[Senate Hearing 114-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2017
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:05 p.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lindsey Graham (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Graham, Kirk, Blunt, Boozman, Moran,
Lankford, Daines, Leahy, Mikulski, Durbin, Coons, and Murphy.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY, SECRETARY
opening statement of senator lindsey graham
Senator Graham. The subcommittee will come to order. We are
here to receive testimony from Secretary Kerry about the
Department of State and foreign operations budget request.
I am glad Senator Mikulski is here. She will make an
opening statement, but I will start.
The Secretary has a hard stop in 2 hours, so we will make
sure everybody can ask questions. I want to thank the members
of the subcommittee on both sides for being so active, so
involved.
I want to thank those who serve in the diplomatic corps.
You do not get the recognition you deserve. You are an
instrument of power as much as anybody in the military. You
serve in very dangerous environments, and I just want to let
you know that the soft power aspect of American foreign policy
is just as important as hard power.
This account is 1 percent of the Federal budget, give or
take a bit. We have had a 12 percent cut since 2010. The world
has not justified us spending less, in terms of engaging the
world.
Sequestration relief is much appreciated, but we need to
get this behind us, because this account gives us options.
If you do not want to bomb everybody, and you do not want
to be in a constant state of war, you need tools in the
toolbox. So the progress we made with AIDS and malaria, and
engaging the world, particularly in Africa, has been
astonishing. I want to thank all the members of the Republican
Party and Democratic Party for seeing this account in a new
light.
I want to thank Secretary Kerry for his tireless work.
I am going to quickly inventory the world as I see it.
It is a very dangerous world. There have been over 60
million refugees displaced in the last 5 to 6 years. In Syria
alone, 4.7 million; 2.6 million in Turkey; over 1 million in
Lebanon; 640,000 in Jordan, and it is probably actually more
than that; 245,000 in Iraq; 117,000 in Egypt; Libya is becoming
a failed state; and there is the Syrian conflict. I hope we can
get a ceasefire, but we will hear more about that.
I just want the world to know, and those who are seeking
the highest office in the land, you better understand what is
going on out there. Syria is a cancer for the region, and I
very much worry that the next President needs to have a vision
of the world consistent with the dangers that we face, and this
account is an essential tool.
The Iranian agreement whether you like it or not, the
behavior since the agreement by the Iranians outside their
nuclear compliance has been disturbing, to say the least.
There are just multiple fronts, multiple friction points.
Russia's involvement in Syria, along with the Iranians, is
of great concern to me.
North Korea seems to be marching down the road of
developing missile technology that can reach out and strike the
homeland. Five years, on March 15, is the anniversary of the
Syrian conflict. When the people in Syria marched in the
streets to demand a better life, I would say the world, in
general, did not respond. There is no use blaming any one
group.
Secretary Kerry's speech when Assad crossed the redline, I
think was your high point, certainly one of them, where you
laid out the case of why Assad should be dealt with forcibly
after he used chemical weapons on his own people and what he
had done prior to that point.
We are where we are, and I have never been more worried
about a strike on the homeland than I am today. There are more
terrorist organizations with weapons capability and safe havens
to hit the homeland than any time since 9/11.
This account is very important, in terms of trying to bring
stability to the world, so I hope we can find a way to plus-up
this account. If you do not look at it as national security in
another form, you are making a huge mistake.
Senator Leahy has been a joy to work with. I really
appreciate our collaboration. And with that, I will turn it
over to him.
statement of senator patrick j. leahy
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You and I have
worked closely together for years on this budget. Obviously, as
members of different parties, there will be some things we
disagree about. But the vast majority of things in this budget
we do agree about. That is why it always passes.
Secretary Kerry, it is good to have you here. You have one
of the most difficult jobs in the Government and in the most
difficult time that I can remember.
The world is on fire either literally or figuratively in so
many places, it is hard to keep track. I do not think there is
anybody who works harder than you do to put them out. I think
of the times you and I will be talking here or at the White
House or State Department, and a few hours later you are on the
news in another capital, another part of the world,
representing the United States.
Our job is to give you the resources you need. Senator
Graham and I will work hard on that. I appreciate also the fact
that Senator Graham's staff and mine can work so closely
together.
I look at some of the problems we face.
Afghanistan, 14 years after 9/11, what is happening there
is appalling. Despite all the sacrifices of our soldiers, and
hundreds of billions of dollars spent, much of that country
today is under Taliban control. The opium business is booming.
The government is widely regarded as ineffective and corrupt.
And very little of the investment of American taxpayers in
Afghanistan can be sustained by the Afghans.
In Iraq, I believe the American people were misled about
the justification for the war. They were assured that our
troops would be greeted as liberators and promised Iraq would
spend its own oil revenues to rebuild. None of that turned out
to be remotely true. We alienated our friends. We wasted
hundreds of billions of dollars while critical needs here at
home were ignored.
Today, Iraq's ability to survive as a nation is far from
certain. The corruption and chaos there spawned the Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). They were able to walk
away with a lot of our equipment, because the Iraqis let them.
The American people will be paying to care for thousands of
wounded veterans from that war for a lifetime, certainly even
beyond mine.
Meanwhile, Syria is the world's biggest humanitarian
catastrophe. It seems the strategy of arming the so-called
moderate opposition is largely based on wishful thinking.
And Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria, and other parts
of North Africa, are dealing with their own terrorist threats.
Our global war on terrorism that began against Osama bin Laden
and a small number of Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan appears
to be succeeding about as well as our decades' old so-called
war on drugs.
I do not say this to cast blame on the administration, but
to emphasize the colossal price the American people continue to
pay for the hubris and naivete of some of our past leaders.
Some of today's candidates for President who blame Congress
and the Federal Government want the American people to believe
the solution is simply to listen to the lobbyists and defense
contractors and buy more weapons and cut the budgets of
everything else.
They have learned very little from Iraq and Afghanistan.
There, some of the defense contractors got rich. American
soldiers, though, paid with their lives and limbs.
Mr. Secretary, you served in the military. And you know,
having been in combat, what they went through. The taxpayers
lost 1,000 billion dollars, and those countries are plagued by
violence and misery.
So there is a lot that should be done and a lot that we
should learn from those experiences.
On the positive side, I am among those who applaud the
agreement with Iran. I applaud the restoration of diplomatic
relations with Cuba.
Mr. Secretary, I was moved when I saw the Cubans standing
not just inside our Embassy, but outside on the street when you
had the American flag raised at our Embassy for the first time
in over 50 years. I will never forget, and I do not think you
will either, the cheers and the applause that came from the
average Cubans.
Now, none of those things are more than steps in a long
process in resolving big differences. But they are historic
achievements and steps long overdue.
I feel the same way about the Paris climate change
agreement. I commend you for not giving up, for sticking with
it. Unless we work together to stop climate change we are going
to recklessly go down the path that scientists overwhelmingly
agree would be catastrophic for life on Earth.
Now, your fiscal year 2017 budget looks a lot like last
year. For the most part, that is not a bad thing, except for
the $1 billion cut in humanitarian.
I think it is safe to say I also speak for the chairman
that we would like to move quickly on this. We know it is
important. You have an important job. The State Department has
an important job and the two of us will do our best.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
statement of senator barbara a. mikulski
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief,
because we want to get to the testimony. And given such
excellent attendance, I know we want to get to Q&A.
I just want to say, first of all, we welcome Secretary
Kerry. This will be the last time he will be testifying before
this committee at the same time I will be sitting here in this
chair, so it is a poignant time as we look back on where we
have served over the years, and we look ahead to the challenges
we have.
You have a difficult job. The world seems to be getting
smaller because of technology, but larger in terms of problems.
While you have a difficult job, so do the men and women who
work at the State Department, for the State Department, but
they are really working for the United States of America.
As I review the President's budget, it once again shows
that the defense of our country lies not only in the Department
of Defense, but others who exercise other levers of power and
presence, power and presence that really helps advocate the
values and security needs of our country, whether it is a
treasured allies like Israel, or whether it is desperate
refugees seeking help.
We look forward to hearing the issues related also to not
only ISIL but also other important issues like global health,
what is happening to women in the world, and what also is
undermining the stability of countries, like climate change,
and so on.
So we look forward to this testimony. I wanted to come
personally to thank you publicly for your service, and I think
the way we thank you is to just move our agenda and not engage
in any delays.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Graham. Mr. Secretary. We look forward to your
testimony, assuming that you are not chosen by Trump to be
Secretary of State this will be your last appearance.
[Laughter.]
With that in mind, please proceed.
Senator Mikulski. Welcome back from another troubled spot.
Secretary Kerry. I am going to leave that one alone, Mr.
Chairman. [Laughter.]
Senator Graham. I have asked the Inspector General for the
U.S. Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of
Governors, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan
Reconstruction, and the Chief Executive Officer of the
Broadcasting Board of Governors to submit written testimony on
their respective fiscal year 2017 budget requests, which will
appear in the record following Secretary Kerry's opening
statement.
summary statement of hon. john f. kerry
Secretary Kerry. First of all, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Leahy and Senator Mikulski, Chair, let me just thank all
of you profoundly for the bipartisanship and the seriousness of
purpose with which each and every one of you approach these
issues.
And I know, Mr. Chairman, you were angling, as I did, for a
different seat in a different house, but I am personally glad
you are back here, and you are a terrific steward of this
enterprise with some complications in your own party with
respect to some of these issues. But I personally really
respect and appreciate your leadership on a lot of this.
And, Senator Leahy likewise through the years, we have done
a lot and you have been a leader on so many of these things,
demining and human rights, and run the list.
And, Senator Mikulski, you are just a tour de force, and we
are all going to miss you very, very much.
So I am going to try and cut through this pretty quickly if
I can, because I know you want to ask questions, but I do want
to put into perspective what we are trying to do here.
Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that the budget is about 1
percent of the budget of the United States of America, $50
billion. I would say to everybody here that is about the
minimum price that we should be paying for our leadership and
for what we accomplish with this in terms of the security of
our people, the advancement of our interests, the advancement
of our values and ideals.
And I will tell you bluntly and flatly, after spending 28
full years on the Foreign Relations Committee and in the
Senate, and a little more into the 29th, never have I seen the
country more engaged in more places all at the same time with
more issues of consequence. And the scope of that engagement
obviously is to protect our citizens and protect our interests.
But we are confronted today with a combination of perils as
old as nationalist aggression and as new as cyber warfare, by
dictators who run roughshod over global norms, and by violent
extremists who combine modern media with medieval thinking to
wage war on civilization itself.
And despite the dangers, I really believe that we Americans
have every reason for confidence. In recent years, our economy
has added more jobs than the rest of the industrialized world
combined. Our Armed Forces are second to none in the world, and
it is not even close.
Our alliances in Europe and Asia are vigilant and strong,
and the budget reflects the plussing-up of our effort to
strengthen Europe.
Our citizens are unmatched in their generosity and
commitment to humanitarian causes and to civil society.
Now, frankly, we hear--I hear it, I hear it sometimes in my
travels; I certainly hear it in this country--a lot of
handwringing about what is going on. But I have to tell you, I
have the greatest respect for my colleagues, my counterparts
around the world, and I have built strong friendships and
relationships with them, but I would not switch places, with
all due respect, with one foreign minister in the world. And
nor do I want our country to retreat to some golden age that is
illusionary about the past.
Here and now, I believe we have just enormous opportunities
staring us in the face: the energy transformation; young people
thirsty for opportunity, people who really brought us some of
the unrest in the Middle East in their desire to share some of
the prosperity and opportunity of the world.
In the past year, we did reach a historic agreement with
Iran. Some people opposed it; some people were for it. And that
is the way our country works.
But the fact is that just the other day, the commanding
general of the Israeli Defense Forces announced in a speech to
a security conference in Israel that because of that agreement,
Israel no longer faces an existential threat from Iran in the
way that it did.
In Paris in December, we joined governments from more than
190 nations in approving a comprehensive agreement to curb
greenhouse gas emissions and limit the most harmful
consequences of climate change. And now we are determined to
implement that.
We also believe, and the evidence is there in economies
that are transforming, that this is one of the greatest
economic opportunities of all time: 4.5 billion users today,
going up to 9 billion users in the next 20, 30 years, for an
economy that will be at least six to larger trillions of
dollars in size, and some $50 trillion is going to be spent in
the next 20 or 30 years in this energy transformation.
Those are jobs. That is opportunity. And that is an
enormous marketplace, bigger than the technology marketplace of
the 1990s, which created the greatest wealth this Nation has
seen since the 1920s.
Just this month, we signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
which will ensure a level playing field in the Pacific for
American businesses and workers, and it will reassert our
leadership in a region that is vital to our interests. And
obviously, we are asking Congress to approve this pact, so we
can begin to accrue its benefits as quickly as possible.
In Europe, we are increasing support for our security
initiative, the reassurance initiative. We are increasing it
fourfold, and we are giving Russia a clear choice between
continued sanctions and meeting its obligations to a sovereign
and democratic Ukraine.
In our hemisphere, we are helping Colombia to try to end
the war, the longest-running civil war on the planet. And we
are aiding our partners in Central America to implement new
procedures to prevent the flow of migrants, and particularly
young children across the border. And we are seeking
supplemental funds to minimize the danger to public health from
the Zika virus.
In Asia, we are standing with our allies in opposition to
the threats posed by a belligerent Democratic People's Republic
of Korea (DPRK). We are helping Afghanistan and Pakistan to try
to counter violent extremism. We are deepening our strategic
dialogue with India. We are supporting democratic gains in Sri
Lanka and Burma. And we are encouraging the peaceful resolution
of competing maritime claims in the South China Sea.
And we are doing things in Africa, obviously, with the
African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), with efforts in
Nigeria to fight back against Boko Haram, al-Shabaab, and
others. And we can talk about that in the course of this
morning.
We obviously have an enormous challenge with violent
extremism that is growing among young people who make up the
majority of almost every country where there are problems
today. Look at every country--Northern Africa, Middle East,
South-Central Asia, Asia--65 and 70 percent under the age of 35
or under the age even of 30; 50 percent of the population is
under the age of 18, 21.
And they do not have jobs. They do not have the promise of
a future. So if their minds are not going to be twisted by
people who are willing to go out and lie about a religion, and
if we are not going to find them in one extremist movement or
another somewhere in the world, or in one failing state or
another because of corruption or other problems, we need to
understand the security value for our country of investing
through this kind of process.
My final comment, because I want to leave time for
questions, is, just quickly, the United States and Russia chair
this effort to try to achieve a cessation of hostilities. And
President Obama and President Putin agree the cessation of
hostilities should begin on Saturday morning, including all the
groups who are willing to cooperate, with the exception of
Daesh and al-Nusra and any other terrorist group designated by
the U.N. Security Council.
Now, I have to tell you, my friends, I cannot sit here and
tell you I know this is going to work, but I know this: If it
does not work, the potential is there that Syria will be
utterly destroyed, that Europe will be flooded with even more
migrants, and the nature and character and culture of that
entity will be challenged beyond belief; that the unrest and
dislocation will become even worse of what is already the
greatest humanitarian challenge since World War II.
So we have our work cut out for us, and the fact is that we
need to make certain that we are exploring and exhausting every
option of diplomatic resolution, of peaceful resolution at the
table.
Ultimately, people are going to have to come to the table
to resolve whatever the aftermath is going to be. We are trying
to prevent that from being disastrous. And I hope that, in the
days ahead, we can make this cessation work, get to the table,
where we will test--I repeat, test--not provide certainty, but
test the seriousness of Russia and Iran and others to find a
political solution, which provides Syria with a road ahead
without an Assad, because you cannot end the war with him, that
is going to provide a choice for the Syrian people.
So we seek your support to stay at the forefront of the
international challenges--humanitarian response, the worldwide
refugee challenge, global health, the President's Emergency
Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the President's Malaria
Initiative, other things, most importantly on behalf of
democracy, freedom of the press, human rights, and the rule of
law. We are launching a new initiative to try to protect
adolescent girls, to adequately fund the people and the
platforms that help America to effectively protect our
interests.
As you have remarked, this is the last budget of the Obama
administration, and I ask for its full consideration. I welcome
your questions. I appreciate your counsel, and I seek your
backing.
But above all, let me just say to all of you how profoundly
privileged I feel to have had the chance to work with all of
you on support of an agenda that reflects not only the most
fundamental values of our country, but I believe, in the end,
the hopes of the world. And that is the leadership privilege
that we have, and we need to exercise it.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John F. Kerry
Mr. Chairman, Senator Leahy, thank you. I appreciate the chance to
testify on behalf of the administration's budget request for the State
Department and related agencies for fiscal year 2017.
Our request this year is roughly level with last year's--right
around fifty billion dollars. That amount, though substantial, is equal
to only about 1 percent of the Federal budget. We seek these resources
to sustain America's international engagement, which is deeper and more
wide-ranging today than ever before in our history.
The unprecedented scope of our leadership is warranted by the mix
of opportunities and challenges we face. We are confronted by dangers
as old as excessive nationalism and as new as cyber warfare, by
dictators who run roughshod over international norms, by failing and
fragile states, by infectious disease and by violent extremists who
combine modern media with medieval thinking to murder, enslave, and
wage war on civilization itself.
In the face of such challenges, the United States and its citizens
remain firmly committed to the pursuit of international peace,
prosperity, and the rule of law. The administration's fiscal year 2017
budget request embodies every aspect of that commitment. It is a
reflection of our country's wide-ranging interests, of what we are
against--and most important--what we are for.
There's a reason why most people in most places still turn to the
United States when important work needs to be done. It's not because
anyone expects or wants us to shoulder the full burden--but because we
can be counted on to lead in the right direction and toward the right
goals.
Make no mistake, we live at a moment filled with peril and
complexity, but we Americans also have ample grounds for confidence. In
recent years, our economy has added more jobs than the rest of the
industrialized world combined. Our armed forces are by far the world's
strongest and best. Our alliances in Europe and Asia are energized. We
have reached historic multilateral accords on Iran's nuclear program,
climate change, and trans-Pacific trade. We have witnessed important
democratic gains in, among other places, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, and Burma.
We helped facilitate what we hope will be a landmark peace agreement in
Colombia. We have enhanced our position throughout the hemisphere by
resuming diplomatic relations with Cuba. We marshalled a global
campaign to save lives by containing the Ebola virus; and we are the
leader in championing the empowerment of women and respect for the full
range of internationally recognized human rights. We have also taken
the lead in mobilizing international solidarity in the fight against
such terrorist groups as Daesh, al-Qa'ida, Boko Haram, and al-Shabab--
groups that have absolutely nothing to offer anyone except destruction
and death.
From the vantage point of America's national security, we begin
2016 with a long agenda focused on key priorities but understanding the
potential for emergencies to arise at any moment. We think it essential
to make full use of every available foreign policy tool--from carrots
to coercion--but with an emphasis on persuading governments overseas
not just to do what we want, but to want what we want. We will act
alone when we must, but with allies, partners and friends when possible
on every continent and in every situation where our interests are at
risk. We will respond to immediate needs, but with long-term
requirements in mind. And we will always be conscious that the State
Department's principal responsibility is not to interpret and justify
foreign perspectives to the United States, but to defend and advance
America's well-being in a fast-changing world.
I will turn now to the specifics of the administration's budget
request for the coming fiscal year.
The funding we seek is in two parts; the first consists of a base
amount of $35.2 billion. These resources will deepen cooperation with
our allies and regional partners and bolster American leadership at the
U.N. and other multilateral organizations. They will protect U.S.
diplomatic personnel, platforms, and information, while also helping us
to mitigate the harmful consequences of climate change, promote human
rights, combat trafficking in persons, and continue valuable
educational exchanges. Worldwide, they will furnish life-saving
humanitarian assistance, foster growth, reduce poverty, increase access
to education, combat disease, and promote democratic governance and the
rule of law.
The Overseas Contingency Operations portion of our budget is $14.9
billion and will improve our ability to prevent, respond to, and
recover from crises abroad; contribute to new and ongoing peacekeeping
and U.N. special political missions; help allies and partners such as
Afghanistan and Pakistan counter threats; step up our efforts to
counter terrorist organizations; and sustain security programs and
Embassy construction at high risk posts.
The number one goal of U.S. foreign policy is to keep Americans
safe. To that end, this year's budget seeks resources to enhance our
Nation's leadership of the 65-member global coalition to degrade and
destroy the terrorist group Daesh. Our strategy is to combine our
power--and the power of our partners--to degrade Daesh's command
structure, shrink the territory under its control, curb its financing,
hammer its economic assets, discredit its lies, slow its recruitment,
and block any attempt to expand its networks. As President Obama has
made clear, the murderous conduct that Daesh is trying to foment must
be opposed with unity, strength, and a determination on our part to
persist until we prevail. That determination has several dimensions:
--Militarily, we are intensifying pressure through coalition air
strikes backed by local partners on the ground, a stepped-up
training and supply effort, the deployment of Special Forces
advisers, improved targeting, the systematic disruption of
enemy supply lines, and coordinated planning of future actions.
--To consolidate the important territorial gains made thus far, we
are stressing the importance of stabilizing communities freed
from Daesh in Syria and Iraq.
--We are helping the government in Baghdad as it seeks to broaden and
professionalize its security forces and to liberate portions of
the country still occupied by Daesh.
--We continue to strengthen our regional partners, including Jordan
and Lebanon, and to provide humanitarian assistance to people
impacted by the conflict inside Syria, in neighboring
countries, and beyond.
--We are supporting a broad-based diplomatic initiative, chaired by
U.N. Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura, and aimed at achieving a
political solution to the Syrian civil war that will de-
escalate the conflict, isolate the terrorists, provide for a
transition in governance, and make possible the kind of
peaceful, inclusive, pluralist, and fully sovereign country
that most Syrians want. To that end, on February 11, we
announced a plan to ensure access to humanitarian supplies for
all Syrians in need, and to arrange a cessation of hostilities
that we hope will evolve into a durable and nationwide
ceasefire. The full and good faith implementation of these
measures--to ensure humanitarian access and end violence
against civilians in Syria--is a top foreign policy priority of
the United States.
--Finally, we believe it essential that America speak with a single
voice in its resolve to defeat Daesh. Congressional approval of
a new and more specific authorization to use military force
against that terrorist organization would be welcomed by the
administration and help to demonstrate our unity and
commitment.
In the 17 months since the Counter-Daesh coalition was formed, its
aircraft have launched more than 10,000 air strikes. The combination of
air support and ground assaults by local partners has reversed Daesh's
momentum; driven the terrorists from such key cities as Kobani, Tikrit,
and Ramadi; and weakened their position on the Syria-Turkish border.
All told, Daesh has been forced to abandon almost a third of the
populated territory it had previously controlled in these countries,
and many of their fighters--faced by a deep cut in wages and no new
towns to plunder--have either deserted or been executed trying to
escape.
The threat posed by violent extremism extends far beyond the Middle
East and the particular dangers spawned by Daesh. Those threats cannot
effectively be addressed solely--or even primarily--by military means.
Our approach, therefore, is comprehensive, long term, and designed to
enhance the capacity of countries and communities to defeat terrorist
groups and prevent new ones from arising. To that end, our new Center
for Global Engagement is helping partner nations to promote better
governance, strengthen democratic institutions, expand access to a
quality education, and foster development, especially in the most
vulnerable parts of the world. On the diplomatic side, we are striving
with the U.N. and our allies to solidify a new Government of National
Accord in Libya, and to bring an end to the violence and political
unrest that has plagued Yemen.
Last year, with our P5+1 partners, we negotiated the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action, cutting off each of Iran's potential
pathways to a nuclear weapons capability, requiring it to take
thousands of centrifuges offline, pour concrete into the core of its
heavy water reactor, and ship abroad 98 percent of its stockpile of
enriched uranium. Because of these steps and the rigorous inspection
and verification measures to which Tehran has also agreed, the threat
of a nuclear-armed Iran has receded, our allies are safer, and so are
we. In months to come, we will continue our close consultations with
Congress as we monitor Iran's compliance with the Joint Plan, and as we
stand with our allies and friends against Iran's destabilizing policies
and actions in the region.
In part because of the challenges posed by Iran and other threats,
we continue to engage in a record level of military, intelligence, and
security cooperation with Israel. We remain committed to helping our
ally confront its complex security environment and to ensure its
qualitative military edge. Each day, we work with Israel to enforce
sanctions and prevent terrorist organizations such as Hamas and
Hizballah from obtaining the financing and weapons they seek. Since
2009, we have provided more than $23 billion in foreign military
financing to Israel, which constitutes the majority of what we have
given to nations worldwide. Diplomatically, our support for Israel also
remains rock solid as we continue to oppose efforts to delegitimize the
Jewish state or to pass biased resolutions against it in international
bodies.
The Transatlantic partnership remains a cornerstone of American
security and prosperity. We are in constant communication with our NATO
and EU Allies and partners about a vast array of issues, including our
steadfast backing for a democratic Ukraine, full implementation by
every side of the Minsk protocols, and an increase in European
Reassurance Initiative funding that will support the persistent
presence of a brigade's combat team for 12 months out of the year and
allow us to preposition warfighting equipment for a division
headquarters and other enablers in Europe. This year's budget includes
$953 million to enhance stability, prosperity, energy independence, and
good governance in Ukraine and other partner countries facing direct
pressure from Russia, in addition to fighting HIV/AIDS and countering
violent extremism in the region.
Closer to home, the fiscal year 2017 budget will continue our
investment in Central America to fight corruption and crime and to
attack the root economic causes of illegal migration to the United
States, including by unaccompanied minors. Our Strategy for Engagement
in Central America, with its whole-of-government approach, emphasis on
building effective and accountable institutions and leveraging of
private capital, will make it easier for our regional neighbors to live
securely and with steadily increasing prosperity in their own
countries.
In addition, we are supporting Colombia as it seeks to finalize an
agreement that will end the world's longest ongoing civil conflict.
During President Santos's visit to Washington earlier this month,
President Obama announced his intention to seek support for ``Peace
Colombia,'' a successor to Plan Colombia that will spur recovery in
communities ravaged by the many years of fighting. This project will
highlight assistance to the victims of conflict, and aid in reinforcing
security gains, clearing mines, demobilizing rebel fighters, and
curbing trade in illegal narcotics. Our citizens may be proud that, in
his remarks at the White House, President Santos attributed many of his
country's advances ``to the fact that 15 years ago, when we were in
serious straits, the Colombians received a friendly hand. That friendly
hand came from here in Washington, from both sides of the aisle,
Democrats and Republicans.''
In Cuba, we have resumed diplomatic relations after 54 years.
Although we continue to have sharp differences with the government in
Havana regarding human rights, political prisoners, and other issues;
we remain determined to support the aspirations of the Cuban people to
plug into the global economy and live in greater freedom. We call on
Cuban authorities to remove obstacles to participation by their
citizens online and in commercial enterprises; and we urge Congress to
lift the economic embargo, which has for decades been used as an excuse
by the Castro regime to dodge blame for its own ill-advised policies.
As evidenced by last week's ASEAN Summit hosted by President Obama
at Sunnylands in California, the United States is an indispensable
contributor to stability, prosperity, and peace in the Asia Pacific.
Dangers in that region include North Korea's provocative nuclear and
ballistic missile programs and tensions stemming from contested
maritime claims in the South China Sea. United States policy is to
encourage security cooperation and dialogue aimed at building
confidence and ensuring that disputes are settled in keeping with
international obligations and law. Our modernizing alliances with
Japan, the Republic of Korea, Australia, and the Philippines--in
addition to our partnership with New Zealand and close ties with
ASEAN--provide a firm foundation for our strategy, as does our multi-
dimensional relationship with China. Our diplomatic priorities include
support for human rights and the continued evolution of an open and
democratic political process in Burma, where a freely-elected
parliament has been seated for the first time, and where we have called
for an end to discrimination and violence directed at the Rohingya
Muslim minority.
Our fiscal year 2017 budget includes $1.25 billion in assistance to
the national unity government of Afghanistan to strengthen its
institutions, bolster its security capabilities, repel attacks by
violent extremists, implement economic reforms, preserve gains made
over the last decade (including for women and girls), and move forward
with a wide range of social programs. We are requesting $742 million in
aid to Pakistan to support its citizens as they seek security, build
democracy and sustain economic growth and development--even as the
country continues to suffer from terrorist attacks. Last October, I
traveled to every state in Central Asia to reaffirm America's
friendship with the people in that part of the world and to discuss
shared concerns in such areas as security, energy policy, development,
and human rights. Also in 2015, we strongly endorsed democratic
progress in Sri Lanka, while elevating our important strategic dialogue
with India to include a commercial component, reflecting the five-fold
increase in bilateral trade over the last decade.
In Africa, our budget request reflects our emphasis on
partnership--with civil society, with the private sector and with key
allies. Our request of $7.1 billion will support democratic
institutions, spur growth, promote gender equity, and protect human
rights through such mechanisms as the Africa Growth and Opportunity
Act, the Feed the Future initiative, Power Africa, and the President's
``Stand with Civil Society Initiative.'' Our assistance also undergirds
regional stability through the African Peacekeeping Rapid Response
Partnership, the Security Governance Initiative, and strategically
important international peace operations in, among other countries, the
Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, South
Sudan, Sudan, and Somalia. Diplomatically, the United States continues
to work closely with regional leaders to prevent crises--whether caused
by outbreaks of disease, the threat of famine, or political
controversy, as has recently been the cause of urgent concern in
Burundi.
