    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

     REVIEWING THE ADMINISTRATION'S FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST FOR EUROPE AND
                                    EURASIA

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 16, 2015

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-60

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
                                      or
                           http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
                                      ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    95-126 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2015
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                     EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         BRAD SHERMAN, California
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
    TED POE, Texas                       BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
    MATT SALMON, Arizona                 KAREN BASS, California
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina          ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   AMI BERA, California
    PAUL COOK, California                ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
    RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas            GRACE MENG, New York
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida                TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
    TED S. YOHO, Florida                 ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    CURT CLAWSON, Florida                BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
    REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
    DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan
    LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
    DANIEL DONOVAN, New York

         Amy Porter, Chief of Staff      Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director

                   Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
                                     ------

             Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats

                     DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman
    TED POE, Texas                       GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
    PAUL COOK, California                WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
    RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas            LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin            TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
    DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    Ms. Alina Romanowski, Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to Europe
      and Eurasia, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, U.S.
      Department of State............................................     5
    Ms. Susan Fritz, Acting Assistant Administrator, Europe and
      Eurasia Bureau, U.S. Agency for International Development......    18
    Mr. Daniel Rosenblum, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Central
      Asia, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, U.S.
      Department of State............................................    29
    The Honorable Jonathan Stivers, Assistant Administrator, Bureau
      for Asia, U.S. Agency for International Development............    36

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    Ms. Alina Romanowski: Prepared statement.........................     7
    Ms. Susan Fritz: Prepared statement..............................    21
    Mr. Daniel Rosenblum: Prepared statement.........................    31
    The Honorable Jonathan Stivers: Prepared statement...............    38

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing notice...................................................    60
    Hearing minutes..................................................    61

                     REVIEWING THE ADMINISTRATION'S FY 2016
                         BUDGET REQUEST FOR EUROPE AND
                                    EURASIA

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2015

                           House of Representatives,

             Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats,

                         Committee on Foreign Affairs,

                                Washington, DC.

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o'clock
    p.m., in room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dana
    Rohrabacher (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I call to order the Europe, Eurasia, and
    Emerging Threats Subcommittee for this afternoon's hearing on
    the administration's budget request.
        Before I get into the substance of the hearing, I would
    like to express my sympathy for the victims of the devastating
    floods which struck the Georgian capital of Tbilisi this
    weekend.
        Over a dozen people have lost their lives and millions of
    dollars in property damage has been suffered. I am sure my
    ranking member and all the members of the subcommittee join me
    in expressing our condolences to the families of the victims
    and wishing the citizens of Tbilisi a speedy recovery.
        Getting to the matter at hand, the President has asked that
    Congress authorize over $50 billion for international affairs
    programs for Fiscal Year 2016. Over $1 billion has been
    requested for programs of all types in the jurisdiction of this
    subcommittee.
        That is a sizeable increase from roughly $640 million spent
    for Fiscal Year 2014. Given the events in Eastern Europe over
    the past 18 months, much of the increased spending is targeted
    on Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova.
        Yet, let me note that we are currently $18 trillion in debt
    and the debt is increasing every day. So every dollar we use to
    help people in foreign countries places that much additional
    burden on the backs of the American taxpayer, even worse, on
    the backs of America's children who will inherit this debt.
        All government programs need to meet a high standard. But
    foreign assistance particularly, if it is to be given at all,
    must meet the most rigorous standards for accountability.
        Congress has the duty to scrutinize the President's
    requests to make sure it is responsible and that it properly
    supports our nation's international policy priorities.
        As I discussed during the same hearing last year, post-war
    Europe is often cited as a successful example of U.S. foreign
    assistance. The Marshall Plan did succeed. It did so because it
    was part of a larger U.S. approach to restoring Europe.
        The German Government itself, for example, undertook
    reforms to remove extensive price controls and other
    restrictions on trade, production and the distribution of
    goods. That is what helped restore their economy more than any
    aid program.
        I would encourage us all to keep that experience in mind as
    we talk about governments like the one in Kiev, which we are
    currently working so hard to support.
        The United States Government can provide loan guarantees,
    technical assistance programs and training. But if the
    Ukrainians themselves can't sustain the drive to reform their
    country and root out corruption, our efforts will be fruitless.
        Since Moldova gained its independence, for example, the
    United States has spent over $1 billion to help that country
    develop into a prosperous democracy. This year's request for
    Moldova is nearly $50 million, or $20 million over Fiscal Year
    2014.
        During my question time, I hope to hear from the witnesses
    why our aid to Moldova is increasing so dramatically when the
    political parties and corrupt ruling elite in Moldova have
    shown zero real interest in the type of reforms that country
    needs in order to prosper.
        Let me note there is a grave distinction between
    humanitarian assistance and development aid. Of course, we
    should always be ready to respond to natural disasters, perhaps
    like the one that is experienced with Tbilisi--earthquakes,
    floods, those type of natural disasters.
        We owe it to our fellow human beings in being one of the
    most prosperous countries in the world to help out in these
    cases of dire emergency.
        However, development funds can't work if recipient
    countries do not undertake economic reforms. The role of
    government assistance is not, thus, to replace private
    investment.
        Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days
    to submit additional written questions or extraneous materials
    for the record.
        With that, I turn to our ranking member, Congressman Meeks,
    for his opening statement.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I also want to join you in sending out condolences to those
    who were victims--those families victims of the floods in
    Tbilisi. Our hearts and prayers go out to those families.
        Let me also thank you, Chairman, for holding this hearing
    to provide us with an opportunity to examine the
    administration's 2016 budget request and our Government's
    ability to execute our strategy in the region.
        When discussing our fundamental strategy for a Europe
    whole, free and at peace, my attention is immediately drawn to
    the war in Ukraine.
        The country struggled to modernize its economy and the
    fight for its citizens' basic rights. Yet, while my attention
    is drawn to Russia's role in the region and our relationship to
    Russia, I cannot stress enough the importance of the countries
    that are not in the spotlight in today's papers.
        Europe and Eurasia is, after all, a diverse region in terms
    of levels of political and economic development and in
    strategic military concerns.
        I am convinced that the work of our diplomats and aid
    workers in the field ensure that America's interests are being
    protected while bringing peace and prosperity to the region.
    This is--but this project is far from over.
        The overall budget reflects a particularly urgent demand
    that, frankly speaking, may require more resources when 2016
    arrives. I am referring to the situation in Ukraine and the
    economic tightrope the government is currently walking.
        Yes, the reform of the economy must be done by the
    Ukrainians themselves following successive governments'
    failures to reform. But the new Ukrainian Government will not
    be able to meet the rightful demands of its citizens without
    some help.
        With a closing political window, I want to make sure that
    we help a committed government get reform done and get it done
    correctly. Take the Ukraine portion of the budget out of the
    equation, however, and we are left with a relatively small
    budget, given the concerns in other parts of the region.
        A few weeks ago, this subcommittee hosted a lively hearing
    on progress and challenges in the western Balkans. Since the
    hearing, Macedonia continues to stumble through its political
    turmoil.
        The Greek foreign minister has also visited Washington when
    we examined possible energy futures that would affect all
    members of the western Balkan region. Or Serbian prime minister
    visited also to DC to discuss Kosovo and relations with Russia.
        All of this is a way to say that there is plenty of work to
    be done in this region. Are we succeeding in achieving our
    foreign policy goals in the western Balkans, given the budget?
        Meanwhile, in Central Asia we face similar problems but
    with different variables. As the Russian economy reels,
    citizens feel the combined effects of low oil prices,
    corruption and a non-modernized economy and Western sanctions.
    As a result, scores of migrant laborers, many of them men, are
    returning home to Central Asia.
        Kyrgyzstan and Turkestan are especially vulnerable. We are
    not only due--and it is not only due to the local economies
    that rely on remittances as a significant source of income.
    They do rely on remittances as a significant source of income.
        But the economies may not be able to absorb the influx of
    labor. In these countries, having frustrated portions of
    society with nothing that they can do to support their
    families, people will look toward more drastic options to
    express despair.
        And finally, the Caucasus, where USAID has been active in
    various programs in the diverse region. I would like to hear
    how the 2016 budget aims to address the problems that seem
    increasingly difficult.
        It is recent--in its recent summit and rigor our partners
    in the region, the European Union, recalibrated its policy
    toward the eastern partnership, noting the various challenges
    and levels of development.
        As EU and NATO memberships become even less attractive or
    attainable goals in the mid- to medium-term, our assistance
    there becomes much, much more important.
        In conclusion, I look forward to discussing the proposed
    2016 budget with our four colleagues from the State Department
    and USAID.
        It is my goal as ranking member of this subcommittee to
    challenge, nudge and encourage you to make sure our dollars are
    being used to their fullest potential in a diverse region that
    means so much to us as Americans.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Meeks.
        Does Mr. Cook or Mr. Weber have an opening statement?
        Mr. Weber.
        Mr. Weber. Yes, sir. Let us get going.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. There we go.
        We have a great panel with us today to help us understand
    this part of the Federal budget and how it relates directly to
    our relations with the countries within our jurisdiction of
    this committee.
        First is Alina Romanowski, who is State Department
    coordinator for U.S. assistance to Europe and Eurasia, a
    position which she took up this past March. She coordinates our
    assistance programs across multiple State Department bureaus
    and government agencies.
        Previously, she served as the deputy assistant
    administrator for USAID's Middle East bureau and held senior
    positions within the Bureau of Educational and Cultural
    Affairs.
        She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and
    graduated with a Master's degree from the University of
    Chicago.
        Next, we have Daniel--no, we don't. You are not next. No.
    Next we have Susan Fritz as acting assistant administrator for
    USAID in Europe and Eurasia Bureau.
        She brings over two decades of experience to the table and
    she has served as, for example, USAID mission director in
    Serbia and the deputy mission director for Kosovo. It is good
    to have her back as well before the subcommittee.
        And then we have Mr. Daniel Rosenblum. He was a deputy
    assistant secretary of state for Central Asia from 2008 to
    2014. He served as the coordinator for U.S. assistance to
    Europe and Eurasia.
        Before that, he held numerous positions of responsibility
    within the State Department before joining the executive
    branch. He was a legislative assistant here on Capitol Hill for
    Senator Carl Levin.
        And last but not least, we have Jonathan Stivers, serves as
    USAID's assistant administrator for the Bureau of Asia and
    today will be speaking specifically to the Central Asian aspect
    of his portfolio.
        Mr. Stivers is an 18-year veteran of Capitol Hill and last
    worked for Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. So we have two
    veterans over there, you know, both sides of this discussion,
    and he holds a Master's degree in international policy from
    George Washington University.
        I would like to ask all of our witnesses to limit their
    presentation to 5 minutes. Everything else in your opening
    statement can be put into the record and then it will be
    followed by a question and answer period from the members to
    the panel.
        Ms. Romanowski, you may proceed.

