frustrated about the world and how dangerous it is, but
this 1 percent I think has been well-managed, better managed
over time.
Mr. Secretary, your folks are doing a great job in Africa.
I am spending a lot of time in Africa, and you can see what
President Bush started, and President Clinton. But the Bush
initiatives have been carried on by the Obama administration. I
want to have a hearing one day about the rate of return on
investment, and the amount of money that we set aside to fight
AIDS and malaria to develop health care opportunities on a
continent that is under siege.
For people in Africa, our investment is not lost upon them.
The Chinese are there for a different purpose. They see America
and NGOs and the faith-based community in a very positive
light. This is where, in many ways, radical Islam is moving in
that direction. And we are going to cut them off.
We are going to cut them off not just militarily.
So, Mr. Chairman, we have a few differences, but when it
comes to trying to keep this bipartisan and use the money
wisely to help the American taxpayer--whether it is helping
Jordan, which is being overrun by refugees--we work well with
the State Department.
Mr. Secretary, I don't know how many miles a month you
travel, but nobody can ever say that John Kerry has not been
trying. You show up everywhere in the world where there is a
conflict.
And I want to help where I can. We will have some
differences, but on behalf of the American people, thank you
for being involved.
And to all committee members, particularly on the
Republican side, thank you for seeing the benefit that this
account can offer our Nation.
Senator Leahy. Please go ahead, Mr. Secretary.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF JOHN F. KERRY
Secretary Kerry. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And
Ranking Member Graham and all the members of the committee,
Senators, good friends of mine, I am very appreciative of the
opportunity to be able to testify here.
Even more so, I am really grateful for each of your service
on this committee. I was around here long enough to know the
difference between those committees that are easy to translate
at home, and this is one of the hardest. This and the Foreign
Relations Committee, it is tough, because people at home don't
always see the connection.
And, Senator Graham, I want to pick up on your comments on
that in a minute, if I can.
I am going to be very brief with my opening statement. I
want to begin by, first of all, just telling you what a
privilege it is for me to lead this extraordinary department,
the Department of State, USAID, and the remarkable men and
women who put themselves on the line every single day.
They are not wearing a uniform, but a whole bunch of them
are taking risks in this dangerous world we live in. And they
are doing it because of their love of country, because of their
desire to try to change things for the better in the world, and
take our values abroad and help to protect our interests. And
they do it in amazing ways.
Senator Graham just mentioned the effort, trying. I believe
we are getting a lot of things done, and I believe we are
making a difference in many places. We can talk about that in
the course of the morning, because it really is part of what
translates into the return on investment that Senator Graham
talked about.
And there are just so many different parts of the world
where people don't see how America has made the difference, but
we are making a difference in place after place. And that
people say okay, so what? What does that mean? It makes America
more secure.
It also opens up relationships that wind up growing
economies, which means business for American companies, it
means jobs at home, in every State, every district, in America.
And we can show that. And we need to do more of showing it, and
we intend to.
But right now, I would just say to all of you that the one
thing that struck me more than anything else in the course of
the last year, and I say this without any chauvinism or
arrogance at all, but it is the degree to which our leadership
does make a difference. It is the degree to which, if we are
not engaged in one place or another, bad things often happen.
We are not the only force. I am not claiming that. We have
great allies, great partners in these efforts. And some of them
are equally as indispensable. But we do make that kind of
difference.
Last week, I was standing in Kiev, looking at the lampposts
that were riddled with bullet holes, barricades made up of
tires and bedposts and different detritus from homes, and an
amazing film of burnt ash and mud on the street. And these
remarkable memorials that have grown up spontaneously to the
people who were killed there, flowers piled on flowers,
candles, photographs of those who died, it was incredibly
moving.
And to talk to the people there and listen to them express
their hopes, their desire to just be able to make choices like
people in other countries, it was a privilege to listen to
them. But I have to tell you, they are waiting for the world to
back them up in these aspirations and to help them.
And what is true in Kiev is true in so many other places
where people look to us to be able to try to provide
opportunities. South Sudan, a nation which many of you helped
give birth to, is struggling now. It needs our support to have
a chance of surviving beyond its infamy, so it doesn't fall
back into its history of being the longest war in Africa that
has taken more than 2 million lives.
What we do matters in the Maghreb, where the State
Department is coordinating with France in order to take down Al
Qaeda there, make sure that French forces have the technology
and weapons that they need.
What we do matters in Central Asia, where we are working
with several nations to stop the trafficking of narcotics and
keep more heroin off our streets, and cut off financing for
terrorists and extremists, all of which makes Americans safer.
What we do matters in the Korean Peninsula, where we are
working with our partners in the Republic of Korea, to make
sure that we can meet any threat and to work toward the
denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. I was recently, a few
weeks ago, in China, where we had very serious discussions
about what the Chinese can do in addition to what they are
already doing in order to have a greater impact on the
denuclearization process. And we are working with Japan and the
Republic of Korea in order to make sure they don't feel so
threatened that they move toward nuclearization and self-help.
Thanks to the State Department's work, the South Koreans
are now making the largest contribution they have ever made
toward our joint security agreement.
What we do matters significantly where we support freedom
of religion, and that is true from Bosnia to Indonesia,
protecting universal rights of people to practice their faith
freely and working to bring an end to the scourge of anti-
Semitism.
And it isn't just what we do in the budget. Mr. Chairman,
you know this better than anybody. It is an essential part of
who we are as Americans.
I also know from my experience here in Congress,
particularly under the budget constraints that you have
referred to, that you shouldn't tell anybody that anything that
costs billions of dollars is a bargain. We understand this is
important money to American citizens.
But when you consider that the American people pay just 1
penny of every dollar in the tax dollar for the $46.2 billion
that is our budget, flatlined and down from where it was in
2013, I believe the American people are getting an
extraordinary return on investment.
Now, some Members of Congress believe we ought to have
larger budget cuts, but I have to say to you, when I measure
what is happening in the world, the challenge and the Maghreb,
in the Sahel, the Levant, and all of the Middle East, in South
Asia, the challenge of huge numbers of young people under the
age of 30 who are yearning for opportunity, yearning for their
opportunity to touch what they see and know everybody in the
world has today, because we are such an interconnected world,
when I see the possibility of radical religious extremism
grabbing them instead of the opportunity to have an education,
the opportunity to get a good job, we better understand that
threat to us. That is real.
And we will deal with it, one way or another, either now
and get ahead of it, or later when it is a bigger problem.
For me, it is no coincidence that the places where we face
some of the greatest national security challenges are also the
places where the governments deny basic human rights and
opportunities for their people, and where there is very little
public discourse and accountability with any kind of free press
or media or capacity for people to speak out.
So that is why supporting human rights and stronger civil
societies and development assistance, investing in our
partnerships with allies, these are the surest ways to prevent
the kind of horrible human tragedies that we are in the
business of addressing in today's very complicated world.
I also think that we have to remember that foreign policy,
in 2014, is not all foreign. The fact is that we are, in the
State Department, increasingly focused on economics, focused on
building our strength here at home, on advancing American
businesses and creating job opportunities. Every time I speak
to the Department of State, I talk about foreign policy as
economic policy. And every Foreign Service Officer today, and
every civil service officer now, must also become an economic
officer. And we have changed the training at the Foreign
Service Institute in order to take all of our initial recruits
and begin to structure ourselves differently than in the past.
Some people express skepticism about this. But let me just
tell you, our Embassy in Zambia recently helped create jobs in
New Jersey. The patient advocacy of our diplomats helped an
American construction company land an $85 million contract.
They are building 144 bridges, and they have the potential to
do far more. There may be a follow-on multi-hundred-million
dollar contract.
Our consular staff in Calcutta, they helped bring
Caterpillar together with a company in India to develop a $500
billion power plant. When 95 percent of the world's consumers
live outside of our market, and when foreign governments are
out there extremely aggressively chasing our RFPs, requests for
proposals, contracts, jobs, opportunities, and they are backing
their companies in a very significant way, we need to
understand that we are living in a different world than we were
in the Cold War, when America was the single powerhouse economy
of the world and everybody else was recovering from World War
II.
Then you feel you could make mistakes and still win. Now
you can't. It is a different economic marketplace.
We believe this budget strengthens our partnerships where
so many of our economic and security interests converge, in the
East Asian Pacific region. And with this budget, we are
bolstering our bedrock alliances with South Korea and Japan.
And we are developing deeper partnership with Vietnam,
Indonesia, the Philippines, and others, as they assume greater
security roles.
Finally, I would just say to everybody, as we make these
investments and project our values and our power in places that
we need to in order to protect our interests, there is no way
that we can eliminate all risk, especially in a world where our
interests are not confined to prosperous capitals. We can and
will do more to mitigate risks, and I am pleased to tell you
that the budget that we have implements all of the
recommendations of our Benghazi report and makes additional
investments above and beyond those.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So it is fair to say we are doing the best we can in a
difficult budget environment where we have caps and we had a
budget agreement. I firmly believe that, with your help, and I
thank you for it, this committee has done an extraordinary job
of helping us to be able to strike a balance between the need
to sustain long-term investments in American leadership and the
political imperative to tighten our belts.
So, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to
having a discussion on these priorities.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John F. Kerry
I want to thank Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Graham for their
leadership, as well as each member of the subcommittee for their
commitment to America's leadership in the world.
Of course, I was serving here with you for quite a while--29 years
plus. Believe me, I know that choosing to be on this committee doesn't
win you many votes back home. The work you do here doesn't drive
fundraising. But it matters--it really matters--and this has never been
more clear to me than over the past year--when I've seen firsthand and
over and over again, just how much the world looks to the United States
on issue after issue.
Bringing people together and finding answers to tough challenges--
that's what the United States does. If we ``get caught trying,'' then
we're living up to what the world expects from us and what we expect
from ourselves.
I think that's especially true in Ukraine. From the very beginning
we have made our goal clear: to help the people of Ukraine achieve what
brought thousands upon thousands into the Maidan in the first place.
Our interest is in protecting the sovereignty, independence and
territorial integrity of Ukraine, and with European partners and
others, we absolutely have a responsibility to be engaged.
Certainly we have to be clear-eyed about the challenges. But from
the beginning, we've made it known that we are willing to sit down to
try and deescalate this situation. That is why President Obama asked me
to leave this evening for London and meet with Russia's Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov tomorrow.
I will make clear again, as we have throughout, that while we
respect that Russia has interests in Ukraine, particularly in Crimea,
that in no way--no way--justifies the military intervention the world
has witnessed. There are many other legitimate ways to address Russia's
concerns.
In my discussions with Minister Lavrov I'll also make it clear that
Russia has reasons to make the right choice. The costs for Russia's
violations of international law--the cost of making Russia more
isolated--not just from the United States, but from the international
community--is a cost that Russia should not want to bear, and doesn't
have to bear if they make a better choice.
Congress' support is going to be absolutely vital. Whether its loan
guarantees to help support a free Ukraine, an assistance stream, or
support for additional sanctions if that's what we need, you give us
the tools to accomplish our goals.
So it couldn't be any clearer, what we do here really matters. When
I think about that I remember last week in Kiev--standing in the spot
where Ukraine's former president had snipers pick off peaceful
protesters one by one. It was very moving to speak with some of the
Ukrainian people and hear how much they look to us.
The same is true far from Kiev or what's in the headlines. What we
do matters to South Sudan, a nation some of you helped give birth to--a
nation that's now struggling and needs our support to have a chance of
surviving beyond infancy.
What we do matters in the Maghreb, where the State Department is
coordinating with France to take down al-Qaeda, making sure French
forces have the technology and weapons they need.
What we do matters in Central Asia, where we're working with
several nations to stop the trafficking of narcotics, to keep more
heroin off our streets and cut off financing for terrorists and
extremists.
What we do matters on the Korean Peninsula, where we are working
with our partners from the Republic of Korea to make sure we can meet
any threat and for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Thanks
to the State Department's work, the South Koreans are now making the
largest financial contribution to these efforts in the history of our
joint security agreement.
What we do matters everywhere we support religious freedom, from
Bosnia to Indonesia. Protecting the universal rights of people to
practice their faith freely and working to bring an end to the scourge
of anti-Semitism--this isn't just what we do in this budget; this is an
essential part of who we are as Americans.
Now, I spent enough time in Congress to know that you shouldn't
call anything that costs billions of dollars a bargain. But when you
consider that the American people pay just one penny of every tax
dollar for the $46.2 billion in investments in this request, I believe
the American people are getting an extraordinary return on their
investment.
Our base request is $40.3 billion--and that's in line with what was
appropriated to the Department and USAID last year. We're making a
constant effort to be more effective and agile, and as you well know,
we're doing that under some tight constraints.
The additional part of our request for Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO), totals $5.9 billion. OCO provides the State
Department and USAID the ability to respond to the humanitarian crisis
in Syria. It gives us flexibility to meet some unanticipated
peacekeeping needs. OCO funds our programs in Iraq, Afghanistan and
Pakistan, where we continue to right-size our commitments.
I know it might be easy for some members of Congress to support
larger cuts in this budget. What's impossible to calculate is the far
greater price our country would pay for inaction. What's impossible to
calculate are the dangers in a world without American leadership and
the vacuum that would create for extremists and ideologues to exploit.
For me it's no coincidence that the places where we face some of
the greatest national security challenges are also places where
governments deny basic human rights and opportunities for their people.
That's why supporting human rights and stronger civil societies,
development assistance, investing in our partnerships with our allies:
these are the surest ways to prevent the kind of horrible human tragedy
we see Syria today.
I know some of you have looked these refugees in the eyes and seen
their numbers, as I have. There is simply no way the richest and most
powerful nation in the world can simply look away. For both the Syrian
people and for Lebanon, Turkey, and Jordan, trying to keep their
societies running and keep extremists at bay as they cope with a
refugee crisis, our support could not be more urgent. It is both a
moral and security imperative.
With our assistance to the Philippines, recovering from one of the
worst natural disasters in its history, we are also leading the way.
Through a $56 million contribution from State and USAID, we are working
with our partners so that hundreds of thousands of people can put their
lives back together. We're helping one of our oldest allies in the
Pacific get back on its path to prosperity.
Within our core budget request is also a $1.35 billion contribution
to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The goal
that President Obama has set today for an AIDS free generation would
have been absolutely unthinkable even 10 years ago but today that goal
is within reach. Because of PEPFAR's incredible success, we are now
working to transition the leadership of these life-saving programs to
local hands with Rwanda, Namibia, and South Africa some of the first to
take the reins.
Because of our leadership, children waking up today in Sub-Saharan
Africa face a far different future than they did a decade ago. Our
commitment clearly matters. And just as our partners in Asia and Europe
made a transition from being recipients of American aid to becoming
donors, that kind of transformation is now possible in Africa.
And to make sure that emerging markets around the world make the
most of their opportunities, we need reforms to the International
Monetary Fund. Just think about this: Brazil, Chile, Columbia, India,
Korea, Mexico, Peru, the Philippines, Thailand--all of these nations
once borrowed from the IMF. Now they are creditors with some of the
most dynamic economies in the world.
Ukraine's struggle for independence, particularly its financial
independence, depends on Congress ratifying reforms that will help
Ukraine borrow through the IMF's Rapid Financing Instrument. Our $1
billion loan guarantee is needed urgently but it's only through the
IMF--a reformed IMF--that Ukraine will receive the additional help it
needs to stand on its own two feet.
Our work with the IMF is vital to global economic stability. But
remaining absolutely focused on creating opportunity here at home is
essential. That means we have to be strong advocates for America's
commercial interests across the globe. And that's why I've charged each
of Foreign Service Officers with an economic mission: to create
opportunities for Americans and work with our businesses to gain a
bigger foothold abroad.
I know there's some skepticism about this kind of economic
diplomacy. But it's hard to argue with some of the results. Look at how
our Embassy in Zambia helped create jobs in New Jersey. The patient
advocacy of our diplomats helped an American construction company land
an $85 million contract. They're building 144 bridges and have the
potential to do far more.
Look at the work of our consular staff in Kolkata. They helped
bring Caterpillar together with a company in India to develop a $500
million power plant.
Look at what Embassy Wellington and Embassy Apia in Samoa are
doing. Our diplomats helped a company right here on the East Coast land
a $350 million contract to lay fiber optics across the Pacific.
When 95 percent of the world's consumers live outside of our market
and when foreign governments are out there, aggressively backing their
own businesses, this is the kind of advocacy American workers need to
compete.
Telling our story where it matters most is vital to both the
success of our businesses and the appeal of our values. With this
budget's investments in stronger people to people ties, educational
exchange and countering violent extremism, we are shaping the debate.
We are keeping traditional programs strong, like those for
International Visitor Leadership and English language programs. At the
same time we are revitalizing the way we engage through quick-impact
investments to shape emerging leaders in civil society.
We call some of these investments quick impact but you and I both
know their lasting benefits. I can't tell you how many times foreign
leaders share their experience of studying in the United States and the
permanent and positive impression it made. And all of you who have
colleges and universities in your districts also see the financial
impact from the $22 billion each year that international students bring
to the U.S. economy.
This budget also strengthens our partnerships where so many of our
economic and security interests converge, in the East Asia and Pacific
region. With this budget we are bolstering our bedrock alliances with
South Korea and Japan. We're developing deeper partnerships with
Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines, and others, as they assume greater
security roles.
As we make these investments around the world, we can never
eliminate every risk--especially in a world where our vital interests
are not confined to secure, prosperous capitals. But we can and will do
more to mitigate risks and keep our people safe. This budget implements
the recommendations of the independent Benghazi Accountability Review
Board (ARB) and makes additional investments that go above and beyond.
My friends, I think it's fair to say that we are doing the best we
can in a difficult budget environment. I firmly believe that this
budget strikes a balance between the need to sustain long-term
investments in American leadership and the political imperative to
tighten our belts. I believe this budget is a blueprint for providing
the minimum our people need to carry out their mission: to enhance
national security, to promote global stability and prosperity, and to
help the American people seize the opportunities in a changing world.
Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Thank you for a very complete review.
U.S. SUPPORT OF UKRAINE
Fortunately, I come from a State that believes in
diplomacy. We export more per capita, I believe, than any other
State, even though we are a small State. We share a border with
a great and wonderful friend, Canada. We share another border
with your own State of Massachusetts.
Right now, we have two different pieces of legislation on
Ukraine, one from the House, the other from the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, to authorize assistance for Ukraine. I
think all of us hope we can get agreement on a bill that the
President will sign.
One of the things that seems to be missing from the press
releases and op-eds is that it is the Appropriations Committee,
and actually this subcommittee, in particular, that will
actually decide what assistance and how much to provide.
And, of course, that will depend on what happens in Ukraine
over the coming months.
I am sure that others have questions about Ukraine, but let
me start with this. Many foreign policy experts, including your
predecessors Henry Kissinger and Condoleezza Rice, and former
Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, have offered opinions about how
to respond to Russia's aggression in Crimea. Each of them
recounts history, but then they each draw different conclusions
and lessons from that history, and they advocate different
responses, an indication that there is no unified view.
How do you respond to former Secretary of Defense Bob
Gates, who says he does not believe that Russia will give up
Crimea? Is there another way to resolve this, that preserves
Crimea as part of Ukraine, but also recognizes Russia's
interest there?
Secretary Kerry. Well, Mr. Chairman, the truth is we don't
know the answer to that question yet. We can speculate.
There are strong indications that could lead you to draw
the conclusion Bob Gates did, and there are other thoughts out
there that suggest that something short of the full annexation
might also be achievable.
Frankly, we won't know the answer to that until I meet with
Foreign Minister Lavrov tomorrow in London. I talked to him
briefly today. They are meeting in Russia in Sochi today with
President Putin, their security team.
My hope is that they will come aware of the fact that the
international community is really strong and united on this
issue.
Senator Leahy. Suppose the people of Crimea vote to leave
Ukraine. The Russian parliament, which will do whatever
President Putin tells it to, votes to annex Crimea, how do the
U.S. and Europe, our allies, respond at that point?
Secretary Kerry. Well, I think the response will come well
before that, Mr. Chairman. There will be a response of some
kind to the referendum itself. In addition, if there is no sign
of any capacity to be able to move forward and resolve this
issue, there will be a very serious series of steps on Monday
in Europe and here with respect to the options that are
available to us.
Now our choice is not to be put in the position of having
to do that.
Senator Leahy. I understand.
Secretary Kerry. Our choice is to have a respect for the
sovereignty and independence and integrity of the country of
Ukraine. Our hope is to have Russia join in respecting
international law.
There is no justification, no legality to this referendum
that is taking place. It violates international law. It
violates the U.N. charter. It violates the Constitution of
Ukraine.
And I don't think anybody can believe that a hastily put
together, rushed referendum taking place under the imprint of
20,000-plus troops and all that has happened without debate,
without opportunity, is a genuine referendum. But even if it
were, I will just say one thing, I don't think there is much
doubt, given the circumstances, what the vote is going to be.
Nobody doubts that.
So this is not a question mark. The question mark is, is
Russia prepared to find a way to negotiate with Ukraine, with
the contact group, with other countries involved, in order to
be able to resolve this in a way that respects their legitimate
interests, and they have legitimate interests, but respects
them in a way that doesn't violate international law and is not
at the butt of a rifle and a massive military imprint.
Senator Leahy. Well, the new Government of Ukraine has made
it very clear that they want closer ties with Europe. The
Russians have invaded Crimea, notwithstanding the strange
comments of President Putin that these are private people who
bought uniforms at a store, which gave great fodder to the
late-night comics. But are there other former Soviet republics
who express interest in closer ties with Europe? Are they in
similar danger of invasion by the Russian army?
Secretary Kerry. They fear the ultimate possibility. They
are not in danger of that as of today.
But yes, I was talking this morning with the foreign
ministers from the region, and they are all concerned about
this rattling.
But again, I think that the hope, Mr. Chairman, is that
reason will prevail, but there is no guarantee of that
whatsoever. The European Community is strongly united. They
will meet on Monday.
The President of the United States has made it clear he is
prepared to move. He has already designated, without
designating individuals, he has already issued an executive
order creating the construct for personal sanctions, and we
have a very clear list of those who would be included in the
event that we can't move this process forward.
Senator Leahy. I am glad you are meeting with the foreign
minister. I wish you luck there. Having met with him at
different times on other matters, I know that can be a
difficult thing.
We are working with Russia, and you helped engineer this,
and I applaud you for it, for the removal of chemical weapons
from Syria. We want to bring this horrible, horrible tragedy to
an end in Syria with the continuing humanitarian disaster of
refugees.
We have negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.
Russia is involved in that.
Is Russia's violation of the sovereignty of Ukraine going
to affect the removal of chemical weapons in Syria? The
possibility of a diplomatic solution in Syria? And thirdly, the
negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program?
Secretary Kerry. Well, we hope not, Mr. Chairman, but
obviously it has the potential to. It has the capacity to.
I have talked about that with Foreign Minister Lavrov. He
is aware, we are aware, of that being one of the ingredients in
this, which we hope would push people toward a more reasonable
path. But there is no way to predict it.
And the key will be to figure out whether or not President
Putin is serious about looking for a way under international
law to move this process forward.
Can I just mention one thing quickly?
Senator Leahy. Sure.
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (IMF)
Secretary Kerry. You mentioned the IMF at the very
beginning. I want to thank the committee, I want to thank the
Senate, for being on track to do what is important here.
We must have IMF reform. We must have a quota. And it would
be a terrible message to Ukraine for everybody to be standing
up talking appropriately about what is at stake, but then not
to be able to follow through. The IMF is critical; we need that
help.
Senator Leahy. Senator Graham and I joined together to get
this through the Senate, and we got it through the Senate with
a bipartisan majority. I met with Ms. Lagarde and some House
Members in Davos. She expressed enormous concerns that the
House dropped it. I tried to make it very clear, we did it here
in the Senate, and we are prepared to do it. And I wish they
had, because it created enormous problems for the United
States.
It was a huge, huge blow to the United States, the fact
that the other body did not go along with us on this.
Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So many places to talk about, such little time. I mean, we
could have a second round of questions. But let us get on with
the IMF.
Do you agree, Mr. Secretary, that the IMF, from an American
point of view, is a tool in the toolbox that has shown to be a
wise investment?
Secretary Kerry. Absolutely. In fact, a huge number of
countries that were IMF recipients are now donors in one way or
another to economic initiatives around the world.
Senator Graham. And this is the one area where it is not
just our money. You have the international community coming
together and the loans are given to reinforce the good guys,
deter the bad guys, and bring about reform to make countries
like Ukraine more stable. Is that correct?
Secretary Kerry. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Graham. To my colleagues: I can understand being
war weary. It is a natural response to being at war with
radical Islam and other entities for a long time. But I can't
understand taking everything off the table.
If never use military force--I am certain we want to do
that as a last resort. If we don't have foreign assistance. If
we don't want to be involved in the IMF. What do we do? We just
hope things get better?
So I am all in, in trying to pursue what the Senate Foreign
Relations----
Secretary Kerry. Can I just say very quickly, Senator, our
leadership on this is now in doubt.
When people say the United States is retreating, we are
inadvertently hurting ourselves by sending a message that we
are not prepared to lead and step up and complete the task.
We are the only country that hasn't ratified this. And the
implications of that are just enormous in terms of American
leadership. The IMF is the tool that helps to bring countries
into alignment on their transparency, their accountability,
their reforms, their market economy, all of the things that are
in our interests.
So I could not underscore more, Senator Graham, the
importance of what you are saying and the importance of us
following through on this.
Senator Graham. Well, I have been critical, I think
sometimes forcefully, and appropriately so, about the
administration's foreign policy. But the Congress needs to do
some self-evaluation of where we are as a body, what is our
role in all of this.
SYRIAN REFUGEE CRISIS
Let's talk about Syria very quickly. Do you think Assad is
winning right now, on the battlefield?
Secretary Kerry. I don't think anybody is winning, but he
is not losing.
Senator Graham. Okay.
Secretary Kerry. And the way I would phrase it is he is
doing better than he was doing. He has gotten somewhat of an
upper hand, but this thing runs like a roller coaster. It is
not going to be solved militarily.
Senator Graham. The only trajectory we are sure of is that
refugees are coming into Jordan and Lebanon at a pace that is
unsustainable.
Secretary Kerry. Absolutely true.
Senator Graham. Would you reinforce to the American people,
if this war goes on another year, and we are in this situation
where the battlefield is basically as it is today, that Lebanon
and Jordan are going to be in great peril?
Secretary Kerry. Indeed, Senator. I appreciate the
opportunity to say a word about it.
Jordan is a critical ally to the United States. Jordan has
been a partner with Israel, a partner with the United States, a
significant partner in the region, for peace and for stability.
And Jordan currently has over 900,000, close to 1 million-
plus refugees. And what is happening is, those refugees go out
into Jordanian society, and they look for jobs. They get
apartments. But they get 10 people in one apartment paying a
much higher rent, and it squeezes out Jordanians.
In jobs, they are willing to work for less. They are more
desperate. They, therefore, affect the marketplace. They affect
the entire political fabric of the country, and it begins to
destabilize.
Likewise, in Lebanon, in Lebanon, they don't have formal
camps. You have almost 900,000 Syrian refugees scattered
throughout Lebanon. I saw a map of it the other day from where
it has gone in the last 3 years, with these few red dots up and
down the coastline. Now the entire coast is red, from north to
south, filled with refugees.
The destabilization of that is very significant. So we have
a national security interest in that.
Also, the devastation on families, children, children not
in school, the future problems for us in terms of potential
terrorism, spread of terrorism, are very, very real. It is in
our national security interests to try to change that.
Senator Graham. I think that is well said, but having said
that, the President's budget cuts aid to Jordan by $300
million. So I would like to try to restore that. Would you help
me?
Secretary Kerry. Senator, we have provided significant add-
ons of aid to Jordan over the course of the last year, well
over what was originally appropriated. And there is nobody we
support more overall.
But in view of some of the other things we are doing, this
is a trade-off. We have been forced into a zero-sum game.
Senator Graham. I got you.
Secretary Kerry. I will help as much as I can, but in the
end, you guys have the power on this one.
Senator Graham. The statement you made about Jordan I think
is very accurate.
RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IN UKRAINE
On Ukraine, I don't know what Putin is going to do. I am
not so sure he knows what he is going to do. He is probably
making this up as it goes, and I think we have sent a lot of
wrong signals to him and others.
But let's look down the road and start talking about worst-
case scenarios.
The worst-case scenario for me is that he annexes the
Crimea, that the joke of the Duma ratifies this illegal
referendum, and somehow they say that they are answering the
call of the Crimean citizenry, which is a complete joke coming
out of Hitler's playbook. And Secretary Clinton was right about
that.
What happens if they go east? What if they create friction
in the eastern part of Ukraine, bring in paid-for thugs to
create demonstrations, wanting the eastern part of Ukraine to
be part of Russia. And the Ukrainians say enough already, we
have a small army, but we will fight and we will die if
necessary to protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. And
the Ukrainian Government asks NATO and us, not for boots on the
ground, but for military hardware to help them fight the
Russians, ask for weapons like other people have asked us in
the past.
What do you recommend we do, if that happens?
Secretary Kerry. Well, Senator, we have contingencies. We
are talking through various options that may or may not be
available.
Our hope is, however, not to create hysteria or excessive
concern about that at this point in time. Our hope is to be
able to avoid that. But there is no telling that we can.
Senator Graham. See, and I----
Secretary Kerry. Let me just finish one thought?
Senator Graham. Yes.
Secretary Kerry. We are watching, every day, very, very
carefully, the movement of troops. Under the basing act, the
basing agreement, which permits Russians to have their forces
in Crimea, they are permitted to have up to about 25,000 troops
under that.
There is a requirement that they not interfere in the
sovereignty of Ukraine from that base. And, obviously, and what
they have done in the last days, they have done that, so they
are in violation of the base agreement.
We guesstimate, estimate, all of our input, somewhere in
the vicinity of 20,000 troops there now, so they are not above
the limit, to the best of our judgment. But we also make the
judgment at this point that they don't have the assets in the
places necessary to be able to, say, march in and take over all
of Ukraine. But that could change very quickly, and we
recognize that.
The options, according to the Ukrainians themselves, are
there probably would not be an all-out confrontation,
initially, but you would have a longtime insurgency/counter
effort that they will fight. And these are people who know how
to fight, and they are committed to that one way or another.
So there are a lot of different options, but I think before
we get there, we have a number of options to make it clear to
President Putin the level of isolation that he might be asking
for, and the degree to which many of the people around him, if
not he, himself, could be affected by that choice in very real
ways before you get to any kind of troop and other kinds of
evaluations.
Senator Graham. Well, I hope we never get there, too.
I don't want to take any more time. I would like to have
another conversation with you.
But just one final point, I really do believe that Russia
is all in for Assad because he believes it is in their interest
to keep Assad afloat, and they are supplying him with all the
arms he needs, and it seems to be working.
I just want the Ukrainian people to know that when we say
we stand by you, that has some context.
And I want the Russians to understand that there will be a
point, and I don't know when that point is reached, that you
really will pay a price. I don't think they believe that. But
if you start marching eastward, and you start killing
Ukrainians who are just asking to make their own determinations
in life, apart from Russian tanks and thuggery, that that may
be a point that you don't want to go across because the
response may be greater than you think.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Kerry. Senator, just 30 seconds, I would just say
to you that I have been impressed by how united our European
allies are on this. And we had a conference call this morning
with foreign ministers on the phone, all the contact group, and
to a person they are very, very committed, to a country, to
make sure that there is accountability.
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much.
Thank you for what you said on Jordan. There is strong
bipartisan support to help Jordan. Most of us have met with the
king, many of us have traveled there. Frankly, I don't know how
a small country like that handles the enormous burden put on
it, but I applaud them for it.
Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for testifying before us,
and most importantly, thank you for your service. As a military
leader, a Senator, and now as a Secretary, who I think is
making a remarkable difference in the world with multiple
challenges.
KEYSTONE PIPELINE
I have four questions this morning. The first is on energy,
and it relates to the Keystone pipeline and the decision that
you are going to make, and the administration is going to make,
about a critical, in my view, piece of infrastructure that will
transport safely the cleanest barrel of oil produced in North
America, contrary to popular belief.
Canada is our closest and our strongest trading partner.
You are aware that their environmental standards are in fact
higher than ours, and among the highest in the world.
And this resource of 30 billion barrels of oil represents,
I understand, the largest single free-enterprise resource in
the world.
So from my perspective, and particularly the people that I
represent, it is hard for us to even understand why there is a
question as to whether this infrastructure is in the national
interest.
Could you comment about the economic benefits, the aspect
of the strengthening of a relationship that is really vital to
our long-term interests, and what your considerations are in
addition to those two?
Secretary Kerry. Well, Senator, I understand it is on a lot
of people's minds. I mean, a lot of people. The department has
received and evaluated more than 1.9 million public comments.
And the final supplemental EIS on this is 11 volumes, more than
7,000 pages. My job now is to review it and make a
determination.
But I also have to get feedback from eight different
agencies. I am continuing to get additional information. And if
I have any legitimate questions, then I need to have those
answered.
So I am not at liberty to go into my thinking, at this
point. It is just not appropriate, except to say to you that I
am approaching this tabula rasa. I am going to look at all the
arguments, both sides, all sides, whatever, evaluate them, and
make the best judgment I can about what is in the national
interest.
And I will forward that to the President of the United
States, who has ultimate authority to make this decision.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you. And I am going to stay focused
not only in my role as a Senator, but as chair of the Energy
Committee on really pressing the country to understand the
importance of becoming an energy powerhouse with cleaner energy
sources requires the infrastructure, whether it is our
transmission lines, our pipelines, our roads, our ports, our
import-export.
And it is important not only to our economy, but I do think
it has a real bearing on our position in the world as a
superpower. And that is what this budget reflects, basically
our defense budget and our State Department budget sets us up
to be a superpower. And it is very relevant.
AID TO ORPHANS
The next two questions are on children. PEPFAR was put into
place, as you know, in 2003. It has been touted as one of the
most successful programs internationally in the world. I
believe that it has enjoyed broad bipartisan support.
I think you were helpful when PEPFAR was created, as I
remember, to set aside a very small portion of the $7 billion
annually for orphans and vulnerable children--$350 million,
that is all--to address the fact that AIDS creates orphans. It
creates a lot of sick people, and it results in death. But it
also results in orphans, kids that are double orphan, both
parents dying, or a single orphan, one parent dying but
abandoned by the surviving parent.
When we reauthorized PEPFAR this last year, out of respect
for Senators Menendez and Corker, who did not want any serious
amendments, I did not offer an amendment to make sure that $350
million was going more directly to help children reconnect to
families.
Would you commit to me today, and to others, that you and
your team will work to try to meet the original objectives of
that $350 million to reconnect children that are orphaned by
AIDS to families?
Secretary Kerry. We would like to do that very, very much.
Again, this is a reflection of just the tension in the overall
budget.
But we do believe that the way we have been able to do
this, Senator Landrieu, will in fact meet our available funding
requirements with respect to this challenge.
We have $1.35 billion in here. This honors the President's
commitment to do $1 from us for every $2 contributed by other
donors to the fund, up to a possible $5 billion. And this more
than fully funds what we are seeing will be available from the
pledges of other countries.
Senator Landrieu. But the problem is, when PEPFAR was
created, there were approximately 15 million orphans in the
world. There are now 17 million. So the rate of infection is
going down, but the rate of orphans is going up.
This is the only money, $350 million.
My second question, on children, is the CHIFF bill,
Children in Families First. There are five members of this
subcommittee who are cosponsors--Senator Kirk, Senator Blunt,
myself, Senator Shaheen, and Senator Coons. We are very, very
serious about helping you to organize and put resources in your
department that can focus on the fundamental fact that children
belong in families, children should be in families.
It seems to be a missing component of our foreign policy.
There are lots of components of foreign policy. We are having a
hard time finding anywhere where it says children belong in
families.
So we are going to continue to work with you--I know my
time is up--on this bill as it moves through Senator Menendez's
committee.
But I do want to put into the record one of the things that
is propelling us, Mr. Chairman, is that there have been no
reported international adoptions from any country that has
become a Hague partner with the United States since 2008.
A letter has been sent to you. It has not been answered.
Please answer it and let's continue to work together to see
what we can do to move this issue forward.
And I thank you.
Secretary Kerry. Well, if I could just comment quickly,
first of all, Senator Landrieu, you know from our meeting and
you know from our relationship--you are the champion on this
whole issue of children and adoption, and you have done amazing
work at it.
I was struck, in the meeting that we had in the Senate,
that you and Senator Blunt and Senator Angus King and myself
are all beneficiaries of knowing about adoption. I have a niece
who comes from China and has just been enormously important to
our family, so I understand this.
I also committed to you that the State Department needs to
do more. It needs to do better. There is no question about it.
But I don't want to be the Secretary of State who takes the
State Department out of the business of helping to make this
happen. I want to be the Secretary who helps get this to be
more effective within the department and more effective
overall.
In that light, we should continue to work. I understand
that talks have come to a little bit of a standstill on this
question of jurisdiction and where it goes.
I am convinced, as I said to you, that we can meet your
needs. But I also know this: Embassies are holistic and they
deal with all of the policies within a country. And sometimes
there are many policies that affect adoption for children,
which requires the ambassador and the whole of an Embassy to
impact.
I just do not believe we will advance this cause by putting
it wholly and totally into DHS or somewhere else, where they
are geared to handle the visa and that component of the
analysis, but not all of the other parts that will make this
policy as effective as it can be.
That is what I want to do with you. So I can hope we can
work at that.
Senator Landrieu. We will continue to work.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Leahy. I am not sure when votes may start on the
floor, so we are going to try to keep close to time. And here
is the list, we will go to Senator Coats, then Senator Shaheen,
Senator Kirk, Senator Coons, Senator Boozman.
So, Senator Coats.
Senator Coats. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will try to
be brief.
Secretary Kerry, I assume you don't get frequent flyer
miles, but if you did, you would be set for life.
RUSSIAN SANCTIONS
A question, Senator Durbin and I yesterday coauthored a
Senate resolution relative to some sanctions, really not
sanctions so much as providing some isolation. There are 15
separate items on there, and it passed the Senate 100-to-
nothing.
We know the big one is coming, and you are negotiating all
that, the economic sanctions and so forth are part of that. But
just two of those areas that I will list in the 15, and I
wonder if these are being included in what you are negotiating
right now.
One is the participation in the G8, Russia's participation
in that. I don't think they were invited in there, would have
been invited in there, had we known that they were going to
breach their responsibility in terms of invading a neighbor.
And secondly is the relationship between NATO and the
Russian council.
Is there anything in your considerations, the program you
are putting together, incorporating those two issues?
Secretary Kerry. Actually, it doesn't require a bill to do
those, to be honest with you, Senator. And both of those have
been talked about publicly by me, by the President. The
President has already made it clear, I mean the G7 countries
have made it clear that they are not thinking about going to
Sochi under these circumstances and having a G8 meeting. That
is step one.
Whether there would be further steps with respect to
changing the structure and becoming a G7 again or not, that is
up for grabs.
And the NATO Russia Council has been put on hold already,
so there are a lot of downstream impacts already to the
bilateral relationship and to the multilateral relationship.
Senator Coats. Good. Thank you.
IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM
And let me ask you a question about Iran, while we are
here.
Back in 2007, Iran had about 700 centrifuges that were
spinning uranium. Virtually the entire community of nations
indicated that that is too dangerous of a situation to
tolerate. The U.N. Security Council then began passing a series
of resolutions, demanding that this effort stop completely.
The United States, led in many ways by the Senate--you were
a member there at the time--went through the careful and, I
think, painstaking process of both diplomacy and tough
sanctions, all aimed at explicitly enforcing the Iranian regime
to end enrichment activities. And that struggle has gone on.
Now it appears to me that in the P5-plus-1 negotiations,
that goal has been set aside. You have a better understanding
of where we are right now than I do, but I have not seen any
reference, either by you or anyone else, to these Security
Council resolutions and the demand that enrichment activities
be completely and immediately suspended.
Has that goal been abandoned? I guess my question is, does
the administration still seek to force the Iranians to give up
enrichment, or have we basically decided that that is not going
to be part of our negotiations for an ongoing comprehensive
agreement?
Secretary Kerry. Senator, what date did you attach to the
700 centrifuges? 1990?
Senator Coats. 2007.
Secretary Kerry. 2000-what?
Senator Coats. 2007.
Secretary Kerry. Yes, well, 2001, there were, I forget, it
is in the several hundred, I think, 2002. Now there are about
19,000. That is where we have traveled in this ``don't talk,
don't sit down'' journey.
Senator Coats. Which is why sanctions probably played an
instrumental role in that effort.
Secretary Kerry. Absolutely. And what has brought us to the
table to begin this negotiation are a combination of sanctions,
but also I think fairness requires that we say that, with the
election of President Rouhani, there was an effort, a conscious
declaration by Iran, that they were going to reach out and
attempt to see if they could get out from under this cloud.
So we are now testing that proposition. And in the first
step, it is not an interim agreement, it is a first step toward
a final comprehensive agreement, we are ratcheting them back
from where they are. The 20 percent uranium that is enriched
today has to go down to zero over the course of these next 6
months, now 4 months left. And they are reducing it.
The 3.5 percent stockpile that they have cannot grow, so
they are basically frozen there.
On the Iraq plutonium reactor, they are under the
requirement not to put in any component that could contribute
to the commissioning of that reactor--no fuel--and they have to
give us the plans for it, which they have done.
In addition, we have inspectors within Fordow. We didn't
have any before the agreement. We have inspectors at Natanz. We
didn't have them before the agreement. And we have inspectors
on a less frequent basis in the Iraq production facility.
We also have the right to inspect their storage facilities
for centrifuges. We are following and tracking their milling
and mining of uranium, so that we are tracking from cradle to
grave. And we have begun the process of putting in place very
intrusive verification and so forth.
Now, at this point in time, the U.N. resolutions are
active. And there is a goal of trying to implement that. I
can't tell you today whether or not that is achievable.
And so the goal hasn't changed, but we are in a negotiation
where the real goal is to guarantee that they cannot get a
nuclear weapon and that whatever program they might have
peacefully going forward is one where we have absolutely
failsafe guarantees to the best of our ability to know it
through the negotiating process and what we achieve that we
will know what they are doing and know it well ahead of any
potential of their breaking out.
As we began this negotiation, the breakout time by most
judgments, meaning the time to get sufficient uranium enriched
for one nuclear weapon, was about 2 months. It is longer now,
because of the first step that we have taken.