American leadership is on display and making a positive difference
in every part of the world including the far north, where the United
States last year assumed chairmanship of the Arctic Council, a platform
we are using to forge united action on the environment, fisheries
conservation, and economic opportunity for local populations. But in
addition to bilateral and regional issues, the United States is at the
forefront of a host of efforts that address global challenges and
uphold universal ideals.
For example, the administration's fiscal year 2017 budget request
reaffirms our country's premier role in the world economy. Each day,
the men and women in our embassies and consulates work closely with
representatives of the American private sector to identify new markets
for our goods and services, ensure fair competition for foreign
contracts, protect intellectual property, and advocate for U.S.
interests under the law. This budget will advance U.S. engagement on
global information and communications technology policy, encourage
innovation, and protect the interests of our citizens in Internet
freedom and digital privacy. Through our contributions to international
financial institutions like the World Bank, we help to lift the
economies of low-income countries and expand the global middle class.
With the Trade Representative and others in the administration, the
State Department works to conclude forward-looking agreements such as
the recently signed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) to ensure a level
playing field for American businesses and workers and raise labor and
environmental standards. The TPP is a landmark 12 nation pact that will
lower trade barriers and advance American leadership in the Asia
Pacific region, ensuring that the rules of the road for trade in this
critical region are written by the United States and our partners,
rather than others who do not share our interests and values. In asking
Congress to approve the agreement, President Obama has pointed out that
the TPP will cut 18,000 taxes on products that are made in America,
boost U.S. exports, and support high-paying jobs, and he has expressed
his interest in working closely with Congress to get the agreement
approved as soon as possible. We are also working with USTR to pursue a
similar high-standard approach to trade with Europe in the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which is still being
negotiated.
In Paris last December, the United States joined governments from
more than 190 nations in approving a comprehensive agreement to curb
greenhouse gas emissions and limit the most harmful consequences of
climate change. This historic pact represents the first time the world
has declared that all countries have a responsibility to join in what
must truly be a global commitment--through arrangements marked by
transparency, a mandatory standard of review, and the flexibility a
framework for successive and ambitious nationally determined climate
targets. Our budget request of $983.9 million for the Global Climate
Change Initiative and includes $500 million for the Green Climate Fund,
which will help low income countries leverage public and private
financing to reduce carbon pollution and bolster resilience to climate
change.
Our request for fiscal year 2017 allocates $4.7 billion for
assessed dues and voluntary contributions to international
organizations and peacekeeping efforts and to help other countries
participate in such missions. The request includes contingency funding
for new or expanded peace operations that may emerge outside the
regular budget cycle. Tragically, the demand for peacekeeping
assistance remains at an all-time high; and the United States neither
can, nor should, take the lead in most cases. It serves both our
interests and our values when U.N. agencies and regional organizations
are able--with our encouragement and support--to quell violence, shield
civilians from harm, promote reconciliation among rival groups, and
ensure that women are fairly represented in all aspects of peacemaking
and recovery projects.
In fiscal year 2017, we are requesting $8.6 billion for bilateral
and multilateral health programs. These funds support the President's
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR); the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,
TB, & Malaria; Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and other critical maternal
and child health programs; the Global Health Security Agenda; and an
intensified campaign, launched by the White House, to end the scourge
of malaria. We have also sought emergency funding to aid in an
international effort to minimize the public health threat posed by the
Zika virus.
This year, we are asking for $6.2 billion to address humanitarian
imperatives, including support for internally displaced persons,
refugees, those affected by conflict or natural hazards and communities
working to increase preparedness and resilience to disasters.
To date, with backing from Congress, the United States has provided
over $4.5 billion in humanitarian assistance--more than any other
country--to assist victims of the catastrophic civil war in Syria. In
London, earlier this month, I announced a further pledge of $600
million in humanitarian aid as well as $325 million in development
funds that includes support for the education of 300,000 refugee youth
in Jordan and Lebanon. In September, at the U.N., President Obama will
host a summit on the global refugee crisis. This will be the
culmination of a vigorous diplomatic effort to rally the world
community to increase the global response to humanitarian funding
appeals by at least 30 percent, and to add significantly to the number
of countries that donate regularly to these appeals or that are willing
to accept refugees for admission within their borders.
Our budget request allocates $2.7 billion for Democracy, Human
Rights and Governance--a modest amount compared to the steep costs of
the civil strife and political extremism that often thrive in the
absence of effective and democratic governing institutions. Programs
carried out by the State Department and USAID can play a pivotal role
in enabling countries to make governance more accountable, electoral
systems more professional, and judicial systems more independent. By
supporting civil society and the rule of law, these programs contribute
to a range of important goals, among them freedom of speech, religion
and the press; respect for the rights of persons with disabilities;
equitable treatment for members of the LGBTQ community; and an end to
human trafficking.
In addition, I am pleased to announce that the administration, led
by the Department of State and in cooperation with USAID, the Peace
Corps, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, will soon launch a
strategy to advance the empowerment of adolescent girls. This strategy
will be holistic in nature and address key issues facing adolescent
girls today, including equal access to secondary education and cultural
practices that deny girls a fair chance to participate in the economic
and political life of their societies. Our budget also underscores the
State Department's decades-long commitment to scholarship programs and
educational exchanges that help Americans to learn about the world and
young leaders from around the world to learn about America. Meanwhile,
our energetic and innovative activities in the field of public
diplomacy are essential to convey the truth about U.S. policies and
actions at a time when some--including terrorist organizations--lie
continually about what Americans believe and do.
To achieve our country's international objectives, we must give
State Department and USAID employees the tools and resources they need
to do their jobs well. That's why our request includes a $169 million
net increase for Diplomatic and Consular Programs, reflecting
heightened requirements in such areas as Freedom of Information Act
processing, cyber security, counterterrorism, intelligence, and
research. This proposal will support increased diversity through
expanded recruitment and fellowship opportunities, and will provide
more competitive wages for the locally employed personnel who make up
the majority of our overseas workforce. I also ask you to support the
restoration of full Overseas Comparability Pay for State Department
personnel who are deployed abroad. This reform is essential to our
effort to retain highly-skilled individuals in a competitive
international jobs market, and to ensure fair treatment for those
serving our country in relatively high-risk locations. The budget also
includes a $122 million increase for USAID's Operating Expense account
to maintain the Agency's workforce and sustain on-going global
operations to meet foreign policy objectives, implement Presidential
initiatives, and expand global engagement.
Finally, we are asking $3.7 billion to ensure the security of our
diplomatic platforms, protect our IT network and infrastructure, meet
special medical needs at select posts, and carry out emergency planning
and preparedness. Our $2.4 billion request for diplomatic facility
construction and maintenance will be used for repairs at our overseas
assets, and to continue implementing the security recommendations of
the Benghazi Accountability Review Board.
My colleagues, a little more than a quarter century ago, when the
Berlin Wall fell, there were those who suggested that we Americans
could now relax because our core ideas had prevailed and our enemy had
been defeated. But we have long since learned that although the
particular demands on our leadership may vary from one decade to the
next; our overall responsibilities neither vanish nor diminish.
The challenge for today's generation is to forge a new security
framework that will keep our country strong and our people safe. We are
under no illusions about how difficult that task is. We face determined
adversaries and many governments whose priorities do not match our own.
The old plagues of excessive nationalism and tribalism retain their
grip in many regions. Technology is a two-edged sword, simultaneously
bringing the world closer and driving it apart. Non-state actors have
arisen, often for the best, but others are at war with all we have ever
stood for--and with the modern world itself.
In this complex environment, some setbacks are inevitable.
Persistent and creative engagement will be required on all fronts. But
we are guided by the same values and supported by the same democratic
institutions that enabled our predecessors to succeed. We are bolstered
by a citizenry that is earning respect for our country every day
through its contributions to technological innovation and global
prosperity; through its activism on behalf of humanitarian causes and
civil society; through its brave service on the battlefield, in air and
on sea; and through its commitment to a system of governance that will
allow our country this year to elect a president--peacefully and
fairly--for the 58th time. We are sustained, as well, by one of the
true touchstones of America's greatness--the willingness on the part of
Congress and the executive branch to work together for the common good.
Thank you, and now I would be pleased to respond to your questions.
______
Prepared Statement of Steve A. Linick, Inspector General for the U.S.
Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors
Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Leahy, and Members of the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs, thank you for the opportunity to submit a written statement
to the subcommittee on behalf of the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
for the U.S. Department of State (Department) and Broadcasting Board of
Governors (BBG). It is my honor to have led OIG for the past 29 months,
and I want to express my appreciation for the confidence the
Appropriations Committee has shown in our oversight efforts by
supporting an increase in the OIG budget in fiscal year 2016. We used
our fiscal year 2015 appropriation to continue providing effective and
efficient oversight of the Department and BBG. With the fiscal year
2016 appropriation and the increase included in the President's fiscal
year 2017 budget request, I am confident we will continue to improve
the Department's and BBG's programs and operations while identifying
new challenges. I would like to outline what OIG considers to be the
Department's major management challenges; highlight some of our recent
work, including our efforts that are part of the coordinated
interagency oversight of overseas contingency operations (OCOs); update
you on the results of ongoing work that I referenced in my testimony
last year; and address OIG's budget environment.
i. state oig's mission and oversight efforts
OIG's mandate is broad and comprehensive, involving oversight of
the full scope of Department and BBG programs and operations, including
more than $41 billion in funding and more than 75,000 staff at more
than 270 locations around the world. OIG's global mandate is demanding
and includes a unique, statutorily imposed responsibility to audit and
inspect every domestic and overseas operating unit once every 5 years.
Since August 2014, when Congress amended the Inspector General Act to
include provisions requiring the designation of a Lead Inspector
General (LIG) for each OCO, OIG's mandate has expanded even further. I
am the designated Associate IG for two OCOs: Operation Inherent
Resolve, to degrade and defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
(ISIL), and Operation Freedom's Sentinel, to train, advise, and assist
Afghan security forces and defeat the remnants of Al-Qaeda in
Afghanistan.
Central to OIG's effective oversight is my annual responsibility to
identify the most serious management and performance challenges the
Department faced in the previous year and target OIG's oversight
accordingly. For fiscal year 2015, these challenges included:
--Protection of people and facilities
--Management of posts and programs in conflict areas
--Management of contracts and grants
--Information security and management
--Financial management
As in the past, OIG will continue focusing its oversight in these
critical areas by identifying vulnerabilities and recommending
positive, meaningful actions that the Department can take to mitigate
these risks. I will now elaborate on our efforts to improve the
Department's programs and operations.
Protection of People and Facilities
Protecting our people and facilities overseas continues to be a top
priority for both the Department and OIG. It is also a major management
challenge for the Department because its personnel often must perform
their duties in dangerous or unstable environments far from home. Since
the September 2012 attack on U.S. personnel and facilities in Benghazi,
Libya, OIG has conducted several reviews related to the Benghazi
Accountability Review Board (ARB), which was convened to examine the
facts and circumstances surrounding the attack. During fiscal year
2015, we conducted additional oversight, including a compliance follow-
up review to our September 2013 Special Review of the Accountability
Review Board Process. In that review, OIG recommended that the
Department develop minimum security standards that must be met before
occupying facilities in Department-designated high-threat, high-risk
locations.\1\ Additionally, OIG's classified review of the
implementation of the Benghazi ARB recommendations found that the
Department completed almost half of the 29 recommendations, and was
continuing to work on those that were still outstanding.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ OIG, Compliance Followup Review of the Special Review of the
Accountability Review Board Process (ISP-C-15-33, August 2015).
\2\ OIG, Review of the Implementation of the Benghazi
Accountability Review Board Recommendations (ISP-S-15-34, August 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, OIG reviewed the Vital Presence Validation Process
(VP2), in which the Department assesses whether posts in high-threat,
high-risk locations should be opened, closed, or re-opened, and whether
staffing levels are appropriate.\3\ OIG found that establishing VP2 met
the intent of the ARB recommendation. VP2 did not, however, explicitly
address the ARB recommendation that this process also assess whether
the posts' missions were attainable or their goals achievable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ OIG, Audit of the Department of State Implementation of the
Vital Presence Validation Process (AUD-SI-15-37, August 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIG also continues to focus its attention on the security of all
diplomatic facilities abroad and recognizes that the Department has
taken steps to improve security. However, OIG's oversight efforts in
fiscal year 2015 continued to identify security deficiencies at a
significant number of U.S. diplomatic facilities abroad.\4\ OIG
security inspectors issued 18 reports on the physical security and
security programs of individual overseas missions. All of these
inspections found security deficiencies significant enough to warrant a
recommendation and remediation; 58 percent of the almost 220
recommendations in the reports related to physical security, emergency
preparedness, or life safety. In addition to the findings of these
inspections, OIG audits \5\ found physical security deficiencies at
mission facilities or official residences. Although some of these
deficiencies were due to mission growth and limited space, many
resulted from longstanding vulnerabilities that the Department had not
addressed because of limited funds or mismanagement.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ All of the reports are classified.
\5\ See, e.g., OIG, Management Assistance Report: Residential
Security Concerns at U.S. Embassy Ankara, Turkey (AUD-CGI-15-38, July
2015); OIG, Management Assistance Report: Residential Security Concerns
at U.S. Embassy Manila, Philippines (AUD-CGI-15-29, May 2015).
\6\ Although the Department has a process for seeking waivers or
exceptions where security standards cannot be met, none of the
identified security deficiencies was subject to such waivers or
exceptions. Reasons for the security deficiencies at residences of
overseas personnel included: the Bureau of Diplomatic Security did not
notify posts about substantial revisions to the Department's
residential security program requirements in a timely manner, and
Regional Security Officers did not understand these requirements or
provide adequate oversight of post-specific residential security
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIG also reported that the Department had developed new tools to
identify and track physical security deficiencies; however, the
Department has not fully implemented these tools. Until it does so, the
Department will be unable to identify and address all physical
security-related deficiencies. It also will be unable to make fully
informed funding decisions because doing so requires the Department to
have a complete understanding of its physical security needs.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ OIG, Compliance Follow-up Audit of Process to Request,
Prioritize Physical Security-Related Activities at Overseas Posts (AUD-
ACF-16-20, December 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIG's physical security oversight extended beyond physical
structures. In fiscal year 2015, OIG issued a management assistance
report recommending the Department implement guidance for the proper
storage of weapons of opportunity, such as flammable liquids, hand and
power tools, and other material that could be used as weapons during
attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities overseas.\8\ Our ongoing work in
fiscal year 2016 regarding physical security issues includes audits of
Embassy Tripoli's emergency action plan and the Department's process
for vetting locally employed staff and employees contracted overseas.
We have inspected, or will inspect, individual post security programs
in Egypt, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Turkey, and Pakistan.
Looking beyond, we will continue to focus on the safety of Department
personnel and keep you fully informed of our findings and
recommendations in this critically important area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ OIG, Management Assistance Report: Importance of Securing Fire
Accelerants and Similar Weapons of Opportunity (aka Weapons of
Opportunity) (ISP-S-15-06, January 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management of Posts and Programs in Conflict Areas
The Department faces major challenges in responding to a broadening
range of security and humanitarian crises in conflict zones. As of
December 2014, more than 900 Foreign Service positions overseas were
designated as unaccompanied tours of duty. Missions in countries such
as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are at the forefront of U.S. efforts
to counter terrorism, stabilize fragile states, and respond to regional
conflicts. The Department's fiscal year 2017 congressional budget
justification requested $14.8 billion in overseas contingency
operations (OCO) funds to support critical programs and operations.
These programs include efforts to shield allies and partners from
potential threats; to destroy ISIL; to address other crises in the
Middle East and Africa; and to sustain security programs and Embassy
construction at high-risk posts.
The importance of OCO oversight led to the August 2014 amendment to
the Inspector General Act of 1978, which charged me and two other IGs
with additional responsibilities for overseeing current and future
OCOs.
When I submitted testimony to this subcommittee last year, the Lead
Inspector General for Overseas Contingency Operations (LIG-OCO)
amendment had been triggered only 2 months earlier by Operation
Inherent Resolve, directed against ISIL. The Department of Defense IG
was appointed Lead IG for Operation Inherent Resolve, and he
subsequently appointed me as Associate IG for oversight.
Over the past year, our three OIGs (Department of State, Department
of Defense, and U.S. Agency for International Development) took on
responsibility for two additional OCOs-- Operation United Assistance
(OUA) focused on the activities of the U.S. Government related to
international Ebola response and preparedness,\9\ and Operation
Freedom's Sentinel, the contingency operation encompassing our
continuing efforts in Afghanistan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The LIG-OCO response to OUA was initiated in February 2015 and
terminated on June 30, 2015, although oversight of funding expended
during OUA continues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To provide this joint oversight, the three OIGs implement
comprehensive joint strategic plans to ensure independent and effective
oversight of all programs and operations supporting the OCOs.
Throughout my testimony, I refer to work that my office has done in
support of the LIG-OCO. More specifically, in fiscal year 2015, we
published nine oversight reports. In fiscal year 2016, my office plans
to issue, among others, audits addressing vetting of contractors and
recipients of non-lethal aid in Syria and Afghanistan; audits of
contracts and oversight staffing in Afghanistan and Iraq; inspections
of embassies in Pakistan and Turkey; and an inspection of Mission
Iraq's governance and public diplomacy programs in support of the
President's counter-ISIL strategy.
The Department faces significant challenges managing OCO and other
funding in conflict areas. Security-related travel restrictions on U.S.
direct-hire personnel and sometimes on local Foreign Service National
staff complicate these critical program management and oversight
activities. To take just one example, humanitarian assistance
activities in Syria are operated from neighboring countries, and
embassies in Libya, Syria, and Yemen have suspended operations. In
these locations and others, dangerous conditions make it extremely
difficult to monitor and oversee programs and humanitarian assistance
efforts. Nonetheless, U.S. national security priorities, the continued
substantial investment of resources in these areas, and the need for
interagency collaboration require continued and close engagement in
these locations. Accordingly, OIG will continue to assist the
Department in these efforts. Highlighted below are some selected
findings and recommendations intended to improve the Department's
management of these priority programs.
As part of its LIG-OCO oversight responsibilities, OIG reviewed
whether the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) had
sufficient internal controls over funds for the Department's
humanitarian assistance and non-lethal aid programs in response to the
Syrian crisis.\10\ OIG's audits of almost $450 million found problems
with both the programs' performance and their financial monitoring,
including PRM's failure to conduct adequate pre-award risk assessments
or conduct post-award monitoring. OIG plans to inspect PRM in the
spring of 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ OIG, Audit of Department of State Humanitarian Assistance in
Response to the Syrian Crisis (AUD-MERO-15-22, March 2015); OIG, Audit
of Department of State's Management and Oversight of Non-Lethal
Assistance Provided for the Syrian Crisis (AUD-MERO-15-39, September
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, the difficult and dangerous conditions in and
around conflict areas make appropriate management of resources more
difficult. For example, after the 2012 Benghazi attack, Embassy Tripoli
staff used 26 armored vehicles to evacuate to the U.S. Embassy in
Tunis, Tunisia. Embassy Tunis had no need for the vehicles (valued at
approximately $5 million), so the vehicles remained stored and unused
in a grass and dirt lot on the Embassy compound.\11\ OIG also found
that management support platforms were under stress at a number of
posts where security concerns and growing workloads often drive
staffing decisions. At Embassy Amman, for example, OIG recommended that
the Department address these issues, because political circumstances
had transformed a formerly mid-size Embassy into a large, front-line
operation.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ OIG, Management Assistance Report: Embassy Tripoli Armored
Vehicles Available for Redistribution and Use (AUD-MERO-15-28, May
2015).
\12\ OIG, Inspection of Embassy Amman, Jordan (ISP-I-15-29A, June
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management of Contracts and Grants (Including Foreign Assistance)
Each year since 2008, OIG has identified the Department's
management of contracts and grants as a management challenge. This
continues to be an area of OIG focus. In fiscal year 2015, the
Department spent almost $16 billion on grants and fixed charges and
almost $15 billion in contractual services, totaling almost $31
billion. This amount is more than 70 percent of the Department's fiscal
year 2015 spending. In November 2013, OIG began issuing management
alerts and management assistance reports to Department leadership to
alert it to significant issues that require immediate corrective
action. Over the past 2 years, OIG has issued 27 such alerts and
reports to the Department, nearly half of which concerned issues with
contract and grants management. Notwithstanding OIG's ongoing emphasis
on this critical area, OIG continues to identify significant
vulnerabilities in the management and oversight of these funds.
OIG uses its resources not only to recommend specific improvements
to Department programs and operations but also to hold accountable
those who misuse Federal funds. Since my arrival in OIG in 2013, I
emphasized referrals of individuals and contractors to the Department's
Office of the Procurement Executive for possible suspension and
debarment. We also have taken steps to prosecute procurement fraud
cases more quickly and effectively. We have done so by having an OIG
special agent-attorney designated as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney.
This individual works full-time as a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, and focuses exclusively on
OIG criminal and civil cases. Having a dedicated prosecutor serves as a
strong deterrent, and OIG will continue to emphasize criminal and civil
penalties in addition to available administrative remedies.
Contract Management
In one of our earliest management alerts, issued in March 2014, we
reported that Department contracts with a total value of $6 billion had
incomplete or missing contract files.\13\ Despite this and other
alerts, inspection and audit teams continue to identify problems and
propose recommendations \14\ to improve the effective use of taxpayer
funds and minimize the risk of fraud, waste, or abuse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ OIG, Management Alert--Contract File Management Deficiencies
(MA-A-0002, March 2014).
\14\ See, e.g., OIG, Inspection of Embassy Antananarivo, Madagascar
(ISP-I-15-20A, May 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most recent example of the Department's ongoing challenge in
properly managing contracts is detailed in the management assistance
report that OIG issued last month on the use of purchase cards by
Department posts.\15\ Although posts using purchase cards are required
to prepare an annual review to ensure these cards are not being
misused, OIG found that during fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014,
almost $33 million \16\ in appropriated funds was vulnerable to fraud,
waste, or abuse because posts did not do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ OIG, Management Assistance Report: Annual Purchase Card
Program Reviews (ISP-I-16-04, January 2016).
\16\ That amount may be substantially greater (by almost $20
million), as 24 posts for fiscal year 2013 and 45 posts for fiscal year
2014 did not respond to requests for information on their annual
reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIG also found other significant weaknesses in contract
administration and oversight. For example, we questioned spending on
several significant contract awards, including the construction of the
New Embassy Compound in London,\17\ the Aviation Support Services
Contract in Iraq \18\ ($26.9 million), and the Medical Support Services
Contract in Iraq \19\ ($6.8 million). Insufficient and inexperienced
government oversight staff and the dangerous locations where some of
the work was performed contributed to these shortcomings. In one
instance, the Department had only one contracting officer's
representative monitoring all 15 task orders under the Iraq Medical
Support Services contract, which was valued at $1 billion. In another
instance, the contracting officer assigned to the new London Embassy
compound construction contract which was valued at more than $400
million, was not sufficiently familiar with the type of contract
vehicle being used by the Department.\20\ As a result, the contracting
officer awarded the contract without requiring the contractor to
provide an explanation that addressed a difference of more than $40
million between the initial and the final proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ OIG, Audit of the Construction Contract Award and Security
Evaluation of the New Embassy Compound London (AUD-CGI-15-31, July
2015).
\18\ OIG, Audit of the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs Aviation Support Services Contract in Iraq (AUD-
MERO-15-35, July 2015).
\19\ OIG, Management Assistance Report: Concerns with the Oversight
of Medical Support Service Iraq Contract No. SAQMMA11D0073 (AUD-MERO-
15-20, December 2014); Audit of the U.S. Mission Iraq Medical Services
(AUD-MERO-15-25, May 2015).
\20\ AUD-CGI-15-31, July 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fiscal year 2016 and beyond, OIG will continue its effort to
address contracting issues, focusing particularly on LIG-OCO projects
including Embassy Kabul's life-support contract (valued at $750
million); Department compliance with critical-environment contracting
policies; and additional oversight of the Baghdad Life Support Services
contract. At the same time, OIG will monitor the Department's
compliance with our recommendations to ensure that it mitigates
vulnerabilities and protects taxpayer funds.
Grants Management
OIG's work also continues to address the Department's ongoing
challenge with the administration and oversight of grants.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ OIG, Audit of Department of State Oversight Responsibilities,
Selection, and Training of Grants Officer Representatives (AUD-CG-15-
33, June 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the year, OIG audit and inspection teams repeatedly found
issues with grants management at locations around the world. These
problems occurred at all points in the process: OIG found insufficient
training, ineffective monitoring, and poor closeout procedures. Indeed,
OIG found grants management problems at more than 80 percent of the
posts it inspected; and in one inspection of a domestic bureau,\22\
none of the 31 grant files reviewed (totaling $38 million) had
monitoring plans to ensure the funds were used for their intended
purpose. Audits of other sensitive programs concerning international
nonproliferation activities found problems with combined awards of
nearly $40 million.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ OIG, Inspection of the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs
(ISP-I-15-27, June 2015).
\23\ OIG, Audit of the Bureau of International Security and
Nonproliferation Administration and Oversight of Foreign Assistance
Funds Related to the Export Control and Related Border Security Program
(AUD-SI-15-23, April 2015); OIG, Audit of the Bureau of International
Security and Nonproliferation Administration and Oversight of Foreign
Assistance Funds Related to the Global Threat Reduction Program (AUD-
SI-15-41, September 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vulnerabilities extend to the Department's programs with external
partners. OIG's audit of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)
found that over the course of 9 years the Department awarded more than
$960 million to NED. The Department did not, however, conduct required
audits or comply with other monitoring requirements. Moreover, it did
not include the audit requirement in the grant agreement.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ OIG, Management Assistance Report: Oversight of Grants to the
National Endowment for Democracy (AUD-SI-15-34, June 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fiscal year 2016, OIG plans to issue audits on grant oversight
staffing in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as on the Antiterrorism
Assistance program.
Information Security and Management
Another top management challenge concerns information security and
management. It is imperative that the Department safeguard sensitive
information, which is often targeted by multiple actors, including
terrorist and criminal organizations. The Department must preserve and
protect classified and other sensitive information vital to the
preservation of national security. This responsibility applies not only
in its Washington, DC, headquarters and other domestic facilities, but
also in high-risk environments across the globe. The Department spent
approximately $1.4 billion on information technology (IT) in fiscal
year 2015. The same year, cybersecurity incidents illustrated
deficiencies in efforts to protect its computer networks. Malicious
actors exploited vulnerabilities, potentially compromising sensitive
information and delaying or halting normal business operations.
Information Security
OIG issued its first management alert in November 2013 \25\
identifying significant, recurring weaknesses in the Department's
information system security program. OIG continues to identify concerns
with various components of the Department's information technology and
information security programs, as well as with the Department's efforts
to protect its computer networks and, in turn, its information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ OIG, Management Alert: OIG Findings of Significant and
Recurring Weaknesses in the Department of State Information System
Security Program (AUD-IT-14-04, November 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my February 2015, testimony to this subcommittee, I referenced
independent penetration testing that was ongoing in response to
concerns I raised with the Department about the system's
vulnerabilities to cyber attack. That testing, and a separate audit
that documented the Department's failure to perform security
assessments regularly on its wireless networks, resulted in
recommendations that the Department is working to address.\26\ These
audits are in addition to OIG's annual Federal Information Security
Management Act reviews, which repeatedly identify, and make
recommendations to correct, the same or similar information security
issues.\27\ Many of these reports' findings and recommendations are
classified, but my staff and I would be happy to provide the
subcommittee a separate briefing on those findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ OIG, Remote and Deployed Operations Integrated Cyber
Operations Red Team After Action Report--U.S. Department of State (AUD-
IT-15-15, February 2015); OIG, Management Assistance Report--Department
of State Security Program for Wireless Networks (AUD-IT-15-27, May
2015). Both reports are classified.
\27\ OIG, Audit of the Department of State Information Security
Program (AUD-IT-16-16, November 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIG also reported to the Department this month that the
Department's IT contingency planning continues to need improvement.
Instability in many regions of the world, including attacks and threats
against the Department's personnel and diplomatic facilities,
demonstrates the need for contingency planning. In particular, these
risks illustrate the importance of having systems in place to maintain
communications and continuity of business operations during periods of
disruption.
