[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MAINTAINING U.S. INFLUENCE IN SOUTH ASIA: THE FY 2018 BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 7, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-76
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
26-758 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina AMI BERA, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
PAUL COOK, California TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
RON DeSANTIS, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
TED S. YOHO, Florida DINA TITUS, Nevada
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois NORMA J. TORRES, California
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
Wisconsin TED LIEU, California
ANN WAGNER, Missouri
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific
TED S. YOHO, Florida, Chairman
DANA ROHRABACHER, California BRAD SHERMAN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio AMI BERA, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DINA TITUS, Nevada
MO BROOKS, Alabama GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
ANN WAGNER, Missouri
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Honorable Alice G. Wells, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau
of South and Central Asian Affairs, U.S. Department of State... 6
Ms. Gloria Steele, Acting Assistant Administrator, Bureau for
Asia, U.S. Agency for International Development................ 22
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Ted S. Yoho, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida, and chairman, Subcommittee on Asia and the
Pacific: Prepared statement.................................... 3
The Honorable Alice G. Wells: Prepared statement................. 9
Ms. Gloria Steele: Prepared statement............................ 24
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 46
Hearing minutes.................................................. 47
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement.......... 48
Written responses from the Honorable Alice G. Wells to questions
submitted for the record by:
The Honorable Ted S. Yoho...................................... 50
The Honorable Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada.............................................. 55
The Honorable Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California...................................... 56
MAINTAINING U.S. INFLUENCE IN SOUTH ASIA: THE FY 2018 BUDGET
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in
room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ted Yoho
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Yoho. The subcommittee will come to order. Members
present will be permitted to submit written statements to
include in the official hearing record. Without objection, the
hearing record will remain open for 5 calendar days to allow
statements, questions, and extraneous material for the record,
subject to length limitation in the rules.
Well, good morning. The subcommittee assembles today to
discharge our responsibility to conduct oversight of the
administration's fiscal year 2018 budget request for South
Asia. Today, we will discuss requests for Bangladesh, India,
the Maldives, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, reserving Afghanistan and
Pakistan until next week when we will convene jointly with the
Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa.
It goes without saying that South Asia is an increasingly
consequential part of the globe. For a long time, the world's
center of gravity has been shifting to the East, and the Indian
Ocean region is a major part of this trend. The five nations we
will discuss today--Bangladesh, India, the Maldives, Nepal, and
Sri Lanka--have about 1.5 billion residents combined,
comprising nearly 20 percent of the world's population.
These nations are located along, or on top of, vital global
sea lanes through the Indian Ocean which grows more
strategically important by the day. Connecting vital straits
and rising Asian economies in the East with the rest of the
world and its energy to the West, the Indian Ocean has
significant implications for security and trade across the
globe.
Despite the immense strategic economic importance of these
nations, this year's State and Foreign Operations Congressional
Budget Justification shows the administration tends to slash
our commitments to them by 48 percent. Under the
administration's request, this region is the hardest hit by
cuts after Europe and Eurasia.
As I stated during the subcommittee's last budgetary
oversight hearing, I commend the administration's efforts to
increase fiscal responsibility, but I am concerned that cutting
the budget to an arbitrary dollar amount has been prioritized
over the actual value of the individual programs. It is worth
reiterating that even before this year's foreign operations
budget was slashed by 30 percent, it accounted for just 1
percent of annual Federal outlays.
Dramatic cuts to foreign aid are not the way to rein in our
out-of-control government spending, especially if they
undermine U.S. interests. Sound business logic dictates that we
should continue projects that deliver a good return on
investment, but this year's request seems to de-fund a number
of initiatives that significantly benefit our national
interest.
In Sri Lanka, for example, U.S. foreign assistance will be
cut by 92 percent, mostly from accounts that have supported
programs to promote the rule of law, democratic reforms, post-
Civil War reconciliation, and related efforts. These programs
are cost-effective ways to contribute to Sri Lanka's
transformation while pursuing a partnership in strategically
critical locations. Even at their height in 2016, U.S.
assistance commitments to Sri Lanka were about 42.5 million,
and that is a bit less than half the cost of a single F-35
fighter jet. That seems like a reasonable investment to gain a
friend in one of the world's most critical sea lanes.
While we are forming a large Millennium Challenge
Corporation compact with Sri Lanka, the MCC will focus on
economic activities. I am concerned that by changing course so
drastically we want to make sure that we are not throwing away
the investments we have already made in Sri Lanka, leaving a
gap in the democracy and governance programs Sri Lanka badly
needs and potentially forcing the closure of our USAID mission.
Requests for other nations in this region raise similar
questions. Assistance of the Maldives which faces seriously
security risks will be cut by 87 percent. Assistance to India
and Nepal will each be cut by about 60 percent. Amid the rising
strategic and economic importance of the Indian Ocean region,
these numbers raise a serious risk of sending the wrong message
about our understanding of the region and our commitment to
stay engaged.
As in any business, it is important to look at what
investments are competitors are making. As we reduce our
commitments in South Asia, China is expanding there like never
before leveraging huge infrastructure projects to rapidly
become the preferred partner in locations across the Indian
Ocean. We have all heard the cliche that nature abhors a
vacuum.
This morning as we discuss the fiscal year 2018 budget
requests for these five nations, I am interested in hearing
from the witnesses how the reductions of our commitments will
affect U.S. security and economic interests in the Indian Ocean
and how our partnerships will fare. I also hope our
conversation will answer a comparatively simpler question: Does
this budget represent a step forward in our partnership in
South Asia?
Without objections, the witnesses' written statements will
be entered into the hearing, and I now turn to the ranking
member for any remarks he may have.
[The opening statement of Mr. Yoho follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had this brilliant
opening statement to talk about the budget cuts. You,
unfortunately, already laid it out in a level of eloquence that
I would not try to match.
Mr. Yoho. I read your notes before you got here.
Mr. Sherman. I want to associate myself with your comments
that this is not the time to be cutting our foreign operations,
particularly in the South Asia area.
My district includes most of the studios. I love actors. We
have before us an acting assistant secretary and an acting
assistant administrator, but on this one occasion I would
prefer not to be talking to actors. The idea that is this the
fault of the Senate and the confirmation process, I am always
in favor of blaming the United States Senate. I have done it in
this room many times. But the folks have not been nominated
yet.
The Senate is controlled by Republicans and they have
changed their rules so it takes only 50 votes, only Republican
votes, to confirm. This is not a confirmation problem, this is
an appointment problem. The Secretary of State and I have
talked about this. He says, but the acting people are doing
well, doing spectacularly well, to which my response has been
fine, Ambassador Wells should be given the job permanently.
And I don't have a response. I didn't single you out,
actually. But in general, the people he praises ought to be
given the job on a permanent basis. The idea that we go from
Obama appointees to acting and then to other appointees,
perhaps all in 1 year, puts our foreign policy in disarray.
With regard to reaching out to the people of South Asia, I
think it is critically important that we look at broadcasting.