        STATEMENT OF MS. ALINA ROMANOWSKI, COORDINATOR OF U.S.
       ASSISTANCE TO EUROPE AND EURASIA, BUREAU OF EUROPEAN AND
               EURASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

        Ms. Romanowski. Thank you, Chairman Rohrabacher, Ranking
    Member Meeks and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
    inviting me here today to testify on the President's Fiscal
    Year 2016 budget for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia. If there
    is no objection, I would also like to submit my written
    testimony for the record.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
        Ms. Romanowski. Last fall marked the 25th anniversary of
    our assistance to support democracy, political pluralism and
    economic reform in the post-Communist space of Europe, Eurasia
    and Central Asia.
        The results have demonstrated the transformational power of
    U.S. assistance to unleash freedom, security and prosperity
    across a region once shackled by totalitarianism, hostility and
    economic stagnation.
        Since 1990, 12 former assistance countries have joined NATO
    and 11 joined the EU. In Central Europe, 11 former seed
    assistance countries are now fully-fledged partners in opening
    the way toward democracy, rule of law, open markets and human
    dignity for their Eastern neighbors.
        While the success of our assistance had been significant,
    progress is worryingly uneven. The fate of our 25-year
    assistance effort is visibly being tested in Ukraine and
    Russia's actions represent the most serious challenge facing
    the U.S. and our European allies since the end of the Cold War.
        With the current crisis in Ukraine and Russia's attempt to
    shred the values on which the post-Cold War order is based, we
    are redoubling our focus and objectives toward a Europe whole,
    free and at peace and fostering stable, prosperous and
    pluralistic democracies across the region.
        Our Fiscal Year 2016 request for the Europe and Eurasia
    region is $953.3 million and reflects the tough challenges that
    we face in a budget environment with competing global demands.
        We support five strategic objectives. First, keeping faith
    with countries as they chart their own futures in the face of
    bullying from outside actors. Second, supporting these
    countries on their path toward Euro-Atlantic integration.
        Third, bolstering efforts to tackle corruption, build rule
    of law and foster transparent and accountable governance.
    Fourth, deepening and expanding civil society and free
    independent media.
        And finally, fifth, rolling back transnational threats that
    rob the region of its prosperity and undermine its security.
        Since Russia's occupation and purported annexation of
    Crimea, the U.S. has committed $471 million in assistance for
    Ukraine along with providing two $1-billion loan guarantees.
        If Ukraine continues progress on its reform agenda and
    conditions warrant, the U.S. administration will work with
    Congress to consider providing another loan guarantee later in
    2015.
        Going forward, our assistance in Ukraine will target broad
    economic, anti-corruption and energy reforms while
    incorporating civil society, private sector and the public into
    this process.
        In Kiev and European capitals, we are working closely with
    other international donors to avoid duplication and ensure
    complementarity of our efforts.
        Just like in Ukraine, we are supporting Georgia and Moldova
    to pursue clean accountable governance as well as their quests
    to move closer to Europe and counter Russian pressure.
        U.S. assistance is also playing an important role in
    addressing serious transnational threats like organized crime,
    trafficking and foreign fighters from the region.
        To combat these malign influences, our Fiscal Year 2016
    request for peace and security programs for Europe and Eurasia
    is $263.4 million, which is up $51.8 million over Fiscal Year
    2014 levels.
        But our objectives are not limited to post-Soviet space.
    The countries of the western Balkans too are knocking at the
    door of Euro-Atlantic institutions.
        We must continue to offer them a political, economic and
    moral hand in their efforts whether in normalizing relations
    between Serbia and Kosovo or helping Albania push ahead with
    progress on reforms to meet EU standards.
        Our budget request also aims at rooting out corruption. We
    are increasing transparency and accountability in courtrooms
    across Albania.
        In Bosnia-Herzegovina, we are supporting civil society to
    implement a new whistleblowing protection law and in Ukraine we
    are providing technical assistance to help stand up a new
    independent anti-corruption bureau.
        We are also working to reverse the worrying trends of
    democratic backsliding and restricting civil society. Doing
    this requires innovative thinking to ensure that countries in
    Eurasia and the Balkans continue on the path to democracy. Our
    Fiscal Year 2016 request for democracy funding is $193 million.
        As Secretary Kerry said when he testified before this
    committee over a month ago, ``Our budget proposals aren't just
    a collection of numbers. They are the embodiment of our
    values.''
        For 25 years, our assistance in Europe and Eurasia has
    extended those values toward our ultimate goal of completing a
    Europe whole, free and at peace. This budget request continues
    that mission.
        Finally, we remain committed to working diligently,
    effectively and imaginatively with the resources provided by
    the American people in service of our values and our national
    interests throughout the region.
        Thank you for this opportunity and your bipartisan support.
    I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Romanowski follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Rohrabacher. The figure you just gave on $193 million
    for democracy development or building, that was over what
    territory?
        Ms. Romanowski. Sir, that is our request for Fiscal Year
    2016.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. For which countries?
        Ms. Romanowski. It is for the region.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. For the----
        Ms. Romanowski. Europe and Eurasia.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Got it. Okay.
        Ms. Fritz, you may.