And I can guarantee you that in order to have a final
agreement that will be comprehensive enough to meet our
standards, the standards of our gulf friends, of Israel, of
others, it is going to have to grow significantly beyond where
it is today.
So we believe we are heading in the right direction. I
can't tell you where it is going to finally land. We don't
know. There are some very tough decisions the Iranians are
going to have to make--very tough--in order to meet the
international community's standard for certainty as to the
peacefulness of this program.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Senator Coats. Mr. Chairman, I will not ask another
question, if I could just respond there.
Despite the efforts that we are making, the Iranians have
declared publicly a negotiation victory over the fact that
cessation of enrichment, which has been in a series of U.N.-
supported resolutions, Security Council-supported resolutions,
that has been the determination and statements of four
presidents, two Democrats and two Republicans, that that goal
has been abandoned, and Iran has achieved in moving the ball
toward a different kind of goal, which we hope will be
successful. But the fact of the matter is that no longer is the
goal.
Keeping Iran from producing a nuclear weapon is far
different than having the capability of doing that. It sounds a
lot to me like what we went through with North----
Secretary Kerry. Senator, if I could just say to you,
remember the U.N. resolution wasn't that they couldn't have any
enrichment at some point in time. It is what they had to
suspend. And the reason for the suspension requirement was
because we didn't know what was happening at Fordow. There
weren't any restraints. There was no inspection. There was no
certainty as to where they were going.
So it is an open question, but nothing has been decided.
The initial agreement, the JPOA, as it is referred to,
specifically states nothing is agreed until everything is
agreed. And I can guarantee you there has been no giveaway on
that final issue at that this point in time.
But we are talking about how do you get sufficient
verification, intrusive inspection, capacity to know what is
happening, so that no matter what is going on, we are protected
and our friends in the region are protected.
Senator Leahy. I think the most important thing is we
continue the negotiations, and I do not think the Congress,
whether responding to various lobbies or not, is a place to
conduct such negotiations. Let's let the negotiators try to
work it out.
Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for your tireless
efforts to address so many of the crises we are facing in the
world today. You make us very proud here.
First, I don't have any questions on Ukraine, because there
have been a number of those. But I do want to point out that I
hope that the work of the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday
to come to a bipartisan agreement on a bill to address Ukraine
that includes both sanctions on Russia and support for the new
government in Ukraine will be helpful as we are trying to
address the crisis there.
I think it is very important that we do work together here
in Congress to support your efforts. And I think that is
exactly what the committee did.
SYRIAN CHEMICAL WEAPONS
I want to start with Syria. I have two questions about
Syria. As you point out in your testimony, it is one of the
greatest tragedies we are facing in the world today. It is just
horrific what has happened to the people of Syria, the
destruction of their country. And part of that has been the
chemical weapons that Assad has had. And there was an agreement
that you helped broker to have Assad commit to eliminate their
chemical weapons stockpile.
He has now missed several deadlines for commitments that he
had made. It seems like it is not realistic to think that they
are going to meet their end of April deadline. Can you say what
more we can do to pressure Assad to make sure that they reduce
these chemical weapons? And then can you also address
humanitarian efforts there, and what more we can do to support
and to get the Russians to engage with Assad to make sure that
humanitarian efforts get to the people who need them?
Secretary Kerry. Well, thank you very much, Senator
Shaheen. Thank you for your generous comments at the beginning.
And I do thank you, all of you. Those of you who serve on
the Foreign Relations Committee, I thank the Foreign Relations
Committee for its initiative, which is helpful.
Syria is deeply troubling for all of the reasons that
everybody on the committee understands. And it is also
troubling for other reasons, not that you don't understand
them, but they are not written about publicly that much.
The opposition has been sidetracked, to some degree,
focusing on extremists. So you have had a fight between the
Islamic state in Iraq and the Levant, ISIL, as it is called,
and some of the other groups. And that has detracted from their
focus on the Assad regime, and Assad has played that.
In addition, you have had a certain lack of, I guess the
way to say it is coordination between some of the support
countries, and there are a lot of reasons for that, so that
there hasn't been as powerful of an effort as there might have
been.
Now that is changing a little bit. There have been some
personnel changes within the framework of that support
structure. And I think that there is a lot more coordinated and
effective effort with respect to Syria beginning to take shape.
In addition to that, the huge infusion of Hezbollah and
Iran changed the game somewhat on the ground while the other
people were sidetracked, focusing on the extremists. So that is
part of what has shifted somewhat temporarily for Assad.
But I say temporarily because I don't believe that the
support countries, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Qatar, et
cetera, are going to ever stop until Assad is gone. So he may
have a breather in the interim, but this fight is going to go
on.
And therefore, what Senator Graham was saying earlier is
the biggest guarantee is that a whole bunch people are going to
suffer.
We were working effectively with Russia up until recently,
obviously, with respect to this, and it is a question mark
where that is going to go.
Now Russia was extremely helpful with respect to the
chemical weapons effort, because of their influence on the
regime and their ties to it. And we were also helpful because
the President made it clear that if there wasn't some
alternative, he was going to strike. And neither the Russians
nor Assad wanted that to happen.
So the President's decision, coupled with the cooperation
that ensued thereafter, got this regime in place to remove the
chemical weapons.
I would say about 30 percent of the chemical weapons, a
third of them are now removed and under control. We have the
locations where the rest of them are now contained in 12
different locations. We have to move them from there to the
port in Latakia.
And we believe that that can be done in about 35 to 40
days. We have put that proposal before the OPCW and before the
Russians. The Russians were helpful in reducing the amount of
time the Assad regime was proposing to use, which was 100 days,
down to 62. We are now on a 62-day schedule.
We believe that can be reduced by another 20 to 25 days,
and we would like to see that done. Whether or not we can
succeed in getting that done will depend to some degree on the
outcome of events that we are obviously all focused on with
respect to Ukraine, and so forth.
My hope is it will not interfere, that what happens in
Ukraine will not interfere. I think Russia maintains a
significant interest in not having these chemical weapons
loose, not having them fall into the hands of terrorists,
particularly since they are proximate neighbor. And therefore,
my hope is we will continue no matter what.
But we are focused on getting them out.
Now the end deadline for this is June, not April. So, in
fact, we are operating within the timeframe still. I still
believe it is possible to achieve this. And we are going to
stay focused on it.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
TRADE WITH IRAN
Mr. Secretary, I am almost out of time, but I wanted to
raise the issue of Iran, because one of the things that is
giving me pause, and I am sure others as well, is the increase
in exports of their oil and the interest that has been
professed and the delegations from a number of countries to
Iran in this period that makes it appear that sanctions are
going to be lifted in a way that I think is not helpful to the
ultimate outcome of any agreement.
So can you speak to what we are doing to discourage some of
our European partners from sending trade delegations to Iran
and how we keep the pressure on in this interim period?
Secretary Kerry. Absolutely.
Senator Leahy. And if we could have that briefly, because I
have been alerted that we are going to have votes, and we are
going to have to cut this off when the votes start.
Secretary Kerry. I will move as fast as I can.
Let me tell you that I have been personally in touch with
foreign ministers of countries where we have heard there might
be a trade delegation. We have made it crystal clear that Iran
is not open for business. They have accepted that. They are not
cutting deals. There are people who have traveled, but there
have not been new deals. And where there have been, we have
told people that if they transgress any component of the
sanctions regime, their businesses will be sanctioned. They
accept that.
Now the fact is that Iran needs between $60 billion to $70
billion a year to finance its imports. In the entire first step
agreement here, there are maybe $6 billion to $7 billion that
will be released through the increase in the oil export, and
that is legit under the process that we created.
But no sanction has been lifted. Nothing in the
architecture of the sanctions regime has been changed
whatsoever.
Iran's economy contracted by 6 percent last year. It is
expected to contract again this year. Inflation remains at
almost 40 percent. And we are just a very, very clear that 2
months into this, very little additional economic impact has
flowed to Iran for a number of reasons--because banks are
uncertain how to deal with it, there is a lot of uncertainty
about where this is going to go, our strict enforcement of the
sanctions has in fact acted as a deterrent to many people
deciding to get engaged.
And we have sent very strong messages through Treasury and
the State Department that there will be consequences to anybody
who tries to circumvent them.
And one last thing, we have sanctioned additional people.
Senator Leahy. Some Senators are not going to get a chance
to ask questions if we don't keep ongoing.
We are going to go to Senator Kirk, Senator Coons, Senator
Boozman, Senator Blunt.
Senator Kirk.
IRANIAN FUNDING FOR HEZBOLLAH
Senator Kirk. Thank you. I will, Mr. Secretary, bring to
your attention a chart that we have done on the cash flow into
Iran.
We estimate that Iran had about $20 billion ready liquid
assets before the P5+1, and now has about $25 billion and that
is the additional oil revenues that you talked about, and money
released by the United States back to Iran, which equals about
50 years of Hezbollah payments--that Iran now has. With an
improving cash flow position, I would expect that we would see
even more terrorism with this additional money available to the
Islamic Republic of Iran.
Secretary Kerry. Well, Senator, with all due respect, the
fact is that Iran has huge economic problems. And I am
guaranteeing you that whatever additional flow of money there
was going to them is not all flowing--I can't tell you the
amount--to Hezbollah because they have enormous challenges at
home and demand on that money.
There is no way Iran is better off when we are taking
somewhere between $15 billion and $30 billion and putting it
into a frozen asset fund. That is what is happening right now.
And so they are losing. They are losing enormous sums of
money, more than $100 billion that is now frozen, and growing
in its amount, because the amount that our sanctions are
depriving them of.
As I have said, the release of this money--in fact, I don't
even agree with that figure. There is no way that the release
of the funds under the agreement has resulted in that, and I
will tell you why, because the funds are only released on an
incremental basis, month-to-month. And we are only 2 months in.
And so there is no way they have received. I don't know
what the total amount has, I mean, it may be $1 billion or so.
Senator Kirk. Let me interrupt you to say that I believe
the first payment to the Iranian delegation from the P5+1, it
is paid for and rented by a $400 million regular payment.
Of course, I know why the foreign minister is there, of
course I know why he is there, because he is being paid to be
there.
I had a long discussion along with Congressman Israel with
the Iranian foreign minister, who is a long and eloquent
Holocaust denier. Has he raised that subject with you?
Secretary Kerry. No, but I raised it with him on one
occasion. But we are focused on the nuclear negotiation right
now, Senator.
Senator Kirk. I would just follow up and say it is about
$1.55 billion released under the interim agreement to Iran that
we estimate.
At $100 million a year payments by Iran to Hezbollah, that
is a lot of Hezbollah terrorism.
Secretary Kerry. Well, if it is going to them, if they have
money to give to Hezbollah, Senator--I mean, Senator, Hezbollah
is fighting in Syria. They are paying for that. They are
supporting it. No question about it.
But, you know----
Senator Kirk. Mr. Secretary, I am going to forward to you a
list of 280 Americans who have been murdered by Hezbollah. This
is broken down by State, including those from Illinois, Melvin
Holmes and David Gay and John Phillips Jr., who I knew, who
attended in my church in Wilmette, and Adam Sommerhof, and Eric
Sturghill and Eric Walker and Eric Pulliam, were all from
Illinois.
Secretary Kerry. Well, Senator, look, I am glad that we
have designated Hezbollah a terrorist organization, and we have
led the effort to make sure that Europe has followed now and
labeled them a terrorist organization.
And if I had my druthers, obviously, we would like to see
them disappear. But we are working at dealing with Hezbollah
and other terrorist organizations in many different ways.
But I do believe that we are on the right track with
respect to this first step agreement with Iran, because the
alternatives are not as productive as the possibility of being
able to reach an agreement through the negotiating process.
Senator Kirk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member
Graham.
And, Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for your tireless
engagement and focus on the challenges that we face around the
world, but particularly at this time of real difficulty in the
Middle East, in Crimea, and elsewhere around the world.
I will just simply add my voice to others on this committee
who have urged increased support for Jordan, increased focus on
ensuring that we do in fact deliver on the opportunity here to
remove CBW from Syria; commend you for your tireless focus on
trying to resolve one of the longest standing challenges we
face in the world, the tensions between Israel and the
Palestinian Authority; and urge you to continue to consult
closely with Congress as you continue to make good on the
prospect of peace around Iran's illicit nuclear weapons
program.
I stand with many of my colleagues in ensuring that we
provide you the resources you need in order to carry forward on
any agreement delivered, and that that ultimate agreement
prevent any pathway, whether through uranium or plutonium, to a
nuclear weapons capability for Iran.
I also was pleased in your opening statement that you
emphasized the importance of economic engagement with Africa
and the prospects it holds for our country for job creation as
well as sustaining our vital investments in PEPFAR, in MCC, and
in other programs.
Given the impending votes and the number of other Senators
waiting, let me just mention a few topics across Africa. And
then to the extent we have time for your response, I would
welcome it.
AFRICA INITIATIVES
First, I look forward to working with you and the chairman
and others on this committee to ensure that there are the
resources needed to support work on fighting wildlife
trafficking. I want to commend you for taking a leadership role
in co-chairing the Presidential Task Force on Wildlife
Trafficking. And I want to make sure there are resources to
support that national strategy.
Second, as you referenced in your opening statement, there
is a renewed wave of violence in Sudan, as well as in South
Sudan, and I want to make sure that we have the resources to
provide humanitarian support. There has been renewed aerial
bombing in the Nuba Mountains and the Blue Nile, and a renewal
of violence by the Janjaweed elements within Sudan.
There are a range of challenges in Sudan and South Sudan,
and you have been tireless in working hard to help give birth
to a newly free country of South Sudan. I would hate to see us
miss this opportunity when there are so many other things going
on around the world.
The two things I wanted to focus on most of this list,
Power Africa, a tremendous initiative, one that I think really
does hold out great promise for the continent of Africa and for
the United States. Yet there is no specific request for this
initiative, and I am concerned that AID is funding it out of
existing accounts. With a significant number of difficult
elections on the continent in the year ahead, I hope that we
are not underfunding democracy and governance efforts by state
and AID.
And if there is a way we can work together to sustain Power
Africa beyond the next 3 years, to lay out a framework for its
funding and for its continuance, I think that could make a
dramatic difference in meeting development and humanitarian and
strategic needs, and in creating real opportunity for American
business in partnership with our allies on the continent.
Last, the Central African Republic continues to be deeply
concerning. Twenty years after the Rwandan genocide, there are
steadily escalating incidents of violence and a division within
the country seemingly along ethnic and religious lines.
Given the shortfall we face in our peacekeeping accounts, I
would be interested in hearing your views on how we can meet
our obligations. I think it affects our reputation in the U.N.
and globally when we support a peacekeeping mission, but then
don't meet our commitments.
I was glad to support the work of our chair in SFRC in
ensuring that we made our obligations around the IMF. Other
members have spoken to that previously in this hearing. I would
just love to hear from you what we can do to make sure that we
make good on our commitment across all of these fields, the
potential of Power Africa and peacekeeping, in particular.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Kerry. Well, thanks. Because of the time thing,
first of all, let me just say I want to thank you, Senator, for
your unbelievable leadership. You are terrific in your
dedication and tenacity with respect to all issues in Africa.
The Foreign Relations Committee always had a terrific tradition
of having someone who picked up that banner, and you have done
it brilliantly, and I thank you for that.
Secondly, on the issues that you raised, we really ought to
have a longer conversation, and I am prepared to do that.
Power Africa, we believe, is adequately funded. The
President has designated the goal of trying to get about 10,000
MW of power. We have identified 5,000, and we have identified
funding and projects, 20-some projects, that will provide that.
So we are proceeding forward.
We are doing pretty well at it with existing U.S.
Government resources and working the process. But I am game to
think about how, if we can augment that, to get there faster, I
am happy to do it.
Senator Coons. And to be clear, my goal is not to simply
expend U.S. Government resources. In fact, my general goal is
to reduce our overall expenditures by making them smarter. I
just think there are opportunities here to leverage private
sector partnership with the public sector, over the long term.
Secretary Kerry. Fair enough. We are currently designated
to $7 billion out of OPEC and Ex-Im Bank in order to try to
achieve this. And private sector commitments total $14 billion,
which is not insignificant.
So I think we are on track, but let's work at it and see
how we can leverage it further.
On the peacekeeping, some of the missions have reached a
point where we can begin to close some of them, East Timor, we
are looking at reduced assessments for Liberia, Haiti. But then
we have new ones that have come on, as you know.
We have increased by $342 million our commitments for Mali,
Somalia, South Sudan. We put additional money beyond that into
South Sudan, by the way, on a humanitarian basis.
And my sense is that we have another problem, that we pay
at I think it is 27-point-some percent, but we are being
assessed by the U.N. at 28.4 percent, so we are behind in that
regard, and we are going to have to think about long-term how
we are going to meet that arrearage and deal with it.
Senator Coons. I am eager to work with you on that. Seeing
the press of time, thank you very much. I understand you have
more pressing obligations. I look forward to a chance to talk
through these issues when the current situation is resolved to
some extent.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Kerry. Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
PEPFAR
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here with us. I
just want you to comment on a couple things very quickly. We
have all of these pressing problems going on throughout the
world right now, but I would like for us not to lose sight of a
couple programs I think they are working very, very well.
PEPFAR, in fact, I think you called this the most
successful foreign assistance program ever. I know that you
have been very, very supportive, President Bush, now President
Obama, lots of different individuals on both sides of the
aisle.
Can you just comment on it real quickly and reassure us
about PEPFAR's sustainability into the future?
Secretary Kerry. The answer is, we believe we have funded
it. The global fund is slightly reduced, but actually we have
plussed that up.
There is no question in my mind--I am proud to say that
that effort really began in the Foreign Relations Committee and
with Bill Frist, when he was here. And we had support from
Jesse Helms. We passed it unanimously in the Senate. It was the
first AIDS legislation for global efforts. And that led to
PEPFAR.
President Bush made a tremendous commitment to it. I think
the original $15 billion and then it got doubled, and President
Obama has continued it.
We are looking at the potential now of a first-time-ever
AIDS-free generation of kids, as a result of where we are. We
believe the funding is at a level, notwithstanding a slight
reduction, where we are going to be able to not just continue
it, but take it to fruition in its targeted goal. So I think we
feel very confident about it.
Senator Boozman. Good. The 10-year anniversary, 1 million
children born AIDS-free. I think that is something we can be
very, very proud of.
The Millennium Challenge Corporation, the MCC, again, along
the same vein, I think it was ranked first among international
donor organizations by an NGO that tracks transparency. Based
on this success, can you again talk a little bit about how we
can replicate this model, perhaps, and increase public
accountability and transparency with some of our other
assistance programs?
Secretary Kerry. Absolutely, Senator.
MCC, which I am privileged to chair the board of as
Secretary and have had several meetings, is doing a tremendous
job of providing a different model for how you approach
development funding.
The President increased the funding by 11 percent. It is up
$101 million to just about $1 billion. I think the total amount
of our development money is some $20-point-some billion, so we
are looking at 1/20 of our development money done in this new
metric-oriented, measurements, results-oriented determinative
process.
And it works effectively in certain situations. I am not
saying it can translate into everything that we do in terms of
development. But we have some new, since 2004, we have signed
some 27 compacts. A compact we sign with a country is a certain
approach, a certain set of expectations for what they have to
do--reforms in government process. It is a tremendous lever for
good governance, for transparency, for accountability. And we
are very high on it and are trying to figure out how much more
we can extend it as a significant new model tool for
development on a global basis.
CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC
Senator Boozman. And finally, CAR. This is an area that
again, with all that is going on in the world, it has had
tremendous problems. We have had to pull out our diplomatic
community. Can you briefly touch on it and kind of give us your
perspective? I know Samantha Power has been working hard in
that regard in her abilities. Perhaps a plan of returning our
diplomatic presence, where you see that going?
Secretary Kerry. Well, we are working very closely with the
French, I think you know. And we are providing an additional
$100 million to assist the African Union-led International
Support Mission, MISCA. We are providing strategic airlift. We
are providing equipment and training for the forces that are
deploying there.
In the last 2 months, we have airlifted some 850 Burundian
troops in, 860-plus Rwandan troops, so the total number is
somewhere around 6,000 troops now.
What has been missing is accountability. You have this
incredible problem of young people running around with guns,
tribal warfare, and so forth, and there is no enforcer, which
is why we have pressed in the African Union, we pressed the
international community, to try to support it. It is not just
there. It was with M23 and the Great Lakes region and
elsewhere. Thugs with guns who are running loose, and there is
no countervailing government capacity.
So what we are trying to do is to build the capacity. And
we are grateful to the French. They have been terrific leaders
in this effort, very committed, historically and otherwise. And
we are doing our part to try to provide order through a
government force that is present that holds people accountable
for their actions and begins to lead people toward a
development agenda, toward a governance agenda that is the only
way ultimately to provide the stability necessary.
This is an area where there are huge resources at stake,
and that is the part of the battle.
Unbelievably resource-rich, unexploited through a
legitimate market of any kind, and that creates a lot of this
chase for riches, which is at the butt of a gun.
So we are trying to come in with some development capacity,
governance, leadership capacity, and creating the kind of force
that could help to provide stability, so those other things can
take hold.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Leahy. Senator Blunt.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman. Thanks to you and
Senator Graham for holding this hearing and all you are doing
to try to focus on the positive impact of aid and what it can
mean in creating the kind of relationships we need.
To try to cover a couple topics quickly that I think may
not have been talked about yet, which is pretty hard to do at
the end of this hearing, Secretary.
And thank you for your time and your tireless efforts in
this great responsibility you have accepted in this job.
CAMP LIBERTY
Could you comment a little bit on what plans we might have
for the disposition of the 3,000, roughly 3,000, Iranian
dissidents at Camp Liberty in Iraq, and whether our allies,
others in the world, are willing to take some of these people?
And whether we are? Can you give me a sense?
Secretary Kerry. Yes, I have appointed a special adviser,
special envoy, a very qualified lawyer, who is really tackling
this on a day-to-day basis with exceptional energy and focus.
We have been able to place, I think it is around 300 or so.
The Albanians have graciously agreed to accept some.
Our goal is to get all 3,000 out of there, Camp Hurriya. We
really want to get them out of there. We know that they are at
risk. We know there are dangers. And we are trying to find the
countries that are willing to do this. It is a tough
negotiation.
Frankly, it would be greatly assisted by our ability to
make a determination about how many we are going to take, and
that is where our focus is right now. We are making an analysis
of that and some judgments. The sooner we can get that
concluded and moving, I think the better opportunity we are
going to have to get people relocated elsewhere.
We had some problems, incidentally, in the beginning when I
first came in, I learned that there were some problems
internally in the camp, in the administrative process and the
willingness of people to submit to interviews. And I think that
has been resolved, but we have had a lot of difficulties in
being able to really get the population properly vetted and
defined, so we know who might be able to go where and what
appropriate accommodations could be made.
Senator Blunt. It is my view that time is not our friend
there.
Secretary Kerry. I agree completely.
Senator Blunt. Nor for the people at the camp. And you
agree with that?
Secretary Kerry. I totally agree with that.
Senator Blunt. Whatever I can do to be helpful and whatever
I can do to encourage your efforts to find places for these
people to go while they still can hopefully get there would be
important.
Secretary Kerry. Absolutely.
TURKEY AND SYRIAN RELATIONS
Senator Blunt. Today in Turkey, there are tens of thousands
of protesters protesting about the funeral of a 15-year-old boy
who died after being hit by a canister, a tear gas canister,
several months ago. It seems to me that Erdogan is not as
helpful as he could be in a lot of areas, but one is that large
Syrian border. What is our relationship there now? Are we able
to try to encourage more help in solving the Syrian situation
from Turkey?
Secretary Kerry. The answer is we would like to get
additional help. The Turks have been very forthcoming. We have
been working with them very closely.
We would like to see greater cooperation from them on the
border pieces. There are too many people moving through,
particularly in the eastern part and coming down to the
northern part of Syria in the northeastern part.
We have spoken to them about that. We have an ongoing, very
healthy dialogue with people on the ground, working with them
very closely. Their foreign minister is deeply engaged. He has
been very, very forthcoming, very helpful to us.
There is an election, as you know. There is a lot of
political dynamic at play in Turkey right now, and it is
difficult in the middle of that to get all the focus that you
might like to have on this kind of an issue and to resolve some
of it.
But we are working also with Turkey, I might add, on the
rapprochement with Israel, resolution of the blockade on Gaza
issue that ran into problems with the Amorey Mulveek a few
years ago.
And I think it is fair to say that, at this moment, they
are pretty inward looking in terms of the electoral process.
Senator Blunt. And that is the end of this month, as I
recall?
Secretary Kerry. I beg your pardon?
Senator Blunt. That is end of this month? March 30, is it?
Secretary Kerry. It is April, isn't it?
Senator Blunt. It is April? But soon?
Secretary Kerry. Yes, soon.
Senator Blunt. On a topic that I am sure has already been
discussed, but on the view of whether Iran, and I am not
suggesting this is your position, but whether Iran should ever
be allowed to have the component parts that they could put
together to make a weapon, whether they have a weapon or not, I
would want to be strongly listed on the side they should not be
allowed to have that.
NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT
And I would like you take comment on a couple things. One,
if they did have the capacity to enrich, is it your view that
we can monitor that in a way that would be satisfactory? And
two, how do you keep that capacity to enrich from proliferating
to other countries that we have been holding back, that have
nuclear power, but we haven't let them have this capacity
because of the danger that up until now most powers have
understood was a danger if you let the proliferation of
enrichment occur?
So those are really my last two questions.
Secretary Kerry. Well, most countries that have chosen to
pursue some kind of nuclear power capacity have not chosen
necessarily to enrich for themselves. Some have, so there is a
precedent. It is not the majority, obviously.
There are different reasons for one country or another
having an argument that they might want to enrich, to some
degree.
My current judgment, you say, can we monitor? At this
point, not completely, no. And that is why we are negotiating.
It is to make sure that we can completely, ultimately.
And how do you prevent the enrichment from leading
elsewhere? I think that the constraints under which a country
would have to operate if they are going to have some enrichment
are really significant. I mean, we are talking about a need to
know beyond reasonable doubt, not guess, but to know, what is
happening on any given day, in any given facility.
So this is all subject to the negotiation. This is not
currently decided.
And you asked me, I think, if we could consider at this
moment in time that we have the ability to be able to know, or
something? And the answer is that is actually what the subject
of this negotiation is now.
Senator Blunt. And you think that negotiation could
produce----
Secretary Kerry. Well, we hope it could. I don't know if it
can yet, Senator. Honestly, I don't know.
I know what we want to ask for. I don't know if we can get
a yes to it.
But you raised the question of warheads, et cetera. It is
very much a subject of the negotiation. It has to be.
And any of that technology has got to be part of this. Now
that is distinct from missile, conceivably. It is a harder
argument to make on some range of conventional weaponry that
that falls under this.
But certainly, R&D and warhead development or anything like
that would very much fall squarely into the concerns that we
would want to be talking about in negotiation.
Senator Leahy. We have 6 minutes left on the roll call on
the floor.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Leahy. I am not going to ask my further questions,
other than to note, and we should talk about this later
Secretary Kerry, we were lobbied, Congress was, to show how
tough we were in our support of Israel by withdrawing payments
to UNESCO. What that meant, of course, we lost our vote in
UNESCO, so we are not able to protect America's interests, or
Israel's interests, there. All we do is watch the Russians, the
Iranians, the Syrians, the Chinese, the Palestinians who have a
vote.
I would like to see us get back in there and do what is
best in America's interests.
And we need to address the Avena court decision on the
rights of consular access for foreigners arrested in this
country. The Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, State,
and Justice all support doing something on this. Chief Justice
Roberts has. We should fix it.
Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you. I know you have a meeting. A
little bit of homework here.
Could you inform the committee in writing, there is a
debate in Congress whether we should sell Apaches to the
Egyptian regime. I think, Mr. Secretary, that the Egyptian army
has not met the goals that we all would hope. They are not
transitioning to democracy in a meaningful way, in my view.
Could you inform the committee, in your view, what kind of
role should the Congress play regarding aid to Egypt,
particularly military aid? I don't want to send the wrong
signal and undercut efforts to get the transition to democracy.
Do you agree with the statement by the DNI that the Al
Qaeda presence in Syria is building up and is becoming a threat
to the homeland?
Secretary Kerry. Yes.
Senator Graham. Okay.
When it comes to Israel, it has been our position that the
Palestinians should recognize the Jewish state as part of their
negotiating position, is that correct?
Secretary Kerry. Yes.
Senator Graham. Secondly, you can do this in writing, if
you like, do you think President Abbas has the ability to speak
effectively for Hamas regarding any potential peace agreement?
Secretary Kerry. Part of our discussion at this point in
time, Senator, is a requirement before some kind of agreement
were to come into effect that that issue would have to be
resolved.
Senator Graham. Thank you.
Secretary Kerry. Thank you very much.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Leahy. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much.
I thank the members for their questions. We will keep the
record open until Wednesday 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 to John F. Kerry
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
Question. The United States recently decreased its pledge to the
World Bank's International Development Association--the Bank's fund for
helping the world's poorest countries. This drop hurts American
leverage in at the Bank, creating more openings for China and others
who may not share our priorities. Please elaborate on the U.S.
commitment to the International Development Association and the
international financial institutions as a whole.
Answer. The United States recently pledged $3.87 billion to the
International Development Association (IDA)--which represented a 5
percent decrease from its previous pledge. While the administration
would have liked to have pledged more, the $3.87 billion reflects the
very difficult budget environment that we face. The U.S. pledge was
still enough to make the United States the second largest contributor
to the fund's record-breaking replenishment cycle, which yielded over
$52 billion in pledges.
IDA, the Asian Development Fund, and the African Development Fund--
the concessional windows at the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, and
African Development Bank, respectively--provide grants to the world's
poorest countries and support key U.S. development priorities. The
United States remains one of the largest contributors to these funds,
and our financial contributions send an important signal about the U.S.
commitment to alleviating poverty and fostering economic growth and
stability to other donors and developing countries.
Question. Countries such as China, India, Turkey, and others have
been gaining an economic foothold in Africa, too often at American
expense. With 7 out of 10 of the fastest growing economics in the world
being in Africa, the U.S. has a great opportunity to invest while
supporting domestic jobs. I was pleased that part of my legislative
efforts to address this issue became law in December and that the
administration must designate a senior coordinator to boost U.S.
exports to Africa. Can you comment on this larger challenge in Africa
and administration efforts to help address it?
Answer. The Department of State shares your view that Africa
represents a great opportunity for U.S. companies to generate economic
growth both in Africa and domestically.
Commercial activities of other countries in Africa have generally
not hindered investment opportunities for our firms.
The U.S. Government's (USG's) Doing Business in Africa (DBIA)
Campaign encourages U.S. businesses to take advantage of the many
export and investment opportunities in Sub-Saharan Africa. The USG is
encouraging U.S. companies--with a focus on small- and medium-sized
businesses and African Diaspora-owned businesses--to trade with and
invest in Africa. To support this initiative and in coordination with
the Department of Commerce's Advocacy Center, our Embassies and
Consulates provide robust commercial advocacy support of U.S. firms
competing in Sub-Saharan Africa and facilitate numerous high value
trade and investment missions and deals in key sectors, such as
healthcare, agribusiness, and infrastructure and energy. The
Presidential initiatives of Power Africa and Trade Africa harness the
efforts of many U.S. Government agencies and the private sector to
increase trade and investment in Sub-Saharan Africa.
The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), Export-Import
Bank (Ex-Im Bank), and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA)
are building upon current assistance to U.S. business. For example, the
U.S.-Africa Clean Energy Development and Finance Center opened its
doors in 2013 at the U.S. Consulate General in Johannesburg, South
Africa, to provide the U.S. private sector, as well as our Sub-Saharan
African partners, with a centralized means to identify and access U.S.
Government support for clean energy export and investment needs.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Question. As you know, last fall Senator Blunt, Congresswoman
Granger, Congresswoman Bass, and I introduced the ``Children in
Families First'' Act and have since gained the support of nearly 60
Members of Congress for this legislation. At the core of this bill is a
proposal for making necessary structural changes to the State
Department's current approach to international child welfare. More
specifically, we have proposed to unite issues related to international
child welfare, including international adoption, in a single office to
be housed in the State Department's Secretariat for Civilian Security,
Democracy, and Human Rights. We believe such changes are necessary at
the Department of State to ensure that, both internally and externally,
international child welfare is treated as more than an immigration
enforcement issue, which its current placement in the Bureau of
Consular Affairs suggests that it is. We have seen the same approach of
centralizing and empowering an office or bureau work to great effect in
fighting terrorism, combatting trafficking, providing humanitarian
assistance and resettlement to refugees, and providing AIDS relief and
seek now to emulate that success on behalf of vulnerable children. It
is my understanding that the U.S. Department of State opposes this
effort and seeks to keep these functions in the Bureau of Consular
Affairs, which handles border security and overseas citizen services,
and has no real mandate or resources to engage in international child
welfare issues writ large, and which, in our view, has a less than
ideal track record even in its narrow mandate of implementing the Hague
adoption and abduction conventions.
--Can you affirm that this is in fact the State Department's position
and help clarify for the members of this subcommittee why that
is so?
--Do you agree that international child welfare requires a dedicated
Bureau or Office in the Department of State?
--Do you agree that international child welfare is more than a
consular issue and as such needs to be handled elsewhere in the
Department than the Bureau of Consular Affairs?
--In the same way that refugee resettlement is part of the Bureau of
Population Refugees and Migration precisely because it is a
tool of refugee protection, do you agree that international
adoption is a tool of protection for children living without
families, not simply an immigration enforcement issue?
Answer. The U.S. Department of State helps to serve and protect
children around the world. Our global presence ensures that we are able
to support children, youth, and their families through programmatic
support and diplomatic engagement, under the leadership of the Chiefs
of Mission of each U.S. Embassy and supported through the expertise of
the Department's various offices and bureaus engaged on children's
issues. Such policies, programs, and diplomatic efforts help strengthen
families and protect children. Additionally, they help to support the
U.S. Action Plan on Children in Adversity (APCA), which aims to promote
a world in which children grow up within protective family care and
free from deprivation, exploitation, violence, and danger.
Many bureaus and offices across the Department and the U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID) diplomatically and
programmatically engage on children's issues, including on matters
related directly to international child welfare and protection. This
work is accomplished via multifaceted approaches to improving health,
education, security, social and child welfare systems, capacity to
provide humanitarian assistance, governance, rule of law, and the
protection and advancement of human rights across the globe.
This multifaceted support extends beyond the expertise and capacity
of any single office, bureau, or portfolio. It includes U.S. support
for UNICEF's child protection-related efforts around the world;
economic support aimed at strengthening families affected by HIV/AIDS
to ensure that they can stay together; support for child welfare
systems that includes addressing children outside of family care and
promoting permanent family placements, made possible by the President's
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR); support for family
reunification and child protection programming in humanitarian
emergencies through State's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and
Migration and the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance at USAID; and
other bilateral and multilateral efforts. These are just a few
examples.
The Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs, which fulfills many of
the Department's day-to-day responsibilities as the U.S. Central
Authority under the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-
operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Hague Adoption
Convention) and the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction (Hague Abduction Convention), plays an
important part in these efforts by supporting other countries in their
implementation of either or both Conventions. Protecting children and
families in the intercountry adoption process through the Hague
Adoption Convention and ensuring that ethical and transparent
intercountry adoption remains an option for children, when it is in a
child's best interests, are important pieces of the Department's
overall effort to protect children and promote healthy child
development and responsive and supportive child welfare systems.
The Department remains committed to working with Congress to ensure
that U.S. support for children in adversity is robust, and that U.S.
implementation of the Hague Adoption Convention is strong, effective,
and transparent--without the establishment of a new, costly, and
unnecessary bureaucracy. The creation of a new bureau or office within
the Department focused on international child welfare or intercountry
adoption will create overlapping mandates within the Department and
with USAID. It would confuse and undermine multiple, well established
roles and responsibilities of individual components of both agencies,
and would be detrimental to their key relationships with U.S. and
foreign governmental and non-governmental partners. A new bureau or
office could also undermine existing capacities for effective,
multilayered interventions, interfering with efforts to integrate
programs across sectors so that they most benefit children, their
families, and the communities in which they live. Centralizing
activities under one office, with one mandate, may diminish existing
activities that are not explicitly ``child-focused,'' yet are still
fundamental for children in adversity, such as programs focusing on
nutrition, shelter, livelihood, gender-based violence, women and girls'
empowerment, and humanitarian assistance. It would also be
inappropriate for a new Department office with an international child
welfare mandate to be singularly focused on international adoption as
its sole remedy.
The Department and USAID have taken steps over the last year to
improve coordination and collaboration in order to maximize the impact
of our work to improve the lives of children in adversity. APCA was
launched at the White House in December 2012; individual agency
implementation plans were published in September 2013; programs from
Department bureaus and offices that were not already consistent with
the APCA's objectives have been increasingly aligning with them in new
and ongoing programs; and the first meeting of the Senior Policy
Operating Group on Children in Adversity (SPOG-CA) convened in
February. In the interim, with support from the Department's Senior
Advisor for Development, the Department created a Task Force on
Children in Adversity (TFCA) to promote APCA and improve internal
coordination and information sharing across the Department and with
USAID. The TFCA also coordinates to identify complementary and
strategic diplomatic, programmatic, and policy actions for the range of
Department bureaus and offices that are already working to assist
children in adversity globally. We expect that the SPOG-CA will
reconvene soon under the leadership of the reformulated USAID Center
for Excellence on Children in Adversity.
International child welfare is a complex issue which requires a
multitude of actors and responses. We believe by focusing on
coordination we can enhance programming and best demonstrate the U.S.
Government's commitment to assisting children around the world.
Question. A number of prominent organizations that support
international child welfare and adoption wrote to you in December to
request that you take immediate action to address shortcomings in the
Department of State's implementation of The Hague Adoption Convention.
To my knowledge, that letter has not been answered.
--How do you explain the fact that there have been no reported
international adoptions from any country that has become a
Hague partner with the United States since 2008?
--Do you agree with the criticism in the letter that the Office of
Children's Issues has failed to implement a transparent and
effective system for determining partner country compliance
with the Hague Convention?
--If so, what steps are you taking to correct the situation?
Answer. The Department of State supports intercountry adoptions. As
the U.S. Central Authority for adoptions, the Department's primary goal
is to ensure that all U.S. intercountry adoptions are ethical,
transparent, and protect children and families. To accomplish this, the
Department maintains strong lines of communication with all Hague
Adoption Convention (Convention) countries in order to promote
cooperation, coordination, and the best interests of children. Every
year, children from countries that are parties to the Convention are
adopted by loving U.S. families. In fiscal years 2013 and 2012, 46
percent and 37 percent of all U.S. adoptions were from Convention
countries, respectively. China remains the top country of origin for
U.S. intercountry adoptions, and last year, hundreds of children were
adopted from Bulgaria, Colombia, India, Latvia, and the Philippines--
all Convention countries.
Since the Convention entered into force for the United States, 15
new countries have become party to the Convention: Cabo Verde, Fiji,
Greece, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Macedonia,
Montenegro, Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, Swaziland, Togo, and Vietnam.
The annual number of intercountry adoptions from the majority of these
15 countries did not change significantly after the entry into force of
the Convention. Historically, few children immigrated to the United
States through intercountry adoption from each of these countries, with
the exception of Kazakhstan, Rwanda, and Vietnam.
Several factors in all of the countries affect the number of U.S.
adoptions. Five new Convention countries (Greece, Ireland,
Liechtenstein, Macedonia, and Seychelles) have developed child welfare
and adoption systems and/or have few children in need of intercountry
adoption. Ireland provides a good example. Ireland identifies solely as
an adoption receiving country, not a country of origin. Ireland's
Central Authority strictly applies the Convention's subsidiarity
principle with the result that most Irish orphans are placed
domestically, and few children are eligible for intercountry adoption.
Adoptions from Greece, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, and Seychelles are
similarly very rare, as they were before these countries joined the
Convention. Family preservation resources and effective, permanent
domestic placement options are available in those countries.
Three other countries (Rwanda, Senegal, and Swaziland) have
suspended all intercountry adoptions while reviewing their ability to
implement the Convention. A fourth, Kazakhstan, temporarily suspended
intercountry adoptions to the United States in August 2012, citing
concerns about the welfare of adopted children related to a number of
very grave, but isolated, cases of abuse in the United States. The
Department had announced its ability to issue Hague Adoption and
Custody Certificates in incoming Convention adoptions from Kazakhstan
in May 2012. Since 2012, the Department and U.S. Embassy Astana have
made every effort to respond to Kazakhstani concerns and persuade the
Government of Kazakhstan to resume intercountry adoptions for U.S.
families. Our efforts include multiple, high-level bilateral meetings
in the United States and Kazakhstan, facilitation of consular access of
Kazakhstani officials to adopted Kazakhstani children in the United
States, and communication with U.S. parents of adopted children on the
importance of meeting post-adoption requirements.
On the other hand, a number of countries, including Cabo Verde and
Fiji, had not fully implemented the Convention at the time it entered
into force. Both countries are still developing procedures to implement
the Convention and the capacity to carry out Convention safeguards.
Under U.S. law, the Department is not able to process Convention
adoptions for countries that have failed to develop adoption systems
that uphold these safeguards. The Department continues to work with
such countries to assist with Convention implementation.
The Department's efforts in Vietnam and Lesotho in this regard are
particularly noteworthy. Following the Convention's entry into force on
February 1, 2012, Vietnam has only recently trained its central and
provincial adoption officials on the Convention and related new laws.
Resuming adoptions with Vietnam is among U.S. Embassy Hanoi's highest
priorities, and the U.S. Special Advisor for Children's Issues has
travelled to meet with Vietnamese adoption officials four times since
2010 to advocate for successful reforms. Additionally, USAID support
for UNICEF on adoptions has been instrumental in improving Vietnam's
legal and regulatory system. Currently, the Department is working
towards establishing a limited adoption program for children with
special needs, older children, and children in sibling groups. The
Government of Vietnam is currently vetting U.S. adoption service
providers and has indicated that it plans to authorize two. (For more
information, please see the Department's September Adoption Notice,
available here: http://
adoption.state.gov/country_information/
country_specific_alerts_notices.php?alert
_notice_type=notices&alert_notice_file=vietnam_7). The Department is
hopeful that we will be able to announce our ability to issue Hague
Certificates for adoptions from Vietnam later this year. In Lesotho,
the Convention entered into force in December 2012. In February 2013,
Lesotho lifted its suspension of intercountry adoptions, which had been
in place as it implemented Convention procedures. We determined we
would be able to process adoptions with Lesotho beginning March 1,
2013. The Government of Lesotho has authorized one U.S. adoption
service provider, published new procedures on intercountry adoptions
fees, and is now processing adoptions.