I will be asking just how involved you are, Ambassador Wells,
in talking to the folks that control our international
broadcasting. I think they try to match our foreign policy
objectives in selecting which countries to broadcast to and in
which languages, but I think they often don't get much guidance
from the State Department.
But what is worse is this committee has urged them to start
broadcasting in the Sindhi language and other languages of
Pakistan, starting with Sindhi, and they have always found a
reason not to do so even though the cost would be, I think,
less than it costs to operate an aircraft carrier for 1\1/2\
minutes.
So I think we will learn from your testimony just how
problematic the situation in Pakistan is. You are dealing with
a nuclear state that is not always consistently friendly with
the United States and apparently, even in its military city of
Abbottabad, can't find a compound inhabited by Osama bin Laden.
And yet we are only reaching out in Urdu, the language the
government might prefer us to broadcast in, but not the
language used by thousands and thousands of businesses who try
to reach out to consumers. They know what they are doing when
they try to sell soap; we should be in the same language.
India, Afghanistan--the President and I know from other
sources, has doubled down on this idea of encouraging India to
be involved with Afghanistan. India, it is a poor country, but
one question is whether it should have a foreign aid program at
all. If it doesn't have a foreign aid program it has immediate
neighbors like Nepal and Bangladesh whose needs far exceed
India's capacity to provide, and yet India is spending foreign
aid money in Afghanistan. It is a geopolitical effort to deal
with Pakistan, and one that we should not encourage.
The Durand Line, between the border between Afghanistan and
Pakistan, has not been recognized by the Afghan Government and
we ought to condition our aid to Afghanistan on the recognition
of that line. I realize that is tough, they will say oh, don't.
But the fact is, as long as Afghanistan leaves open the idea
that they are claiming Pakistani territory, it is going to be
very hard to get the Pakistanis involved as we need them
involved in controlling the Afghan Taliban.
Certainly Pakistan sees its enemy as India, and the idea
that India would have a close relationship with an Afghanistan
that hasn't recognized the border and with whom they share the
Pashtun ethnic group, shows that this particular foreign aid
program of India should not be on the top of our list when we
talk to the Indians about how they can use their scarce
resources to help the most desperately poor people in the
world.
So I look forward to talking about these issues, and trade,
as the questioning begins.
Mr. Yoho. I thank the ranking member. And I know you will
be excited that next week we will have the hearing on
Afghanistan and Pakistan with the full committee and so we will
fulfill that.
We are thankful to be joined today by the Honorable Alice
G. Wells, Acting Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of South
and Central Asian Affairs at the U.S. Department of State, and
I appreciate your time yesterday with the briefing; and Ms.
Gloria Steele, again back talking to Us, Acting Assistant
Administrator for the Bureau for Asia in the U.S. Agency for
International Development.
And with that we are going to let you go ahead and give
your statement. Your statement, you will have 5 minutes, red
light, you know, turn your red light on so that the microphone
is on. You will have your timer there. And Ambassador Wells, if
you would, your opening statement. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ALICE G. WELLS, ACTING ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, BUREAU OF SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ambassador Wells. Thank you Chairman Yoho, Ranking Member
Sherman, and Representative Brooks. Thank you for inviting me
to testify on the fiscal year 2018 foreign assistance
priorities for South Asia, and in my oral remarks today I will
briefly summarize my written statement which has been submitted
for the record.
It is an honor to appear before the subcommittee as both,
Acting Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia and as
Acting Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The
reintegration of the State Department's policy offices for
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and South Asia is improving coordination
and will enable us to more effectively advance U.S. national
security interests across the region.
Today, a quarter of the world's population, 1.7 billion
people, live in South Asia. It is the fastest growing region in
the world with almost half the population under the age of 17.
This drives economic growth, expected to be above 7 percent
from 2018 onwards, along with unprecedented opportunities for
trade. Nowhere are these opportunities greater than in the
growing road, air, and sea links between India, Bangladesh,
Burma, Nepal, and Sri Lanka and the rapidly expanding ASEAN
economies.
Seventy percent of the infrastructure required to sustain
and support the India of 2030 has yet to be built. This will be
an enormous opportunity for U.S. companies that have the
technology and expertise. For example, Boeing alone foresees a
market for 2,000 commercial aircraft in South Asia over 20
years. The region's growth has the potential to create \1/2\
billion new customers for U.S. businesses in consumer goods,
financial services, technology, infrastructure, the health
sector, energy, education, tourism, and more.
In 2014, the United States exported more than $22 billion
worth of goods to Southeast Asia, making us the region's number
one trading partner. These exports support thousands of jobs
and as the region rises thousands more are likely to be created
as a result.
India is one of our most important strategic partners and a
country of growing political and economic importance globally
with which our values and national interests increasingly
align. U.S. assistance to the Indian Government contributes to
meeting the basic needs of the Indian people, helping India to
devote more attention to the regional and global leadership
roles to which it aspires and which the United States supports.
Bangladesh is a key partner for the United States. Despite
its development and security challenges, Bangladesh sustains
global peace with over 7,000 police and armed forces deployed
to ten U.N. peacekeeping operations. It contributes to global
food security and can provide a moderate alternative voice to
countering violent extremism. In recent weeks, Bangladesh has
also demonstrated its continuing commitment to host large
numbers of Rohingya refugees.
U.S. assistance will continue to strengthen Bangladesh
against the threats of radicalization, support Bangladesh as a
global model and humanitarian in development and poverty
reduction, and promote a trade and investment environment
conducive to U.S. companies. And in one of the poorest
countries of the world, our assistance to Nepal helps
strengthen democracy and improve transparency and
accountability. With an MCC compact expected to be signed
shortly, we will assist the Nepali Government in transforming
its energy and transportation sectors.
Since Sri Lanka's historic January 2015 elections, the
United States has been partnering to make its workers more
skilled, citizens more empowered, while ensuring that the
government continues its ambitious reform agenda. As Sri Lanka
implements its reform objectives and in accordance with limits
set by Congress, our modest military-to-military engagement has
expanded slowly and incrementally. Our 2018 requests support
security and maritime cooperation and enhance strategic trade
controls.
In the Maldives we have real concerns about the status of
rule of law and democracy. Maritime security is also a great
concern due to threats posed by narcotics trafficking, piracy
in the Indian Ocean, and seaborne trade in illicit materials of
potential use for terrorist activity. Our foreign assistance
request continues targeted support for maritime security
cooperation.
South Asia remains among the least economically integrated
regions in the world and non-tariff barriers are a major cause.
Their regional programs will target the elimination of non-
tariff barriers and the facilitation of regional trade and
investment.
In conclusion, South Asia is at the crossroads of the Indo-
Pacific region whose sea lanes are critical to the security and
prosperity of the United States. By promoting a common vision
of economic growth, transparent development, accountability,
and regional integration, the policies and programs supported
by our fiscal year 2018 request will ensure that the United
States continues to be a leader in advancing regional unity and
stability.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to working with you and your staff.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Wells follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Yoho. Thank you for your opening statement, Ambassador
Wells.