     STATEMENT OF MS. SUSAN FRITZ, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
       EUROPE AND EURASIA BUREAU, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
                              DEVELOPMENT

        Ms. Fritz. Chairman Rohrabacher, Ranking Member Meeks,
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
    testify today on the administration's Fiscal Year 2016 budget
    request for Europe and Eurasia.
        Historically, the United States and USAID have played a key
    role in this region. Over the past 20 years, 12 Eastern
    European countries have transitioned from receiving USAID
    assistance, integrating into the Euro-Atlantic community
    including NATO and the EU, becoming strong allies.
        However, the region's transformation isn't complete. In the
    countries where we continue to work, progress in key areas is
    uneven. Gains are at risk and we are even seeing some
    regression.
        The past year has been challenging. Russian aggression in
    Ukraine and throughout the region threatens peace, stability,
    democracy and prosperity and requires greater U.S. and
    international focus, resolve and resources to meet these
    challenges.
        Still, we see opportunities from Kiev to Belgrade to
    Tbilisi to further Euro-Atlantic integration, democracy and
    economic prosperity. U.S. assistance remains critical to
    countering Russian pressure and to advancing the goal of a
    Europe whole, free and at peace.
        To support these goals, the President has requested $710.2
    million in ESF in Fiscal Year 2016. This assistance targets
    critical needs in Ukraine, supports Georgia, Moldova and the
    Balkans' continued Euro-Atlantic integration and strengthens
    the democratic and economic resiliency of these countries to
    address Russian pressure.
        In Ukraine, USAID has stepped up its efforts to support the
    Ukrainian Government and people during a historic transition.
    We deeply appreciate congressional support that has reinforced
    our efforts and the U.S. commitment to Ukraine.
        USAID's funding supports critical programs in the following
    areas--stabilizing, strengthening and growing Ukraine's economy
    and supporting Ukraine's energy independence; strengthening
    democracy and rule of law; combatting corruption and promoting
    effective governance; and improving the availability and
    effectiveness of health services and containing the spread of
    HIV/AIDS and TB.
        Some key accomplishments and milestones in these areas
    include in energy, USAID provided critical technical assistance
    to help Ukraine keep the lights and heat on this past winter in
    the face of potential energy shortages.
        Last year, USAID provided approximately $11 million in
    support of a successful snap Presidential and parliamentary
    elections. While we have seen progress, the challenges facing
    Ukraine will not be solved overnight.
        The conflict in Eastern Ukraine continues to destabilize
    the country, resulting in over 1.3 million internally displaced
    persons and 5.1 million people in need of humanitarian
    assistance. Ukraine will require a sustained commitment from
    the United States and the international community.
        Turning to Moldova, Moldova has taken significant and
    meaningful steps toward Euro-Atlantic integration but faces
    substantial challenges, particularly from continued corruption
    and Russian propaganda.
        U.S. assistance is strengthening democratic institutions
    and civil society, addressing corruption and improving the
    business regulatory environment and private sector
    competitiveness, especially through assistance to companies to
    enter new markets after a 2014 Russian trade embargo.
        Turning to the Caucuses, in Georgia USAID's programs are
    aimed at economic growth, further U.S. integration--I am sorry,
    EU integration and strengthening civil society, democratic
    governance and independent media.
        Targeted assistance also focuses on improving the
    livelihood and resilience of border communities that are
    particularly vulnerable to Russian pressure.
        In Armenia, we are working with the government and civil
    society to strengthen decentralization and anti-corruption
    reforms and are supporting economic growth.
        Turning to the Western Balkans, we are furthering EU
    integration and strengthening democratic governance and
    economic growth.
        The recent crisis in Macedonia reminds us that we cannot
    take peace and stability in the Western Balkans for granted.
    Let me provide a few highlights of our efforts in the Balkans.
        In Kosovo, USAID recently completed agricultural support
    which led to increased agricultural sales of over $100 million
    and created over 6,000 jobs.
        In Macedonia, USAID supports credible and independent
    reporting through its media fact-checking service. In Fiscal
    Year 2014, the service published almost 900 peer reviews of
    articles, produced over 90 critical disclosure analyses and
    published over 100 journalistic lessons that helped increase
    the media literacy of consumers.
        In Serbia, we are supporting judicial reforms that are
    critical to Serbia's EU accession. USAID's work with six pilot
    courts resulted in reduction of backlogs by 55 percent,
    resolving more than 13,000 cases.
        So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, in a region facing some of
    its most significant challenges in decades, USAID will continue
    to seek to advance U.S. interests and goals while also
    maximizing our impact and resources.
        The Fiscal Year 2016 budget request recognizes that even
    with competing priorities and difficult budget realities the
    United States must continue to play a critical leadership role
    in this region to achieve the goal of a Europe whole, free and
    at peace.
        I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Fritz follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
        Mr Rosenblum.

     STATEMENT OF MR. DANIEL ROSENBLUM, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
     FOR CENTRAL ASIA, BUREAU OF SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIAN AFFAIRS,
                        U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

        Mr. Rosenblum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask that my full
    written statement appear in the record.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Rosenblum. Chairman Rohrabacher and members of the
    subcommittee, I am here today to focus on Central Asia and that
    portion of our request.
        Some of Central Asia's most serious challenges such as
    transnational crime, narcotics trafficking, terrorism and
    violent extremism directly affect U.S. national interests and
    require us to work closely with the countries of this region.
        And while U.S. security is directly tied to a stable
    Central Asia, the region's energy resources and transport
    corridors can help drive economic growth that benefits the
    region and the entire world economy.
        So the President's Fiscal Year 2016 request of $155.7
    million, which supports sovereignty, security, good governance
    and economic development in Central Asia, is also supporting a
    safer and more secure United States.
        And this support should also help these countries reduce
    their dependence on Russia or on any other single power.
    Regionally, we are focusing on creating open and secure borders
    while improving economic linkages among the Central Asian
    states and with their neighbors to the south, east and west.
        Our connectivity efforts are organized under what we call
    the new Silk Road initiative and focus on creating an energy
    market, improving trade and transport infrastructure,
    streamlining customs and border procedures and enhancing
    business networks and people-to-people ties.
        We are also working with Kazakhstan to help it join
    Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic as WTO members. And on that
    note, we are insistent that the Eurasian Economic Union
    shouldn't raise barriers to trade nor impair the ability of its
    members to enter into other trade relationships or fulfill
    their international commitments.
        We know that the Central Asian governments' records on
    human rights have been flawed and that improvement is slow and
    inconsistent. Once step forward is often followed by two steps
    back.
        We also know that long-term stability cannot be achieved by
    restricting the free and peaceful expression of political and
    religious views which, as we often remind these countries, is a
    shortsighted and counterproductive strategy.
        So by seeking to build civil society and by promoting the
    rule of law, our assistance seeks to create more space and
    tolerance for peaceful dissent and religious expression.
        It is important to note that while we often speak about
    Central Asia as a monolithic region, in fact nothing could be
    further from the truth. It is five individual countries, each
    with their own unique history, culture, development needs and
    external policies.
        Kazakhstan, with its abundant natural resources and well-
    educated younger generation, is the region's largest and most
    advanced economy and shares U.S. priorities in regional
    security, nonproliferation, counterterrorism, energy security
    and climate change.
        Kazakhstan's likely accession to the WTO in a very short
    time from now and its rapidly growing middle class offer many
    new opportunities for U.S. companies. But Kazakhstan's advances
    in the economic sphere have not been matched by the same amount
    of progress in developing a vibrant civil society or strong
    human rights protections.
        So we are working to develop institutions within the
    government and civil society that can advance those goals.
        In the Kyrgyz Republic, democracy's roots are growing
    gradually and we continue to support nascent government
    institutions. The success of economic and political reforms is
    not guaranteed here and we will continue to make the
    investments in good governance that will strengthen this young
    parliamentary democracy's resilience.
        Tajikistan faces severe challenges including economic
    stress and social tension resulting from the decline of
    remittances from Tajik migrants--migrant workers in Russia.
        These remittances sustain the Tajik economy but will
    reportedly decline by at least 20 percent this year. On the
    security side, we are working to enhance the capacity and
    professionalism of Tajikistan's military, border security, law
    enforcement and judicial institutions.
        Turkmenistan also shares a long border with Afghanistan,
    which it has assisted with discounted electricity, humanitarian
    aid and infrastructure development. It also faces significant
    challenges in securing its borders against criminal and
    terrorist activities.
        So our cooperation with Turkmenistan is focused on
    enhancing its ability to maintain secure borders while also
    addressing its restrictions on human rights.
        Finally, Uzbekistan and its geographical position in
    Central Asia make it strategically important for regional
    security. It also shares a border with Afghanistan as the most
    populous country in Central Asia.
        Our priorities are to help Uzbekistan maintain safe and
    secure borders while developing more responsive and open
    institutions.
        Mr. Chairman, despite its significant challenges, Central
    Asia has tremendous potential to become a major nexus for
    global trade and energy flows. Our assistance and diplomacy can
    help achieve this vision, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenblum follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        Mr. Stivers.

        STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JONATHAN STIVERS, ASSISTANT
     ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR ASIA, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
                              DEVELOPMENT

        Mr. Stivers. Chairman Rohrabacher, distinguished members of
    the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify today
    on the role of USAID in advancing our foreign policy goals in
    Central Asia.
        It is always an honor to testify before this committee and
    be back in the people's House. President Obama's Fiscal Year
    2016 budget request of $155.7 million for foreign assistance in
    Central Asia reflects a sustained commitment to American
    involvement in the region and the broader area, including
    Afghanistan and Pakistan.
        In Central Asia, USAID is working through three primary
    approaches--one, promoting economic growth and regional
    connectivity; two, tackling development challenges of global
    consequence; and three, supporting democratic governance.
        First, on economic growth and regional connectivity,
    Central Asia is one of the least economically integrated
    regions of the world with intraregional trade accounting for
    less than 5 percent of total trade.
        With little economic opportunity at home, hundreds of
    thousands are forced to migrate in search of work. In
    Tajikistan, Russian-derived remittances account for 50 percent
    of GDP and for neighboring Kyrgyz Republic, it is about a third
    of GDP.
        This year alone, more than 1 million Central Asians will
    return home from Russia without funds or employment prospects.
        USAID is working to expand economic opportunity through a
    dual-pronged approach of promoting domestic reforms to support
    economic growth and regional connectivity efforts. USAID
    focuses on strengthening the business-enabling environment,
    access to market and private sector and agricultural
    competitiveness, and the U.S. Government's new Silk Road
    initiative is key to efforts to bind the region to the markets
    in South Asia through Afghanistan.
        Second, we are tackling the development challenges and
    threats to stability. On global health, some of the highest
    rates of multidrug-resistance tuberculosis in the world are in
    Central Asia.
        The time between testing and diagnosis used to take almost
    a month. Patients had no choice but to return to their
    community as they awaited their diagnosis, thereby risking the
    spread.
        USAID has recently introduced cutting-edge technology from
    California called Gene Expert that diagnoses drug-resistant
    multidrug-resistant TB strains in hours instead of weeks.
        USAID is also partnering on adaptation of Kazakhstan's
    wheat sector. More frequent droughts are a major challenge and
    any reduction in wheat production has significant repercussions
    for regional food security.
        Our efforts include promoting agricultural practices such
    as the use of drought- and heat-resistant wheat varieties and
    forecasting models to inform harvesting decisions and improve
    yields.
        Third, promoting democratic governance and empowering civil
    society is our key priority. Fighting poverty is often less a
    question of funding but also of effectively addressing the
    underlying structural problems with governance that prevent
    many countries from realizing their potential.
        At the core of our engagement across the region are
    empowering reformers who are standing up for human rights and
    fundamental freedoms, all foundational to lasting stability and
    prosperity.
        Next, I will highlight other key assistance areas in the
    five countries of Central Asia. In the Kyrgyz Republic, it is
    the only parliamentary democracy in the region.
        The country has continued to consolidate its democratic
    system with the first democratic transfer of power in Central
    Asia in 2011. The upcoming parliamentary elections this fall
    and the Presidential elections in 2017 will be critical, as the
    system remains fragile.
        Our partnership offers an alternative to the authoritarian
    models in the region. U.S. assistance supports continued
    parliamentary development, judicial reform and consolidation of
    an electoral process that continues to reflect the will of the
    people.
        Tajikistan shares an 800-mile border with Afghanistan and
    is a lynchpin for security and stability in Central Asia.
    Seventy-five percent of Tajikistan's labor force is dependent
    on agriculture for their livelihoods, yet one in four children
    suffer from stunting, which is chronic malnutrition that stunts
    a child's growth in early ages. Boosting agricultural
    productivity is essential to improving lives.
        In Tajikistan's poorest province, the Feed the Future
    initiative helps households increase their production of
    profitable and nutritious crops.
        In Uzbekistan, our assistance contributed to the adoption
    of a judicial code of ethics and expanded defendant rights.
    Uzbekistan is also a source country for human trafficking and
    USAID works to combat the illegal practice.
        In Kazakhstan, we support economic diversification,
    combatting human trafficking, independent media and efficiency
    and transparency of the court system.
        And in Turkmenistan, one of the most isolated states in the
    world, U.S. assistance improves access to outside information,
    education and communication between the government and civil
    society.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share what USAID is doing
    in Central Asia and I welcome any advice, thoughts or questions
    you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Stivers follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, and we will have
    questions from the panel now--from our members.
        Let me just say in general I am a bit concerned. Did the
    words ``radical Islam'' come out of anybody's mouth today in
    testimony? Any of your testimony include a statement that
    included the words ``radical Islam?''
        I don't think I heard that. I heard a lot about Russia and
    being a reason for this and that, this and that, this and that.
        But let me just note that if Central Asia, which is made up
    mainly of Muslim populations, should succumb to the type of
    radical Islamic temptations that people in other parts of the
    Islamic world have succumbed to, we are in big trouble.
        This could be--I personally believe that if General, now
    President el-Sisi in Egypt, is overthrown and it has been very
    difficult for this administration to get themselves to help
    President el-Sisi, that you could have a complete collapse of
    resistance to this radical Islamic terrorist movement in the
    Gulf, which would then perhaps spread next step into Central
    Asia.
        I mean, this could be an historic threat to Western
    civilization. But yet we didn't hear anything about it today
    when we are discussing America's commitment to that region.
        We have--let me ask a little bit about the nature of our
    assistance. When we are talking about $750 million, I guess, to
    Ukraine and $193 million to democracy building, when you are
    talking about democracy building does that--is what we are
    talking about money that we give to NGOs? Is that included in
    this?
        Ms. Fritz. Our assistance varies. Some of it is to NGOs to
    help build their capacity. Most of our assistance goes through
    U.S. contractors and U.S. NGOs that provide technical
    assistance from civil society to----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So the answer is yes.
        Ms. Fritz [continuing]. Judicial reform, a whole host of
    areas----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I got it.
        Ms. Fritz [continuing]. Not just civil society.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. In that--in that host of reforms, do we
    sponsor NGOs that are pushing specific environmental policies
    as well?
        Ms. Fritz. I don't know what you are referring to.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Environmental policies. Do we have NGOs
    who are suggesting that the countries in pushing to organize
    people within these countries to focus on particular energy
    sources or environmental mandates and restrictions?
        Ms. Fritz. We do not, not that I am aware of. What we do do
    is to work with countries to help them meet EU directives
    related to energy, environment and private sector and their
    energy sector. So EU directives but not anything beyond that.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Well, let me note that we just
    recently--I, with a delegation, visited Kosovo and there is
    apparently an American-sponsored NGO that is becoming very
    aggressive in trying to promote certain energy sources.
        And I have met in that area region as well people who are
    talking about NGOs trying to push for what we would call here
    renewable energy resources rather than energy sources that
    perhaps are cheaper for those societies at this particular
    stage in their development.
        And I think that while we all--who would disagree with some
    very positive thing called environmentalism--what is good for
    the environment--there are distinct debates as to what is in
    the long run the best direction to go in terms of renewables
    right now and the developing world.
        Because if you have expenditures for energy that are higher
    now in a developing world that means they don't have other
    money available for education, health care, et cetera, et
    cetera.
        And so if maybe perhaps you could get back to me with a
    list of the NGOs that are engaged with trying to influence