Additionally, three countries became party to the Convention on
April 1, 2014: Croatia, Haiti, and Serbia. The Department has since
announced positive determinations for these newest Convention partners,
as well as for Montenegro, where the Convention entered into force in
2012. The Department has announced our ability to issue Hague Adoption
or Custody Certificates for all Convention adoptions from these
countries.
As the Central Authority for intercountry adoption, the Department
must certify that adoptions are in compliance with the Convention. The
examples provided above illustrate our commitment to this process. If a
country's adoption system does not uphold the safeguards of the
Convention, adoptions finalized in that country are not considered to
be compliant. It is therefore instrumental for the Department to assess
each country's ability to implement procedural safeguards and governing
structures consistent with Convention standards. We accomplish this
through review of a country's laws, procedures, practices, and
infrastructure. Our Web site, adoption.state.gov, provides a thorough
description of our approach.
The Department has taken several additional steps to increase
transparency and public dialogue as this review process unfolds. The
Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA) posts frequent Adoption Notices and
Alerts to adoption.state.gov on changes or expected changes to a
country's adoption laws, procedures, practices, or infrastructure as
information is made available. CA also hosts quarterly public
stakeholder meetings for non-profit organizations and U.S. adoption
service providers to provide updates and answer questions.
If the Department determines that a country does not meet the
required standards, we strongly encourage the country to implement the
necessary legal framework and procedures to uphold the Convention's
standards and principles before becoming a party to the Convention. The
Department will also encourage the country's officials to consider
establishing procedures to allow adoptions initiated prior to the
Convention's entry into force be completed through the pre-Convention
procedures. The Department's goal is to prevent a disruption in
adoptions and ensure that there is no unnecessary delay in processing
pending adoptions due to the Convention entering into force.
Question. In a letter you sent to me on September 16, 2013, you
indicated that the Department of State and USAID were moving forward
aggressively to implement the Action Plan on Children in Adversity,
which the White House released in December 2012, and which for the
first time explicitly states that families for children is a priority
goal of U.S. foreign policy. More specifically, you stated that you had
recently formed a Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG) made up of key
players from the State Department and USAID and had directed them to
lead implementation of the Action Plan. So is it fair then to say that
this SPOG is the designated leader of the United States Government's
efforts to implement the Action Plan for Children in Adversity and if
so,
--In the 15 months since the National Action Plan on Children in
Adversity was released, what concrete actions the Department of
State taken to advance the Plan's implementation?
--How much funding did the U.S. State Department spend on programs or
policies implemented in support of the Action Plan in fiscal
year 2014? How much do you anticipate will be spent on
activities related to the Action Plan in fiscal year 2015?
Answer. The umbrella of the National Action Plan for Children in
Adversity provides an overarching platform and a welcome lens for
ongoing State Department programs and activities, all of which address
various dimensions of children in adversity around the world.
For instance, to support building strong beginnings for children in
adversity, the Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and
Migration (PRM) supports protection activities including health and
education programming for conflict-affected populations through
humanitarian partners including the office of the UN High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR), the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the UN Relief
and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). For
example, UNRWA runs one of the largest education programs in the Middle
East, serving more than 490,000 school-age children at over 700 schools
in Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. PRM also supports
the No Lost Generation initiative, a campaign by the United Nations,
governments, and international and non-governmental organizations to
address the immediate and long-term impacts of the Syria crisis on a
generation of children and youth in Syria and the Near East region.
In another example, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
has supported family care for children by spearheading the
strengthening of child welfare and protection systems, including the
enhancement of the social welfare workforce. If child welfare and
protection systems are strong and working, then the services required
for children in adversity will be in place. These system-strengthening
efforts therefore serve to bolster all aspects of child welfare to
support all children, including those who are outside of family care.
For example, through PEPFAR support:
--In Uganda, more than 1,100 Community Development Officers and
probation officers have completed training and attained
university accreditation in child protection, and now provide
services to 66,000 children.
--In South Africa, more than 2,000 para-professional social workers
have been provided stipends and child welfare skills training.
And a partnership with South Africa's Ministry of Social
Development has helped support 10,000 new Child & Youth Care
Worker positions by 2017. As a result, more than 1.4 million
vulnerable children will be served.
--In Tanzania, 4,000 community volunteers provide support for
vulnerable children through various implementing partners. In
addition, a Twinning Center partnership has trained 2,408 para-
social workers (PSWs) and 329 supervisors in 25 districts.
Diplomatically, the Department's Bureau of International
Organizations supports the United Nations in promoting child survival
and child development. Following June 2012's ``Child Survival: Call to
Action conference? meeting?'' which the U.S. hosted along with India
and Ethiopia, the United States is pleased to see that to date,
representatives of 174 governments, 215 civil society partners, and 221
faith-based organizations have signed pledges to take action along with
UNICEF. The United States is glad to be a partner with UNICEF in
supporting this effort, which is believed to accelerate progress
towards Millennium Development Goal 4 and 5 targets, and ultimately
help to end all preventable child and maternal deaths. The United
States continues to support the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), which
supports and funds programs in more than 150 countries in an effort to
achieve Millennium Development Goal 5 of improving maternal health, and
in turn, also reduces maternal and child mortality.
Additionally, by delivering national statements in UN forums--
including the UN General Assembly, the UN Human Rights Council, the
UNICEF and UNFPA Executive Boards, and other UN organizations that
support children--the United States calls on organizations and states
to incorporate the needs of children in their planning and policies.
The United States also emphasizes the particular needs,
vulnerabilities, and potential of girls, and consistently raises these
issues in UN forums and diplomatically with partner governments.
The Department of State also works through diplomatic channels to
strongly support intercountry adoption as an essential part of a fully
developed child welfare system. We promote ethical and transparent
adoption processes for prospective adoptive parents, birth families,
and children involved in intercountry adoptions, a process that ensures
that an adoption is completed in the best interests of the child and
when a domestic placement in the child's home country is not possible.
The Office of Children's Issues, within the Department's Bureau of
Consular Affairs, engages bilaterally with foreign governments and
collaborates with stakeholders in the adoption community and with our
interagency partners on intercountry adoptions to promote these policy
objectives. The Hague Adoption Convention is an important tool in
support of this goal. Ninety-three countries are currently party to the
Convention, including the United States.
An important element related to concrete action and policy
leadership includes the establishment of a Senior Policy Operating
Group (SPOG) for Children in Adversity. This governmentwide,
interagency body is co-led by the Department of State's Senior Advisor
for Development and USAID's Center of Excellence for Children in
Adversity (USAID/CECA). The SPOG is strengthened by the day-to-day
coordination efforts of State's Task Force for Children in Adversity
(TFCA), which works in partnership with USAID/CECA and the interagency
working group led by USAID to advance the children in adversity agenda.
For example, TFCA and USAID/CECA recently collaborated to develop a
Key Issue, or secondary budget code in the foreign assistance budget,
called ``Children in Adversity.'' The ``Children in Adversity'' Key
Issue is formulated to match the objectives of the APCA and gives
visibility to the funding of thematic areas that are not generally
discernable in the foreign assistance budget. Going forward, the
``Children in Adversity'' Key Issue, combined with other ongoing
efforts at State and USAID, does three things: (1) sends a signal to
State and USAID that the children in adversity issue is being further
elevated across the foreign assistance portfolio, (2) establishes a
common definition for children in adversity within foreign assistance
programming, and (3) strengthens existing efforts to thematically
integrate children in adversity into the foreign assistance strategic
planning, budgeting and performance management processes.
Finally, allocations for fiscal year 2014 foreign assistance
appropriations are in the midst of being finalized; however, programs
that support the world's most vulnerable population--children in
adversity--are reflected throughout the budget. Similarly, the fiscal
year 2015 request emphasizes the United States' continuing commitment
to children.
Question. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is not only an attack on
that country's sovereignty but a threat to the stability of the entire
region. One key aspect of Russian influence in Ukraine has been its
energy exports, particularly natural gas flowing through Ukraine to the
remainder of Europe. As you know, the administration recently proposed
$1 billion in loan guarantees to help insulate the Ukrainian economy
from the effects of reduced energy subsidies from Russia--a measure
that has been reinforced by recently passed legislation in the House
and legislation pending in the Senate.
--In addition to these measures, how can the United States use its
diplomatic influence and growing energy production to mitigate
these threats?
Answer. Ukraine's sovereignty and independence is a strategic
foreign policy priority for the United States, and no issue is more
important than Ukraine's energy security. Ukraine's energy security,
and the commitment of the United States to support Ukraine, was at the
forefront of the U.S.-European Union (EU) Energy Council meeting which
I chaired with EU High Representative Ashton, EU Energy Commissioner
Oettinger, and U.S. Deputy Secretary of Energy Poneman on April 2.
The United States is working with Ukraine, its western neighbors,
the EU, and the private sector to provide gas from European companies
to Ukraine to offset its reliance on Russian imports. We are seeking to
provide urgently needed international financial support to Ukraine and
encouraging Ukraine to use its foreign exchange reserves to finance gas
purchases.
In addition to these short-term measures, we are working with other
donors and the private sector to help Ukraine bridge to long-term
increased self-sufficiency in gas by raising domestic production,
through modernization of existing conventional fields and contracts
negotiated in 2013 for unconventional gas development.
The United States is also working closely with the Government of
Ukraine to increase energy efficiency practices, which will further
decrease reliance on energy imports. The $1 billion in loan guarantees
provided by the United States will be available to help the Ukrainian
Government ensure that increased energy costs, which will go into
effect as early as May 1 as part of a reform package mandated by the
IMF, will not adversely impact Ukraine's most vulnerable energy
consumers.
Under the auspices of the U.S.-Ukraine Energy Security Working
Group, the U.S. Special Envoy for International Energy Affairs Carlos
Pascual and Ukrainian Minister of Energy Yuriy Prodan, will continue to
advance these initiatives.
Question. Last July, the full Appropriations committee voted on a
narrow waiver to the prohibition on funding UNESCO (United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). By a vote of 19-11,
the full committee provided a waiver, as well as $700,000, to the World
Heritage program at UNESCO. For no good reason at all, the House
deleted this line item, and refused to include it in the Omnibus
spending package that was approved this January. Let me explain why I
am so passionate about this issue. Poverty Point is a cultural and
historic gem in Louisiana. It is a landmark relic from prehistoric,
hunter-gatherer times, and is a collection of magnificent earthworks
that were a commercial center for the region. If the Congress does not
provide waiver authority and funding for the World Heritage Program,
then we hurt Poverty Point's chances of being designated a World
Heritage site. This would have significant economic impacts on my
State. And by the way, there are 13 other States that are in the same
situation.
--I see that the administration once again seeks waiver authority for
funding this and other UN entities. Given the critical U.S.
interests in providing waiver authority and funding to the
World Heritage program, given that this Committee already voted
to provide that funding, and given that the Israeli Government,
who should be most concerned about this issue, supports a
narrow waiver for World Heritage funds, what is the
administration able to do to show how critical this waiver is?
--What can you do to educate Members of Congress on the critical
economic impact for 14 States that are at stake if World
Heritage funding is denied once again for no good reason?
Answer. As a founding member and the driving force behind the World
Heritage Convention of 1972, the United States remains committed to
advancing the Convention's ideals to preserve our world's outstanding
cultural and natural heritage. Partnering with our colleagues in the
U.S. Department of Interior, the State Department strongly advocates
for promoting and preserving our twenty-one inscribed U.S. World
Heritage sites, and works diligently to advance vital U.S. economic and
cultural interests by guiding the nomination process for inscribing new
U.S. sites.
As you mention, the World Heritage Committee will consider the
inscription of Poverty Point State Historic Site in Louisiana during
its 38th Meeting this June in Doha, Qatar. We will enthusiastically
champion this nomination in Doha, and will send a delegation of U.S.
cultural heritage policy and technical experts to support the
inscription efforts on behalf of Poverty Point. We believe the
administration's unwavering commitment to full engagement at UNESCO and
our respected leadership on World Heritage issues will reinforce the
compelling case for inscription of Poverty Point in 2014, and for the
San Antonio Franciscan Missions nomination to be considered by the
World Heritage Committee in 2015.
As you rightly point out, designation as a World Heritage site can
be a significant driver of international recognition, tourism,
community pride, economic development, and long-term conservation
planning and resources. For all these reasons, funding for the World
Heritage program is, and will remain, an important priority for the
United States.
Withholding our assessed contributions to UNESCO led to the loss of
our vote in UNESCO's General Conference in 2013. More generally,
withholding our support to UNESCO hampers our ability to advance U.S.
interests in World Heritage, to sustain Holocaust education as a means
to combat anti-Semitism and prevent future atrocities, and to promote
freedom of expression, including for the press, and safety for
journalists globally. This administration seeks a national interest
waiver to allow the discretion necessary to continue to provide
contributions that enable us to maintain our vote and influence within
the UN and UN specialized agencies, including UNESCO. Through the
waiver, the administration aims to empower the United States to
determine how and when we engage in multilateral organizations, and to
advance the interests of the United States and its closest partners
across the full spectrum of policy goals.
Experts from the State Department are available to brief you and
other Members of Congress in more detail on our important work at
UNESCO and on the World Heritage program should you have more
questions. I appreciate your ongoing efforts to highlight the
importance of U.S. leadership at UNESCO and to advance our national
interests through World Heritage recognition of U.S. sites with
outstanding universal value for all of human kind.
Question. The PEPFAR Stewardship and Oversight Act, a bill which
reauthorizes the 10 percent set aside for Orphans and Vulnerable
Children (OVC) in the President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief
(PEPFAR), became law last December. This OVC money represents a huge
part of the international investment--about $350 million per year--for
orphans and vulnerable children, and supports efforts to keep these
children in school, reduce barriers to healthcare and nutrition, and
improve protection from abuse and neglect. However, after extensive
conversations with PEPFAR staff at the Department of State, I was
shocked to learn that none of this $350 million in OVC funds is spent
on programs that provide alternative family care for those children who
are unable to remain with their biological family. Simply put, the
largest U.S. Government-funded programming for double orphans does
nothing to help these children to no longer be orphans! In fact, the
number of worldwide orphans is increasing. When PEPFAR was first passed
in 2003, there were an estimated 15 million children orphaned by AIDS.
Today there are 17 million. I originally intended to file an amendment
to S.1545 that would have fixed this ironic inadequacy with the OVC
program, but out of deference to Chairman Menendez and Ranking Member
Corker and in consideration of the overall goals of PEPFAR, I set aside
my amendment and gave consent for the bill to move for final passage.
I'd like to take the opportunity here to ask for your input on how
Congress might work together with the State Department to improve the
OVC Set Aside.
--Are you aware that the OVC set aside in PEPFAR does not focus on
finding permanent families for children, other than family
preservation efforts?
--What can be done to ensure that programs funded under PEPFAR for
orphans and vulnerable children through the 10 percent Set-
Aside give priority to children who are living outside of
family care and are aimed at finding permanent placements for
children through family reunification and kinship, domestic or
international adoption?
Answer. PEPFAR is strongly focused on both finding families for
children and on maintaining children in permanent families.
why pepfar focuses on family preservation
As stated in the Action Plan for Children in Adversity, a whole-of-
government strategic guidance on international assistance for children,
efforts for Objective 2: Putting Family Care First ``should primarily
be directed to enabling the child to remain in or return to the care of
his/her parents or, when appropriate, other close family members.
Strengthening families is a first priority.'' (p.9) Stable, caring
families and communities and strong child welfare systems are the best
defenses against the effects of HIV/AIDS in the lives of children.
While the majority of children affected by AIDS are not outside of
families or ``parentless,'' this does not mean that very large numbers
are not vulnerable as a result of AIDS.
The most effective approach to addressing the extreme vulnerability
that children face in the epidemic is to ensure that the parents and
caregivers who are left and are caring for children stay strong and
healthy and have the resources and skills to keep the children in their
care safe and thriving.
how pepfar puts family care first
PEPFAR Orphans and Vulnerable Children (OVC) programs work to put
family care first by engaging in activities aimed at preventing
separation and keeping children in families, and where necessary,
reintegrating children into family care. These are all core principles
of APCA Objective 2.
Moreover, PEPFAR invests in evidence-based programming that
dramatically increases a vulnerable family's ability to care for
children. Household economic strengthening prevents the separation of
children from families due to the economic burden of HIV. PEPFAR OVC
programs have supported 10,000 savings groups in 15 countries. As a
result, approximately 1,000,000 children affected by AIDS are living in
families with improved economic stability. Such programs are enhanced
by PEPFAR OVC programs that link parents to social protection efforts
such as cash transfers, further increasing their ability to provide for
children in their care.
pepfar support for children outside of family care
While family preservation remains at the core of PEPFAR's work,
these efforts are intertwined with ensuring children outside of family
care (COFC) are also supported as a priority within PEPFAR OVC
programs.
For example, in South Africa, PEPFAR, in partnership with the
government has supported legislation and policies that encourage
permanent family placement and in-country adoption specifically. The
results of these efforts include a revised National Adoption Policy,
which is enhanced by PEPFAR supported adoption education and an ``Adopt
RSA Kids'' Web site, as well an updated National Action & Monitoring
Plan for Children infected and affected by HIV and AIDS. In Mozambique,
PEPFAR is supporting the placement of at least 6,000 vulnerable
children deprived of parental care into families. These efforts will be
supported by the development of a simplified guardianship information
system to regulate placement of children and to ensure that a safe and
monitored care placement.
In addition, in Tanzania, an assessment of children living on the
street and children within key and other vulnerable populations (e.g.
sex workers and trafficked children) is planned for early 2015.
Following on this assessment, implementing non-governmental
organization (NGO) partners will strengthen linkages to health,
temporary shelter, family placement/reintegration and other services
for children living on the street or without reliable shelter and adult
care. In Uganda and Ethiopia the PEPFAR supported organization Retrak
works with street children by helping them to return to family (or find
new families), and by ensuring those families have the follow up
support (parental skills, economic opportunities) to ensure children
can stay there.
On a global level PEPFAR supports the development and dissemination
of guidance and tools to build capacity in permanency solutions. For
example, PEPFAR financially supported USAID's Center for Excellence on
Children in Adversity in the development of a methodology for
surveillance of children living outside of family care and contributed
to the Evidence Summit on Children Outside of Family Care. PEPFAR is
also a long-term supporter of the Better Care Network which
disseminates state of the art evidence, tools and technical assistance
aimed at promoting permanency solutions for children globally.
child welfare systems strengthening
The best and most sustainable way to support children outside of
family care is to support the child welfare systems that can ensure
they are safe and placed in permanent family care. As stated in the
APCA under Objective 4: ``Effective and well-functioning child welfare
and protection systems are vital to a nation's social and economic
progress, . . . Protection services prevent and respond to child abuse,
both within and outside the home, and . . . provide appropriate care
for children separated from their families of origin.''
Strengthening child welfare and protection systems is a central
focus of PEPFAR's OVC programming, and PEPFAR has spearheaded such
efforts globally. PEPFAR works with governments to promote robust child
welfare systems strengthening, and enhanced social welfare workforce
capacity to prevent and respond to child abuse. PEPFAR partners work
together to deliver high-quality child welfare and protection services
that reduce vulnerability, ensure access to essential services--
including those for health and HIV--prevent and respond to violence
against children, and preserve family structures in AIDS-affected
communities. Important improvements in child welfare systems are
underway in many countries, including social protection through child
grants, deinstitutionalization, and foster care. Addressing these needs
requires strong child welfare systems and intentional workforce
strengthening that facilitates access to services across sectors for
vulnerable children in and outside of families.
Question. The scale of the Syria crisis continues to increase
exponentially. Nine million Syrians, approaching half of the country's
pre-war population, have fled their homes. Six and one-half million
people are internally displaced and nearly 2.5 million have sought
refuge in neighboring countries. The suffering of Syrian civilians is
alarming and overwhelming, with women and children disproportionately
vulnerable to the violence and the effects of the war. Before the
conflict, Syria was a middle-income country with low child mortality
rates. Now, deadly diseases such as measles and meningitis are on the
rise and vaccine programs in Syria have collapsed. Even polio,
eradicated in Syria almost 20 years ago, is now being carried by up to
80,000 children across the country--a figure so high that medical
experts have raised concerns about a potential international spread of
the virus. Despite the continued expansion of humanitarian need, the
President's fiscal year 2015 budget proposal requests $1.6 billion less
in funding for the International Disaster Assistance and Migration and
Refugee Assistance accounts than Congress provided in the fiscal year
2014 Omnibus Appropriations bill.
--How can the administration's proposed budget ensure that the U.S.
continues to provide its fair share of contributions to respond
to the Syria crisis in light of growing humanitarian needs?
--What is the U.S. Government doing to provide immediate access to
child-focused health services in Syria to ensure that these
children do not only survive preventable and treatable
illnesses, but are also thriving in the arms of a permanent
caregiver?
Answer. The U.S. Government is the single-largest donor of
humanitarian assistance for those affected by the Syria crisis,
providing more than $1.7 billion in humanitarian aid since the start of
the crisis--nearly $878 million to support those inside Syria, and
nearly $862 million to support refugees fleeing from Syria and host
communities in neighboring countries. Support inside Syria goes through
trusted international and non-governmental organizations.
In the fiscal year 2014 Omnibus Appropriations bill, Congress
generously provided $2.2 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations
(OCO) funding for humanitarian programs. This funding is critical to
address growing humanitarian needs worldwide, including the Syria
crisis, where the combined UN humanitarian appeal for Syria has nearly
doubled over the last year and represents approximately half of the
2014 total worldwide humanitarian need of $12.9 billion. Given the
significant ongoing humanitarian needs inside Syria and across the
region, the Department of State and the United States Agency for
International Development plan to carry over funding from fiscal year
2014 into fiscal year 2015 to help address the substantial needs of the
projected 11 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Syria, 5
million refugees from Syria in the region, about half of whom are
children under 18 years of age, and communities in refugee-hosting
countries that are enduring strains on basic infrastructure and health
and educational systems.
U.S. health assistance inside Syria has provided training for
Syrian medical workers, direct healthcare services, supplies for
hospitals and clinics and support for polio vaccination campaigns. The
United States is supporting 298 hospitals, health clinics, and mobile
medical units across Syria, which have treated more than 1.9 million
Syrian patients and performed nearly 265,000 surgeries. These patients
include innocent children caught in the crossfire as well as basic
primary healthcare and services for those who become ill. The United
States is also supporting the childhood vaccination efforts led by the
World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF, who are working to
vaccinate 22 million children across the region. The WHO and UNICEF
have consistently reached over 2.5 million children in each of the last
four vaccination campaigns inside Syria. Additionally, the United
States supports disease surveillance and vaccination campaigns as part
of its emergency primary healthcare programs throughout Syria. U.S.
funding to the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees inside
Syria has supported UNHCR's efforts to provide $4.6 million worth of
medicine to hospitals across Syria.
In addition, U.S. funding for the United Nations Relief and Works
Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has been
critical to ensuring continued care for the more than 540,000
Palestinian refugees in Syria, about one-third of whom are children and
over half of whom are displaced. Although only 14 of UNRWA's 23 health
centers remain operational due to ongoing conflict and access
constraints, UNRWA has deployed nine mobile health points to reach
Palestinians refugees in areas of displacement inside Syria.
In addition to healthcare, the U.S. Government is helping children,
mothers, fathers, and caretakers cope with psychosocial stress. We are
also helping to provide appropriate protective care for their children
and training community members in basic social work and case management
skills so they may identify children at risk and connect them to
available support. UNRWA is making efforts to address the needs of the
more than 67,000 children enrolled in its schools by increasing the
number of psychosocial counselors working across its network of schools
and providing additional support to out-of-school children.
U.S. support to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
helps improve the supply of potable water and sanitation inside Syria,
benefiting and protecting vulnerable children. In 2013, 20 million
people in Syria benefited from ICRC's improvements to water and
sanitation facilities, ten million people--in all 14 governorates--
benefited from emergency repairs to water system damaged by fighting,
3.1 million people benefited from a waste and pesticides program in
Aleppo and Idlib governorates, and 810,000 benefited from water
delivered by truck.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
Question. Since 1979, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill
has prohibited the use of funds to provide abortion services for Peace
Corps volunteers and trainees, without exception. Under this rider,
official policy requires that volunteers pay out of pocket for abortion
care even in cases of rape, incest, and where a woman's life would be
endangered by carrying the pregnancy to term. This is at odds with all
other Federal employees who do receive coverage for these exceptions,
and I have long supported healthcare parity for the women volunteers
who are carrying out our diplomatic and humanitarian interests
overseas. I appreciate that in the fiscal year 2015 budget, the
administration has allowed for the healthcare parity for Peace Corps
volunteers, and has allowed for abortion coverage for volunteers in
cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment. Can you comment on the
importance of providing this health equity to our volunteers?
Answer. The Department of State defers to the Peace Corps on this
matter as it is not within the State Department's purview.
Question. At least 222 million women in the developing world would
like to prevent or delay pregnancy but lack access to safe, effective
contraception, and each year an estimated 287,000 women still die from
pregnancy related causes. Can you talk about where you see
opportunities for U.S. leadership to continue to make progress on
expanding access to family planning and reproductive health information
and services?
Answer. With the help of Congress, the United States continues to
be the world's largest bilateral donor for international family
planning. This furthers demonstrates the U.S. Government's firm
commitment to helping men and women across the globe meet their
reproductive health needs. Enabling an individual or couple to decide
whether, when, and how often to have children is vital to safe
motherhood, healthy families, and prosperous communities. Family
planning can reduce the economic burden on poor families and allow
women more time to work outside the home, which leads to increased
family income. These economic benefits of family planning contribute
directly to the U.S. Government goal of ending extreme poverty in two
decades. Research clearly shows that voluntary family planning programs
not only improve health, reduce poverty, and empower women, but also
save lives. When women bear children too early, too late, or too close
together, there are negative impacts on their health and their
children's health. USAID-supported research shows that family planning
could prevent up to 30 percent of the estimated 287,000 maternal deaths
that occur every year, by enabling women to delay their first pregnancy
and space later pregnancies at the safest intervals. And if all babies
were born 3 years apart, the lives of 1.6 million children under the
age of 5 would be saved each year.
The U.S. Government will continue to show leadership on this issue
in multilateral fora such as the UN Commission on Population and
Development, the UN Commission on the Status of Women, and the UN Human
Rights Council. We persistently make the argument at these venues and
elsewhere that reproductive health services, especially voluntary
family planning, are essential to promote sustainable economic
development, advance gender equality, and contribute to the U.S.
Government's goals of Ending Preventable Child and Maternal Deaths and
Creating an AIDS-free Generation.
Through USAID, the U.S. Government advances and supports voluntary
family planning and reproductive health programs in more than 45
countries around the globe. As a core partner in the Family Planning
2020 Initiative, USAID is committed to working with the global
community to reach an additional 120 million women and girls with
family planning information, commodities, and services by 2020. These
services empower individuals to choose the timing and spacing of their
pregnancies, bear children during their healthiest years, prevent
unintended pregnancies, and nurture healthier families and communities.
Additionally, the U.S. Government actively supports the UN
Population Fund (UNFPA), the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
and many other development and humanitarian organizations to respond to
the challenges of providing access to reproductive health services in
crisis settings. This includes training staff, offering community
education, establishing client follow-up, providing a variety of family
planning methods, and maintaining a contraceptive supply chain system.
Access to these life-saving interventions is linked to recovery from
humanitarian and post-conflict situations, not just for women and
girls, but also for their communities.
Furthermore, as we focus on the ongoing 20 year review of the
International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) Program
of Action, as well as the upcoming 20 year review of the 1995 Beijing
Declaration and Platform for Action and the review of the Millennium
Development Goals in 2015, the U.S. Government will continue to work
toward advancing these goals. Improving the health and well-being of
all individuals, especially women and children, promotes political and
economic stability and social and economic progress. We will seek every
opportunity to promote the participation of all stakeholders as we
discuss the appropriate inclusion of sexual and reproductive health and
reproductive rights, including family planning, in the Post-2015
Development Agenda and into our development and poverty reduction plans
and policies.
Question. Internet freedom is under assault around the globe. In
Russia, the government has blocked tens of thousands of dissident Web
sites. In Ukraine, sites have been attacked. In Iran, 16 Internet
activists were arrested in December, and online blogs and news outlets
are frequently subject to closure. In China, bloggers remain extremely
concerned by a recent government crackdown on Internet discourse. We
are also witnessing challenges to Internet freedom emerging in
countries as wide-ranging as Pakistan, Vietnam and Turkey.
Are you concerned about the state of Internet freedom worldwide and
what do you believe the State Department and the U.S. Government can do
to more effectively promote an open Internet?
Answer. We are very concerned about the state of Internet freedom
worldwide, and are committed to promoting the human rights of freedom
of expression, peaceful assembly and association just as we do offline.
As President Obama said, ``We will fight hard to make sure that the
Internet remains the open forum for everybody--from those who are
expressing an idea to those who want to start a business.''
The State Department seeks to promote, protect, and advance
Internet freedom through bilateral and multilateral engagement, foreign
assistance programming, and partnerships with civil society and the
private sector.
Bilaterally, we raise Internet freedom regularly in human rights
and economic discussions with a wide range of countries, from China and
Vietnam, to Turkey. We also work to advance human rights online through
multilateral coordination efforts, such as the Freedom Online Coalition
(FOC), a group of 22 governments spanning Asia, Africa, Europe, the
Americas, and the Middle East, that is committed to collaborating with
each other, as well as with civil society and the private sector, to
advance Internet freedom. By strengthening partnerships with like-
minded governments we empower them to be regional leaders on Internet
freedom.
We look forward to the April 28-29 Freedom Online Coalition
conference in Estonia, where we will continue to work with partners to
advance a free and secure Internet, to ensure that the same rights that
people have offline are also protected online, and that protection of
these rights is governed by rule of law. We also work through the
Internet Governance Forum, UN processes, and other working groups to
preserve the multi-stakeholder character of the Internet.
Programming is a vital tool to protect people and organizations at
risk, provide capacity to safely communicate, push for reform of
repressive policies, and improve technologies. With the support of
Congress, we have issued grants to increase open access to the Internet
for people in closed societies, support digital activists, counter
censorship and repression, create and leverage technological
innovations, and provide training, research, and advocacy.
Our embassies advocate on behalf of imprisoned and arrested online
activists. We engage daily with the civil society actors who shape the
future of the Internet in their countries.
We keep a consistent dialogue with the private sector on issues of
Internet freedom. We are encouraged by corporations that make
meaningful and principled commitments to respect human rights,
including through initiatives such as the Global Network Initiative
(GNI). This is a multi-stakeholder group that brings together IT
companies, civil society organizations, investors, and academics to
help corporations develop effective, practical responses to human
rights challenges that arise while interacting with governments around
the world.
In sum, Internet freedom is a major policy priority, and we look
forward to working with subcommittee members to advance Internet
freedom worldwide.
Question. As you know, Saturday, March 8 was International Women's
Day. In its honor, I introduced a resolution to the Senate recognizing
that the empowerment of women is inextricably linked to the potential
of countries to generate economic growth, sustainable democracy, and
inclusive security, and honoring the women in the United States and
around the world who have worked throughout history to ensure that
women are guaranteed equality and basic human rights. We have made a
lot of progress, but there is clearly still work to further the health,
rights and empowerment of women worldwide. Women lag far behind men in
access to land, credit and decent jobs, even though a growing body of
research shows that enhancing women's economic options boosts national
economies. How can the role of women in the global economy be elevated
and sustained, and how can we ensure the U.S. remains a leader on
women's economic empowerment issues?
Answer. The Department of State has made economic empowerment a
centerpiece of American foreign policy, and recognizes the central role
of women's economic participation. As I said last year, ``The United
States believes gender equality is critical to our shared goals of
prosperity, stability, and peace, and [that is] why investing in women
and girls worldwide is critical to advancing U.S. foreign policy.'' In
order to achieve these goals, we need to encourage, and harness the
untapped talent and productivity of women across the globe. These
efforts also highlight the role of the U.S. as a leader on women's
economic empowerment issues globally.
The Department is committed to elevating the role of women in the
global economy through comprehensive efforts across regional and
functional bureaus at the Department, and at posts worldwide. The
Department's efforts are structured to build upon our significant
progress in integrating the importance of women's economic empowerment
into our foreign policy agenda. We do this by analyzing the areas where
women face additional barriers to economic participation and
empowerment, and addressing them. These efforts to both identify gaps
and create mechanisms to address those gaps are focused in four areas:
(1) access to markets; (2) access to capital/assets; (3) access to
skills, capacity building and health; and (4) women's leadership, voice
and agency.
The Department works in numerous ways to advance the economic
status of women, and the Secretary's Office of Global Women's Issues
(S/GWI) leads and coordinates these efforts across the Department. One
key focus is to support and strengthen women's entrepreneurship
initiatives and networks. The United States has created and expanded
regional programs to provide women business owners, entrepreneurs, and
leaders with training, skills, networks, and other resources needed to
expand their businesses and increase potential. There are several
efforts across the globe, including for example, the Africa Women's
Entrepreneurship Program (AWEP) and Women's Entrepreneurship in the
Americas (WEAmericas).
A second is to integrate women's economic participation into major
regional and international economic fora, including the Asia Pacific
Economic Cooperation, Association of South East Asian Nations, Lower
Mekong Initiative, Broader Middle East and Northern Africa Initiative,
the Africa Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA), the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD), the Summit of the Americas, the
Pathways to Prosperity in the Americas Initiative, Regional Economic
Cooperation Conference for Afghanistan (RECCA), the G-20 and the Equal
Futures Partnership. Economic, trade, and finance ministers have
reacted favorably and have continued to express interest in engaging on
this topic. These meetings recognize the barriers women face in fully
contributing to the economy and encourage governments and the private
sector to implement policies and reforms, collect better data, and
share best practices that will enable women to play a more active role
in the economic sphere.
Lastly, the Department utilizes public private partnerships to
address barriers to women's economic participation. Current and past
partnerships include partnerships with the private sector,
universities, and international institutions. These partnerships have
focused on support for specific initiatives, research, and data
collection and analysis.
Question. In your testimony, you mentioned the role the State
Department is already playing on economic diplomacy and creating
opportunities for American business overseas. I know Secretary Clinton
focused on business advocacy abroad as well. I've heard first hand from
businesses in my home State of New Hampshire the important role the
State Department can play for our businesses abroad in advocating for
their interests. Do you believe this budget provides you the resources
necessary to make U.S. business advocacy a priority overseas?
Answer. The Department of State works to advance the interests of
the United States overseas, including our economic interests. By
supporting U.S. businesses overseas--from knocking down trade barriers
and protecting intellectual property rights to direct advocacy for
specific U.S. firms seeking contracts with foreign governments--we
expand our influence while creating jobs here at home. Business
advocacy is already a priority for the Department, both in Washington
and at our overseas posts. In fiscal year 2013 the Department recorded
971 ``success stories,'' defined as an export deal achieved, dispute
resolved, or foreign policy changed through Department advocacy.
Additional resources would, of course, allow us to do more and to
generate more wins for American businesses. However, recognizing the
current austere budget environment we face, we will continue to work
with business and with our partner agencies, including the Departments
of Commerce and Agriculture, to generate the biggest return possible
for the dollars we invest in supporting U.S. business overseas.
Question. As you are aware, last year the State Department faced a
growing backlog of immigration visa applications from Afghans who, at
tremendous risk to their own lives and to the lives of their family
members, assisted the United States and NATO as translators in
Afghanistan. What is the status of the implementation of the new Iraqi
and Afghan SIV procedures and provisions under the 2014 NDAA, and has
the backlog been sufficiently addressed?
Answer. The State Department and the other U.S. Government
departments and agencies involved in the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV)
process have the highest respect for the men and women who have taken
enormous risks while helping our military and civilian personnel. We
are committed to helping those who--at great personal risk--have helped
us. Over the past year, we improved processing times, expanded outreach
to current and former employees who may be eligible, and issued more
SIVs in Afghanistan (and in Iraq) than in any previous year.
In the first half of fiscal year 2014, we have issued more SIVs to
Afghans and their dependents than in all of fiscal year 2013 and have
more than doubled the total number of Afghan principal applicants
issued in fiscal year 2013 (651). In fiscal year 2014, through April 8,
we have issued 3,617 SIVs to Afghans and their dependents; 1,320 SIVs
of which were issued to Afghan principal applicants. All approvable
Iraqi principal applicants were issued prior to the program's temporary
end on September 30, 2013. In fiscal year 2014, as of April 8, we have
issued an additional 912 SIVs to Iraqis and their dependents, with 218
of these SIVs to Iraqi principal applicants. The relatively low number
of issuances to date in fiscal year 2014 for Iraqis reflects the
success of the surge at the end of fiscal year 2013.
We have done this while maintaining the highest standards of
security for the SIV program. We have a responsibility to the American
people to ensure all those who enter the United States, including SIV
recipients, do not pose a threat.
Provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) fiscal year 2014 have allowed us to streamline some SIV
procedures. Under this legislation, a credible sworn statement
depicting dangerous country conditions, together with official evidence
of such country conditions from the U.S. Government, should be
considered in determining whether an applicant has experienced or is
experiencing an ongoing serious threat; therefore, the Embassy Kabul
COM Committee no longer assesses the serious threat qualifier for each
individual SIV applicant. Instead, the SIV Unit Manager, designated as
Embassy Kabul's SIV Coordinator, now has authority to grant COM
approval on SIV applications that clearly meet the legal requirements.
As of March, the Embassy Kabul COM Committee reviews only those cases
recommended for denial.
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) employees who worked
for NATO countries do not qualify for the SIV programs under section
1244 of the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act of 2008, as amended, and section
602(b) of the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009, as amended. Among
the requirements to qualify for these programs is that the applicant
must have ``provided faithful and valuable service to the United States
Government'' while ``employed by or on behalf of the United States
Government.'' ISAF employees may qualify for the SIV program under
section 1059 of the NDAA fiscal year 2006. This program's criteria
includes ``having worked directly with United States Armed Forces, or
under Chief of Mission authority, as a translator or interpreter for a
period of at least 12 months'' and, if the work was with a U.S. Armed
Forces unit, having ``supported'' that unit. As such, an ISAF employee
who can establish 1 year of qualifying work which was directly with and
supporting a U.S. Armed Forces unit as a translator or interpreter
could qualify under the section 1059 SIV program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham
Question. What actions has the administration taken to secure the
release of Pastor Saeed Abedini?
Answer. The U.S. Government is dedicated to the return of U.S.-
Iranian dual national Saeed Abedini. The President, the Secretary, and
U/S Sherman have raised Mr. Abedini's case directly with the Iranian
Government. We have made clear that we are calling on Iran to release
Mr. Abedini so he can be reunited with his family. At our request, the
Swiss Government, in its role as our protecting power, has also
continued to raise Mr. Abedini's case on our behalf, as have other
countries that we have asked to press Iran to cooperate on these cases.
The United States has publicly called for Mr. Abedini's release at
the UN Human Rights Council, and has played a leading role in lobbying
the UN Human Rights Council to extend the mandate of the Special
Rapporteur for human rights in Iran, a useful mechanism for addressing
in international fora our human rights concerns with Iran, including
violations of religious freedom. We will continue to pursue all
available options until he returns home safely.
Question. Do you have an update on [Saeed Abedini's] health and
status?
Answer. According to media reports, Saeed Abedini was transferred
to Dey Hospital on March 3, 2014, and his father has been permitted to
visit him in the hospital. The Department of State remains in close
contact with his family regarding his status, but due to Privacy Act
considerations we cannot share any additional information.
Question. What is the status of the non-governmental organization
(NGO) trial in Cairo that has politically ensnared the International
Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute, among other
organizations? Do you have any confidence that the Egyptian Government
will resolve this issue prior to the holding of presidential elections?
Answer. We continue to press the Egyptian Government at high levels
for redress of the NGO trial verdict, including pardons for all
Egyptian and international staff. We understand that Egypt has not
pursued Interpol measures since the convictions in June 2013 (notices
or extradition requests), and they have assured us they would not. Our
understanding is that a general amnesty would require legislation;
currently, Egypt has no parliament and will not have one until after
the parliamentary elections tentatively scheduled for this fall. We
will continue to raise the issue at high levels with the interim
government and with future elected governments.
Question. Can you provide assurances to the Subcommittee that
proposed framework for rebidding the State Department's Global Aviation
Services Contract in multiple components will maintain the high
standards of safety and efficiency of the current contract?
Does the State Department estimate that higher costs are associated
with rebidding the contract in multiple components?
Answer. When the aviation support contract was last competed in
2004/2005, the Department solicited industry input. Firms expressed an
interest in the Department breaking up its aviation requirements and
being able to bid on separate functions. However, the Department did
not have time then to consider such a division.
Over a year ago, in January 2013, the Bureau of International
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) sponsored an Industry Best
Practice and Vendor Identification Conference to identify potential
business sources with the resources, capabilities, and experience to
successfully deliver requisite services to sustain the Department's
Aviation Fleet.
Market research continued that spring, and all told over 200
companies participated, with 140 firms meeting with Department
representatives. These firms ranged from Fortune 100 companies to small
businesses. The Department's research also evaluated whether any of the
needed services could be provided by small businesses, including
HubZone, Service Disabled Veterans, and Woman-owned small businesses.
This market research enabled the INL program staff to identify more
clearly which functions could be broken out for small business and
which ones should be procured using unrestricted acquisition methods,
including interoperability between all functional areas.
This decision on how to divide the program areas into seven
separate solicitations--four for small business set-aside and three for
unrestricted competition--was made only after a thorough review of the
extensive market research, and based on INL's more than 20 years of
professional expertise on the feasibility of the successful performance
of this INL mission using the combinations of breakout and unrestricted
awards that they had identified.
In developing this acquisition plan, the safety, reliability, and
effectiveness of the aviation program have been paramount
considerations. We are aware of the importance of this program and its
impact on the safety and wellbeing of not only State Department
personnel, but all those who rely upon us for air transportation. Our
acquisition process is designed to ensure that we continue to provide
aviation services at the same high level of safety and professionalism
we have always maintained.