Ms. Steele?
STATEMENT OF MS. GLORIA STEELE, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
BUREAU FOR ASIA, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Steele. Chairman Yoho, Ranking Member Sherman,
Representative Brooks, Representative Connolly, thank you for
inviting me to testify on the President's budget request for
development assistance in South Asia. The President's budget
request for USAID in the South Asia region is approximately
$190 million. This request supports activities in Bangladesh,
Nepal, and India--three countries in vastly different stages of
development.
In Bangladesh, the country finds itself at an important
crossroads in its democratic evolution and economic growth.
USAID has a diverse program helping to address the underlying
factors that impede the country's progress and stability. Much
hinges on the success of Bangladesh's secular democracy in
preventing violent extremist attacks. The budget request
supports USAID's program to strengthen citizen participation
and government accountability. We are intensifying efforts to
address the threat of violent extremism and recently awarded a
new flagship project that will work to prevent recruitment of
members of vulnerable groups by confronting key drivers.
Advancements in agriculture have helped to drive poverty
reduction and inclusive economic growth in Bangladesh over the
past decade.
But to continue this progress the country needs to shift to
high-value agriculture. USAID is promoting crop
diversification, market access, and modern farming practices to
help farmers make this transition. We are also supporting
improved disaster preparedness and natural resource management
to sustain these gains amid frequent natural disasters and
competition for scarce resources. On health, the budget request
supports our continued efforts to improve maternal and child
health, mitigate the spread of tuberculosis, and prevent
chronic malnutrition and undernutrition.
In Nepal, more than 10 years following the end of its civil
war, the government is hampered by constant leadership changes
and unresolved drivers of conflict. These include limited
inclusion of traditionally marginalized populations and weak
governance to meet public demand for quality services. The 2015
earthquake was a significant setback for Nepal, pushing an
additional 800,000 people into poverty.
This budget request supports USAID's efforts to help
fortify Nepal's fragile democracy, shore up its economic
growth, and address persistent challenges in education,
maternal and child health, and nutrition. So far this year, our
support for the Government of Nepal has been critical in
holding two phases of credible, broadly participatory local
elections, the first in 20 years.
USAID assisted with nine election-related bills as well as
voter education initiatives and political party candidate
training for women and members of other traditionally
marginalized groups. The elections mark a historic devolution
of power and resources to the local level, giving the people a
stronger voice. As we support Nepal's transition to a
democratic state with functioning local governance, we continue
to support the combined national and provincial assembly
elections scheduled for November 26th and December 7th.
With 80 percent of Nepalis engaged in subsistence
agriculture, USAID is working to modernize farming methods in
order to improve productivity and increase incomes. At the same
time, we are working to catalyze economic growth through
agricultural commercialization and increased agribusiness
competitiveness. Our agricultural programs contributed to a 36
percent decrease in poverty in the targeted areas where we
worked in the past 3 years.
In India, although significant development gains have been
made the country is still home to one-fourth of the world's
extremely poor. Inequities abound particularly in health. More
than 40 million Indians, a population equal to that of
California, are pushed into poverty each year because of health
care costs and illness-induced low productivity. Moreover,
India accounts for roughly one-fifth of global maternal and
child deaths and one-fourth of the world's new TB cases.
Given its population of 1.3 billion, India's capacity to
effectively respond to its pressing health challenges has
proved understandably challenging. With a focus on improving
maternal and child health and preventing the spread of TB, the
budget request enables us to demonstrate high-impact models and
approaches that more efficiently and effectively direct India's
own resources to save lives. For example, India now uses a
cloud-based patient feedback system that USAID helped them to
develop in order to ensure better accountability and governance
of services in hospitals.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Sherman, committee members,
thank you for your support. Investing in global development
progress remains in our national interest. In supporting the
world's most vulnerable populations and in helping to build
more stable, open, and prosperous societies, we strengthen our
own security and help to generate new economic partners. Our
efforts are both from and for the American people and reflect
core American values of freedom, democracy, and stability.
Thank you, and I look forward to your counsel and questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Steele follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Yoho. I have to commend both of you. You were right on
time, under the marker. That is good.
I find this so important that we are talking about this
today. Outside of India which is the largest democracy, and us
being the oldest democracy, I see the South Asia region being a
fledgling democracy area. When I look at Sri Lanka going
through the civil war that they did, they had for 30-some
years, now that we have a democracy in place, a fledgling one
since what, 2015. The insight that we have coming from the
business world is not to put good money after bad.
We wanted to make sure that the investment we made stays,
and the long-term benefit of that is there in the long term so
that we can make sure there is rule of law and democracies that
continue to foster those relationships in trade, economics,
security, and cultural exchanges. It is so important that we do
that.
I know we are going through some fiscal challenges in our
country, there will be austerity measures as we have seen, but
that doesn't mean you move away from the investments we have
already made. We want to make those stronger. And so as we move
from some of the maybe cuts from 96 percent, but we see MCC
coming in there and investing what is it, $500 million,
roughly, in Sri Lanka, that we invest in the roads and the
infrastructure and we build an economic base for those
countries to build upon and it is so important that economic
connectivity gets built upon.
And for Ambassador Wells, it is unclear that in the fiscal
year 2018 budget the amount of funds that are requested to
further the Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor initiative, could
you give us a breakdown of the amount of funds that you think
are necessary for this initiative to be successful?
Ambassador Wells. Thank you. I just returned from Sri Lanka
where I had an opportunity to meet with the President, Prime
Minister, Foreign Minister, and leadership, and we had a very
good conversations on Sri Lanka's need to continue along the
road of reconciliation, what is a fragile post-conflict
society, the important commitments that the government made
with our assistance to the United Nations and our determination
to help Sri Lanka meet those commitments.
I heard firsthand from the Sri Lankan leadership that they
understood that they needed to intensify, that they are now
starting to operationalize mechanisms like the Office of
Missing Persons. They undertook the constitutional reform was
going to continue and move forward. I think our role, our
diplomatic role in ensuring that that reconciliation process
continues is critical and we are deeply engaged with the Sri
Lankan leadership in that conversation and have been since the
dramatic formation of the national unity government.
In terms of the reductions in assistance, I mean there has
been again a rationalization of our assistance across the
board. But what I would emphasize is that ironically in Sri
Lanka we are the largest grant provider of assistance. China is
providing non-concessional loans that promote unsustainable
debt burdens which I think are increasingly now of concern to
the Sri Lankan people and the government, but what we bring to
our relationship are multiple tools.
And so when I stand back and look at the totality of the
relationship, how we have begun to engage incrementally on
military-to-military engagement--we are going to have our first
naval exercise in October--we have provided excess defense
article equipment so that the Sri Lankans can perform more
effectively as a maritime nation. We are starting an IMET
program, moving from the enhanced IMET to a traditional
professionalization courses IMET. Then you add to that our
negotiation of a compact, we are actually close to, with
congressional notification, a compact in Nepal.