OIG emphasized that the Department has yet to implement
recommendations from a 2011 OIG report advising that bureaus and posts
develop and test information technology contingency plans as part of
their emergency preparedness activities.\28\ Moreover, OIG identified
IT contingency planning deficiencies in 69 percent of overseas
inspections performed during fiscal years 2014 and 2015. The issues
identified ranged from information management staff at posts not
developing, updating, or testing IT contingency plans to plans that
lacked appropriate key stakeholders and contact information as part of
emergency preparedness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ OIG, Management Assistance Report: Continued Deficiencies
Identified in Information Technology Contingency Planning (ISP-16-05,
February 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIG also reported this month significant weaknesses in the
Department's cyber-security incident response and reporting
program.\29\ An evaluation of the Department's efforts to respond to
incidents (including denial-of-service, malicious code, and
unauthorized access) showed that the Department had not complied with
its own information security policies in more than 55 percent of the
incidents that OIG reviewed. The Department concurred with the
recommendations, and OIG will monitor implementation efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ OIG, Management Assistance Report: Department of State
Incident Response and Reporting Program (AUD-IT-16-26, February 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IT weaknesses at home also contribute to this ongoing challenge for
the Department. The Bureau of Consular Affairs' (CA) Consular
Consolidated Database (CCD) experienced major system failures in the
busy summer seasons of 2014 and 2015. This unreliability undermined
CA's ability to provide consular services that protect U.S. citizens
abroad and that facilitate the entry of legitimate foreign visitors and
immigrants consistent with ensuring U.S. border security. CA is
upgrading hardware and modernizing CCD's various databases and plans to
launch a new system to replace the current CCD. OIG will continue to
monitor CA's progress and will inspect CA's Office of Consular Systems
and Technology in the spring of 2016.
Information Management
Information security is not the only IT-related challenge the
Department faces. In fiscal year 2015, OIG found persistent problems in
records management in almost 65 percent of the inspections that it
conducted. OIG also reported on the weaknesses in the Department's
decentralized records management processes,\30\ and it determined that
Department leadership had not played a meaningful role in overseeing or
reviewing the quality of responses to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
requests.\31\ OIG will continue its oversight work on records
management in fiscal year 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ OIG, Review of State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset
and Record Email (ISP-I-15-15, March 2015).
\31\ OIG, Evaluation of the Department of State's FOIA Processes
for Requests Involving the Office of the Secretary (ESP-16-01, January
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIG's current work includes an audit of the Department's IT capital
planning process. In fiscal year 2014, the Department reported that it
had spent $1.4 billion on 83 IT investments that support Department
operations, ranging from property management to passport and visa
systems. OIG is now auditing how the Department selects and approves IT
investments, including whether the Department submits accurate and
complete information to the Office of Management and Budget on those IT
investments as required. We expect this work to be published in the
spring.
Financial Management
Since OIG's audit of the Department's fiscal year 2009 financial
statements, OIG has identified material weakness and significant
deficiencies in the Department's controls over financial reporting. The
fiscal year 2015 audit \32\ reported similar significant internal
control deficiencies related to financial reporting, including property
and equipment; budgetary accounting; unliquidated obligations; and
information technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ OIG, Independent Auditor's Report on the U.S. Department of
State, 2015 and 2014 Financial Statement (AUD-FM-16-09, November 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Providing adequate oversight and coordination of foreign assistance
resources also remains a challenge for the Department because the
Department's financial management systems are not designed to track and
report on foreign assistance funds. This situation, in turn, creates a
systemic problem for the Department, which hinders effective
coordination and oversight. As we reported in a management assistance
report,\33\ the Department's core financial systems do not track
foreign assistance funding and expenditures by program, project,
country, region, or purpose (sector), even though Department and
individual bureaus need this information to track and manage their
foreign assistance funds and respond to external queries. For example,
when OIG seeks to identify and analyze the range of the Department's
foreign assistance activities in a single, given country, we must
routinely consult numerous different data sources and consolidate them
ourselves. Department bureaus with foreign assistance funds have spent
millions of dollars and an inordinate amount of time on alternative
systems and processes to fill this gap. These efforts have had, at
best, limited success, and do not substitute for more systemic reforms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ OIG, Management Assistance Report: Department Financial
Systems Are Insufficient to Track and Report on Foreign Assistance
Funds (ISP-I-15-14, February 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIG's current work includes a review of the Department's financial
management processes and methodologies for setting the Working Capital
Fund, certain visa fees, and Foreign Service allowances. We will also
examine the strategic sourcing initiative to determine whether the
Department has implemented the required procurement consolidation of
common items to ensure the best cost.
ii. impact of oig work
Through its audits, evaluations, inspections, and investigations,
OIG returns significant value to U.S. taxpayers. The conclusion of
fiscal year 2015 marked the end of my second full year as Inspector
General at the Department of State, and I am delighted to report on
OIG's results over the past 2 years.
In fiscal year 2015, OIG published 113 products related to the
programs and operations of the Department and BBG, a 47 percent
increase over fiscal year 2014. These products included audits of
annual financial statements, procurement activities, and funds
management; inspections of operations and facilities across the globe;
and management alerts and management assistance reports addressing
vulnerabilities requiring agency leadership's prompt action. In
addition, in fiscal year 2015, OIG identified nearly $212 million in
monetary benefits, including $157 million in taxpayer funds that could
be put to better use; in fiscal year 2014 the results were nearly $122
million. OIG's fiscal year 2015 criminal, civil, and administrative
investigations resulted in 43 criminal actions, including arrests,
indictments and convictions, nearly double our fiscal year 2014
results. Similarly, contractor and grantee suspensions and debarments
more than doubled in fiscal year 2015.
Since 2008, OIG has issued more than $1.5 billion in audit- and
inspection-related findings and investigative-related financial
results. These efforts have, on average, led to more than $3 in
potential and realized monetary benefits for every dollar spent on OIG
oversight.
Even though these accomplishments have resulted in significant
savings to the U.S. taxpayer, such financial results do not fully
measure OIG's most significant contribution-- namely, OIG's efforts to
improve the safety of U.S. personnel and facilities and strengthen the
integrity of the programs, operations, and resources that are at the
foundation of the Department's ability to help preserve national
security and interests.
iii. oig resources
I am very grateful for your support and the additional financial
resources that OIG has received over the past 3 years, and I would like
to express my thanks to this subcommittee, the Committees on
Appropriations, and both Houses of Congress. Our budget requests have
been substantially supported by the administration, and we are grateful
for its support as well. These resources have enabled OIG to better
fulfill its mission. Nonetheless, we still face significant challenges
in addressing our large and growing mandate. Just since my arrival, we
have undertaken new oversight activities mandated by the DATA Act to
ensure that Federal expenditures are reported accurately and
transparently, and by the LIG-OCO provisions of the IG Act. Currently,
more than 60 percent of OIG's oversight work is mandated, which
significantly limits our ability to conduct discretionary work.
The OCO mandate has had a particularly significant effect on OIG's
operations. Approximately two-thirds of OIG's fiscal year 2016
appropriation increase--$6.27 million--was designated to fund 16
positions to meet our LIG-OCO oversight responsibilities. In addition,
our fiscal year 2016-2017 work plan includes 16 LIG-OCO projects and 2
supporting investigative efforts. This necessarily reduces oversight
resources for other mission-critical priorities and operational needs.
Other challenges we face include:
--OIG's statutory obligation to inspect and audit every bureau and
post once every 5 years.\34\ One of the most important
functions of our inspection work is ensuring the safety and
security of personnel and facilities overseas. We are piloting
a more focused, risk-based inspection process to address the
growing backlog, but our inspection mandate still absorbs
approximately one-quarter of OIG's annual appropriation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Congress routinely waives this timeframe requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Department contracts, particularly in high-risk, high-cost programs
and operations, such as Afghanistan, have grown substantially.
For example, in the last 6 years, the Department's annual
procurements for contracted services and supplies have more
than tripled from approximately $4 billion to $14.8 billion.
--OIG must strengthen the security of its sensitive electronic
information that now resides on the Department's network. We
will accomplish this by transitioning OIG to an independent IT
network, a change that I anticipate will be complete by the end
of the fiscal year.
In conclusion, Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Leahy, and members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to highlight some of
our significant oversight work and for your continued strong support.
We take seriously the statutory requirement to identify instances of
fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement and to notify Congress, agency
leadership, and the public of these deficiencies. My staff and I remain
committed to promoting the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of
the Department and BBG, as well as to protecting the safety and
security of their employees and facilities and sensitive information
around the world. As always, I would be happy to answer your questions
and provide more information on any of our past, present, or future
work.
______
Prepared Statement of John F. Sopko, Special Inspector General for
Afghanistan Reconstruction
Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Leahy, and members of the
subcommittee,
This statement explains the fiscal year 2017 budget request for the
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). The
statement describes SIGAR's successes, challenges to accomplishing its
mission, and steps taken to overcome or mitigate these challenges. In
keeping with the agency's oversight mission, this statement also
touches on key management and program challenges facing State, the
United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the
Department of Defense (DOD) by noting areas of high risk that SIGAR has
identified.
Since fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated approximately
$113.1 billion to rebuild Afghanistan. That is at least $10 billion
more, adjusted for inflation, than the amount the United States
committed in civilian assistance to help rebuild Western Europe after
World War II.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the Congress of the United States,
7/30/2014, p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For fiscal year 2017, the President has requested $2.5 billion in
Afghanistan-related funding via the State Department budget.\2\ The
President's has also requested more than $3 billion in the Department
of Defense (DOD) budget to train, equip, and sustain the Afghan
National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF). Another $11.5 billion
from previous years' reconstruction appropriations remains available
for disbursement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification:
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, fiscal
year 2017, 2/9/2016, p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGAR's mission is to ensure that all these funds are spent as
effectively and efficiently as possible, and that they are protected
from waste, fraud, and abuse. Our enabling legislation also directs
SIGAR to keep Congress and the Secretaries of State and Defense
informed on reconstruction issues and to offer recommendations for
improvement.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Public Law No. 110-181, Sec. 1229.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Embedded in State's overall request is SIGAR's budget request for
fiscal year 2017 of $54.9 million. As SIGAR's request explains, these
funds ``will enable the organization to perform independent and
objective oversight of reconstruction and security assistance
programs.'' \4\ The amount sought is $2 million less than provided in
each of the last two fiscal years. But we have achieved some operating
economies and have slightly reduced our personnel count in Afghanistan
in view of increased security, travel, and logistics constraints. We
therefore believe the requested funding level is adequate to continue
meeting SIGAR's congressional mandate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification:
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, fiscal
year 2017, 2/9/2016, p. 143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like other international donors, the United States has pledged
security, development, and humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan for
years to come, and increasing amounts of aid are being delivered on-
budget via bilateral transfers to Kabul ministries or through
multilateral trust-fund disbursements. Those ministries continue to
struggle with staffing, technical skills, budget-execution capacity,
management, reporting, and accountability.
Meanwhile, the Taliban insurgency is still waging war, and foreign
terrorist groups are making their presence felt. U.S. and Coalition
military forces have been sharply reduced. Personal safety and
obstacles to travel remain key concerns for foreign personnel. In other
words, the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse of reconstruction funds in
Afghanistan is growing, even as the ability to exercise effective
oversight is increasingly constrained.
Nevertheless, SIGAR continues to provide aggressive oversight of
reconstruction projects and use of U.S. funds, and has adapted to the
more constrained environment by approaches such as using third-party
monitors to go where SIGAR employees cannot and by checking Global
Positioning System data against satellite photos.
fiscal year 2017 budget request highlights sigar's unique and critical
role in overseeing afghanistan reconstruction funds
SIGAR is the only inspector general with interagency authority to
audit, inspect, and investigate the activities of all U.S. Government
agencies and international organizations that receive U.S. funding for
Afghanistan reconstruction. As a result, SIGAR can conduct cross-
cutting reviews of State, USAID, DOD, and other agencies that are
involved in reconstruction programs. In addition, SIGAR is the only
oversight agency devoted solely to Afghanistan reconstruction, enabling
it to examine reconstruction programs and issues in more depth while
still producing timely and high-quality work. Further, SIGAR is truly
independent. We conduct our oversight autonomously and report directly
to Congress and to the Secretaries of State and Defense.
SIGAR currently has the largest oversight presence in Afghanistan,
with more auditors, analysts, and investigators in country than any
other agency. As of this month, SIGAR has more than 30 employees based
at U.S. Embassy Kabul.\5\ These employees comprise auditors,
inspectors, and investigators, plus management and support staff. Two
other SIGAR employees are located at Bagram Airfield. In addition,
seven Afghan citizens support SIGAR's work in Kabul.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Unless otherwise indicated, numbers and monetary values
regarding SIGAR are as of
12/30/2015, as reported in SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the Congress of
the United States,
1/30/2016. Copies of this and other SIGAR products are posted at
www.sigar.mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of SIGAR's deployed staff serve at least 2 years in country.
This practice reduces annual turnover compared to other U.S. agencies
and mitigates the risk of institutional memory loss. The deployed and
local staff are augmented by SIGAR personnel from our Arlington,
Virginia, offices who frequently travel to Afghanistan on a 2- to 8-
week temporary assignments.
When SIGAR was established in 2008, the agency created four
directorates: (1) Audits and Inspections, (2) Investigations, (3)
Research and Analysis, and (4) Management and Support. The Research and
Analysis Directorate, originally known as Information Management,
produces SIGAR's quarterly report to Congress and other publications.
Management and Support provides human resources, budget, information
technology, and other support to SIGAR's other directorates and to
staff.
Since then, two additional units have been established. In 2012,
SIGAR created its Office of Special Projects to examine emerging issues
and deliver prompt, actionable reports to implementing agencies and
Congress. The team conducts a variety of assessments and produces
inquiry and alert letters, reviews, fact sheets, and other products.
In late 2014, SIGAR established its Lessons Learned Program, whose
projects include examinations of corruption, sustainability,
counternarcotics, contract management and oversight, and strategy and
planning. While audits and inspections typically focus on the planning,
execution, and outcome of particular programs and projects, LLP's
objective is to more broadly document U.S. reconstruction objectives,
assess results, and distill this knowledge into recommendations to
improve reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan and in future contingency
operations. Other Federal agencies and the U.S. military also operate
lessons-learned units, but SIGAR's Lessons Learned Program is the only
one established and positioned to extract and frame lessons from a
whole-of-government perspective.
sigar's work continues to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of
reconstruction programs, and to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse of funds
SIGAR's investigations, audit, and other work continues to have
positive impacts on ongoing and planned reconstruction programs and
agency operations. These impacts take several forms. SIGAR does more
than simply identify waste, fraud, and abuse. It can bring malefactors
to justice, and recover money. SIGAR investigators are full-fledged
Federal law-enforcement officers with powers of search and arrest.
Whether acting on their own or in coordination with other law-
enforcement agencies, they have conducted investigations into cases of
bribery, theft, smuggling, money laundering, and other offenses; have
made arrests in Afghanistan and stateside; and have referred many
Afghans to that country's prosecutors.
As of December 30. 2015, SIGAR had 309 ongoing investigations. At
that time, the cumulative results of the SIGAR Investigations
Directorate comprised 103 arrests, 137 criminal charges, 102
convictions, and 80 sentencings. The cumulative total from
investigations-related criminal fines, restitutions, forfeitures,
civil-settlement recoveries, and savings to the Government exceeds $946
million--the equivalent of 17 years' funding for SIGAR at current
levels. Investigative work has also led to 697 referrals of companies
and individuals for suspension or debarment to prevent them from
receiving more U.S. contract awards; 72 percent of these referrals led
to suspension or debarment, not counting a small number of special-
entity designations or administrative-compliance agreements.
From 2009 through December 2015, SIGAR had made 619 recommendations
in its 208 published audits, alert letters, and inspection reports.
SIGAR has closed more than 83 percent of its recommendations,
indicating that the subject agency has either adopted the
recommendation or taken other appropriate action on the issue. These
recommendations have, among other things, strengthened contract
oversight, management, and compliance; assisted in building and
sustaining Afghan Government capacity; and improved accountability for
on-budget support. SIGAR continues to monitor agency action on 51 open
recommendations from 17 performance-audit reports, 6 open
recommendations from 4 inspection reports, and 41 open recommendations
from 18 financial-audit reports.\6\ SIGAR audits and inspections have
resulted in recovering an estimated $36 million and in identifying some
$950 million that could be put to better use, for a combined impact
approaching $1 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ SIGAR Audits and Inspection Directorate, internal tally, 2/22/
2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGAR's audit, inspection, and quarterly reports continue to be
used by U.S. agencies, international partners, and the highest levels
of the Afghan Government to improve oversight and management of
reconstruction efforts. President Ashraf Ghani and key advisors have
met repeatedly with SIGAR personnel, and have expressed appreciation
for SIGAR's oversight work. President Ghani has said that he reads and
annotates SIGAR's audit and quarterly reports, and uses them in his
efforts to reform Afghan institutions.\7\ At President Ghani's
invitation, and in the wake of a fuel-contract scandal that SIGAR
investigated,\8\ a SIGAR staff member participates as an observer in
the high-level meetings of the presidential procurement council that
reviews major contract awards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In September 2015, President Ghani discussed his country's
challenges and his reform aims in an extended interview at the
presidential palace with SIGAR's director of research and analysis. See
SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the Congress of the United States, 10/2015,
section 1, pp. 3-15.
\8\ In February 2015, SIGAR and U.S. military officers briefed
President Ashraf Ghani on their investigative findings that four
contractors had engaged in price-fixing, bid-rigging, and bribery prior
to the award of a nearly $1 billion, U.S.-funded fuel contract for the
Afghan Ministry of Defense. The criminal collusion raised the cost of
the contract by at least $214 million. After the briefing, President
Ghani immediately suspended the MOD officials involved in the fuel
contract award, cancelled the entire contract, warned the contractors
involved of possible debarment, and assigned an independent Afghan
investigator to look into the award of the MOD fuel contract and of 11
MOD contracts for other commodities. See SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the
Congress of the United States, 4/30/2015, i.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGAR also maintains professional and productive working
relationships with the DOD and its subcomponents and commands, and with
State and USAID. SIGAR also coordinates regularly with other inspectors
general and the Government Accountability Office to ensure coverage of
all aspects of the reconstruction effort and avoid duplication of
effort.
sigar has taken steps to overcome challenges to conducting its
oversight mission
In 2015, the Afghan Government took on full responsibility for
security, the U.S./Coalition mission switching from combat to train/
advise/assist support, and the start of Afghanistan's ``Transformation
Decade'' aimed at achieving self-sufficiency in fiscal and security
matters. In this changed setting of heightened security precautions and
reduced access to program and project sites, SIGAR developed a 2014-
2016 transition plan to synchronize activities with its strategic plan
and with those of other U.S. agencies.
For an example of transitional adjustment, SIGAR has hired several
Afghan engineers and analysts to assist with audit and inspection work.
SIGAR has also signed a cooperative agreement with a well-respected
Afghan nongovernmental organization, to conduct site visits, including
inspections and engineering assessments of U.S.-funded projects. This
Afghan organization's work will be subject to generally accepted
government auditing standards (GAGAS), and to SIGAR's internal quality-
control requirements. SIGAR has also expanded its use of remote
monitoring and geospatial imaging through working relationships with
National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and an agreement with the Army
Geospatial Center.
In addition, SIGAR is continuing its financial audit program.\9\
Established in 2012, the program contracts with independent public
auditing firms to perform financial audits of completed reconstruction
contracts. SIGAR staff oversees the firms' conduct of these financial
audits, from notification to final report. In some cases, when
questioned costs are identified, SIGAR investigators review those costs
and initiate criminal investigations if appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ SIGAR produces two types of audits: (1) financial and (2)
performance. Financial audits evaluate completed reconstruction
contracts and identify questioned costs, if any, resulting from
significant deficiencies in the audited entity's internal controls
related to the contracts, and any instances of noncompliance with
contract requirements and applicable laws and regulations. Performance
audits provide objective analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency
of reconstruction programs and make recommendations to improve
performance and operations, reduce costs, and facilitate decisionmaking
by parties with responsibility to oversee or initiate corrective action
for public accountability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGAR also coordinates closely with the Afghan Attorney General's
office to refer criminal and civil cases involving Afghans for
prosecution in Afghanistan. Over time, and as appropriate, SIGAR will
adjust its functions, methods, products, and practices, adopting new
ones when necessary, to continue to provide seamless, independent
oversight of the reconstruction effort. Further, SIGAR will take all
measures necessary to uphold government standards of quality in
carrying out its oversight.
sigar has identified areas of high risk to the success of the u.s.
reconstruction effort in afghanistan
Although State, USAID, and DOD have each experienced some successes
in their individual reconstruction efforts, multiple challenges exist
that could undermine the success of the overall U.S. reconstruction
effort. In December 2014, SIGAR issued its first High-Risk List to call
attention to program areas and elements of the U.S.-funded
reconstruction effort in Afghanistan that are especially vulnerable to
significant waste, fraud, and abuse.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ SIGAR, High-Risk List, 12/2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The High-Risk List highlights program areas that SIGAR believes
agencies such as State, USAID, and DOD, need to focus on, and discusses
whether agencies are mitigating risks in areas within their purview.
The list also proposes some key questions for Congress and the agencies
to consider to improve their reconstruction efforts.
SIGAR's first High-Risk List identified seven areas of
vulnerability:
1. Corruption/Rule of Law
2. Sustainability
3. Afghan National Defense and Security Forces Capacity and
Capabilities
4. On-Budget Support
5. Counternarcotics
6. Contract Management [and Oversight Access, now Area 8]
7. Strategy and Planning
We are preparing an update of our list that will modify one
existing item and add a new one. High-Risk Area 6 will become simply
``Contract Management.'' ``Oversight Access,'' while still decidedly an
issue for contract management, will be treated as a broader concern as
a new Area 8.
Although other areas of risk exist, SIGAR selected these areas
because they are mission-critical for the success of the reconstruction
campaign. In other words, a gross failure in any of these areas could
imperil the entire 14-year effort and all its human and monetary costs.
Our other selection filters were that (1) these areas are at
significant risk of failure due to fraud, waste, or abuse; (2) they
involve ongoing or planned reconstruction programs and projects; and
(3) are subject to the control or influence of the U.S. Government.
SIGAR recognizes that even in peaceful venues, no reconstruction or
development program or project is without risk of failure, or without
exposure to fraud, waste, and abuse. But these risks are magnified in
insecure and unstable conflict areas like Afghanistan. Moreover, the
work of SIGAR and other oversight agencies has shown that some
reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan are at unnecessarily high risk,
which agencies could mitigate by taking appropriate corrective actions.
Area 1: Corruption/Rule of Law
Corruption is one of the most serious threats to the U.S.-funded
Afghanistan reconstruction effort. In a February 2014 report, the DOD
Joint Staff wrote--perceptively--that ``Corruption alienates key
elements of the population, discredits the government and security
forces, undermines international support, subverts state functions and
rule of law, robs the state of revenue, and creates barriers to
economic growth.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ DOD, Joint and Coalition Operational Analysis (JCOA), division
of Joint Staff J-7 (Joint Force Development), Operationalizing Counter/
Anti-Corruption Study, 2/28/2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reducing corruption and increasing accountability are important
components of the U.S. reconstruction strategy in Afghanistan. However,
in 2010, SIGAR reported that more than $50 billion in U.S. assistance
had been provided for reconstruction in Afghanistan since 2002 without
the benefit of a comprehensive anticorruption strategy, and that U.S.
anticorruption efforts had provided relatively little assistance to
some key Afghan institutions.\12\ SIGAR and other observers--not least
of whom is President Ghani--have consistently reported that corruption
remains a massive and systemic problem in Afghanistan. It is troubling,
therefore, that the United States continues to operate without a
comprehensive overall strategy for coordinating and executing effective
measures to reduce the malign influence of corruption in Afghan
society. Corruption is a critical issue not only for government
effectiveness and legitimacy, but for fiscal sustainability: Kabul
relies heavily on customs receipts for domestic revenue, but corruption
severely constricts the actual flow of funds to its treasury, while
also adding to the risk of ``donor fatigue.'' SIGAR's Lessons Learned
Program has a research and analysis project under way focused entirely
on the problem of corruption in Afghanistan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ SIGAR Audit 10-15, U.S. Reconstruction Efforts in Afghanistan
Would Benefit from a Finalized Comprehensive U.S. Anti-Corruption
Strategy, 8/5/2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key questions for consideration are:
--To what extent have U.S. technical assistance and capacity-building
programs dedicated sufficient resources to reducing corruption
within the Afghan Government?
--Why does the United States still lack a comprehensive
anticorruption strategy for Afghanistan reconstruction?
--Have U.S. agencies revisited the premises and approaches of their
own anticorruption strategy in light of the persistence and
severity of the problem?
--What steps has the Afghan Government taken to pursue criminal
action against those matters referred by SIGAR and other U.S.
and international law-enforcement bodies?
--What steps are U.S. agencies and the Afghan Government taking to
reduce corruption within Afghanistan's customs-collection
system?
Area 2: Sustainability
Another acute risk to the reconstruction effort is that Afghanistan
simply cannot sustain many of the programs and projects without large
and continuing financial support from the United States and other
donors. For example, the Afghan Government's budget for its fiscal year
1395 (December 2015-December 2016) envisions domestic revenues covering
only 31 percent of the national budget; foreign grants and loans would
fund the remaining 69 percent.\13\ Afghanistan also lacks the technical
and managerial capacity needed to sustain many operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Ministry of Finance, Government of Afghanistan, National
Budget Document fiscal year 1395, English-language version, 2/9/2016,
pp. 3, 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGAR's work has shown that State, USAID, and DOD have not always
considered sustainability when planning programs or projects,
jeopardizing the massive investment that the United States and other
international donors have made. Further, both the international
community and the Afghan Government agree that improving the energy
sector is essential to Afghanistan's economic progress and long-term
viability. However, the Afghans cannot afford to pay for much of the
electric power infrastructure that the U.S. reconstruction effort has
provided. In June 2015, for example, a SIGAR inquiry letter drew
attention to concerns that the Afghan national electric utility might
be unable to sustain operations and maintenance of the $335 million,
USAID-funded Tarakhil Power Plant needed as backup generation for the
Kabul area.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ SIGAR-15-65-SP Inquiry Letter: Tarakhil Power Plant, to the
USAID Acting Administrator and Mission Director for Afghanistan, 6/19/
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions for consideration are:
--What if any progress has the Afghan Government made in generating
revenues to fund government operations, and in improving the
administrative and technical skills of its workforce?
--What planning steps and practical measures have U.S. agencies taken
and coordinated amongst themselves and with Afghan ministries
to sustain their programs and projects during the country's
Decade of Transformation?
Area 3: ANDSF Capacity and Capabilities
Establishing security is fundamental to preventing Afghanistan from
again becoming a safe haven for terrorists, and to enabling much-needed
reconstruction and development activities to succeed. A well-developed
and fully capable ANDSF is critical to achieving and maintaining this
security. Building the capacity of the ANDSF has therefore been a key
component of the U.S. and international reconstruction effort. As of
December 2015, Congress had appropriated more than $68 billion to
build, equip, train, and sustain the ANDSF. That figure represents 61
percent of all U.S. appropriations for Afghanistan reconstruction.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the Congress of the United States,
1/30/2016, Appendix B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This significant investment in Afghanistan's security is at risk,
as evidenced in no small part by SIGAR's documentation of concerns
about the actual strength and capability of the ANDSF. In April of last
year, for example, SIGAR reported that unannounced audit visits to
Afghan National Army and Afghan Air Force units found the identities of
only 103 of 134 personnel sampled could be verified against ANA
personnel data. Some lacked ANA identification cards, and a few were
not even listed in the services' human-resources data base. SIGAR's
auditors also found inconsistent use of daily rosters, lack of
verification of numbers, unsupervised paper-based and manually
submitted data systems, weak controls, and Afghan ministry failures to
submit financial records to the U.S. military, among other
difficulties.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the Congress of the United States,
4/30/2016, pp. 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 2008, SIGAR has released 74 reports examining how funds
appropriated for the ANDSF have been used, and has submitted 167
improvement recommendations to DOD. Improvements have been made, but
the security picture in Afghanistan remains troubling, and appears to
be worsening. National Intelligence Director James Clapper said last
week that the intelligence community believes ``fighting in 2016 will
be more intense than 2015, continuing a decade-long trend of
deteriorating security.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Senate Armed Services Committee, Statement for the Record of
James R. Clapper, ``Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S.
Intelligence Committee,'' 2/9/2016, p. 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looming challenges include high levels of ANDSF casualties,
insurgent activity during the usually quiet winter season, the
temporary Taliban seizure of the provincial capital of Kunduz, a
distinct threat to government control of Helmand Province, and the
appearance of al-Qaeda and Islamic State fighters in Afghanistan. These
and other developments add to long-standing concerns with ANDSF
personnel numbers, recruitment and retention, evaluation methodologies,
leadership effectiveness, unit capabilities for operating
independently, and ability to operate and sustain equipment and
infrastructure.\18\ Meanwhile, the U.S. drawdown and the loss of
``touch points'' at the maneuver-unit level have magnified the
difficulty of observing the actual outcomes of U.S. security assistance
and of checking data supplied by Afghan ministries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ For details, see SIGAR 16-17-TY, Statement of John F. Sopko,
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, ``Assessing
the Capabilities and Effectiveness of the Afghan National Defense and
Security Forces,'' Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of
Representatives. 2/12/2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possible questions on the capability of the ANDSF include:
--Is the ANDSF making significant and verifiable progress toward
becoming an effective and sustainable force for security and
counterterrorism purposes?
--How has the U.S. drawdown-induced loss of ``touch points'' below
the level of Afghan ministries and corps affected the U.S.
ability to assess Afghan capabilities and provide effective
training and assistance?
--Are ANDSF recruitment, training, and retention efforts improving so
as to reduce casualties and offset attrition?