We believe that the approach we are taking has the potential to
save the U.S. Government money due to increased competition and reduced
sub-contractor overhead charges. However, it is not possible to
accurately predict the cost of the future contract arrangement compared
to historical costs since this entails new solicitations that differ in
terms of contract requirements, and we do not know what industry's
final cost proposals will be. We believe that this approach will
increase competition and will also allow us to modernize our
operations. We identified modern industry practices and the most cost
effective methods of providing our requirements in each functional
area.
Overall, we believe that we have considered the risks and benefits
of our contracting approach for this recompete, and that our
contracting plan will provide needed aviation services safely and
efficiently.
Question. What is the status of Dr. Shakeel Afridi, and is his
release a talking point in bilateral relations?
Answer. Dr. Afridi was convicted of aiding the banned militant
group Lashkar-e-Islam in May 2012, though his role in trying to locate
Osama bin Laden is believed to be the reason he remains in jail. He is
currently in prison in Peshawar, Pakistan. In March 2013, his sentence
was reduced from 33 years to 22 years. The Department believes Dr.
Afridi's treatment is both unjust and unwarranted. Senior U.S.
officials regularly and consistently raise his case with senior
officials in Pakistan's Government, encouraging them to resolve his
case and free him, given that bringing Osama bin Laden to justice was
clearly in the interests of both the United States and Pakistan.
Question. Bolstering the Baltic Air Policing Mission was an
important step to reassure Russia's NATO neighbors that the United
States takes their security concerns seriously. What additional steps
can we take to provide security guarantees to Russia's neighbors both
NATO and non-NATO, including Georgia and Moldova?
Answer. The United States and NATO have already taken a number of
steps to reassure NATO Allies and partners in light of the Ukraine
crisis. In addition to the augmentation of NATO's Baltic Air Policing
mission, these actions have included expanded U.S. air exercises
coordinated by the U.S. Aviation Detachment in Poland, maritime
training in the Black Sea among the U.S. and Black Sea Allies Romania
and Bulgaria, and the deployment of NATO AWACS over Poland and Romania
to monitor Polish, Romanian and Bulgarian air space. NATO's Supreme
Allied Command Europe will be presenting a further package of air, land
and sea reassurance measures in the coming weeks, and we expect Allies
to fully contribute to this mission.
In addition, at the April NATO Foreign Ministerial, Foreign
Ministers agreed to increase practical cooperation with three of NATO's
Eastern Partners: Moldova, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. All three asked for
increased engagement with NATO during recent high-level meetings.
The United States has worked in particular to improve Moldova's
border security by expanding a Defense Threat Reduction Agency program.
Under the program, the United States will give an additional $10
million this year for equipment and training to Moldova's Border Police
and Customs Service. The equipment will improve the overall capacity of
Moldova's border guards and help protect against the smuggling of
illicit nuclear/radiological materials. The United States has also
launched a Strategic Dialogue with Moldova to enhance the security
dialogue between our countries.
NATO also works with Georgia in its efforts to build strong,
modern, and capable armed forces. Years of participation in NATO
operations have made the Georgian forces tough, skilled, and largely
interoperable with Allied forces. NATO is committed to a continued
program of close cooperation with Georgia via the NATO-Georgia
Commission (NGC) and the activities laid out in its Annual National
Program. The United States offers bilateral security assistance and
military engagement with Georgia to support its defense reforms, train
and equip Georgian troops for participation in ISAF operations, and
advance Georgia's NATO interoperability. Since the agreement between
our two presidents in January 2012 to take steps to advance Georgian
military modernization, reform, and self-defense capabilities, the U.S.
European Command has been working closely with Georgia's Ministry of
Defense and Armed Forces to implement these new areas of cooperation.
We are continuing to review implementation of this enhanced defense
cooperation and identify opportunities to advance our strong security
partnership.
Question. What are the Department of State's long-term plans for
operations out of Gaziantep, Turkey?
Answer. As you know, the Syria Transition Assistance Response Team
(START) is an interagency team comprised of offices and bureaus from
State and USAID responsible for planning and delivery of non-lethal and
humanitarian assistance. It works with international organizations,
NGOs, the Government of Turkey, and the Syrian opposition in order to
ensure an effective and efficient response to Syria's needs. START
works from our Consulates in Adana and Istanbul and our Embassy in
Ankara.
With regard to START members' presence in Gaziantep, we constantly
reassess plans based on developments on the ground. Currently, the
planned U.S. presence in Gaziantep is intended to be limited and
geographically close to Syria in order to facilitate coordination and
delivery of assistance to the Syrian opposition and Syrian people.
Question. What are the priorities of the State Department on
foreign assistance to the Great Lakes Region?
Answer. Our foreign priorities for the Great Lakes region are
focused on resolving the root causes of conflict and instability which
means focusing first and foremost on the Democratic Republic of the
Congo (DRC). Our DRC priorities include consolidating peace and
security in the country's east, improving governance through credible
elections, and professionalizing and training Congo's security forces
to protect its territory and citizens.
The late 2013 defeat of the M23 rebel group in North Kivu and gains
made against other rebel forces in eastern Congo in early 2014 provide
an unforeseen opportunity for achieving sustainable stability in the
DRC. The next 1-to-3 years could be decisive. The DRC is gearing up for
local elections, its first since independence in 1960, and provincial
and national elections before the end of 2016. Following the seriously
flawed 2011 election, it is imperative that these next elections are
peaceful and credible, and further the democratization of the country.
Achieving this goal will require substantial donor assistance,
including in the early stages of election planning.
Another foreign assistance priority in the region is Burundi, where
we are increasingly concerned about shrinking political space and the
potential for political violence. USAID and the Department have
identified an additional $7.52 million in immediate resources intended
to support free and fair elections in Burundi scheduled for May 2015.
Question. What actions are the State Department, USAID, or other
U.S. agencies taking to assist the DRC in conducting successful
elections? Is there adequate funding in the fiscal year 2015 budget
request for this purpose?
Answer. The DRC Government currently estimates the cost of 2014-16
elections at more than $950 million, with $388 million needed for local
elections next year. The DRC electoral commission hopes the government
will provide 80 percent of funds needed to support elections, with the
remaining 20 percent coming from donors. USAID has set aside $700,000
in fiscal year 2013 funds to support elections programming. Allocations
for fiscal year 2014 resources are not yet finalized. We will continue
to work with others in the international donor community to support DRC
elections.
The United States also played a key role in revising the mandate of
the UN peacekeeping mission in the DRC (MONUSCO) to enable the mission
to provide much-needed logistical support for elections. MONUSCO is the
only entity in the country with the capacity to fly ballot boxes around
and provide other heavy-lift types of support. MONUSCO's mandate
requires the DRC Government to adopt an electoral cycle roadmap and
budget before the mission can provide support.
Lastly, we are actively and continuously engaging the DRC
Government on the need for inclusive, transparent elections according
to the current constitution.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Kirk
Question. Do you agree that other than by exercising the existing
national security waiver authority provided in the statute, the
President may not suspend, lift or override the requirement to impose
sanctions under Section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for fiscal year 2012 (Public Law 122-78) without congressional
legislative action to suspend, amend or repeal the statute?
Answer. On January 20, 2014, the administration issued a set of
waivers of certain sanctions pursuant to the Joint Plan of Action
between the P5 + 1 and Iran. These included a waiver of section
1245(d)(5) of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
2012 (NDAA). In accordance with the law, the Secretary determined that
this waiver was in the national security interest of the United States
with respect to China, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, Switzerland,
Taiwan, and Turkey, and certified these jurisdictions faced exceptional
circumstances preventing them from reducing significantly their
purchases of petroleum and petroleum products from Iran. Subsequently,
on March 10, 2014, the Secretary executed a waiver under NDAA section
1245(d)(5) for Oman. These actions enable the current purchasers of
Iranian crude oil (China, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, Turkey, and
Taiwan) to maintain their current average purchase levels for the 6-
month period of the Joint Plan of Action and facilitates the
repatriation in installments of $4.2 billion to Iran of funds held in
restricted accounts overseas over the 6-month period.
Question. Do you believe the final nuclear agreement with Iran
should be considered a Treaty and be subject to ratification by the
Senate--why or why not?
Answer. As we are still in the process of negotiating a
comprehensive solution to address concerns with Iran's nuclear program,
I can't comment on the form any such solution will take. However,
Congress has been an important partner in this process, and we will
continue to seek Congress' support as we pursue a comprehensive
solution.
Question. If an acceptable nuclear agreement with Iran was reached
in Vienna, would Iran's financial system, including the Central Bank of
Iran, still be a concern for money laundering and terror finance?
Answer. We have not reached a comprehensive solution with Iran. We
cannot speculate, therefore, on what concerns we may or may not have
with Iran in a hypothetical future scenario. We are committed to
continuing to utilize our various authorities to enforce those
sanctions that remain in place in furtherance of our policies on both
Iran's nuclear program, as well as a range of other illicit conduct,
even during the Joint Plan of Action period.
Question. Do you consider the current Government of Iran to be
legitimate?
Answer. We recognize the Government of Iran. This does not mean
that we do not have concerns with the activities of the Iranian
Government. For example, we remain concerned about Iran's nuclear
program, its sponsorship of terrorism, destabilizing regional
activities, and violations of human rights. We have also maintained our
concerns about the electoral process in Iran. Observers have noted that
polling falls short of international standards for free and fair
elections, including the reported intimidation of activists and
journalists, restrictions on freedom of expression, and the
disqualification of a large number of candidates, including all female
candidates, for elected office by the Guardian Council, which is an
unelected and unaccountable body. That said, we congratulated the
Iranian people last year for participating in the political process and
demonstrating the courage to make their voices heard. The Iranian
people were determined to act to shape their future. As a consequence,
Iran's president was overwhelmingly elected by the Iranian people.
Question. April 24, 2014 marks the 99th commemoration of the
Armenian Genocide, the campaign of mass murder of 1.5 million Armenians
perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire from 1915-1923. There are now only a
few known living survivors of the Armenian Genocide, including 107-
year-old Helen Paloian of Chicago, who lost her parents and two of her
brothers.
As we approach the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, will
the U.S. finally honor the few surviving victims like Helen Paloian and
officially recognize the Armenian Genocide?
Answer. The administration has commemorated the Meds Yaghem, and
continues to acknowledge as a historical fact that 1.5 million
Armenians were massacred or marched to their deaths in one of the worst
atrocities of the 20th century. The administration supports diplomatic
efforts that support the President's call for ``a full, frank, and just
acknowledgement of the facts.'' We will continue to support the
courageous steps taken by individuals in Armenia and Turkey to foster a
dialogue that acknowledges their shared history.
Question. According to the 2013 U.S. Commission on International
Religious Freedom's (USCIRF) report on Turkey: ``[T]he Turkish
Government still controls access and use of various religious sites
such as the Greek Orthodox Sumela Orthodox Monastery in Trabzon, the
1,000-year-old Akdamar Armenian Orthodox church on Lake Van, and the
Syriac Mor Petrus and Mor Paulus Church in the eastern province of
Adiyaman.'' There were also reports of vandalism and violence against
Christians, such as attacks against three Christian churches over
Easter Week in May 2013.
What efforts has the U.S. Government undertaken to urge Turkey to
return the remaining Christian properties to their rightful owners? Has
the State Department communicated their concern to Turkish authorities
about attacks against Christians and their places of worship?
Answer. We recognize religious minority groups continue to face
challenges in Turkey. We are encouraged by concrete steps the
Government of Turkey has taken over the past year to return properties
to religious communities, including the return of the Mor Gabriel
Monastery and 47 acres of property surrounding Halki Seminary. The
State Department regularly engages at all levels with Turkish officials
regarding the importance of religious freedom, including the reopening
of Halki Seminary, legal reforms aimed at lifting restrictions on
religious groups, property restitution, and specific cases of religious
discrimination. Furthermore, we strongly condemn violence toward all
religious minorities in the strongest terms, and urge Turkish
authorities to fully pursue investigations and bring perpetrators to
justice. We continue to encourage the Government of Turkey to follow
through on the return of religious minority properties and to take
additional steps to promote religious freedom, such as allowing more
religious communities to own property, register their places of
worship, and train their clergy.
Question. On January 21, 2014, the Iraqi Cabinet of Ministers
announced that it agreed to create three new provinces in Iraq,
including in the Nineveh Plains, which is home to Iraq's vulnerable
Assyrian Christians minority. Since 2003, terrorists have
disproportionately targeted the Christian community in Iraq. The U.S.
Commission for International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) estimates that
``half or more of the pre-2003 Iraqi Christian community is believed to
have left the country.''
Does the U.S. Government officially support the creation of the
Nineveh Plains Province? Has the USG offered assistance to the Iraqi
Government to assist in the creation of the Nineveh Plains province?
Answer. The safety and rights of the Christian communities in Iraq,
including security concerns and protection of their lands, are issues
of long-standing concern to the State Department. We have provided over
$83 million in assistance to organizations working with minority
communities since 2008 for a variety of efforts including community
stabilization, conflict mitigation, and cultural preservation.
After the preliminary decision of the Council of Ministers (COM)
January 21 to convert the districts of Tuz, Fallujah, and the Ninewa
Plains to provinces, it referred this matter to committee for further
development. In order for this proposal to come into effect under
Iraq's constitutional framework, the COM must review and approve it in
the final form of a draft law and then send the draft law to Iraq's
Council of Representatives for its review and approval. We are
monitoring this proposal closely and view it as an internal Iraqi
matter.
Question. Has the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad designated a liaison for
the Nineveh Plains that works with the Iraqi Government, Iraqi
Christian community groups, and the U.S. Government?
Answer. Ambassador Beecroft, Deputy Chief of Mission Desrocher,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State McGurk (who also serves as the
Secretary's Special Coordinator for Iraq's Religious and Ethnic
Minorities), and other staff meet regularly with representatives of all
religious and ethnic minority groups, including Christians, to discuss
their concerns and how the U.S. might be of greatest assistance to
them. They then share those concerns with the highest levels of the
Government of Iraq. Embassy Baghdad, Consulate General Erbil, and
relevant State Department offices have staff dedicated to understanding
and addressing the most pressing issues facing religious and ethnic
minorities in Iraq and the concerns of the Iraqi diaspora in the United
States.
Question. On February 17, 2014, the United Nations Commission of
Inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
(DRPK) published its final report, which detailed horrific crimes
including ``extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment,
rape and sexual violence.'' It notes that ``the gravity, scale and
nature of these violations reveal a state that does not have any
parallel.'' Mr. Secretary, I traveled to North Korea as a congressional
staffer in the late 1990's and these findings are not surprising to
those of us who have been following this country closely. What is
surprising is the level of detail the Commission was able to document,
especially given how closed North Korea has been.
What is the next step you and our Mission at the UN will take to
follow up on this report? How will you ensure that this won't simply
become another UN report that becomes buried on a shelf and no action
is ever taken? Have you and Ambassador Power had conversations with our
allies regarding taking action on this report?
Answer. We remain deeply concerned about the deplorable human
rights situation in the DPRK and the welfare of the North Korean
people. We strongly support the Commission's final report, including
its calls for accountability for the perpetrators of the ongoing,
widespread, and systematic violations of human rights taking place in
North Korea. In March 2013, the United States co-sponsored, along with
Japan, the European Union, and the Republic of Korea, the UN Human
Rights Council (HRC) resolution that established the Commission. On
March 28 this year, the United States was proud to co-sponsor the HRC
resolution that passed overwhelmingly. In the resolution, the HRC
condemned the DPRK's human rights violations, renewed the mandate of
the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the DPRK,
stressed the need for accountability for those responsible for human
rights violations, and requested the Office of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights to establish a field-based mechanism to strengthen
monitoring and documentation as well as maintain visibility of the
situation of human rights in the DPRK.
We support the Human Rights Council recommendation that the UN
General Assembly forward the Commission's final report to the UN
Security Council for its consideration. We continue to work closely
with a broad range of partners in the international community to
sustain attention to the deplorable human rights situation in North
Korea and to seek ways to hold the regime accountable for its human
rights violations. Our Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights,
Robert King, is working with these partners and the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights to identify the most appropriate venue
and structure for the field-based mechanism called for in the HRC
resolution. Deputy Secretary William Burns met April 14 with the
Honorable Michael Kirby, former chair of the Commission, to discuss the
findings of the Commission. And on April 17, Ambassador Samantha Power
representing the United States--together with French and Australian
officials--convened an Arria-formula meeting for UN Security Council
members with the Commissioners to discuss the findings and
recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry's (COI) report on the DPRK
human rights situation. This meeting was a further testament to the
growing international consensus that the human rights situation in the
DPRK is unacceptable.
national endowment for democracy
Question. The fiscal year 2015 State, Foreign Operations, and
Related Programs budget proposes a $32 million cut to the National
Endowment for Democracy (NED), which is a 23 percent reduction from
fiscal year 2014. According to the Congressional Budget Justification:
``NED makes approximately 1,200 grants per year in nearly 100
countries. NED's grants advance long-term U.S. interests and address
immediate needs in strengthening democracy, human rights, and rule of
law.''
With the recent democratic upheavals throughout the globe,
including the Arab World, Ukraine and Venezuela, do you find it
counterintuitive that you are asking Congress to significantly scale
back NED funding in fiscal year 2015?
Answer. The fiscal year 2014 congressional appropriation for the
National Endowment for Democracy (NED) included both $100,000,000 for
their core funding, as well as an additional $35,000,000 in directives
for specific countries in lieu Economic Support Funds that NED received
in prior years. The President's fiscal year 2015 budget request for NED
was straight lined from fiscal year 2014 and is consistent with past
requests (chart provided).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding Year Request Appropriated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2011........................ $105,000,000 $117,764,000
Fiscal year 2012........................ 104,252,000 117,764,000
Fiscal year 2013........................ 104,252,000 111,802,000
Fiscal year 2014........................ 103,450,000 135,000,000
Fiscal year 2015........................ 103,450,000 ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. The Department of State's 2013 Human Rights Report for
Afghanistan stated: ``Although the situation of women marginally
improved during the year, domestic and international gender experts
considered the country very dangerous for women, and women routinely
expressed concern that social, political, and economic gains would be
lost in the post-2014 transition.'' Organizations such as Human Rights
Watch have specifically expressed concerns over signs of a rollback of
women's rights in anticipation of the transition in Afghanistan.
In your assessment, has there been a rollback in women's rights in
Afghanistan?
What efforts are being made by the United States Government to
ensure the preservation and advancement of women's rights in
Afghanistan post-2014?
Answer. Afghan women have made enormous strides since 2001. Girls
now make up 40 percent of enrolled students throughout the country,
women are represented in parliament and on provincial councils,
businesswomen and female entrepreneurs are playing a key role in the
economic development of their country, life expectancy for women has
risen from 44 years in 2001 to 64 years today and female activists are
actively advocating for social justice and seeking a peaceful
resolution to the Afghan conflict.
While these gains remain fragile, it is important to note the
growing change of attitudes towards women in Afghan society as it
signifies the potential for continued advancement. Democracy
International polling indicates that 92 percent of Afghans believe that
women have the right to participate in elections. Across the country,
illiteracy and the lack of education is identified as the biggest
problem facing women in all regions. A 2013 Asia Foundation survey
found that 83 percent of respondents agree that women should have the
same educational opportunities as men.
These changes were evident on election day when Afghan women turned
out in large numbers to vote, acted as election officials, and even ran
as candidates. Widespread reporting indicates Afghan women were able to
participate in significant numbers, and the Independent Electoral
Commission's (IEC) initial estimate is that 35 percent of ballots were
cast by women.
As we move forward in the transition process, we will continue to
promote Afghan women's rights to sustain these gains. The U.S.-
Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement and the 2012 Tokyo Mutual
Accountability Framework speak to the mutual commitments of the United
States and the Afghan Government in protecting and promoting women's
rights and role in society.
We have also adopted a ``Gender Strategy'' in order to continue to
mainstream gender issues into all of our policies and programs through
transition and beyond. This includes substantial assistance to women to
build their capacity to participate fully in Afghan society--in the
political, economic, education, health and social realms--and, thereby,
help build their country's future.
There can be no progress without women's progress, and nowhere is
this more critical than in Afghanistan. As Secretary Kerry said at
Georgetown last November, we view women's rights in Afghanistan as a
strategic necessity and the surest way to guarantee that Afghanistan
will sustain the progress of the last decade.
fly america act
Question. The Fly America Act requires all Federal agencies,
Government contractors, and subcontractors use U.S.-flag air carriers
for U.S. Government funded air transportation of personnel or property.
Although the Fly America Act is current statute and should be applied
to all U.S. Government contracts regardless of whether the clauses are
explicitly referenced, there have been several instances in which State
Department solicitations do not reference the Fly America Act. There
have also been instances of foreign air carriers being used without an
authorized exception under the Act. While the State Department has
published clear guidance on Fly America Act compliance for personnel,
there does not seem to be guidance concerning contracts, subcontracts,
and Part 135 Air Carriers, which are certified by the FAA for passenger
service of up to 30 persons or cargo service of up to 7500 lbs., and
traditionally provide nonscheduled air transportation services. (Part
121 Air Carriers are also certified by the FAA for passenger and cargo
service exceeding 30 persons or 7500 lbs., and usually provide
scheduled air transportation services.)
Does the State Department provide guidance on Fly America Act
compliance? Does this guidance distinguish between Part 135 and Part
121 Air Carriers? Can you provide a copy of that guidance?
Answer. Regarding passenger travel, the Department's Fly America
Act policy is defined in 14 FAM 583, Use of U.S.-Flag and Foreign Flag
Carriers. The Fly America Act, 49 U.S.C. 40118, establishes as a legal
requirement that all U.S. Government-financed air travel be performed
on U.S.-flag air carriers, where available as defined by 14 FAM 583,
unless certain narrow exceptions apply. The relevant Comptroller
General Guidelines for implementing this Act are found in B-138942,
March 31, 1981 (see 14 FAM 583.7 for travel between two points abroad).
The use of American Flag carriers is enforced using contracted travel
management centers, with close oversight by government travel managers.
The Department's policies for purchasing air and ocean shipping
services as they relate to the various American Flag laws are reflected
in 14 FAM 311 and 14 FAM 314. The Department maintains a close working
relationship with the Maritime Administration and the American Flag
Industry to ensure maximum use of U.S. Flag vessels.
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires the use of clause
FAR 52.247-63 in solicitations/contracts that have possible travel
requirements. The clause requires that all contractors and
subcontractors comply with the Fly America Act. Enforcement is
accomplished during invoice payment and subsequent Defense Contract
Audit Agency (DCAA) audits. Unauthorized expenditures for air transport
using foreign carriers are not allowed. If this happens on one of the
Department contracts, the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) or
the Contracting Officer (CO) will take necessary action to advise the
prime contractor of the clause violation.
All Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) contracts contain
the following clauses and a letter is attached to all Federal Business
Opportunities, FedBizOpps.gov, acquisitions announcements.
--I.79, 52.247-63 PREFERENCE FOR U.S.-FLAG AIR CARRIERS, June 2003
--I.80, 52.247-64 PREFERENCE FOR PRIVATELY OWNED U.S.-FLAG COMMERCIAL
VESSELS, February 2006
In addition to these Department policies and authorities, there are
several internal procedures that institutionalize travel rules and
regulations:
--Department personnel are required to use a designated Travel
Management Center (TMC) to schedule their travel after
receiving approved travel orders;
--A global logistics system is used by transportation managers to
monitor shipments as they move through our logistics system;
and
--A travel vouchering process provides a system to review and approve
travel to ensure that Department rules and regulations have
been followed.
Question. What measures does the State Department take to ensure
contractors remain in compliance with the Fly America Act requirements
for all aviation transportation services paid with State Department
funds?
Answer. The COR monitors the day to day administration of the
contract, to include contractor compliance with the Fly America Act.
The COR or the Contracting Officer will advise the prime contractor of
the clause violation. Additional enforcement is accomplished during
invoice payment and subsequent DCAA audits should a violation be
observed.
Question. Are all subcontracts also required to comply with the Fly
America Act? How are they monitored initially and is there any ongoing
review to ensure compliance?
Answer. The COR is responsible for ensuring all subcontractors
comply with the Fly America Act and the Fly America Clause, FAR
52.247.63. If a subcontractor is found to be in violation of the FAR,
the COR would address the matter with the prime contractor, as outlined
above. There is no requirement to consent to every subcontract and
there is no requirement to perform a constant on-going review.
Question. Have foreign-owned entities ever participated as
subcontractors or joint venture partners in airlift activities in
violation of the Fly America Act? If so, please site the incident(s)
and what steps were then taken by the DOS to ensure future compliance.
Answer. The Department of State does not track such violations. Any
violation found by a COR or CO would have been settled at that time. No
data bases or reports exist that can be searched.
Question. How does the State Department ensure that requirements
written for subcontracts for Part 135 international aviation services
are not written to purposefully exclude otherwise qualified U.S.
carriers?
Answer. Contracting Officers read the requirements documents very
carefully and ensure that they do not violate other FAR requirements or
clauses. If they note a requirement that would violate the Fly America
Act and FAR Clause 52.247-63, they would have the program office remove
that requirement.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Boozman
Question. In your testimony, you touched on several vital ways in
which the foreign affairs budget is used: supporting ongoing struggles
for self-determination and democracy, fighting narco-trafficking across
the globe, and supporting global health initiatives like PEPFAR. One
area that you did not touch on, however, was an area in which would see
an increase of nearly 27 percent under the requested budget: efforts to
counter global climate change. With the ongoing conflicts in Central
Africa and Eastern Europe, Iran's and Syria's continued defiance of
international norms, and many other pressing issues concerning global
and national security, why have you prioritized climate?
Answer. Climate change is one of the most significant global
threats we face and addressing it is an urgent imperative. There is a
pressing need to act now to assist developing countries in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions while achieving economic growth, adapting to
the impacts of climate change, and developing the technical expertise
required to make and keep emission reduction commitments. Climate
assistance is also an opportunity for the United States to lead efforts
to reduce pollution, improve public health, grow our economy, and
reduce poverty abroad. This budget requests targeted investments to
help protect against rising seas encroaching on coastlines and coastal
communities, prolonged and extreme droughts leading to food insecurity
and threatening agriculture-dependent livelihoods, and other hallmarks
of a dramatically changing climate.
The requested funding investment will assist partners around the
world in reducing emissions and adapting to climate change and will
support U.S. diplomatic efforts to negotiate a new international
climate agreement in 2015. In addition, this funding helps protect the
significant efforts we are making at home under the President's Climate
Change Action Plan by promoting a global response so that our actions
are not undermined by inconsistent actions abroad. U.S. leadership is
necessary to bring nations together and forge partnerships to safeguard
future generations from the dangerous and costly repercussions of
global climate change.
This budget request includes nearly $200 million to support clean
energy programs that promote the adoption of renewable and energy
efficient technologies and leverage private sector investment in clean
energy. It also includes almost $200 million to help the most
vulnerable countries adapt and build resilience to the impacts of
climate change and over $120 million to reduce emissions from land use.
These investments also present economic opportunities for both the
United States and developing country partners, including increased
demand for U.S. technologies.
Question. Yesterday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved
legislation to provide aid to Ukraine while implementing sanctions
against those responsible for the undermining of the country's
sovereignty. With the pending illegal referendum in Crimea, can you
comment on the specific steps that the administration is considering to
prevent this attempted annexation by Russia?
Answer. On March 16, 2014, the Ukrainian region of Crimea held an
illegal referendum concerning accession to the Russian Federation. This
referendum was in violation of the Ukrainian constitution, which states
any questions ``of altering the territory of Ukraine are resolved
exclusively by an All-Ukrainian referendum.'' By March 21, the Russian
Federation Council had approved the treaty on Crimea's incorporation
into the Russian Federation.
Since the beginning of Russia's occupation of Crimea, the
administration has engaged the international community, through
organizations such as the United Nations, the OSCE, and the G-7 to
demonstrate the resolute international consensus that such actions do
not belong in the 21st century. The United States and our many partners
have not, and will not, recognize the illegitimate annexation of
Crimea.
Concerning both Ukrainian and Russian individuals complicit in
undermining Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, the
administration has utilized, and will maintain, targeted sanctions
against those in position to effect change in Russia's policy and
actions. Close cooperation with European and other partners has been,
and will remain, a fundamental component of ensuring that sanctioned
individuals experience full financial costs. The consequent uncertain
business climate has already had and will continue to have costs for
Russian interests.
As events move forward, the administration will sustain its efforts
with our European partners in multilateral fora to resolve the crisis
in Ukraine, and encourage Russia to return its troop deployments to
pre-crisis levels and positions. Secretary Kerry pursued these efforts
at the Geneva quadrilateral meeting with representatives of the
European Union, Ukraine, and the Russian Federation on April 17. At the
meeting, the participants agreed that all sides must refrain from any
violence, intimidation or provocative actions; all expressions of
extremism, racism and religious intolerance, including anti-Semitism,
are to be condemned and wholly rejected; all illegal armed groups must
be disarmed; all illegally seized buildings must be returned to
legitimate owners; all illegally occupied streets, squares and other
public places in Ukrainian cities and towns must be vacated. Amnesty
will be granted to protestors and to those who have left buildings and
other public places and surrendered weapons, with the exception of
those found guilty of capital crimes. It was also agreed that the OSCE
Special Monitoring Mission should play a leading role in assisting
Ukrainian authorities and local communities in the immediate
implementation of these de-escalation measures wherever they are needed
most.
Question. You stated in your testimony, ``Our $1 billion loan
guarantee is needed urgently but it's only through the International
Monetary Fund (IMF)--a reformed IMF--that Ukraine will receive the
additional help it needs to stand on its own two feet.'' During
Secretary Lew's testimony before the Senate Budget Committee yesterday,
he confirmed the existence of programs within the IMF for extraordinary
assistance, such as what is being proposed for Ukraine. In light of
this, can you please comment on whether congressional approval of IMF
reform is actually required to assist Ukraine?
Answer. Ratification of the IMF reforms would support the IMF's
capacity to lend additional resources to Ukraine and other countries in
crisis, preserve the U.S. veto over important institutional decisions,
and do so without increasing the current U.S. financial commitment to
the IMF. The reforms would put the IMF's finances on a more stable
long-term footing, which would provide the institution with more
financial flexibility in lending additional resources to Ukraine, and
increase Ukraine's IMF quota. We are the last major economy to act and
our approval is the only remaining step for these important reforms to
go into effect.
Question. I would like to shift to Afghanistan. Just last week,
General Austin testified that ``in the wake of such a precipitous
departure, [the Afghan Government's] long-term viability is likely to
be at high risk and the odds of an upsurge in terrorists' capability
increases without continued substantial international economic and
security assistance.'' Do you agree with this assessment? Additionally,
what are the State Department's lessons learned from our withdrawal
from Iraq, given the current instability and security situation there?
Answer. Despite many advances in Afghanistan, we anticipate
continued support will be necessary post-2014, consistent with the
Strategic Partnership Agreement signed in 2012. This is why we seek to
conclude a Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) and why NATO is
negotiating its own status of forces agreement.
Afghanistan is different from Iraq in key respects. We have signed
a Strategic Partnership Agreement with Afghanistan that commits us to
continued security and economic cooperation over the long term. In 2011
the Iraqis did not want a continued U.S. presence. They did not think
they needed us, and no significant Iraqi official was prepared to argue
publicly for a continued U.S. military presence. By contrast,
consistent polling results and the outcome of the Loya Jirga in
November 2013 show that there is broad support among political elites
and ordinary Afghans for a continued international presence post-2014.
Moreover, all of Afghanistan's leading Presidential candidates have
said that signing the BSA would be a top priority once elected.
Question. You have indicated that a bad deal with Iran is worse
than no deal. Therefore, what do you believe would constitute a bad
deal?
Answer. The administration is working with the P5+1 and EU to reach
a comprehensive solution to the international community's concerns with
Iran's nuclear program. Our goal remains to prevent Iran from acquiring
a nuclear weapon and ensure that its nuclear program is exclusively
peaceful. All of the things on which we will have to reach agreement in
the course of the negotiations are addressed in the Joint Plan of
Action. We are looking to ensure that we have the right combination of
measures in place to ensure Iran cannot acquire a nuclear weapon. This
is why we agreed in the Joint Plan of Action that nothing is agreed
until everything is agreed in a comprehensive solution. All members of
the P5+1 must agree on any final decision, so we will be able to ensure
that an agreement meets our needs. Anything that falls short of meeting
our needs would be a bad deal.
Question. As you know, in December of 2012, the United States
closed its Embassy and recalled its diplomats in the Central African
Republic (CAR) due to the escalating conflict. Despite the seemingly
successful election of an interim president, sectarian violence and
regional instability continue to rise. Can you comment on whether we
plan on returning our diplomatic presence?
Answer. The United States is concerned with inter-religious
violence in the CAR and remains committed to working with the
international community to support the CAR transitional government in
its efforts to end the violence and build a transitional political
process. The Department of State is reviewing the re-opening of Embassy
Bangui in light of our strong interest in better supporting the
restoration of democratic governance in CAR. The purpose of the review
is to obtain a decision on whether a U.S. presence in Bangui is viable
in light of the level of insecurity. There is no firm date for a
decision on whether to re-open Embassy Bangui at this time. While not
optimal, officials continue temporary duty visits and employ other
mechanisms to monitor events in, and implement policies toward, CAR.
______
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Leahy. On a personal note, I wish you luck on your
trip tonight.
Secretary Kerry. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Leahy. Thank you for trying. Like in any diplomacy,
you have to go down a lot of dead ends before you hit the right
one. Thank you for keeping trying.
Secretary Kerry. Thank for very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a
privilege to be with you. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:28 p.m., Thursday, March 13, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2015
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:17 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Leahy, Landrieu, Coons, Graham, Coats,
Johanns, and Boozman.
UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
STATEMENT OF DR. RAJIV SHAH, ADMINISTRATOR
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY
Senator Leahy. Good morning.
We are meeting today to hear testimony from Dr. Rajiv Shah,
who is the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International
Development, to discuss USAID's fiscal year 2015 budget
request. Dr. Shah, thank you for being here.
USAID, like every Federal agency, needs to adapt to a
changing world, and so does Congress. If we want to do that
effectively, we need a shared understanding of USAID's core
purpose.
I have always assumed it is sustainable development, and I
believe, Dr. Shah, you would agree with that. But today,
USAID's strength seems to be saving lives, and feeding people,
technological innovation, and other such things that are
unquestionably important. Many of them I strongly support:
efforts to bring down the rate of maternal deaths, ways to help
immunize more children; these I strongly support.
I do not want to over generalize, but these activities are
often not the same as building institutions and organizations,
owned and run by foreign governments and communities which, to
me, is what real development, sustainable development, is
about.
And while USAID's renewed emphasis on partnership is
welcome, it often seems as if USAID still tends to view NGOs,
or other organizations, as instruments of what USAID wants to
do, not as partners.
I am optimistic about USAID Forward and its focus on
country ownership, and eventually working yourselves, USAID,
out of a job. Outsiders can help. And local entities--whether
governments, civil society, or private companies--need to be in
charge and take responsibility for the results.
There is a lot of talk about capacity, either the lack of
it or the need to build it. Of course, it is necessary to be
able to set realistic goals, and do the work, and keep track of
money spent. But I also know that a lot of capacity already
exists, especially if we do not try to do too much, too fast.
Many local organizations may not have the clout, or the
connections, or the lobbyists that big U.S. contractors or
grantees have. All they have going for them is they are often
better at getting results than we are. What they lack is the
capacity to navigate the reams of pages of extremely technical,
incomprehensibly bureaucratic USAID applications for funding. I
am a lawyer. I did well in college. I did well in law school
and I am benumbed by some of these applications; a lot of this
is government-wide and not just of USAID's making. I worry
about creating a whole new industry of high priced, capacity-
building consultants. They would love the idea. We have a lot
of lobbyists in this town who rely on it.
But even though there has been progress, I think after 4
years you would agree, USAID Forward has a long way to go.
Local organizations may increasingly look for other models than
USAID, if USAID does not make further changes in how staff is
recruited, trained, and deployed to work with local
organizations and institutions.
Other than responding to humanitarian crises, it makes no
sense to spend money without a coherent strategy focused on
sustainability. Afghanistan is probably the most egregious
example of what not to do, but there are others.
Now, I say this as I also recognize that USAID has a lot to
be proud of. I have seen some of those successes. I have seen
your people in the field, sometimes in dangerous conditions,
and I applaud you for that. But I am worried about our foreign
aid programs. I am worried that they are not as relevant or
effective as we may think and say they are. And we have to pay
attention in this committee because it has been 25 or 30 years
since we have had an authorization bill, so we have to do it
here.
You inherited an Agency that had lost its bearings. I told
you 4 years ago, I think I said that I did not know whether to
offer you congratulations or condolences when you became the
head of it. There has been progress, but we have to focus on
producing sustainable outcomes.
Now, I want to mention the recent press reports on USAID's
Twitter program in Cuba. I will have a number of questions
about it. We should remember that while we debate what USAID is
doing in Cuba, U.S. citizen Alan Gross remains in solitary
confinement in his fifth year of captivity, solely because he
was carrying out a USAID program which was poorly conceived and
poorly implemented.
Alan Gross is confined to his cell 23 hours of every day. I
have visited Mr. Gross twice. On April 3rd, he began a hunger
strike to protest his detention by the Cuban Government, and
the failure--the failure--of the United States Government, and
this Administration, to take effective steps to obtain his
release.
It is long past time for the Administration and the Cuban
Government to negotiate a resolution of this ordeal so Mr.
Gross can return home. Now, I am told by the Administration,
``Well, if you only knew all the things we are doing.'' All I
know is whatever they are doing has not accomplished anything.
PREPARED STATEMENT
There is a way to resolve it, there is ample precedent for
doing so, it is in our national interest, and it could be done
immediately if the Administration really wants to. That is my
own personal view.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Good morning. We are meeting today to hear testimony from Dr. Rajiv
Shah, Administrator of the United States Agency for International
Development, who will discuss USAID's fiscal year 2015 budget request.
Dr. Shah, thank you for being here.
USAID, like every Federal agency, needs to adapt to a fast changing
world. So does the Congress. In order to do that effectively, we need a
shared understanding of USAID's core purpose.
I have always assumed it is sustainable development, and I am sure,
Dr. Shah, you would agree.
But today, USAID's strength seems to be saving lives, feeding
people, technological innovation, and other such things that are
unquestionably important. Many of them I strongly support.
I don't want to overgeneralize, but these activities are often not
the same as building institutions and organizations, owned and run by
foreign governments and communities, which to me is what real
development--sustainable development--is about.
And while USAID's renewed emphasis on partnership is welcome, it
often seems as if USAID still tends to view non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) or other organizations as instruments of what
USAID wants to do, rather than as partners in their own right.
I was optimistic about USAID Forward, and its focus on country
ownership and eventually working yourselves out of a job. Outsiders can
help, but local entities, whether government or civil society or
private companies, need to be in charge and take responsibility for the
results.
There is a lot of talk about capacity--either the lack of it or the
need to build it. Of course it is necessary to be able to set realistic
goals, do the work, and keep track of money spent.
But I also know that a lot of capacity already exists--especially
if we do not try to do too much, too fast. Many local organizations may
not have the clout or connections that big U.S. contractors or grantees
have, but they are often better at what they do.
What they lack is the capacity to navigate the reams of pages of
extremely technical, incomprehensibly bureaucratic USAID applications
for funding. A lot of this is governmentwide and not of USAID's making,
but I worry about creating a whole new industry of high-priced
capacity-building consultants.
There has been progress, but after 4 years I suspect you would
agree that USAID Forward has a long way to go. Local organizations may
increasingly look for other models than USAID, if USAID doesn't make
further changes--from how staff are recruited, oriented, and deployed
to how USAID missions get to know and work with local organizations and
institutions.
Other than responding to humanitarian crises, it makes no sense to
spend money without a coherent strategy focused on sustainability.
Afghanistan is probably the most egregious example of what not to do,
but there are many others.
USAID has a lot to be proud of. I have seen some of those
successes, and I applaud you for them. But I am worried about our
foreign aid programs. I am worried that they are not as relevant or
effective as we may think and say they are.
You inherited an agency that had lost its bearings. I told you 4
years ago that I did not know whether to offer my congratulations or
condolences. There has been progress, but we need to focus on producing
sustainable outcomes.
I also want to mention the recent press reports on USAID's twitter
program in Cuba, and I will have a number of questions about it. But we
should remember that while we debate what USAID is doing in Cuba, U.S.
citizen Alan Gross remains in solitary confinement in Havana in his 5th
year of captivity, solely because he was carrying out a USAID program.
Alan Gross is confined to his cell 23 hours of every day. On April
3, Mr. Gross, who I have visited twice, began a hunger strike to
protest his detention by the Cuban Government and the failure--the
failure--of his own Government to take meaningful steps to obtain his
release. As far as I can tell, USAID has all but forgotten about him.
It is long past time for the administration and the Cuban
Government to negotiate a resolution of this ordeal so Mr. Gross can
return home. Whatever past attempts have been made on his behalf have
achieved nothing, and I believe in some respects they have made his
situation worse. There is a way to resolve it, there is ample precedent
for doing so, and it is in our national interest.
Senator Graham.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is what oversight is all about, is it not? Asking hard
questions and making people justify their action, or lack of
action.
From the committee's point of view, $20.1 billion is what
the USAID budget is, of about $48 billion of foreign
assistance. So it is a big part of what we do.
From an Afghanistan point of view, I think the elections
have seemed to have gone very well. I know that you have people
all over Afghanistan trying to build capacity that is
sustainable. And I hope the American people appreciate that
these elections came off because of a lot of sacrifice by
Afghans, coalition forces, and people on the ground. So that is
something to appreciate and, quite frankly, celebrate. We have
some articles about USAID aid in Afghanistan that we would like
you to comment on, Dr. Shah.
But bottom line, 4 years ago, you did inherit, for lack of
a better word, a mess and I think you have done, overall, a
very good job of trying to bring the private sector to partner
with the Government. As Senator Leahy said, there is more to
do, particularly in the faith-based area.
But the collaboration between our Government, NGOs, and the
private sector, particularly in Africa, has unlimited ability.
And I appreciate your willingness to reach out and form these
partnerships because that makes sure that we have the highest
and best use of the money that the taxpayer puts forward.
Finally, from a taxpayer's point of view, there is a strain
in my party, I am sure all over America, quite frankly, that
wants to disengage. And I just want to reinforce that the
entire foreign operations budget is about 1 percent of Federal
spending, and the world is rapidly changing. Some areas for the
better; in many places, it is deteriorating. USAID is a way for
the Government of the United States to have a presence without
military force that, I think, can be a positive presence.