The Sri Lanka compact is in the process of being
negotiated. We have allocated a little over $7 million this
year to continue that process of defining what an MCC compact
would look like and we would like to reach a compact by 2018.
But that is, the kind of assistance that we bring is thought
out, transparent, involves the public-private sector, has buy-
in for civil society. The kind of investment that we make in
Sri Lanka, I think, is deeply valued by both the government and
the people. When I met with civil society representatives,
including the leader of the Tamil opposition, they very much
want to see a U.S. role and welcome our commitment to expanding
both the economic as well as the diplomatic portion of our
relationship.
So I recognize that there has been a significant percentage
reduction in the ESF, but I think outside of ESF we are using
our tools to reinforce a message of reform and to bring Sri
Lanka into a space where they too will institutionalize the
principles of the Indo-Pacific. Freedom of navigation,
transparency, non-militarization, humanitarian assistance and
disaster relief at its core, and I think we are making good
progress there.
Mr. Yoho. I appreciate you bringing that up because it is
so important, because we see how China has invested and it is
loans, and they get them to where they are unsustainable and
then they get into a situation where we saw the 99-year lease
in Sri Lanka. And the investment that we want to do, we want
them long term and it is to grow their economy, their economic
base, the jobs for their youth. You said half the population in
South Asia is under the age of 17.
I found it astounding that you said 70 percent of the
infrastructure needed by 2013 is yet to be built. I think with
our business model, our relationships in investing in their
country for their economic development is the way to go versus
funding or loans as China does, and we see that all over the
world. And it is important the jobs that both of you do, all of
our diplomatic core as they represent the United States of
America to concentrate on that economic development, because if
it is the economic development they have they are going to
guard it, they are going to protect it, and it is going to make
our alliance stronger. So I commend you.
I am out of time, and I know, Ms. Steele, you had something
to say, but hopefully we can come back to you. I am going to
turn to the ranking member. Thank you.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again you have
shown brilliance by starting your questioning regarding Sri
Lanka. I will imitate that brilliance.
As I understand it Ambassador Wells, we are talking about a
92 percent decline in our aid to Sri Lanka. Does this request
include any support for reconciliation and reform efforts in
Sri Lanka, and what signal are we sending with a 92 percent
reduction? Ambassador?
Ambassador Wells. I turn to my colleague to discuss the
specific USAID programs, but again I recognize the severity of
the percentage decline in the ESF but I would point to the
totality of our programs. On the reconciliation side,
diplomatically, we have always been the leading partner in
driving the original agreement with Geneva which produced the
government's historic----
Mr. Sherman. So we do a great job of talking, which is what
diplomats and congressmen do, but in my world money talks and a
92 percent decline in money cannot be covered up by eloquence
or good offices or even the art of the deal negotiations.
Ms. Steele, we are talking about $3.3 million. That is
basically--I hesitate to ask you about the aid for Sri Lanka
because it has basically been zeroed out. I am sure Congress
will not do that. But can you support reconciliation reform
with $3.3 million?
Ms. Steele. Mr. Sherman, we have invested $70 million since
2015 and we worked in reconciliation, economic growth, and good
governance. We have been using those resources which continue
to be still available, some of them, to build their capacity to
continue to be able to do what we started out to do.
Mr. Yoho. Ms. Steele, thank you. I do want to go on to the
next question.
I am sure Ambassador Wells, you are well aware of the
Rohingya. As additional background, America saved the people of
Kosovo by bombing a Christian country. We saved the Muslims of
Bosnia. So my question is twofold. First, are we going to
cajole or pressure Aung San Suu Kyi and the Government of
Burma, Myanmar, to start respecting these people's rights, to
change their legal structure so that groups that have been
there for 100 years and longer are given citizenship; and
secondarily, what are we going to do so that Muslims around the
world know that we saved the Muslims of Kosovo and Bosnia, and
here we are playing in a major role or what I hope will be a
major role, in saving those of Southwest Burma?
Ambassador Wells. Thank you. When I was in Bangladesh it
was at the onset of the refugee influx. At that time it was
about 20,000. It is now over 160,000, I believe, and the human
tragedy is compelling. What we have worked to do is both to
assist Bangladesh in responding to the crisis we are waiting--
--
Mr. Sherman. Ambassador, the easy thing is to just throw
money at refugees in Bangladesh.
Ambassador Wells. In addition----
Mr. Sherman. How tough are we going to be on the Burmese
Government?
Ambassador Wells. In addition to the assistance we will
provide to the--are providing and will continue to provide to
the Bangladesh Government, the U.N. had a--Kofi Annan went out
and did a report on the situation which produced several
recommendations including recommendations like a joint
commission on border management. We are working to see how we
can have both countries sit down and implement some of those
recommendations. But I agree with you that this is a crisis and
there needs to be both a humanitarian and a political response
to it.
Mr. Sherman. But does Aung San Suu Kyi recognize her debt
to those of us and millions and millions of Americans who
worked for democracy in her country and are now watching the
government over which she has significant influence carry out
these atrocities?
Ambassador Wells. I am afraid I am not able to speak for my
colleague, Acting Assistant Secretary Susan Thornton, but
from----
Mr. Sherman. Okay. So your jurisdiction does not include--
--
Ambassador Wells. It does not.
Mr. Sherman. Okay. And if I can sneak in one more question,
when a business asks for the help of the State Department and
says it is important, do you look at how many jobs are involved
in the project or could you end up working just as hard because
a big business looking for a foreign supplier to be helped,
looking to license IP, looking to do things that are very
profitable for the company but involve very few jobs? Do you
have a jobs analysis that guides you in determining how much
effort to put into an economic request?
Ambassador Wells. Our goal is always to support American
business and analyses are done of the individual proposals and
their effect on creation for U.S. jobs. Companies have to
petition to the U.S. Department of Commerce in order to receive
advocacies, specific advocacy for that company, in which case
they have to be the only American company competing to have
specific recognition.
Mr. Sherman. But if you have two projects, one in one
industry, one in another industry, they are the only American
companies--one, they both will produce $100 million worth of
profit for the companies, but one will produce a lot of jobs
and one is just IP licensing, what mechanism do you have to
prioritize the jobs profits over the licensing profits?
Ambassador Wells. We will advocate for all U.S. companies
under that circumstance.
Mr. Sherman. Okay. I yield back.
Mr. Yoho. Yeah, we will probably do three rounds. The
wisdom of Congress is that we book all of our meetings at the
same time and so people who are on the Judiciary--and you know
how it goes. Anyways, let's move on.
I would like to talk about the Maldives. Being an island
nation of 393,000 people, roughly, it represents a growing
terrorist threat. They are one of the largest sources of ISIS
fighters per capita in the world operating abroad. Knowing
that, what is the administration's reasoning for nearly
eliminating the already modest U.S. assistance commitment to
the Maldives? Ms. Steele?