--Has DOD taken practical and effective steps to account for and
safeguard U.S.-provided equipment and infrastructure, and
ensure that Afghans can fully utilize and maintain them?
Area 4: On-Budget Support
The United States and other international donors have agreed to
increase the proportion of their development aid for Afghanistan
delivered on-budget to 50 percent. On-budget assistance can take the
form of direct, government-to-government assistance (also referred to
as bilateral assistance), or can flow through multi-donor trust funds
before reaching the Afghan Government.\19\ In either case, concerns
arise about visibility and accountability of the funds. SIGAR's prior
work has shown that many ministries lack the capacity or necessary
internal controls to effectively manage and account for on-budget
assistance funds, and are unable to do so in a transparent manner that
enables U.S. agencies to oversee those funds. A 2014 SIGAR audit
revealed that USAID's own assessments of seven Afghan ministries
receiving on-budget U.S. assistance found that none would be capable of
effectively managing and accounting for those funds unless they
implemented a series of required risk-mitigation measures developed by
USAID.\20\ Further, in a review of DOD's safeguards for funds provided
to the MOD and Ministry of Interior (MOI), SIGAR identified a number of
weaknesses that increased the risk that on-budget funds provided to the
ANDSF that made those funds particularly vulnerable to waste, fraud,
and abuse.\21\ Meanwhile, once money is delivered on-budget, it is not
only beyond U.S. control (as intended), but difficult to monitor
without negotiated agreements on access to files and electronic-
information systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Major multidonor trust funds for Afghanistan are the
Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, managed by the World Bank; the
Afghanistan Infrastructure Trust Fund, managed by the Asian Development
Bank; and LOTFA, the Law and Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan, managed
by the U.N. Development Program. The United States has contributed to
all three.
\20\ SIGAR Audit 14-32-AR, Direct Assistance: USAID Has Taken
Positive Action to Assess Afghan Ministries' Ability to Manage Donor
Funds, but Concerns Remain, 1/30/2014.
\21\ SIGAR Special Project Report 14-12-SP, Comprehensive Risk
Assessments of MOD and MOI Financial Management Capacity Could Improve
Oversight of Over $4 Billion in Direct Assistance Funding, 12/3/2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One way to improve Afghan ministries' ability to manage and account
for on-budget assistance is to make on-budget assistance conditional on
the ministries taking defined actions to improve their financial
management, procurement, strategic planning, and auditing capabilities,
among others. President Ghani has long supported conditionality as a
way to maintain protection for donors while incentivizing host-country
capacity building. DOD has begun to use explicit conditionality in
commitment letters with the Afghan Ministry of Finance, and State and
USAID make some use of it. But fully effective conditionality requires
rational metrics, buy-in from the host country, verification
mechanisms, incentives as well as penalties--and a credible show of
donor determination to pull the trigger on penalties if host-country
performance falls short of the mark. SIGAR is doubtful that U.S. agency
use of conditionality for on-budget assistance typically satisfies all
of those standards.
International trust funds are a large source of on-budget support
to Afghanistan. SIGAR recently initiated a new performance audit to
assess the administration, monitoring, and reporting of the
multilateral Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF), administered
by the World Bank. U.S. pledges to the ARTF, about $2.8 billion,
represent 31 percent of its total funding. Donors do not control the
use of their contributions, but a previous SIGAR audit on the ARTF
found limitations in the mechanisms the World Bank uses to administer,
oversee, and report on the uses and results of donor funding.\22\
SIGAR's Lessons Learned Program is preparing a report on the overall
effectiveness of U.S. assistance to develop the ANDSF to achieve its
security mission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the Congress of the United States,
1/30/2016, pp. 23-24.
Given the ongoing concerns about on-budget support, questions for
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
consideration are:
--Are agencies making evidence-based choices between ex ante and
performance-based conditionality terms, and are they
appropriately imposing accountability?
--What steps are agencies taking to achieve Afghan transparency and
information access in the use of U.S. on-budget assistance?
--Is the U.S. Government taking effective steps to improve trust-fund
reporting of the uses of donors' funds?
Area 5: Counternarcotics
Production and trafficking of drugs puts the entire U.S. and
international investment in the reconstruction of Afghanistan at risk.
The narcotics trade supports the insurgency, feeds organized crime,
fosters corruption, and undermines governance and society. From 2002
through December 31, 2015, the United States has provided $8.4 billion
for counternarcotics efforts in Afghanistan including eradication,
seizure, and alternative-livelihood programs.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the Congress of the United States,
1/30/2016, p. 93.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonetheless, Afghanistan remains by all accounts the world's
largest producer of opium. Its processed opium constitutes 90 percent
of the world's heroin supply, and 11 percent of the Afghan population
or roughly 3 million people are believed to be drug users.\24\ In
December of last year, the U.N. Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC)
published its Afghanistan Opium Survey 2015, which estimated that
Afghanistan had 183,000 hectares of land under cultivation with opium
poppy \25\--more than 450,000 acres. The UNODC reported that
eradication efforts destroyed about 3,760 hectares of opium poppy in
2015--about 2 percent of the cultivated area, As metrics of success,
these are disheartening numbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Voice of America, ``Drug Use Rises in Afghanistan,'' 5/19/
2015.
\25\ UNODC, Afghanistan Opium Survey 2015: Cultivation and
Production, 12/2015, pp. 6, 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2015, the Afghan Government approved its National Drug
Action Plan, developed in collaboration with the U.S. Government, and
to be supported by State's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs. The United States, however, has not released an
updated version of its own counternarcotics strategy. Given the robust
resistance of Afghanistan's illicit-drug trade to costly suppression
programs, both the strategies and operations of counternarcotics
programs raise serious concerns. SIGAR's Lessons Learned Program is
researching a report on the U.S. counternarcotics strategy and its
impact.
Some questions for consideration on the counternarcotics issue are:
--To what extent has U.S. assistance for counternarcotics efforts in
Afghanistan succeeded in achieving its overarching goals and
objectives?
--Given the continuing high levels of opium production and low levels
of eradication and seizure, have U.S. agencies made any
progress toward and integrated and effective counternarcotics
strategy in Afghanistan?
--Can Afghanistan achieve and sustain reasonable levels of control
over the smuggling and money-laundering channels that are vital
to the drug trade?
Area 6: Contract Management
U.S. military and civilian agencies in Afghanistan rely heavily on
contractors to carry out their missions. At times, the number of
contractor employees has exceeded the number of in-country U.S.
military personnel. As the U.S. military and civilian agency draw-down
continues, our reliance on contractors will likely increase. Although
contracting has provided indispensable support of the U.S. mission, it
has also been a massive opportunity for waste, fraud, and abuse, and an
enormous challenge to effective oversight of funding and performance.
Shortcomings in Federal agencies' management and oversight of
contracts and other agreements have featured in numerous SIGAR
products. For example, one of the potentially most alarming incidents
of poor contract management appeared in the construction of a 10-
classroom, DOD-funded school addition in Bathkak, Afghanistan. The site
is in an earthquake zone. But contrary to requirements, the contractor
built unreinforced-brick instead of cement-block walls, and installed a
heavy slab roof instead of the specified wood-truss roof. Despite the
potentially lethal consequences of the construction method, the first
inspection did not occur until 6 months into the work, and even then
was not properly documented. As SIGAR reported in 2013, DOD
acknowledged that U.S. forces in Afghanistan lacked the capacity to
administer, oversee, and close contracts to ensure proper
performance.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the Congress of the United States,
7/30/2013, pp. 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2015, SIGAR reported that it was unable to complete a
full inspection of Gorimar Industrial Park, built under a $7.7 million
USAID contract, because USAID could not locate project design,
planning, construction, quality-assurance, and related documents that
the agency should have maintained to comply with the Federal
Acquisition Regulation.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ SIGAR Inspection 15-30-IP, Gorimar Industrial Park: Lack of
Electricity and Water Have Left This $7.7 Million U.S.-funded
Industrial Park Underutilized by Afghan Businesses,
1/27/2015.
Key questions for consideration regarding U.S. agencies' contract
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
management and oversight are:
--If security conditions prevent U.S. access for direct management
and oversight in some areas, to what extent have agencies made
reasonable plans for adequate and verifiable remote or third-
party monitoring of contractor performance?
--What steps have agencies taken to improve contract management and
oversight, particularly agency personnel's adherence to
existing regulations and policies and contractors' adherence to
the terms of their agreements?
Area 7: Strategy and Planning
The U.S. reconstruction effort has at times suffered from gaps
between strategic objectives documents and the programs and projects
intended to attain them. Such shortcomings in strategic and operational
planning may cause agencies and projects to work at cross purposes,
spend money on duplicative or unnecessary efforts, or fail to
coordinate efforts for maximal impact.
SIGAR recently reported one example of a disconnect between
strategy and operations involving the goal of stabilization. Since
2003, USAID has spent at least $2.3 billion on stability programs meant
to engage and support at-risk populations, extend the Afghan
Government's reach to unstable areas, provide income opportunities,
build trust between citizens and government, and encourage local people
to participate in development.\28\ Stability is a key point in U.S.
goals for a secure, stable, and unified Afghanistan that can prevent
the emergence of future threats.\29\ In response to a SIGAR query,
however, USAID recently said it has received no new funding for peace
and security programming, and has no plans to continue stabilization
activities in Afghanistan.\30\ It is possible, of course, that
stabilization could emerge as a result of programs nominally pursuing
other objectives, but the stabilization strategic goal appears to lack
explicit operational components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the Congress of the United States,
1/30/2016, p. 119.
\29\ President Barack Obama, ``Statement by the President on
Afghanistan,'' 10/15/2015.
\30\ SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the Congress of the United States,
1/30/2016, p. 119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGAR is not alone in observing such disconnects. In December 2015,
for example, USAID's inspector general released an audit of the
agency's strategy system for multi-tier monitoring of its projects in
Afghanistan.\31\ The report noted that USAID had presided over $17
billion in Afghanistan reconstruction projects since 2002, was facing
reduced staff count and site access in-country, and developed a
strategy of multi-tiered monitoring. The intent was ``to insure the
greatest degree of oversight possible'' by drawing on information from
multiple sources like independent monitoring contractors, staff
observations, implementing partners' reports, local non-governmental
organizations and civil society, and technological tools. The USAID
inspector general found that the agency's implementation of the
strategy was ``aspirational,'' as the multi-tier monitoring system
suffered from lack of standards, incomplete databases, lack of analysis
and monitoring plans, and lack of tracking for evaluations and
recommendations. SIGAR's Lessons Learned Program is drafting a report
on interagency strategy and planning lessons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ USAID, Office of the Inspector General, Audit Report F-306-16-
001, Audit of USAID/Afghanistan's Strategy for Monitoring and
Evaluating Programs Throughout Afghanistan,
12/10/2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key questions for consideration are:
--Are U.S. agencies regularly revisiting strategies, devising
meaningful metrics, verifying outcome reports, and adjusting
strategies and plans in light of actual results?
--How effectively is strategic and operational planning coordinated
among U.S. agencies, with other donors and the Afghan
Government, and, as appropriate, with key nongovernmental
organizations?
--Have U.S. agencies developed clear guidance for determining when a
strategy has failed, and for deciding whether to modify or
abandon it?
Area 8: Oversight Access
The increasing difficulties U.S. agencies are having--due to, among
other things, the drawdown of U.S. and Coalition military personnel,
deteriorating security conditions across Afghanistan, and the ongoing
normalization of Embassy Kabul's operations and presence--have made it
much more difficult and at times impossible for agency personnel to
oversee their programs and projects first-hand. These factors
exacerbating ongoing problems with contract oversight such as spotty
compliance with regulations on inspecting, documenting, and imposing
accountability on contractors' work; inadequate numbers of technical
specialists to advise contracting officer representatives; and
personnel rotations that impair continuity of oversight and
institutional memory.
USAID has developed a multi-tiered monitoring and evaluation
strategy for Afghanistan that includes using independent, third-party
contractors to monitor and evaluate the agency's programs. State is
reportedly taking similar steps. Given the billions of dollars yet to
be spent in Afghanistan--and the hundreds of companies and individuals
already debarred or suspended from Federal-contract work as a result of
SIGAR referrals to administrative officials--the growing challenges to
oversight access require close attention and effective mitigating
actions.
Key questions for consideration are:
--Are agencies tracking staffing, security, and transport indicators
to determine what program sites cannot be safely or practicably
accessed for oversight?
--When contemplating new projects or new work sites, are agencies
specifically assessing oversight access and planning mitigation
measures where needed?
--Have agencies taken appropriate steps to use third-party monitors,
remote sensing, increased access to Afghan documentation and
officials, or other tools to maintain acceptable levels of
oversight?
--If effective oversight cannot be maintained, have agencies
conducted prudent inquiries whether projects at affected sites
should be suspended, modified, relocated, or terminated?
conclusion
Much remains to be done before Afghanistan can ensure its own
stability and security, and provide its citizens with essential
services like a fair and effective rule of law and comprehensive
education. The reconstruction that has already cost $113 billion will
continue for years and, as currently planned, will cost many billions
more. The success of this effort critically depends on the U.S.
Government's ability to efficiently and effectively provide
reconstruction assistance to Afghanistan and ensure that funds are not
wasted or abused.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a written statement for the
hearing record. SIGAR shares your commitment to protecting U.S. funds
from waste, fraud, and abuse and is committed to assisting Congress,
U.S. agencies, and other stakeholders by continuing to provide
aggressive and independent oversight of the reconstruction effort, and
by offering recommendations and lessons based on that work.
______
Prepared Statement of John F. Lansing, Chief Executive Officer of the
Broadcasting Board of Governors
Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Leahy, thank you for inviting me to
submit testimony on behalf of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG)
to the Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
As the Chief Executive Officer of the BBG, I appreciate your
inclusion of our fiscal year 2017 budget request testimony into the
Record, on the date of Secretary of State John Kerry's testimony before
this subcommittee. The President's request for the BBG for fiscal year
2017 is $777.8 million, an increase of 3.7 percent over fiscal year
2016 enacted.
The BBG is the independent agency tasked with overseeing and
supervising civilian international media activities funded by the
United States Government. Our mission is ``to inform, engage, and
connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy.''
BBG directly oversees the Federal Voice of America (VOA) and Office of
Cuba Broadcasting (OCB), and BBG-funded grantees Radio Free Europe/
Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA) and the Middle East
Broadcasting Networks (MBN).
The BBG distributes programming in 61 languages to more than 100
countries via terrestrial and satellite TV, the Web, live streaming,
mobile devices, and social media--as well as radio--shortwave, medium
wave (AM), FM and satellite. Our global audiences comprise more than
226 million people each week.
Funding for the five networks in our fiscal year 2017 request
includes:
--$224.4 million for Voice of America, a multimedia broadcast service
which began in 1942 as a radio news service for people living
in closed and war-torn societies, and currently reaches people
through both traditional and modern media platforms;
--$121.1 million for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a private,
nonprofit, multimedia broadcasting corporation that serves as a
surrogate media source in 28 languages and in 23 countries
including Russia, Ukraine, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the
former Soviet republics of Central Asia;
--$112.1 million for Middle East Broadcasting Networks, a private,
non-profit, multimedia broadcasting corporation that provides
the United States a direct line of communication with Arabic-
speaking people of the Middle East and North Africa;
--$38 million for Radio Free Asia, a private, nonprofit, multimedia
corporation that serves as a surrogate broadcaster in Asian
countries that prevent or restrict freedom of the press;
--$27.1 million for Office of Cuba Broadcasting, which administers
Radio and Television (TV) Marti programs.
The sheer volume of available media has increased exponentially as
people migrate to digital and mobile platforms, but not all information
is created equal. Actors from ISIL to China to Russia are using
information not just to ``win the news cycle,'' but also are using
propaganda and censorship to foment hate and confusion, monitor and
suppress dissent, and sow the ground for terroristic activities.
During the Cold War the United States countered the information
vacuums created under suppressive regimes with reporting through Voice
of America, Radio Free Europe, and other tools.
Today, certain state actors are promulgating an abundance of false,
doctored, or misleading information on a multitude of different
platforms for consumption. Through both its Federal components (VOA and
OCB) and its BBG-funded grantees (MBN, RFE/RL, and RFA), BBG provides a
platform for high-quality reporting that serves as a beacon for
accurate, fact-based journalism. In environments inundated with
propaganda or falsehoods, the best antidote is objective, fact-based
reporting that arms citizens with the truth. As such, BBG's global
reach and journalistic credibility play a vital role in correcting
falsehoods, holding people and institutions accountable, and
demystifying U.S. policy in these communities.
Since my tenure as CEO, and with the unanimous support of the
Board, I have aggressively prioritized five core themes to ensure the
BBG is the 21st century media organization that the taxpayers demand.
The President's fiscal year 2017 budget request feeds directly into
these themes.
First, we are accelerating our shift towards engaging audiences on
digital platforms, especially through the power of video, mobile, and
social media. Our request supports this shift in several ways,
including $2.5 million to expand the ``Raise Your Voice'' campaign into
new geographic spaces. MBN's successful program uses multiple and
modern platforms--such as Google Hangout discussions, infographics,
short videos, and other social media--to engage in discussion about the
fight against extremism and terrorism across Iraq. The fiscal year 2017
request proposes to expand ``Raise Your Voice'' to Egypt, Central Asia,
and the Balkans.
Our request also includes $2 million for expanded global
distribution capability. This investment will increase our ability to
reach satellite audiences in the increasingly popular HD format. It
will simultaneously lower our costs by leveraging advanced Internet
protocol (IP) based networks to distribute audio and video content
across the entire globe.
Second, we are rapidly expanding coordination and content-sharing
across the BBG's five interdependent networks in order to cover and
report on the stories that matter to audiences. I will describe my
leveraging of the U.S. International Media Coordinating Council (ICC)
in more depth later in this testimony.
Third, the BBG is concentrating its efforts in five key issue areas
where we can be most impactful in support of our mission and U.S.
global priorities: reporting on Russia; covering violent extremism; the
widening regional influence of Iran; China and places in which Chinese
media is influential; and promoting universal human rights and
fundamental freedoms in Cuba.
Our initiative for ``Next Generation'' influencers ($15 million)
will expand digital and video production at both VOA and RFE/RL to
engage with influential young audiences and future leaders in several
of these areas. Our specific targets are young adults impacted by
pressure from Russia, or by the media campaigns of violent extremist
groups such as ISIL. Specifically, RFE/RL will work in Russia and
launch teams for Central Asia and areas in Russia's periphery affected
by protracted conflicts like Trans-Dniestria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia,
and the North Caucasus, while VOA will reach both Russian-speakers and
regional audiences vulnerable to ISIL extremism, including Indonesia,
Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Fourth, we are evolving to an organization actively engaged in
curating, commissioning, and acquiring content. For broader impact, the
BBG needs to focus its reporting to not just rehash the daily news, but
rather to provide powerful original reporting, and depth and
perspective on current events for more meaning and impact. Curating
external content to provide day-to-day news and content will free up
BBG resources to perform the more compelling and impactful, in-depth
reporting.
Finally, and critically, we are emphasizing impact in addition to
audience size. By putting audience interests and needs first in how we
collect, create and distribute news and information, and working
backward from there, we propose to take a more modern approach to
informing, engaging, and connecting with our audiences.
BBG specifically requests $2 million for a research investment for
impact studies in key younger demographics that can assist in
developing audience loyalty and trust for BBG's expanding Russian-
language media, in engaging young audiences in regions experiencing
high levels of violent extremism, as well as increasing the impact of
digital media to those who opt-in in Cuba and Latin America.
Other significant aspects of the request include $182.3 million for
the technical infrastructure we need to produce and deliver our wide
range of media products from the five networks to audiences around the
world; and $63 million for the shared support services. And we request
$9.7 million for Broadcasting Capital Improvements to support
infrastructure and enhancements at two key sites, including our Kuwait
Transmitting Station.
Our request recognizes that some increases must be offset by
reductions. To do so, the BBG strives to trim and eliminate expensive
services and infrastructure that are no longer critical to the mission.
At a cost saving of $5.7 million, BBG will realign transmitting station
sites and transmissions across its worldwide network in response to the
global migration from shortwave listening to other media formats. BBG
has also identified $14.3 million in operating and administrative
reductions.
As CEO, I am placing a high priority on Internet freedom. The BBG
Internet Freedom (IF) program is in accordance with a congressional
directive that we fund ``the continued development of technologies that
provide or enhance access to the Internet, including circumvention
tools that bypass Internet blocking, filtering, and other censorship
techniques used by authoritarian governments'' (section 7078 of the
Fiscal Year 2016 Appropriations Act).
In December 2015, I proposed and the Board passed a framework and
governance structure to strengthen and formalize the process by which
the agency evaluates and funds projects to counter Internet censorship
across the globe. Starting in 2016, this process is expected to be
overseen by a new Internet Freedom Office, which will answer directly
to me as CEO, to oversee the selection and evaluation of IF projects.
The request also includes a proposal to establish a new Spanish-
language ``grantee'' that would be authorized to receive a Federal
grant from the BBG to carry out broadcasting to Cuba. Nothing in this
request should be construed to change either the mission or the brands
of the current Office of Cuba Broadcasting. The viewers and listeners
of Cuba would still receive the same high-quality broadcasting as under
the current structure.
As CEO of the BBG, I recognize that we must change, and the BBG
Board shares this viewpoint as well. To that end, I appreciate the
opportunity to speak about reforms at the BBG and legislation that
would enact reforms.
It is critical to acknowledge that in the recent past, the BBG has
not responded as effectively as necessary to respond to fast-breaking
global challenges. As BBG Chairman Jeff Shell testified before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee in November, ``As with any media
organization, be it Universal Pictures or the BBG, the responsibility
for organizational breakdown and inertia starts at the top.'' I agree
that the difficulties engendered by a part-time Board tasked with day-
to-day operations of an agency with global reach demand a strong
solution.
Creating a Chief Executive Officer position at the BBG who is
empowered to manage the day-to-day BBG operations and functions,
including the ability to shift resources as needed and appoint senior
officials, has been a key first reform. The Board has already taken
strong steps in this regard by voluntarily electing to shift all the
powers it could legally delegate to a CEO, who oversees nonmilitary
international broadcasting activities and provides day-to-day
management of BBG operations.
As that CEO, I am happy to report that--with the full support of
the Board--we have taken steps toward meaningful agency reform under
this new structure. The current Board--a bipartisan, collaborative
panel appointed by the President and confirmed the Senate--is fully
united behind the changes we need to make to ensure BBG's success, and
the ways we need to operate to do so. It is a pleasure to work hand in
glove with a slate of public policy and industry experts who are
steadily focused on the mission of the agency, without reverting to the
distractions of party politics.
Under the current structure, I have been able to make headway on
management changes that will significantly strengthen our agency.
Referring to existing authorizing legislation, I have convened a
standing coordinating body of the BBG networks, called the U.S.
International Media Coordinating Committee (ICC). The ICC is tasked to
``examine and make recommendations to the Board on long-term strategies
for the future of international broadcasting, including the use of new
technologies, further consolidation of broadcast services, and
consolidation of currently existing public affairs and legislative
relations functions in the various international broadcasting
entities,'' as authorized under section 307 of the International
Broadcasting Act, as amended.
The ICC now meets on a biweekly basis, and comprises the CEO and
the five network heads. The ICC has led to drastically enhanced
cooperation with clear successes in content coordination and cost
savings and efficiencies. For example, VOA was able to share material
from the State of the Union that the non-Federal networks were unable
to obtain, and similarly shared and enhanced each other's coverage of
the Paris attacks, Burmese elections, and other more recent news.
In addition to the steps I have already taken, however, the BBG
requires specific legislative changes. At the Board's request, the BBG
asks to permanently enshrine the CEO position into law as the
operational and oversight lead at BBG, and our fiscal year 2017 budget
request makes this request.
In my conversations with Members of Congress, many have pointed out
to me that while the situation seems to have improved at the BBG with
the advent of the CEO position and a better-functioning Board, there is
no guarantee for harmonious operations in the future. A legislative fix
would ensure that the CEO position exists permanently, and that the
Board's strategic governance function is more clearly defined.
While the Board has elected to delegate key powers to the CEO
through its own volition, the current authority limits the scope of the
Board's delegable authority. In practice, for example, this can mean
Board deliberation and vote is still required to reallocate even the
most de minimis dollar amount of funds across the various bureaus and
Federal and grantee broadcasting networks of the BBG when requirements
change. In other words, in order to move even one penny between the
entities, even under the most urgent of circumstances, the CEO must
seek a vote of the full Board.
It is clear that we need to institutionalize the CEO role through
legislation, authorizing the Board to delegate the remainder of its
authorities, required for effective and efficient day-to-day operation
of the agency, to the CEO. The Board would continue to focus on
strategic oversight and governance.
Beyond these management fixes, we also need to ensure further
structural and operational agility. Unfortunately, many of our existing
authorities, a number of which date back to 1948 or thereabouts, are
either obsolete or incomplete for our purposes as a 21st century media
organization.
A key area in this regard is surge capacity. When crises arise, BBG
is often asked to quickly surge its efforts to the affected region. The
International Broadcasting Act requires the agency to do so by
providing for the ``capability to provide a surge capacity to support
United States foreign policy objectives during crises abroad.'' We
require not just enhanced authority to operate notwithstanding certain
standard processes, but also the ability to turn to a ready source of
funding. For us, this means the authority to receive or fully utilize
funds from other agencies. We also wish to explore with your committee
the establishment of a no-year fund for these purposes.
Beyond these concrete legislative changes, I wish to address other
aspects of BBG reform that have been addressed in proposed legislation.
My desire, and that of the BBG Board, is to work across all actors and
Committees in the Congress, in order to ensure that the BBG benefits
from the perspective of stakeholders who have long studied
international media and broadcasting issues. Further to this end, I
believe it is critical to engage in an open and clear dialogue on
different proposals and their potential impacts.
One existing proposal would bifurcate the BBG's oversight and
dissolve Federal and congressional oversight of several U.S. funded
media entities (called the ``grantee'' entities). While well-
intentioned, we believe that this proposal carries the potential for
abuse and misappropriation of funds that could occur with weakened
oversight. It would return us to the very same structure which Congress
implemented once before, and then specifically repealed for these very
same reasons.
Existing legislation would significantly weaken Federal oversight
and supervision over the BBG-funded grantees. It would also establish a
self-replenishing, private board that is ultimately answerable to
neither the Executive Branch nor Congress. The proposal would also
prevent the BBG from requiring that grantees follow a unified U.S.
strategy or tailor efforts to meet U.S. goals and priorities. These
changes raise significant oversight and governance concerns from the
administration's perspective.
That said, the Board and I believe that existing legislation offers
a potential framework for common ground in several key areas, and that
certain portions hold merit and are worth further discussion and
consideration. We should, for instance, engage in further study of the
establishment of a sub-agency that would oversee the grantees, as has
been suggested by reform-minded legislators. We might find significant
savings and efficiencies in creating unified systems for personnel and
administration to replicate the work currently being done identically
in three separate grantee organizations.
With the legislative fixes outlined in the fiscal year 2017 budget
and in this testimony, and without the detrimental legislative fixes
also outlined, the BBG will be best positioned to thrive in its
mandated role as a unique tool in the U.S. foreign affairs toolbox, and
will be a powerful force for countering the challenges posed by the
growth of misleading or propagandistic information globally.
LIBYA
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. You certainly
have my promise and pledge to help you get the money you need
and the flexibility you deserve to deal with the problems that
are growing. Whatever we can do in this account, we will do.
But let me sort of inventory what awaits the next President
and what this committee should be thinking about.
Is Libya a failed state now?
Secretary Kerry. It is close. The reason I would say to you
not at this moment is because we have been working really hard
for the last months particularly to bring together a government
in Tripoli, and we have a prime minister designate. We have a
government. We have a couple outliers that are resisting this
effort. If they cannot get themselves together, yes, it will be
a failed state.
Senator Graham. So what do you think it would cost, in
terms of the world community, if we could ever get a resolution
to put Libya back together?
Secretary Kerry. Well, the virtue of it, Mr. Chairman, is
that Libya is a wealthy nation. Libya has some $60 billion----
Senator Graham. So you do not think it would cost us a
whole lot?
Secretary Kerry. It should not cost us a whole lot.
Senator Graham. Okay.
Secretary Kerry. Libya can pay for its own rebuilding.
Senator Graham. Okay. If we can ever get it rebuilt.
Secretary Kerry. It is only 6 million people.
YEMEN
Senator Graham. Right. What about Yemen? Is Yemen a failed
state?
Secretary Kerry. Yemen, right now, is more than a failed
state. It is a growing humanitarian challenge. My hope is, in
the most recent conversations I have had with the Saudis, with
the Omanis, with the Emiratis, and others, I believe there may
be a ripeness for trying to move forward on a political
resolution.
The Saudis have well-protected their borders. Together with
the Emiratis and the coalition, they have effectively pushed
back the threat that existed. I believe there is a way now. But
the key is to get the parties, the Houthi government and the--
--
Senator Graham. Is Iran being helpful?
Secretary Kerry. I beg your pardon?
Senator Graham. Are the Iranians being helpful?
Secretary Kerry. They have declared that they are prepared
to be and are ready to try to find this political settlement.
Senator Graham. Are the Iranians helpful in Syria?