So I want to continue to support Senator Leahy's view of
oversight, but also continue to support Budget Requests that
make us stronger as a Nation.
So on behalf of the committee, and I think the senate as a
whole, we appreciate the dangers that your people face every
day, and your willingness to represent our Government and the
American values we all share in some of the most dangerous,
contentious places in the world. And I look forward to hearing
your testimony.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DR. RAJIV SHAH
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Senator Leahy, Senator Graham, members
of the committee.
I would like to start just by saying thank you to you,
Senator Leahy. Your leadership on behalf of America's
engagement around the world on human rights, on civil society,
on supporting local institutions, and on all of the things we
do in health, food, agriculture, water, sanitation, have
literally helped tens of millions, hundreds of millions of
people improve their lot in life all around world, and to help
make our country safer and more secure.
Senator Graham, thank you for your specific leadership,
especially on difficult, but important issues like Afghanistan
where, I believe, we first had the chance, one of the chances,
to meet out there together. And I look to you for guidance and
counsel in carrying out my duties.
I also want to thank all the members of the committee. I
have appreciated, and continue to appreciate, your engagement,
advice, and support as we have been trying to carry out our
mission.
Over the course of the last year, one of the things we did
was ask 2,700 of our staff to work with us to more clearly
define and articulate our mission. And today, we know that our
core mission is to partner to end extreme poverty and promote
resilient, democratic societies while advancing American
security and prosperity.
For the first time in decades, it is now possible to
envision a world without the kind of dollar-a-day poverty that
robs people of their human dignity. You have supported, over
the last 4 years, a significant investment in rebuilding USAID
as the world's premiere development institution, and I want to
say thank you for that.
Under your leadership, and with your support, we have
rebuilt our staff; hired dozens of experts across a range of
different areas; rebuilt our budgets in areas like food, and
agriculture, and child survival; engaged and built a policy
team that allows USAID to articulate America's vision for
partnership to address the needs of the world's most
vulnerable; and worked to expand our partner base to work with
hundreds of new institutions, many local organizations, and
most through direct new partnerships that enable them to drive
forward success.
You have helped us ensure that we monitor and evaluate all
of our major programs, going from publishing a few dozen
monitoring and evaluation reports a year, to now publishing
nearly 300 a year, all of which are available on an iPhone app,
if you have the interest, and a long plane ride. These efforts
collectively have helped us deliver comprehensive results
across our major areas of investment.
And the President's fiscal year 2015 budget request for
USAID focuses on, and invests, in what works in global
development. The Budget includes $1 billion for the President's
Feed the Future program that now works in 19 countries, reaches
7 million farm households, gets them access to new agricultural
technologies, helps to move 12\1/2\ million children who
otherwise would be malnourished out of a condition of under-
nourishment and towards nutritional sufficiency. And has
already leveraged nearly $400 million of private investment out
of the nearly $4 billion of commitments we have secured from
more than 140 companies to co-invest with us.
These efforts, together and with your support, will allow
us to reduce extreme poverty in the countries where we work by
more than 20 percent, and reduce the number of children who are
stunted from malnutrition by an equivalent amount.
The budget asks for nearly $2.7 billion for child survival,
and over the last decade, there has been no other area of work
where the United States gets a better return on investment.
Having gone from having more than 11 million children die every
year to 6.6 million this year, and well on our way to having
that number be near 1 million in the next 15 to 20 years going
forward.
In other areas--like education, water, and energy--with
your support, we have crafted new partnerships, new goals,
created and put forth transparent metrics, and reported on
progress in a quantitative, specific, businesslike way.
Our efforts to promote disaster assistance have been taxed
significantly over the past year, given the fact that we now
have three Level 3 disasters around the world: In and around
Syria, in the Central African Republic, and in South Sudan. I
appreciate the extra efforts the committee has made to ensure
that humanitarian funding exists for these efforts. And our
work has been carried out to a level of excellence that we just
saw in the Typhoon Haiyan response in the Philippines that was
just the subject of a roundtable discussion with ASEAN Defense
Ministers that Secretary Hagel and I co-chaired in Honolulu
early last week.
Our work in democracy and governance helps to improve our
national security, and we are actively working to support the
free and fair conduct of elections in Ukraine. And I am
extraordinarily proud of our Embassy and USAID mission teams
that have spent 18 months working to ensure that the Afghan
election was accessible, particularly to women, safe, carried
out by institutions led by Afghans themselves, and had a
complaints process and fraud mitigation strategy that was
effectively deployed just last week as nearly 58 percent of
eligible voters went to the polls.
I look forward to our discussion on Cuba because I want to
talk about some of our work that is more difficult to execute,
and learn from members of the committee.
And I want to conclude just by noting that I often worry
about what is difficult for us. Can our country maintain a high
level of political commitment so that we can lead the world in
humanitarian development and global health efforts over the
next two decades?
In my more than 4 years in this role, I have seen hundreds
of new partnerships with private businesses, with scientists
and universities, with faith communities, with leaders from
congress in both the House and the Senate on both sides of the
aisle. And I am convinced, especially after having the
opportunity to deliver this year's Prayer Breakfast Address
that, in fact, America can, should, and if we do our jobs well,
will lead the world to end extreme poverty in the next two
decades.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Rajiv Shah
Thank you Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Graham, and members of the
subcommittee. I am pleased to join you to discuss the President's
fiscal year 2015 budget request for the U.S. Agency for International
Development.
Four years ago, President Obama set forth a new vision of a
results-driven USAID that would lead the world in development. We have
since risen to this challenge, pioneering a new model of development
that brings a greater emphasis on partnerships, innovation, and
results. We are guided in these efforts by a new mission statement: we
partner to end extreme poverty and promote resilient democratic
societies while advancing our security and prosperity.
Although these goals are not new, they reflect a unique moment in
development today when exciting opportunities are emerging to change
what is possible. In a time of fiscal restraint, we are applying the
new model to seize this moment and reach more people, save more lives,
and leverage more private investment than ever before--delivering
results for the American people and those in greatest need around the
world.
The President's fiscal year 2015 budget responds to unprecedented
development challenges, including some of the most significant events
unfolding on the world stage today.
When Typhoon Haiyan swept across the Philippines, we swung into
action, leading and coordinating the U.S. Government civilian and
military humanitarian response and distributing life-saving aid,
including highly-nutritious food products to feed hungry children and
adults. In Ukraine, we remain committed to helping citizens realize the
democratic aspirations that many spent months on the Maidan demanding.
For nearly 20 years, we have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the people
of Ukraine, putting 1.8 million land titles into the hands of farmers
and helping civil society leaders develop recommendations, including on
anti-corruption, in an comprehensive reform package for the government.
Many of the recommendations are being implemented through new and
revised legislation.
In South Sudan, as citizens face a looming humanitarian catastrophe
that will leave half the country on the brink of famine, we are racing
against the clock to save lives. And as we saw just a few days ago,
citizens in Afghanistan voted for a new president to lead them towards
a brighter, more stable future. In support of the Afghan-owned election
process, USAID provided extensive guidance on how to prevent electoral
fraud, as well as capacity building support for independent domestic
observers, civil society, media, and political parties to help ensure a
transparent electoral process.
The budget enables us to respond effectively to these events and
address the underlying causes of extreme poverty through President
Obama's Feed the Future, Global Health, Global Climate Change, and
Power Africa initiatives. It advances our national security by building
linkages to emerging markets, strengthening democracy and human rights,
and promoting broad-based economic growth. It helps vulnerable
communities strengthen their resilience to crises and natural
disasters. It facilitates strategic engagement in the Middle East and
North Africa, as well as across the Asia-Pacific and Latin America. It
also focuses our activities in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq,
ensuring that we sustain the gains we have made.
Even though we work far from home, our work continues to realize
benefits for our home: for opportunities we open for American
businesses, the skills of our young people we help build, and the
threats to our security that we help prevent. For less than 1 percent
of the Federal budget, we are delivering results that shape a more
secure and prosperous future for the American people and the world.
a new model for development
The fiscal year 2015 budget request for USAID managed or partially
managed accounts is $20.1 billion, 1 percent below the total enacted
fiscal year 2014 funding for these accounts. In this constrained budget
environment, USAID is focused on maximizing the value of every dollar.
Over the past 5 years, we have made difficult choices about where our
work will have the greatest impact, shifting resources and personnel to
better advance our mission of ending extreme poverty around the world.
Since 2010, regional bureaus have reduced program areas by 34
percent; USAID global health program areas have been phased out of 23
countries; and Feed the Future agriculture programs have been phased
out of 26 countries. We are reducing programs in countries that have
turned a corner, like Mongolia, and transitioning Missions to Offices.
We are shifting resources to countries in critical need and where our
work has the widest impact.
Over the past 3 years, the USAID Forward reform agenda has touched
upon every part of our Agency. We've revamped our budget to include
more rigorous performance monitoring and impact evaluation, expanded
the use of science, technology, and public-private partnerships, and
improved talent management. In each area of reform, we set aspirational
targets that have established a common language for success, challenged
our partners, and encouraged us to step out of our comfort zone.
Taken together, these reforms have formed the foundation of a new
model of development that defines the way we work around the world.
With this new model, we are backing cutting-edge innovation, taking
advantage of fast-moving technology, and harnessing the vast potential
of the development community to achieve unprecedented results.
Today, all our major programs are independently evaluated, and
those evaluations are available right now on an iPhone app--an
unprecedented level of transparency. The quality of our evaluations has
improved significantly, which is an important sign that we are
increasingly grounding our work in evidence and data. Missions are
reporting dozens of different ways that these evaluations are
strengthening our programs in the field. Through an evaluation in
Benin, we learned that community health programs naturally favored men
in their hiring, which limited our ability to provide care to women. So
we're redesigning our recruitment to help more women become community
health workers.
Working closely with local leaders, governments, and organizations,
we are strengthening the capacity of our partner countries to create
stronger communities and brighter futures without our assistance. In
2013 alone, our emphasis on local solutions enabled us to support 1,150
local organizations in 74 countries. In the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, for instance, we have worked with 12 local governments to
improve their tax collection, so they can afford to pay the salaries of
teachers and health workers. As a result, they have increased revenues
by 95 percent since 2009.
We are also mobilizing a new generation of innovators and
scientists to advance our mission. Launched last week, the U.S. Global
Development Lab represents an historic investment in the power of
science and technology to bend the curve of development. With $151
million in funding, it will generate and scale breakthrough solutions
to complex development challenges, while attracting private sector
investment to improve the sustainability of our solutions. Already, it
has generated cutting-edge inventions--including the bubble continuous
positive airway pressure (CPAP), a device from Texas that can
resuscitate newborns at a fraction of the price of existing machines.
To maximize the impact of the Lab, we seek new authorities from
Congress. These include the ability to hire a diverse range of staff;
to use development assistance funding programmed for science,
technology, and innovation for all development purposes, including
health; and to use a ``pay-for-success'' model to incentivize the best
solutions from innovators around the world--all of which will help us
catalyze a wave of innovation that solves the toughest development
challenges on the planet.
We are increasingly focused on engaging a wide array of partners,
from our long-standing partners in the development community, to faith
organizations, to multi-national corporations. Through our Development
Credit Authority (DCA), we unlocked a record $1.02 billion over the
last 2 years alone in commercial capital to empower entrepreneurs
around the world. Earlier this year, we partnered with GE and Kenya
Commercial Bank to help healthcare providers buy life-saving healthcare
equipment, including portable ultrasound devices and magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI) machines. For the first time ever, our private sector
partner is covering the cost of the loan guarantee--making this program
virtually costless for the American taxpayer. To build on this success,
the request seeks to increase the annual cap on loans under DCA
guarantees from $1.5 billion to $2 billion, a measure that will enable
us to ramp up high-impact projects, particularly through Power Africa.
core priorities
Under the leadership of President Obama, we are applying the new
model to deliver unprecedented results across our work, from expanding
access to mobile money to empowering women and girls to strengthening
land tenure rights to safeguarding the world's biodiversity.
Feed the Future
In this request, $1 billion is devoted to Feed the Future,
President Obama's global food security initiative. After several years,
Feed the Future has hit its stride--delivering results that are
changing the face of poverty and hunger for some of the world's poorest
families.
In 2012, we reached 12 million children with programs to strengthen
their nutrition and helped more than 7 million farmers increase their
yields through new technologies and management practices. Reported
incremental sales of farmers working with Feed the Future programs
worldwide increased their sales from $100 million in 2012 to over $130
million in 2013. These results are grounded in a robust management
system for gathering timely, accurate data that measures everything
from household income to the participation of women to the prevalence
of stunting. Just as the Demographic and Health Surveys helped
dramatically expand monitoring capabilities in global health, Feed the
Future's new open data platform is transforming our knowledge and
informing cutting-edge approaches.
This year's budget request builds on these results with an
integrated nutrition approach to reduce stunting by 20 percent--a
target that will prevent 2 million children from suffering from this
devastating condition over the next 5 years.
In Kenya, the reported gross margin of livestock farmers receiving
training on improved management practices and support to partner with
cooperatives increased over 45 percent from 2012 to 2013, from $371 to
$541 per cow. Feed the Future activities in Kenya support rural
smallholders who account for over 80 percent of the country's raw milk
production. Farmers in Bangladesh using new fertilizer technologies
more than doubled the production of rice from 2011 to 2013. New
technologies and management practices such as this also contributed to
increases in the rice farmers' gross margin per hectare from $431 in
2012 to $587 in 2013. Across Central America, Feed the Future is
helping trading unions to meet international standards and maintain
access to agricultural markets in the United States.
Two years ago, President Obama led global food security efforts to
the next stage, introducing the New Alliance for Food Security and
Nutrition. Today, it is a $3.75 billion public-private partnership that
is enabling reforms from 10 African governments and commitments from
more than 140 global and local companies. For instance, Ghana Nuts--an
agricultural business that was once an aid recipient--is now a multi-
million dollar company employing 500 people. Under the New Alliance, it
has committed to strengthening local supply chains, reaching 27,000
smallholder farmers with more than $4 million in investments.
At the same time, the governments we work with through the New
Alliance have committed to significant market-oriented policy reforms.
Recently, Burkina Faso launched an electronic platform that increases
the transparency and speed of their customs processes. Last summer,
Mozambique, Cote d'Ivoire, and other New Alliance nations committed to
policy reforms that will foster private sector investment in
smallholder farmers, particularly women.
Global Health
With strong bipartisan support, we are providing critical health
assistance more efficiently than ever before. We have narrowed our
focus on maternal and child health to the 24 countries that represent
more than 70 percent of maternal and child deaths in the developing
world. Through the $2.7 billion request for USAID Global Health
Programs--along with State Department Global Health Programs for $5.4
billion--we will work towards ending the tragedy of preventable child
and maternal death, creating an AIDS-free generation, and protecting
communities from infectious diseases.
Around the world, we are seeing real results of global partnerships
to accelerate progress towards these goals. Since 2010, 15 of our 24
priority countries have rolled out the pneumonia vaccine with Global
Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) support; and since 2011,
8 have introduced rotavirus vaccines against diarrheal diseases. In
2013, the President's Malaria Initiative (PMI) protected over 45
million people with a prevention measure. Since 2006, all the original
15 PMI focus countries have had reductions in childhood mortality
rates, ranging from 16 to 50 percent.
In 2013, Saving Mothers Giving Life, a USAID-led public-private
partnership, contributed to a 30 percent decline in the maternal
mortality ratio in target districts of Uganda and a 35 percent
reduction of maternal deaths in target facilities in Zambia.
Since 2006, our support for neglected tropical diseases has
expanded to reach 25 countries. In the countries where we work, nearly
35.8 million people no longer require treatment for blinding trachoma,
and 52.4 million people no longer require treatment for lymphatic
filariasis.
Since USAID's 2012 Child Survival Call to Action, nearly a dozen
countries, representing those with the highest global rates of child
death, have launched their own local calls to action, set national
targets, and are creating evidence-based business plans to focus
resources in acutely vulnerable regions.
We will continue to make cost-effective interventions that save
lives--from preventing the spread of disease, to providing nutrition to
millions of hungry children around the world.
Climate Change
Of the President's $506.3 million request for the Global Climate
Change Initiative implemented in partnership with the Department of
State, USAID implements approximately $348.5 million and invests in
developing countries best suited to accelerate transitions to climate-
resilient, low-emission economic growth. In fiscal year 2013, USAID
helped over 600,000 stakeholders implement risk-reducing practices or
use climate information in decisionmaking. These stakeholders are
impact multipliers, including meteorologists, agricultural extension
workers, and disaster planners who use this information to improve the
climate resilience of millions of people in their countries and
regions.
Across the world, we are harnessing innovation, evidence, and
technology to help vulnerable communities anticipate and take action to
reduce the impacts of climate change. Today, a joint venture between
USAID and NASA--called SERVIR--provides communities in 29 countries
with global satellite-based climate information, including sending
frost alerts to tea growers in Kenya and fire alerts to forest
officials in Nepal.
USAID is pioneering a new approach that puts people on a path from
dependency to resilience, while expanding broad-based economic growth.
From small farming collectives to multi-national corporations, our
partners are pursuing climate-resilient, low-emission development. In
support of the Tropical Forest Alliance 2020, we recently helped launch
the Global Forest Watch, a forest alert system that utilizes real-time
satellite data to help countries reduce tropical deforestation and
enable companies to monitor their supply chains.
The Global Climate Change Initiative advances practical, on-the-
ground solutions to help developing countries contribute to the global
effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while achieving development
goals. Since 2010, USAID and the State Department have established 25
bilateral agreements with partner countries to develop and implement
for low emissions development strategies. This support is helping
advance the transition to lower carbon energy systems by creating
enabling environments for public and private investments in efficient,
clean energy sources, and sustainably reduce emissions from land use
such as deforestation and agriculture.
Power Africa
The fiscal year 2015 request advances our Nation's commitments to
Africa with initiatives like Trade Africa and Power Africa. With $77
million requested in this budget, Power Africa represents a bipartisan
approach to use public-private partnerships to double access to power
on the continent and connect American investors and entrepreneurs to
business opportunities abroad. Less than a year since launching, more
than 5,500 mega-watts of power projects have been planned--putting us
more than halfway towards our goal of expanding electricity to 20
million people and businesses. For every dollar that the U.S.
Government has committed, the private sector has committed two--over
$14 billion so far.
With an initial set of six partner countries, Power Africa focuses
on completing projects quickly and efficiently, while encouraging
countries to make energy sector reforms critical to their success. In
Ethiopia, for example, Power Africa is supporting the first independent
power producer geothermal plant in the country, a project that will
pave the way for future private sector investment and provide enough
power to reach tens of thousands of people. In Kenya, Power Africa is
enabling the construction of the largest privately-owned wind farm in
Sub-Saharan Africa--helping millions leapfrog dirtier, unhealthier
phases of development and join a global low-carbon economy.
Education
Education remains a critical focus for the Agency. Our request for
Basic Education is $534.3 million, an increase of 6.6 percent over our
fiscal year 2014 request.
Through the ``Room to Learn'' program, we are intensifying our
efforts in six countries--including Nigeria and Afghanistan--where
endemic poverty and conflict conspire to rob children of their futures.
In the Katanga Province in Democratic Republic of the Congo, in the
schools we support, we have seen a 40 percent decrease in students
repeating a grade from 2010 to 2013. The drop-out rate was also 65
percent lower than in 2010.
From Kenya to Afghanistan, we're seeing reading skills develop and
enrollment--especially for girls--jump. Our strategic shift to
improving primary grade reading for tens of millions of kids brings
with it a commitment to measuring results through student learning
achievements. In Malawi, we used early grade reading assessments to
evaluate students' foundation skills--giving their parents and teachers
a way to measure their progress. Today, second graders who receive
interventions like these have comprehension levels four times those in
control groups.
By maintaining our focus on global education as a core development
objective, we can brighten the future for millions of vulnerable
children, including children in crisis environments. With widespread
illiteracy estimated to cost the global economy more than 1 trillion
dollars this year alone, these programs are not only advancing
America's standing as the world's development leader in education, but
are also energizing the global economy.
Water
While the world has seen tremendous progress on expanding access to
safe drinking water--halving the proportion of people without
sustainable access since 1990--a lot of work remains. This budget
request continues the implementation of our first-ever Water and
Development Strategy, which outlines a goal to save lives and advance
development through improvements in water for health and water for
food. The Strategy sets explicit targets of sustainably providing 10
million people with access to improved water supply and 6 million
people with access to improved sanitation over the next 5 years.
Through our Development Innovation Ventures fund, we're partnering
with the Gates Foundation to help bring safe drinking water to at least
4 million of the world's poor. Called WASH for Life, this initiative
will source and rigorously test great ideas to improve access to water
and sanitation service. Last year, in Kenya, we leveraged a Development
Credit Authority guarantee to extend piped water supply in Kisumu for
over 1,500 piped water connections to benefit over 8,500 individuals.
The request for WASH funding is $231 million in this budget. Budget
requests for WASH programs have typically been about $230 million, and
because of the number of program areas we engage in with water
investments--from OFDA's emergency response work, to resilience
programs in regions of chronic crisis like the Horn of Africa and the
Sahel, to Feed the Future agricultural infrastructure support--our
actual programming for all water activities has grown to over $500
million, and we expect similar levels in the year ahead.
supporting regional priorities and strengthening national security
This budget also maintains our Nation's tremendous leadership in
humanitarian response with $4.8 billion requested in State and USAID
funding. In the last year, we have responded to unprecedented need
around the world--saving lives from the Philippines to South Sudan.
In Syria, we currently provide life-saving aid for 4.2 million
people in all 14 governorates across the country, as well as more than
2 million people who have fled the violence into neighboring countries.
At the same time, we are supporting neighboring Jordan and Lebanon to
manage the overwhelming influx of refugees from Syria. We have worked
with local school systems to accommodate Syrian children, and in some
areas, helped them adjust their schedules so that local children can
learn in the morning and Syrian kids in the afternoon.
Thanks to strong bipartisan support, we have begun reforms that
mainly address our development food aid programs, allowing us to reach
an additional 800,000 hungry people every year with the same resources.
The need for this flexibility grows more urgent every day, as crises
deepen from Syria to the Central African Republic to South Sudan. That
is why this budget calls for reforms to be extended to emergency food
assistance. We are seeking the flexibility to use up to 25 percent of
title II resources for life-saving tools, like vouchers and local
procurement--allowing us to reach 2 million more people in crises with
our existing resources.
While we remain the world's leader in humanitarian response, we are
increasingly focused on ensuring communities can better withstand and
bounce back from shocks--like droughts, floods, and conflict--that push
the most vulnerable people into crisis again and again. In the Horn of
Africa, which suffered a devastating drought 2 years ago, we're
deploying mapping technology to help farming communities find new
sources of water. In the Sahel, we're partnering with U.S. Special
Operations Command to conduct detailed analysis and geo-spatial mapping
of the region. These efforts have given U.S. development and military
professionals a deeper understanding of both the drivers of conflict
and ways to build resilience.
We are working effectively to both protect and manage the
environment that supports us. In addition, we are harnessing
innovation, evidence, and technology to reduce consumer demand for
endangered species and stop wildlife trafficking. For instance, no
tigers or rhinos were poached in Nepal in 2013 due to our sustained
investments in community-based conservation. This past January, USAID
partners convened 28 African and Asian countries to participate in an
enforcement operation that resulted in more than 400 arrests and the
seizure of three metric tons of ivory, 10,000 turtles, and 1,000 skins
of protected species.
We're pioneering a new approach that puts people on a path from
dependency to resilience, while expanding broad-based economic growth.
USAID and State Department are requesting $2 billion globally in
the Development Assistance and Economic Support Fund accounts to
strengthen democracy, human rights, and governance. Thanks to USAID's
rapid-response capability on civil society laws, we were able to take
advantage of political openings in Libya, Tunisia and Burma to
encourage early reformers to adopt consultative government-civil
society processes that have led to much-improved civil society
legislation, which in turn will pave the way for further political
opening.
In fiscal year 2015, the State Department and USAID have requested
nearly $1.5 billion to support democratic transitions and respond to
emerging crises in the Middle East and North Africa. For example, in
Tunisia, we worked with civil society and the government to implement
some of the most progressive non-governmental organization (NGO) laws
in the region. The new law passed as a result of a consultative
government-civil society process and is now considered a model for the
region; the new Libyan draft civil society organization law is based on
peer consultations with Tunisians on their law.
Of the President's $2.8 billion assistance request for the
Frontline States, USAID implements $1.8 billion for long-term
development assistance, continuing to work closely with interagency
partners--including the State and Defense departments--to move toward
long-term stability, promote economic growth, and support governance
reforms, including the rights of women.
This request is tailored to support our three-fold transition
strategy in Afghanistan, including maintaining gains in health,
education, and the empowerment of women; promoting economic growth; and
improving stability by supporting more accountable and effective Afghan
governance, which is especially critical in the first year after the
2014 presidential election.
Our assistance in Afghanistan has helped deliver incredible gains.
Today, 77,000 university students--a nine-fold increase from 2001--will
form a new generation of leaders. The wait time for goods crossing the
border with Pakistan has fallen from 8 days to 3.5 hours--saving $38
million every year and opening access to new markets for farmers and
entrepreneurs. The rapid expansion of mobile technology across the
country is empowering Afghan women to demand an equal stake in their
nation's future.
Building on our strong legacy of progress in Latin America and the
Caribbean, we're focusing on spurring economic growth and strengthening
democracy by tackling the biggest drivers of instability, from drug
trafficking to climate change. Today, for example, we work with a range
of partners, including Nike Foundation and PepsiCo, to train thousands
of at-risk youth in 18 countries of the region. The program has had an
extremely high success rate, with 65 percent of graduates getting jobs,
returning to school, or starting their own business within 1 year of
graduation.
In Colombia, we've partnered with Starbucks to improve yields for
25,000 coffee-farmers, giving them a shot at the global market and a
reason to invest in their land after decades of conflict. In Peru, our
partnership with the Government of San Martin has helped reduced
poverty by more than 67 percent and cut coca production from 22,000
hectares to around 1,200.
We're also investing in the future innovators, doctors, and
entrepreneurs throughout Latin America. For instance, in Honduras, we
partnered with a telecom company to connect our network of 40 youth
outreach centers--providing Internet access, online education and
virtual job training to more than 17,000 people. On the whole, these
investments produce immense gains in literacy, stability, and long-term
economic growth.
From empowering small businesses in Burma to helping eradicate
extreme poverty in Nepal, we are supporting the administration's Asia-
Pacific Rebalance, renewing U.S. leadership, deepening economic ties,
and promoting democratic and universal values. Today, we are bolstering
regional cooperation around shared solutions to complex challenges
through deepened engagement in ASEAN and the Lower Mekong Initiative.
In March, we signed an agreement with the U.S.-ASEAN Business Council
to help link small- and medium-sized enterprises across Asia to
regional and global value chains.
usaid operating expenses
In recognition of development's centrality to U.S. national
security, the President's National Security Strategy calls for
investing in development capabilities and institutions. The fiscal year
2015 USAID Operating Expenses account request for $1.4 billion will
provide that investment--advancing U.S. interests, enhancing national
security, and reaffirming our global development leadership. The
request will enable USAID to maintain core operations, and to continue
USAID Forward reforms--as well as better collaborate with partner
countries and local institutions--to maximize the value of each dollar.
Although an increase from fiscal year 2014, the request represents
the minimum level of resources necessary to preserve our agency's
current services and operations and support the existing workforce to
meet U.S. foreign policy objectives and global development needs. The
requested funding will allow our agency to offset the projected
decrease in other funding sources, such as recoveries, reimbursements,
and trust funds that support operations. At the same time, it will
restore the new obligation authority needed to maintain its current
level of operations into fiscal year 2015.
The request reflects our agency's focus on working through a more
efficient, high-impact approach. We are continuing to reform operations
to improve management processes and generate significant cost savings
for fiscal year 2015, like real property disposals and space
optimization. In addition, our agency restructured its overseas
presence to strengthen its ability to meet its foreign policy and
national security mission.
conclusion
Today, for the first time in history, we have new tools and
approaches that enable us to envision a world without extreme poverty.
This is an unprecedented moment for our Nation--one where we can
again lead the world in achieving goals once deemed too ambitious, too
dangerous, or too complex. In doing so, we can protect our national
security and spur economic growth. But above all, we can express the
generosity and goodwill that unite us as a people.
As President Obama said in the 2013 State of the Union address,
``We also know that progress in the most impoverished parts of our
world enriches us all--not only because it creates new markets, more
stable order in certain regions of the world, but also because it's the
right thing to do.''
As we step forward to answer the President's call with renewed
energy and focus, we remain committed to engaging the American people
and serving their interests by leading the world to end extreme
poverty.
Thank you.
CUBA
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
The U.S. provides $15 million to $20 million for so-called
democracy programs in Cuba. They traditionally have been
administrated by USAID. It is the same program that got Alan
Gross arrested. He is in his fifth year of a 15 year sentence,
which at his age is basically a death sentence. Last week, he
began a hunger strike because he has given up waiting for any
kind of a sign by this Administration they are doing anything
meaningful to get him out.
According to a recent Associated Press report, between 2009
and 2012, USAID funded a program named ZunZuneo. They used
personal data obtained overseas, secret bank accounts, a shell
company to support cell phone access for Cubans who had no idea
it was funded by the U.S. Government. The irony being if we did
not have the embargo we have, we probably would have had ten
legitimate American companies down there vying for the ability
to sell cell phones and Internet access.
Whose idea was it to undertake this program in this manner?
Dr. Shah. Senator Leahy, first let me--thank you for your
question.
Let me address Alan Gross first, we believe----
Senator Leahy. No, how you--first answer the question.
Whose idea was this?
Dr. Shah. The program was designed in 2007 and 2008, at
that timeframe. That said, the legislation that crafts the
purpose of the program----
Senator Leahy. No. Whose idea was it for this specific
program? I have read the legislation. The legislation does not
say anything about setting up a cockamamie idea in Cuba with
Twitter accounts and all, on something that the Cubans would be
so easy to discover.
Whose idea was this specific program in Cuba? Who? It is a
simple question.
Dr. Shah. Sir, the program was in place before I arrived.
Senator Leahy. Sir, do you know whose idea it was? I know
it was in place before you arrived. But do you know whose idea
it was?
Dr. Shah. I--well, first let me say, and I think this is
important, sir, and I greatly respect your point of view. But
that AP story had a number of critical inaccuracies----
Senator Leahy. I have read--I have read----
Dr. Shah. And I am, I am----
Senator Leahy. I will put that in the record. I will put it
in the record, both the AP story and USAID's response to the AP
story.
[Clerk's note: The information below is the Associated
Press story.]
[From the Miami Herald, Apr. 3, 2014]
U.S. Secretly Created ``Cuban Twitter'' to Stir Unrest
(By Desmond Butler, Jack Gillum and Alberto Arce, Associated Press)
Copyright 2014, The Miami Herald. All Rights Reserved.
Washington.--In July 2010, Joe McSpedon, a U.S. Government
official, flew to Barcelona to put the final touches on a secret plan
to build a social media project aimed at undermining Cuba's Communist
Government.
McSpedon and his team of high-tech contractors had come in from
Costa Rica and Nicaragua, Washington and Denver. Their mission: to
launch a messaging network that could reach hundreds of thousands of
Cubans. To hide the network from the Cuban Government, they would set
up a byzantine system of front companies using a Cayman Islands bank
account, and recruit unsuspecting executives who would not be told of
the company's ties to the U.S. Government.
McSpedon didn't work for the CIA. This was a program paid for and
run by the U.S. Agency for International Development, best known for
overseeing billions of dollars in U.S. humanitarian aid.
According to documents obtained by the Associated Press (AP) and
multiple interviews with people involved in the project, the plan was
to develop a bare-bones ``Cuban Twitter,'' using cellphone text
messaging to evade Cuba's strict control of information and its
stranglehold restrictions over the Internet. In a play on Twitter, it
was called ZunZuneo--slang for a Cuban hummingbird's tweet.
Documents show the U.S. Government planned to build a subscriber
base through ``non-controversial content'': news messages on soccer,
music, and hurricane updates. Later when the network reached a critical
mass of subscribers, perhaps hundreds of thousands, operators would
introduce political content aimed at inspiring Cubans to organize
``smart mobs''--mass gatherings called at a moment's notice that might
trigger a Cuban Spring, or, as one USAID document put it, ``renegotiate
the balance of power between the state and society.''
At its peak, the project drew in more than 40,000 Cubans to share
news and exchange opinions. But its subscribers were never aware it was
created by the U.S. Government, or that American contractors were
gathering their private data in the hope that it might be used for
political purposes.
``There will be absolutely no mention of United States Government
involvement,'' according to a 2010 memo from Mobile Accord, one of the
project's contractors. ``This is absolutely crucial for the long-term
success of the service and to ensure the success of the Mission.''
The program's legality is unclear: U.S. law requires that any
covert action by a Federal agency must have a presidential
authorization. Officials at USAID would not say who had approved the
program or whether the White House was aware of it. McSpedon, the most
senior official named in the documents obtained by the AP, is a mid-
level manager who declined to comment.
USAID spokesman Matt Herrick said the agency is proud of its Cuba
programs and noted that congressional investigators reviewed them last
year and found them to be consistent with U.S. law.
``USAID is a development agency, not an intelligence agency, and we
work all over the world to help people exercise their fundamental
rights and freedoms, and give them access to tools to improve their
lives and connect with the outside world,'' he said.
``In the implementation,'' he added, ``has the government taken
steps to be discreet in non-permissive environments? Of course. That's
how you protect the practitioners and the public. In hostile
environments, we often take steps to protect the partners we're working
with on the ground. This is not unique to Cuba.''
But the ZunZuneo program muddies those claims, a sensitive issue
for its mission to promote democracy and deliver aid to the world's
poor and vulnerable--which requires the trust of foreign governments.
``On the face of it there are several aspects about this that are
troubling,'' said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT and chairman of the
Appropriations Committee's State Department and Foreign Operations
Subcommittee.
``There is the risk to young, unsuspecting Cuban cellphone users
who had no idea this was a U.S. Government-funded activity. There is
the clandestine nature of the program that was not disclosed to the
appropriations subcommittee with oversight responsibility. And there is
the disturbing fact that it apparently activated shortly after Alan
Gross, a USAID subcontractor who was sent to Cuba to help provide
citizens access to the Internet, was arrested.''
The Associated Press obtained more than 1,000 pages of documents
about the project's development. The AP independently verified the
project's scope and details in the documents--such as Federal contract
numbers and names of job candidates--through publicly available
databases, government sources and interviews with those directly
involved in ZunZuneo.
Taken together, they tell the story of how agents of the U.S.
Government, working in deep secrecy, became tech entrepreneurs--in
Cuba. And it all began with a half a million cellphone numbers obtained
from a Communist Government.
ZunZuneo would seem to be a throwback from the Cold War, and the
decades-long struggle between the United States and Cuba. It came at a
time when the historically sour relationship between the countries had
improved, at least marginally, and Cuba had made tentative steps toward
a more market-based economy.
It is unclear whether the plan got its start with USAID or Creative
Associates International, a Washington, DC, for-profit company that has
earned hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. contracts. But a ``key
contact'' at Cubacel, the state-owned cellphone provider, slipped the
phone numbers to a Cuban engineer living in Spain. The engineer
provided the numbers to USAID and Creative Associates ``free of
charge,'' documents show.
In mid-2009, Noy Villalobos, a manager with Creative Associates who
had worked with USAID in the 1990s on a program to eradicate drug
crops, started an instant messaging (IM) chat with her little brother
in Nicaragua, according to a Creative Associates email that captured
the conversation. Mario Bernheim, in his mid-20s, was an up-and-coming
techie who had made a name for himself as a computer whiz.
``This is very confidential of course,'' Villalobos cautioned her
brother. But what could you do if you had all the cellphone numbers of
a particular country? Could you send bulk text messages without the
government knowing?
``Can you encrypt it or something?'' she texted.
She was looking for a direct line to regular Cubans through text
messaging. Most had precious little access to news from the outside
world. The government viewed the Internet as an Achilles' heel and
controlled it accordingly. A communications minister had even referred
to it as a ``wild colt'' that ``should be tamed.''
Yet in the years since Fidel Castro handed over power to his
brother Raul, Cuba had sought to jumpstart the long stagnant economy.
Raul Castro began encouraging cellphone use, and hundreds of thousands
of people were suddenly using mobile phones for the first time, though
smartphones with access to the Internet remained restricted.
Cubans could text message, though at a high cost in a country where
the average wage was a mere $20 a month.
Bernheim told his sister that he could figure out a way to send
instant texts to hundreds of thousands of Cubans-- for cheap. It could
not be encrypted though, because that would be too complicated. They
wouldn't be able to hide the messages from the Cuban Government, which
owned Cubacel. But they could disguise who was sending the texts by
constantly switching the countries the messages came from.
``We could rotate it from different countries?'' Villalobos asked.
``Say one message from Nica, another from Spain, another from Mexico''?
Bernheim could do that. ``But I would need mirrors set up around
the world, mirrors, meaning the same computer, running with the same
platform, with the same phone.''
``No hay problema,'' he signed off. No problem.
After the chat, Creative hired Bernheim as a subcontractor,
reporting to his sister. (Villalobos and Bernheim would later confirm
their involvement with the ZunZuneo project to AP, but decline further
comment.) Bernheim, in turn, signed up the Cuban engineer who had
gotten the phone list. The team figured out how to message the masses
without detection, but their ambitions were bigger.
Creative Associates envisioned using the list to create a social
networking system that would be called ``Proyecto ZZ,'' or ``Project
ZZ.'' The service would start cautiously and be marketed chiefly to
young Cubans, who USAID saw as the most open to political change.
``We should gradually increase the risk,'' USAID proposed in a
document. It advocated using ``smart mobs'' only in ``critical/
opportunistic situations and not at the detriment of our core platform-
based network.''
USAID's team of contractors and subcontractors built a companion
website to its text service so Cubans could subscribe, give feedback
and send their own text messages for free. They talked about how to
make the Web site look like a real business. ``Mock ad banners will
give it the appearance of a commercial enterprise,'' a proposal
suggested.
In multiple documents, USAID staff pointed out that text messaging
had mobilized smart mobs and political uprisings in Moldova and the
Philippines, among others. In Iran, the USAID noted social media's role
following the disputed election of then President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
in June 2009--and saw it as an important foreign policy tool.
USAID documents say their strategic objective in Cuba was to ``push
it out of a stalemate through tactical and temporary initiatives, and
get the transition process going again towards democratic change.''
Democratic change in authoritarian Cuba meant breaking the Castros'
grip on power.
USAID divided Cuban society into five segments depending on loyalty
to the government. On one side sat the ``democratic movement,'' called
``still (largely) irrelevant,'' and at the other end were the ``hard-
core system supporters,'' dubbed ``Talibanes'' in a derogatory
comparison to Afghan and Pakistani extremists.
A key question was how to move more people toward the democratic
activist camp without detection. Bernheim assured the team that
wouldn't be a problem.
``The Cuban Government, like other regimes committed to information
control, currently lacks the capacity to effectively monitor and
control such a service,'' Bernheim wrote in a proposal for USAID marked
``Sensitive Information.''
ZunZuneo would use the list of phone numbers to break Cuba's
Internet embargo and not only deliver information to Cubans but also
let them interact with each other in a way the government could not
control. Eventually it would build a system that would let Cubans send
messages anonymously among themselves.
At a strategy meeting, the company discussed building ``user volume
as a cover . . . for organization,'' according to meeting notes. It
also suggested that the ``Landscape needs to be large enough to hide
full opposition members who may sign up for service.''
In a play on the telecommunication minister's quote, the team
dubbed their network the ``untamed colt.''
At first, the ZunZuneo team operated out of Central America.
Bernheim, the techie brother, worked from Nicaragua's capital, Managua,
while McSpedon supervised Creative's work on ZunZuneo from an office in
San Jose, Costa Rica, though separate from the U.S. Embassy. It was an
unusual arrangement that raised eyebrows in Washington, according to
U.S. officials.
McSpedon worked for USAID's Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI),
a division that was created after the fall of the Soviet Union to
promote U.S. interests in quickly changing political environments--
without the usual red tape.
In 2009, a report by congressional researchers warned that OTI's
work ``often lends itself to political entanglements that may have
diplomatic implications.'' Staffers on oversight committees complained
that USAID was running secret programs and would not provide details.
``We were told we couldn't even be told in broad terms what was
happening because 'people will die,''' said Fulton Armstrong, who
worked for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Before that, he was
the U.S. intelligence community's most senior analyst on Latin America,
advising the Clinton White House.
The money that Creative Associates spent on ZunZuneo was publicly
earmarked for an unspecified project in Pakistan, Government data show.
But there is no indication of where the funds were actually spent.
Tensions with Congress spiked just as the ZunZuneo project was
gearing up in December 2009, when another USAID program ended in the
arrest of the U.S. contractor, Alan Gross. Gross had traveled
repeatedly to Cuba on a secret mission to expand Internet access using
sensitive technology typically available only to governments, a mission
first revealed in February 2012 by AP.
At some point, Armstrong says, the Foreign Relations Committee
became aware of OTI's secret operations in Costa Rica. U.S. Government
officials acknowledged them privately to Armstrong, but USAID refused
to provide operational details.
At an event in Washington, Armstrong says he confronted McSpedon,
asking him if he was aware that by operating secret programs from a
third country, it might appear like he worked for an intelligence
agency.
McSpedon, through USAID, said the story is not true. He declined to
comment otherwise.
On September 20, 2009, thousands of Cubans gathered at Revolution
Plaza in Havana for Colombian rocker Juanes' ``Peace without Borders''
concert. It was the largest public gathering in Cuba since the visit of
Pope John Paul II in 1998. Under the watchful gaze of a giant sculpture
of revolutionary icon Ernesto ``Che'' Guevara, the Miami-based Juanes
promised music aimed at ``turning hate into love.''
But for the ZunZuneo team, the concert was a perfect opportunity to
test the political power of their budding social network. In the weeks
before, Bernheim's firm, using the phone list, sent out a half a
million text messages in what it called ``blasts,'' to test what the
Cuban Government would do.
The team hired Alen Lauzan Falcon, a Havana-born satirical artist
based in Chile, to write Cuban-style messages. Some were mildly
political and comical, others more pointed. One asked respondents
whether they thought two popular local music acts out of favor with the
government should join the stage with Juanes. Some 100,000 people
responded--not realizing the poll was used to gather critical
intelligence.