Ms. Steele. We recognize that violent extremism is a very
important issue in the Maldives and we are in the process of
putting together an assessment team to take a look at what we
can do to help address the drivers of violent extremism in the
Maldives at this time.
Mr. Yoho. Okay. Ambassador Wells, do you have any comment
on that?
Ambassador Wells. We are also assessing how we can enhance
our information sharing relationship with the Maldives in order
to counter terrorism, counter violent extremism while at the
same time recognizing that the government, the President, has
consolidated control, has stripped the authority of many
democratic institutions. There are complications and challenges
in working with the Government of the Maldives.
Mr. Yoho. Okay, let me ask you both because we hear about
the cuts for Sri Lanka but we don't talk about the investment
of MCC of $500 million, roughly. Are the other countries, are
we at a point where MCC is going into Bangladesh, the Maldives,
Nepal, have we looked at business models? Because the way we
invest on those we hold the countries accountable with the
metrics that are set up in those and it is more of an
investment in the infrastructure and business.
What are your thoughts on that, say, for the Maldives? Have
we looked at that?
Ambassador Wells. The MCC has very rigorous standards and
criteria for countries to be eligible for compacts. Currently,
within the South Asia region it is Nepal and Sri Lanka who are,
Nepal is at the end stage of negotiating the compact and Sri
Lanka is at the beginning. So the criteria will still need to
be applied so there is no movement at this stage to consider a
compact for the Maldives.
Mr. Yoho. Okay. And in your experience in the countries
that have used the MCC business model do you find that more
effective than just foreign aid through USA--through some other
form versus, you know, just giving money out and doling it out
like we have done in the past in other countries?
Ambassador Wells. I think they are very complementary and I
will turn to Gloria. But my personal experience is that the MCC
and its ability to do public-private partnerships, to tap in
the government and the business community, and to implement
gender-related components to it has been very useful in
multiple compacts. But it doesn't substitute for all the other
assistance work that we do. Gloria?
Ms. Steele. Yes. When I was in the Philippines, I was
Mission Director in the Philippines before coming here and we
had an MCC compact there as well as a robust Partnership for
Growth program run by USAID, and they are complementary. They
don't actually--they don't substitute for one another. We work
on very specific issues that are of the time important to them.
We did an analysis with them to identify what areas they wanted
to work with and they complement what MCC does.
But MCC's analyses of the programs they do are put together
5 years before because it is a 5-year compact and so we focus
on the constraints they face at the time. They are
complementary but they don't substitute for one another.
Mr. Yoho. Okay, thank you. With President Trump's speech, I
think it was a week or two ago where he was talking about our
pivot with Afghanistan and Pakistan and India's more increasing
role with Afghanistan and we saw India's willingness to stand
up to China in the Northern Territory and then we saw the
resolution of that peacefully. Thank God. Are there provisions
in the proposed budget that could help deepen the U.S-India
security partnership which could be beneficial in checking
China's unwarranted territorial claims through the rest of
Asia?
Ambassador Wells, you brought up the mil-to-mil cooperation
between the United States Navy with Sri Lanka. What are your
thoughts on that dealing with India and how can we strengthen
that relationship?
Ambassador Wells. The United States supports peaceful and
stable relations globally among all countries, including India
and China, and our goal ultimately in the Indo-Pacific region
is, you know, every nation should be able to work together to
uphold international norms and to prosper. While we strongly
support, we obviously strongly support a prosperous India that
plays a leading global role, both China and India are leading
powers but our relationship with India really stands on its
own. It stands on its own because it is based on democratic
values, on close political and economic ties.
If you look at the military relationship between the United
States and India, it is an extraordinary story over the last 10
years where we went from zero in military sales to $15 billion.
We are currently holding the largest military exercise with
India and Japan, the Malabar exercise that brings together
10,000 personnel and our largest carriers. We are with India as
a major defense partner.
We are able to now offer advanced technologies, and during
the visit of Prime Minister Modi with President Trump in June
we had the unprecedented offer of the nonlethal Sea Guardian
UAV for maritime security. Now we want to build on that
military partnership. India over the next 7 years is projected
to spend $30 billion in military modernization. Our companies
like Boeing and Lockheed with the F-18s and the F-16s are
natural competitors and would deeply enhance our
interoperability with India.
But then how do we build that relationship further outward?
So we are already working with Japan. There are opportunities
to work with Australia. How do we as democratic nations that
share values enshrine those values? And again freedom of
navigation, demilitarization, you know, working together on
disaster response, humanitarian assistance, setting a standard
for the region.
I think when I was at this conference in Colombo which
brought the countries of the region, really, from the
Seychelles to Singapore together I was impressed by the unity
of purpose. People seek that. They want that. We have an
opportunity to create this working relationship.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you.
Mr. Sherman, round two.
Mr. Sherman. I want to pick up where I was on
prioritization of two different companies that would like your
assistance. You don't have unlimited resources, so one
possibility is that advocacy for a U.S. company consists of
just sending a letter or rubber-stamping a document in which
case you do have unlimited resources. You could send out 1,000
letters a year, but I would hope that you are doing more than
that.
If you have to prioritize between--I mean, do you have
unlimited, I know you don't have unlimited resources. Are there
significant resources being used to advocate for U.S.
businesses? And given the fact that your resources are limited,
how do you prioritize which companies to put a lot of effort
behind?
Ambassador Wells. I mean in countries where you have a
vibrant trade relation and foreign direct investment
relationship then yes, I mean the bigger deals where we are
eligible and allowed under U.S. regulation to lobby
specifically for a company those projects that deliver more
jobs for Americans are going to occupy the attention.
Mr. Sherman. How are you certain that your--because we
talked privately in my office. I brought to your attention the
fact that an ambassador was advocating for German-built cars,
not in your region I might add. So how do you, do you get a
report as to okay, I have limited resources. I could put a
little more time in this project or that project, do you get
any report as to how many U.S. jobs are involved?
Ambassador Wells. When countries apply----
Mr. Sherman. Or is it just the size of the deal? Because
they both could be $100 million deals but one is $100 million
of licensing as the one that is $100 million of product. So
they both, if you just say how big is the deal they are the
same size deal, but what do you do to prioritize jobs to know
how many jobs are behind the project?
Ambassador Wells. No, I am speaking now from my personal
experience as a former Ambassador to Jordan. And there what you
receive from the Commerce Department, and I would have to defer
to my Commerce colleagues, you receive an analysis of what the
deal is and an understanding of the----
Mr. Sherman. I would urge you to insist for the Department
of Commerce that jobs be the first line. Not how many profits,
not how big is the deal, how many jobs.
I want to go on to Sindh. We have seen disappearances, both
of those who advocate for the Sindhi-speaking community and
those who advocate for the Muhajirs. These two groups don't
tend to get along but it seems like their political activists
are disappearing. I look forward to working with you to make
official inquiries of the Pakistani Government of political
activists who have just disappeared including the brother of a
friend of mine.
