[Senate Hearing 115-791]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-791
USAID RESOURCES AND REDESIGN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 20, 2018
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web:
http://www.fdsys.gpo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-341 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
BOB CORKER, Tennessee, Chairman
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
MARCO RUBIO, Florida BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
CORY GARDNER, Colorado TOM UDALL, New Mexico
TODD, YOUNG, Indiana CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming TIM KAINE, Virginia
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
RAND PAUL, Kentucky CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
Todd Womack, Staff Director
Jessica Lewis, Democratic Staff Director
John Dutton, Chief Clerk
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Corker, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from Tennessee.................... 1
Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from New Jersey.............. 15
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Green, Hon. Mark, Administrator, United States Agency for
International Development (USAID), Washington, DC.............. 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses to Additional Questions Submitted for the Record to
Hon. Mark Green by Members of the Committee
Questions from Hon. Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator from Florida... 32
Questions from Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. Senator from
Maryland................................................... 69
Questions from Hon. Todd Young, U.S. Senator from Indiana.... 78
Questions from Hon. Tim Kaine, U.S. Senator from Virginia.... 89
Questions from Hon. Edward J. Markey, U.S. Senator from
Massachusetts.............................................. 95
Material Submitted by the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID)
Administrator's Action Alliance for Preventing Sexual
Misconduct (AAPSM)......................................... 97
USAID Staff and Implementing Partner Reporting of Sexual
Exploitation and Abuse..................................... 99
Reporting Harassment at USAID................................ 101
USAID's Policy Against Sexual Exploitation and Abuse......... 102
USAID's Anti-Harassment Policy............................... 105
(iii)
USAID RESOURCES AND REDESIGN
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 2018
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in
Room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker,
chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Flake, Gardner,
Young, Menendez, Cardin, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Markey, and
Booker.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
The Chairman. I am going to go ahead and call the meeting
to order. Menendez has been held up. So I think he may make a
statement when he gets here.
But we welcome you here. We are sorry to be starting a few
minutes late. Two votes were called that were unanticipated.
The United States Agency for International Development is
the agency that carries out the lion's share of U.S.
humanitarian and development foreign assistance.
We have invited USAID Administrator Mark Green here today
to review the agency's programs and resources, as well as the
proposed redesign of the agency.
Some on the committee will, no doubt, use their time to
highlight the President's fiscal year 2019 budget request, but
given that Congress decides funding levels, despite the
request, really the President's request is not relevant to what
we will be doing. And I do not mean that with any disrespect.
So I hope that the hearing will focus on more relevant issues,
since it will not be part of what Congress takes up.
However, I would like to take this time to applaud the
administration for requesting to eliminate funds for the Title
II Food for Peace program as authorized in the farm bill in
favor of a more efficient emergency food security program, or
EFSP. I appreciate the administration acknowledging how
absurdly inefficient the Title II of the farm bill is with only
30 cents on the dollar going to food itself, while retaining
the EFSP that gives us the flexibility to work in areas that
Title II assistance simply cannot reach, areas that are
directly tied to U.S. national security.
Finally, I want to thank Administrator Green for the
outstanding level of consultation with our committee on USAID's
pending transformation plans. It will be helpful to discuss how
the plan realigns USAID structure to better focus on core
competencies of the agency, such as our humanitarian programs
that aid the unprecedented millions now displaced by ongoing
human conflict.
As part of the rollout of the transformation, USAID just
released its new metrics for the journey to self-reliance, a
promising initiative to reconnect our development programs with
the whole point of why we do them, helping countries grow past
a reliance on foreign assistance.
There has also been some discussion regarding democracy
planning, and given your extensive background directing such
programming, we should hear today how the proposed structure
and metrics will favor democracy and good governance.
With that, we look forward to your testimony. We thank you
for your service. I think on both sides of the aisle people are
uplifted and proud that you are our USAID Administrator. With
that, if you would not mind going ahead and giving your
testimony. Any written documents we would be glad to enter into
the record.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK GREEN, ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES
AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your kind
words. Thank you also to Ranking Member Menendez and members of
the committee for this opportunity to summarize my written
testimony.
I would also like to explicitly thank all of you for the
tremendous support that you have shown to USAID and the level
of communication and consultation that we have had. My own view
is that this has been a very constructive relationship and we
have done our best to try to bring your thoughts and counsel to
the work that we do.
In particular, although I do not take positions on pending
legislation, I am delighted at the passage of the Global Food
Security Act, and I especially appreciate the leadership of
Senator Isakson and yourself in making that happen. That adds
great certainty to our work, and we are appreciative.
Members of the committee, the fiscal year 2019 request for
USAID is approximately $16.8 billion. We acknowledge that this
request will not provide enough resources to meet every
humanitarian need or seize every development opportunity.
Indeed, no budget request ever has. Instead it is an effort to
balance fiscal needs at home with our leadership role on the
world stage.
Turning to our ongoing redesign, I greatly appreciate the
thoughts and input that you and your staff have provided. To
date, our team has had 53 separate Hill engagements and 145
external stakeholder engagements as we try to shape what the
USAID of tomorrow will look like. I remain committed to working
closely with you to ensure that your ideas are reflected in
this work.
In terms of our overall programming, as you know, the world
is confronting humanitarian crises in nearly every corner of
the globe. And unfortunately, most of them are manmade. Near
famines continue to threaten Nigeria, Yemen, Syria, and
Somalia. Again, they are all manmade.
Ebola has reared its ugly head in the Democratic Republic
of Congo, killing at least 28 people to date. USAID and other
agencies have been mobilizing to contain the outbreak and the
news is promising on that front.
As you may know, I recently returned from a trip to
Bangladesh and Burma, a trip that has special relevance on
today's World Refugee Day. As the world knows, Burma's Rohingya
community has been the victim of an ethnic cleansing campaign.
But, Mr. Chairman, I must say that that term does not fully
capture what I have seen or the continuing suffering of the
Rohingya in Burma and Bangladesh. The world owes Bangladesh a
huge debt of gratitude for its willingness to temporarily host
hundreds of thousands of refugees who have fled there.
But the monsoons have begun in those host areas. While we
are taking whatever steps we can to assist, sadly the first
casualties have already been reported. We will continue to do
our part to help meet their immediate humanitarian needs,
including in preparation for the cyclone season, which we know
will be coming.
We are also forging longer-term plans with the State
Department and others to try to deal with some of the deeper
problems that I have seen.
Of course, Burma is not the only place where religious
minorities face deep hardship. Last October, Vice President
Pence announced a new policy to expand assistance to religious
and ethnic minority communities in the Middle East that have
been devastated by ISIS and other terrorist organizations. This
policy is in line with America's long tradition of standing
with persecuted and vulnerable ethnic and religious minorities.
Northern Iraq was once home to large communities of Christians,
Yazidis, and other minorities. Many of them have fled their
homes or fled their country altogether in the face of violence
and threats of violence. We are committed to helping create the
condition for those communities to return safely to their
ancestral lands. Under the President's leadership, we have
already channeled tens of millions of dollars to the region.
However, we know the need is far greater and we must do more to
meet the urgent needs of these endangered communities.
At the Vice President's request, I will soon return to Iraq
to meet with leaders of some of the suffering communities. I
will then report back with a plan of action to accelerate aid
to those in greatest need. This is a top priority for the
administration, and I know it is a top priority for many
members of this committee.
The crises that we face, like persecution and threat of
famine, are not limited to far-off corners of the land. A deep
crisis is unfolding at this moment just hundreds of miles from
our own borders. Our fiscal year 2019 budget request includes
funding for democracy and governance programs in Venezuela that
support civil society, human rights organizations, and the free
flow of information. Our focus on Venezuela is more than
warranted. The situation there is worsening by the week, and
its effects are impacting the entire region. At the Summit of
the Americas in Peru, I heard stories suggesting that the
effects of the flight of Venezuelans are now being felt as far
north as the Caribbean.