    energy policy under your jurisdictions that would be very
    helpful.
        Ms. Fritz. Yes, sir. We will look into that and get back to
    you.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. And Ms. Romanowski, you wanted to say
    something about that?
        Ms. Romanowski. Well, I did want to add a point--that with
    respect to Kosovo in particular we are supporting broadly their
    energy development and their energy security plans, which do
    include a combination of renewables.
        We are also looking at how they could be building a third
    and more modern coal plant as well as replace the outdated and
    very, very highly-polluting Kosovo A Plant.
        So there are--the energy situation in Kosovo is
    particularly serious and very, very unreliable and we are
    working with Kosovo to develop an energy plan that, clearly, is
    both a short-term and a medium-term objective including all
    types of energy sources.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I have to admit that it certainly is--we
    need to be involved with helping hands for countries like
    Kosovo and other countries.
        But I think people would resent it here if we had people
    who were being paid by foreign governments to come in and tell
    us what energy policies are best for our country and, you know,
    so Kosovo--this is not an illiterate uneducated group of
    people.
        They should be able to make decisions on their own and it
    seems to me providing that type of pressure, and I know that
    people have--how do you say--have the best of motives in mind
    in all of these areas because this is what they believe is
    good.
        Sometimes, of course, people can disagree with what exactly
    that policy should be but even with that the idea on having the
    United States Government going in, pressuring countries where
    you have populations that are relatively educated populations
    toward these type of policies I think it is something we need
    to think about and be a little bit more retrospective in terms
    of how we would feel if we had people in here from the United
    Nations who now are going to come in and tell us what we are
    going to do in terms of our energy and environmental policies.
        What about social issues? Do we have--are we financing the
    NGOs on different social issues?
        Ms. Fritz. Are you specifically referring to Kosovo or more
    broadly?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. No, generally, in Eastern Europe and in
    Eurasia.
        Ms. Fritz. If you include health care as a social issue,
    yes, we support NGOs who engage in issues related to health
    care.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, the complaints that we have heard is
    that they--that we are defining social issues to include sexual
    type of things and basically policy toward homosexuality, which
    we in the United States we don't believe in people being
    discriminated against for this but in those countries perhaps
    they are culturally different than we are and having our--
    pressuring them through our Government to accept certain
    cultural norms like that, I think that in Hungary in particular
    we heard some people complaining that their government was
    being pressured by American taxpayer groups that we are trying
    to get--to force them to change their policy on this which,
    again, should be left up to individual countries to make their
    determination as to what their position would be on gay
    marriage, for example, or even abortion. Any comments on that?
        Ms. Romanowski. Mr. Rohrabacher, our support for civil
    society and for NGOs is very much focused on themes that
    strengthen democratic governance that helps support the reform
    agendas that the people in this region are interested in
    pursuing.
        They are also focused on having laws and values that don't
    discriminate against the peoples in this region and other
    minorities that are in this region.
        So a lot of our work that we do with NGOs and in fact in
    our engagement--diplomatic engagement with the governments in
    the region is to ensure that the laws are free of
    discrimination and in this region.
        So a lot of the work that we do do with NGOs does encompass
    many of the values that we share in this country.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. So the answer is yes, and let me just note
    that I think that trying to push our belief in--from Western
    civilization belief that, for example, most of us don't believe
    that we should have multiple wives.
        You know, you are married to one person, and to have--to go
    to an Islamic country and try to push norms, whether it is
    homosexuality or where it is men-women relationships and things
    like that, I think that we could find it very difficult if
    somebody was coming into the United States with government
    money trying to pressure us in the opposite directions because
    that is what their culture says is the right way to go.
        With limited resources and with the fact that we are
    borrowing every single penny that we give to these countries,
    it might be better for us to prioritize and that telling them
    how to run the social structure in their country should receive
    a lot lower priority than perhaps working with them to build
    their economy and build a more interactive country with us in
    terms of economics and other items like that.
        With that said, I will be very happy to yield to Mr. Deutch
    and what time that he would like to expend.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before--and thanks to
    all of you for your testimony.
        Just one point I would make at the outset that many of us
    deeply believe that this is not about American norms but that
    LGBT rights and women's rights are human rights and that we
    have an obligation to speak out in support of human rights
    including LGBT and gender equality everywhere in the world. I
    just wanted to get that on the record.
        I have travelled--to our panel I will tell you I have
    travelled a number of times to Europe and to Central Asia, most
    recently last month on a trip to Germany and in my role as
    chair of the Congressional Study Group on Germany.
        It was clear to me in my meetings with members of the
    government, legislators, civil society groups, NGOs that the
    historic and deep transatlantic relationship is appreciated. It
    is respected.
        In many ways, it is revered. But it is not one to be taken
    for granted. And as our attention is frequently diverted to
    crises around the world, I think that we in Congress, the
    administration, the American people have to remember the
    important partnership that we have with our European allies and
    should continue to engage with them on a bilateral basis as
    well as through our multinational organizations like NATO and
    OSCE. It is just not a relationship that should ever be taken
    for granted.
        Now, I would like to focus my questions on the eastern
    Mediterranean region. There are a number of issues that make
    this area one of interest for the United States including
    recent optimism of achieving a reunification deal in Cyprus,
    new energy opportunities in the Mediterranean and last week's
    election results in Turkey and what will result for them.
        Obviously, we are focused on the Greek debt crisis and the
    down-to-the-wire negotiations and others. There is a lot
    happening in that part of the region.
        So just a couple of questions. In looking at the budget, it
    appears that the State Department didn't request any funds for
    Cyprus in the Fiscal Year 2016 budget. The question is does
    State or USAID have any plans to increase involvement and
    support, financial or otherwise, as Cyprus negotiations move
    forward.
        And then to the extent that you can speak to the status of
    reunification negotiations and the role that the United States
    is playing to help reach an agreement, I would appreciate that,
    in particular, how have our USAID and State Department efforts
    contributed to achieving a peaceful settlement. Ms. Romanowski.
        Ms. Romanowski. Yes. Mr. Deutch, on Cyprus we welcome the
    resumption of the settlement talks that started in May and are
    going to--and reaffirm our full support for the U.N.-
    facilitated process and we want to be helpful to the parties in
    any way that we can.
        We have encouraged the parties, as they go through their
    talks to reach a settlement as soon as possible, to reunify the
    island as a bizonal bicommunal federation.
        But we, in fact, did not request funding in both Fiscal
    Year 2015 or 2016 as we are facing regional challenges and
    broader global demands on our budget.
        We have had to make difficult choices but we will be
    looking for ways in which we can support the settlement talks
    as they go forward.
        Mr. Deutch. Thanks. I would--I would just like to drill
    down a little bit on one specific issue in Cyprus.
        Last week, Cyprus' commissioner of humanitarian affairs was
    in Washington. I know he met with the State Department, asking
    for U.S. assistance and resolving the issue of missing persons
    in Cyprus.
        Nearly 2,000 people went missing during the intercommunal
    fighting of 1963 to 1964 and then, again, after the Turkish
    invasion of 1974. To this day, most remain missing and it would
    seem that with the promising restart of reunification
    negotiations and the focus on confidence-building measures that
    one of the best confidence-building measures will be for Turkey
    to stop putting up roadblocks like claiming certain areas are
    in occupied Cyprus and are off limits as what they refer to as