Paula Cambronero, a researcher for Mobile Accord, began building a
vast database about the Cuban subscribers, including gender, age,
``receptiveness'' and ``political tendencies.'' USAID believed the
demographics on dissent could help it target its other Cuba programs
and ``maximize our possibilities to extend our reach.''
Cambronero concluded that the team had to be careful. ``Messages
with a humorous connotation should not contain a strong political
tendency, so as not to create animosity in the recipients,'' she wrote
in a report.
Falcon, in an interview, said he was never told that he was
composing messages for a U.S. Government program, but he had no regrets
about his involvement.
``They didn't tell me anything, and if they had, I would have done
it anyway,'' he said. ``In Cuba they don't have freedom. While a
government forces me to pay in order to visit my country, makes me ask
permission, and limits my communications, I will be against it, whether
it's Fidel Castro, (Cuban exile leader) Jorge Mas Canosa or Gloria
Estefan,'' the Cuban American singer.
Carlos Sanchez Almeida, a lawyer specializing in European data
protection law, said it appeared that the U.S. program violated Spanish
privacy laws because the ZunZuneo team had illegally gathered personal
data from the phone list and sent unsolicited emails using a Spanish
platform. ``The illegal release of information is a crime, and using
information to create a list of people by political affiliation is
totally prohibited by Spanish law,'' Almeida said. It would violate a
U.S-European data protection agreement, he said.
USAID saw evidence from server records that Havana had tried to
trace the texts, to break into ZunZuneo's servers, and had occasionally
blocked messages. But USAID called the response ``timid'' and concluded
that ZunZuneo would be viable--if its origins stayed secret.
Even though Cuba has one of the most sophisticated counter-
intelligence operations in the world, the ZunZuneo team thought that as
long as the message service looked benign, Cubacel would leave it
alone.
Once the network had critical mass, Creative and USAID documents
argued, it would be harder for the Cuban Government to shut it down,
both because of popular demand and because Cubacel would be addicted to
the revenues from the text messages.
In February 2010, the company introduced Cubans to ZunZuneo and
began marketing. Within 6 months, it had almost 25,000 subscribers,
growing faster and drawing more attention than the USAID team could
control.
Saimi Reyes Carmona was a journalism student at the University of
Havana when she stumbled onto ZunZuneo. She was intrigued by the
service's novelty, and the price. The advertisement said ``free
messages'' so she signed up using her nickname, Saimita.
At first, ZunZuneo was a very tiny platform, Reyes said during a
recent interview in Havana, but one day she went to its Web site and
saw its services had expanded.
``I began sending one message every day,'' she said, the maximum
allowed at the start. ``I didn't have practically any followers.'' She
was thrilled every time she got a new one.
And then ZunZuneo exploded in popularity.
``The whole world wanted in, and in a question of months I had
2,000 followers who I have no idea who they are, nor where they came
from.''
She let her followers know the day of her birthday, and was
surprised when she got some 15 personal messages. ``This is the coolest
thing I've ever seen!'' she told her boyfriend, Ernesto Guerra Valdes,
also a journalism student.
Before long, Reyes learned she had the second highest number of
followers on the island, after a user called UCI, which the students
figured was Havana's University of Computer Sciences. Her boyfriend had
1,000. The two were amazed at the reach it gave them.
``It was such a marvelous thing,'' Guerra said. ``So noble.'' He
and Reyes tried to figure out who was behind ZunZuneo, since the
technology to run it had to be expensive, but they found nothing. They
were grateful though.
``We always found it strange, that generosity and kindness,'' he
said. ZunZuneo was ``the fairy godmother of cellphones.''
By early 2010, Creative decided that ZunZuneo was so popular
Bernheim's company wasn't sophisticated enough to build, in effect, ``a
scaled down version of Twitter.''
It turned to another young techie, James Eberhard, CEO of Denver-
based Mobile Accord Inc. Eberhard had pioneered the use of text
messaging for donations during disasters and had raised tens of
millions of dollars after the January 2010 earthquake in Haiti.
Eberhard earned millions in his mid-20s when he sold a company that
developed cellphone ring tones and games. His company's Web site
describes him as ``a visionary within the global mobile community.''
In July, he flew to Barcelona to join McSpedon, Bernheim, and
others to work out what they called a ``below the radar strategy.''
``If it is discovered that the platform is, or ever was, backed by
the United States Government, not only do we risk the channel being
shut down by Cubacel, but we risk the credibility of the platform as a
source of reliable information, education, and empowerment in the eyes
of the Cuban people,'' Mobile Accord noted in a memo.
To cover their tracks, they decided to have a company based in the
United Kingdom set up a corporation in Spain to run ZunZuneo. A
separate company called MovilChat was created in the Cayman Islands, a
well-known offshore tax haven, with an account at the island's Bank of
N.T. Butterfield & Son Ltd. to pay the bills.
A memo of the meeting in Barcelona says that the front companies
would distance ZunZuneo from any U.S. ownership so that the ``money
trail will not trace back to America.''
But it wasn't just the money they were worried about. They had to
hide the origins of the texts, according to documents and interviews
with team members.
Brad Blanken, the former chief operating officer of Mobile Accord,
left the project early on, but noted that there were two main criteria
for success.
``The biggest challenge with creating something like this is
getting the phone numbers,'' Blanken said. ``And then the ability to
spoof the network.''
The team of contractors set up servers in Spain and Ireland to
process texts, contracting an independent Spanish company called
Lleida.net to send the text messages back to Cuba, while stripping off
identifying data.
Mobile Accord also sought intelligence from engineers at the
Spanish telecommunications company Telefonica, which organizers said
would ``have knowledge of Cubacel's network.''
``Understanding the security and monitoring protocols of Cubacel
will be an invaluable asset to avoid unnecessary detection by the
carrier,'' one Mobile Accord memo read.
Officials at USAID realized however, that they could not conceal
their involvement forever--unless they left the stage. The predicament
was summarized bluntly when Eberhard was in Washington for a strategy
session in early February 2011, where his company noted the ``inherent
contradiction'' of giving Cubans a platform for communications
uninfluenced by their government that was in fact financed by the U.S.
Government and influenced by its agenda.
They turned to Jack Dorsey, a co-founder of Twitter, to seek
funding for the project. Documents show Dorsey met with Suzanne Hall, a
State Department officer who worked on social media projects, and
others. Dorsey declined to comment.
The State Department under then-Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton
thought social media was an important tool in diplomacy. At a 2011
speech at George Washington University, Clinton said the U.S. helped
people in ``oppressive Internet environments get around filters.'' In
Tunisia, she said people used technology to ``organize and share
grievances, which, as we know, helped fuel a movement that led to
revolutionary change.''
Ultimately, the solution was new management that could separate
ZunZuneo from its U.S. origins and raise enough revenue for it to go
``independent,'' even as it kept its long-term strategy to bring about
``democratic change.''
Eberhard led the recruitment efforts, a sensitive operation because
he intended to keep the management of the Spanish company in the dark.
``The ZZ management team will have no knowledge of the true origin
of the operation; as far as they know, the platform was established by
Mobile Accord,'' the memo said. ``There should be zero doubt in
management's mind and no insecurities or concerns about United States
Government involvement.''
The memo went on to say that the CEO's clean conscience would be
``particularly critical when dealing with Cubacel.'' Sensitive to the
high cost of text messages for average Cubans, ZunZuneo negotiated a
bulk rate for texts at 4 cents a pop through a Spanish intermediary.
Documents show there was hope that an earnest, clueless CEO might be
able to persuade Cubacel to back the project.
Mobile Accord considered a dozen candidates from five countries to
head the Spanish front company. One of them was Francoise de Valera, a
CEO who was vacationing in Dubai when she was approached for an
interview. She flew to Barcelona. At the luxury Mandarin Oriental
Hotel, she met with Nim Patel, who at the time was Mobile Accord's
president. Eberhard had also flown in for the interviews. But she said
she couldn't get a straight answer about what they were looking for.
``They talked to me about instant messaging but nothing about Cuba,
or the United States,'' she told the AP in an interview from London.
``If I had been offered and accepted the role, I believe that
sooner or later it would have become apparent to me that something
wasn't right,'' she said.
By early 2011, Creative Associates grew exasperated with Mobile
Accord's failure to make ZunZuneo self-sustaining and independent of
the U.S. Government. The operation had run into an unsolvable problem.
USAID was paying tens of thousands of dollars in text messaging fees to
Cuba's communist telecommunications monopoly routed through a secret
bank account and front companies. It was not a situation that it could
either afford or justify--and if exposed it would be embarrassing, or
worse.
In a searing evaluation, Creative Associates said Mobile Accord had
ignored sustainability because ``it has felt comfortable receiving
United States Government (USG) financing to move the venture forward.''
Out of 60 points awarded for performance, Mobile Accord scored 34
points. Creative Associates complained that Mobile Accord's
understanding of the social mission of the project was weak, and gave
it 3 out of 10 points for ``commitment to our Program goals.''
Mobile Accord declined to comment on the program.
In increasingly impatient tones, Creative Associates pressed Mobile
Accord to find new revenue that would pay the bills. Mobile Accord
suggested selling targeted advertisements in Cuba, but even with
projections of up to a million ZunZuneo subscribers, advertising in a
state-run economy would amount to a pittance.
By March 2011, ZunZuneo had about 40,000 subscribers. To keep a
lower profile, it abandoned previous hopes of reaching 200,000 and
instead capped the number of subscribers at a lower number. It limited
ZunZuneo's text messages to less than 1 percent of the total in Cuba,
so as to avoid the notice of Cuban authorities. Though one former
ZunZuneo worker--who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not
authorized to speak publicly about his work--said the Cubans were
catching on and had tried to block the site.
Toward the middle of 2012, Cuban users began to complain that the
service worked only sporadically. Then not at all.
ZunZuneo vanished as mysteriously as it appeared.
By June 2012, users who had access to Facebook and Twitter were
wondering what had happened.
``Where can you pick up messages from ZunZuneo?'' one woman asked
on Facebook in November 2012. ``Why aren't I receiving them anymore?''
Users who went to ZunZuneo's Web site were sent to a children's Web
site with a similar name.
Reyner Aguero, a 25-year-old blogger, said he and fellow students
at Havana's University of Computer Sciences tried to track it down.
Someone had rerouted the Web site through DNS blocking, a censorship
technique initially developed back in the 1990s. Intelligence officers
later told the students that ZunZuneo was blacklisted, he said.
``ZunZuneo, like everything else they did not control, was a
threat,'' Aguero said. ``Period.''
In incorrect Spanish, ZunZuneo posted a note on its Facebook page
saying it was aware of problems accessing the Web site and that it was
trying to resolve them.
``;Que viva el ZunZuneo!'' the message said. Long live ZunZuneo!
In February, when Saimi Reyes, and her boyfriend, Ernesto Guerra,
learned the origins of ZunZuneo, they were stunned.
``How was I supposed to realize that?'' Guerra asked. ``It's not
like there was a sign saying `Welcome to ZunZuneo, brought to you by
USAID.' ''
``Besides, there was nothing wrong. If I had started getting
subversive messages or death threats or `Everyone into the streets,' ''
he laughed, ``I would have said, `OK,' there's something fishy about
this. But nothing like that happened.''
USAID says the program ended when the money ran out. The Cuban
Government declined to comment.
The former Web domain is now a placeholder, for sale for $299. The
registration for MovilChat, the Cayman Islands front company, was set
to expire on March 31.
In Cuba, nothing has come close to replacing it. Internet service
still is restricted.
``The moment when ZunZuneo disappeared was like a vacuum,'' Guerra
said. ``People texted my phone, `What is happening with ZunZuneo?' ''
``In the end, we never learned what happened,'' he said. ``We never
learned where it came from.''
[Clerk's note: The information below is USAID's response to
the Associated Press story.]
[A Blog From the United States Agency for International Development,
Apr. 7, 2014]
Eight Facts About ZunZuneo
(Posted by Matt Herrick, Spokesperson)
On Thursday, April 3, the Associated Press published an article on
a social media program in Cuba funded by the U.S. Agency for
International Development. The article contained significant
inaccuracies and false conclusions about ZunZuneo, which was part of a
broader effort that began in 2009 to facilitate ``twitter like''
communication among Cubans so they could connect with each other on
topics of their choice. Many of the inaccuracies have been re-reported
by other news outlets, perpetuating the original narrative, or worse.
The article suggested that USAID spent years on a ``covert''
program to gather personal information to be used for political
purposes to ``foment'' ``smart mobs'' and start a ``Cuban Spring'' to
overthrow the Cuban Government. It makes for an interesting read, but
it's not true.
USAID's work in Cuba is not unlike what we and other donors do
around the world to connect people who have been cut off from the
outside world by repressive or authoritarian governments. USAID's
democracy and governance work focuses on strengthening civil society,
governance, and promoting human rights.
Here are eight claims made by article, followed by the facts:
(1) The story says the ``program's legality is unclear'' and
implies the program was ``covert.''
FACT: USAID works in places where we are not always welcome. To
minimize the risk to our staff and partners and ensure our work can
proceed safely, we must take certain precautions and maintain a
discreet profile. But discreet does not equal covert.
The programs have long been the subject of congressional
notifications, unclassified briefings, public budget requests, and
public hearings. All of the Congressional Budget Justifications
published from 2008 through 2013, which are public and online,
explicitly state that a key goal of USAID's Cuba program is to break
the ``information blockade'' or promote ``information sharing'' amongst
Cubans and that assistance will include the use or promotion of new
``technologies'' and/or ``new media'' to achieve its goals.
In 2012, the Government Accountability Office--the U.S.
Government's investigative arm--spent months looking at every aspect of
USAID's Cuba programs. GAO's team of analysts had unrestricted access
to project documents, extended telephone conversations with Mobile
Accord (ZunZuneo) and even traveled to Cuba. The GAO identified no
concerns in the report about the legality of USAID's programs,
including ZunZuneo, and offered USAID zero recommendations for
improvements.
(2) The article implies that the purpose of the program was to
foment ``Smart Mobs,'' funnel political content and thereby trigger
unrest in Cuba.
FACT: The ``USAID documents'' cited in the article appear to be
case study research and brainstorming notes between the grantee and the
contractor. The specific reference to ``Smart Mobs'' had nothing to do
with Cuba nor ZunZuneo. The documents do not represent the U.S.
Government's position or reflect the spirit or actions taken as part of
the program in Cuba. The project initially sent news, sports scores,
weather, and trivia. After which, the grantee did not direct content
because users were generating it on their own.
(3) The story states there was a ``shell company'' in Spain formed
to run the program.
FACT: No one affiliated with the ZunZuneo program established a
private company in Spain as part of this program. The project sought to
do so if it was able to attract private investors to support the effort
after USAID funding ended. Private investment was never identified and
thus no company was ever formed.
(4) The story implies that the United States Government (USG) tried
to recruit executives to run ZunZuneo without telling them about USG
involvement.
FACT: A USAID staff member was present during several of the
interviews for candidates to lead ZunZuneo. The staff member's
affiliation with USAID was disclosed and it was conveyed that the
funding for the program was from the U.S. Government.
(5) The article states that private data was collected with the
hope it would be used for political purposes.
FACT: The ZunZuneo project included a Web site, as is typical for a
social network. Users could voluntarily submit personal information.
Few did, and the program did not use this information for anything.
(6) The article says that the funding was ``publicly earmarked for
an unspecified project in Pakistan,'' implying that funds were
misappropriated.
FACT: All funds for this project were congressionally appropriated
for democracy programs in Cuba, and that information is publicly
available.
(7) The story stated, ``At its peak, the project drew in more than
40,000 Cubans to share news and exchange opinions.''
FACT: At its peak, the platform had around 68,000 users.
(8) The article suggests there was an inappropriate base of
operations established in Costa Rica outside of normal U.S. Government
procedures.
FACT: The Government of Costa Rica was informed of the program on
more than one occasion. The USAID employee overseeing the program
served under Chief of Mission Authority with the U.S. Embassy, as is
standard practice.
Dr. Shah. Okay.
Senator Leahy. Having said that, do you know whose idea it
was?
Dr. Shah. I do not specifically, but I will say this, that
working on creating platforms to improve communication in Cuba,
and in many other parts of the world, is a core part of what
USAID has done for some time and continues to do.
Senator Leahy. Did----
Dr. Shah. Part of the Administration's policy is to
continue to support efforts to allow for open communications.
To the extent that the AP story, or any other comment, creates
the impression that this effort, or any other, goes beyond that
for other ulterior purposes, that is simply inaccurate.
Senator Leahy. Was it a covert program?
Dr. Shah. Absolutely not. It was conducted----
Senator Leahy. Was anyone at the U.S. Interests Section, at
either the Department of State or the White House, aware of the
facts of this program?
Dr. Shah. This program has been notified publicly in
congressional budget justifications dating back to 2008----
Senator Leahy. I have read those and you are talking about
bureaucratese. If you could figure out that it meant this, you
are a lot better than most of us.
Now, Alan Gross----
Dr. Shah. Well, sir, may I speak to that?
The notifications point out that we are working to increase
the free flow of information and support civil society and
engagement using new technology. They specifically highlight
work to reduce Internet restrictions to information. They
highlight using new digital methods to increase information
flow in and out of the island, and they talk about work on
Internet freedom. More detailed conversations took place in
staff briefings.
Senator Leahy. And we have spent millions of dollars, for
example, on the Marti program even though we just made a lot of
people wealthy, but it has not done much of any good
whatsoever, but it makes people feel good to spend the money.
Alan Gross was arrested in December of 2009. Did USAID
consider what the possible discovery of this program by the
Cuban Government, did anybody consider what that might have
meant for Alan Gross?
Dr. Shah. Look, Alan's detention is wrong. The
responsibility for his detention rests with Cuban authorities.
And our administration has worked, and since you mentioned it,
I should highlight that the State Department has led an
aggressive effort to help Alan secure his release. And
specifically, Under Secretary Sherman has worked this issue at
the highest levels, it has been addressed.
Senator Leahy. I have seen some nice press releases, but I
have not seen any steps that would actually get him out.
Dr. Shah. We can share that with you in a private setting,
I am sure. She would be eager to do that.
Senator Leahy. Okay.
Dr. Shah. Because I know that----
Senator Leahy. Let me ask you this----
Dr. Shah [continuing]. There is a lot of focused work on
behalf of the Gross family, whom we think about and care about
deeply.
Senator Leahy. Is the program that Alan Gross was sent down
there to carry out, did USAID consider the fact that if he was
discovered in that program that he would be arrested? Was that
ever a consideration of USAID?
Dr. Shah. Yes, these programs are conducted more discreetly
precisely because of a recognition that providing Internet
access in an authoritarian environment----
Senator Leahy. Then why has----
Dr. Shah [continuing]. Exposes partners to certain risks.
Senator Leahy. There are USAID people who are doing
wonderful things that you and I would applaud all over the
world, many at great risk to themselves because of the places
they are in. And they are constantly faced with the suspicion
``You are not here to help us. You are really a spy.'' And they
have to say, ``Well, no. We do not work for the CIA. We work
for USAID.''
Did you not worry that having a USAID employee do this,
knowing how the Cuban secret police and informants work, that
he would be discovered? Does that not taint all USAID employees
around the world as spies? I mean, we are already getting
emails from USAID employees, current and past, saying, ``How
could they do this and put us in such danger?''
Dr. Shah. Sir, we support civil society. We support and
implement the fiscal year 2014 appropriations language that
directs us to improve access to information and Internet
freedom in many parts of the world. We do it transparently and
with public notifications. The fact that we are discussing it
in this hearing highlights the reality that these are publicly
notified programs.
Senator Leahy. Where are some other countries where you do
it openly?
Dr. Shah. Literally, around the world. And we have had
efforts in Kenya to support the Yes Youth Can----
Senator Leahy. Have they always been done with----
Dr. Shah [continuing]. Movement student groups.
Senator Leahy. Has it always been done with full knowledge
and support of our U.S. ambassadors in those countries in every
instance?
Dr. Shah. That is the aspiration.
Senator Leahy. Is that the reality?
Dr. Shah. I think for the major ones that I am most
familiar with, absolutely. There are things we review. There
are things that our Embassy teams are more than aware of.
And, in fact, the Yes Youth Can program in Kenya is a great
example. They can work. Sometimes they help lean and tip the
scales towards protection of communities and rights, allowing
people to gain access, promoting democratic transitions from
one administration to the next, supporting safe participation
in elections, and we have seen it time and time again. They do
not always work, and I will be the first to admit that, but
often they do.
Senator Leahy. This one had, this one from the get-go had
no possibility of working. That is my problem with it.
Senator Graham.
AFGHANISTAN
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is an article, I think, in ``USA Today,'' April the
2nd. The title was, ``AID Agency Accused of Cover Up in
Afghanistan.'' The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan
Reconstruction issued a report asserting that USAID kept
information from congress and the American people regarding
Afghan ministries unable to account for cash and other
assistance. And the concern was that some of this money was
going to suppliers and beneficiaries of the funds that have
links with terrorist organizations.
Could you comment on that article?
Dr. Shah. Yes, absolutely, and thank you for the
opportunity, Senator.
First I will say that we have been fully open with all of
these documents. These are assessments that we conduct in order
to mitigate the risks of all of our partners, whether they are
Government partners or others. We have made those full
documents open without any redaction whatsoever to anyone who
wants to be a part of an in-camera review, and that has taken
place in the past.
We have also made documents that were jointly redacted by
the USAID and State available externally, in terms of moving
the documents forward to, I think in that case, it was the
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee where
personally identifiable information and other things that were
deemed national security sensitive were redacted.
But the full, open documents are open. And, by the way, I
am proud of these documents. These documents show that our
teams are doing careful assessments, they assess 13 or 16
ministries. They found some deficiencies in the controls, and
procurement, and financial management systems. So instead of
moving money directly to those ministries, they used a
mechanism called the Afghan Reconstructions Trust Fund run by
the World Bank, and a different central bank mechanism that
allows us to carefully monitor and measure where our resources
are going, and only expend them when we know costs have been
incurred.
And the final thing I will say about this, sir, is that,
for 2 to 3 percent of the cost of this war, USAID has helped 8
million kids go to school, nearly 3 million girls. We have
helped support elections over the past weekend. We have seen
the fastest reduction in maternal and child death anywhere in
the world in Afghanistan over the last decade, and the 44 year
increase in women's longevity in Afghanistan is not something
that I made up. It is actually coming from a properly conducted
demographic and health survey which is the gold standard for
data collection in these types of efforts.
The 2,200 kilometers of road have allowed real economic
growth. And to the extent that Afghanistan has a shot at a
secure and prosperous future, in large part, I believe,
retrospectively people will see this 2 to 3 percent of our
total investment as a very important part of giving that
country a chance and of supporting American security interests
in the long term.
Senator Graham. I would agree with that assessment.
FEED THE FUTURE
Let us now go to Africa. Genetically modified organisms,
GMO's: what role do they play in our Feed the Future
initiative? How are you integrating them into Africa? And very
briefly, could you tell me, are we making progress with our
European partners regarding GMO's utilization in Africa?
Dr. Shah. Well, thank you, sir. And I want to thank the
committee for its support for the Feed the Future program.
When we launched Feed the Future, at the President's
direction at the beginning of the first term, the goal was to
help African institutions develop their own seeds, fertilizers,
improved agricultural technologies that could help millions of
people move beyond needing food assistance, and become self-
sufficient in their own right and commercially prosperous. Part
of that transition is testing the use of all different kinds of
technologies.
And so, we have engaged in a series of partnerships to
develop improved, drought-resistant or water efficient corn for
east Africa; improved, bio-fortified products for west Africa
and southern Africa. And these products are being developed,
tested and introduced based on the regulations and the science
norms in those countries.
I think we are making tremendous progress. The fact that we
have gone from virtually nothing to reaching 7 million farm
households in a 4-year period, I believe, is an extraordinary
effort. And the fact that we have motivated private companies
to join us, most are local, African companies to make nearly $4
billion of commitment----
Senator Graham. And the goal----
Dr. Shah [continuing]. And $48 million of investments is a
big step forward as well.
Senator Graham. And the goal is to create some disposable
income in these farming families so they will have some
purchasing power, building roads to get their crops to the
market, and having some trade agreements in Africa to further
advance farming. Is that correct?
Dr. Shah. That is exactly true, sir. And the goal is,
furthermore, to recognize that when these countries and their
economies stand on their own two feet, they become trading
partners. That creates jobs and security, trade and prosperity
for the United States as well as Ghana, or Tanzania, or
Mozambique, or Bangladesh.
Senator Graham. Thank you.
HEPATITIS C
Egypt has, I think, one of the highest levels of Hepatitis
C infection in the world; over 12 million people infected.
There is--I do not know if it is a new drug--but a drug
available that can actually cure the disease.
Would you be willing to talk with this committee about a
pilot program where we, the United States, could supplement
what the Egyptian Government is doing in terms of treating
people who are infected with Hepatitis C and try to leverage
some of the Sunni Arab countries who provide aid to Egypt to
put some of their money into this program, and see if we can
turn this around?
Dr. Shah. I would be eager to learn more about it, sir,
yes.
Senator Graham. I think it is an opportunity for the
committee and the congress to really weigh-in and help the
Egyptian people with a huge problem, which is Hepatitis C
infection that creates a lot of drain on their economy, and
health problems that have to be addressed.
UKRAINE
On Ukraine, do you have a presence in Ukraine?
Dr. Shah. We do. Yes.
Senator Graham. Where is it located?
Dr. Shah. In Kiev.
Senator Graham. I am very concerned that what you see in
the east is a precursor to more Russian advancement that is
pretty obvious that Putin is setting up a scenario where he is
coming to the aid of ethnic Russians in the east, justifying a
further incursion into Ukraine.
Do you share those concerns? What purpose is our money
being spent on? And is there any chance that the money that we
are investing in Ukraine can yield results? And if we need to
invest more, what would you advise the committee to do?
Dr. Shah. Well, thank you, Senator and we have already
significantly increased the investment just over the last few
weeks in the Ukraine.
Our investment serves two major purposes. One is to support
the elections and civil society and democratic processes, so
they are implemented effectively. And the second is economic--
--
Senator Graham. Do you believe that Putin is trying to
undercut this election? That the actions in the east are trying
to, basically, dismember the country according to the Prime
Minister of Ukraine's statement that that is going on before
our eyes?
Dr. Shah. They appear significant, sir, but our role is to
focus on supporting the economic reforms, getting the IMF
package, which is tens of billions of dollars to help bolster
the Ukrainian economy.
Specifically we will be, and are, providing technical
assistance to do everything from providing land titles to 1.8
million Ukrainian farmers, so they can provide commercial
activity; to supporting the Government to make transitions in
its fuel policies so that it can be more fiscally secure and
have an economy that is more resilient to some of the
geopolitical realities.
Senator Graham. Thank you for all your good leadership and
hard work.
Dr. Shah. Thank you, sir.
Senator Leahy. Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you very much, Administrator. Thank
you for the leadership you have provided and the partnerships
that you have developed with other Governments, and nonprofit
organizations, and businesses to leverage the money that the
taxpayers of the United States are putting towards some of
your, some of our very worthy goals.
NATIONAL ACTION PLAN FOR CHILDREN
I have three questions today, and one is about the National
Action Plan for Children. Secretary Kerry sent me a letter in
September of this year and he wrote that the State Department
and USAID were moving forward aggressively to implement the
first-ever U.S. Action Plan for Children in Adversity, which
the White House released in December of 2012. More
specifically, he stated, ``USAID and State recently formed a
senior policy operating group.'' So I have a few questions
about that.
In the 15 months since the National Action Plan on Children
was released, what concrete actions has USAID, under the
direction of this senior advisory committee, taken to advance
the plan's implementation? And specifically, how many people
have been assigned and how much money has been spent in
standing up this Action Plan for Children in Adversity?
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Senator Landrieu, and thank you for
your strong support for USAID, for our reforms all around the
world, and for your tremendous leadership on the issue of
Children in Adversity in particular.
As Secretary Kerry noted, we have made great strides moving
forward. We have a coherent strategy that prioritizes birth
registration efforts to move children to family care and out of
orphanages, and to support efforts to help children survive and
thrive as they grow into adolescence.
We at USAID, to contribute to that strategy most
effectively, have restructured our work, merging a few of our
offices and moving them from global health to our humanitarian
assistance bureau which, I think, will help take this forward.
We have also increased our budget commitments to this area.
The fiscal year 2015 request in addition to the 10 percent of
the PEPFAR program that focuses on orphans and vulnerable
children, will include additional resources specifically for
this Center of Excellence. And we intend to support both new
grand challenges in this area that will allow innovators and
new partners to work with us in partnerships with companies
like IKEA, H&M, and the Lumos Foundation, which was created by
J.K. Rowling, to help leverage our resources and drive other
people's money into this space as well.
The one other thing I would like to highlight is that
because of your leadership, and as a result of our mutual
actions, last year, 500 kids were moved from orphanages in
Cambodia, Rwanda, and Guatemala to family care in those
settings. And our Children in Adversity advisor, our program
partners, and certainly your office, have played a critical
role. And for that, I want to thank you.
Senator Landrieu. Well, thank you, Administrator.
But we have, as you know, a lot more work to be done and
there are 5 members of this committee, and over 60 members of
congress, that have signed on to a piece of legislation called
Children and Families First. And you would not think that a
piece of legislation like that would be necessary. Think about
it. Children and Families First, where else would children be?
So I tell myself every day, it is interesting that I have
to try to pass a bill in congress because when I read your
statement today, even though that we have made a lot of
progress, and I do believe that you are sincere. I cannot find
the word ``family'' in, on any one of these pages. I see
``children.'' I see ``young people.'' I see ``girls.'' I see
``child.'' I see ``childhood,'' on and on and on.
But as I have tried to explain to the chairman and he is, I
think, very sympathetic, one of my big problems in this whole
State Department, whole USAID space is I cannot find the word
``family.'' And when you talk to regular Americans, regular
Americans, Americans whether they are in Delaware or Louisiana
or Vermont, the basis of society is family. Children belong in
families. Families belong together.
And I am sure you are aware of the studies that have been
done by some of the outstanding doctors in our country. Are you
aware of the Bucharest Early Intervention, Harvard Early
Childhood Development, the work of Charles Zeanah at Tulane?
Would you give a minute to explain to the committee what the
findings of this work have been?
Dr. Shah. Well, Senator, I do not have the specific
findings in front of me, but the studies that I have been
briefed on show very clearly that family care is good for kids,
and my kids appreciate being in a family, sometimes.
And so the reality is that you are right. We are trying to
use the flexibilities and the capabilities we have to help
support children to make the transition into families where
that is not possible.
I have met with kids in eastern Congo, just recently, who
are working with our partners there to help them get placed
into families, coming out of the conflict and the war that has
been taking place there, and this should be a bigger part of
what we do.
Senator Landrieu. Okay. Well, let me ask you this question.
Do you agree, then, that child welfare, particularly
international child welfare, is more than a counselor issue?
And needs to be handled in a way that represents or supports
its importance in building civil societies?
Dr. Shah. Yes.
Senator Landrieu. Okay. Because this piece of legislation,
which will be moving through, that is exactly what it attempts
to do, to use the models that are very effective.
And we have, on this committee, helped to create some of
these very effective models for combating trafficking,
providing humanitarian assistance for resettlement of refugees,
AIDS relief, fighting terrorism. I mean, those are four really
extraordinary successes that this chairman, and we have, and
our authorization committee have led.
That is what we are talking about with CHIFF is focusing
the work so that we can put our money and our strategies in
line with our views and values that children belong in
families. Keeping them to the one they are born into, keeping
that family together. If they are separated, reuniting them.
And if we cannot keep the family together or reunite, find
another family for them, in-country preferably, and if not,
inter-country adoption.
The chair is--I am on my last 3 seconds--the chair is aware
that our numbers for inter-country adoption have fallen from a
high of 20,000 down to 7,000. If we do not change this--20,000
just 8 years ago to 7,000--we will be down to zero.
Now, what that means to me is that we are not doing the
very best job we can to help children find families. Most of
them will find families in their own country. But inter-country
adoption is an important--not the only, not the first, not the
central--but an important part of that equation.
So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your support and the
members of this committee will continue to work on this. My
other questions were about the Lord's Resistance Army and about
the children in Syria, but I will submit those for the record.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much. We will continue to
work on this issue. Thank you very much for that.
Senator Johanns.
Senator Johanns. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
If I might start out, I do not have any questions to follow
up on the chairman's comments relative to Cuba. I think those
comments are extremely important, and I would strongly suggest
that somebody in the Administration should pay attention to
those comments. But here is just a general observation having
worked with USAID as the ex-Secretary and now with you.
I really like what you are doing, and I think you have
bipartisan support on this committee for what you are doing. I
think in many ways, you and your team have revitalized the
image of USAID and I just see progress wherever I look.
But when I think about USAID, I think about words like
``humanitarian,'' ``caring,'' ``road-builders,'' people who are
really trying to get in the midst of very difficult situations,
some of the worst poverty in the world, for example, and change
the course of that country.
I cannot imagine why USAID would want to be involved, or
even should be involved--maybe that is the more appropriate
comment--in something like going into a country and dealing,
and trying to get Internet access for people opposing the
regime or some other. Not to say that that is not an important
mission. But why would we put that mission in USAID? Why would
you not look at some other part of the Federal Government to
place that mission? And you do not have to comment on this, Dr.
Shah, but to me, it seems crazy. It just seems crazy that you
would be in the middle of that. That is just my observation.
FOOD AID
Let me, if I might now, turn my focus to something that
everybody on this committee cares very deeply about, and that
is food aid. Just within the last few days, on April 4th, I
wrote a letter to Mark Pryor, Senator Mark Pryor, the chairman
of the subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA, and
Related Agencies, and to Senator Roy Blunt, who is the ranking
member. The letter was my opportunity to urge them to do this
and that on their appropriation.
I am going to read something to you that I put in that
letter, and I would ask you comments on it. ``Over the past
decade,'' I say, ``Funding has declined in Public Law 480--
Title II as commodity prices have gone up. This has meant fewer
commodities have been made available while global hunger has
remained at alarming levels. While I know the committee has
competing priorities, food aid can literally save the lives of
hungry people around the world, generating good will towards
the United States.''
And then I say, ``This request that I am making would
simply restore the average of funding levels over the past
decade.'' So it would boost funding to the average. I could
make, I think, a very compelling case that it should be higher
than that. What is your reaction to that request? And is that a
request that you would support, the Administration would
support?
Dr. Shah. Well, thank you, Senator. Thank you for your
strong advocacy for food aid reform that is carried out
responsibly.
On face value, just hearing that for the first time, I am
supportive of the basic idea that you are articulating, which
is if we can reform the way we provide our food assistance, we
can update and modernize our programs, save more lives, reach
more children and families in critical need, and do that
without costing the Federal Government extra resources. And
that was the motivation behind President Obama's budget
proposal last year. It continues to be his motivation behind
this year's request for some additional flexibility in the
program.
I will say one additional thing, which is the farm bill
combined with some efforts that you, personally, engaged in and
that Senator Pryor and others supported, will allow us in
fiscal year 2014 to reach 800,000 additional children whom we
otherwise would not have because of partially adopting the
President's proposal.
That is 800,000 kids at a time when in and around Syria, in
and around the Central African Republic, in and around South
Sudan, we are going to have needs that far outstrip our
capacities in terms of humanitarian response. And that is a
real, in my view, step forward we can all jointly take pride
in.
Senator Johanns. I will make sure you get a copy of this
letter. I am hoping that the chairman and ranking member of
this committee will also take a look at it. You are almost
never going to see me come down to a subcommittee hearing and
say, ``We need more funding.'' It is not in my DNA, typically.
But having said that, again, based on my experience in
looking at what you are dealing with Syria, Sudan, etcetera, I
do not think there is any other conclusion to that. I think the
resources are just disappearing and, of course, we went through
a very difficult time where prices were extremely high. That
has changed a little bit here, but I just think at the end of
the day, we are trying to stretch the rubber band too tight and
at some point, it breaks.
Dr. Shah. Thank you, sir.
Senator Johanns. Let me, if I might, ask about the proposal
that the Administration has made on the Food for Peace Title II
program. It is scaled back from last year's proposal. You are
still supportive of local and regional purchases. And, as you
know, I have got some history with that proposal too. In fact,
I think you have used the same proposal that I made when I was
Secretary.
Talk to us about local and regional purchases, what you are
trying to do here, and why you think that could be a
difference-maker. And that will wrap up my questions.
Dr. Shah. Well, thank you. And I will just say we have been
really recognized for the strength, speed, and effectiveness of
the response in the Philippines.
Almost all of the food that you saw provided in the first
few weeks, and even months, were the result of local and
regional purchased and prepositioned food stocks with the
American shipped foods then coming in 8 to 12 weeks later. And
your leadership as the Secretary of Agriculture helped make
that possible, helped feed those kids.
We have a lot of data from that program that shows that we
can do this at a lower cost, more effectively buying the types
of food products that have more nutrition value, can be
delivered quicker, safer, are more preferred for communities.
And, frankly, can help communities then get back on their feet
because we are buying from those local environments, creating
incentives for local farmers.
You pioneered this effort, sir, and I think we are excited
to have the opportunity to continue to build bipartisan support
to take it forward. And if the Senate and the House were to
adopt this year's proposal from the President, we would reach
another 2 million additional children at the end of this year
when it is absolutely, critically needed in core and emergency
environments.
So thank you, very much, for your leadership, and I look
forward to continuing to take your guidance.
Senator Johanns. Well, thank you. It is a difference maker.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Senator Johanns.
I completely agree with your concept that we have got to
make it possible for the people in the area to do things, to be
able to help themselves. We can give them the help to help
themselves. And Dr. Shah, I appreciate the fact that you have
taken that attitude as strongly as you have since you have been
here.
Senator Coons, you visited many of the areas, some very
unglamorous areas wherever the USAID has been very helpful, and
I am glad to have you here.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful for
the opportunity you gave me to travel to Cuba with you, and to
be able to meet Alan Gross in person, to be able to see the
conditions of his imprisonment, and to get to hear personally
how difficult his experience has been. I just want to say that
I share and support the chairman's concerns about doing
everything we can to secure Alan's release.
I also have enjoyed working with my colleague, Senator
Johanns, on food aid reform, and I look forward to continuing
to work together on responsible reform that sustains our
investment in food aid relief, but that also makes it more
efficient and more effective. So if we can strike the midpoint
that sustains our relief around the world, but also makes a
better use of American taxpayer dollars, well, that would be a
great outcome.
POWER AFRICA
I recently chaired a hearing in my senate subcommittee on
Africa about Power Africa with Senator Flake of Arizona, and I
am optimistic about the potential power of this Administration
initiative to tackle energy poverty and to really make a
lasting difference as we work together towards your ambitious
goal of ending extreme poverty and making other significant
advances in development and in security.
What steps are you planning to take to ensure that Power
Africa is sustained? Some of the most significant initiatives
in development today, such as PEPFAR and the Millennium
Challenge Corporation, were started under the Bush
Administration, but structured in a way that they have lasted
well beyond it, and have a made a real difference.
How can Power Africa be funded, authorized, and sustained?
And have you thought of a future expansion that would allow it
to function beyond the initial six countries, and that would
allow it to have a timeline that is more appropriate for power
infrastructure projects?
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Senator.
Thank you for your extraordinary leadership on development.
The depth of your knowledge, experience, and your help in
connecting us to great businesses, universities, and others who
can be part of this effort to end extreme poverty have been
invaluable.
I want to thank you specifically for the efforts you have
made on food aid reform. I know that it is a difficult topic on
which we need to work together, and I am very hopeful that the
President's proposal of this year is perceived as and is, in
fact, an effective midpoint that can help us continue to make
the kind of progress that people have not previously expected,
but we have, with your leadership Senator, have been able to
deliver.
With respect to Power Africa, I believe this is the key to
unlocking growth and development, particularly in sub-Saharan
Africa where around 550 million people still go without real,
consistent power access. And we can only imagine how hard it
would be to start a business or to create economic opportunity
in your community if you were paying exorbitant prices for
diesel that is trucked in and put into generators because there
is no proper energy access.
Power Africa is structured to bring a lot of different
American agencies together. USAID coordinates the effort and
the coordinator is based in Nairobi, but we work hand in glove
with the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Export-
Import Bank, State Department and, very importantly, the
Treasury Department that brings all the multilateral partners
together in support of this effort.
We are supportive of the Electrify Africa legislation in
the House and look forward to further authorizing and
appropriations language in both the House and the Senate to, in
fact, codify this as something America can do in Africa over
the long term. And we believe that it will need appropriate
funding. We have committed upwards of $250 million of
appropriated resources, which then leverages billions of
dollars of private investment commitments. But we should not be
too excited about the private investment commitments if the
appropriations do not come through.
And so, your advocacy for the Development Assistance
Account, specifically, which funds Power Africa, as well as
education, water, Feed the Future, and so many of our other
high priority development initiatives, and is under a lot of
pressure is particularly valued for the Power Africa program.
And finally, I think with respect to partnerships, this has
unlocked a new level of public-private partnership that can
really dramatically improve energy access. We have seen of the
10,000 megawatts we committed to supporting in six countries,
we have already identified more than 5,000 of the megawatts
through specific projects and programs. Those are moving
forward.
We are actively considering right now how to expand this
program and also how to ensure that countries that are not
formally Power Africa countries, but where there are
businesses, and local leaders, and Governments that want to do
the right thing, and allow for public-private partnerships to
create low cost energy access, that we are supporting that
effort as well.
Senator Coons. Thank you.
I share your concern that the Development Assistance
Account is under significant pressure. My concern is that Power
Africa and Feed the Future are funded out of it, but there are
significant pressures on democracy, governance, and peace
building around the world in a variety of countries addressed
by other members of this subcommittee.
So I frankly think it could stand to have more robust
funding and, frankly, to have a dedicated line that makes it
clear that Power Africa is being separately sustained for the
long term.
I have a number of other topics and relatively little time.
There are, as you mentioned, three Level 3 crises going on in
the world at the moment: Central African Republic and South
Sudan being two of the three. I am worried about how we address
the urgent short-term humanitarian needs in both countries, and
the significant requirement for peacekeeping assistance, and
then the requirements for USAID to provide support for
stabilization and return to normalcy, if that is possible in
these two countries. Let me just mention that as a first a
question, and then a second and third, and give you a few
minutes to answer, if I might.