Last month, we announced an additional $18.5 million in
bilateral funding to Colombia to provide Venezuelans
temporarily residing there with urgently needed services like
school feeding programs, mobile health services, and other
logistical support. And we know the needs are continuing to
grow.
In the midst of all this, USAID is working hard to apply
the lessons we have learned from our past experiences. As many
of you are aware, we have encountered challenges with the
global health supply chain contract, which was awarded just
before I joined USAID. Since my earliest days of the agency, we
have monitored performance of the contract to ensure that our
implementing partners meet the standards and requirements that
are set forth in that award. I know my team has briefed your
staff on the project, and we pledge to keep you informed.
I am also committed to raising standards of accountability
and apply lessons learned across the board, even hard ones. To
that end, we have made a concerted effort to address all the
audits from GAO and the Office of the Inspector General. Just 6
months ago, we had almost 100 backlogged recommendations. I
then set an ambitious goal of closing all of them within 6
months, and I am proud to say that we achieved that goal before
the end of May. We are fully committed to staying on track with
these audits going forward and we have put in place a number of
procedures to help accomplish that goal. We are creating a
stronger audit function within our office of the CFO to ensure
that everyone involved has the support they need. We are also
instituting agency-wide training and performance metrics for
our leaders.
Finally, I would like to say a brief word on recent
published reports of sexual abuse and misconduct by
international aid workers. Needless to say like you, I am
deeply troubled by these allegations. Such sexual exploitation
and misconduct violates everything that we stand for as an
agency. I have met with partner organizations, and I have made
it absolutely clear that USAID will not tolerate sexual
harassment or misconduct of any kind. We have distributed to
your offices and released publicly in the last 24 hours a
summary of the aggressive actions that we have taken so far,
but please know that this is an issue I am personally tracking
and will stay on top of. Again, I have made clear to our
partners and fellow donors that we will do whatever it takes to
uphold our values in the workplace and through our programs.
Thank you again. And, Mr. Chairman, I welcome this
opportunity and welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mark Green
introduction
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the committee, thank you
for this opportunity to discuss USAID's FY 2019 Budget Request.
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 request for USAID fully and partially
managed accounts is approximately $16.8 billion. This represents $1.3
billion more than requested last year. It requests $6.7 billion for
global health and $5.1 billion for economic support and development. In
terms of USAID's humanitarian assistance, it requests over $1 billion
more than last fiscal year's request. In total, it requests
approximately $3.6 billion for International Disaster Assistance.
meeting priorities
Before I arrived at USAID, I had a chance to meet with many of you.
We discussed many of the challenges in the world today, and you shared
with me your priorities. Since then, we've been hard at work at USAID
to advance our shared those priorities and position the Agency for its
crucial role in U.S. foreign policy.
Our work has been informed by many of the travels I have
undertaken, meeting our teams and partners around the world. I recently
returned from a trip to Bangladesh and Burma.
As the world knows, there has been an ethnic cleansing of the
Rohinghya population. I have now seen firsthand some of what that looks
like. It is not an experience that can be adequately conveyed by news
reports or policy briefings.
The world owes Bangladesh a vast debt of gratitude for its
hospitality and forbearance with hundreds of thousands of refugees.
But even there, with the coming of the monsoons, they are one
cyclone away from a humanitarian disaster in addition to that which
they faced as they fled violence and persecution in Burma.
In FY 2019, we have requested funds to explore and implement more
effective approaches to promoting ethnic and religious tolerance in
Burma, including in Rakhine and Kachin States, and to help meet the
needs of minorities in Iraq ravaged by ISIS, including those targeted
because of their faith.
I have also traveled to Ethiopia, Sudan, and South Sudan, where I
saw USAID leading the world's response to the continuing humanitarian
need in East Africa. In Ethiopia, I saw our efforts to foster
resilience to help that country withstand the future crises that very
likely will come.
I have traveled to Mexico and India, where I met with our partners
from both the public and private sectors. It was there that I saw
glimpses of an exciting future for international development, where
programs are more private-enterprise driven and our role is
increasingly to use our skills, experience, and innovative know-how to
help countries chart their own journeys to self-reliance and
prosperity.
In Iraq and Syria, I met with some of our military leaders.
Together, we toured Raqqa, and I learned more about USAID's joint
effort with the State Department and Defense Department to restore
essential services to communities newly liberated from ISIS. In
Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Germany, I met with international
partners, including a senior leader from Israel's Foreign Ministry, to
share some of the new innovations in programing and policy we are
applying to our work in development and humanitarian assistance, and to
discuss areas of future cooperation. I also took the opportunity to
encourage our fellow donors to take on a greater role in helping to
meet the world's growing needs.
In Germany, I met with our Mission Directors from the Middle East
and Africa--as well as their counterparts from the State Department and
DOD--to discuss how we can strengthen interagency cooperation. At the
Munich Security Conference, I heard Vitali Klitschko, the Mayor of
Kiev, speak about Ukraine's fight for freedom and democracy. I was
reminded that we, too, were once a young nation inspired by the hope of
a democratic future, but also confronted by numerous challenges as we
strived to build our republic. As I listened to Klitschko, I was
immensely proud of the work that USAID does to support people, all
around the world, like him and the heads of the Euromaidan movement who
aspire to freedom and citizen-responsive governance.
In February, we announced USAID's new Mission Statement. It
includes an explicit commitment to strengthening democratic governance
abroad--a priority that I know from our discussions you share. This
commitment has informed USAID's work from our creation; and under my
leadership, it will continue to do so. Our FY 2019 Request includes
targeted investments in Europe and Eurasia that will support strong,
democratic institutions and vibrant civil society, while countering the
Kremlin's influence in the region. In Venezuela, we will support those
who are working for a free and prosperous future. We have requested
robust funding for our democracy and governance programs in Venezuela
that support civil society, the democratically elected legislature, and
a free flow of information there.
I have also met with people from across these United States. In my
first few months, I have been to New York, Texas, Delaware, Iowa, and
even my home state of Wisconsin. I have met with the Chamber of
Commerce Foundation and spoken with business leaders, CEOs of American
firms. All of them are eager to find ways to align with and enhance
USAID's work, as well as invest in the rapidly growing markets that are
most often the targets of our programing. I have met with researchers
from American universities who are helping us tackle devastating
challenges like the Fall Armyworm in Africa. I have also met with
American implementing partners--contractors and grantees, faith-based
organizations and for-profits--to explore ways we can improve our
operations.
On top of all that, I have been ``traveling'' internally, leading a
broad agency Redesign effort through which we are re-examining nearly
every aspect of our operations and structures in order to make sure we
are as effective, efficient, and accountable to American taxpayers as
possible.
overview: a fiscally responsible budget for challenging times
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members, this is the first time I
have had the honor of presenting the President's Budget. However, it is
not the first time we have met with your offices to review the needs we
see in the humanitarian and development sectors. We have also reached
out to you and your staff to discuss our growing work in conflict,
post-conflict, and otherwise fragile zones. I note that this Request
would fund important efforts, such as the urgent work we are
undertaking to help communities newly-liberated from ISIS's evil reign
by restoring essential services to places like Raqqa.