    military zones for the search of more than, as I understand it,
    1,400 that remain missing.
        So I know that USAID has provided assistance in the past to
    the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus. We have legislation
    that directs the administration to locate five American
    citizens who joined the ranks of the missing in 1974 and so I
    am just--I would like to know what progress is being made to
    open up the military zones and what steps are being taken to
    locate the remaining four American citizens whose remains have
    not yet been found.
        Ms. Romanowski. Mr. Deutch, I appreciate very much your
    question but I would like to take that for the record and
    consult with my other colleagues at the department that are
    real experts on the missing persons issue and get you an answer
    to that question, if that is all right.
        Mr. Deutch. That is okay. I will look forward to receiving
    that response after you have had an opportunity.
        Mr. Chairman, do I have time for one last question or----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I think I went over my time so you can go
    over your time.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you. I appreciate that. Just a general
    question.
        If anyone would like to comment on the changes--any changes
    we might expect in Turkey following the recent election in
    which AKP lost a number of--a significant number of its seats.
        Ms. Romanowski. Yes. On the--the United States does look
    forward to working with this newly-elected Parliament and the
    new and the future government.
        We are encouraging them to form a coalition government or a
    new government as quickly as possible and at this point we have
    looked at the--at the elections, that they were general--the
    fundamental freedoms were generally respected.
        Journalists--while journalists and the media were somewhat
    critical of the ruling party and they were subject to some
    pressure and intimidation--there was some violence--we agree
    with the OSCE election observation mission that was in Turkey
    that this is--it was an election that in essence represents the
    elected--the voting representatives in Turkey.
        We do--again, we do await their new government to continue
    to work with Turkey as an important partner in the region on
    many, many regional and global issues.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
    will look forward to receiving that response to the question
    about the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus, and I yield
    back.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, thank you very much.
        We will proceed to the second round, seeing that there is
    only a couple of us here, and I mentioned earlier that I had
    been through the--down in the Balkans on a trip recently and
    one of the points, Ms. Fritz, that I have been trying to make
    is that we--when we talk about aid I am--there is no hesitation
    on my part to commit America to helping people in an emergency
    situation and, certainly, Kosovo, 20 years ago, had an
    emergency situation and they were in conflict and people were
    being killed and there was a--and there are natural calamities
    as well when people have volcanos and all sorts of earthquakes
    and things such as that.
        We have to be willing to help out in those situations. I
    think our humanness of our values certainly would demand that
    of any free people.
        But in terms of aid, as I mentioned in my opening
    statement, that we have to make sure that our aid isn't just
    being used as a means not to have their governments do for
    their people what they are perfectly capable of doing.
        And when I was in Kosovo, I couldn't help but notice that
    there was a new hospital that I actually visited that was built
    totally with private funds from the United States and that the
    government there in Pristina had not given them the permits to
    open even though their hospital they had equipped--there it is
    sitting right there with all of the most modern technology that
    any hospital would have, closed.
        And I don't--you know, whatever the reasons there are
    always--anybody can find a reason not to do something, of
    course, until somebody gets paid off somewhere.
        Now, I haven't heard that they--someone has stepped forward
    with their hand out yet but quite often that happens in less-
    developed countries.
        But why should we be giving Kosovo support when they have a
    hospital right there that has been paid for with private
    dollars and that they are not given permits to open?
        Ms. Fritz. The kind of support we provide to Kosovo is
    related to building their capacity. So we are not providing--
    first of all, we are not providing assistance in the health
    sector. Second of all, we don't provide funding.
        We provide technical assistance and training to build the
    capacity of the government to do different things whether it is
    in the energy sector, helping private-sector development.
        We help companies to be able to compete on the European
    market to export their products to European countries.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. We are not giving them any help in the
    health care area at all?
        Ms. Fritz. No.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
        Ms. Fritz. Sir, we also provide assistance related to
    democratic institutions. We support civil society.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
        Ms. Fritz. We support a range of----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. So would you suggest that if someone is
    involved with a humanitarian effort like--this is--it better be
    the White House. Hold on. Mr. President, I am in the middle of
    a hearing. I am sorry. I can't take the call right now. I have
    no idea who that was.
        But so you would believe that when the--a country that we
    are helping in a variety of areas does something like--for
    example, does not give the permits necessary for a private
    sector hospital to open up that this would be considered a
    health care issue and not a rule of law issue?
        Ms. Fritz. It certainly could be both, and what I meant to
    say was that USAID is not currently engaged in this issue. We
    can consult with the Embassy and find out more information for
    you, sir.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me suggest that we should--go right
    ahead, Ms. Romanowski.
        Ms. Romanowski. I just wanted to add a very important point
    that I think we share also your concern for access to quality
    health care and we recognize that this is an issue that is
    problematic.
        And our Ambassador, in fact, has been working this issue
    with the Kosovo Government along with the private sector to try
    and resolve this issue. In fact, she met with the prime
    minister last week.
        So it is definitely an issue on our radar that we are
    focusing on to, again, make sure that that hospital can
    function the way it was intended to.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, I realize the Ambassador is paying
    attention because I think that we brought her with us to go to
    the tour of the--of that hospital.
        I would suggest that if Kosovo or other countries are
    unwilling to step forward--now, this--to me, this is a
    potential corruption issue because so often what happens is
    people don't get permits until they have paid somebody off. But
    I have not heard specifically of any demand yet.
        But even without that factor, if people expect to have us
    subsidize various activities in their country while they are
    engaged in that type of thing with an American citizen who has
    put money into it, I think it demands us more than just to say
    something but it demands us to do something, which I would--I
    will be watching very carefully to see if the State Department
    does more than just talk about it after--this hospital isn't
    open.
        It has already been 6 months since we were there. So that
    hospital is just sitting there while people in that country,
    especially--by the way, it was especially designed to help
    women--women in that city to get the proper care that they
    need--and if that is going to remain closed I think we should
    consider some type of pulling back in some of these other
    areas, perhaps even pulling back from our trying to pressure
    them to have the type of energy development that we think is
    best for them rather than perhaps what they think is best for
    them.
        And about Ukraine, and I guess--I guess Mr.--Ms.
    Romanowski, I think this would be for you but I am not sure if
    the others--this fits them.
        Could you give me a frank assessment of--because we have
    been talking a lot about Ukraine here, and let me just note for
    the record there is nothing that could help Ukraine more in
    their building their economy is to help bring peace between
    Russia and Ukraine.
        When Ukraine or any other country invests in military
    equipment, we are there investing in things that blow up rather
    than things that create more wealth.
        Military spending and providing debt to a country in order
    to finance an unnecessary conflict is a horrendous burden on a
    country that is in debt and I think it is--frankly, I think we
    should be doing more in trying to find a compromise and a
    solution, perhaps in helping--even having more talks about the
    Minsk agreements that have been reached on a pathway to get
    them back--to back off from this conflict.
        But one of the unknown factors or unseen factors here in
    the United States is the role that oligarchs have been playing
    in creating the situation that now exists.