I know that we have a Web site from the consulate in
Karachi in the Sindhi language. We do some public diplomacy
which means the State Department has determined that reaching
out in the Sindhi language makes sense. Have you communicated
that over to the broadcasting board of governors saying, hey,
we are reaching out to people in the Sindhi language, you
should too? Or more importantly, what do I do to get you to do
that?
Ambassador Wells. You have just inspired me to reach out.
But I would note that in countries like Sri Lanka, for
instance, our Embassy is doing programming in seven languages
and its seven different markets. We are often confronted in
places like Pakistan and India where there are multiple
languages that have deep reach at the state level or even lower
where there is a need to target information. So I absolutely
take your point----
Mr. Sherman. I ask questions about Sri Lanka. It is very
important. Pakistan has an undisclosed number of nuclear
weapons and three or four major languages and it is important
that we reach out beyond just Urdu. The State Department has
done that and my inspiring you will inspire the board of
governors of the broadcasting operation to do the same.
Let's see. Oh, you mentioned airplane exports to India
either in our private conversations or here. That may be our
biggest single export to India. We are in competition with
Europe. They have an export finance authority. We have the EXIM
Bank. Without the EXIM Bank we are at a distinct disadvantage
in selling planes to India.
Have you found the EXIM Bank to be helpful and do you think
that we would have an even bigger trade deficit with India if
we didn't have an EXIM Bank?
Ambassador Wells. I can't comment on what motivates
individual companies. I mean over the course of my career of
course I have appreciated the work of EXIM in supporting U.S.
exports and particularly in the aircraft sector, but I would
note that in our trade relationship with India these exports
are continuing regardless. During the Prime Minister's visit in
June we had the announcement of a $23 billion plane sale and
planes, commercial aircraft as well as military aircraft, are a
key sector for exports in the future.
Mr. Sherman. Well, I hope that the President will appoint
people to the board of directors of EXIM Bank that will carry
out its duties. Otherwise, you may be back here assuming that
you--well, assuming that Rex Tillerson takes my advice and
makes you the permanent assistant secretary.
Do you have a plan to reach balanced trade with the major
countries in our area? Because if I share one thing with the
President it is a real focus on the trade deficit numbers
because those numbers translate into real jobs, real lives,
lives that can be ruined, lives that I have seen being ruined.
We have this trade deficit. You are doing a few things about
it. But do you have a goal? Do you have a strategy designed to
achieve a particular goal and is a balanced trade relationship
the goal?
Ambassador Wells. It is a clear priority for the Trump
administration, absolutely. During the visit of Prime Minister
Modi with President Trump, this was discussed. And I think
that----
Mr. Sherman. Was it discussed in the nature not of, well,
we would like to sell more to India; was it discussed in the
idea we want to achieve balance in the trade? Because when I
first got to Congress, an administration official said yes, if
we could expand exports by $1 billion and expand imports by $2
billion that would be great because we would have $3 billion
more in trade. And so is the goal just, is there a strategic
goal to reach balance with India and with Bangladesh?
Ambassador Wells. The administration is doing an assessment
of the top countries with trade deficits and the goal is to
equalize and reduce those trade deficits. In the case of India
there are obvious areas where we can work to improve IPR
protection, to reduce non-tariff barriers. We have several
high-level, serious dialogues through USTR and the Department
of Commerce to tackle specific sectorial issues. We have used
the WTO in the case of our chicken, our poultry and egg
exports, where we expect India to implement the WTO ruling and
this is a major part of our dialogue.
Mr. Sherman. I have got to interrupt for one more question
because I promised you I would ask this. Is India going to
change its liability laws to put America nuclear plant builders
on the same liability footing as those entities that have
sovereign immunity such as those from China, France, and
Russia?
Ambassador Wells. India took three actions. They joined the
convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage. It
is a multilateral treaty.
Mr. Sherman. Did they sign the additional protocol?
Ambassador Wells. The additional protocol of the IAEA?
Mr. Sherman. I think there is a particular--please
continue.
Ambassador Wells. So they joined this multilateral treaty
that lays out a framework for liability and then they announced
guidance that its nuclear law, domestic nuclear legislation,
was in conformance with that law. Then the third thing they did
was they set up a domestic insurance pool for operators and
vendors for liability from nuclear accidents. Those three steps
are designed to increase confidence in the domestic and foreign
companies in the nuclear industry.
Mr. Sherman. Are companies----
Ambassador Wells. All I can say is that Westinghouse found
them sufficient.
Mr. Sherman. Westinghouse. Now if they could just move
their jobs back to the United States I would be more happy with
them. I yield back.
Ambassador Wells. Can I respond to----
Mr. Sherman. I didn't even mention global warming. We
talked about the Maldives.
Mr. Yoho. No.
Mr. Sherman. I didn't mention the ex-Maldive island.
Mr. Yoho. I said tax reform.
Ambassador Wells. But the $10 billion in U.S. content, in
export content in the nuclear deal, potential in the nuclear
deal, we believe would generate 50,000 jobs.
Mr. Yoho. 15,000?
Ambassador Wells. Yeah.
Mr. Yoho. No, I want to build on that. When we look at what
China's done with the One Belt One Road, there is over $1
trillion invested, roughly, that they have invested through
loans from other countries and they have such a strong
presence. Do you feel the business model that we are working
with our foreign aid as small as it is, but more importantly
with the relationships we are developing with like-minded
democracies, is enough to offset that? And our mil-to-mil
cooperation with India and with Sri Lanka, what are your
thoughts on that? Is that enough to fend off the encroachment
of China with their investments?
Ambassador Wells. I mean our priority has been to increase
interregional connectivity.
Mr. Yoho. Right.
Ambassador Wells. If you look at the region, their
interregional trade comprises only 2 percent which is the
lowest in the world. A lot of what we bring to the table is the
soft assistance, helping with regulations and frameworks and
how do you do customs and how do you streamline procedures. And
that assistance has proved, I think, very useful for countries
like Bangladesh and India, where in my written remarks I note
it takes 20 permits to export something from one side of the
border to the other. So how do we break down those barriers?
How do we use MCC to promote, you know, electricity trade
between Nepal and India?
Mr. Yoho. Right, with the hydroelectric investment.
Ambassador Wells. Exactly, and also the road maintenance
component of it, so you actually have the infrastructure that
can support the trucks that can support the trade. And so, you
know, these are very specific sometimes and targeted regulatory
reforms, other times they are major investments in
infrastructure. But I think we are seen as an extremely
credible and valuable partner in this effort. Gloria?
Mr. Yoho. Ms. Steele, can you add to that?
Ms. Steele. Yes, I think that what we are doing in all of
Asia I would say is trying to level the playing field for
American companies to be able to come in. In many of the
countries in which we work, we work with the governments to be
able to do public-private partnerships so that they don't have
to go into debt but rather attract investments leveraging their
own funds. And that I have found, this has also helped to keep
more investments from other countries including China to come
in. It has worked there effectively in East Asia in particular
where we have done that.