We acknowledge that this Budget Request will not provide enough
resources for us to meet every humanitarian need or seize every
international development opportunity. In truth, no federal budget in
recent memory would be large enough to do so, and we would not suggest
it wise to try to do so. We come to you with a Budget Request that aims
to balance fiscal responsibility here at home with our leadership role
and national security imperatives on the world stage.
optimizing resources and results
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members, we are committed to
taking every prudent step to extend the reach and effectiveness of our
taxpayer resources. We are working closely with the Department of State
to encourage other donor nations and recipient countries themselves to
increase their own contributions to the overall humanitarian and
development effort. This includes efforts at strengthening domestic
resource mobilization programs so that partners can more effectively
finance their own development in the future. We are rethinking and
streamlining our humanitarian assistance. We are taking steps to ensure
our programs and procedures are more private enterprise-friendly so we
can better leverage our resources, bring new ideas and partners to our
work, and increase opportunities for American businesses. Through
procurement reform, we are striving to become more flexible, and
responsive and innovative in meeting humanitarian and development
objectives, so our implementing partners can extend and improve the
reach of USAID-supported initiatives. We are also striving to more
closely align our resources with USG strategic needs, and are focused
on measurement and evaluation to support that alignment. Finally, we
are using the opportunity of our Redesign to ensure that our programs
are of the highest quality and fully reflective of America's key
foreign policy priorities.
encouraging others to do more
As the President has said, ``America first does not mean America
alone.'' We can and do embrace opportunities to partner with others and
we expect others to do their part in tackling challenges that affect us
all. Working with the State Department, we are using every opportunity
to push our donor partners to do more in helping to mobilize
resources--including increasing their financial contributions.
To put things in context, in 2016, the U.S. provided nearly $34.5
billion in Official Development Assistance (ODA), almost one quarter of
all ODA. In terms of humanitarian assistance, the U.S. continues to be
the largest single donor. Our leadership role as a donor is a point of
pride. It is part of our national character--our readiness to stand
with other countries and peoples when crisis strikes. But leadership
also means leading others to do more and setting the expectation that
other donors will do their fair share to advance shared priorities,
while also expecting improved performance by implementing partners,
including the U.N., to maximize the benefit for recipients of
assistance.
We've recently seen a number of key allies increase their ODA
contributions. For example, the Republic of Korea has contributed
significant amounts to shared priorities like Power Africa, global
health security, and humanitarian assistance to Syria. It has increased
its aid budget by 30 percent, a feat recently matched by the United
Kingdom. Germany has become one of the world's leading humanitarian
assistance donors, providing a record $2 billion in 2017 to assist
people from places like Syria, Yemen, the Sahel, and Burma. And India,
which not so long ago was itself a major recipient of traditional
assistance like food aid, is boosting its contributions to key
initiatives. Under Prime Minister Modi, India has become the fifth-
largest donor to development and reconstruction in Afghanistan.
domestic resource-mobilization
Another way in which we are working to make our resources go
further is through our support for domestic resource-mobilization
(``DRM'') projects. Through DRM, we help strengthen the capacity of our
partner nations to finance and lead their own development programs. The
Budget requests $75 million for strategically-managed DRM assistance.
From the date of my nomination hearing just over a year ago, and nearly
every day since, I have said I believe the purpose of foreign
assistance must be ending its need to exist. Our assistance should be
designed to empower people, communities, and government leaders on
their journey to self-reliance and prosperity. These initiatives can
help our partners to cut down on fraud, corruption, and abuse. They
will also ensure that our investments produce sustainable results; they
will ensure that our partners' ability to respond to the needs of their
citizens will not fade away as our formal government support recedes
gradually.
Our DRM assistance in the nation of Georgia is a good example of
what can be achieved. USAID provided DRM assistance of $12 million to
Georgia over five years. The result was an additional $3 billion in tax
revenue since 2004. By 2017, revenue had increased by 900 percent. As
part of this effort, we helped streamline Georgia's customs process and
made it easier for new businesses to register. We supported efforts
that created an electronic tax-filing system and fixed crippling flaws
in the Georgian tax refund process. We also took steps to help them cut
down on corruption--encouraging ``zero tolerance'' policies, harsher
punishments for violators, and new training programs.
Georgia's investment in their own development also grew. Social-
welfare spending increased by 550 percent. Education investment grew by
1,700 percent. In other words, through our DRM assistance, we helped an
important partner accelerate its own journey to self-reliance and
prosperity.
1strengthening humanitarian assistance
In Yemen, 17.8 million people--the largest number in the world--are
facing severe food insecurity. We remain deeply concerned about the
humanitarian situation in Yemen and the risk of an even worse crisis at
the port of Hudeidah. We the Department continue to call on all parties
to de-escalate and ensure unfettered humanitarian access to the Yemeni
people. While this access has been a challenge, U.S. Government
humanitarian partners are working to reach as many people as possible.
U.S. partner, the U.N. World Food Program (WFP), distributed emergency
food assistance to just under 7 million people in April with USAID
funds-representing more than 99 percent of the agency's targeted
beneficiary caseload. Providing humanitarian assistance in places like
Yemen is central to our Agency's Mission, and a clear display of
American generosity. It is also dangerous work, as witnessed by the
January terrorist attack on Save the Children's offices in Afghanistan,
in which four of our partners were brutally murdered, or the 28 aid
workers who were killed in South Sudan during 2017. Our commitment to
this work is reflected by the inclusion of our international disaster
assistance to help alleviate humanitarian crises in our new Mission
Statement. For years, the responsibilities of the two offices leading
the bulk of USAID's humanitarian assistance--Food for Peace and the
Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA)--have sharply
increased. While they have often coordinated, they have worked in
parallel, with separate budgets, separate oversight, and different
strategies. When you would visit a camp in the field, they would be
together on the ground, serving the same community shoulder-to-
shoulder--one providing food, and the other tarps and blankets, often
using the same partners.
Before I arrived at USAID, the Agency commissioned an assessment of
our humanitarian programming, conducted by an outside firm, but led by
career staff, which concluded, not surprisingly, there were better ways
to ensure the nimble, effective, and efficient delivery of our
humanitarian assistance. The Request before you proposes to fund all of
USAID's humanitarian assistance from one account, and imagines a day
when USAID's humanitarian food and non-food functions are consolidated
into a single entity within the Agency. This will ensure a seamless
blend of food and non-food humanitarian USAID assistance, better
serving our foreign-policy interests and people in need. In the end, we
will have a shared strategy, integrated programs, and joint monitoring-
and-evaluation systems that will provide greater efficiency and
accountability for the American people. As part of our effort to
consolidate USAID's humanitarian functions, we will also consolidate
our whole-of-Agency efforts to strengthen partner resilience for
improved food security. This will help break the cycle of recurrent and
protracted crises, and reduce our own future humanitarian liabilities.
strengthening our private-sector engagement
Fulfilling our responsibility to taxpayers is about much more than
asking other donors to increase their contributions, helping countries
to finance their own development, or streamlining our humanitarian
assistance. In our case, it also means strengthening private-sector
engagement through true collaborations. At USAID, we are reaching
beyond contracting and grant-making. We are exploring the possibilities
for co-creating and co-financing programs, tools, and initiatives with
private-sector partners. We're embracing the ingenuity and the
entrepreneurship that private-enterprise offers, and harnessing the
efficiencies and effectiveness that private-sector competition and
market forces can unlock. And this is something private-enterprise is
eager to do alongside us. Additionally, we will partner closely with
the proposed new U.S. Development Finance Institution, which will only
succeed through strong institutional linkages with USAID, to further
these efforts with financing tools, and have a whole of government
approach to private sector engagement.
For example, I recently met with the CEO of a large multinational
company, and he expressed his eagerness to work with us in countries
like South Africa, which, in part because of our work, are becoming
more suitable for American companies to invest. This firm and others
are eager to invest corporate funds in USAID-led initiatives, as well
as apply entrepreneurship and enterprise-driven techniques, such as
impact investing and blended-finance mechanisms, to development
challenges.