        A large portion of the Ukrainian army has been financed by
    a couple of oligarchs. These are private sector people who have
    military personnel out and which--with tanks and cannons and
    all the rest.
        Could you give us any type of an assessment of whether or
    not the--this new President Poroshenko has been successful at
    de-oligarching his government and his society?
        Ms. Romanowski. Mr. Chairman, let me say a few words about
    that. I think the government of the current and new Government
    of Ukraine has made some significant progress in undertaking
    reforms across many sectors in their society that will--that
    will, again, address some of the issues that you are talking
    about.
        It is a long--they have--and I will speak to some of the
    reforms in a minute but it is a long-term process. There are--
    they have made some very important reforms.
        The Rada has passed some significant legislation that goes
    to anti-corruption and rule of law. We are working with them
    through a series of advisors in the government ministries,
    again, to help both implement reforms and to focus on the kinds
    of reforms that are needed across a number of sectors.
        It will take a significant amount of time and it certainly
    will require the full support of the Ukrainian people.
        With respect to the efforts that they are on the Minsk
    commitments, currently we are very much encouraging and
    supportive of the trilateral contact group that is designed to
    bring all the parties together to talk about implementing the
    Minsk agreement.
        And this is a very important component of being able to
    make sure that Ukraine can continue its commitment to democracy
    and to reforms and also to push back against Russian pressure
    on the--and the presence of Russian involvement in eastern
    Ukraine.
        They do have a near-term economic crisis, which we have
    helped as well as the IMF and others to stabilize, so that they
    can continue to implement the reforms that they want to do to,
    again, build a stronger and prosperous country that isn't
    affected and can push against the Russian pressure that is
    going on right now.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, this all started when--over an
    economic crisis in which President--the elected President,
    Yanukovych, went for assistance to the EU and the deal that he
    received from them he did not believe was equivalent or near
    what the Russians were offering and that led to--step by step
    into a situation of conflict today.
        And I would hope that we can take step by step back from
    that and the first step in that is to try to stop the actual
    physical fighting between the Ukrainians and the separatists
    and especially the withdrawal of the Russians of any people
    they have in the eastern Ukraine and hopefully that can be part
    of the same deal.
        But we need to--we need to focus a lot on peace rather than
    simply subsidizing the current status quo, which is leading
    them into the gates of Hell.
        We now have--Ms. Frankel has joined us and if you have some
    questions for the panel you are certainly welcome to take your
    5 minutes right now.
        Ms. Frankel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
        And I wanted just to follow up on a comment of one of our
    witnesses, and thank you all for being here. Over the weekend,
    our Ambassador to the Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, summed up
    concerns that I think a lot of us have and he said there is no
    issue that is a greater threat to Ukraine's long-term success
    today than the institutionalized corruption. It is a bigger
    threat than Russian tanks.
        I don't know whether you are familiar with that or whether
    you agree with that. But in reference to that, I would like to
    ask this.
        First of all, do you have an opinion as to whether this
    long-term corruption issue in Ukraine so undermined the
    Ukrainian Government and the confidence of the people that set
    a stage for the Russian aggression--whether that is related at
    all.
        And can you tell me how--I guess is it USAID that is
    doing--that is working on the corruption issue? Can I get some
    details on that?
        Ms. Fritz. Sure. I can talk about our programs. Is that
    what you were interested more about--our assistance? So----
        Ms. Frankel. But I would also like to hear the cause and
    effect, if you have an opinion to that.
        Ms. Fritz. So maybe I can talk about assistance and Alina
    might take the cause and effect. So our assistance--what we
    have done is when we design every new project we look at how we
    can build in an anti-corruption component.
        So, for example, we are working with the judiciary. We are
    working in education, pharmaceutical procurement, e-governance
    permitting, financial disclosure in energy and all of those
    each have an anti-corruption component.
        In assessing how the Ukrainian Government is doing, they
    have passed more than a dozen key pieces of legislation that
    address corruption including establishing legislation to
    establish the National Anti-Corruption Bureau as well as the
    National Anti-Corruption Prevention Agency and the bureau is
    moving forward in terms of being stood up with a budget and
    staff and so forth.
        The prevention agency--they are just in the process of
    appointing a director of the agencies or setting up the
    committee to appoint the director. The prevention agency will
    be really important in terms of addressing financial disclosure
    and monitoring that of public sector employees of which there
    are over 900,000.
        Another area in which USAID has been involved is working on
    doing risk assessments for corruption of government agencies.
    So we have done two--one with the Securities Commission,
    another with the Deposit Insurance Company--and those identify
    areas that are at risk within those agencies for corruption and
    then an action plan to start addressing them.
        Moreover, we have given the methodology to or we are in the
    process of giving it to the Ukrainian Government so that they
    can do it across the government to start addressing some of
    these issues holistically across the government.
        We have judicial reform programs as well as programs that
    support civil society. What I would point to post-Maidan is
    that civil society was energized by Maidan and remains engaged
    in pressuring the government on reforms. They are monitoring.
        I was just there last week, met with a group of key NGOs
    and they are continuing their pressure on the government to
    reform. So it is from both sides that this is happening and
    will continue.
        Lastly, I asked a question of the group last week whether
    they have seen progress in the year since Maidan in terms of
    corruption and what they reported was public sector corruption
    it is noticeably less than it was a year ago and they were
    energized and inspired that this will continue. So I think
    Ukraine has a long way to go but we have seen some progress.
        Ms. Romanowski. Ms. Frankel, let me try and answer your
    question about whether corruption and how this all happened. I
    really am not in a position to really speculate on what
    prompted Mr. Putin to violate another country's sovereignty and
    territorial integrity.
        So I think I will leave it at that for the moment. But what
    I will say about corruption and how it can erode a country's
    stability, it can limit its prosperity and it really does
    inhibit the responsive democratic pathways that populations
    would like.
        It undercuts its economy and it undercuts the expression
    and the ability of citizens in their country to express their
    values and where they want to take their country.
        On the corruption piece, for us and as my colleague, Susan
    Fritz, has said, fighting corruption is very much an integral
    part of our longstanding goal of Europe whole, free and at
    peace.
        It is not just in Ukraine. It is across the region. So that
    in fact that countries outside and external pressures such as
    Russian pressure don't have the impact and don't have the
    ability to get in and begin to meddle in the situation and into
    a country's economy or politics or elsewhere.
        Like my colleague at USAID, going to Ukraine was one of the
    first visits I made in this new--in this new job and I was--I
    was struck when I talked to NGOs and even new government
    officials how important for them it was to tackle the issue of
    corruption in Ukraine and how the reforms that they were
    undertaking and the long, long list of other reforms that they
    had to undertake was going to be a long-term effort and a
    commitment.
        They recognized how difficult this might be and how it
    required convincing others in their society to make these
    difficult reforms that initially could have a significant
    impact on the--on the economy or on the--or on the livelihoods.
        But at the end of the day, every single Ukrainian I talked
    to recognized that they needed to embark on serious reforms to
    get on to the democratic path and to continue their integration
    into Europe.
        Ms. Frankel. Just--Mr. Chair, if I just may follow through.
    I did not mean to infer that the corruption was an excuse to
    Putin.
        I--my inference was that it weakens the resistance of the
    country and the people in the country when they don't have
    confidence in the government and the government is not working
    correctly. It can lay a predicate for a terrorist group or--I
    know what you are going to call Mr. Putin--an aggressor to come
    in.