Mr. Yoho. Okay, thank you. I am going to ask something, it
could be a little controversial. But a potential challenging in
the U.S.-India relationships and partnership is the rise of the
Hindu nationalist politics which detract from the India's
traditional, inclusive, multi-faith democracy. A less
harmonious India raises human rights concerns and endangers our
growing partnership. What are the administration's priority
regarding human rights in India?
Ambassador Wells. India provides the highest constitutional
protections for religious minorities, and our goal is to work
with India and to encourage India to meet the goals that it
sets for itself in its own constitution and its laws. There are
cases obviously of religious, as we detail in both the Human
Rights Report and the International Religious Freedom Report,
of infringements and there was the tragic murder of a
journalist just this week who was often the subject of
nationalist criticism.
These are challenges for any democracy, but India is a
democracy and it is a vibrant democracy and we have respect for
Indian institutions and ability to rise and meet these
challenges, and we certainly in all of our engagements at
senior levels encourage the Indian Government to do so.
Mr. Yoho. Okay. Ms. Steele, I am going to ask you something
because Dr. Bera is on his way down, I heard, and this probably
doesn't get asked a lot of people in your situation or your
position, but what is it that you could see from the United
States Congress that if we changed in our policies or
directions would help facilitate what you do?
I know appointing people would be a good thing or getting
them through the Senate. I will bring it up to--I will agree
with my colleague here that there have been a lot of positions
appointed but they haven't been passed through the Senate. I
know that would be something--and I see you guys both writing
things down so this will be good.
I will let you direct these at Mr. Sherman--no, both of us
because so many times we get the information, and I know there
are things that you have said, man, if they would have asked
this, or, you know, if there is something that we should have
asked that we didn't, I would like to hear your thoughts if you
are comfortable doing that.
Mr. Sherman. And don't hesitate to say that the President's
budget requests are completely wrong and that we should be
providing far more money especially for Ms. Steele's efforts.
Mr. Yoho. If you do that do it in the third person. I am
not saying this, but somebody else told me this.
Mr. Sherman. Yes. I will add that to the question. Do you
know intelligent people who believe that the President's budget
requests are completely wrong and that higher amounts should be
spent?
Ambassador Wells. I just want to say I am very honored that
the Secretary Tillerson has trusted me as a senior career
officer of 28 years' experience to lead the Bureau at this time
and I think it is a mark of his faith in the institution that
he has done so. There is a very ambitious and I think very
credible and inclusive discussion of reform of the State
Department that is underway. It is coming to its conclusion and
I know we all look forward to its results. I would say that I
am sitting here before you because Secretary Tillerson trusts
the colleagues, the career colleagues that he is working with.
I interpreted your question a little bit differently on
what Congress can do. I mean what I would encourage, I really
encourage congressional visits. Many of these issues are so
complicated to understand the dynamic in Sri Lanka, to
understand India's rise and the complexity of India as a
democracy, and the challenges that a democratic government in
India has to navigate is best seen firsthand. In my experience
as a Foreign Service Officer and as an ambassador, having
congressional visits really built the strength and the
foundation for a relationship.
Mr. Yoho. I appreciate you saying that because I just got
back from a codel to South Korea and Taiwan and we hear the
same thing there, you know, congressional delegation visits,
the higher up the better because it shows that cooperation and
alliance.
Ms. Steele, do you want to add to that?
Ms. Steele. Yes. Especially at this time when resources are
more limited, we would like to be able to build a more trusting
relationship between you and us so that flexibilities, a little
bit more flexibilities will be available to us to be able to
use resources, the limited resources that we have.
Mr. Yoho. Maybe we should visit the State Department then?
Ms. Steele. No, we will come and visit you more often and
provide information, because I think that the relationship
built on more trust will enable us to be more responsive and
agile on the needs of, vis-a-vis the needs of the countries,
and this is particularly important when resources are limited.
Mr. Yoho. It really is and that trust builds on the
relationships built on that trust and I think it so important.
So many times I feel like when people like you come into a
hearing you feel like it is a to-get-you type and it is not.
Our goal is to make our relationships with the countries and
the regions that we represent stronger and we rely on your
information.
With that I am going to turn over to Dr. Bera who I just
had the pleasure to be in South Korea and Taiwan. Doc.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is a very
timely hearing, obviously, as we think about the U.S. role in
the world the important mission of USAID and the emerging
importance and dynamism of South Asia. Let's think about it in
a couple ways.
I know we will be having a hearing on Afghanistan but the
interconnected nature between Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan
was highlighted in the President's comments, I guess it was a
week ago, last week. As we look at our continuing mission in
Afghanistan I know USAID has had a role, but the President--and
I would actually support the President's statement that the
importance of India continuing to have a role in helping build
infrastructure, helping build stability and then the complexity
of Pakistan there in terms of harboring some of the groups that
are creating an instability there creates this complication,
Pakistan's concern when the more India is involved in
Afghanistan the more Pakistan seems to get concerned as well.
I would just be curious, Ambassador Wells or Ms. Steele,
how you would think about that in terms of kind of negotiating
and navigating that with the desire of creating that stability
in Afghanistan and how it interrelates with India and Pakistan.
Ambassador Wells. Well, just as Pakistan has very real and
legitimate security interests in Afghanistan so does India. We
would like to see, and appreciate constructive economic
investments, investments in Afghanistan's stability and
institutional stability, and so if you look at India, by 2020
they have pledged to spend $3 billion. Some of the projects
they have already funded include the Parliament House, an
important dam, training in India for experts and in agro
experts very vital programs that and Afghanistan is going to
need.
In that instance, I think the more international partners
we can bring to bear who do constructive investments again in
the economic sphere and in the development sphere we are very
supportive of.
Mr. Bera. All right.
Ambassador Wells. I have nothing to offer.
Mr. Bera. Okay. And as we think about that role we will
continue to have a presence there trying to provide training
and security and we have made significant investments in
Afghanistan in terms of educating a generation of girls. You
are seeing a younger generation that is now as they enter
adulthood does give Afghanistan this possibility of creating
those civil institutions and we would hate to lose some of
that.
Shifting to some of the projects in India that I have had a
focus on in terms of empowering women and girls in India, I do
have some real reservations about the proposed budget cuts that
would decimate some of these programs, some of the cuts to
UNFPA. Again, I don't think this is a time for the United
States to be stepping out of that void, especially as India
historically has been a recipient nation. As it is starting to
develop, it also is developing into being a donor nation and
partnering with us to do some interesting things as we go into
third countries into Africa and so forth.
I guess again whoever it is appropriate to, Ambassador
Wells, maybe you want to touch on the importance of maintaining
some of those investments that we have in India.
Ambassador Wells. We really see our relationship with India
transitioning. As India itself becomes an increasingly
important provider of assistance in the region, we are moving
away from India as a donor recipient to India as a partner, as
you said, in third countries.