Another example is the new ``Smart Communities Coalition'' that we
helped create alongside MasterCard to modernize assistance to refugees
and internally displaced persons. Traditionally, when a displaced
family first arrives at a camp or settlement, humanitarian workers do
their best to see that they are immediately registered and provided
modest food, water, and medical attention. Residents receive Residents
receive services from twenty or more different humanitarian aid groups,
each of which uses their own unique method of tracking who received
what service when. As you can imagine, this is a recipe for potential
corruption and abuse.
Our partnership with the Smart Communities Coalition will transform
this process for more than 600,000 people. Our implementing partners at
the camps will harness the Internet and smart-card technology to do
their jobs more efficiently, and at a lower cost. Displaced families
will have better access to essential services, such as power. Just as
important, in these ``smart communities,'' we will be better able to
track our assistance, decrease fraud and abuse, and provide services
more quickly and cheaply. This is the power of private-enterprise
making us better at meeting our core mission.
procurement reform: encouraging new partners and new partnerships
Yet another way in which we aim to make our precious funding go
further is by using innovative procurement tools to increase
competition among potential partners. In FY 2017, around 60 percent of
USAID funding went to just 25 organizations. We are exploring new ways
to harness new partners and ideas, and lower the ``cost'' and barriers
to entry for potential partners as they come forward. We are
encouraging entrepreneurship and ingenuity in program design, building
out technical expertise in areas such as small grants, and embracing
approaches that allow us to move more quickly in crafting initiatives
and considering submissions.
For example, last Fall, when the Vice President announced the U.S.
government's intent to support persecuted religious minorities and
other communities in Iraq, USAID was able to move from ``ideas to
action'' by using a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)--a tool you have
supported--that can reduce lead times. This tool allows us to launch a
competitive process that builds on collaborative research and
development to address a specific challenge.
USAID mobilized quickly to respond to this important call from the
Vice President and members of Congress from both sides and both houses.
We know that protecting freedom of religion and--as in this case,
religious pluralism--is of paramount importance. We also know that the
displaced religious and ethnic minorities will need support as they
return to their ancestral homelands.
To do this, USAID has taken a short-, medium-, and long-term
approach: First, in December 2017, through our Office of Foreign
Disaster Assistance, we directed $6.6 million to provide internally
displaced persons (IDPs) in the Ninewa Plains and Sinjar with
essentials such as shelter, water, and hygiene services. Second, in
January of this year, we worked with the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) to focus $55 million (of our $75 million overall FY
2017 contribution) on 11 of the hardest-hit minority communities in the
Ninewa Plains and Sinjar. We also imposed strict oversight of these
funds, to ensure that the assistance reaches these communities. At the
same time, we directed $4 million in health-related programming to the
same regions.
We are still working through the procurement process for additional
funds to support these communities, but I expect to be making an
announcement by the end of the month naming our partners and projects.
We're also already planning our future funding, including in fiscal
years 18 and 19, to continue to support these endangered communities.
We acknowledge that for victims of genocide, no assistance can come
fast enough. But we will continue to assist victims of persecution in
Iraq until it's no longer needed. I give you my word on that.
As another example, last Fall, I announced the world's first
Development Impact Bond (DIB) for maternal and child health--USAID's
second overall DIB, and one of the world's largest. Under this new
model, private capital funds the initial investment, and USAID pays if,
and only if, the carefully defined development goal is achieved.
In this case, we are working to strengthen maternal and newborn
health care facilities in Northern India. Our partners at the UBS
Optimus Foundation are raising capital from private investors to
finance improvements to over 400 private health facilities. Teams at
these 400 facilities will help appropriately train staff, and make
life-saving equipment and medicines available. Each facility will then
undergo a rigorous review process to ensure it has met the appropriate
accreditation standards. If the facilities meet those standards, USAID
and our matching partner, Merck for Mothers, will pay the UBS Optimus
Foundation. The DIB allows us to incentivize results, and lessen
taxpayer risk.
I am also working to ensure that our partners operate with the
highest level of integrity and accountability. We are learning from our
past experiences. As many of you are aware, we have encountered
challenges with the Global Health Supply Chain contract and I am
committed to raising the standards of accountability and apply lessons,
even hard ones, in the future. And on
March 9, I met with representatives from InterAction, the
Professional Services Council, and United Nations agencies to make
clear to our partners that USAID will not tolerate sexual harassment or
misconduct of any kind. In addition, our Executive Diversity Council
recently met to take up this important topic. Coming out of that
meeting, I directed the Agency's senior leadership team to take
mandatory sexual harassment training, and asked them to communicate to
our partners the seriousness with which we take this issue. I also
formed a new Action Alliance for Preventing Sexual Misconduct, chaired
by General Counsel David Moore, which will undertake a thorough review
of our existing policies and procedures to identify and close any
potential gaps, while strengthening accountability and compliance, in
consultation with our external partners.
redesign: building tomorrow's usaid
Being good stewards of taxpayer resources cannot be a one-time
thing, or merely a set of steps aimed at a single budget. We need to
undertake experience-informed, innovation-driven reforms to optimize
our structures and procedures and maximize our effectiveness.
Over the last few months, we have been working to roll out Agency-
wide projects through the Redesign that will help to institutionalize
some of these ideas. This effort began in response to an Executive
Order from the President, but, even if that had never happened, I would
still have argued for the reforms we are planning. Over the last six
months, I and others at USAID have met with Congressional committees
and personal offices more than 40 times to discuss our plans. Your
input, and that of your staff, has been invaluable to our process, and
I am deeply appreciative of your engagement and support.
The Redesign includes many of the proposals I have shared today,
including procurement reform, as well as streamlining our humanitarian
assistance programing. It also includes working with the administration
on cross-cutting government reorganization proposals, such as the new
U.S. Development Finance Institution and the consolidation of small
grants functions and expertise into USAID.
We have also made a concerted effort to address all Government
Accountability Office (GAO) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
audits. Just six months ago, we had almost 100 backlogged
recommendations. I set an ambitious goal of closing all of them within
six months. I'm proud to say that by May 28, we achieved that goal.
With this backlog under control, USAID is fully committed to staying on
top of these audits. We have put in place processes and procedures to
ensure we are addressing and implementing new recommendations in a
timely manner.
Another example of efforts we are undertaking through the Redesign
are the metrics that we have developed. If the goal of our development
assistance is to help partner countries create the commitment and
capacity needed to take on their own development journey, we should
focus our assistance on interventions that will best help them get
there. We have developed metrics that will serve as mileposts to help
us understand where our partners are going, and what role we might play
in their journey.
We will continue to consult with you on all of the work that is
taking place through the Redesign effort. All of this is in service of
helping our partners help themselves. All of it is to provide the
proverbial ``hand-up.'' And all of it points towards a world where
foreign assistance is no longer needed--a world where people are self-
reliant, prosperous, and capable of crafting their own bright future.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the committee, I
believe we are shaping an Agency that is capable of leveraging our
influence, authority, and available resources to advance U.S.
interests, transform the way we provide humanitarian and development
assistance, and, alongside the rest of the world, help meet the
daunting challenges we all see today. With your support and guidance,
we will ensure USAID remains the world's premier international
development Agency and continues the important work we do, each day, to
protect America's future security and prosperity. Thank you for
allowing me to speak with you today, and I welcome your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
testimony and service.
With that, I am going to reserve my time, as I normally do,
and turn to Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Corker.
And as you may well know, Administrator Green, we are in
between two votes. So I would expect many other members,
including the ranking member, will be here at some point when
those votes conclude. But I am grateful for the opportunity to
proceed directly to questioning much more quickly than I
thought I might otherwise.