Second, the Global Development Lab; I think one of the
things that has been the hallmark of your leadership of USAID
has been a focus on transparency, accountability, and
innovation. When we combine science, innovation, and
entrepreneurship, we really can solve the grand challenges of
development, and the Global Development Lab really shows
promise for making this possible.
What sort of additional legal authorities does USAID need
from congress to maximize the efforts and the long term impact
of the Lab?
Then last, I am concerned about wildlife trafficking. We do
not yet have the details of your fiscal year 2015 budget, the
detailed congressional budget justifications, and I look
forward to reviewing them and seeing what sort of investment
there will be in combating wildlife trafficking, particularly
in Africa.
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Senator.
On South Sudan, we agree with you. There, our Famine Early
Warning System is noting that there is a very high famine risk
for a variety of reasons, mostly due to violence. Last week, we
announced $83 million of food items that will be prepositioned.
But it is going to be very, very difficult and we will
appreciate your support through what is a difficult period.
With respect to wildlife trafficking, we also recognize
that this is an important issue, and I think between fiscal
year 2014 and 2015, we are doing some very innovative and
important things, and I would look forward to following up with
you on it. I am very excited about what the supply side and
demand side efforts we are going to be pursuing.
On the Global Development Lab, I want to thank you for
raising it. We have worked for years on an effort that both
President Obama, and Secretary Clinton, and now Secretary Kerry
have been very enthusiastic about. We have identified 32
partners including private companies, research universities,
student groups, NGOs. They have all come together to say, ``Let
us work together to bring science, technology, innovation to
global development so we can achieve the end of extreme
poverty, better, cheaper, faster.''
We are seeking some important, new authorities. There are
some hiring authorities under Schedule A that we hope to pursue
as part of this discussion. We are requesting the ability to
use some amount of development assistance funding for health
purposes so that we are not as sectorally focused going
forward.
We are looking forward to having some, notwithstanding,
authority that might help the Lab do its work. And we are
supportive of efforts to, over time, have the ability to own
and commercialize intellectual property.
So we look forward to working with you, but if American
development institutions over the long term are going to have a
DARPA-like institution that can bring high powered, high
quality, well meaning American science and innovation to the
field of development, we would, in fact, need those types of
authorities. And we value the continued support in helping us
find the partners to build this Lab.
Senator Coons. Well, thank you, Administrator and I value
your tireless leadership, your personal commitment to making
sure that USAID is transparent, is responsive to congress, and
spends taxpayer money as responsibly as possible. I look
forward to continuing to work with you on these very important
issues. Thank you.
Dr. Shah. Thank you.
Senator Leahy. Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you for
being here. We appreciate your leadership, and you and your
Agency's hard work.
CHILD SURVIVAL
Can you talk a little bit about, there is concern about
decreasing maternal and child health funds, and especially cuts
to the bilateral programs. Talk a little bit about how that is
going to impact child survival.
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Senator.
First, let me say, thank you for your partnership and
support for child survival, for malaria, for all the issues you
have fought and worked hard on over the years. And I know you
know, but your efforts have helped generate some real successes
that mean that more children survive in many, many parts of the
world. So thank you for that.
With respect to this year's commitments in maternal and
child health, they do represent a small increase in our
commitment relative to the fiscal year 2014 request level. And
I, of course, always want more resources in general from the
U.S. Government, from private partners, from countries
themselves that still pay for the bulk of this, to help
accelerate the end of preventable child death.
We have worked aggressively with more than 170 countries
now to have everyone commit to an evidence-based, results-
oriented approach to end preventable child deaths. In 24
countries specifically, we have restructured our programs to
invest in the most cost-effective ways to save children's
lives. Those 24 countries account for just over 70 percent of
the 6.6 million children that die every year unnecessarily.
I am confident that these resources, especially if we can
continue the successful track record we have had of getting
companies, faith institutions, NGOs, and just as importantly,
the countries themselves to put more in, will allow us to be
successful to achieve our goal.
NUTRITION
Senator Boozman. In relation to that, talk a little bit
about the U.S. Global Nutrition Strategy, which I know that you
are working very, very hard to develop. We appreciate your
leadership in that, and talking about that as a roadmap to
achieve some of the goals that we want to achieve.
Dr. Shah. Well, thank you, Senator.
As part of both Feed the Future and our global health
efforts, we have seen a lot of new science that shows that
children who are malnourished early in their lives are stunted
and have less effective and full brain development that then
affects their capacity to contribute to society for the rest of
their lives.
We also know that there are targeted, specific ways to
prevent that kind of disastrous consequence of large scale
child malnutrition. So we are leading an interagency process to
create a U.S. nutrition strategy.
Last year at the G8 meeting, I committed on behalf of the
United States, that we would make significant investments in
health and agriculture that focus on child and maternal
nutrition in particular. We are the world's largest funder of
nutrition efforts with, over a 3 year period, nearly $1 billion
going to specifically child and maternal nutrition efforts
according to our analysis.
And our strategy will show a very clear way to set a
target, which will be reducing stunting by 2 million kids, to
measure outcomes in the countries where we are going to focus,
and to bring together public-private partnerships and NGOs to
expand the resource commitment in this area.
But this, I think, is the one area where we work in this
space, in which the science has evolved tremendously over just
the last few years. And so, our ability to produce new and
improved food products as part of our food assistance programs;
our ability to target women, pregnant women with clean water
interventions to ensure that they avoid disease during a period
of time when they are at high-risk; and our ability to support
child nutrition during pregnancy, but also just after, with
specific, low cost, supplemental feeding can really help change
the trajectory for some of these countries that have 40-50
percent child stunting rates.
CHILDREN'S VACCINES
Senator Boozman. Very good. Again, along the same vein, the
GAVI Alliance, Global Assistance Vaccination, for those that
are listening that are not familiar, but do you feel our
contribution is being leveraged to the maximum to get the
results that we need?
And, the other thing is what more can we do, what more can
the United States do--and it does a tremendous amount--to
ensure that our work with GAVI countries has the high rate of
success that it has enjoyed?
Dr. Shah. Well, thank you.
The fiscal year 2015 budget includes a $200 million
commitment for the Global Alliance on Vaccines and
Immunization. We, like Bill Gates and so many others, who have
invested in this effort, believe this is one of the most cost
effective ways to save children's lives and that is why we are
proposing a unique increase in our commitment.
We also recognize that GAVI helps low income countries
reach children with new vaccines that they simply would not get
otherwise. By doing deals with pharmaceuticals and vaccine
manufacturers, they secure the vaccines at lower prices for
those countries than they would otherwise gain access to.
USAID then works to supplement GAVI's work in countries to
help train health workers, to help provide some infrastructure,
whether it is motorbikes or bicycles or refrigerators to make
sure that those vaccines can get to where they are most needed.
One of the most hopeful moments I have had in this role was
walking through a refugee camp in Dadaab during the Somali
famine and seeing that these emaciated Somali children were
actually getting a world-class pneumococcus vaccine because of
the efforts of GAVI and the United States together.
Senator Boozman. That is great.
Finally, and I think this is really important, but last
year, you announced USAID would be scaling back and winding
down missions in certain countries in order to focus its
resources on areas with the most potential impact, and USAID
has recently closed some countries. You also noted that USAID
could graduate at least seven countries from assistance by
2015.
What progress have you made in moving more countries beyond
aid and, as you like to say, putting yourself out of business?
Which, again, is really what this is all about, and you have
done a great job, I think, in moving the Agency in that
philosophy.
Dr. Shah. Well, thank you, Senator. We absolutely believe
our mission should be to work to end extreme poverty, but do it
in a way that builds local capacity, so we do not have to be
there over the long, long term. And in that context, I am proud
to have supported this effort to close out of certain programs
and missions.
Over my tenure, we have taken down 34 percent of our total
programs around the world in order to be able to focus
resources in food, Feed the Future, in child survival, in the
kinds of programs that we think deliver the best return on
investment for the American taxpayer in terms of supporting the
world's most vulnerable people. And we are on track to fulfill
our commitments that we made to change our mission structures
and downscale in some of the places we highlighted by the end
of fiscal year 2015.
Sometimes those mission close outs cost us a little money
in terms of staff transitions and programmatic transitions. We
are cognizant of trying to find local partners to pick up the
costs of some of the programs that are ongoing because they are
effective programs the countries value. So we are trying to do
this in a very responsible and sensitive way.
But over my tenure, I have felt that this approach was the
only way to, in a largely budget-neutral environment, have the
flexibility to invest in the things that we think will make the
biggest difference in terms of serving the world's most
vulnerable people. Thank you.
Senator Boozman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much.
CUBA
Let me ask about a couple of these other things. You said
the Cuban Twitter program was not a covert program, it was just
a discrete program. Is that correct?
Dr. Shah. Yes.
Senator Leahy. It was U.S. Government activity, correct?
Dr. Shah. We supported the program, but it is no longer
active.
Senator Leahy. And its purpose was to influence political
conditions abroad by gathering information about Cuban cell
phone users to encourage opposition to the Cuban Government. Is
that correct?
Dr. Shah. No, that is not correct. The purpose of the
program was to support access to information and to allow
people to communicate with each other as we do in many other
parts of the world. The program was not----
Senator Leahy. And were the people----
Dr. Shah [continuing]. For the purpose that you just
articulated, sir.
Senator Leahy. Were those people told that this was a U.S.
Government program?
Dr. Shah. Well, the platform was built and then people were
able to communicate on the platform, and some 48,000-plus
people did.
Senator Leahy. Did they know that it was a U.S.
Government----
Dr. Shah. I do not believe so, no.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Dr. Shah. That was part of discretion.
Senator Leahy. And, in fact, there were quite a few efforts
made to conceal the fact that it was a Government program. Is
that correct?
Dr. Shah. Well----
Senator Leahy. Using shell companies and others?
Dr. Shah. Well, the program was conducted discreetly. Some
of the details to which you are referring, sir, in the AP story
were inaccurate. There was no shell company, or Spanish
company----
Senator Leahy. So, there was no----
Dr. Shah [continuing]. And there was no Pakistan money
involved. We put out a point by point rebuttal, but----
Senator Leahy. Did we tell them it was U.S. Government
money and a U.S. Government program?
Dr. Shah. I am sorry. Could you repeat that?
Senator Leahy. Did we tell the people in Cuba that this was
a U.S. Government program?
Dr. Shah. No.
Senator Leahy. Well, who did we tell them this was coming
from?
Dr. Shah. Well, we conduct programs in lots of different
places without branding----
Senator Leahy. On this particular one----
Dr. Shah [continuing]. Or advertising USAID.
Senator Leahy. You know, on this particular one, where were
they told the program was coming from?
Dr. Shah. I do not know. We did not advertise that this was
a U.S. program just as we, as you know, sir, provide--We have
provided 250,000 surgeries inside of Syria, and we do not
disclose or highlight that those are American programs
providing them medical support because----
Senator Leahy. Did we tell them it was a Spanish company
that was doing it?
Dr. Shah. To be honest, we can go back and get you the
details, sir, but I know that there was no Spanish company
created, and that was one of the inaccuracies in the AP story.
Senator Leahy. But there had to be somebody who was doing
it.
Dr. Shah. Well, I will----
Senator Leahy. And they had to be told it was from
somebody. Is that correct?
Dr. Shah. Well, when you create a platform and then people
would use the platform, we did not advertise that that platform
was supported by the U.S. Government. So that is an inaccurate
representation.
Senator Leahy. If we did not have our embargo, you would
have so many American companies down there, fighting for the
chance to do this and very openly doing it, it would have
accomplished a lot more than this program did.
Dr. Shah. Sir, that----
Senator Leahy. And probably put a lot fewer people at risk.
Dr. Shah. Sir, let me speak to that because it highlights a
reality that we struggle with. This is a program that we are
specified to do and the restrictions on it are quite clearly
specified as well. And, of course, as you are aware, sir, USAID
does not define the full extent of that policy.
My goal is to make sure that we are implementing the
program consistent with the law and managing it well. And if
you look at the GAO report that came out in 2013, I believe the
title of the report was ``USAID Significantly Improves
Management Over This Program.'' And you compare that to the
2008 or 2006 GAO reports that, I think, the title of those
reports were, ``USAID Needs to Improve Management Over This
Program.''
Senator Leahy. I think everybody on this panel, both
democrats and republicans, have praised you for improving----
Dr. Shah. Thank you, sir.
Senator Leahy [continuing]. As have I, but on this
particular one, we are talking about Alan Gross. He was in
Cuba. He was carrying out a USAID-funded program. He was given
very little training about the enormous personal risk. He was
arrested. He is now facing, in effect, a life sentence. I am
told by everybody in the Administration, ``Oh, we are working
so hard on this,'' but I do not see where they have achieved
anything. He does not either. That is why he started a hunger
strike.
Have you done anything specifically, personally, to get him
home?
Dr. Shah. I have, sir, but the responsibility and the
leadership for this rests with the State Department, and the
Secretary, the prior Secretary, Under Secretary Sherman, and
President Obama have all been involved in efforts to secure
Alan's release.
And again, that is not something I can speak about
publicly, but I am certain that Wendy Sherman or others that
are responsible for that body of work would be, would
appreciate the opportunity to disclose what they have done to
you in the right setting.
Senator Leahy. Well, I have asked----
Dr. Shah. And I would also say----
Senator Leahy. Let me read you what another USAID
contractor wrote to me this morning about Alan Gross. He said,
``I always held out the hope that maybe the silence by the
USAID was an effort to find a quiet, diplomatic solution to
secure Alan's release. Now, with the revelation of the Cuban
Twitter program, it seems that the Agency was never very
concerned with Alan's fate and their silence was really a
reflection of callousness. I think the Agency and Congress need
to think through the U.S. Government's moral responsibilities
to any American, even a lowly contractor, that it puts into
harms way by ordering them to engage in programs that are
illegal under the host country's law. Either USAID needs to
refrain from these programs entirely,'' he says that is
preferable to him. ``Or if it is going to run these types of
programs, it needs to take steps to ensure in the event
something goes wrong that it is ready to take a level of
responsibility for the people hurt.''
What about that?
Dr. Shah. Well, sir, three things.
The first is we do care about work on behalf of and support
Alan, and his family, and Judy and, we think about them all the
time. But more importantly than thinking about him, we have a
very, very sophisticated leadership team led out of the State
Department that has been, has tried a number of things to
secure his release.
Second, his incarceration is offensive and completely
inappropriate, and entirely the responsibility of the Cuban
authorities that are holding him for simply carrying out an
effort to help people gain access to the Internet.
And third, I would like to just point out, because this was
reflected in the letter you just read. There are environments
like Uganda right now, where it would be inconsistent with
their new law to try to find and provide antiretroviral drugs
to people who are homosexual. We do that anyway and we do that
because it is a reflection of our values and it is a part of
our programmatic responsibilities.
So, these are difficult issues. I have struggled with the
challenges of managing these efforts, but we are doing them
better than they have been done in the past. We have external
validation that has been pretty comprehensively assessed. Not
just some desk review of what USAID is doing, but the GAO went,
interviewed the partner, interviewed the sub-grantee, had
access to all the documents, and highlighted and complimented
our improved management performance in the title of their
report.
And I think about Alan every day, but I also know that I am
buffeted by a State Department that takes the lead in these
types of issues, and they are highly sensitive and I would
defer to them to be able to explain to you in the appropriate,
private setting or classified setting what----
Senator Leahy. I have had private----
Dr. Shah [continuing]. Has taken place.
Senator Leahy. I have had private settings with them; I
have yet to hear any explanation whatsoever.
Thank you for mentioning Uganda. I struggle with that
because of the absolutely irresponsible position taken by their
government; unfortunately promoted by an American missionary
and those associated with him. I struggle with whether we
should cut off aid to Uganda or not. You do not want to hurt
the people, but I question sending money to a country that
would do something like that.
Senator Graham, thank you for coming back.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You bring up a
good point, and you are in countries where women, young girls,
are basically denied opportunity for an education. Afghanistan,
obviously, is trying to move forward.
We have to be somewhat practical in our aid, but also not
abandon our values, and one of our values is people should be
able to freely communicate. You should be able to get drugs
when you are in a lethal situation regardless of your sexual
orientation and regardless of your gender. You should be able
to have access to schools and that is what we believe in as a
Nation, so it is a complicated world.
Let us go to the West Bank right quick. President Abbas, of
the Palestinian Authority, signed letters of accession for 15
international conventions and treaties. They are threatening to
try to seek membership at different levels in the United
Nations, going around the peace process. We have legislation
cutting off funds if they continue to seek membership in the
U.N. and become an independent State without negotiating with
their neighbor Israel.
How do you see these actions of President Abbas? Do you
believe it violates existing law? And what would the effect be
if we had to terminate our aid programs in the West Bank and
Gaza?
Dr. Shah. Well, thank you, Senator, for your comment about
women and girls in Afghanistan and Uganda.
With respect to the West Bank, and I appreciate the
question. Immediately, the signing of those particular
documents did not trigger any of the concerns with respect to
specific U.N. organizations and American funding for them.
With respect to our work in the West Bank, and I was just
there with Secretary Kerry a few----
Senator Graham. Would you consider these letters
provocative?
Dr. Shah. I will let Secretary Kerry best characterize the
reaction to that.
Senator Graham. I do.
Dr. Shah. I know he is working very, very hard and the
whole team is working hard to abide by and try to honor the
fact that both parties have said they want to continue to be a
part of negotiations.
Now, with respect to what we do in the West Bank, we
provide a significant amount of resources to the authority
there to help provide basic services and support for its
communities. We have public-private partnerships that help
create some economic opportunity and micro enterprise.
I had a chance to visit many of the farmer co-ops and
things that we have, where we provide support, and I personally
think it would be a significant step back for the people of the
West Bank if our support were to go away. In addition to all of
the direct support we provide, we are their lead partner in
trying to mobilize international private investment commitments
should the economy open up. And Secretary Kerry and Tony Blair
have announced a $4 billion investment package from a series of
companies. This puts all of that, of course, at risk and I
think those are important steps.
Senator Graham. Let me just make it clear. This
Administration's position is the Palestinians should negotiate
with the Israelis and vice versa----
Dr. Shah. Absolutely.
Senator Graham [continuing]. Before they try to seek
independent State status at the U.N.
Dr. Shah. Yes.
Senator Graham. That is the congress' decision.
Thank you very much.
Senator Leahy. Well, certainly, I have, you can imagine,
other questions, but I also understand the constraints you have
in answering some of them.
You have, incidentally, a terrific record on child
survival, for which I have applauded you both publicly and
privately.
Have you considered working with the Cuban Government on
child survival programs, something that could be done openly?
Dr. Shah. Sir, my understanding of the Helms-Burton
legislation is that we would not. We would be precluded from
engaging in those kinds of----
Senator Leahy. So the Helms-Burton Act would make sure
that, to show how tough we are, we could not help Cuban
children who have health needs.
You know, I kind of, you do not have to answer this, but I
look at some of these programs and the money we waste on Radio
Marti and other things, and I would like to see free markets in
Cuba. I would like to see an openness there. I would like to
see an end to the repression of people who speak up for their
rights in Cuba. I am not blind to things that every one of us
could disagree with in Cuba.
But I have to think that some of these programs, somebody
dusts off a memo that says, ``If we had just carried this out,
we would get rid of those Castro's.'' And they strike out the
fact of who that memo was given to, first, to President
Eisenhower, and then to President Kennedy, and then to
President Johnson, and then to President Nixon, and then to
President Ford; you get the drift of where I am going.
And of course, the Castro's are still there. I often think,
``What would have happened if we had tried the kind of direct
engagement as we have with other countries that have been
historically repressive or communist?'' But when we have
flooded them with American tourists, and students, and exchange
programs, and programs that improve health, and education, and
other things, how much they have changed afterward.
I think if we had had that kind of a non-embargo, you would
have had, as I mentioned earlier, so many telecommunication
companies from the United States to set up the things that you
were trying to set up clandestinely. And that Cubans would have
no more ability to cut that off than Turkey had to cut it off
when they wanted to cut off Twitter accounts.
There will come a time, I suppose, when we will move from
the 1950's maybe to the 1970's or even the 1980's, and the
United States would be better off for it. We know how it is
reflected in the rest of Latin America.
Here we are, the most powerful Nation on earth, and we act
as if we are afraid of a tiny island country, a country where,
when I visited there, most of the people would love to be able
to communicate more with the United States, eager to hear about
life here.
I would like to be able to see you doing the things you do
so well. I mention child health, and that is something that you
can be proud of, and you have done so much personally around
the world; just think how great it would be if we were doing
that in Cuba. You do not have to answer, but I have no further
questions.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
I will keep the record open for written questions until
Friday.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Dr. Rajiv Shah
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. Development Experience. I wonder to what extent
significant experience in overseas development is a requirement for
working at USAID? I am struck by the fact that few if any of USAID's
senior officials appear to have that background. They are very
experienced in their own specialized fields, but it is not the same as
sustainable development--meaning, extensive field work building
relationships with local organizations and institutions in a way that
helps them achieve their goals. Can you respond?
Follow Up. Since 2008, USAID's Development Leadership Initiative
has hired 820 new permanent Foreign Service Officers increasing USAID's
permanent Foreign Service corps by 80 percent. How many of these
recruits have strong backgrounds in development?
Answer. The Development Leadership Initiative (DLI) hiring from
2008 through 2012 capitalized on the low rate of hiring by USAID during
the previous decade, which created an eager and well qualified group of
applicants for almost all of the specialty areas (backstops) needed by
USAID. The combination of minimum requirements of a master's degree in
most backstops and strong competition resulted in a talented and
experienced group of new Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) who have
already made valuable contributions to the Agency since joining USAID.
Additional qualifications are required for specific backstops, such as
law degrees and accounting majors.
The average of about 3 years of relevant overseas experience for
the entire group does not adequately capture the range of experience
and skills that all of the new officers have brought to the Agency.
Thirty percent (246) of the new FSOs have Peace Corps experience as
volunteers and/or staff. A majority of the new hires also brought
relevant foreign language skills to the Agency which helped them meet
the mandatory language requirements before deployment.
The smaller group of mid-level DLI hires had considerably more
overseas experience as contractors or working in other capacities with
USAID, other development agencies, or non-governmental organizations.
Our estimate is that the group of mid-career DLIs has an average of
over 10 years of development experience, most of which is overseas.
Question. Local Organization Capacity. I recently learned about a
$600 million ``Indefinite Delivery--Indefinite Quantity Contract'' for
capacity development of national and sub-national governments, private
sector entities, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The
performance period of the contract is 2013 through 2020. The
implementers are mostly the usual big U.S. contractors. Is this an
example of USAID Forward?
Answer. A key element of USAID Forward is increasing the Agency's
work directly with local governments, NGOs and private sector--and
building those actors' ability to perform without U.S. assistance. The
Agency's Human and Institutional Capacity Development (HICD) initiative
is a model of structured and integrated processes designed to identify
fundamental causes of performance gaps in host country partner
institutions, address those gaps through a wide array of performance
solutions in the context of all human performance factors, and enable
cyclical processes of continuous performance improvement through the
establishment of performance monitoring systems.
The ultimate goal of HICD is to help USAID's partners improve
performance in critical areas leading to measurable results in
achieving the organization's goals and objectives. In undertaking HICD
initiatives, USAID missions will strengthen their partner
organizations' abilities to more effectively perform for their
constituents and stakeholders and will increase the effectiveness of
ongoing technical assistance provided by the United States Government
and other International Donors.
HICD is implemented through two mechanisms: the Human and
Institutional Capacity Development (HICDpro) indefinite delivery/
indefinite quantity contract (IDIQ) and HICDpro for Critical Priority
Countries (CPCs) IDIQ.
The HICDpro IDIQ is a mechanism under which all awards were
reserved for small businesses. This 100 percent small business
mechanism has a maximum ordering limitation of $300 million over a 5-
year ordering period for programs worldwide.
The HICDpro for CPCs IDIQ provides an overarching framework for
capacity development programs. Under the HICDpro IDIQ for CPCs, there
is a maximum ordering limitation of $500 million over a 5-year ordering
period. Two of the five prime awards were reserved for small
businesses, increasing competition and further contributing to the
diversification of contractors doing business with USAID.
Task orders under HICDpro and HICDpro for CPCs are subject to a
comprehensive review involving the Bureau for Economic Growth,
Education and Environment's Office of Education (E3/ED) and mission
technical staff, technical offices throughout the Agency, and both
mission and headquarters senior management who are well versed in best
practices of implementing USAID Forward initiatives. These safeguards
help ensure that USAID funding directly impacts local organizations and
host country governments.
All six awards under the HICDpro IDIQ were made to U.S.-based small
businesses, including one minority-owned firm. Under the HICDpro for
CPCs IDIQ, two (2) of the five (5) awards were also made to U.S.-based
small businesses, one of which is a minority-owned, SBA-certified 8(a)
disadvantaged, and woman-owned firm from an Historically Underutilized
Business Zone. These eight HICDpro prime contracts ensure maximum
practicable small business participation in HICDpro activities and are
in full support of the Agency's mission for small and disadvantaged
business utilization. This exemplifies another aspect of USAID Forward,
which is broadening the Agency's partner base.
Building on already existing capacity of host country governments
and local organizations, technical design features and required
outcomes of the HICDpro model include:
--Transferring HICD knowledge and expertise to local key performers
and other local staff for the organization's own internal use
and functionality.
--Sub-contracting or otherwise outsourcing HICDpro technical
expertise and services to local organizations.
--Host country governments and local organizations designating
engaged and participatory leaders and key staff to coordinate
and provide HICDpro activities, expertise, and performance
solutions. Most institutional performance solutions are
internal business changes and can only be implemented by each
organization itself.
--Host country partner organizations institutionalizing an internal
performance monitoring system that enables the host country
partner to regularly monitor its own organizational performance
for its own evidence-based management and reporting.
USAID is confident of the HICDpro model's contribution to USAID
Forward objectives and principles. The HICDpro model equips host
country governments and local organizations with methodologies and
tools designed to strengthen each organization's capability of
providing quality services and products to their constituents and
stakeholders.
Question. Follow Up. For years, I have been asking why USAID
``Requests for Proposals'' are so mind-numbingly technical and
bureaucratic and impossible for anyone but a USAID procurement officer
or U.S. contractor to understand. It makes it very hard for local
organizations to compete. What is being done about this?
Answer. USAID appreciates your support for our efforts, under the
Local Solutions (LS) initiative, to increase the use and participation
of local organizations where prudent and appropriate. We also share
your desire to make our Requests for Proposals (RFP) and other
solicitations comprehensible to all potential partners, including local
ones.
As you know, this is a key goal of the Agency's LS initiative and
we have taken a number steps to make things easier for local
organizations. For example, we have:
--created Webinars, e-learning modules that explain USAID contract
and grant making procedures to potential new partners;
--encouraged two-step application processes that start with
submission of a concept paper followed by a full proposal that
often include how-to information sessions;
--translated procurement documents and standard agreement provisions
to the extent the law allows (see below) into local languages;
--conducted in person, pre-award conferences to explain procurement
procedures to local organizations, as well as answer questions
raised about the RFPs or other Agency solicitations; and
--offered post award, new partner conferences which explain in local
working languages USAID's standard form agreements, including
terms and conditions of the award that may be difficult for
speakers of English as a second language to understand.
To further facilitate our work with local organizations, USAID
conducts outreach to current and potential partners through training,
industry days, and other events. As part of the LS initiative, we are
also establishing a feedback mechanism to spot and address further
instances where red tape or overly technical communications frustrate
our attempts to work more with local partners.
More broadly, USAID has developed ``Principles of Plain Language''
and related training courses to promote clear government communications
that the public can understand and use, and requires all Agency
guidance to be written in plain language. While we acknowledge that
this is a work in progress, we understand that clarity of
communications and to the extent possible, in local working languages,
is critical to the success of our Agency's mission.
That said, there are some limitations on what we can do under
current law. USAID's RFPs and other solicitations for contracts must
comply with the Federal Government's laws and regulations applicable to
government contracts, including the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) (48 CFR Parts 1-53) for all acquisitions using appropriated
funds.
The FAR requires that Contracting Officers use the Uniform Contract
Format (UCF) when drafting RFPs. The FAR prescribes forms and
approximately 580 possible solicitation provisions and contract
clauses. These are used to prepare 8 of the 13 sections required by the
UCF. To comply with the FAR, a typical RFP may contain more than 100
prescribed FAR solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
Due primarily to new and amended Federal legislation and Executive
orders, the number of FAR provisions and clauses continues to grow each
year. For example, FAR Part 52 Solicitation Provisions and Contract
Clauses now requires over 600 pages to set out these often complex
provisions and clauses.
The FAR also limits the use of languages other than English; FAR
52.214-34 explicitly provides that all offers in response to contract
solicitations must be in English and those in other languages must be
rejected.
USAID does have more flexibility in designing Requests for
Applications (RFA) for assistance awards (cooperative agreements and
grants), which is where the bulk of USAID awards to local organizations
are occurring, as the FAR does not apply to grants and cooperative
agreements.
However, in accordance with the Federal Grant and Cooperative
Agreement Act, USAID may only use an RFA when the anticipated purpose
of the relationship between USAID and the cooperative agreement or
grant recipient is to transfer something of value (such as money,
property, or services) to the recipient to carry out a public purpose
authorized by U.S. law. An RFP for a contract must be used when USAID
seeks to acquire, by purchase, property or services for the direct
benefit or use of the Agency in achieving its mission.
Question. Afghanistan. The Special Inspector General for
Afghanistan Reconstruction has identified lessons learned from USAID's
programs in Afghanistan based on the numerous audits and inspections
that the Inspector General has conducted since 2008.
According to the Inspector General, USAID programs must take into
account the recipient country's ability to afford the costs of
operating and sustaining completed projects. SIGAR's recommendation
comes 2 years after USAID's budget justification for Afghanistan said
this: ``The United States has structured its partnership with
Afghanistan to be sustainable, durable, and realistic in terms of
funding levels.''
Over the past dozen years, USAID has obligated more than $18
billion for Afghanistan. Do you think those amounts were realistic and
sustainable?
Answer. In 2001, Afghanistan was a country wracked by decades of
conflict and a safe haven for terrorists from which emanated the
attacks of 9/11 on the United States. The United States' core policy
objective in Afghanistan is to ensure that the country is never again a
safe haven for terrorists who threaten the United States or our allies.
Over the past 13 years, civilian assistance has supported our national
security objective by investing in improvements in governance, the
provision of basic services, private sector-led economic growth, and
the strengthening of civil society, starting from a very low level in
2001. In addition, through multi-sectoral, mutually reinforcing
investments, the U.S. has made a concerted effort to prioritize the
advancement of the political, social, and economic rights of Afghan
women and girls.
Since 2001, Afghanistan has made remarkable development gains
across multiple sectors, as a result of the investment and programming
provided by the United States and other donors, along with our
international partners, the Afghan Government and the Afghan people. In
recent years, USAID has made a concerted effort to ensure the
sustainability of these investments.
Weaning Afghans from extraordinary levels of assistance is
necessary for us, and essential for them. To achieve this goal without
triggering a crisis that could ensue should U.S. and related donor
investment precipitously decline, the U.S. seeks to continue to provide
assistance in areas critical to Afghan development and stability, and
to request the resources needed to establish a funding glide path to a
more sustainable level of annual funding. Following on the issuance of
the June 2011 Administrator's Sustainability Guidance for USAID in
Afghanistan, utilized in the Fiscal Year 2012 Appropriations Act, USAID
has regularly reviewed and adjusted its programs in an ongoing effort
to ensure that they are achievable and sustainable.
The effort to promote sustainability has several facets. USAID
performs regular portfolio reviews of USAID programs, both internally
and coordinated with the Afghan Government. Through portfolio reviews,
USAID has oriented its programming to support the development of
Regional Economic Zones that cover major population centers and
promoted regional trade and economic opportunities--especially with
regional markets in Central and South Asia. In addition, through
technical assistance and direct government-to-government assistance
that is subject to stringent safeguards, USAID is building the capacity
of the Afghan Government to implement programs, provide services, and
preserve key development gains, as well as raise the revenue necessary
to financially support services.
Throughout our efforts, we are applying important lessons from the
past 12 years in Afghanistan, as well as from other high-risk
environments in which USAID has worked. As USAID navigates through the
2014 transition period and looks to 2015 and beyond, we are committed
to expending every effort to safeguard taxpayer funds and ensure that
the remarkable development progress in Afghanistan is maintained and
made durable, in order to secure our overall national security
objectives.
Question. For fiscal year 2015 you are requesting hundreds of
millions of dollars in additional aid for Afghanistan. Since sustaining
our investment there seems to depend on continuing to spend large
amounts of U.S. funds, how is that sustainable?
Answer. Weaning Afghanistan from unsustainable levels of assistance
is necessary for us, and essential for them. To achieve this goal
without triggering a crisis, we believe it is essential to continue to
provide assistance in areas critical to Afghan development and
stability. We are making tough decisions and prioritizing investments
that have the greatest potential for long-term sustainability.
USAID has placed an overriding emphasis on promoting sustainability
across all of the Agency's programs in Afghanistan, outlined in the
Administrator's 2011 Sustainability Guidance which emphasizes the
principles of (1) increasing Afghan ownership and capacity; (2)
contributing to stability and confidence; and (3) effective and cost-
efficient programming.
In Afghanistan over the past 3 years, USAID has shifted the focus
of its programs from stabilization and infrastructure to creating the
basis for sustainable, long-term development. USAID's strategy in
Afghanistan is threefold:
--Maintaining and making durable the gains made in health, education,
and for women;
--Supporting continued economic growth and employment through a focus
on the agriculture sector and private sector development,
operations and maintenance of infrastructure investments, and
responsibly developing the extractives industry, all key to
ensuring future fiscal sustainability; and
--Fostering legitimate and effective Afghan governance, the rule of
law, and a robust civil society.
a. USAID is also promoting sustainability by conditioning a
significant percentage of its assistance to the government on
progress toward economic and governance reforms. This process
was formalized by the international donor community and agreed
to by the Afghan Government in the 2012 Tokyo Mutual
Accountability Framework, which outlined reform indicators in
areas such as elections; governance, rule of law, and human
rights; public finance and commercial banking; government
revenues, budget execution and sub-national governance; and
inclusive and sustained growth and development.
b. USAID will use fiscal year 2015 funds to continue support
for economic growth and employment through the agriculture
sector and private sector development; work with the Afghan
Government on commercialization and cost recovery so it will be
able to fund operations and maintenance of infrastructure
investments; and assist them in responsibly developing the
extractives industry for the benefit of all Afghan citizens.
These efforts will help foster economic growth, connect
Afghanistan to its neighbors, improve the functioning of
government, and reduce dependence on international assistance,
while helping the Afghan Government increase revenue generation
to mitigate the impact of the troop drawdown.
Question. SIGAR has brought to my attention a study USAID
contracted for in 1988 which reviews 30 years of U.S. assistance
programs in Afghanistan from 1950 to 1979. The study makes one wonder
how many times we have to repeat the same mistakes. Here are some of
the findings:
--USAID's assistance programs in Afghanistan after 1955 were overly
ambitious in scale and timing, and were larger than could be
effectively administered by the U.S. or Afghan Governments. The
U.S. expectations of the time required to achieve effective
project results were generally unrealistic;
--The U.S. placed too much confidence in the applicability of
technical solutions and U.S. values to complex social and
economic development issues in Afghanistan;
--Infrastructure projects were too often done before planning for
institutional adaptation in the use of the facilities and the
training of personnel;
--U.S. government-to-government assistance programs were at a
disadvantage because the Afghan Government was overly
centralized, largely ineffective, and out of touch with the
local communities; and
--The use of assistance for short-term political objectives tends to
distort sound economic rationale for development and weaken the
longer-term political interests of the U.S.
Does any of that sound familiar? Were you aware of this 1988 study
and did it inform any of the approaches to USAID programs in
Afghanistan? How can these and future lessons learned be incorporated
into the culture and management of USAID so that they are not
forgotten?
Answer. USAID is aware of this study and, along with the project
files of the earlier USAID programs in Afghanistan, utilized this
information and lessons learned in the development of the USAID
reconstruction program in 2001 and continues to incorporate these
lessons in the implementation of the Agency's strategy in Afghanistan.
USAID's development assistance, which represents approximately 3
percent of the total military and civilian financial cost of the war,
has helped Afghans achieve extraordinary gains for a country that in
2002 had virtually no access to reliable electricity, roads or modern
telecommunications, and disadvantaged almost half of its population--
women and girls--by prohibiting them from contributing fully to Afghan
society and the economy. Specific examples include:
--Health: Life expectancy has increased from 42 years to over 62
years since 2002; the maternal mortality rate has declined by
80 percent from 1,600 to 327 deaths per 100,000 births; and
child mortality decreased by 44 percent from 172 to 97 deaths
per 1,000 live births.
--Education: In 2002, there were approximately 900,000 Afghan
children in school, and virtually none were girls. Today,
approximately 8 million children are registered to attend
school and more than one-third of them are girls.
--Mobile Technology: In 2002, there were few fixed telephone lines
and making calls outside of Afghanistan required a satellite
phone. Today, the combined phone network covers 90 percent of
the Afghan population. Eighty-five percent of women have access
to a mobile phone. The telecommunications sector is
Afghanistan's greatest source of foreign direct investment,
largest remitter of taxes to the government, and biggest licit
employer, providing jobs for over 100,000 Afghans.
USAID's current program is putting assistance on a more sustainable
footing, focusing on operations and maintenance of infrastructure, and
increasing Afghan capacity, including through direct government-to-
government assistance.
USAID's Development Strategy for Afghanistan
In Afghanistan over the past 3 years, USAID has focused our
programs on creating the basis for sustainable, long-term development.
We have seen the dire consequences of neglect and disengagement play
out in this region before, and the Obama administration is committed to
not letting history repeat itself.
USAID's strategy in Afghanistan is threefold:
--Maintaining and making durable the gains made in health, education,
and for women;
--Supporting continued economic growth and employment through a focus
on the agriculture sector and private sector development,
operations and maintenance of infrastructure investments, and
responsibly developing the extractives industry, all key to
ensuring future fiscal sustainability; and
--Fostering legitimate and effective Afghan governance, the rule of
law, and a robust civil society.
Sustainability
In June 2011 USAID implemented Sustainability Guidance for
Afghanistan which includes the principles of increasing Afghan
ownership and capacity, contributing to stability and confidence in the
Afghan Government, and designing effective and cost-efficient
programming. In line with this guidance, USAID also conducts annual
portfolio reviews internally within the U.S. Government and then with
the Afghan Government, to ensure USAID programming is fully aligned
with U.S. Government-wide priorities and with Afghan priorities.
Infrastructure
USAID has made a concerted effort since 2011 to reduce new
infrastructure investments, while increasing efforts to build Afghan
Government capacity to maintain the recent investments in critical road
and energy infrastructure. This effort includes the planned Road Sector
Sustainability project, designed to strengthen the capacity of the
Afghan Government to perform operations and maintenance (O&M). This
support will include short-term O&M emergency operations, medium-term
capacity-building activities, and a longer-term effort to establish a
road authority and road fund that will equip the Afghan Government with
the necessary tools to manage its transportation infrastructure in a
sustainable way.
Government-to-Government Assistance
USAID has worked to responsibly increase on-budget assistance
through Afghan Government mechanisms as an integral component of the
Agency's strategy to build the government's capacity and enhance
accountability. For example, in 2003, USAID, in partnership with the
Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) and other donors, created an Afghan-
led Grants and Contract Management Unit (GCMU) in the MoPH to procure,
manage, and oversee donor-funded health contracts. Since 2009, the GCMU
has worked to ensure proper procedures are followed for procurement of
services, contract and financial management, monitoring and evaluation,
and coordination with other donors and ministry stakeholders, including
USAID's Partnership Contracts for Health Services Program. This
includes issuing solicitations and contracts on behalf of the MoPH.
Utilizing Local Solutions
USAID believes that utilizing local solutions is integral to the
sustainability of development efforts in Afghanistan, particularly in
our efforts to build the capacity of the Afghan Government to be able
to deliver goods and services to the Afghan people. USAID has
incorporated local solutions across our portfolio, including through
the World Bank-managed Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, direct
assistance mechanisms, and by awarding grants and contracts directly to
local organizations. During fiscal year 2014, approximately 45 percent
of USAID's obligations were to mechanisms comprising local solutions.
Question. How do we respond to constituents--as well as to
Afghans--who complain that we are supporting a government of thieves
who have enriched themselves and their relatives and friends thanks to
us?
Answer. Although there are inherent risks in conducting development
programs in a country like Afghanistan, USAID prioritizes the effective
and accountable use of taxpayer dollars and does not assume any level
of acceptable fraud, waste, or abuse. The Agency approaches oversight
as a stringent process that involves continual re-examination of
ongoing efforts and flexibility to adjust to new oversight needs as
they arise. Tolerance of waste, fraud or abuse not only would run
counter to our responsibility as stewards of U.S. taxpayer resources,
but would undermine our development goals in Afghanistan. Accordingly,
USAID views robust oversight as an essential component of our
development programming in Afghanistan. In designing oversight
measures, USAID has learned important lessons over its 12 year
engagement, and has drawn on experiences in other challenging
environments, including Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan and Colombia, to
ensure strong oversight of U.S. assistance funds.
In addition to standard USAID oversight measures implemented
worldwide, USAID has implemented the Accountable Assistance for
Afghanistan (A3) initiative, designed to prevent funds from being
diverted from the development purpose to malign actors. Some of the
approaches USAID employs in Afghanistan under A3 include:
1. Award Mechanisms.--We rely less on large agreements and have
increased the number of smaller and more flexible agreements. We are
also utilizing assistance awards that provide the most visibility on
project costs, such as cost-reimbursable contracts and limiting layers
of subcontracts to two.
2. Partner Vetting.--The USAID Mission established a Vetting
Support Unit in February 2011. The unit conducts checks on non-U.S.
companies and non-U.S. key individuals for prime contractors, sub-
contractors, grant recipients and sub-grantees to minimize the risk
that the Mission's programs might support, even inadvertently, malign
entities or individuals. As of April 2014, we have kept over $49
million from being awarded to those who did not meet our vetting
requirements.
3. Financial Controls.--We are enhancing controls on project funds,
such as using electronic funds transfers in lieu of cash payments,
utilizing independent financial monitors to verify appropriate usage of
funds, ensuring close review of recipients' claims prior to payment,
and performing audits of locally incurred costs.