We have done interesting work in Africa. There are
opportunities for us to do joint training in Afghanistan. And
so what we have tried to do, and I will refer to Gloria here,
is to really prioritize the remaining funding in those areas
where we think we can provide the best multiplier effect or
assist Indian private sector and government in being able to
tackle a problem more creatively and effectively.
Mr. Bera. Great. Ms. Steele, do you want to----
Ms. Steele. In following up on the theme of prioritization,
the health situation in India, we have prioritized working on
the health situation in India. It is probably one of the worst
problems and where we can be better partners and where our
dollars will make a bigger difference. They have more incidence
of TB than any in the world. They have one-fourth of the
maternal and child mortality in the world. And so with the
limited resources we have, we have prioritized funding in India
around health, TB prevention and cure, and maternal and child
health.
Mr. Bera. And obviously if we could get you more funding
then you could have a bigger impact; so thank you.
Ms. Steele. Yes.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you for that.
Next, we will go to Mr. Connolly from Virginia.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. Great to see you both again. I will say
you have got a job to do and God bless you for trying to do it.
But when we talk about South Asia perhaps it is the most
effective region in the world with respect to the retrograde
policies of the Trump administration. Ripping up TPP, ripping
up our participation in the Paris climate accord and of course
slashing AID's budget especially in this region, all those
things probably have the most effect, the most intense effect
in South Asia than anywhere else on the planet.
To that end, correctly debating, and I know my friend, the
chairman of this committee, he is going to defend Trump, but I
also know that Ted Yoho has really reflected on how important a
foreign assistance program is. It is a modest investment. It is
a modest part of our diplomatic machinery to keep America great
and I really applaud the chairman of the subcommittee for
articulating that position.
I know that was not his original position when he first got
elected to Congress, but like all of us we learn. We come to
appreciate. I certainly hope that happens in the administration
because the cuts being proposed, the retreat being proposed, I
think is profoundly deleterious to U.S. interests and simply
opens the way to another power in Asia that is only too happy
to walk through that opening. That is not making America great
again, that is making America weak again.
Let me ask you, Ms. Steele, and feel free, Ambassador
Wells, to comment. I am not asking you to comment on what I
just said because that would impolitic for both of you. In
fact, I am going to say for the record you both vehemently
disagree with everything I just said, defending the Trump
administration.
But South Asia, we have got the heaviest monsoon rains in
40 years, 1,400 dead, hundreds of thousands of homes damaged or
destroyed, 41 million people directly affected, and a third of
an entire sovereign nation, Bangladesh, underwater. How well
prepared are we to respond to that crisis, Ms. Steele?
Ms. Steele. We are prepared to respond to the crisis when
and if they request for our assistance.
Mr. Connolly. I am sorry, I can't hear you.
Ms. Steele. When they request for assistance we will be
there.
Mr. Connolly. You mean Bangladesh has not requested any
assistance?
Ms. Steele. No, not on the flooding. Nepal has, but
Bangladesh has not. They have not right now, but we are poised
and prepared to assist when they do.
Mr. Connolly. Could the fact that a third of an entire
sovereign nation, Bangladesh, being underwater, could it have
anything at all to do with, I don't know, the warming of the
climate? Hmm, all right.
Ambassador Wells. Could I just add another dimension to----
Mr. Connolly. Of course.
Ambassador Wells. In our military-to-military cooperation
we have done extraordinary work in disaster assistance,
humanitarian response, including with Bangladesh and with
Nepal. In fact, we tragically lost seven of our own in Nepal in
a helicopter accident in the wake of the earthquake response.
And so in Bangladesh where we have built over 500 cyclone
shelters, we have worked on how you manage water resources,
there has been a significant U.S. investment in that effort and
an ongoing commitment to increase the capacity of Bangladeshis
to respond.
Mr. Connolly. I appreciate that Ambassador Wells, but the
fact of the matter is the Trump budget slashes health for these
three countries by 50 percent and this flooding is now leading
to a mass outbreak of diarrheal related diseases, malaria,
Dengue fever, and possibly cholera. How can we in good
conscience cut our health budget to these countries in half in
light of what is happening in front of our faces? How can we
justify that? How can we make those programs efficacious with a
50 percent cut?
Ms. Steele. On humanitarian assistance and disaster
response, these are not bilaterally allocated. We have a
central fund for humanitarian assistance. As I mentioned
earlier, Mr. Connolly, we are prepared to respond when they
request for our assistance and they have not done so. And I
believe as my colleague Alice said, we have invested in helping
them mitigate the impacts of disasters and we are ready. The
budget that you see that is allocated for these countries does
not reflect the humanitarian assistance budget that we have
centrally.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, will you allow me just one
follow-up question with respect to Bangladesh?
Mr. Yoho. Okay.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair. Why hasn't Bangladesh
asked for our help? I am puzzled by that. I mean maybe the
phone is underwater with the rest of the country.
Ms. Steele. I do not know the response to your question and
I will follow up and ask, but we have not received----
Mr. Connolly. And Ambassador Wells, do you have any idea?
Yeah, thank you. I am sorry. I just, I don't want to--I am
running out of time, so I didn't mean to be abrupt.
All right. Well, if anyone is listening, Bangladesh, please
call. Got a phone number? No? All right, State Department,
thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you. Dr. Bera would like to have another
shot at some questions if you guys are okay.
Mr. Bera. Yeah, I actually just wanted to make a statement.
You know, listening to my colleague Mr. Connolly as well as
being a classmate of Chairman Yoho and serving on Foreign
Affairs with Mr. Sherman, this is an incredibly important time
for the United States with everything going on around the world
and in South Asia to continue to stay engaged and involved.
Both Ambassador Wells and Ms. Steele, you guys are doing
the best you can within the circumstances and the resources
that are being provided, and I think it is important to make a
statement about the public servants who serve us within the
State Department and represent our country around the world.
Again I just want to make a statement on how much as a member
of the Foreign Affairs Committee and a Member of Congress we
appreciate their service. We understand they are doing what
they can and I think it is important for us to let them hear
how much we as Members of Congress as well as the public and
the citizens of the United States appreciate that service and
representation, so thank you.
Mr. Sherman. If the gentleman will yield, I so appreciate
the individuals who work at the State Department. I married one
of them.
Mr. Yoho. Well said on both counts with both of you,
because I was going to end that way.
Ambassador Wells, Ms. Steele, as you go forward, as our
State Department goes forward in these economic times that we
are having in our country and as we are having some challenges
here, we may be cutting some programs, but we are going to
replace it with the goodwill as you said the humanitarian
assistance. You are the spokesmen for the United States
Government as you go to these countries and we rely on you to
instill into those countries the belief that we are here with
them. We will stand with them. We will work through our
challenges, but we are there to provide that assistance.
So I do appreciate it. This committee, I think, speaks as a
voice of unity in saying that same thing, and again I can't
tell you how much we appreciate you coming in, being up front
and just very engaging. Thank you both. This meeting is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]