It is always good to see you. I am grateful for your
lengthy service to our country, both as a Member of Congress,
as an Ambassador to Tanzania, now as USAID Administrator.
And I want to specifically thank you for your clear voice
on the human rights crisis of the Rohingya. Later today, on a
bipartisan basis, the Senate Human Rights Caucus that I co-
chair with Senator Tillis is hosting an event about the
Rohingya and continuing our effort to try and elevate the focus
on that.
And the clarity of your responsiveness on concerns about
sexual abuse and what is going to be done within USAID, within
the agency you are charged with leading around that I just want
to celebrate.
Let me just say broadly not directed at you, Mr.
Administrator, that it is very frustrating to me as an
appropriator responsible for the State Department and USAID
that the Trump administration once again ignored the will of
Congress and submitted a budget request nearly identical to the
previous year, which was last year rejected on a bipartisan,
bicameral basis. And the budget request--I am concerned about
the message it sends about the value of democracy because it
significantly under-invests in democracy, and I think that
sends a bad message about our values around the world.
I am going to work with my colleagues on the State and
Foreign Ops Subcommittee to reject some of these cuts to
development and diplomacy, and I look forward to working with
you to make sure that what we do can be well and appropriately
spent.
Let me focus my few questions on the Sahel and challenges I
think we see in a number of places on the continent.
Last year, the administration pledged up to $60 million in
support the Sahel G-5 Joint Force initiative on top of other
security assistance. And in April, I led a bipartisan
delegation that visited Niger and Burkina Faso, along with
Senators Flake and Booker, chair and ranking of the Africa
Subcommittee. And I came away convinced gains made by the G-5
Sahel Joint Force will not be sustained without comparably
strong investments in development and democracy.
Do you plan to increase funding for democracy and
development programs in the Sahel to address the underlying
sources of instability and fragility in these five states? And
have you been consulted in the interagency process regarding
the development of a comprehensive approach to stability in the
Sahel that would partner development and democracy programming
with security programming?
Mr. Green. Thank you for that question. I share your
interest and concern for the Sahel. I am planning on making my
own trip, and Niger is the current country that we are planning
to visit in coming weeks.
What we have tried to do so far is to, first off, map all
of the projects that we have going on in the region--and there
are many in different sectors--and then try to do a better job
of pulling them together.
But you are right on how you characterize the challenges
that the region faces. It is vulnerable to chronic shocks that
very quickly bring about humanitarian crisis. We are certainly
supporting the region through our humanitarian programming. But
part of this is we all want to get in front of it. So in our
redesign, as you know, we are trying to strengthen the
resilience portion of our humanitarian work, and I can think of
no better place to focus that resilience work than in this
region. We currently have some important promising programs
underway. This is a President's Malaria Initiative country, and
I am looking forward to going to see that in action, as well as
a Feed the Future country. We are working on strengthening
democracy and civil society. It is a big battle. There is a lot
of work to do and a lot of threads to pull together, but it is
something that is very important.
I recently met with the Ambassador to Niger. We had some
conversations. I learned more about the work that is being done
by the G-5. A lot of the work that they have been doing has
been security-led, and security is awfully important. But long-
term security requires strength of governing institutions. And
so that I think is the piece that is important for us to be
working on.
I have also heard that a number of countries from the EU
are strengthening now their development side of work, which is
good news. So as I head to the region, I plan on working
closely reaching out to our partners and looking for ways to
coordinate and leverage each other's investments.
Interestingly, Brussels is opening a stronger development
presence there and so is Luxembourg and the Netherlands. So I
think there are some real possibilities, but as you point out,
these are in many cases largely ungoverned spaces and there is
a lot of work that we need to do.
Senator Coons. Well, I had some lengthy conversations just
yesterday with Senator Graham and with your immediate
predecessor, and I have talked to a number of members of this
committee. I think we should be making an effort towards an
authorizing structure for a fragile state partnership with some
of our European allies, hopefully with a strengthened DFI that
can help crowd in private capital, but frankly led by the
development mission you are responsible for.
Let me make two more brief comments, Mr. Chairman, if I
might. I see the press of other questioners.
The Chairman. The meeting may end very shortly.
Senator Coons. Just briefly on Niger, the population is 70
percent illiterate. 40 percent of female primary school
students do not reach 6th grade. I hope you will consider more
dedicated education funding in Niger.
I also had some questions about opening a USAID permanent
mission in Niamey because I think it is difficult for staff
located in Ghana or Senegal to really grasp and engage in terms
of what is on the ground. And I hope through appropriations to
give you the tools to do that.
Let me just ask about rescissions to the Complex Crisis
Fund because that may be a live issue this week here in the
Senate. USAID has used the Complex Crisis Fund for 8 years to
respond to emerging or unforeseen crises in more than 25
countries. I think it is a valuable prevention tool. The
pipeline is very small because it gets spent. And as part of
your transformation efforts, you have proposed creating a
bureau for conflict prevention and stabilization. But the
administration proposed rescinding $30 million from the Complex
Crisis Fund, a proposal we may well vote on shortly.
Are you concerned about the proposed rescission to this
fund, and are you concerned that you're prioritizing conflict
prevention and this new bureau creation at exactly the same
time we may be zeroing out the primary account USAID uses to
deal with conflict prevention?
Mr. Green. Thank you for the question.
First, as a general matter, obviously we will implement any
rescissions that are passed by Congress applicable with law.
Look, we will never have all the resources that we need to
take on every challenge and seize every opportunity. We will
work, as best we can, to make the resources that we have go as
far as they possibly can to deal not only in the immediate
region of the Sahel but more broadly with a number of
challenges that we see.
Senator Coons. Well, thank you. I appreciate your
professionalism, and you are in an awkward spot in terms of the
priorities. You know, I will just close by saying, as I
mentioned in my opening, that I think the President's budget
request, which proposes a nearly 40 percent cut to democracy
and governance funding globally and nearly 60 percent to the
democracy and governance funding in Africa is a profound
misreading of where we should be prioritizing our investment.
And I have confidence and optimism that we will both be able to
provide the resources you need and that you and USAID will do
an excellent job of leading on this issue. Thank you, Mr.
Administrator.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I know Senator Coons and myself both were involved in Power
Africa, and we have had the person who is in charge of that on
your behalf into the office on a couple of occasions.
I know there are goals to have 50 million beneficiaries by
2020, installed generation capacity of 20,000 megawatts. More
than half of the connections are from solar lanterns, and it is
projected that about 40 percent of the required target will be
done by solar lanterns.
I know that the thrust had been to have power generation
that was tariffed and sustainable. How do you feel about where
we are going with Power Africa today? And is the solar lantern
component something that we feel like is what we are really
striving to achieve?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Senator.
Power Africa is one of those great tools that I did not
really appreciate until I arrived at USAID. It has helped to
produce more than $14 million in leveraged investments, 12
million electrical connections on the African continent, and
closed 95 projects. So it is a great tool that we have. We have
recently expanded its reach through MOUs with the Government of
Israel and the Government of South Korea.
In terms of the approach to technologies, it is all the
above. We are technology neutral. So so much of the work that
we do is private sector-driven. It is the investments that come
towards us. We work with whatever means we can to close deals
that will rapidly expand access to reliable, affordable energy
for African citizens.
The Chairman. Yes, but are we doing what we set out to do?
I mean, this was to be something that drove economic
development, people's ability to have health care, education.
Or are we just hitting numbers and really not driving exactly
what we set out to do on the front end?