        Ms. Romanowski. And I think that the--what we are seeing
    now is the Ukrainian people want to see reforms happen fast and
    quick, and as we all know, in some cases it takes a while to
    get those done.
        Ms. Frankel. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you to the panel. Just a few more
    thoughts about the--just sort of take up where the conversation
    ended. I think the corruption issue is the direct--is the
    direct cause for the problems that are in Ukraine today, not
    just their economic situation but this military confrontation
    that they have.
        I remember seeing Kuchma and I was there during the Orange
    Revolution and I actually supported the kids down in the square
    and went into their tents with them and everything.
        And, of course, they got rid of Kuchma, the last of the
    Soviet leadership of Ukraine, and we got Yushchenko is, I
    believe, then came in after the Orange Revolution and he was
    married to Kathy Chumachenko, worked with me in the Reagan
    White House.
        Thought, oh boy, we got some Western people there now who
    are committed to better government, and the people, in fact, in
    Ukraine have been convinced that Yushchenko--and,
    unfortunately, his--all of his cohorts were as corrupt as they
    had with Kuchma and were so disillusioned that they ended up
    voting for Yanukovych, who was the pro-Russian candidate at the
    time.
        And then Yanukovych, of course, to suggest that he was any
    less corrupt than anybody else would be just wrong because what
    the people of the Ukraine have had is government after
    government after government coming in, with the hope of the
    people that new government is going to be a noncorrupt
    government and they got some hope and, frankly, Yanukovych was
    just as corrupt as his predecessors, probably more corrupt.
        And when they--thus, when he did not get the deal that he
    was looking for to help the Ukraine's--the Ukraine's economy
    from the--from their Western European friends who have to,
    again, like Merkel has suggested, had they treated Yanukovych
    differently we might not have had this confrontation with
    Russia going on.
        But Yanukovych ends up going to Putin, getting the
    agreement--a better agreement than what the European Union was
    offering--but the people of his country, because they have
    learned that corruption is the way of life of these--of their
    leadership, assumed that they--the country was being sold out
    to Russia probably for personal gain for their--for their
    President and that is when this violence erupted in that
    society.
        And let us just hope--I mean, this is a horrible situation
    in Ukraine and we need to--I think the first step is, number
    one, do everything we can to stop the actual fighting and get
    the people disengaged with spending because every day of
    fighting is the expenditure of millions of dollars that are
    drains on that economy and also it hurts the people there and
    people lose their lives.
        So just--that is just a thought and but I got one last
    issue I would like to bring up before we close and--unless Ms.
    Frankel has another comment.
        I have--this is, Mr. Rosenblum, about--this is back to my
    central point that I didn't hear anybody mention radical Islam.
        I keep hearing people mention Russia, Russia, Russia. But
    radical Islam is, to me, the major threat we must face today.
    Just like when the Soviet Union was in, that was the major
    threat and other things were secondary.
        Well, I believe, as I mentioned earlier, that we could have
    radical Islamic terrorists taking over various governments in
    Central Asia and I understand that we trained--in Tajikistan
    they trained their special forces commander, who recently
    defected to ISIL and is now actively involved in trying to
    accomplish the ISIL gains in Central Asia and whatever the ISIL
    is long term trying to do. Is that correct?
        Mr. Rosenblum. Mr. Chairman, I think you are referring to
    the case of Mr. Khalimov, who was the commander of the Oman
    special forces, which is the interior ministry special forces
    in Tajikistan----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
        Mr. Rosenblum [continuing]. Who, I guess it was 2 or 3
    weeks ago appeared in a video where he announced that he had
    joined ISIL.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Right. Defected.
        Mr. Rosenblum. That is correct--defected. And so this
    case--it actually so happens, coincidentally, that today a
    delegation from the Government of Tajikistan is here in
    Washington for our annual--what we call the annual bilateral
    consultations between our two governments.
        Not surprisingly, this particular case has come up in the
    conversation although it is covering the whole broad range of
    our relationship with Tajikistan.
        So we--this is a case that, obviously, was--came as a
    surprise to us and that we are very concerned about and what
    its ramifications are.
        The--Mr. Khalimov came up through the ranks of the interior
    ministry before he became the commander and during that period
    of about a decade did participate in several U.S. training
    courses--I think about five training programs sponsored under
    our anti-terrorism assistance program.
        The way those programs work, as you probably know, Mr.
    Chairman, is that the attendees are selected by the government
    of the country and then they go through a vetting process that
    is sometimes informally referred to as the Leahy vetting, which
    is basically seeing whether the selected participant was
    involved in any gross violations of human rights in their own
    country.
        And in terms of that vetting, this person, Mr. Khalimov,
    passed our vetting. But I just want to emphasize that he was--
    he was selected by the government, which is the normal way that
    these things work.
        It is hard to predict these sorts of things and actually
    there was a hearing last week that I participated in on exactly
    this issue of recruitment of foreign terrorist fighters from
    Central Asia.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
        Mr. Rosenblum. Of course, this case came up as well, and I
    was asked a similar question about Mr. Khalimov. It is hard to
    predict how these cases come up. As I said there and I will say
    here again, we are continuing to look at our procedures for
    conducting these training courses.
        We are always going to be dependent on selection by the
    governments to a large extent, of course, of the participants.
    But we are looking if there are any ways to do additional
    screening that might help us to avoid future cases like this.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, I would hope that this particular
    incident is a wake-up call for all of us about Central Asia. We
    should not be taking Central Asia for granted--that, indeed,
    once radical Islam, if they are successful in the Gulf and then
    they manage to spread to the other areas in northern Africa and
    into Central Asia, we will be involved with an historic shift
    of power on this planet that will plague us and plague mankind
    and humankind for generations to come.
        And this is--the fact that in Tajikistan you have someone
    like this defecting over to the most radical elements of Islam
    should tell us that we need to pay attention there and not
    take--and not focus totally, our whole efforts, on Russia's
    dispute within Ukraine, although we need to make sure that
    Russia has got the message that we do not believe that it was
    right for them to go in to--even if they had--Yanukovych was
    overthrown or whatever, there was no excuse for them to come in
    with their troops and that should not have happened.
        But with that said, we have a lot of other challenges to
    face in which the Russians could possibly play a positive role
    in if we can get the situation in the Ukraine settled.
        So with that said, Mr. Deutch, you have whatever time you
    would like.
        Mr. Deutch. Just--I only need a couple seconds. I wanted to
    come back in just to ask that our panelists take back from me
    and, I know, from those of us on this committee who have had
    the opportunity to travel to places like Tashkent and Dushanbe
    and Bishkek that we have really great appreciation for the work
    that State and our diplomatic corps and that our USAID workers
    do in these places--that it can't be taken for granted that
    for, unlike many parts of the world, for most of the people in
    Bishkek, for example, what they know about the United States is
    what they learn from their contact with the person from the
    Embassy who goes out and reads to kids, runs programs--what
    they do to stand for this country and our values and advance
    our interests.
        By being willing to spend a few years representing this
    country in those places means a great deal. They should be
    commended for it and I would ask you to take that message back
    to them.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Deutch, I would like to thank you for
    coming back to make that expression. I think that reflects we
    are a partnership here.
        You know, this is--we are trying--all trying to do our best
    to make sure our country is served well and we are--and the
    message that Mr. Deutch gave of that gratitude for the role
    that you play it goes for both sides of the aisle.
        So thank you very much. I declare this hearing adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:37 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                       Material Submitted for the Record

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]