Secretary Kerry. Well, when you say ``helpful,'' the
Iranians have obviously supported the Houthi and been involved
in the other side of the fence with respect to what we are
trying to do with Yemen. So in Yemen, while they are indicating
now a readiness for settlement, they have been part of the
problem.
In Syria, they have been a huge part, obviously. The
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the support for
Hezbollah, the support for Assad is extremely----
Senator Graham. Yes, sir. Let us go back to Yemen.
We do not have an Embassy in Yemen any longer, is that
correct? And we do not have one in Libya?
Secretary Kerry. That is correct.
Senator Graham. So we are going to have to go back. I want
to know what that would cost, if we ever get back there. How
much money do you think it will cost the American people, or
you would recommend to the American people, to put Yemen back
together? Or can the region pay for that?
Secretary Kerry. The region will pay for that. The Saudis
have indicated that if they achieve the agreement they hope to
achieve, they are ready to rebuild Yemen, and I do not think it
will cost America.
SYRIA
Senator Graham. Okay. Is it fair to say that the Russians
have bombed the people we have trained to oppose Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad?
Secretary Kerry. Yes.
Senator Graham. Is it fair to say that the Iranians have
come to Assad's aid with military advisers and providing him
weapons and equipment?
Secretary Kerry. Yes.
Senator Graham. Is it fair to say that Assad must go?
Secretary Kerry. Yes.
Senator Graham. Is it fair to say that the Russians and the
Iranians are going to insist upon what follows Assad?
Secretary Kerry. Insist----
Senator Graham. Have a say?
Secretary Kerry. Have a say, yes. Insist, I believe they
will have a real challenge. But they will have a say.
Senator Graham. Is it fair to say that the people we have
been training and equipping have been at a military
disadvantage compared to Assad and his military forces because
of Russia and Iran?
Secretary Kerry. Sure.
Senator Graham. Is it fair to say that whatever negotiating
power you may have, or they may have, has been lessoned because
Assad has been reinforced by the Russian and Iranian
intervention?
Secretary Kerry. It has obviously changed the table, but
let me just say to everybody that nobody here should be
surprised that Russia is engaged and supportive, nor Iran.
Senator Graham. Were you surprised when the Russians went
into Syria using military force to bomb the people we trained?
Secretary Kerry. I was not surprised that the Russians----
Senator Graham. I was flabbergasted. I was completely
flabbergasted they would stick it in our eye like that, but
that is just me.
Secretary Kerry. Well, Senator, if I could just sort of lay
this out to you.
Senator Graham. Please.
Secretary Kerry. Russia had been indicating to us for some
period of time concern about the growth of Chechens, more than
2,000, 2,500 Chechens are fighting on the side of Daesh in
Syria. And they are deeply concerned because of the experience
with Chechnya as well as----
Senator Graham. My time is short, so why have they not
bombed the Chechens more than the Syrian opposition? Who do
they bomb the most, ISIL-aligned people or the Assad
opposition?
Secretary Kerry. Mr. Chairman, some of this we should deal
with in a classified session, but let me----
Senator Graham. I will just say this, Mr. Secretary. They
have bombed the hell out of the people----
Secretary Kerry. Seventy percent to 80 percent of the
bombing, including an area in the northeast where Nusra and our
moderate opposition have been in very close proximity.
Senator Graham. Did you welcome the Russian involvement in
Syria militarily?
Secretary Kerry. No.
Senator Graham. Did you tell them, please do not do it.
Secretary Kerry. We pushed back significantly, as you
recall, in the early days, but the decision was made, and they
undertook to----
IRAN
Senator Graham. Post-agreement with Iran, do you think the
Iranians have changed their behavior in the region for the
better, since the nuclear agreement?
Secretary Kerry. I think the only thing the nuclear
agreement was about, Mr. Chairman, was about getting rid of a
nuclear weapon.
Senator Graham. I agree.
Secretary Kerry. That is why we left the human rights
sanctions, the missile sanctions, the arms sanctions, and the
terrorism-support sanctions in place.
Senator Graham. Would you support for sanctions by the
Congress against their violation of the U.N. resolutions,
against their missile program? Haven't they twice----
Secretary Kerry. We just put sanctions on.
Senator Graham. But what you put on I consider almost
nothing. I have a list a mile long. Would you support Congress'
effort to let the Iranians know how disappointed we are in
their behavior?
Secretary Kerry. Well, we already let them know how
disappointed we are, and we have warned them further----
Senator Graham. No, my question is, would you welcome
Congress' support?
Secretary Kerry. I wouldn't welcome them at this moment in
time, given the fact that we have given them a warning. If they
decide to do another launch, then I think there is rationale.
Senator Graham. Mr. Secretary, they apparently could care
less about what you and others are saying. They just put our
sailors--they held our sailors in contempt of international
law.
I do not mean to be argumentative, but the Iran Sanctions
Act expires this year. Would you welcome Congress reauthorizing
it?
Secretary Kerry. Mr. Chairman, let me just answer your
question there for a minute.
As a former Navy guy who commanded a small boat like that,
I am pretty sensitive to what happened and what went on and
somewhat interested in it. Our guys, regrettably, found
themselves in Iranian waters, and they found themselves in
Iranian waters either without power or in distress in some way.
So, yes, they were approached by an Iranian boat and they
were taken into custody. We never saw the films of them with
their hands behind their back and on their knees until well
after we had released them.
I was on the phone to the Foreign Minister of Iran within 5
minutes of learning this upstairs in the State Department. I
went straight to my phone, called the Foreign Minister, and I
gave him a very direct statement about what would happen if we
did not have their release very quickly. I also urged him to
not go backward on the relationship we were starting to build.
Within 20 minutes, he called me back and he said: I think
we have this under control. They are going to be released. They
are being well taken care of, and they are going to be fed.
Now, within an hour, we had an agreement for their release.
And subsequently, we saw the photographs. I immediately
called, and I condemned those photographs, as every American
did, and it was a violation of a number of things.
But the point I am making is, if we had not done this
agreement, and I did not have a relationship with the Foreign
Minister, then they probably would have been hostages, and they
might still be there. So there was a virtue----
Senator Graham. I would imagine if President Obama wasn't
President, and anybody else was President, they would never
have done this to begin with.
Senator Leahy has a view of President Bush, and I am sure
he made plenty of mistakes, but I am really tired of us being
walked on over.
So, Mr. Secretary, I will help you where I can.
But here is my question. Do you support the Iranian
Sanctions Act reauthorization immediately?
Secretary Kerry. Not immediately, because I think we are
just beginning now to see the full implementation. I think we
need to see how effectively and well they comply, and also what
happens with respect to these other aspects of behavior.
It does not expire until the end of the year. We can pass
it in about 10 minutes. I do not think there is a need to rush
here. I would like to see how the implementation goes, so we
can do whatever we are doing advised by that process. That
seems to me to be wise.
Senator Graham. Thank you.
Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. If there were an Iranian military boat with
armed Iranians on it, and they came along the coastline--pick a
place, say South Carolina--and was well within the U.S. border,
perhaps the engine stopped, but it had armed Iranians, would we
not at least hold them until we found out what they were doing?
Secretary Kerry. Of course, we would have taken them into
custody. I do not believe, under any circumstances, we would
have put them on display the way they were put on display.
Senator Leahy. I understand that. But we would have at
least----
Secretary Kerry. They clearly would have been taken into
custody, and we would have dealt with them straightforwardly
under any circumstances, I am convinced of that, upholding all
international law and standards of decency.
GLOBAL WARMING
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that links carbon
emissions to global warming. The Senate and House Republican
leadership oppose U.S. funding for the Green Climate Fund or
any other multilateral fund with a purpose to reduce global
warming.
I am just wondering what difference it makes for the Paris
climate agreement, but also for all those thousands of people
employed by U.S. manufacturers of clean energy technology if we
do not support the Green Climate Fund. And what would our
contribution be used for, if we do support it?
Secretary Kerry. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that, in
Paris, Bill Gates was there, Michael Bloomberg was there, a
number of other entrepreneurs, people who have a proven ability
to make money and who are pretty intelligent. They all joined
in a thing called Mission Innovation, along with many other
countries, including, I might add, China, India, and others.
India led this effort.
If the United States does not take advantage of this
opportunity, we are going to cede leadership and technologies
to other nations. We can be the sellers of this technology.
In fact, there is a company that former Vice President Gore
is involved in which has now achieved a new leap forward in
solar capacity, so that is far more efficient and far less
costly. This will allow countries like India and places like
Africa to be able to do distributive power, which puts power
into individual hands and does not require you to invest in
massive infrastructure in order to be able to deliver
electricity.
The difference this can make to stability, to livelihoods,
to health care, to women, to the future, is just stunning. As I
said, every estimate--go to The Economist, go to Forbes
magazine, go read basic economic analyses, and they will all
tell you that there is going to be about $50 trillion spent in
this sector over the course of the next years.
We want those jobs to be here, as much as possible. We want
to push the curve of technology.
You would think that by now people would realize--I mean
just yesterday, the fastest rate of sea level rise in 28
centuries--not years, centuries. We are seeing changes that are
irreversible, weather changes. Look at the California drought.
You can go all over the world and see the changes in the amount
of flooding, the amount of water, the melting of glaciers and
so forth.
So I would simply say, at our peril, we ignore the
responsibility to make some investments in the Green Climate
Fund and to do what is necessary to maintain American
leadership.
One last comment, China joined with the United States in
Beijing 2 years ago. Our President stood up and announced our
intended reductions of carbon emissions. That led the world to
the table in Paris. And I think it would be just unfathomable
that we do not continue to lead in the way that we have.
Senator Leahy. I think we can name--most of our States in
this country have companies that would benefit from jobs in
green technology. I know mine already has, and can a lot more,
but virtually every other State can, too.
Secretary Kerry. It is the fastest growing sector.
COLOMBIA
Senator Leahy. Exactly.
When President Santos was here recently the White House
announced its fiscal year 2017 request for $450 million for
assistance for Colombia. That is a $100 million increase.
Colombia is often called a success story. And in many respects,
it is.
But I think we would all agree there are huge challenges
ahead. I see the new Peace Colombia plan as a multiyear
undertaking. It is going to require a lot of money with a
priority on building capable and accountable law enforcement
and justice systems, and strategies to produce and market crops
other than cocoa. How do you see Peace Colombia?
Secretary Kerry. It is the critical follow-on, Senator
Leahy, to an effort that you and I and others were involved in,
Senator Mikulski, called Plan Colombia. In 1999, we passed Plan
Colombia. It was $1 billion. It was very controversial. People
did not know for sure where it would go.
But now, Colombia is an enormous success story as a result
of America's investment over 10 years of that money, and of the
Colombian determination to take back their country.
Now they are trying to end this war, and the United States
is not going to have to put in the lion's share of the money.
It will come from Colombia. And others are already committing
to support this process.
So, Senator Leahy, I think it is essential for the United
States to be part of this. President Obama appointed a special
envoy, Bernie Aronson, who is working with the negotiations. I
mean, I think it is still hard. It is not a certainty, but it
is being worked at diligently, and I hope we can get there.
EGYPT
Senator Leahy. My time is nearly up. As you know, I have to
go down to the White House.
But we talked about President el-Sisi's government in
Egypt. I am afraid they are following some of the same steps
that created problems in the past: use force to silence
critics; a lot of corruption; centrally manipulate political
and economic systems that do not help the Egyptian people.
The fiscal year 2016 omnibus requires the administration to
certify the Egyptian Government has met a number of benchmarks
on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law before you
release 15 percent of Egypt's military aid.
Are there examples, real examples, of President el-Sisi's
government implementing laws and policies to govern
democratically, protect and advance the rights of women and
religious minorities, or provide detainees with due process, as
our law requires? Is there any good news?
Secretary Kerry. Senator, Egypt is complex, disturbing in
the ways that you have described, but critical to the region.
If you talk to anybody in the region, they will tell you that
if Egypt were to fall and fail, the whole region can go up in
just incredible confrontation.
The alternative to what is there now is very, very
troubling. El-Sisi is cooperating in many ways on many things.
He is cooperating with us on Libya. He is cooperating with
Israel every day in the battle against extremists in the Sinai.
He is working very, very closely----
Senator Leahy. Is he letting our observers go into the
Sinai to see what he is doing?
Secretary Kerry. We have asked them for the ability to be
able to do that.
Senator Leahy. We have not done it.
Secretary Kerry. We have not done it yet.
Senator Leahy. So we have to take his word for it?
Secretary Kerry. I beg your pardon?
Senator Leahy. So we have to take his word?
Secretary Kerry. No. No, I think that, hopefully, we are
going to be able to work something out.
But, Senator, there are disturbing arrests. There are
disturbing sentences. And we raise these issues. I have
succeeded in getting some people released. We are steadily,
constantly talking about opening up and expanding civil
society, reversing some of the trends that we have all seen
that we are disturbed about.
But at the same time, there is a major challenge of
extremism, bombs that have been going off in Cairo, bombs that
have gone off in Sharm el-Sheikh, different challenges.
So it does not excuse these things. I am not suggesting
that. But we have to try to work and thread a needle carefully
that can balance the various interests that exist. I am just
telling you that they are very, very complex, and it does not
lend itself to a simple edict, ``Do not do this or else.'' It
is a little more complicated than that.
Senator Leahy. We will talk some more.
Senator Graham. Senator Mikulski.
I would just like to add that I agree with you. The
nightmare of all nightmares is if Egypt fails, and it is
complicated. I am going to go see President el-Sisi in a couple
weeks, so I would like to talk to you about what you would----
Secretary Kerry. Let me just say, we have a team of people
going over, Senators, very, very highly qualified CEOs, who are
going to talk about economic reforms that are needed. We are
constantly talking about the political reforms in space, civil
society. So we will continue to work with you on it.
Senator Graham. Senator Kirk.
Senator Kirk. Mr. Secretary, I want to compliment you on
picking Bernie Aronson, my former boss in the State Department.
I do not think there is a person better to guide us and make
sure that all parties in Colombia come together. You picked the
right guy for the right mission.
Secretary Kerry. Good. Thank you. I will convey your
compliments to him.
Senator Kirk. Otherwise known as Don Bernardo of the Andes.
Secretary Kerry. I can see why.
Senator Kirk. He is a good guy.
EMBASSY SECURITY
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Secretary, I am going to be leaving
for a hearing with the Secretary of Homeland Security. I will
not take the full 7 minutes, but I am deeply concerned about
Embassy security.
Our people around the world are busy protecting the
interests of the United States, and we have to protect them. Of
course, as you know, we have had some calamities around the
world.
I want to be sure, as part of our efforts here that we do
make sure that we have adequate funding to protect the men and
women who work at our embassies. I know last year, due to the
threats, the United States has had to evacuate embassies in
many countries--Burundi, South Sudan, Mali--due to the threat
of violence. They have been taken out of Libya and Yemen, the
right thing to do.
Do you feel, in the President's budget, that we have
adequate funds to provide Embassy security to the men and women
working overseas? And would you say that is the bare minimum,
or do you think it is the right number?
Secretary Kerry. I think it is better than the bare
minimum, for sure. We could always do more in certain places,
but we are not facing current threats in those places, but we
could do more. I cannot tell you that something couldn't
surprise you in a place where, in terms of priority, you are
just not able to get there now.
There was always going to be some risk. Both the President
and I have said very clearly--I mean, we have extraordinary
people working. And I thank you, Senator, for your concern for
the safety of everybody.
There is nothing that consumes our agenda more than our
constant meetings on the issue of security. I have had to shut
down three embassies since I have been in, and evacuate them.
And we have had to temporarily evacuate a number of places and
make those decisions in the dead of night and get people out
within 24 hours when there is a threat. So we are constantly
reading this.
We have requested $2.4 billion. That includes $1.3 billion
for worldwide security projects. We have a lot of compound
security improvement, setback requirements. Some you cannot
make. In certain cases, I have granted waivers. In other cases,
we are trying to find new properties.
We have about $92 million for repairs, 660-some for ongoing
operations. And then we have OCO projects in Kabul and lease
costs in very high threat areas.
But we are watching extremely closely our high-threat
situations, and we have a new threat evaluation structure, and
I think we are within our parameters, at this point in time.
But there is always risk. I do not want anyone to think
that my sitting here and saying what we are doing in this
budget is going to eliminate risk somewhere. It is not.
Senator Mikulski. We do not have to have self-imposed risk,
so I recall, pre-Benghazi, that while the President had
proposed an Embassy security budget, it had been deeply cut in
the House.
Secretary Kerry. There have been cuts.
Senator Mikulski. I do not want to pick at this here,
because there is much to be discussed, but do you feel we have
the right number?
Secretary Kerry. I think we have the right number. I think
we submitted the right number, and that is why we submitted it.
Senator Mikulski. But it should not go lower than that?
Secretary Kerry. It should not.
Senator Mikulski. And we should not pay politics with
whatever this is, in terms of Embassy security?
Secretary Kerry. Absolutely not, no. Of course not.
COUNTERING VIOLENT EXTREMISM
Senator Mikulski. I have other questions related to the
empowerment of women and girls around the country. I know there
will be other countries related to AID.
But my last question is this. I am deeply concerned about
the recruitment of people to work for ISIL, either directly
join activity to come to Syria and fight, or this horrifying
lone-wolf potential. I understand it is the State Department's
job to have a unit there that is supposed to be out there on
social media against this recruitment.
Do you think you have the adequate resources? It just seems
to me that it needs to be more robust and more tied into other
agencies, particularly the FBI here, and so on. I feel if we do
not deal with the recruitment, Senator Graham is the expert,
kind of the boots-on-the-ground guy. I am looking at a
preventive strategy, particularly as you talk youth bubble, et
cetera.
Secretary Kerry. Madam Chair, we would love to work with
you on that. Yes, we could use more. This is an area where it
is very labor-intensive. We are hiring a lot of young talent
that really understands and works with social media with great
effect.
Rick Stengel, our Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, has
been working very, very hard on this. I just went out to
California to meet with studio heads to try to enlist young
talent in the effort to help with YouTube, with short videos,
with short documentaries and other things that might help get
the word out.
But it is not Americans, per se, that are going to do this
most effectively. We are working in the Emirates. We have the
Sawab Center that has been opened there that is engaged in
full-time social media interaction, countering the narrative of
Daesh. And speaking to young recruits, we have an effort. The
Saudis have now committed to opening a similar center. In
Malaysia, there are preparations for opening such a center.
There are others who are all becoming aware that we have to
push back on the narrative----
Senator Mikulski. But all these centers that are being
opened are they our centers, their centers?
Secretary Kerry. No, they are their centers, but we are
working with them. We are helping them to understand the
technology to work on the messaging, the narrative. It is a
growing undertaking with enormous consequences for those
hundreds of millions of young people I talked about who we have
to reach.
So this is a very, very important sector, and we are going
to need additional funding for it going forward.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I just want
to say about this, we cannot be tepid on this.
Senator Graham. I am with you.
Senator Mikulski. And that other is, it has enormous
potential for doing the kind of preventive work that I know you
are committed to, or it could turn into a boondoggle here. I am
not talking about poor management or whatever. But the minute
we have a lot of centers there and we are helping, and you with
the DOD background, I think it is the subject of another
conversation.
Senator Graham. You are dead right. We will have a hearing
on it. And when it comes to Embassy security, you will get
every penny you ask for and more, if I can help it.
Secretary Kerry. Thank you.
Senator Graham. Thank you.
GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEES
Senator Kirk. Let me just ask one question.
I want to show you a picture of Ibrahim al Qosi, who was
recently released by the administration to the Sudanese. And he
appeared on some Al Qaeda videos recruiting people for Al-Qaeda
in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).
Secretary Kerry. Mr. Chairman, you would know I would be in
that photo.
Senator Kirk. I would just say, now that he is out, I hope
we would end the policy of issuing terrorists to terrorist
nations where they can get out.
Secretary Kerry. Well, Senator, he is not supposed to be
doing that. There are consequences for that, and there will be.
But apart from that, the fact is that we have people who
have been held without charges for 13 years, 14 years, in some
cases. That is not American. That is not how we operate. We
have a system of justice. Even in the military, we have a code
of military justice, and we operate under a separate way. We
just cannot behave like that.
This is a recruitment tool. Guantanamo and terrorists who
are----
Senator Kirk. Let me interrupt here. The recruitment tool,
I would respectfully say, is him on video saying join me in
fighting the Americans.
Secretary Kerry. That is not part of the agreement with
Sudan, and if they are not upholding the agreement, then he can
be----
Senator Kirk. Let me follow up on that.
Secretary Kerry. If he is advocating----
Senator Kirk. The chairman and I have laid out a position
that we think we should reduce assistance to a country that
releases an Al Qaeda detainee by $10 million per detainee. As
it applies to the country of Ghana, we give about $40 million a
year, if they accidentally release their people. I do not know
if you know, but about 37 people have escaped from Ghana
prisons. We would also lay out that marker that we agreed with,
to make sure we reduce assistance to a country that
accidentally releases an Al Qaeda detainee, to make sure that
they hold onto these people.
Secretary Kerry. Well, in a classified session, I can go
through with you the assurances that we received from a country
and the process that it has gone through, which is extremely--
--
Senator Kirk. Mr. Secretary, I would just say, do you still
certify Sudan as a state sponsor of terror?
Secretary Kerry. It is still listed, yes. It is under
evaluation for that, but it is still listed, yes.
Senator Kirk. I might generally suggest that their words
might not be worth anything, if they were such a terror-
sponsoring nation.
Secretary Kerry. We have engaged in a lot of work over the
last number of years for the implementation of the peace
agreement that was reached with South Sudan and the creation of
South Sudan, the referendum and other process. So we have had
some engagement with them, but we have made it very clear to
them what our expectations are for any kind of further efforts,
which include ending the violence in Darfur, ending the
violence in Blue Nile and South Kordofan, stop supporting Riek
Machar and the rebels in South Sudan, and so forth.
So we are currently in a very clear demarche to the
Government of Sudan as to what they----
Senator Kirk. So as they said in ``Team America: World
Police,'' you are going to send them a very angry letter.
Secretary Kerry. No, we do more than that, Senator. The
President of the country, as you know, was indicted on war
crimes. He cannot travel anywhere. We are ready to arrest him
if we did. I mean, there is a lot going on.
Senator Kirk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Secretary.
Senator Graham. Do you have anything else?
Senator Kirk. That is all.
Senator Graham. Here is the order that I have: Senators
Coons, Daines, Lankford, Durbin, Blunt, Murphy, and Boozman.
Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Graham. I just want to
begin by thanking you and Ranking Member Leahy for the very
constructive bipartisan way in which you have worked together,
and for your recognition of the enormous value of the 150
account and your grasp of the role that soft power plays, and
that diplomats and development professionals play.
Secretary Kerry, I would like to thank you for your
service, for your friendship, and for your real leadership at
the State Department. And to all the folks who serve in the
State Department, both Foreign Service and civil service and
the development professionals of the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID), I recently had a chance to
visit a number of posts around the world and, once again, I am
impressed with the dedication and caliber of the folks who
serve us overseas.
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY
Let me start with the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), if I might. I think you just spoke to the Paris climate
accords and the role that we tend to take in important issues
of leading with a significant contribution and a significant
role.
The IAEA secured searching capabilities, and access in Iran
to the whole nuclear fuel cycle. That was a key part of the
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that the IAEA
empowered to not just look at enrichment sites, but also
uranium mines, uranium mills, and centrifuge production
facilities.
I had the opportunity in January to visit with Director
General Amano in Vienna and his team charged with the
inspections critical to the enforcement of this agreement. And
I, frankly, was concerned at the scope and scale of their
investment in training new inspectors and deploying inspectors
on the ground. It was underwhelming.
I was disappointed to see the fiscal year 2017 budget
request for the IAEA was lower than the fiscal year 2016
request.
I understand the internal dynamics that make the IAEA wish
to spread funding across member states, and respect that. But
in my view, we ought to be making a significant long-term
investment, a proactive investment in ensuring that the IAEA is
confident they will have the funds for long term to recruit and
train and place the difficult-to-find nuclear inspectors who
are essential to this.
I would be interested in your comments on how you see that
role.
Let me just ask two other questions, and then yield the
remainder of my time to you, if I could.
DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE
Second, I am concerned about the democracy and governance
(DG) accounts across a number of African countries. We have
used DG funds to provide support for presidential initiatives
that I also support, but I, frankly, think we are at risk of
cannibalizing our democracy and governance investments. And I
would urge their strengthening, both through this subcommittee
and operationally. If we end up not making the investments that
are essential to civil society and fair and free elections in
Africa, I think we will be pennywise and pound-foolish.
SYRIA
Last, about Russian motives in Syria and their role, I am
interested in whether you see any daylight between the Russian
position and the Iranian position as you have been negotiating
the cessation of hostilities in Syria and what you view as
Russia's motives long term. Are they simply trying to stabilize
the Assad regime and then get out and no longer be responsible
for what happens? Or do you view them as seeking a long-term
foothold in the Middle East and to reestablish their regional
leadership role, which we had worked so hard to eliminate
decades ago?
I look forward to your answers, Mr. Secretary.
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY
Secretary Kerry. Thank you very much, Senator.
Let me begin, if I may, just by thanking you for your
incredible focus and leadership with respect to Africa, on a
number of issues, not just Africa, but particularly Africa, and
your diligence in visiting there and being present and
understanding it. It just makes an enormous difference for all
of us.
With respect to the IAEA, they need money. They need more
support. They estimate that the JCPOA-related monitoring costs
are about $10 million annually, and some of it is costs
associated with implementation of Iran's additional protocol,
which is part of the IAEA, and that is what Iran signed up to,
and other costs that belong in the IAEA regular budget.
So they are talking about how to approach that now. We have
supported it in two components, with our assessed contributions
and our voluntary contributions. And it works out in a way that
we kind of pay the year ahead backwards, in a sense. So we are
looking at really 2017 be paid out in 2018 for 2017, and that
is when the amount will come due.
But look, if we need to find a way for the IAEA to get
money, we need to find a way for the IAEA to get money. This is
too important, the successful, full implementation and
tracking. There are supposed to be 130 new inspectors going in,
and they are opening an office. They got the office and the
location now in Tehran, and there is going to be a permanent
presence on the ground, and that is critical to us delivering
on the promises that were made. And it is not that much money,
when you look at $10 million versus the costs of what the
downside would be of failure.
So I hope that we can focus on that. And maybe there is a
way to rethink and retool this issue of voluntary and mandatory
and make it easier and be helpful.
Senator Coons. My concern, if I might specifically on this
point, Mr. Secretary, is that as good, capable, government
bureaucrats--how is that for a sentence?--the IAEA
administrators did not want to ramp up beyond their committed
funding from the member states. And I said, look, just speaking
for myself, I would invest $100 million in advance over the
next decade to make sure you have enough well-trained,
deployed, capable inspectors, as you said, the cost, the risk
of missing----
Secretary Kerry. Well, I am with you 100 percent. I was not
aware of that judgment that they make until you just stated it
now. But it is cause for me--we have a full-time implementing
team, and Ambassador Mull heads that up. And I am going to
raise that with him, and we will get on that, because it is
critical.
Senator Coons. Thank you.
DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE
Secretary Kerry. With respect to democracy and governance
funds, cannibalizing is a word my staff hears all the time.
This is a cannibalized budget, just to be honest with
everybody, and I hate that. And I know you do, Mr. Chairman.
We should be doing more in almost every sector here, folks,
because it comes back to us in increased security, increased
leverage, increased relationship, better outcomes. The number
of failed and failing states, and the number of places where we
can make a difference, is just stunning.
EGYPT
By the way, when we talk about Egypt, we put money into
Egypt, which is part of the years now of the peace agreement.
That is the basic commitment that we make to Egypt, the peace
agreement with Israel.
But together, the Saudis and the Emiratis have put in over
$20 billion in the last couple years to Egypt. We put in a few
$100 million. Let me ask you who has leverage, who are they
going to listen to? Where do they think their help is coming
from?
So we need to think about this. We have a huge interest in
making sure that Egypt does not go down into a more difficult
status than it is.
So I know people say, well, we should not be building
there. I know it is a great applause line. I have been out on
the campaign trail, and you can make an easy hit talking about
what to do over there versus here. But over there is not over
there anymore. Over there is here now, always. And people need
to really focus on that reality.
DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE FUNDING
So I think, for the pittance, relatively speaking, that we
put into this, all of our democracy-building, all of human
rights, all of our aid programs, everything we do in diplomacy,
is one penny on the dollar. It does not make sense when you
consider the return on investment.
So we are cannibalizing, Senator. Even though we are
slightly plussing-up the budget this year versus last year, it
is $411 million more than it was on the 2016 level, and $786
million above where it was in the 2015 level, but that is still
not where we need to be.
SYRIA
Your final thing on Russia and Iran and the motives, I do
not want to get into analyzing and hypothetical surmising on my
part, but I will say this. Russia has a very clear interest in
not seeing Syria go down into utter chaos, and Russia now has
bought into it. They are there, and they need to get out of
there somehow. They do not need to be supporting Hezbollah,
supporting Assad, supporting Iran against the entire Sunni
world, against Turkey, Qatar, Saudi, and others, and the
moderate opposition and the radical opposition.