Mr. Green. I think we are having enormous success with
Power Africa. We are looking to ramp it up and expand it even
more. We have Power Africa 2.0 that we recently unveiled, and
quite frankly, we are trying to take the lessons learned and
bring them to other regions' power needs in places like
Southeast Asia and Asia. So I think it works because it
harnesses the power of the private sector, but we certainly can
be more aggressive in how we push things forward. But I do
think it is making a difference. It is certainly a tool that is
popular with our partners and leaders on the continent.
The Chairman. I think it is an incredible effort. I just
want to make sure we are not just hitting numbers, but we are
driving what it is we want to really see with so many people in
Africa not having power.
Mr. Green. If I can, Senator. Something that is important I
think to bring up at this point too. Another importance of
Power Africa is the model that we use in driving it. So as
everyone on the committee knows, there are a couple of
different development models that are out there. There is the
model that we put forward, the model to self-reliance, in which
we incentivize capacity building and reform in our partners so
they take on those conditions that block private investment and
stop them from rising. There is a competitor out there, the
Chinese model, in which they mobilize lots of resources up
front oftentimes with unsustainable debt at the back end. And
the competition is oftentimes China offers easy money, and that
easy money is alluring many times to countries under economic
and political pressure.
And so one of the things that I think we need to do a
better job of is making clear what the differences are, why it
makes sense to go with the Power Africa model. It does involve
institutional reform and change and sometimes tough choices,
but in the long run, we all know that it brings about
sustainable development and independence. And we need to make
clear what the other side offers and the consequences over the
long haul.
The Chairman. I know you have been working some with DOD
and I understand you all have a very good collaboration
underway. And just for the record, I would love for you to have
the opportunity to talk a little bit about that and how you see
that evolving.
Mr. Green. Thank you. It is another lesson in realization
since I have arrived at the agency. Our working relationship
with DOD is tremendous. It is very close. We are in constant
consultation. From the stabilization assistance review, we do
stabilization work--we are collocated in parts of the world--to
the work that we do back here. We have 23 staff who are
embedded development advisors in the combatant commands. And so
DOD turns to us all the time for development ideas and counsel.
In disaster relief, they are the ones who make possible so much
of what we do.
Last year, a highlight during a moment of crisis for me was
the fact that when that second earthquake hit Mexico City, I
was asked by the White House to be able to mobilize a search
and rescue team immediately, and thanks to the work that we do,
our foreign disaster assistance team with DOD, we are able to
get a search and rescue crew in Mexico City before breakfast
the next morning, a sign of how closely we work both in the
humanitarian field and in the stabilization field as well.
The Chairman. And then again, because I know this is a
major focus, your transformation efforts. I know you referred
to that a little bit in your opening comments, but would you
like--since we have time for you to do so, would you like to
expand a little bit on what is happening in that regard?
Mr. Green. Thank you. I certainly would.
Since the day I arrived at USAID, my top purpose, if you
will, is to turn to our staff, solicit their ideas, new ideas,
ideas that have been around for a while, and look for ways to
essentially build the USAID of tomorrow. We believe that we are
the world's premier development agency. And the question that I
posed to my staff is what do we have to do to be the world's
premier development agency 20 years from now. And that is
really what we are trying to do.
We have undertaken 27 projects or identified 27 projects
into five outcome streams, all led by career staff. And we are
working to reshape ourselves in line with the challenges that
we see and also reshape ourselves in our programming in line
with the tools that we have and the opportunities that we see.
And so while we are still in the process--we are in the phase
that we call ``transformation,'' which is really moving from
whiteboard to implementation--I am very excited about the work
that the team has done. I am grateful for the input that we
have received from you and your staff and the staff of this
committee. We have lots of work to do, but I do believe that we
are getting to a place that will really extend our reach and
make us more nimble and really help us apply development tools
in a more effective, more efficient manner.
The Chairman. Well, thank you.
And I will turn to Senator Menendez.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest
of time, I ask unanimous consent that my opening statement be
included in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Menendez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Robert Menendez
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing. It is critical
that this committee conduct oversight in our jurisdiction. Again, Mr.
Chairman, I reiterate that I believe this committee should be holding
more hearings on any number of pressing topics with witnesses from the
administration. From North Korea to Russia to a crisis on our very own
border that is tearing families apart and damaging our moral leadership
and credibility on the global stage, this committee must do its job.
Today we will focus on the President's budget--or lack thereof, for
the United States Agency for International Development as well as other
development issues.
Before I delve more into that, however, it would be irresponsible
in this context not to highlight President Trump's irresponsible and
uninformed declaration on foreign aid yesterday. He said quote: ``when
countries abuse us by sending people up--not their best--we're not
going to give any more aid to those countries. Why should we?''
I'd like this committee to let that sink in. As if these countries
were ``sending'' these children, these families, who are in fact
fleeing for their lives. Why should we send them aid? Why? To support
their own efforts to lift themselves out of poverty. To support efforts
to improve security and rule of law so these very people won't be
fleeing in the first place. I will get more into that during my
questions.
Now, I greatly appreciate the Administrator's interest and
willingness to testify. I know that you, like me, fundamentally believe
in the core mission of USAID and the power of development, good
governance, and democracy to lift people out of poverty and ultimately
promote resilience, prosperity, and security throughout the world.
Which is why I assess that the proposed FY 2019 budget is, frankly, an
absolute joke and one that does not even come close to fulfilling the
objectives of this administration's own national security strategy.
Adequately funding an independently functioning USAID is essential
to promoting our foreign policy objectives, delivering emergency
assistance and ensuring sustainable long-term development to put
countries on the path to self-reliance.
I am fundamentally disappointed at the administration's proposal to
consolidate international development accounts; abruptly close more
than 20 USAID missions; slow-walk the allocation of congressionally
directed funding.
I am also eager to gain a better understanding of your vision of
redesigning USAID. While the bar of the State Department redesign was
low, I understand that the process you have undertaken reflects more
input from career public servants, stakeholders and advocates and I
appreciate the proactive engagement you personally have had with
Members and staff.
However, I still have remaining questions. I worry this redesign
reflects a shift in the construction of the core competencies of USAID,
which have historically been--and I believe must remain--building
institutional capacity, improving good governance, and investing in
long-term development.
That said, I am generally supportive of your efforts to support
countries on their ``journeys to self-reliance.'' Specifically, I have
long advocated for a full set of tools to advance our country's
economic statecraft, which is why my staff and I have been so engaged
with the Chairman and Senator Coons' in their efforts to reform our
Development Finance Institutions through the BUILD Act. As you know, I
was disappointed you were not available for our hearing on the bill
last month and look forward to your thoughts on the impact this will
have on USAID.
Finally, I appreciate that in your testimony you note the
importance U.S. global leadership. Our global leadership stems from our
values, which should drive our foreign policy efforts, much as they
should drive our domestic agenda. Furthermore, our development agenda
must be in concert with broader foreign policy and national security
goals.
Our military is the strongest in the world, but history proves and
its own leaders acknowledge it cannot be the only face of the United
States abroad. For example, we cannot consolidate military gains
against ISIS or other foreign terrorist organizations if we are not
also supporting communities develop sustainable, accessible, economic
livelihoods, particularly for youth and marginalized communities that
will ultimately make them prosperous, secure, and resilient.
We must promote programs that make education and economic
enterprises more accessible to women and girls. We must utilize our
incomparable scientific and technological capabilities to partner with
private investment and local organizations to improve access to
electricity, water, and vital health therapies.
Finally, as we appropriately respond to natural disasters with
humanitarian and food relief, we must invest in addressing the manmade
causes of forced migration including poverty, violence, and weak
systems of governance. Tragically, around the world and at our very own
border we see what can happen when we do not.
I want to thank you again for coming before the committee and
generously extending your time, and your staff's time, over the course
of the past year. As we move forward, I look forward to working with
you, the administration and critical voices across the international
development community to diligently ensure USAID has what it needs to
be successful.
Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, for now, I am going to ask
the Democratic Leader to object, while hearings are taking
place, to votes on the floor. Some of us have to cast votes,
and the reality is that it is unfair to Members to have
hearings going on while votes are going on on the floor. So
that will solve hopefully the problem.
Administrator, I understand that you and other members of
the cabinet are often playing catch-up to policies announced
via tweet. But as I mentioned in my opening statement--well,
the opening statement you did not get to hear--the President
said he would seek authorization that would cut off aid to
countries who send asylum seekers to the United States. Do you
believe the countries in the Northern Triangle are sending
people to the United States?
Mr. Green. Senator, I have had no communications from the
White House on this subject. So I would certainly refer you----
Senator Menendez. I am asking from your experience. Do you
believe that countries in the Northern Triangle are sending
people to the United States?
Mr. Green. Well, so I would refer you to them with specific
reference to that statement.
What I will say is that since the day I arrived and before,
we have been working to address those challenges in the
Northern Triangle and in the region which we think may be
drivers for those especially unaccompanied minors----
Senator Menendez. I am sorry to interrupt to you because I
only have limited time, and I do not have a good disposition
this morning.
Do you believe that the countries of the Northern Triangle,
the governments of the Northern Triangle, are sending people to
the United States, that they are formally sending people to the
United States? Yes or no.
Mr. Green. Senator, I believe that there are governing
challenges in these countries that we can partner with them to
take on, which will create the conditions----
Senator Menendez. Do you believe that cutting off aid to
countries in the Northern Triangle would ultimately benefit the
United States?
Mr. Green. I believe that all of our assistance programs
should serve our national interests. I believe that they do. I
am certainly open to reviews of our assistance, which we do
continuously all the time. Again, we work hard to make sure
that our assistance programs are deployed in ways that serve
our national interests as well as----
Senator Menendez. One of the things I have always
appreciated about you in the past is that you have been a
pretty straight shooter. One of the things I do not appreciate
about your answers right now--it sounds like you have been
engrained with the State Department speak, which is to say a
lot but say nothing. I asked you a very specific question. Do
you believe that cutting off aid to countries in the Northern
Triangle would ultimately benefit the United States?
Mr. Green. Again, Senator, I believe that all of our aid
programs need to be focused on challenges that we see and serve
the best interests of the U.S.
Senator Menendez. Do you believe that what we are doing in
the Northern Triangle serves the interests of the United
States?
Mr. Green. Our assistance programs?
Senator Menendez. Yes.
Mr. Green. At this point I do, yes.
Senator Menendez. Well, then if you believe that, cutting
off aid to them would not be a good thing.
Mr. Green. Well, the particular programs that I am aware of
that USAID is responsible for--we are obviously not responsible
for all the programs, but we believe that they are making
progress and helping to create the conditions----
Senator Menendez. Do you believe that cutting off programs
that support economic development and the rule of law reform is
in the national security interests of the United States?
Mr. Green. You know, I will defer to the State Department
and the National Security Council for statements on national
security interests. What I will say is that the programs that
we do, we work very hard to make sure that they serve our
interests.
Senator Menendez. Let me turn to another. All of those
answers are unsatisfactory to me.
Administrator, the committee is soon going to mark up the
BUILD Act, a bill to reform and modernize U.S. development
institutions. I am deeply disappointed you were not available
to testify on something that is so critical to development
assistance in our country.
In March, you and I discussed the importance of ensuring
the new Development Finance Corporation has a strong
development mandate and that achieving development outcomes
that improve the stability and sustainable growth of host
countries where projects are conducted is what guides the
mission of this agency.
If the development credit authority is moved from USAID
into the new DFC, do you believe that the DFC's financial tools
will still be available to USAID's mission and staff so that
they can successfully leverage necessary tools in the field?
Mr. Green. Thank you for the question.
You are touching upon an extraordinarily important point.
It is not simply money that flows into a country. It is what it
goes to and what it is that it funds. And DCA is obviously a
very important tool. In our structure, it is owned by our
missions and staff overseas. So what we have said consistently
is that it is important that tool continue to be available to
the development experts that we have at USAID out in the field.
And so what we have done is urge those who are involved in the
legislation to reinforce the linkages that will enable that to
happen. So that is how I view this.
I do believe as a general matter that the concept of a DFI
is a constructive one, is a good one. I have written in favor
of it over the years. It is making sure that it is closely
linked to development that I think will determine its success.
Senator Menendez. So do you believe that the financial
tools, as it is structured under the bill, will still be
available to USAID's missions and staff so that they can
successfully leverage necessary tools in the field? Yes or no.
Mr. Green. First off, I know the legislation is being
considered right now, and I know that there are efforts to
create----
Senator Menendez. As written, Administrator. As written.
Yes or no.
Mr. Green. Senator, as I understand, the legislation is
evolving and moving. What we have simply suggested and urged is
that the linkages are enshrined, institutionalized the best
they can.
Senator Menendez. That is the most unresponsive set of
answers that I have had from someone before this committee. I
do not know whether you are purposely choosing to be
unresponsive, but it is out of character for you and is really
disappointing to me.
Who is next here? Senator Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Administrator Green, I want to just continue
on the Central America theme. As you know, I lived in Honduras
back in 1980-1981 and with many colleagues on this committee am
really concerned about the situation on the border now. Today
is World Refugee Day. June 20 every year, we think about the
needs of refugees around the world. So it is particularly
timely with the situation on the border.
USAID is a key implementer of programs under the U.S.
strategy for engagement in Central America. And those programs
in the Northern Triangle include a focus on judicial reform,
job creation, and violence prevention efforts. I think you
testified in response to Senator Menendez's questions that you
believe that USAID's focus on those areas is not only in the
interest of those countries but also in the interest of
American policy. Would you agree?
Mr. Green. Yes.
Senator Kaine. How do investments in job creation, judicial
reform, and violence prevention help the U.S.?
Mr. Green. Thanks for the question.
In a number of ways. First off, creating economic vibrancy
and opportunity in those countries is good for commerce. So it
is good for U.S. commercial and trade interests.
Secondly, it addresses some of the drivers that we believe
contribute to irregular migration by creating opportunities
back home and, related to that, taking on some of the
challenges like transnational crime and lack of safe areas,
safe spaces that families often encounter in some of these
countries. So we think that they are not only in the interest
of these countries but, again, we think good for the U.S.
Senator Kaine. So the USAID investments in job creation,
judicial reform, violence prevention help the stability of
these countries, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. But they
also reduce the pressure to migrate and leave and go elsewhere.
So they are good for those countries, and they are good for the
United States, too.
Mr. Green. I believe so, yes.
Senator Kaine. And I echo--and it would sound like you
would as well--the concern that Senator Menendez has. The
fiscal year 2019 budget proposes 30 percent cuts to these
funds, a significant reduction in funds that are going to the
worthy USAID programs that you indicate. And if those programs
are reducing the pressure for forced migration and increasing
local stability and economic development, the cuts of those
funds--I mean, it is just sort of a tautology. Reducing those
funds are going to hurt these nations and also hurt American
objectives, including the immigration issue. Correct?
Mr. Green. Senator, we recognize that tough decisions have
to be made and that there is a tough balance, needs at home
versus American leadership overseas.
Senator Kaine. And so let us talk about balance. I mean, if
the issue is this challenge of kids coming to the border and
this is now blowing up to be like the Birmingham children's
crusade, children who in 1963 were attacked by guard dogs and
fire hoses, and that grabbed the globe's attention--this is
achieving that same kind of torque. And if we can slow that
problem down by investing in these regions so that they can
reduce violence and grow jobs, why would we want to cut the
funds that do that, thereby exacerbating the very problem that
the administration has created by its self-announced policy?