4. Project Oversight.--USAID uses a multi-tiered monitoring
approach that includes, as appropriate, independent monitoring
contractors; observation by U.S. Government staff; reporting by
implementing partners, local non-governmental organizations and civil
society; and use of technological tools, such as time- and date-stamped
photos. By using multiple sources of monitoring data, USAID can compare
information received from separate sources to ensure the greatest
degree of oversight possible.
Approximately $283 million out of $14.4 billion dollars (or
approximately 2 percent) disbursed by USAID has constituted direct
government-to-government assistance to the Afghan Government, and there
are stringent safeguards on this funding. USAID implements risk
mitigation measures in order to ensure proper oversight of direct
assistance funds, which may include:
--Establishing a non-commingled, separate bank account for each
project;
--Regular review and reconciliation of the bank accounts;
--Disbursement of funds only after the ministry has achieved a
performance milestone or USAID has verified incurred costs;
--Regular audits by a USAID OIG-approved firm;
--Substantial involvement and oversight by USAID staff in procurement
processes; and
--Technical assistance to increase the capacity of ministries while
addressing priority vulnerabilities or weaknesses identified in
the assessments.
USAID requires that all direct assistance with the Afghan
Government be in compliance with USAID accountability and oversight
procedures, including site visits to ministries by USAID staff or
independent contractors, as well as regular reporting. If Afghan
ministries fail to adhere to these measures, the agreements are subject
to immediate suspension or termination.
For instance in 2012, USAID suspended the $24.5 million District
Delivery Program (DDP), an on-budget program implemented by the
Independent Directorate for Local Governance (IDLG) due to non-
compliance with requirements for receiving USAID direct assistance. At
the time of suspension, USAID had obligated $4.9 million for the
program and disbursed $2.3 million. Following a USAID-conducted
financial audit of the program, USAID submitted a bill to the
Government of Afghanistan for $703,884 to recover funds lacking
supporting documentation.
USAID also actively engages in training Afghan entities to ensure
they have the capacity to properly manage and account for all funds.
Our efforts to strengthen these institutions include capacity building
for legal and judicial institutions in order to improve application of
rule of law and access to justice; capacity building in other Afghan
Government institutions, particularly those involved in revenue
collection, financial supervision, and accountability and
transparency--thereby reducing the space for corrupt practices; and
direct engagement with Afghan civil society organizations in their
efforts to address corruption in the provision of public goods and
services and hold government accountable to its people.
In addition, audits provide useful oversight and discipline, and
complement and reinforce USAID's own efforts to ensure U.S. taxpayer
dollars are used effectively and efficiently. There are currently over
100 on-going audits of USAID programs in Afghanistan. In fiscal year
2013, the USAID Office of Inspector General, the Special Inspector
General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, and the U.S. Government
Accountability Office completed over 65 financial and program audits in
Afghanistan.
Question. One thing everyone seems to agree about is the need to do
whatever we can to protect the important progress that has been made
for Afghan women, however limited it may have been for many who
continue to face discrimination and abuse. Do you agree that this
should be a top priority, and what are your plans?
Answer. Afghanistan will not be able to achieve sustainable peace,
reconciliation, stability, and economic growth if Afghan women are not
empowered. Though many challenges remain for Afghan women, Afghan women
and girls have achieved dramatic progress over the last 12 years
through the engagement and support of the United States, our
international partners, and courageous Afghan women and men. With
substantial assistance from USAID, more than a third of all school
children in Afghanistan are now girls compared to virtually none in
2002. More than 120,000 young women have finished secondary school and
40,000 are working on university degrees. Over the last decade,
Afghanistan has seen one of the most rapid declines in maternal
mortality anywhere in the world and an increase in overall life
expectancy of 15-20 years. Women have entered the business and
political arenas with women comprising more than 25 percent of the
Afghan Parliament.
Sustaining and maintaining these gains is a key objective of
USAID's work in Afghanistan now and in the future. USAID's programming
includes two women-specific programs as well as integration of gender
into all sectors of programming. USAID's Gender Equality and Women's
Empowerment Policy requires consideration of gender equity and female
empowerment in all USAID project design and implementation across all
sectors. Over 40 gender analyses have been done in Afghanistan, the
findings of which help to ensure that opportunities arising from USAID
investments are equitable. Our work in each sector supports women's
progress.
Similarly important for the preservation of gains for women and
girls is the overall level of funding sought in the President's budget
request for civilian assistance to Afghanistan. That funding request is
intended to provide resources for programs in Afghanistan that support
the provision of security, justice, and basic services to women and
men.
USAID has two projects that are designed specifically to advance
women in Afghanistan. The Promoting Gender Equity in National Priority
Programs (``Promote'') project that is expected for award later this
year will be USAID's largest gender program in the world. The 5-year
program is designed to support a cadre of educated women ages 18 to 30
to enter and advance into decisionmaking and leadership positions in
Afghanistan's public, private and civil society sectors. The program
has four components: (1) Women's Economic Empowerment, (2) Women's
Rights Groups and Coalitions, (3) Women in Government, and (4) Women's
Leadership Development. The project will increase women's contributions
to Afghanistan's development by strengthening women's rights groups,
boosting female participation in the economy, increasing the number of
women in decisionmaking positions within the Afghan Government, and
helping women gain business and management skills. The project will
help 75,000 women between 18 and 30 years of age who have at least a
secondary education. USAID plans to allocate up to $216 million with
the potential for other donors to contribute $200 million in additional
funding.
In addition, the ongoing Ministry of Ministry of Women's Affairs
Organizational Restructuring and Empowerment (MORE) project is designed
to strengthen the Afghan Government's capacity to develop and implement
its National Action Plan for Afghan Women. This project works directly
with the Ministry of Women's Affairs to implement national and
provincial level ministerial restructuring and to improve public
relations, awareness raising campaigns and women's rights.
In addition, USAID will continue to focus on increasing and
improving primary healthcare, safe childbirth, healthier adolescent
girls and women, and training and job opportunities in health for
women. Strengthening women's economic opportunities is planned to be
pursued through reinforcing women's land rights and providing a full
range of business development services to existing and women-owned
enterprises. In agriculture, USAID will target opportunities from
micro/household- to macro/financial institution-strengthening,
expanding women's income-generating potential, improving access to
markets, and addressing constraints that disproportionately affect
women.
USAID is also supporting quality education through teacher training
and placing emphasis on access to formal and community-based education
for boys and girls. USAID's programs additionally focus on increased
literacy and inclusive educational opportunities in basic and higher
education, and technical and vocational educational training.
Democracy, rights and governance projects will continue to support
women's participation in democratic governance and political processes
through investment in women's civic leadership; support to women
journalists and media professionals; judicial training and outreach
programs; access to justice and legal rights awareness; and activities
to ensure informed participation of Afghan women as voters, candidates,
elections administrators and observers.
Question. Partner Vetting. There is a lot of concern among U.S.
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) about USAID's vetting of local
partners. While steps need to be taken to prevent U.S. funds from
ending up in the hands of a terrorist or terrorist organization, you
also need to protect sensitive relationships with the local
organizations we depend on to implement programs.
What is the status of this? Are you still in the pilot phase? What
happens next?
Answer. The USAID Partner Vetting System (PVS) pilot program is in
the implementation phase. USAID has completed PVS public rule making
for acquisitions, identified contract actions in the pilot missions,
and added notice of potential vetting of awards to pilot mission
contract solicitations. USAID is completing public rule making for
assistance awards under PVS. PVS pilot award applicants and their
organizations will be vetted in accordance with established vetting
protocols. USAID plans to analyze data collected from the pilot
program, as well as from existing vetting programs, including those for
West Bank/Gaza and Afghanistan, and produce a joint report to Congress
with the Department of State in accordance with the requirements of
Public Law 112-74, Section 7034(i).
USAID makes it a priority to consult with its partners about
vetting and recognizes the importance of regular dialogue and feedback
from partners about the impact of vetting on partner operations and
effectiveness. USAID seeks to make adjustments where possible while
maintaining the effectiveness of the vetting programs. For example, in
the PVS pilot program, USAID has agreed to test direct vetting in
certain pilot missions. Direct vetting is a concept proposed by
implementing partners that involves direct communication between USAID
and sub-awardees for purposes of vetting, rather than through prime
awardees. Likewise, in the Afghanistan vetting program, the Mission
Order on vetting has been updated to put in place certain modifications
to the vetting process to accommodate requests of implementing
partners, including the exemption of certain routine commercial
transactions from vetting. We will continue to stay in touch with
USAID's implementing partners and seek to accommodate requests, while
maintaining the effectiveness of vetting as a means of ensuring U.S.
taxpayer funds are used for their intended purpose.
Question. Many people have the same name and there have been many
examples of personal information in U.S. databases being stolen or
unintentionally released to the public. Do you tell individuals and
organizations how information about them will be used and stored by the
U.S. Government, including how a ``positive match'' would be handled
and how to appeal such a match?
Answer. USAID has engaged in several public notices and rule
makings that have provided the public with notice on the planned use of
Personally Identifiable Information (PII) for vetting. These public
notices and rule makings include:
Partner Vetting in USAID Assistance
--Proposed Rule--August 8, 2013
--Correction--November 21, 2013
Partner Vetting in USAID Acquisitions
--Final Rule--February 14, 2012
--Proposed Rule--June 6, 2009
Paperwork Reduction Act--Partner Information Form
--June 6, 2011
Privacy Act
--December 12, 2012
--February 2, 2009
Public Briefings
--August 8, 2011
--April 4, 2008
USAID has established procedures for the use of PII for vetting
under the PVS pilot program. PII on key individuals of organizations
applying for USAID funds, either as a prime awardee or as a sub-
awardee, is entered into a secure USAID database that is housed within
USAID servers. Access to this data is strictly controlled and provided
only to authorized U.S. Government staff with vetting responsibilities.
Authorized U.S. Government personnel who have been assigned roles in
the vetting process are provided role-specific training to ensure that
they are knowledgeable in how to protect personally identifiable
information. Access to this data is further restricted through role-
based limitations.
Using the data provided by the applicant, USAID analysts search for
any possible matches between the applicant organization or key
individuals associated with that organization and one or more names
contained in U.S. Government law enforcement and intelligence
databases. Where a possible match is found, USAID staff will thoroughly
analyze all available and relevant data to determine the likelihood of
the match, and make a recommendation regarding the eligibility of the
organization to receive USAID funding. In those instances where there
is a positive match, USAID will update the existing public or non-
public database records for those organizations or individuals with any
pertinent data provided by the organization or individual.
The above process is also followed in the Afghanistan vetting
program. Additionally, in an effort to improve the consistency of
Afghanistan vetting among U.S. agencies, USAID participates in an
Interagency Vendor Vetting Working Group facilitated by the U.S.
Embassy. At these working group meetings, USAID shares its ineligible
determinations and identifies significant assessments. USAID and the
Embassy also participate in a weekly Vendor Vetting Advisory Panel
convened by the Department of Defense regarding Afghanistan eligibility
recommendations.
In the event of an ineligible determination by USAID under the PVS
pilot program, the applicant will be notified of the decision and may
request reconsideration. Once USAID reviews any additional information
provided by the applicant in the PVS pilot program, USAID will make a
final determination and communicate such determination to the
applicant, as appropriate. In the case of vetting programs, USAID may
reconsider ineligible determinations and has done so in particular
cases when it had reason to conduct such reconsideration.
Question. Do you have the ability to waive the vetting requirement
in order to avoid delays in responding to humanitarian crises?
Answer. USAID may approve awards without pre-award vetting that
ordinarily would be required for a program, including the PVS pilot
program, if pre-award vetting would impede the delivery of emergency
aid to an immediate humanitarian crisis. In such cases, USAID may
conduct post-award vetting following the response to the crisis or once
emergency aid has moved to the reconstruction phase of the relief
effort. USAID's policy of allowing approval of awards without pre-award
vetting in order to avoid delays in responding to urgent humanitarian
crises is documented in the PVS pilot mission order.
Question. Are USAID's partner vetting procedures the same as those
used by the Department of State and other agencies implementing
programs with overseas partners? What about the Department of Defense,
which has gotten deeply involved in the foreign aid business in recent
years?
Answer. Both USAID and the Department of State (State) conduct
searches of public and non-public databases for vetting programs. There
are some differences in USAID and State vetting procedures and systems,
including for reasons related to their differing procurement models.
USAID's procurements are often executed at the Agency's overseas
missions, while State's procurement function is centralized in
Washington, DC. As a result, in the PVS pilot program, USAID has staff
at the pilot missions and in the Washington, DC area that work together
on the vetting process, whereas State vetting is conducted out of
Washington, DC. The same State and USAID approaches to the vetting
process are maintained for Afghanistan vetting. Regarding interagency
coordination, USAID coordinates the PVS pilot program with State. USAID
coordinates its Afghanistan vetting program with State and the
Department of Defense (DOD), as noted by the Special Inspector General
for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) in SIGAR Audit 13-14. We
respectfully refer detailed questions regarding vetting procedures at
State and DOD to those agencies.
Question. Disaster Relief Budget Request. Your request for
International Disaster Assistance is $1.3 billion, which is $500
million below the fiscal year 2014 appropriations level of $1.8
billion. What is that cut based on? Do you have reason to believe that
the needs of victims of war and natural disasters will be significantly
less in 2015, or was this just an Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
decision unrelated to reality?
Follow Up. We cannot assume that we there will be less humanitarian
need in fiscal year 2015 than in 2014. Syria and the Central African
Republic are the best examples of that. It means that Congress will
have to make the hard choices. Are there any programs which you regard
as lower priority than disaster assistance that we should shift money
from?
Answer. The administration remains dedicated to providing robust
support for humanitarian programs worldwide. The President's fiscal
year 2015 request includes $1.3 billion for the International Disaster
Assistance (IDA) account. The United States Agency for International
Development plans to carry over fiscal year 2014 IDA funding into
fiscal year 2015 to support humanitarian assistance needs. The
President's request also includes $1.4 billion in Title II to respond
to development and emergency food assistance needs and $2.097 billion
for the Migration Refugee Assistance and the Emergency Refugee and
Migration Assistance accounts. The administration has additional
authorities, if needed, to draw upon to respond to humanitarian needs.
Taken together, we anticipate having the funds needed to support our
humanitarian assistance goals in Syria, Africa, and elsewhere. However,
this is contingent upon avoiding a further deterioration in any of the
current major emergencies, and no new large-scale emergencies before
the end of the fiscal year.
The President's fiscal year 2015 request reflects the
administration's ongoing commitment to humanitarian programs, while
taking into account the current constrained budget environment.
Question. Global Health Budget Request. You propose cuts in several
global health programs, from maternal and child health to neglected
diseases, tuberculosis, vulnerable children, and nutrition. The overall
cut in USAID's health programs below the fiscal year 2014 appropriated
level is $89 million. Was this OMB's decision, or do you think we are
spending too much on global health? Should we be spending less, the
same as 2014, or more?
Answer. The administration's fiscal year 2015 budget request for
USAID's global health programs reflects difficult choices made in a
constrained budget environment.
USAID has undertaken an ambitious review of every dollar the Agency
spends in order to identify inefficiencies and accelerate reductions in
child and maternal mortality in 24 countries, primarily in sub-Saharan
Africa and South Asia, which account for 70 percent of child and
maternal deaths and half of the unmet need for family planning. Our
goal of ending preventable child and maternal deaths will be achieved
through increasingly effective efforts to link diverse health
programs--in maternal and child health, malaria, family planning's
contribution to the healthy timing and spacing of pregnancy, nutrition,
HIV/AIDS, and sanitation and hygiene improvement--and through global
cooperation.
Our nutrition programs are effectively contributing to both the
goals of Feed the Future and of ending preventable child and maternal
deaths. On May 22, 2014, USAID released its new Multi-Sectoral
Nutrition Strategy which aims to reduce the number of chronically
malnourished or stunted children by at least 2 million over the next 5
years and hold global acute malnutrition below the agreed emergency
threshold of 15 percent in places with humanitarian crises, like South
Sudan and the Central African Republic.
USAID's approach will focus on the 1,000 days from pregnancy to a
child's second birthday--the most critical time for a child's
cognitive, intellectual, and physical development. Poor nutrition
during these first 1,000 days can have negative, life-long impacts on
children that prevent them from reaching their full potential. The
strategy's new approach will bolster support for ongoing child and
maternal health commitments, which aim to reach 500 million pregnant
women and children under 2 years of age with improved nutrition, avert
20 million additional cases of stunting, and prevent 1.7 million deaths
due to poor nutrition and health--goals laid out in the Global
Nutrition for Growth Compact.
Further, USAID is a global leader in large-scale implementation of
integrated treatment programs for neglected tropical diseases (NTDs),
focusing on the scale-up of mass drug administration to target the
control or elimination of lymphatic filariasis, blinding trachoma,
onchocerciasis, schistosomiasis, and intestinal worms. The program
currently supports 25 countries and regional programs in Africa and the
Americas to reach treatment targets and monitor and evaluate the
programs to document achievement of control and elimination goals. As a
result of the support provided by USAID, 59 million people now live in
areas where they are no longer at risk of acquiring lymphatic
filariasis and treatment can be stopped, and 35 million people live in
areas where active trachoma is no longer a public health problem. Over
the past 7 years, the U.S. Government has leveraged $6.7 billion in
donated medicines, resulting in the delivery of more than 1 billion
treatments to approximately 467.9 million people.
In part because of the USG's efforts, the rate of new TB cases has
been declining for the past decade and the world is on track to meet
the Millennium Development Goals of reversing TB incidence, along with
a 50 percent reduction in the mortality rate by 2015, compared to 1990.
Since 1990, TB treatment has saved the lives of more than 22 million
people.
There are 22 high-burden countries, which account for 80 percent of
the world's TB cases. Five of these countries, which account for almost
50 percent of the TB cases--Brazil, Russia, India, China and South
Africa--have the ability and capacity to increase domestic funding to
address TB. All of these five countries are now providing development
assistance to other countries. For example, Russia has increased
funding for its National TB Control Program from less than $500 million
annually in 2007 to more than $1 billion annually beginning in 2010,
and Brazil has increased annual funding to its National TB Control
Program and will provide an additional $7.3 million in 2014.
The Global Health Programs-USAID request for TB does not represent
the totality of the U.S. Government response to this disease. USAID
collaborates with other agencies and the Global Fund to integrate and
expand TB health services and strengthen delivery platforms, and with
the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) on TB/HIV co-
infection interventions. It is important to note that three-quarters of
annual international donor funding for TB is provided by the Global
Fund, and the U.S. Government remains the largest donor to the Fund.
Through the Displaced Children and Orphans Fund, USAID supports
programs in 14 countries to prevent family separation, promote family-
based alternatives to institutional care for children and strengthen
the capacity of families, communities and governments to care for
children. As a result of our assistance, more than 14,000 child
protective service providers were trained in fiscal year 2013 to
provide comprehensive, sensitive care. In turn, these providers have
directly reached more than 92,000 children and their family members,
improving protection and wellbeing for vulnerable children.
Follow Up. For many years, United States law, known as the Hyde
Amendment, has permitted Federal funding of abortions in cases of rape,
incest or to protect the health of the mother. That was most recently
reaffirmed in the fiscal year 2013 Defense Authorization Act. Does
USAID provide funding for this purpose, particularly in places like
Eastern Congo where rape is widely used as a weapon of war against
women and girls? If not, why not?
Answer. USAID is committed to saving women's lives and advancing
their health by investing in voluntary family planning and reproductive
health programs, including in conflict settings and humanitarian
emergencies. These programs have improved the health of women worldwide
by helping to prevent unintended pregnancies, reducing the number of
abortions and lowering the number of maternal deaths related to
complications of pregnancy and childbirth.
USAID's Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy stipulates
that USAID will strive to reduce gender-based violence and mitigate its
harmful effects on individuals and communities. USAID provides a range
of health services for victims of sexual violence, including
reproductive healthcare, emergency contraception, psycho-social
counseling, family mediation, socio-economic assistance, and referral
for legal services. USAID does not provide funding for the performance
of abortion.
Question. USAID Operating Costs. The USAID fiscal year 2015 request
for operating costs are almost double what they were in fiscal year
2007. This trend is not sustainable. What is USAID doing to reduce its
operating costs and bring them into line with the current budget
environment? What impact has this increase in operating costs over the
past 8 years had on improving the delivery and effectiveness of U.S.
foreign aid?
Answer. Our mission to end extreme poverty and promote resilient,
democratic societies while advancing the Nation's security and
prosperity could not be achieved without the operational resources to
support the delivery of our foreign assistance. The increase in
operating costs since fiscal year 2007 was necessary for USAID to
achieve its mission by rebuilding civilian capacity, improving
development results and sustainability, regaining global development
leadership, and supporting critical operations in Afghanistan and
Pakistan vital to national security interests.
Beginning in fiscal year 2008, recognizing that development is key
to national security, Congress appropriated funding to launch the
Development Leadership Initiative (DLI) to rebuild the Agency's human
capital capacity to meet the stewardship and technical demands of
implementing the National Security Strategy. With continued bipartisan
support, the Agency received funding for an additional 820 permanent
Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) under DLI, allowing USAID to align
human capital resources strategically with foreign assistance goals and
increased program funding.
The main drivers of increases from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year
2015 include the following:
--The U.S. Direct Hire (USDH) workforce grew by 81 percent,
reflecting the hiring of 820 new FSOs under DLI and Civil
Service staff to support USAID Forward reforms, the
Presidential Initiatives, and the expanded overseas workforce.
--The cost for Afghanistan and Pakistan operations increased
significantly to support a ramp-up in USAID's presence in these
Frontline States.
--Mandatory International Cooperative Administrative Support Services
(ICASS) costs, excluding Afghanistan and Pakistan, from the
Department of State increased by 351 percent due to challenging
security environments overseas.
As a careful steward of taxpayer dollars, especially in this
fiscally constrained environment, USAID strives to be more efficient
and effective in its worldwide operations. The Agency continues to
implement ambitious operational reforms to improve management processes
and achieve efficiencies through real property disposals, in-sourcing,
travel, conferences, information technology, and space optimization
that generate cost savings and avoidance. USAID has achieved cost
savings and avoidance of $57.6 million in fiscal year 2011, $92.6
million in fiscal year 2012, $17.8 million in fiscal year 2013 and
$12.6 million thus far in fiscal year 2014. Further, USAID has
restructured its overseas presence to realign resources with policy
priorities, strengthening its ability to meet its foreign policy and
national security mission.
Over the past 8 years, the increased budget for operating costs has
allowed USAID to improve the delivery and effectiveness of U.S. foreign
assistance through its new model of development. With the expanded
workforce, USAID has been able to reform policy, harness innovation,
and leverage private capital, thus maximizing development impact.
The results the Agency has achieved in recent years to end extreme
poverty and promote democratic, resilient societies would not have been
possible without the human and financial resources made available to
recruit, hire, train, deploy, and equip USAID's talented staff. The
chart below illustrates the Agency's recent foreign assistance
achievements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding Level
Corporate Priorities 2006-2009 v. Result Cost-Effectiveness and
2010-2013 Leverage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feed the Future........................ +206% Helped 6.7M farmers grow Cost-benefit analyses show
more food and improved an average rate of return
nutrition for 12.7M of 32% for Feed the
children in 2013. Future investments.
Child Survival......................... +42% Helped achieve 8% Helping Babies Breathe
reduction in under-5 Alliance leveraged $3 for
mortality in our 24 every $1 we invested,
priority countries in 2 raising an additional
years alone, saving $23M for this lifesaving
560,000 lives. partnership.
AIDS-Free Generation................... +29% With PEPFAR, we provided The Global Fund raised $2
antiretroviral treatment for every $1 pledged by
to 6.7M people with HIV/ the U.S. Government,
AIDS in 2013--a four-fold leveraging billions for
increase since 2008. HIV/AIDS.
Power Africa........................... +420% 2,500MW of power projects For every $1 the U.S.
have financially closed; Government has committed,
another 5,500MW are in the private sector has
the planning stages-- committed $2--over $14
together enough to light billion so far.
over 10M homes.
Resilience............................. +$451M Reduced disaster risk for Each $1 of investment in
27M people and resilience yields $2.9 in
strengthened resilience development gains,
for 3.4M in targeted avoided livestock losses,
zones in the Horn of and unneeded aid.
Africa in 2013.
Education.............................. +28% Expanded education All Children Reading: A
opportunities for 19M Grand Challenge for
students in 2013. Development matched $1
for every $1 we invested.
Water.................................. +38% Provided 38M people with Securing Water for Food: A
access to water and 17.7M Grand Challenge for
with access to improved Development leveraged
sanitation since 2006. roughly $2 for every $1
we invested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Development Assistance Budget Request. Your request of
$2.6 billion for Development Assistance is $113 million above the
fiscal year 2014 appropriated level. Where do you plan to use the bulk
of these additional funds?
Answer. The fiscal year 2015 DA request of $2.6 billion is designed
to achieve the goals outlined in Presidential Policy Directive-6 (PPD-
6) by supporting programs focused on sustainable development, economic
growth, democratic governance, development innovations, sustainable
systems for meeting basic human needs, and building resilience.
The bulk of the additional resources of $113 million will support
the Presidential Initiatives for Global Climate Change and Feed the
Future and further development goals in the areas of education, water,
governing justly and democratically as well as empowering women.
Question. Follow Up. Do you expect higher or lower amounts in the
countries of Central America, where poverty and violence are driving
people to leave their homes and come to the United States?
Answer. The fiscal year 2015 request prioritizes the countries of
Central America with a $26.0 million increase in funding for the region
as compared to the fiscal year 2014 Estimate.
[$ in thousands for all items]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2014 Fiscal Year 2015 Increase/
Estimate Request Decrease
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
El Salvador............................................... 19,281 25,000 5,719
Development Assistance................................ 19,281 25,000 5,719
Guatemala................................................. 57,789 70,387 12,598
Development Assistance................................ 42,789 57,387 14,598
Global Health Programs--USAID......................... 15,000 13,000 -2,000
Honduras.................................................. 36,700 44,326 7,626
Development Assistance................................ 36,700 44,326 7,626
Nicaragua................................................. 7,400 8,000 -400
Development Assistance................................ 7,400 8,000 600
USAID Central America Regional............................ 19,891 19,391 -1,500
Development Assistance................................ 11,500 11,000 -1,500
Global Health Programs--USAID......................... 8,391 8,391 --
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................................... 141,061 167,104 26,043
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, through the Central America Regional Security
Initiative, the fiscal year 2015 request includes $60.0 million of ESF
for Central America, the majority of which will be managed by USAID.
Question. Indigenous People. As you know, USAID now has an Advisor
on Indigenous Peoples Issues, a position I established some years ago.
This is important because many of the countries where USAID has
programs have indigenous populations whose survival is threatened,
particularly from extractive industries and the encroachment of
agriculture and unchecked development. What steps is USAID taking to
incorporate indigenous people as partners in the sustainable
development process, to ensure that their rights and traditions are
protected and their needs addressed?
Answer. USAID recognizes the important role that indigenous peoples
play in sustainable development, biodiversity conservation, and
adapting to--and mitigating the effects of--global climate change. For
several years we have worked to incorporate the issues and concerns of
indigenous peoples into our work in many countries, including Colombia,
Peru, Brazil, Ecuador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Now, with the
appointment of our new Advisor on Indigenous Peoples Issues, USAID is
taking steps to ensure that all of USAID's projects, programs and
policies are designed and implemented to include indigenous peoples as
partners in the entire development process, including:
A. Integrating Indigenous Peoples' Issues into USAID Programs, Policies
and Projects:
--Evaluating the impact of USAID's projects and programs on
indigenous communities
--Developing a USAID policy on Indigenous Peoples
--Integrating Indigenous Peoples' Issues into other USAID Policies
(Internally Displaced People Policy, Biodiversity Policy, etc.)
--Integrating Indigenous Peoples' Issues into USAID Country
Development Cooperation Strategies
B. Enhancing USAID Staff Capacity to Integrate Indigenous Peoples into
Programs and Projects:
--Developing a USAID Training Program on Indigenous Peoples' issues
--Developing a series of issue papers on Indigenous Peoples
--Incorporating Indigenous Peoples into USAID's Democracy Human
Rights and Governance (DRG) Strategic Assessment Framework to
ensure that the situation of indigenous peoples is assessed
when a country's primary DRG challenges are identified, to
support USAID missions in developing strategies for addressing
them, and to guide resources to areas where investments will
have the greatest impact.
C. Improving Coordination:
--Strengthening Intra-Agency Coordination
--Enhancing Inter-Agency Coordination (Department of State, Treasury,
USUN, Bureau of Indian Affairs, White House)
--Engaging International Financial Institutions on policy and project
issues (World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, African
Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development)
D. Engaging Indigenous Peoples:
--Coordinated consultations with indigenous leaders at the 13th
session of the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in May
2014.
--Planning for the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, a high-
level plenary meeting of the United Nations General Assembly
that will take place September 22-23, 2014 at the UN
headquarters in New York.
--Providing funding for indigenous peoples' issues through USAID's
Human Rights Grant Program. In the first round of grants since
the Advisor has been at USAID, a grant for $750,000 was awarded
to support the economic inclusion of Guarani farmers in
Paraguay. The next call for proposals will go out in the next 2
weeks and, because of outreach undertaken by the Advisor, we
expect a minimum of three proposals for indigenous peoples'
projects.
--Organizing meetings between USAID staff and indigenous leaders from
Indonesia, Kenya, Bangladesh, Democratic Republic of Congo and
Peru
--Serving on the planning committee of the World Summit of Indigenous
Funders that will be held in September 2014.
Question. Columbia. The Colombian Government is trying to negotiate
a peace agreement with the FARC, which if successful will end decades
of civil war. That may be the easy part. If there is an agreement,
securing and sustaining the peace will be extremely difficult.
What plans is USAID making, if any, and how is it reflected in your
fiscal year 2015 request for Colombia--which is decreasing--to help
Colombia? Is this something you are anticipating for fiscal year 2016,
rather than this year?
Answer. USAID has been planning for nearly 2 years to ensure that
its programs are flexible and relevant to adapt to the needs in
Colombia in the coming years. Specifically regarding the peace process,
USAID has been in close contact with the government about the status of
the negotiations and we have encouraged them to inform us of any areas
of anticipated support.
USAID programs in Colombia will continue to work with the
government, civil society, and the private sector to support conflict
victims, reduce impunity, develop rule of law, bring government
services to rural areas previously controlled by the FARC, and improve
land tenure and livelihoods in rural areas. By supporting the efforts
of the Colombian people to secure justice and good governance, we help
lay the ground work for the accountability, stability, and
reconciliation necessary for any peace deal to be successful.
Question. USAID Overseas Presence. USAID proposed in the fiscal
year 2014 budget request to restructure its overseas presence by
closing or downsizing 10 USAID missions and establishing new or
upgrading existing USAID offices in 10 countries. The fiscal year 2015
budget doesn't propose any additional restructuring overseas. Given the
dynamic and changing situations in Ukraine, Russia, Africa, and the
Middle East, do you continue to think that no additional restructuring
is needed? Are you looking at other ways to maintain overseas presence
in a more flexible manner?
Answer. USAID monitors closely the political and security
situations in the countries where it has programs to determine whether
changes in presence are warranted. At the time the Agency prepared the
fiscal year 2015 budget, no changes in USAID presence were needed.
However, given the recent deteriorating security situations in the
Middle East and Africa and the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, the
Agency is considering additional restructuring changes that will
address security concerns while maintaining overseas presence in a
flexible manner. As required, the Agency will notify Congress of any
proposed presence changes.
Question. Ethiopia. What steps have been or will be taken by USAID
to ensure that no foreign aid is used to support activities that either
directly or indirectly result in forced evictions?
Answer. USAID will continue to conduct the appropriate planning,
consultation, analysis, due diligence, and monitoring to ensure that
foreign assistance does not support forced evictions, while continuing
our important partnerships to improve the livelihoods of people in
Ethiopia. Through consistent site visits to the areas in question, such
as South Omo, implementing partner reports, and data quality analysis,
USAID is diligent about ensuring that aid supports the intended project
purposes and does no harm. In addition, USAID and other donors continue
to insist that the Ethiopian Government conduct meaningful community
consultations, offer appropriate grievance procedures, and allow for
sufficient planning and the timely provision of services.
Question. In two reports released in 2013, Development Aid to
Ethiopia: Overlooking Violence, Marginalization, and Political
Repression and Ignoring Abuse in Ethiopia: DFID USAID in the Lower Omo
Valley, the Oakland Institute documented how officials from USAID heard
first-hand accounts of forced resettlements and human rights abuses
from villagers in Ethiopia and yet still came to the conclusion that
the allegations of forced resettlements were ``unsubstantiated.'' They
went on to say that no evidence exists to make the links between their
programs and practices of the Ethiopian Government. What methodology
did USAID use to reach this conclusion?
Answer. USAID has conducted over six monitoring visits to the
village sites in the lower Omo region since late 2011 with an
additional visit ongoing presently. Some of these visits were jointly
conducted with other donors. During each visit USAID has conducted
numerous discussions with affected groups to assess their experience.
Despite these discussions and the significant efforts expended by USAID
on each trip to investigate alleged abuses, USAID has never encountered
any evidence of the Ethiopian Government using violence to threaten or
remove populations during its visits.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
Question. As you know, tuberculosis is the leading curable
infectious killer in the world, claiming 1.3 million lives per year.
Worldwide, tuberculosis is the third leading cause of death among women
of reproductive age. I agree that continued advances in scientific
health, specifically with tuberculosis, are imperative. The United
States has been a leader on this issue and, as a result, has helped
save and improve the lives of millions. I know the Foreign Assistance
Act allows USAID to provide assistance to any U.S. or non-U.S.
individual or entity. I also know that we must weigh the expertise of
entities to ensure that the government is providing resources,
especially research and development resources, to those that are most
capable of achieving the outcomes. However, given the history of U.S.
entities in TB research, I am frustrated by the level of funding going
to entities outside the U.S. I am also frustrated that Requests for
Applications specifically confirm that non-U.S. based groups are
eligible, and to my knowledge, U.S. companies are not given any
weighted preference in the selection process.
Please share with me why we have significant USAID funding for TB
being awarded to non-U.S. entities when we have plenty of U.S. entities
more than capable of meeting the requirements?
Answer. USAID's top priority in managing its tuberculosis (TB)
program is to ensure that program operations achieve the maximum
results possible in an effective and efficient manner. The TB program
operates through a variety of mechanisms that are awarded based on
technical excellence and cost effectiveness through a full and open
application process. Our partners are composed of both U.S. and non-
U.S. based entities which carry out various elements of the diagnosis,
treatment, and prevention of TB. We are proud of the results that have
been achieved through USAID-assisted TB programs. Since 1990, deaths
from TB have been reduced 41 percent and the overall prevalence of TB
has been reduced 40 percent in USAID-supported countries. These
countries are on track to meet the Millennium Development Goal target
of a 50 percent reduction in mortality by 2015. Further, more than 1.31
million people with TB were successfully treated and more than 45,000
people with multi-drug resistant TB (MDR-TB) initiated treatment in
2012, the most recent year for which data is available. This is a 40
percent increase in 1 year of the number of people initiated on MDR-TB
treatment, comparing the same number of countries in 2011.
USAID's record demonstrates a strong commitment to partnering with
U.S. companies, with USAID TB mechanisms in both Washington and
worldwide awarded to numerous U.S.-based entities--including University
Research Co., LLC, PATH, FHI 360, Abt Associates, Chemonics, and MSH.
In addition, USAID partners with a number of U.S.-based organizations--
such as the TB Drug Alliance, Johnson & Johnson, and Cepheid, Inc.--to
strengthen our TB programs. These organizations provide unique
expertise that contributes to the Agency's impressive TB results. In
certain cases, non-U.S. based entities--including the World Health
Organization, the Stop TB Partnership, the International Union Against
Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, and KNCV Tuberculosis Foundation--
possess a unique expertise and existing logistical access to improve TB
care, treatment and prevention in a cost-effective manner. For example,
the Stop TB Partnership's Global Drug Facility allows for the pooling
of procurements, thereby creating the opportunity for countries to
purchase improved quality commodities for lower prices.
Question. What system of priorities does USAID give to U.S.
companies for TB funding in order to further build our domestic
capabilities?
Answer. USAID's tuberculosis (TB) program follows the policies and
procedures in USAID's Automated Directives System (ADS), specifically
ADS Chapter 300 which outlines policies for the procurement of goods
and services through Agency acquisition and assistance planning.
Further, USAID follows the Code of Federal Regulations procurement
standards. Through a competitive and transparent process, USAID makes
awards to partners with applications that are of the highest technical
merit, while providing the best value for money.
USAID partners with a number of U.S. companies to further build TB
capabilities in the international sector, including:
--TB Drug Alliance, a non-profit U.S.-based organization dedicated to
the discovery and development of new, faster-acting and
affordable TB medicines. USAID funding is supporting the TB
Alliance to develop new, urgently needed TB treatments for use
both in the United States and globally. With USAID support, the
TB Alliance currently has multiple new TB drug combinations in
clinical development.
--Johnson & Johnson, a U.S.-based company that includes
pharmaceutical products. USAID is supporting studies to
evaluate the efficacy of bedaquiline--a drug that can be used
as part of a combination therapy for pulmonary, multidrug-
resistant TB (MDR-TB) in adults. Bedaquiline is the first drug
in 40 years with a specific indication for MDR-TB. USAID will
be supporting the implementation of a clinical trial that will
evaluate efficacy, as well as the safety of bedaquiline. Data
from the study will help Johnson & Johnson meet U.S. Food and
Drug Administration requirements for full approval of the drug.
Further, USAID is supporting countries to introduce bedaquiline
as part of TB treatment for MDR-TB and extensively drug-
resistant TB (XDR-TB) patients--information that will directly
benefit U.S. MDR-TB and XDR-TB patients.
--Cepheid Inc., a California-based molecular diagnostic system
manufacturer and supplier responsible for bringing to market an
exciting new TB diagnostic, Xpert MTB/RIF--a test capable of
accurately diagnosing TB and MDR-TB in 2 hours. USAID--in
partnership with PEPFAR, UNITAID and the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation--entered into a financial agreement with Cepheid to
reduce the cost of one Xpert test from $16.87 to $9.98--a 40
percent reduction. USAID is also supporting the roll-out and
scale-up of Xpert in countries through a comprehensive
technical approach, and experience from this roll-out will
inform better testing practices in the United States for
persons suspected of having TB and MDR-TB.
Partnering with international organizations allows USAID to more
efficiently leverage the funds of other donors, including other
government donors and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and
Malaria, to develop new tools and drugs and reduce the price of
commodities while increasing the quality. USAID also supports the Stop
TB Global Drug Facility (GDF) to pool TB drug procurements so
countries, including the United States, are able to access cheaper,
high-quality drugs. USAID, through engagement with the GDF and U.S.
Pharmocopeia, has contributed to the dramatic reduction of second-line
drug costs for the treatment of MDR-TB.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much, Dr. Shah.
Dr. Shah. Thank you, Senator.
[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., Tuesday, April 8, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Blunt, Senator Roy, U.S. Senator From Missouri, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 115
Boozman, Senator John, U.S. Senator From Arkansas, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 55
Durbin, Senator Richard J., U.S. Senator From Illinois, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 34
Graham, Senator Lindsey, U.S. Senator From South Carolina:
Questions Submitted by....................................... 48
Statements of
Kerry, Hon. John F., Secretary, Department of State.............. 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 8
Questions Submitted to....................................... 34
Summary Statement of......................................... 4
Kirk, Senator Mark, U.S. Senator From Illinois, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 51
Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 35
Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont:
Opening Statements of
Prepared Statements of
Questions Submitted by....................................... 100
Shah, Dr. Rajiv, Administrator, United States Agency for
International Development...................................... 59
Prepared Statement of........................................ 65
Questions Submitted to....................................... 100
Summary Statement of......................................... 63
Shaheen, Senator Jeanne, U.S. Senator From New Hampshire,
Questions Submitted by......................................... 44
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Secretary
Page
Africa Initiatives............................................... 26
Aid to Orphans................................................... 17
Camp Liberty..................................................... 30
Central African Republic......................................... 29
Child Welfare Systems Strengthening.............................. 42
Fly America Act.................................................. 54
How the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Puts
Family Care First.............................................. 42
International Monetary Fund (IMF)................................ 12
Iranian:
Funding for Hezbollah........................................ 25
Nuclear Program.............................................. 20
Trade With Iran.............................................. 24
Keystone Pipeline................................................ 16
National Endowment for Democracy................................. 53
Fiscal Year 2011-2015 Appropriations (Chart)................. 53
Nuclear Development.............................................. 32
PEPFAR........................................................... 28
How PEPFAR Puts Family Care First............................ 42
Support for Children Outside of Family Care.................. 42
Why PEPFAR Focuses on Family Preservation.................... 41
Russian:
Aggression in Ukraine........................................ 15
Sanctions.................................................... 19
Syrian:
Chemical Weapons............................................. 22
Refugee Crisis............................................... 14
Turkey and Syrian Relations.................................. 31
Trade With Iran.................................................. 24
Turkey and Syrian Relations...................................... 31
U.S. Support of Ukraine.......................................... 10
Why PEPFAR Focuses on Family Preservation........................ 41
UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
A Blog From the United States Agency for International
Development, April 7, 2014, ``Eight Facts About ZunZuneo''..... 78
A New Model for Development...................................... 65
Afghanistan...................................................... 81
Associated Press Story ``U.S. Secretly Created `Cuban Twitter' to
Stir
Unrest''....................................................... 72
Child Survival................................................... 92
Children's Vaccines.............................................. 93
Core Priorities.................................................. 66
Climate Change............................................... 68
Education.................................................... 68
Feed the Future.............................................. 66
Global Health................................................ 67
Power Africa................................................. 68
Water........................................................ 69
Cuba
Eight Facts About ZunZuneo....................................... 78
Feed the Future.................................................. 82
Food Aid......................................................... 87
Hepatitis C...................................................... 83
Miami Herald Story of April 3, 2014, ``U.S. Secretly Created
`Cuban Twitter' to Stir Unrest''............................... 72
National Action Plan for Children................................ 84
Nutrition........................................................ 93
Power Africa..................................................... 89
Supporting Regional Priorities and Strengthening National
Security....................................................... 69
Ukraine.......................................................... 83
USAID:
Central America Fiscal Year 2015 Funding Priorities (Chart).. 113
Operating Expenses........................................... 71
Recent Foreign Assistance Achievements (Chart)............... 112
Response to the Associated Press Story ``U.S. Secretly
Created `Cuban Twitter' to Stir Unrest''................... 78
[all]