That is where they will be, if we cannot resolve things
through the political process. Now, I am not sitting here
making some casual judgment by the United States of America
that Assad has to go because ``we'' want him to go. I am saying
that every oppositionist I have talked to, every country in the
region, does not believe that Assad can possibly bring peace to
the country.
And if he stays there, then the jihadis will continue to
come, and the fight will continue to go on. And for all of us
who have an interest in a stable, whole, secure, unified, and
secular Syria that is completely contrary to that objective.
Russia and Iran have signed on at the United Nations
through the U.N. Security Council resolution, and through two
Vienna communiques, to the notion that they support this vision
I just articulated of a whole Syria that is secular. And they
have supported Assad, but you all read in the newspapers that
Russia may have less of a sense of urgency about Assad's
presence than Iran, and they have a different attitude about
him. And Iran even may now have a different attitude, because
they may be coming to understand that you are not going to make
peace with him there.
So it is hard for me to fathom that one man is so critical,
when all of these other countries are being supportive of a
transition, that we could not find a way forward that will
stabilize.
What we are seeing now, in the next month to 2 to 3 months,
will be the test of whether or not Russia and Iran are serious
about a real transition. And the transition called for in the
Geneva communique of 2012 says a transition council arrived at
by mutual consent with full executive authority, which will
then make the decisions until you have an election and the
people of Syria choose their government.
So that is what the objective is, and I think Russia, I
mean, for the moment, I think they want to put to test this
prospect. Now, whether they are doing it as cover for something
they intend to do down the road, we also will learn in the next
weeks and months.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Graham. Just one quick thing. I find it hard to
believe that Iran is interested in a stable, secular government
anywhere.
Senator Daines.
ENERGY AND COAL
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Kerry, I truly thank you for being here today,
and thank you for the many, many miles you have put on
airplanes traveling around the world. Your service is greatly
appreciated.
I want to go back to what Senator Leahy brought up a little
earlier on the President's 2017 budget request on the global
climate initiative and Green Climate Fund, about $1 billion.
This request exacerbates the tension between highly
industrialized nations that are concerned with leaving a legacy
of environmental stewardship and developing nations that are
concerned with obtaining better access to affordable energy and
strengthening energy security.
I am concerned that such efforts could marginalize sources
of energy like oil, like coal, that could empower lives and
provide opportunities around the globe.
For example, India is building 2.5 times more coal-fired
electrical capacity than we will lose here in the next few
years. China is building a new coal-fired plant every 10 days
for the next 10 years.
I managed operations in Japan during the great Sendai quake
of March 2011 and watched how they responded to losing the
nuclear capacity with the Fukushima reactors now taken out of
service and replacing that with 43 coal-fired plants.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration is expecting
Africa to increase its coal use by 70 percent in the coming
decades. By any way you look at coal globally, in the next 30
to 40 years, the consumption is going up.
Now, speaking as a Montanan who believes very much in the
all-the-above energy portfolio--we uniquely have hydro.
In fact, I am glad to see in the energy bill, we are
actually going to redefine hydro now as a renewable, which only
Washington, DC, would not define hydro as a renewable. It will
now be a renewable when we pass the energy bill.
Wind, other forms of energy, I am a strong advocate.
But I think it is imperative to recognize coal is not going
away, and it provides an essential source of low-cost energy
for hundreds of millions of people, some 1.3 billion poor
people who do not have electricity today.
When available to developing nations, Montana's clean coal
I think strikes the balance between low-cost energy and high-
quality air. For the record, Montana has more recoverable coal
deposits than any other State in the Nation.
My question, Mr. Secretary, in truly trying to strike a
balance here, as one who has been referred to as the
conservative conservationist back home in Montana, who would
love to spend days backpacking above 10,000 feet and fly
fishing, we embrace clean water and clean air. It is who we are
as Montanans.
But does the administration recognize that coal is going to
provide energy security and economic opportunities in the U.S.
and, importantly, across the globe for decades to come?
Secretary Kerry. Well, first of all, Senator, let me just
say I am jealous because Montana is, indeed, one of the most
beautiful States in our country, and their great outdoors ethic
up there.
I understand the tension on the coal issue. We are, indeed,
going to see coal being used. We are going to see oil being
pumped and gas being pumped for years to come. The question is
how is it going to be burned? How is it going to be used?
The administration is very supportive of advancing clean
coal through carbon capture, storage, sequestration, et cetera.
We know it is an energy of choice for some countries, because
they cannot afford anything else. It is cheap. It is very
cheap. And until recently, solar and wind were not able to be
competitive, though now they are increasingly competitive.
So people are going to start to make, I think, a different
set of choices over a period of time. If this new solar
advancement that I have learned about with respect to an
American company that is much more distributable and cheaper
and more effective works, that is going to begin to become an
energy source of choice for people.
What we have to recognize, unfortunately, is that
untreated--that is to say, without the latest technologies of
whatever scrubber combination, et cetera, there is--burning
coal releases one of the dirtiest, most concentrated
CO2 emission sources.
Senator Daines. If I could, one thought there. There,
certainly, has been a fair amount of debate on the Clean Power
Plan. The Supreme Court, certainly, stepped in with their stay.
But when they have run those regulations through the EPA's
algorithm, which is called Magic, what it spit out on the other
end was a 0.02 degree impact centigrade on global temperatures
between now and 2100.
So we have quantified the impact of these regulations as it
relates to the climate as negligible. I would argue 0.02
degrees centigrade is negligible. But we also have quantified,
I can just tell you in Montana, 7,000 jobs, $140 million tax
revenues to go to teachers and to schools, double-digit
increases in electrical prices. And these are Indian tribal
jobs. These are union jobs. And the world is still moving very
much toward a coal-driven environment linked to producing
electricity.
I appreciate the comment you made about not ceding
leadership as it relates to clean energy technology. I think
that was a good point you made earlier. My concern is, are we
going to cede leadership in developing clean coal technologies
by virtually killing this industry, which is what we are
finding out these regulations will do. We are unilaterally
withdrawing in terms of developing, innovating, clean coal
technologies, when we only comprise about 10 percent of the
world's coal consumption. But by shutting down the U.S. coal
industry, besides raising prices and having an affordable
source of energy, we are now going to cede that to the Chinese,
to India, to others, perhaps Africa, which I think, from a
global environmental stewardship viewpoint, is a mistake.
Secretary Kerry. Well, I understand your argument.
Increasingly, those other countries are coming under pressure
to change their own mix and to deal with the problem.
This is becoming a huge problem in China. Their citizens
are up in arms over this issue. They have literally had days
where they have to shut down their industry, as a result of the
level of pollution. That is one of the reasons why China joined
with us in making this move toward clean, alternative energy.
Yes, nobody is going to shut down their economy. This is
the danger for all of us. I have always supported major efforts
for clean coal technology investment, and we ought to be trying
to lead on that. If we can discover how to do that, that would
be superb.
Senator Daines. I think the message that industry is
hearing from the Obama administration is that they are really
pulling the rug out from under this industry, and they are
unwilling to make the investments that it is going to take to
get there.
I hope for more dialogue here of trying to maintain a
balanced, all-the-above portfolio to make sure we keep baseload
on the grid, given that we have a Nation that still depends--
about 30 percent to 35 percent of our electrical demand comes
from coal.
Secretary Kerry. Yes, I think the administration position
has been very clear that if we are going to be serious about
holding climate change to somewhere within the range of the 2
degrees centigrade, which we are already above, and avoiding
the worst impacts of climate change, we have to move more
dramatically to shift into renewable, alternative sources.
And we are pushing other countries to do that, and that is
why the President made the decision about not publicly
financing a coal that does not have carbon capture and
sequestration, or is not literally clean.
Nobody has yet shown me how you, in fact, burn coal clean,
relative to other possibilities today.
Senator Daines. We always talk about the science. Looking
at what the Magic algorithm put out, that it was literally a
negligible impact, 0.02 degrees centigrade.
Secretary Kerry. What is the level, though?
Senator Daines. That is moving forward with the proposed--
--
Secretary Kerry. With the U.S.
Senator Daines. With the U.S.
Secretary Kerry. But, see, the problem is not just the U.S.
The U.S. could do what it does and be completely wiped out by
India and China in any changes that we make if they do not see
us also making efforts to try to change.
Senator Daines. The pie chart is very compelling. It is 10
percent of the coal, plus or minus, consumed is in the United
States. It is 90 percent everywhere else.
I am out of time, but my hope would be that as we look at
where we are spending our dollars as it relates to foreign
efforts is that we try to maintain a balance, and ensure that
we are creating incentives to invest in clean-coal technology.
Coal is going to be around the world here for decades to come.
We need to accept that and incentivize innovation. And the U.S.
can probably lead probably better than anybody else in that
regard. But the current policies right now are going to shut
the industry down in the next several years.
Secretary Kerry. My recommendation, Senator, is I would
love to get you together with Ernie Moniz and John Holdren.
Have you met with them?
Senator Daines. I was with Ernie last week in Alaska, in
fact.
Secretary Kerry. Okay. I am sure you talked about this.
Senator Daines. I look forward to more conversations. I am
out of time here, so I do not to----
Secretary Kerry. Well, it is worth----
Senator Daines. It is a good, thoughtful conversation on
where the world is headed and how we can truly be environmental
stewards here and be smart here, at the same time addressing
the fact that there are 1.3 billion people who do not have
electricity.
Senator Graham. Senator Durbin.
STATE DEPARTMENT NOMINATIONS
Senator Durbin. Mr. Secretary, your indefatigable service
as Secretary has set a new standard for modern diplomacy. Thank
you.
Let me ask you a couple questions. You may have noticed in
the newspapers that we are having some controversy here about
nominations and voting on them. You have had some issues with
the Senate when it comes to the State Department vacancies, and
we took a look and found that there are a substantial number of
ambassadorial posts that have gone unfilled.
The most egregious and obvious is Mexico, which Roberta
Jacobson is being held by Senator Rubio, who will not allow a
vote for us to have an ambassador to Mexico.
What impact does this really have, whether you have an
ambassador in a country, whether you have key positions at the
Department of State filled? Is this just an annoyance that you
get around? Or does it have any qualitative impact on what you
can do?
Secretary Kerry. Senator, thank you. Thanks for asking
that. I know you have been a champion on this.
If I can talk to my friends on the Republican side of the
aisle here, because we have been trying to get these folks in
place for some period of time. I really appreciate the effort
in the last weeks. You all passed a number of key nominees out,
and I am very grateful for that.
But just as an example, I know in modern age, people think,
well, ambassadors, they do the same thing. Well, they are not
the Chip Bohlens of the past, in the sense that there are weeks
sending letters and telegrams. You have much more instant
communication, obviously.
But I have to tell you, I have seen firsthand in the last
3-plus years as Secretary how unbelievably important it is to
have an ambassador on the ground who has built relationships,
who is trusted by that government, who has a feel for what is
happening in that country.
And in this particular moment of counterterrorism priority
and countering violent extremism, that is an ongoing, daily
investment job. You have to have someone there who can mobilize
the agencies of another government. You have to have somebody
who can get the president or the prime minister or the king to
focus.
And where we have a really good ambassador, God, what a
difference it makes. That person is trusted. It makes all the
difference. They make decisions every day that can be the
difference between an explosion and a conflict or an issue that
got managed effectively.
And in today's world, where we are going after
narcoterrorists, we are going after extremists, we may have a
country where there is an issue of a high-value target, and we
have to have a signoff and the chief of mission is responsible
in that progression, we have judgments that have to be made
that are critical.
Now, with respect to Mexico, we have a particularly
qualified career civil servant, Roberta Jacobson, who simply
because she was tasked to be part of the effort to help the
President implement his policy, not hers, his policy--and she
did it well--on Cuba, Senator Rubio is holding it up. He is
punishing the civil servant choice of an elected official.
Now, he is out there running for President. He has ample
opportunity to make his case about the policy, but do not
punish the country because you are angry about what happened
and lose us the link to the Government of Mexico. The Mexican
Government asks us, why can't you provide an ambassador? What
is it? Are we a pariah country? You don't value our
relationship?
We just had a meeting in Canada, which we have every year,
of Canada, the United States, and Mexico in the North American
caucus talking about how we can do energy projects together,
how we can work more effectively on the borders, how we can be
a trade bloc that raises standards in labor and environment and
movement of goods. That is what an ambassador can work on every
day, not to mention the businesses that need to go to those
countries to start closing their contracts and need to get a
minister of finance or minister of trade to sit down with them
and cut the deal. So we are costing us jobs. I could go on and
on.
SYRIA
Senator Durbin. Mr. Secretary, I know you will. [Laughter.]
I need to reclaim my time. I think you made the point.
I have a friend of mine, Dr. Sahloul. He is a Syrian
American. And every few months, he takes a number of doctors
from Chicago. They sneak across the border into Syria, and they
try to treat the people who are the casualties of this terrible
humanitarian crisis in Syria.
Then he comes back to Chicago and asks to meet with me and
shows me these horrifying photographs of children and others
who have just been disfigured and maimed by what is going on
there.
I think you would concede, of all the humanitarian crises
in the world, at least this is the most prominent to face us in
Europe and many other countries, at this moment. I know you are
trying to work with the players on this to find some way to
have a ceasefire, which I pray to God you are successful.
Have we ruled out humanitarian safe zones, places where
Syrians can go for safe treatment or to live safely as part of
this? If there were just hospitals that this doctor could go
to--he operates on the floors of schools, because there are no
places to go to. Have we ruled out humanitarian safe zones as
part of the solution?
Secretary Kerry. No. We have not, but they come with great
complications.
My final comment on Roberta, folks, is, as a matter of
human rights, let's liberate her and put her on the job. She is
traveling with Vice President Biden to Mexico tonight and does
not have the portfolio, but she is going as our Assistant
Secretary of State. And surely, since we have confirmed her to
be Assistant Secretary of State, we can confirm her to be
Ambassador.
With respect to Syria and safe zones, look, if we are going
to have safe zones, they have to be safe. You are going to
carve out a piece Syria and say this is a safe zone, who is
going to make it safe? Who is going to prevent Daesh from
coming in and attacking? Who is going to prevent Nusra? Who is
going to prevent the Syrian army or the Russians from dropping
something?
So to prevent the Russians from dropping something, if they
deem them to be a haven for terrorists, too, you are going to
have to have an air defense structure, you are going to have to
have planes flying, you are going to have to have a cap, you
are going to have to have people on the ground.
And our Pentagon estimates that to have a true safe zone in
the north of the country, you may have upwards of 15,000 to
30,000 troops. Now, are we ready to authorize that? Are we
ready to put them on the ground?
All this talk about safe zones does not go through the
process of what it really means.
Right now, we think we are creating a safe zone. We are
trying to make Syria a safe zone by having a cessation of
hostilities and by delivering humanitarian assistance to
everybody. And in the last week, we have gotten 114 trucks
through to deliver assistance to five or six communities that
have not seen it in 2 or 3 years; 80,000 people now have enough
food for the next month.
So that is our goal, but it really requires Congress to
sort of analyze that if somebody is going to call for a no-fly
zone, it takes planes going out and destroying the air defense
system, so you can fly around and make it a no-fly zone.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Secretary, you are on the ground, and I
commend you for all that you are attempting to do. And I will
not second-guess you when it comes to this. It is hard for me
to imagine that all the countries that share our goal in ending
this humanitarian crisis could not come together to create that
kind of defense, but perhaps they cannot.
Secretary Kerry. They may yet. Dick, it may happen.
What occurs is, if the Russians and the Iranians are not
serious about having this work, then we have to go to a plan B,
which may be more confrontational and may wind up carving
things out. It may be that we have to come and ask you to do
more and commit more, because we have to be serious about this.
The implications of this for the region and the
implications for Jordan, for Lebanon, for Europe, are stunning.
And they are huge in terms of our national security interests.
So we are going to have to measure these next weeks very,
very carefully.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Senator Graham. Senator Lankford.
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
Senator Lankford. Thank you.
Secretary Kerry, thank you for your service. I have quite a
few questions on several different areas around the world.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) recently
announced that they are going to allow 150 exit visas for some
of these American children to be able to come out that have
been adopted. They said, by the end of March, they are going to
allow another 250.
Do you have good assurances from the DRC that they are
going to follow through on that? This has been a long time
coming for those families.
Secretary Kerry. We have been pushing very, very hard on
this. We have their assurance. I cannot tell you that they are
lead-pipe until it happens, but we have been working on this
very, very hard.
Senator Lankford. Okay.
Secretary Kerry. And we will stay on it.
Senator Lankford. Thank you. Please do, for the sake of all
those families. There are a lot of children obviously been
there----
Secretary Kerry. I raised this issue personally with
President Kabila when I saw him. We have been pushing hard on
it. I hope this will be followed through.
IRAN
Senator Lankford. Great. Thank you.
Two weeks ago, I had a conversation with the Director of
National Intelligence (DNI) Clapper dealing with a multitude of
issues. I serve on the Intel Committee. I know you interact
with him often.
At that time, he mentioned in his opening statement that he
still sees Iran as the world's largest state sponsor of
terrorism, exporting its extremist agenda through all of its
means still.
I asked him specifically in a follow-up if he had seen a
change in Iran's behavior toward sponsoring terrorism since the
signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
Obviously, that was not related to terrorism, but if there had
been a change. His response was: I have not seen change.
I asked a follow-up question, have you seen any change in
Iran's testing of ballistic missiles, its normal strategy that
it has since they launched 140 missiles since the U.N. has told
them no, including two recently. He also said, no, he had seen
no change on that.
Would you agree with DNI Clapper there has not been a
change in Iran? They are a state sponsor of terrorism, and
their focus, and their missile testing since the JCPOA has been
signed?
Secretary Kerry. Not with respect to those, no. There has
not been. I mean, the only differential--and it has nothing to
call home about, is something like that we saw in Bulgaria or
another couple kinds of things, we have not seen. But with
respect to missiles, with respect to arms and other things,
there has not been, no.
Senator Lankford. Is that the next layer working with Iran
at this point? You began with nuclear. Is the next layer then
to work with their sponsor of terrorism and such?
Secretary Kerry. To work on each of those, and also on
Yemen. Yemen and Syria are both tests of whether or not there
is a new approach.
Senator Lankford. The chairman had asked you about the Iran
Sanctions Act, which is set to expire in December of this year.
You said you did not see there being a hurry to pass it. Do you
think that is an important vehicle to have in place for the
next administration?
So while you may say there is not a hurry, because it
expires in December, do you think it is important at least have
in place, to hang out there as leverage?
Secretary Kerry. Senator, in point of fact, it does not
change the leverage. The reason is does not change the
leverage--in fact, it might even work against it. I am not
sure. I have not thought that through.
But we have the authority we need. The President has the
emergency powers act in order to implement. We have done most
of our executive orders of the implementing of unilateral
sanctions under that. You do not need it in order to have
snapback. So we are not sitting here feeling an imperative.
Beyond that, I would also say to you that I would rather
make the judgments about it recognizing whether we have made
any progress, where are we, or is there a problem in the
context of the implementation.
Senator Lankford. So the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) is
actually what gave the sanctions--I am trying to figure out, if
you are snapping back, snapping back to what, if that part goes
away?
Secretary Kerry. Snap back to all the sanctions that were
in place. It is the same sanctions. They can snap back without
the ISA.
But I am just saying to you that we do not need to consider
that at this point in time. We are not viewing that as in any
way a limitation on our ability to affect the JCPOA
implementation or to have sanctions snapback, if they have to,
or to put new ones in place, if we have to.
INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Senator Lankford. Okay. Last year, this subcommittee
supported several provisions dealing with religious freedom and
religious liberty and promoting that around the world. I was
surprised when I was going through the request this year that
several of those areas that we had included in 2016 on
religious freedom and the promotion around the world had been
rescinded in your request, not asking for some of those same
line items.
Has there been a change in policy about promoting religious
liberty around the world?
Secretary Kerry. No, on the contrary. We have upped our
efforts. I have an office with respect to religious engagement.
We have increased our outreach in many regards.
Senator Lankford. Some of the funding line items, though,
have been either rescinded completely, and some of the
certifications and reports, the request is to take out some of
those reports, as well as some of the funding line items.
I can follow up with you and get you some of those
directly.
Secretary Kerry. Yes, I would like to follow up with you on
that.
Senator Lankford. It has obviously been extremely important
to this subcommittee and to myself as well, that we continue to
promote the value of religious freedom around the world. That
is one of those core, as you know, core human rights values.
The more that we promote that, it advances democracy.
Secretary Kerry. Indeed, it is. It was something when I was
here in the Senate, I was the original author of the Workplace
Religious Freedom Act, and it is something that we have been
very involved in. I am the first Secretary to appoint a
coordinating office for outreach on religious affairs, and we
have a very distinguished--Shaun Casey is there with us.
Ambassador David Saperstein----
Senator Lankford. Do you still meet with David Saperstein
frequently?
Secretary Kerry. I have not seen him as frequently as I
would like, but we have met, yes.
Senator Lankford. He probably has some good stuff for a
visit. He is a great guy, as you know well.
Secretary Kerry. He is terrific.
Senator Lankford. He has some very good insight.
Secretary Kerry. But both of those players, that has never
happened in the State Department before, and we are happy to
have them.
LIBYA
Senator Lankford. Right. We can follow up on the exact line
items on that.
Dealing with Libya, you have done a certification already
to us that the Government of Libya is cooperating with us to
investigate and bring to justice those responsible for the
attack in Benghazi in 2012. You have given us that
certification.
Can you give us the background for I guess how you
certified that, knowing the very precarious position that
government is in at this point as a new government?
And then there is a second certification that you have
asked this year to have struck, that you would not have to turn
that certification in, in your request, and it is this
certification that: all practical steps have been taken to
ensure that mechanisms are in place for monitoring, oversight,
and control of funds for assistance to Libya.
I would like to know why the request is there to strike
that certification. Again, that seems a reasonable request from
us with the nature of the Libyan Government at this point.
Secretary Kerry. I was just given a note from my staff so I
can finish the answer on the first thing.
The reports, it is really a consolidation effort. It is not
a diminishment. We have so many reports, and we are trying to
put them all into a----
Senator Lankford. Sure. I have no problem with that.
Secretary Kerry. I am not sure I understand your exact
question on the Libya certification.
Senator Lankford. We put in place a certification. As we
put it last year: all practical steps have been taken to ensure
the mechanisms are in place for monitoring oversight and
control of funds for assistance to Libya.
You have asked for that certification to be struck at this
point. The question is, that is a reasonable oversight for us.
Secretary Kerry. It is just not possible right now, under
the circumstances, to make that kind of certification. And to
be in a position of denying it, therefore, we think would
handicap our ability to try to get a viable government in
place, stand it up, and move forward.
So the situation just does not lend itself to that kind of
judgment right now. We are just at the point--we are at a
critical point here, where we have made it clear we are going
to start sanctioning some people if they are not going to be
involved properly.
We have a couple of outliers from the Government of
National Accord (GNA), from the General National Congress (GNC)
and the House of Representatives (HOR) each, as we try to put
together a government of national accord. We are about to
hopefully have a vote on that government and actually proceed
forward, and then we will be in a better position to be able to
deal with standards of certification that just do not apply to
the situation in Libya.
Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, can I just make a request?
These will be questions I will submit in writing for the days
ahead. It is just three quick things that we have talked about
before.
GREEN CLIMATE FUND
One is I would like to have, in a written way, how you
evaluate the quantity of success or effectiveness of the Green
Climate Fund. I mean, it is a $1 billion-plus fund that is
sitting out there. How do we quantify whether that is
successful? I am sure you have come up with something that
large, how are you evaluating its success or effectiveness?
CENTRAL AMERICA
The second one is, how are you going to evaluate these
additional funds that have been put in last year for the
Northern Triangle when we are dealing with all the issues with
judicial improvements, legal improvements and such with the
Northern Triangle in Central America?
MEXICO
And then the third thing goes back to our Mexico
conversation as well. Mexico's poppy growth has grown
exponentially over the last several years and heroin is pouring
into the United States. Poppies are easily identifiable from
the air. This is not some crop that can be grown that no one
can see where they are. Everyone knows where the poppies are
being grown.
What I want to know is, how are we working with the
Government of Mexico to eradicate these fields?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Graham. Those are good questions that will be
responded to in time.
Senator Blunt.
Senator Blunt. Mr. Secretary, let me make a couple comments
that are not questions, but maybe just follow up on what you
have just been talking about.
Senator Klobuchar and I--it used to be Senator Landrieu and
I--co-chair of the Adoption Caucus in the Senate. Senator
Klobuchar and I then had the new Ambassador from the Democratic
Republic of Congo in a few months ago. He was not defending his
country's position at all, that children who their courts have
been allowed to be adopted need to be brought out of the
country.
So I am scheduled right now, in fact, to go meet with 40 of
those families, and some of them have had really good news over
the last few days. And hopefully, your anticipation and ours is
the same, that at least in terms of children who have been
allowed to be adopted, they will now be allowed to leave the
country.
IRAN
I want to talk a little bit about the return of the three
prisoners or, in some reports, hostages from Iran. I sent a
letter on January 29 that asked two or three questions on this
topic. Have you seen that letter yet?
Secretary Kerry. No, sir. I have not. I have not seen it.
Senator Blunt. Who on your staff would you like me to give
it to?
Secretary Kerry. If you could give it to Julia Frifield,
that would be great.
Senator Blunt. When you were in the Senate, you probably
would hope that you would get a response quicker than a month
to a letter, though I would say, so far, you still have not
caught up with Tom Wheeler at the FCC who actually never
answers letters. If they did, it might actually be easier to
get people confirmed.
You were here long enough and understand this system as
well as anybody. It would be helpful if you could be more
responsive. But let's just see what we can discover about that
letter right now.
What the letter really questions is the story that was told
when the three people were, thank goodness, returned to the
country and their families. But the transfer of money happened
the day after people came back. The Iranians contend that was--
at least an Iranian general has contended in a Newsweek article
that, clearly, the two things were absolutely related. Is that
true?
Secretary Kerry. No. We have been negotiating the claims
settlement for years, literally. It was negotiated on a
separate track. Now, whether they, in their minds, thought this
was a propitious moment to try to settle it, that is in their
mind, not ours.
We made it clear to them it had to be done on a separate
track. It had to be completely separate. We were not going to
tie it in. And we reached one agreement before we reached the
other.
Senator Blunt. It is amazingly coincidental that after 35
years of negotiating this difference of opinion that the two
things would happen within 24 hours of each other. But that is
not my question.
My question is, this was about $400 million plus interest
that was part of a past contentious issue with the Iranians.
The Congress told the administration--actually passed a law
that President Clinton signed in 2000 that that $400 million
would go to specific victims of Iranian terrorism who received
that amount of money. Did they receive it from that account or
not?
Secretary Kerry. I do not believe they would have received
it from that account. I know there were settlements. There were
number of claims that were settled through the years both ways,
by the way. The Iranians settled some claims towards us.
This claims process was set up in 1981, I think, right
after Ronald Reagan came in, or even under Carter. But it was
set up right around there.
Senator Blunt. So the Congress in 2000 that passed a law
that said that $400 million won't belong to the Iranians any
longer, it belonged to the victims, that would not have
superseded whatever else was happening internationally?
Secretary Kerry. Senator, I was told in the process, we
were very, very clear about this. I think Secretary Lew can
answer this very, very directly. This was the fund that had
been kept in place. The money, the $400 million, was there. In
fact, there was a little more in there. I cannot remember why
there was more. So there was a cushion. The $400 million went
out, but there was still a cushion of some money that was there
for any remaining claims. But almost all the claims have been
cleared up.
So that is why it was deemed appropriate to lower that
particular account, because there were not any extant claims
that would have amounted to the amount that was being left in
the account.
Senator Blunt. Well, there is a Newsweek article that
indicates--and I know Newsweek is online now, but I just read
the article. There is a Newsweek article that indicates the
families, the specific families mentioned in the 2000 law, were
all led to believe that the money they got was money that was
Iranian money, not taxpayer money. So you are saying today----
Secretary Kerry. No, I am not. I think that is accurate. I
think they got Iranian money. I think the taxpayer money fund
is what stayed in the fund over the period of time.
When we were examining how we could do what we were trying
to do to settle a claim, over a period of time--by the way, it
was separate negotiators, completely separate team negotiating
this on a separate track over a long period of time, by the
way. This predated anything to do with this.
I think one of the reasons it came to a head simultaneously
is, frankly, because we have the JCPOA done, and there was a
channel of communication, which we never had before. We have
never had a high-level channel of communication. And part of
the exchange of people actually was being done through their
Ministry of Interior.
Senator Blunt. Well, it is very coincidental.
Would you expect----
Secretary Kerry. We have never talked to their Ministry
of----
Senator Blunt. Would you expect that $1.7 billion, the
first of more money that will go to the Iranians under the
agreement, would you expect any of that $1.7 billion to go to
terrorist organizations or terror-sponsor organizations?
Secretary Kerry. Do I expect it to? No. Might it? I cannot
answer a hypothetical like that.
Senator Blunt. Well, I think you did answer that earlier.
Secretary Kerry. What I said was, with respect to all the
money going to Iran, which by the way is way below--we should
go into classified session and then we can give you the exact
figures.
But people have talked about $100 million, $150 million.
No, folks. Nowhere near. It is not even up to the $50 million
yet that we talked about.
So our judgment is that--we always said this publicly--that
there were enormous demands in Iran for that money in terms of
their energy sector, the infrastructure, banking, paying off
notes, everything.
So my recommendation, Senator, is, in classified session,
we can really inform you as to what we are seeing today. And I
think you will be very surprised.
Senator Blunt. Well, I am on the Intel Committee, and we
have had some of that discussion, and we will have more with
you.
Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Graham. Senator Moran.
Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, I am not on the Intel
Committee and several times the Secretary has offered to have
classified briefings, and I would welcome that opportunity any
time that you see fit to have this subcommittee have the
Secretary in that setting.
Mr. Secretary, thank you. A number of the topics I wanted
to raise have been raised, but in slightly different forms.
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
An exception to that is, in a slightly different form, is I
want to again reiterate the importance of this adoption issue
in Congo. Is it your understanding that the additional 250
young boys and girls in Congo who have been adopted by U.S.
citizens will also be processed and released to the United
States to their parents?
Secretary Kerry. We hope so.
Senator Moran. Is there more than hope? That is my
question.
Secretary Kerry. I think there is an understanding, isn't
there, that they are going to be coming?
Senator Moran. My question is, is there a commitment that
you expect to be kept? Or is this just hope or wishful
thinking?
Secretary Kerry. There is an understanding. The DRC has
authorized more than 150 to come. And on the 250 from Congo, I
believe----
Senator Moran. My understanding is there are another 250
children who have been adopted, awaiting the opportunity to
come to the United States.
Secretary Kerry. About 400 total.
Senator Moran. Again, I am not sure what the expectation
is. I do not know what the President agreed to.
Secretary Kerry. I want to get you a precise answer on
that.
[The information follows:]
We are closely following developments in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo. Embassy Kinshasa is tracking 41 pending adoption cases that
are in various stages of completion. Of those cases, the DRC pre-
cleared 23 children for exit permits and the remaining 18 are not pre-
cleared for exit permits. Unfortunately, the DRC's temporary inter-
ministerial commission, which met earlier this year to review and
release cases it deemed legitimate, disbanded without reviewing the
remaining 18 cases. As the suspension of exit permits remains in place,
there is still no plan for DRC processing of these remaining cases, or
any new cases. Acquiring the exit permits for DRC citizen children who
received visas to enter the United States remains the single most
problematic hurdle. Embassy Kinshasa continues to meet with key
officials in the DRC to encourage exit permit approval on a case-by-
case basis. The Embassy had some success with this approach, and was
recently assured that four cases not on an approved commission list but
otherwise visa-qualified would receive exit permit approvals.
Senator Moran. Great. If that agreement has been made, I
would encourage, as my colleagues have, that you, the State
Department, United States Government, continue to encourage. A
number of us met in Senator Blunt's office with the Ambassador
from the Congo. It is such a heart-rending circumstance. Today,
I saw photos of these boys and girls, but to talk to their
parents who are their parents and they are still thousands of
miles away. Thank you for your efforts in the past, and please
continue that effort.
IRAN
You also had a conversation with Senator Blunt about the
settlement of the financial dispute between Iran and the United
States. You indicated at that time, although I think it was
perhaps slightly different from what you said today, that there
are more pending claims that potentially could be settled.
Those claims are claims of Iran against assets or dollars from
the United States, and that those claims need to be finalized.
This was a large chunk of that, but not all of them.
My question is, do you know what claims remain, and how
much money is involved there?
Secretary Kerry. I am told there are very, very few, if in
the multiples of single digits, and that it is less than the
amount of money that was left in the account.
Senator Moran. I was very critical of that transaction,
that agreement. I was critical for the reasons that it seemed
to me that that money would have been used to compensate
American citizens who have claims against the Iranian
Government, that there should have been an offset.
What is your reaction to my criticisms?
Secretary Kerry. This is a separate track, Senator. This is
for military sales money that was a very specific purchase that
took place in 1979. It was escrowed separately in an account at
that period in time. And it accrued interest. I recall vividly
that the interest rates back at that period of time were
upwards of 18 percent, 19 percent, 20 percent, or something at
some point in time, for a period of time. It is only in the
most recent years we have had the luxury of near zero and very,
very low interest rates.
So we were looking at a liability upwards of several
billion dollars. We believe, in the end, that the judgment was
made by everybody--I mean, this was an interagency, fully
vetted, unbelievably analyzed process, which made a judgment
about what was the appropriate level and what would be a good
arrangement for settlement. That is what we arrived at.
Senator Moran. The negotiations include requests of the
Iranian Government to pay the claims of United States citizens?
Secretary Kerry. Sure. That is part of the claims process.
There are outstanding claims for those, and those are in The
Hague, I believe, as part of the claims process.
EGYPT
Senator Moran. In regard to Senator Durbin's question about
the 15 percent military aid that can be withheld, if there are
human rights violations with Egypt, my understanding is that
your budget request, the appendix of this year's budget
request, the administration pushes for removal of that language
altogether.
I want to know the justification. Maybe you said that to
Senator Durbin, but I think his question was slightly different
from that.
Secretary Kerry. I am not sure that I understand, then.
Senator Moran. My understanding is that your budget request
asked that the language that allows for withholding of those
dollars to be removed, the authority disappear.
Secretary Kerry. The withholding of which?
Senator Moran. The 15 percent when there are violations of
human rights.
Secretary Kerry. Can I get back to you on that?
Senator Moran. Absolutely. I guess my question is, what is
the rationale of the administration in changing the law that
has that provision in it today?
Secretary Kerry. I want to get back to you on that.
[The information follows:]
We stand by our commitment to press Egypt over concerning human
rights abuses. Certification and withholding requirements limit our
ability to conduct foreign policy and the necessary flexibility to
respond to challenges on the ground as we implement assistance
programs. We can achieve our foreign policy goals more effectively with
fewer limitations on the funding we are appropriated. We continue to
have frank discussions with the Egyptian Government about our democracy
and human rights concerns. We share Egypt's legitimate concerns over
the threat of terrorism domestically and in the region, but respect for
human rights and democracy is not incompatible with countering
terrorism. We continue to press the Egyptians that respect for human
rights helps counter radicalization and violent extremism and
strengthen long term political stability.
GENOCIDE IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Senator Moran. Very good.
And finally, I think finally, issues related to the
persecution of folks based upon their religion, there has been
significant allegations that the Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria (ISIS) is persecuting people based upon their religion.
We have heard that from the former Secretary, your predecessor,
Secretary Clinton. The pope, the European Union, and others
have indicated that genocide is occurring by ISIS.
There are at least some reports that the United States is
considering declaring this a genocide against the Yazidis but
not against Christians. Is there any validity to those
allegations? If so, what would the distinction be?
Secretary Kerry. Senator, there is a process ongoing right
now making an analysis under the law. The lawyers are making
this judgment. So you may be picking up some of the technical
debate on what standard is applied that meets the legal
standard of genocide and crimes against humanity and so forth.
I have heard some of these arguments. In fact, because of
what I have heard, I have to make this judgment, and I am
prepared to make it and make it soon. I have asked for further
evaluation, based on what I have heard, in order to test
against the law some of my own perceptions and evaluations and
see where we come out. That is the process.
So whatever early reports you are hearing do not reflect
sort of the state of the art where our thinking is or what we
are going through on this. And I have to make a judgment on
this, and I will when I am satisfied that I have evaluated that
standard, and I am comfortable with what the outcome is.
Senator Moran. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your presence
and for your testimony today.
Secretary Kerry. Thank you.
JUSTICE AGAINST SPONSORS OF TERRORISM ACT
Senator Graham. Mr. Secretary, you have been very generous.
The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act: is the
administration opposed to JASTA?
Secretary Kerry. JASTA. We have concerns about it. I think
we would like to work with you. We do have concerns about it,
because what it does, regrettably, because of the way it is
structured, generally speaking, we have dealt with this with
countries who are designated terrorists. If we wind up taking
away sovereign immunity from a country that are not, that is a
huge----
Senator Graham. In its current form, you are opposed to it?
Secretary Kerry. In current form, we would be very troubled
by it, because what it would do is really expose the United
States of America to lawsuit and take away our sovereign
immunity and create a terrible precedent, in its current form.
IRAN
Senator Graham. Thank you.
This just came out about an hour ago over the AP, that Iran
arrests the father of a jailed U.S. citizen, Siamak Namazi.
What is the gentleman's name?
Secretary Kerry. Siamak Namazi.
Senator Graham. The Iranians, apparently, Monday arrested
his father. Are you familiar with this?
Secretary Kerry. I am very familiar with this, and I am
engaged on it, specifically. But I am not permitted, due to
privacy reasons, to go into details here.
Senator Graham. Okay. Well, thank you very much for your
service to our country, and we will do everything we can to
support your budget.
Secretary Kerry. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, very, very much.
Thank you.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Graham. The record will be open until Friday,
February 26, for questions for the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. John F. Kerry
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. What new public diplomacy programs are planned for fiscal
year 2017, and how do they support the administration's foreign policy
priorities?
Answer. Public diplomacy (PD) efforts are essential to communicate
our foreign policy goals, perspectives, actions, and facts with foreign
audiences. Through these efforts, we create and sustain support for
U.S. foreign policy goals among key international audiences, including
civil society leaders, journalists, youth, and religious leaders. With
a backsliding in press freedoms around the world and countries spending
billions of dollars to restrict information, our public diplomacy
programs are increasingly important to reach these audiences.
To advance these aims, the State Department is expanding our public
diplomacy programs in areas where U.S. public diplomacy has a
comparative advantage: youth leadership, English-language training,
promotion of U.S. higher education, entrepreneurship, civic engagement,
technology, and amplifying partners' messages to counter violent
extremism.
The fiscal year 2017 PD request includes funding for a new
initiative aimed at countering pervasive Russian propaganda in
countries with large Russian-speaking populations by establishing new
locally-employed staff positions in key European posts to engage
audiences through social media and promote youth engagement and
entrepreneurship. Other proposed staff augmentations would allow the
Department to increase outreach to the dramatically increasing pool of
exchange alumni in Africa; boost engagement with strategic audiences in
the Middle East and Russian-speaking populations in South and Central
Asia; allow Central American missions to better address the issue of
unaccompanied child migration and its underlying causes; and enable the
U.S. Embassy in Havana to proactively take advantage of changes taking
place in Cuba and in U.S.-Cuba relations.
The new interagency Global Engagement Center will lead the
coordination, integration, and synchronization of U.S. Governmentwide
communications activities to counter the messaging and diminish the
influence of international terrorist organizations with foreign
audiences abroad, often through partners, a critical mission that
requires significant additional resources.
Additionally, the Department is placing a renewed emphasis on
clearly defining and evaluating the effectiveness of public diplomacy
programs and developing new tools and strategic approaches for
accomplishing public diplomacy outreach. Toward these goals, additional
funding is sought for the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and
Public Affairs' (R) newly retooled Research and Evaluation Unit to
develop robust, constructive research and impact evaluations that will
drive prioritization decisions and ensure public diplomacy programs
better reflect strategic objectives and audiences.
The Bureau of International Information Programs plans to conduct a
worldwide rollout of the new Public Diplomacy Contact Relationship
Management system to provide posts with a versatile platform for robust
email outreach, as well as the global deployment of a suite of modern,
on-line tools, including Google Apps and Slack, that will allow PD
practitioners to synchronously collaborate from anywhere on the globe.
Our global network of 700+ American Spaces hosts nearly 37 million
visits annually, building and strengthening relationships with foreign
audiences by showcasing American culture and values and providing
accurate information about the United States. The request for IIP also
includes funding to address costs to renovate and rehabilitate select
American Center facilities to accommodate expanded audiences and
programming aimed at countering Russian disinformation in a strategic
region.
Question. Can you explain how public diplomacy programs fit in with
the State Department's ``countering violent extremism'' effort?
Answer. Much of the Department's public diplomacy work contributes
broadly to countering violent extremism, especially attempts by radical
and violent movements to attract impressionable youth. Over the past
year, there has been growing international recognition about the
importance of countering violent extremism (CVE) both as part of our
response to an increasingly diffuse and decentralized terrorism
landscape, and of our effort to develop a wider array of tools to
prevent the emergence of future terrorist threats. While we and our
allies and partners must defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant (ISIL) and other terrorist groups on the battlefield, we must
also counter the tactics these groups employ to attract new recruits
and the underlying conditions that fuel radicalization to violence.
The Department and USAID's strategic objectives on CVE are focused
on expanding partnerships, assisting governments in strengthening their
capabilities, and empowering locally credible voices to change
perceptions of violent extremism. The Department and USAID have
developed a multi-year strategy to guide our joint efforts that
combines proactive, future-oriented efforts to counter violent
extremism and reduce state fragility with specific approaches to
counter radicalization and recruitment to violence associated with
immediate threats. Public Diplomacy tools are essential in advancing
our ability to empower and amplify locally credible voices that can
change the perception of violent extremist groups and their ideology
among key demographic segments.
With support from the public diplomacy elements in the Department's
regional and functional bureaus, U.S. spokespersons, embassies, and
consulates around the world are fully and continuously engaged in
countering violent extremism using a variety of tools and programs that
promote U.S. foreign policy goals and perspectives, correct
misinformation, and build capacity in at-risk populations.
The new interagency Global Engagement Center (GEC) will lead the
coordination, integration, and synchronization of U.S. Governmentwide
communications activities to counter the messaging, and diminish the
influence, of international terrorist organizations with foreign
audiences abroad. A primary goal of the GEC is to better understand
what motivates target audiences to support violent extremism through
advanced data analytics. The Center also will engage top talent from
content development sources within the United States and abroad in
order to make its operations swifter and more agile and adaptive.
Recognizing the strategic value of partners in delivering key messages,
the Center will provide targeted resources enhancement to selected
partner organizations across the globe to enable them to create and
disseminate counter-Daesh content that draws upon relevant history and
culture and is locally resonant. Finally, the new Center will
strengthen and deepen interagency coordination, as well as expand
direct digital engagement in Arabic, Urdu, and Somali.
The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) continues to
encourage communities to counter extremist rhetoric and recruitment
through a robust array of professional, youth, cultural, and
educational exchange programs that support Countering Violent Extremism
(CVE) practitioners, strengthen community engagement and civil society,
advance free and responsible journalism, and encourage interfaith
dialogue and conflict resolution. The State Department is working to
expand people-to-people networks that build resilience in communities
susceptible to extremist rhetoric and recruitment and to engaging women
and youth from communities at risk.
High profile new ECA projects in 2016 include the Media Makers film
mentoring exchange, the Secretary's Emerging Young Leaders Award, and a
multi-regional International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP) project
for municipal leaders: Strong Cities: Building Community Resilience to
Radicalization and Violent Extremism. ECA has also created an Emerging
Young Leaders Award, the first iteration of which will be awarded in
April 2016, for youth who have contributed to positive social change in
challenging environments. Finally, the ECA-managed Peer to Peer (P2P)
Challenging Extremism program--funded by the Department of State, DOD,
DHS, NCTC, and private-sector companies such as Facebook--supports
American and international university teams in developing digital tools
and community resilience techniques to counter extremist narratives and
building networks of CVE practitioners.
The Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) has
increasingly focused its messaging content on counter-Daesh themes to
support more effective outreach by U.S. missions. It has to date
published more than 50 anti-Daesh stories on ShareAmerica (the
Department's platform for supplying U.S. posts overseas with social-
media friendly content on U.S. foreign policy priorities); posted more
than 500 articles countering Daesh narratives in foreign languages on
ShareAmerica and IIP Digital for messaging use by posts and other USG
entities; produced five videos to support the C-Daesh Coalition
workshops; and organized more than a dozen speaker programs on anti-
Daesh messaging and broader CVE themes. IIP has also supported
TechCamps focused on CVE messaging in Europe and Africa for journalists
and credible religious and youth voices.
The Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO) is
supporting the Department's efforts to integrate research and analysis
into CVE programming efforts. CSO has helped launch a new global
research network on CVE called RESOLVE: Researching Solutions to
Violent Extremism (RESOLVE) Network. The network will identify the
local drivers of violent extremism and offer evidence-based policy and
program recommendations to governments and policymakers at all levels,
which could include public diplomacy efforts. CSO has also developed
tools for posts and bureaus to use to assess risk in specific areas or
monitor CVE programs for their impact, and is helping posts and bureaus
apply these tools to their interventions.
Question. One of the Department's countering violent extremism
public diplomacy programs is the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism
Communications. We have been concerned the center's effectiveness. Now
the Department is planning to change to the Global Engagement Center.
What does this center do and how will this change make it more
effective?
Answer. The Global Engagement Center (GEC) will be charged with
leading the coordination, integration, and synchronization of
Governmentwide communications activities in order to counter the
messaging and diminish the influence of international terrorist
organizations with foreign audiences abroad. The GEC will also build
partnerships with third parties for message dissemination and develop
content for campaigns.
We must have a comprehensive understanding of the audiences we seek
to influence in order to be successful. Therefore, a primary objective
of the GEC is to better understand audiences likely to support violent
extremism, which it intends to accomplish through use of advanced data
analytics. During fiscal year 2016, it will devote nearly $1.5 million
to baseline research that will inform our content development. In
addition, the Center will employ $1.6 million to enhance our
capabilities to analyze dynamically data derived from social media.
This data analysis will help us better understand the foreign audiences
abroad that are most susceptible to influence from violent extremist
groups, as well as those audiences likely to support U.S. narratives,
thereby allowing us to more specifically tailor our messaging and
narrative development and to align our resources accordingly.
The Center will devote approximately $1.5 million of fiscal year
2016 funding to support counter-Daesh information campaigns, including
some managed by foreign partners. The Center also will engage top
talent from content development sources within the United States and
abroad in order to make its operations swifter and more agile and
adaptive. For example, the Center will fund original content created
both internally and by third parties for use by members of the Counter-
Daesh Coalition; this content will be hosted on the Global Coalition
Web site.
Recognizing the strategic value of partners in delivering key
messages, the Center will provide targeted resources enhancement to
selected partner organizations across the globe to enable them to
create and disseminate counter-Daesh content that draws upon relevant
history and culture and is locally resonant. For example, the Center
will provide modest additional funding for Arewa24, a major project
sponsored by the Bureaus of Counterterrorism and African Affairs that
embeds messaging against violent extremist narratives in general
entertainment programming. Modest additional funding from the Center
will deliver Arewa24's award-winning content to audiences of concern in
several more countries.
Finally, the new Center will strengthen and deepen the interagency
coordination commenced by the CSCC, as well as the direct digital
engagement for CVE purposes in Arabic, Urdu, and Somali that the CSCC
pioneered in 2010 and will devote approximately $600,000 to enhancing
the efficiency of this effort.
security assistance
Question. In recent years the administration has requested and
received substantially increased funding for programs that are intended
to build the capacity of foreign security forces and are managed by the
Department of Defense. In many places, particularly in Africa, this has
led to bilateral relationships that in practice amount to little more
than train and equip arrangements for foreign security forces, which
have a dubious track record with respect to the sustainability,
effectiveness, appropriateness, and value of the investment.
What is your assessment of the impact of this approach on the
Department of State's ability to ensure a whole of government, balanced
approach to U.S. engagement?
Answer. Security assistance is an important tool for building our
partners' capacity to address mutual security concerns, and supports
our foreign policy objectives, but train and equip programs alone
cannot produce the long-term outcomes we seek. Per the President's
policy on security sector assistance, the administration has
highlighted the importance of comprehensive approaches and reaffirmed
State leadership to ensure a holistic approach to advancing our foreign
policy objectives. A State lead in this area ensures effective foreign
policy oversight and the execution of holistic, deliberative country
and regional strategies; allows for a more careful balance of security
and other foreign engagement tools; prevents the militarization of
peacetime activities or the international perception of a militarized
foreign policy; and avoids the fragmentation of programs that
complicates planning and leads to unsynchronized programs and
bureaucratic redundancies.
However, broad pressure on the International Affairs budget has
significantly contributed to the expansion of security assistance
authorities funded out of the National Defense budget. While the
administration requires the assistance resources to meet its foreign
policy objectives, the significant growth of foreign assistance
authorities and funding outside of State hinders our ability to fully
balance defense, diplomacy, and development efforts and integrate all
activities abroad into State's whole-of-government foreign policy
strategies.
Question. It seems to me that spending tens of millions of dollars
on equipment and training for a developing country's security forces,
absent complimentary investments in social and economic programs that
benefit the people of the country, and commensurate political
engagement, as appropriate, sends the message that our only concern is
security today, not stability tomorrow. Do you agree?
Answer. The Department is concerned both with security today and
stability tomorrow. This requires a careful balancing and sequencing of
defense, diplomacy, and development investments. Training and equipping
without the commensurate investment in institutions and democratic,
transparent governance generates a perception that security--
specifically military security--outweighs our true interests in secure
and stable states that prioritize human rights and civilian security.
We make every effort, in collaboration with USAID, to ensure we are
investing in needed social and economic programs to help foster long-
term stability.
security force accountability
Question. Last year, your Department and the Department of Defense
finalized guidance on the process for remediating units and individuals
of foreign security forces that are deemed ineligible to receive U.S.
security assistance as a result of having engaged in a gross violation
of human rights, consistent with the Leahy Law. Remediation, as it is
called, is concluded when a foreign government takes effective steps to
bring to justice perpetrators of gross human rights violations. This
was always the intent of the Leahy Law, to ensure that the U.S. is not
complicit in such abuses, and to encourage accountability for those who
are.
Can you discuss the purpose of this policy and describe how it has
been implemented so far?
Answer. State and DOD finalized a joint remediation policy in 2015
to help ensure that the intent of the law to promote accountability is
realized. If both Departments determine that the government is taking
appropriate remediation measures, assistance may be restored, subject
to the required notification to Congress. Appropriate remediation
measures include impartial, thorough investigations, prosecutions, and
punishment.
Thus far there have been five successful remediation cases: one in
Mexico, one in Guyana, one in Georgia, and two in Afghanistan.
Question. What actions has the U.S. taken to encourage and support
foreign governments as they pursue justice in these cases?
Answer. The Department of State Leahy law calls for the United
States to ``assist the foreign government in taking effective measures
to bring the responsible members of the security forces to justice,''
and the U.S. engages with partner nations to ensure that perpetrators
of gross human rights violations are brought to justice. The Department
has engaged with multiple partner governments to provide assistance in
this area. Examples include:
--U.S. Forces-Afghanistan and the Embassy have engaged the Afghan
Government and security institutions to explain the law, its
impact, and steps that can be taken to remediate units. Over
the past year, we have seen positive actions and have been able
to re-engage with two units. In both cases, following Defense
Ministry investigations, perpetrators were convicted of murder,
and received punishments ranging from death to prison terms of
various lengths.
--U.S. Embassy personnel in Mexico have similarly engaged proactively
with the Government of Mexico. In one case, a Mexican army unit
was remediated after several members were tried, convicted, and
sentenced to prison for rape, sexual abuse, and assault.
--The State Department is working to ensure training for Iraqi
Government stakeholders on the U.N. Convention against Torture
and other international standards for the treatment of
detainees and suspects.
--State is also providing assistance to the Iraqi authorities in
their efforts to investigate disappearances, including
promoting cooperation between the Government of Iraq (GOI) and
the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) on missing persons;
working with authorities to amend the ``Law on the Protection
of Mass Graves''; integrating international norms concerning
the role and responsibility of states in regard to missing
persons in Iraqi legislation and implement legislative
requirements under the International Convention for the
Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance;
providing training, monitoring, and quality checking to Iraqi
ministries in the scientific investigation of mass graves and
crime scenes. This program also includes support to civil
society to develop their capacity to locate and identify the
missing, document crimes, and advocate for greater
accountability.
Question. Countries benefit financially when their troops
participate in U.N. peacekeeping missions, and it is a source of
national pride. What if governments knew that their troops would be
prohibited from participating if they do not appropriately punish those
who commit such crimes? Wouldn't that get governments to finally start
treating this seriously?
Answer. Our policy of promoting high performance standards in U.N.
peacekeeping includes our strong support for the U.N.'s repatriation
of, and the withholding of reimbursements to, non-performing and poorly
performing contingents. This policy applies in particular to
contingents where there is credible evidence of widespread or
systematic sexual exploitation and abuse, which is an affront to U.S.
values and interests and undermines local and global support for
peacekeeping.
The U.N. Secretary-General has committed to repatriating and to
withholding reimbursements from contingents where there is a
demonstrated pattern of SEA or non-response by troop- and police-
contributing countries (T/PCCs) to SEA allegations against their
personnel. Recently, with our strong encouragement, he ordered the
repatriation of the entire contingent from the Democratic Republic of
the Congo assigned to the U.N. peacekeeping mission in the Central
African Republic, the first time an entire contingent had been sent
home for misconduct. This contingent was replaced with troops from
Mauritania.
We anticipate that this example, and others that might follow, will
put increased pressure on T/PCCs to investigate and hold their
personnel to account to avoid the stigma and financial repercussions of
failing to address SEA allegations against their personnel.
With the additional capabilities pledged to U.N. peacekeeping as a
result of the September 2015 Leaders' Summit on Peacekeeping, co-hosted
by President Obama, the U.N. is building an increased supply of
trained, prepared, and equipped peacekeepers who will be available to
replace contingents that are performing poorly or engaged in widespread
misconduct.
Question. The prospects for a two-state solution are diminishing--
and the alternative is what? I do not see one, and I wonder if you do?
Answer. As we have repeatedly made clear, we believe that a two-
state solution is absolutely vital not only for peace between Israelis
and Palestinians, but for the long-term security of Israel as a
democratic and Jewish state at peace with its neighbors. In my remarks
this past December at the Saban Forum, I discussed what the
alternatives to a two-state solution would actually look like. The
reality is that there is no other viable option. A one-state solution
is no solution.
At this point, the question we must ask is what we can do to
advance the goal of two states living in peace. The status quo is
simply not sustainable, and current trends are imperiling the viability
of a two-state solution. These trends must be reversed in order to
prevent an untenable one-state reality from taking hold. We continue to
encourage Israelis and Palestinians to take affirmative steps which we
think are important to stop the violence, improve conditions on the
ground and restore confidence in the two-state solution. We will
continue to work with both sides and key international stakeholders on
a constructive way-forward on this critical issue.
Question. What would you tell the next U.S. President that the
Israeli and Palestinian leadership need to do--what specific actions or
commitments--before it would be worth another U.S. administration
expending more time and effort trying to help resolve that seemingly
intractable conflict?
Answer. We remain deeply committed to achieving a two-state
solution but as we have said many times, we are looking for both sides
to demonstrate a commitment to this goal in both words and deeds.
We continue to encourage Israelis and Palestinians to take
affirmative steps which we think are important to stop the violence,
improve conditions on the ground and restore confidence in the two-
state solution. The Quartet has outlined potential steps on the ground
that would reverse current trends and resume the Oslo transition in
ways that would not negatively affect Israel's security, such as
increasing Palestinian civil authority and strengthening the
Palestinian economy. The Palestinians must also meet their commitments
including combatting violence and incitement, improving governance, and
building their institutions.
Such steps could start the process of reducing tensions, building
trust, restoring a measure of hope, and creating some political space
for the critical decisions that will need to be made. Both Israelis and
Palestinians need to see a real political process that credibly leads
to their legitimate aspirations being met. This is what is ultimately
in the long-term best interest of both sides.
Question. Can you provide any examples, besides the release of
Mohamed Soltan after nearly 2 years in prison, of how President Al
Sisi's government is implementing laws or policies to govern
democratically, taking consistent steps to protect and advance the
rights of women and religious minorities, or providing detainees with
due process--as our law calls for?
Answer. President Sisi has been an outspoken advocate for advancing
the rights of women, but the Egyptian Government's implementation of
laws and policies to promote gender equality has been mixed. The new
House of Representatives includes 89 women, a substantial increase over
the 11 in the 2012 parliament, and President Sisi's cabinet of 33
includes four female ministers. The government launched a strategy to
end female genital mutilation and cutting (FGM/C), an area in which we
have seen progress due to the combined effort of the government, civil
society organizations, and the U.N., although strengthened enforcement
of laws against FGM/C is needed. The government has passed a new law
against sexual harassment and launched a strategy to combat violence
against women, but it has not taken tangible steps to fund or implement
these laws and policies.
During the Sisi presidency there have been some positive actions
and statements to send the signal that Christians are equal members of
Egyptian society, such his attendance at Coptic Christmas Mass. The
military completed, at the government's expense, the rebuilding of 26
of the 78 churches and other Christian buildings burned following the
removal of the Muslim Brotherhood-led government in July 2013. During
its limited tenure, the parliament has yet to enact new,
constitutionally mandated legislation on the construction and
renovation of Christian churches and the establishment of an
antidiscrimination commission. There are reports of increased
prosecutions for blasphemy under the ``denigration of religions'' law,
and most defendants convicted in such cases are members of religious
minorities.
Thousands of activists and opposition members remain in detention.
We remain concerned about limitations on equal protection and fair
trial guarantees, including arbitrary arrests, prolonged pre-trial
detention, military court prosecution of civilians and the use of mass
trials, which deny the procedural safeguards and fair trial guarantees
that would conform to Egypt's international human rights obligations.
We continue to have frank discussions with the Egyptian Government on
all of these issues.
Question. In the Sinai, where the Egyptian Government fails to
provide the Bedouin communities with economic opportunities and is
carrying out an ineffective military strategy, the terrorist threat is
growing. Some of the U.S. helicopters and weapons requested for Egypt
are intended for use there, but the Egyptian Government has refused
regular access for U.S. officials and the independent media. Do you see
any sign that they will provide this access, which is necessary for
purposes of monitoring how our assistance is used?
Answer. Despite repeated requests to allow U.S. Embassy Cairo
personnel to visit northern Sinai, the Egyptian Government continues to
deny access on the grounds that the area is an unsafe combat zone. We
continue to raise our concerns regarding access at senior levels. We
are meeting our legal obligations on end use monitoring of U.S.
equipment being used in Sinai.
We continue to offer training to increase Egypt's counter-terrorism
capabilities and have encouraged Egypt to adopt the doctrine and
tactics of asymmetrical warfare so it can effectively defeat Daesh. An
important element is the provision of overdue economic development and
to take every precaution to protect civilians during counterterrorism
operations to counter Daesh's appeal to the citizens of Sinai.
Question. Past attempts to pressure North Korea to halt its nuclear
and ballistic missile programs have failed. They now appear to have the
ability to land a missile on U.S. territory, and they are presumably
working to develop the capacity to fit it with a nuclear warhead. Which
governments are providing the technical and other assistance to North
Korea to do this, are any of them recipients of U.S. foreign aid, and
what besides deploying a high altitude missile defense system in South
Korea do you see as effective tools to stop it?
Answer. The United States continues to work closely with our
partners and the international community to address the global security
and proliferation threats posed by the Democratic People's Republic
ofKorea (DPRK's) nuclear and ballistic missile programs. This includes
engaging with governments unilaterally and multilaterally to implement
U.N. Security Council resolutions 1718, 1874, 2094, and 2270, which
prohibit the transfer to or from the DPRK of goods, technology or
assistance related to nuclear, ballistic missile, or other weapons of
mass destruction-related programs. In addition, we also rely on the
full suite of relevant U.S. unilateral sanctions measures to impede the
development of the DPRK's nuclear, missile and conventional weapons
programs.
We would be happy to address the full scope of your question in a
classified setting.
Question. I commend you for your efforts to open relations with
Cuba. It was the right decision for the people of both countries. Being
with you when the American flag was raised again at our Embassy last
August was one of the most uplifting events I have had the privilege to
witness.
One of the most promising changes I have seen in Cuba is the
growing number of private entrepreneurs. I have met several of them,
and they are no different from your typical Mom and Pop business in the
U.S.--except their biggest competitor is the Cuban Government.
If you had the funds and the support of Congress, what could the
U.S. do to help support private entrepreneurs in Cuba?
Answer. We believe the most effective way for the United States to
support private entrepreneurs in Cuba would be for the Congress to lift
the embargo and allow U.S. businesses and individuals to interact
freely with Cuban small business owners.
Notwithstanding the limits of the embargo, our policy of engagement
has further empowered a Cuban private sector that now employs at least
one in four Cuban workers. The number of self-employed Cubans has grown
remarkably, from 145,000 in 2009 to approximately 500,000 in 2015. The
private sector also includes a number of agricultural and non-
agricultural cooperatives.
Treasury and Commerce regulations now allow people in the United
States to send unlimited remittances in support of private businesses,
provide microfinance and entrepreneurial training activities, and
export a broad range of materials and supplies to Cuban entrepreneurs.
Our private sector has a lot to offer in this regard. Humanitarian
projects that provide educational training for budding Cuba
entrepreneurs are now authorized, and we encourage U.S. entities to
assist in providing such support. A more robust presence at our Embassy
would enable U.S. diplomats to support entrepreneurs more directly.
Full funding for full Embassy operation is needed to provide those
programs.
Just as we are doing our part to remove impediments that have been
holding Cuban citizens back, we are urging the Cuban Government to make
starting and running a small business less challenging. Steps the Cuban
Government could take include enabling non-state actors to import and
export directly (vice through a Cuban state entity), authorizing more
individual business activities beyond those 201 currently authorized,
facilitating more financing opportunities for entrepreneurs, and easing
a progressive tax on the hiring of employees that deters business
growth.
Question. Your fiscal year 2017 budget request--for I believe the
third or fourth year--includes a provision on consular notification
compliance. This has to do with the right of criminal defendants under
the Vienna Convention to be informed of their right to consult with
their consulate if they are arrested in the United States. The same
right is provided to American citizens if they are arrested in a
foreign country, where they may not speak the language, understand the
legal system, or know how to obtain a lawyer. They need the help of our
embassies. What difference does it make if we continue to fail to
address this?
Answer. Passing the Consular Notification Compliance Act is a
priority for the administration. Compliance with our legal obligations
related to consular notification and access ensures our ability to
protect U.S. citizens traveling and working abroad, including members
of our Armed Forces and their families.
The United States is severely hampered in its efforts to ensure
that other countries respect their obligations under the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations when U.S. citizens are detained abroad
if we do not respect our own obligations when foreign nationals are
detained in the United States. Where one country, especially an
influential country such as the United States, is seen to take a
cavalier approach toward its legal obligations, other countries can be
expected to take a cavalier approach to theirs, particularly when U.S.
citizens are involved.
The protection of U.S. citizens will always be a priority, and it
is important that we can continue to rely on the protections of the
Vienna Convention so that our consular officers can continue to provide
essential consular assistance to our citizens abroad. In fiscal year
2015, our consular officers conducted more than 9,392 visits with U.S.
citizens, who were arrested overseas. Our consular officers make a real
difference in the lives of thousands more U.S. citizens detained abroad
each year across the globe by ensuring that they have adequate food,
medical care, access to an attorney, and protection from abuse and
mistreatment while in prison.
Passage of the Consular Notification and Compliance Act is
essential to safeguarding our ability to provide these services to U.S.
citizens detained abroad.
Question. Last year we appropriated $750 million to support the
Plan for the Alliance for Prosperity in Central America. You have asked
for that amount for fiscal year 2017, which I support. Each of these
countries faces shocking levels of violence, which has contributed to
the surge in migration to the U.S., and corruption is a way of life for
their governments.
For example, in Honduras, journalists, civic activists, human
rights defenders, children and adolescents are among the hundreds who
are killed each week. A recent agreement with the OAS to address
organized crime, corruption, and impunity is a weak version of its
counterpart in Guatemala--due to resistance from the same Honduran
Government that claims to want to strengthen the rule of law. Do you
agree that we need to see real evidence that these governments are
serious about addressing these problems?
Answer. We have learned through Plan Colombia and the Merida
Initiative that sustained international assistance that balances
security, governance, and prosperity, combined with demonstrated
political will by regional governments and their respective private
sectors and civil societies, has the greatest potential to affect
positive change. The Northern Triangle governments of El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras will devote $2.6 billion in their own funding
in 2016 to support the Plan for the Alliance for Prosperity.
In Honduras, we support sustainable, credible, and effective
mechanisms that both enact institutional reforms to weed out systematic
corruption and provide support to justice actors who transparently
investigate and prosecute cases of corruption. No single mechanism can
solve Honduras' deeply embedded corruption problems.
The OAS Mission Against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras
(MACCIH), if properly funded, supported, led, and leveraged, can be an
important element in a more comprehensive, longer-term effort to tackle
corruption and improve governance and rule of law in Honduras. We will
be closely following the implementation of MACCIH to help ensure it
realizes these aims.
Furthermore, we provide assistance to the Honduran Government
focused on building its capacity to combat corruption and increase
government transparency. Many of these programs support the
government's work to root out corruption and reform the Honduran
National Police, as well as to increase the capacity of the Public
Ministry to successfully prosecute cases on corruption. The Honduran
Government's seriousness in these initiatives is imperative to
successfully address these issues.
Through cooperation with the Guatemalan Attorney General's office,
the U.N.'s International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala
(CICIG) continues to root out corruption at all levels of government.
Recent successes include the February arrests of tax authority
personnel accused of providing illegal tax refunds. On April 18,
President Morales requested CICIG's extension through 2019, reaffirming
his promise to institute a ``zero tolerance for corruption.''
El Salvador has demonstrated political will to combat corruption.
The Salvadoran Government has collected $17 million from the special
contribution tax for public security as of early May, enabling the
Attorney General (AG) to hire 100 prosecutors and support vocational
training for youth in high crime areas. In addition, the AG
strengthened the Salvadoran Anti-Corruption Unit, responsible for
investigating cases involving corrupt public officials, by implementing
an anti-corruption capacity-building program jointly with the United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Demonstrating its intent to
take on the hardest cases, this Anti-Corruption Unit opened an
investigation in March against a judge suspected of corruption, and
filed criminal charges against him.
Question. For many years under the George W. Bush and Obama
administrations, and despite multilateral sanctions, Iran made steady
progress towards building a nuclear weapon.
After devoting so much of your own time to the negotiations with
Iran to halt their nuclear weapons program, do you see any signs that
the Iranian Government is interested in improving relations with the
United States and other Western countries for any purpose other than
increasing its access to foreign markets?
Answer. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was a
significant achievement that, especially now that the deal is being
implemented, removes the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon and
contributes to regional stability. Our experience negotiating the JCPOA
demonstrated that engaging directly with the Iranian government on a
sustained basis can create a window to try to resolve important issues
with Iran. For example, we engaged with Iran in a humanitarian dialogue
regarding consular issues that resulted in the release of four U.S.
citizens held there unjustly.
While we continue to have strong disagreements with Iran and seek
to counter its destabilizing activities in the region, we also see that
diplomacy with Iran can work. This is why we are talking to all key
regional players, including Iran, about the conflict in Syria. This
engagement is clearly in our interest. However, it is up to Iran to
decide whether or not to continue to pursue more constructive relations
with not just the United States, but with the rest of the world as
well.
We are not trying to predict the internal dynamics in Iran.
Ideally, we would see a situation in which Iran, seeing sanctions
reduced, would start focusing on its economy, training its people,
constructively engaging with the world community, and lessening its
provocative activities in the region. If Iran chooses to build on the
constructive outcomes of the nuclear deal, it would lead to a better
future for the Iranian people.
Question. The number of State Department and interagency personnel
is decreasing, but the costs of construction and security continue to
rise. How does this make sense?
Answer. Afghanistan is and will remain a dangerous place for U.S.
diplomats and a costly place to do business. As we reduce staffing in
Afghanistan and consolidate operations in Kabul, we keep a constant eye
on how we can do our work effectively in the evolving security
environment, a process that includes looking for ways to lower the
number of staff in the field and off-shoring certain functions wherever
possible.
Security requirements magnify the challenges to our diplomacy and
greatly increase the support staff required for our mission. In order
to maintain a security posture congruent with current and future
security concerns, Diplomatic Security and the Bureau of Overseas
Buildings Operations have implemented additional security protocols and
installed upgraded physical and technical security measures. As we move
toward self-sustainment, Embassy Kabul is developing platforms closer
to the Embassy compound to better accommodate life support and security
contractors. Additionally, completed and ongoing construction projects
are providing housing and office space that allows us to consolidate
operations formerly distributed among multiple facilities across
Afghanistan, ensuring the safest, most effective platform possible to
enable our work.
Our diplomatic presence in Kabul is vital to U.S. national security
interests and to maintaining the viability of the Afghan Government.
There is no substitute for direct, face-to-face engagement by our
diplomats, assistance experts, and military to influence policy makers,
oversee accountability of assistance programs, and build Afghanistan's
ability to defend its own territory and govern effectively, so that it
can never again be used as a safe haven by terrorists to threaten the
United States.
Question. In 2003, a plan formulated by former Secretary of State
James Baker was accepted by the Polisario and unanimously endorsed by
the U.N. Security Council, but rejected by Morocco. Do you see any hope
for resolving this dispute?
Answer. Resolution of the outstanding dispute over the status of
Western Sahara would greatly advance the prospects for greater regional
cooperation and integration. Unfortunately, the parties have neither
engaged each other in direct negotiations nor offered new substantive
proposals for resolving the conflict since 2007.
We remain committed to the U.N.'s efforts on Western Sahara,
including those led by Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General
Christopher Ross, to achieve a peaceful, sustainable, and mutually
agreed solution to the conflict.
Question. What about at least expanding the mandate of the U.N.
peacekeepers to include human rights monitoring, which this
subcommittee has called for?
Answer. The United States fully supports current efforts by the
U.N. Secretary-General and his Personal Envoy for Western Sahara,
Ambassador Christopher Ross, to find a peaceful, sustainable, and
mutually agreed solution on the Western Sahara conflict. The United
States considers the Moroccan autonomy proposal for Western Sahara to
be a serious, realistic, and credible proposal--it represents a
potential approach that could satisfy the aspirations of the people in
the Western Sahara to run their own affairs in peace and dignity. The
United States has consistently encouraged the parties to work with the
United Nations and with each other, in a spirit of flexibility and
compromise, to find a mutually acceptable settlement.
The U.N. Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO)
plays a vital role in monitoring the ceasefire and military agreements
and in providing insights into of the situation on the ground in
Western Sahara. Its mission remains critical to the maintenance of
peace and security in the territory until the parties reach a just,
lasting, and mutually acceptable political solution, which will provide
for the self-determination of the people of the Western Sahara.
Addressing the human rights situation in Western Sahara, as well as
in the Sahrawi refugee camps, remains of utmost importance. We continue
to engage with all parties on the human rights situation in the
territory and reiterate our support for continued visits from the U.N.
Human Rights Council Special Rapporteurs and the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to the region. We appreciate the
Polisario's standing invitation for OHCHR to visit the refugee camps,
and note the OHCHR visits to Tindouf in August 2015 and to Western
Sahara in April 2015.
Question. What difference does it make for the United States or for
Israel if we contribute to UNESCO?
Answer. The administration continues to oppose unilateral actions
in intergovernmental bodies that circumvent outcomes that can only be
negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians, including Palestinian
statehood. However, it does not serve the U.S. national interest to
respond to Palestinian efforts or those of their allies by withholding
our contributions to U.N. specialized agencies.
Withholding of U.S. contributions could hinder the U.N. specialized
agencies from carrying out work we value highly, limit U.S. influence
in these organizations, and undermine our ability to pursue important
U.S. objectives--such as working against anti-Israel resolutions and
initiatives.
With respect to UNESCO, U.S. leadership at the organization is
critical in combatting anti-Israel bias, promoting freedom of
expression, countering and preventing violent extremism, protecting
cultural heritage, and supporting implementation of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development.
For example, during the 39th UNESCO General Conference (November
2015), the United States secured the removal of inflammatory language
in an Arab Group resolution on the Western Wall. The United States
consistently is the only reliable ``no'' vote on Palestinian
resolutions, and we continue to expand the number of member states who
have supported our position in defense of Israel in key resolutions. In
addition, the United States has consistently been a primary supporter
for UNESCO's unique Holocaust education program, which due to budget
shortfalls is at risk of ending.
Because of specific benefits of full participation in UNESCO, the
Department continues to seek congressional support for legislation that
would provide the administration with the authority to waive
restrictions that currently prohibit paying U.S. contributions to
UNESCO.
Over our objections, the member states of UNESCO voted to admit the
Palestinians as a member state in 2011. The United States has not paid
any part of the U.S. assessments to UNESCO for calendar years 2011
through 2016 as required by current law. As a result of our arrears,
the United States lost its vote in the UNESCO General Conference in
2013. The fiscal year 2017 request includes transfer authority to pay
up to $160 million (approximately 2-year's worth) of outstanding
assessments to UNESCO, should such a waiver be enacted.
Question. How does our strategy in Yemen account for avoiding
civilian casualties and ensuring that humanitarian aid reaches those in
need?
Answer. We are deeply concerned by the devastating toll of the
conflict in Yemen, both in terms of civilian casualties and the dire
humanitarian situation that Yemen faces.
We take accounts of civilian casualties due to the ongoing
hostilities in Yemen very seriously. We have urged all parties to
exercise restraint, take all feasible precautions to reduce the risk of
harm to civilians, and comply with their obligations under
international humanitarian law, including with respect to
differentiating between civilian objects and military objectives.
In addition to these diplomatic efforts, U.S. military officers
regularly meet with senior coalition military leadership and provide
recommendations to promote compliance with the Law of Armed Conflict
and to minimize civilian casualties. We continue to call on the
coalition to investigate all credible reports of incidents of civilian
casualties allegedly caused by airstrikes and to share the results of
these investigations publicly. Thus far, the Saudis have been receptive
to our efforts to engage with them on ways to reduce civilian
casualties in Yemen, and we will continue to monitor the effects of our
engagement. Saudi Arabia took responsibility for an October strike that
damaged a Doctors without Borders facility and announced the formation
of a commission in January to look into credible reports of incidents
that resulted in civilian casualties, both of which we consider
positive steps. We continue to press the Saudis to follow through on
their commitment to establish this commission and to make the results
of investigations public.
To help address Yemen's dire humanitarian situation, the United
States provided nearly $179 million in humanitarian assistance in
fiscal year 2015, which supports emergency food distribution, safe
drinking water, improved sanitation, emergency shelter, life-saving
medical care, nutrition services, and protection for vulnerable
populations in the region. We continue to call on all sides to allow
safe and unfettered access to humanitarian aid workers so that they can
reach populations in need. We also recently initiated a program to
support a $2 million contribution toward the U.N. Verification and
Inspection Mechanism (UNVIM) in order to screen ships for illicit cargo
while ensuring vital food, medical supplies, and fuel are delivered. By
facilitating quicker and more predictable entry of legitimate
commercial shipments into Yemen, this mechanism will promote economic
and political stability in Yemen and the region and also help alleviate
the ongoing humanitarian crisis.
Ultimately, there is no military solution to this conflict. We are
working diligently to support the U.N. Special Envoy in his efforts to
secure a cessation of hostilities and to resume negotiations.
Question. In the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus we provided Tunisia with
more aid than the administration requested. What specific steps has the
Tunisian Government taken to ensure a more open and transparent economy
and tackle corruption?
Answer. We share Congress' recognition of the importance of
Tunisia's example of democratic governance and how important combating
corruption is to that effort. The Government of Tunisia recognizes that
important and decisive steps must be taken to fight corruption in order
to fulfill the aspirations of the 2011 revolution. The Tunisian
Government has laid out an impressive Open Government Partnership plan
and is implementing it. Additionally, in January, Prime Minister Essid
created a ministry to improve public governance and fight corruption.
The government is currently standing up that ministry. In late 2015,
Parliament adopted the Competition and Prices Law to increase
transparency and improve regulation. The government is working on a
decentralization law that will, among other things, seek to increase
transparency and undercut corruption. The Ministry of Finance, with our
support, has done important work on streamlining and regularizing tax
and customs collection. The Tunisians recognize that more needs to be
done and we will continue to support these efforts.
Question. What impact do you expect the $74 million in economic aid
you have requested for Tunisia for fiscal year 2017 to have in
achieving these kinds of reforms?
Answer. Our fiscal year 2017 funding will support Tunisian efforts
to strengthen democratic institutions at national and local levels by
creating mechanisms for greater transparency and accountability as the
Government of Tunisia implements decentralization. We will also support
the Tunisian Government's implementation of critical procedural,
institutional, and legal reforms tied to enhanced transparency, good
governance, improved business environments, and decentralization as
well as parliamentary oversite of the government. This will include
continued support for our successful programs supporting tax and
customs reform. Programming will also strengthen the capacity of key
stakeholders such as civil society to serve as a watchdog over
Tunisia's Government and to hold it accountable to reform timetables.
Question. Your budget request for refugees and disaster assistance
is a bit higher than your request last year, but it is $1.1 billion
dollars below the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus.
Given that there are more refugees today than at any time in recent
history, and knowing what is happening in Iraq and Syria and the
hardships refugees are facing in Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey--as well
as in Africa--how do you explain cutting these programs?
Answer. The administration remains dedicated to providing strong
support for humanitarian programs worldwide. The President's fiscal
year 2017 request reflects the administration's ongoing commitment to
these programs. The fiscal year 2017 request includes $6.156 billion
for humanitarian assistance, including $1.957 billion for the
International Disaster Assistance Account, $1.35 billion for Food for
Peace Title II, $2.799 billion for the Migration and Refugee Assistance
Account, and $50 million for the Emergency Refugee and Migration
Assistance Fund. The overall fiscal year 2017 request for humanitarian
assistance is $511 million higher than the fiscal year 2016 request. In
concert with fiscal year 2016 resources, the request will enable the
U.S. Government to respond to the dire humanitarian situation resulting
from the conflicts in Syria, South Sudan, Iraq, Ukraine, Yemen, as well
as the humanitarian needs resulting from El Nino.
Thanks to generous support from the U.S. Congress, the U.S.
Government is the largest humanitarian donor in the world, including to
the crisis in Syria. We plan to continue our robust support in fiscal
year 2016 and fiscal year 2017 while urging other donors, including the
Gulf nations, to contribute to these ongoing emergencies. We will
continue to ensure that we are using funds as efficiently as possible
in order to meet current and unforeseen needs.
Question. There are signs that negotiations to reunify the island
could finally produce results. Is this wishful thinking, or do you
agree?
Answer. This is the best chance in decades for Cypriots to reunify
their island as a bizonal, bicommunal federation. Republic of Cyprus
President and Greek Cypriot leader Nicos Anastasiades and Turkish
Cypriot leader Mustafa Akinci continue to make progress on key elements
of the settlement in the Cypriot-led, U.N.-facilitated talks. The two
leaders, who are from the same hometown of Limassol, have developed a
strong rapport and remain committed to achieving a solution. Many
Cypriots on both sides of the island want to see a resolution to the
long-standing division of their island. In addition, senior Turkish
officials have publicly and privately indicated their support for a
settlement. The United States remains willing to assist the process in
any way the parties find useful.
Question. Under President Erdogan, censorship is on the rise in
Turkey. According to the State Department Human Rights Report
``[h]undreds of journalists faced criminal charges, many of them
multiple counts, for violations of the criminal code including
denigrating `Turkishness' or influencing the outcome of a trial as well
as offenses related to the anti-terror law.'' These prosecutions are an
effort to stifle dissent.
What steps you are taking to press President Erdogan to halt these
abuses?
Answer. We have expressed our deep concerns about the erosion of
media freedom in Turkey in high-level discussions with Turkish
officials as well as public statements at the highest levels. During
Vice President Biden's trip to Istanbul in late January, he explicitly
called on Turkey to uphold democratic principles and to protect freedom
of expression. In the wake of recent Turkish Government actions to use
appointed trustees to shut down or interfere with the editorial
operations of media outlets critical of the government , we made our
views very clear that a democratic society should respect the
expression of the full range of opinions, rather than silencing them.
We continue to engage the Turkish Government to encourage it to
uphold the universal democratic values enshrined in Turkey's
constitution, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, due
process and equal treatment under law.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator James Lankford
Question. For fiscal year 2017, you requested $250 million for the
Green Climate Fund, which now takes over where the Strategic Climate
Fund and Clean Technology Fund left off. Do you have a written
evaluation to quantify the success and effectiveness of the Green
Climate Fund?
Answer. The Green Climate Fund (GCF) Board, of which the United
States is a member, approved its first set of projects in November
2015. The GCF will require regular and transparent reporting on results
for the projects it finances and report this information to GCF Board
members. In addition, individual Board members will have the ability to
require the GCF Secretariat to submit other regular and ad-hoc reports
to the Board.
The GCF independent evaluation unit will conduct evaluations of the
effectiveness of GCF projects. The GCF will require fiduciary standards
and social and environmental safeguards that are among the strongest of
all multilateral funds.
Question. How are you going to evaluate the success and
effectiveness of the $750 million Congress is providing as part of the
Alliance for Prosperity in the Northern Triangle? Please be specific
about the metrics for success and how programs are evaluated in each
area you are targeting, such as judicial, prison, tax collection, drug
interdiction, criminal justice and security sector reform, etc. In
addition, what steps are you taking to be transparent and accountable
to the taxpayer? Are you going to publish how much money will be
awarded to faith-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other
American organizations?
Answer. U.S. support to Central America under the U.S. Strategy for
Engagement in Central America programmatically aligns in areas of
strategic overlap with the Alliance for Prosperity. The Department's
monitoring and evaluation activities regularly provide information to
guide the program development, design, and implementation of all
assistance implemented under the three lines of action of the Strategy:
prosperity, governance, and security.
Under the Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI), the
Department and USAID have established successful programming models
that are being replicated throughout communities across Central
America. Efforts to institutionalize modern policing techniques within
Central American law enforcement agencies include data-collection tools
to target law enforcement presence in underserved communities and those
where crime rates are the highest, advancement of police
professionalization and internal affairs, training on intelligence-led
policing, criminal investigations, operations and officer safety, and
certification of institutional practices and police academy curricula.
In areas where we have made U.S. assistance investments, particularly
through CARSI, we have seen reductions in important indicators of crime
and violence, such as homicides. We are now replicating successful
interventions.
USAID seeks to contribute to regional evidence and data collection
for each of the Strategy's lines of action. To do this, USAID develops
strategy- and project-level monitoring, evaluation, and learning plans
that make it possible to establish baselines and track the status of
programs it implements. These plans also outline what evaluations and
other types of analyses are needed to assess progress and any needed
adaptations in order allocate resources appropriately. For example,
under the prosperity pillar, we track our efforts to increasing
employment and education for citizens by measuring dollar value of
domestic and exports sales of assisted firms, number of jobs attributed
to our programs, and the number of out-of-school youth enrolled in our
education programs.
We coordinate closely with our Central American partners to
leverage their contributions to our shared efforts. As we implement the
Strategy we will adhere to Federal guidelines to solicit proposals for
programming in a transparent and competitive manner. Open competition
opportunities can be found through the public Web sites www.grants.gov
and www.fbo.gov.
We intend to comply fully with the fiscal year 2016 reporting
requirements for Central America and U.S. Government transparency
requirements. Information about the Department's foreign assistance
programs, including those involving Central America, is available on
the public Web sites www.usaspending.gov and www.foreignassistance.gov.
Question. As you, know, Mexico's poppy growth has grown over the
last several years, and heroin is pouring into the United States. Poppy
fields in Mexico are easily identifiable from the air--everyone knows
where the poppies are being grown. How are we working with the
Government of Mexico to (A) interdict drugs and traffickers crossing
the U.S.-Mexico border and (B) eradicate poppy fields in Mexico? Please
be descriptive about the process and extent of your department's
interaction with the Mexican Government on this issue.
Answer. Our bilateral dialogue with the Government of Mexico on
counternarcotics, and specifically on heroin, has led to enhanced
collaboration on this critically important issue. The Bureau of
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), under the
Merida Initiative, is working with the Government of Mexico to help
build the capacity of Mexico's law enforcement and rule of law
institutions to disrupt drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) and to
stop the flow of heroin and other drugs from Mexico to the United
States. This assistance includes training and capacity building for
police, enhancing Mexico's interdiction capabilities through the
donation of non-intrusive inspection equipment (NIIE) and support for
canine units, and assistance with Mexico's transition to an accusatory
justice system. INL is also augmenting Mexico's capacity to identify
and dismantle clandestine drug labs.
INL support to Mexican law enforcement agencies has augmented their
ability to coordinate with U.S. law enforcement agencies along the
U.S.-Mexico border. Merida Initiative funding has provided the Mexican
Government with the communications equipment and technical assistance
to enable the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) and the Mexican Federal Police to conduct coordinated
patrols of our shared border. Merida-supported implementation of the
Cross Border Secure Communications Network and Cross Border
Coordination Initiative provides direct communication between CBP
Sector Offices, Federal Police, and State C4 Command and Control
Centers at 10 locations along our shared border. INL is also working in
partnership with CBP to provide training to Mexican Federal Police
officers assigned to the northern border region.
The United States and Mexico are working to increase communication
and information sharing on the topic of heroin and methamphetamine. In
addition to discussions at high level security cooperation meetings, in
the last year INL funded bilateral heroin and methamphetamine seminars,
which brought together leading experts from both countries to share
information and strategies. We will continue to pursue additional ways
in which we can augment support for Mexico's counter-heroin efforts,
including in the area of poppy eradication.
Question. Do you have insight into how the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO) transfers money, which banks, and the role of the
Palestine National Fund, and any other financial nodes? Please provide
a full accounting of what we know about the PLO budget.
Answer. Since the creation of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in
1994, the PA has assumed responsibility for governing parts of the West
Bank and Gaza ceded to it as part of the Oslo Accords, while the PLO
has directed its resources towards achieving Palestinian statehood. We
understand the 2015 PLO budget to be $206 million. This budget is used
to support the PLO's political agenda, including the provision of
assistance to Palestinians living in refugee camps abroad and
supporting PLO missions overseas.
According to media reports, the PLO budget is funded in part by the
Palestinian National Fund (PNF). The PNF is led by Ramzi Khoury, a
close associate of PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. The total amount of the
PNF is unknown, and its actions opaque.
We would be happy to brief you and your staff on greater detail in
a classified setting.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Graham. The subcommittee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m., Wednesday, February 24, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]