Mr. Green. First off, as much as I believe in our programs,
I am not going to tell you that they are the answer, obviously,
to the challenges that are there. But in terms of the
effectiveness of those programs, I do believe in them, and I do
think the programs are producing good results. And we have seen
it in places like Honduras in terms of the violent crime rate.
Again, I recognize that in the current budget environment,
tough choices are being made.
Senator Kaine. So let me ask you this. Here is a worry that
I have. If the administration low balls an ask and then
Congress comes in and puts more in because we think it is
important, bluntly in some agencies I worry if we put more
money in, I am not sure that the agency will embrace and carry
out the mission as Congress desires with respect to funding.
If we are able to provide more money into these programs in
Central America to do these worthy things than the
administration has asked, will you commit to us that you will
vigorously invest those dollars for those worthy purposes that
you have described and thereby help us try to deal with the
root causes of these problems?
Mr. Green. I will do everything I can to mobilize those
dollars because I do believe in the programs.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Menendez. Senator Murphy?
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
In your answer to Senator Kaine, you referenced this budget
tension between U.S. global leadership and domestic demands,
but that is actually not the story behind the administration's
budget because the budget actually calls for a fairly robust
and impressive increase in military spending, one that this
Congress has supported. So it is not as if this administration
is downsizing America's footprint around the world. It is
simply that they are proposing to downsize your footprint in
the world and the footprint of the State Department while
dramatically upscaling the amount of money that we put into the
Department of Defense's footprint overseas.
That is something that I simply do not understand because
as I read the challenges presented to the United States, I get
that there are certainly conventional military challenges that
are different today than might have existed 10 years ago. But I
frankly do not read there to be a larger number of conventional
military challenges and a smaller number of non-military
challenges.
So explain the budget through that prism. I mean, do you
support the idea that we need to dramatically plus up military
spending and, in order to pay for it, dramatically reduce the
spending that is available to you? That just does not seem to
meet the world that I see, and I do not think it meets the
world that you see.
Mr. Green. Senator, I support the President's budget. I
believe that tough choices are being made. I readily admit that
we are not able to address every need or opportunity that we
see out there. Obviously, our nation's national security
interests, including our hard power needs, are significant. I
think we all recognize that. And as you would imagine, I also
believe strongly that the tools that we have and the State
Department has are important as well.
And so our job will be for the resources that you
generously provide, I will make them go as far as they possibly
can. I will leverage other investments working closely with
other countries. I will work with the private sector to
maximize enterprise-driven solutions. I will look to ramp up
domestic resource mobilization. So I think my responsibility is
and will continue to be to make these dollars----
Senator Murphy. I think it is unfair for you to leave this
committee or the Congress with the impression that this is
about balancing domestic needs with international leadership
because it is not that we are spending less money globally, it
is that the administration is specifically targeting the State
Department and USAID while proposing massive new amounts of
money for the Department of Defense.
I want to talk to you about one specific part of the world
and that is Yemen. This is now officially the world's worst
humanitarian crisis. More than 22 million people, 75 percent of
the population, are living in desperate need of aid and
protection.
From testimony given to this committee by the State
Department, the United States has opposed for a very long time
the Saudi-UAE coalition's plans to attack Hodeidah, which is
the site through which most of the humanitarian aid flows. Our
coalition partners ignored our requests and are presently in
the midst of launching an attack on that port city which could
result in the complete cutoff of aid over the course of the
duration of this campaign, which could last weeks but it could
last months, leading to the death and destruction of massive
amounts of that country.
So what have you recommended to the White House regarding
the U.S. position on the assault on Hodeidah? And would you
recommend that the UAE halt its operations--this is primarily a
UAE operation--to give negotiations a chance?
Mr. Green. So we have been in constant contact with our
implementing partners both back here and out in the field. I
can tell you that as of last night, the World Food Program,
which is our principal partner there, is still able to deliver
food through the port of Hodeidah. As you know, earlier this
year, we funded the four cranes that are expanding the capacity
of that port. We are watching very, very closely. What we have
done is the State Department has urged all parties to respect
the work of the special envoy and also to continue to----
Senator Murphy. Well, you cannot respect the work of the
special envoy in the middle of an assault on Hodeidah. There is
no work being done by the special envoy right now because there
is an active military campaign. So are you advising the UAE to
stand down to give the special envoy a chance or are you
supportive of the assault on Hodeidah?
Mr. Green. So that is a question for the Secretary of State
and the Department of State----
Senator Murphy. Are you concerned about the humanitarian
consequences?
Mr. Green. Oh, sure, of course, absolutely. We are
concerned. In fact, tomorrow I will be meeting with our NGO
partners again. We are meeting with them all the time doing
everything that we can to make sure that the State Department,
the White House, and everybody involved is aware of the
humanitarian challenges that are there and doing everything we
can to make sure that those needs are met under extraordinarily
difficult circumstances.
But also, I will say the way that you characterized this is
accurate. I mean, this is a profound humanitarian challenge
that we are working on right now. We are, I believe, the
largest humanitarian donor towards Yemen, but this is something
that we worry about all the time.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. And Senator Murphy and Young and
others, thanks for your leadership. I know we have all been
pressing, and I thank you for taking the lead on a letter
recently.
Look, in fairness, this is my observation. The leader of
USAID has no impact whatsoever on military operations. And
obviously, these folks have to, quote, support the President's
budget knowing that it has no relevance to what we are going to
do. And I understand that. I think we have a USAID
Administrator that really is seeking to do the things that
people on both sides of the aisle want to see happen in our aid
programs, and I thank him for that. And I am glad we are not
focused much on the budget today.
Senator Young?
Senator Young. Thank you, Chairman.
Administrator Green, it is great to have you here. Thanks
so much for your service.
I will just pick up on Senator Murphy's line of questioning
on Yemen. And I agree with the chairman that you really do not
have any impact on the military effort there in your current
capacity.
But you did mention Yemen in your opening statement, and
you know that the Saudi and Emirati-led military operations
have led to the seizure of the airport by the coalition. You
also know, as anyone who is following this issue knows, the
importance of keeping open the port of Hodeidah for
humanitarian shipment to continue.
From a USAID perspective, what is the key message you would
like to convey to the combatants with respect to humanitarian
access and most especially access that is required through the
port of Hodeidah?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Senator.
First off, there really is no replacement or substitute for
the port of Hodeidah, at least not an effective and economic
one. So we urge all parties to preserve the free flow of
lifesaving humanitarian and commercial goods through that port,
and we think it is key. As I said as you were coming in, our
best information from last night is that the World Food Program
is still able to operate in the port and offload food and vital
supplies, medical relief supplies, and obviously that is
terrifically important. But we are in touch with our partners
all the time.
Also, I know that there has been some prepositioning of
supplies, again not a substitute, but at least some step to try
to ameliorate some of the potential fallout.
Senator Young. This is by the Emiratis. Right? They are
characterizing this military operation as at once a military
operation and also it is their belief that they can better
facilitate humanitarian delivery than the current situation. Or
is it the World Food Program?
Mr. Green. Well, again, regardless. We want to see
unfettered access by humanitarian actors. So right now, the
ships that I am referring to are World Food Program ships, but
again, we urge all the combatants to respect humanitarian law
and maintain that access.
Senator Young. The last thing on this. You agree, as Deputy
Assistant Administrator Jenkins testified to us last April,
that the temporary closure would be catastrophic. To build on
that, would an extended closure of Hodeidah in your mind lead
to catastrophic humanitarian consequences in Yemen?
Mr. Green. It would have humanitarian fallout on a very
large scale.
Senator Young. All right. Thank you, sir.
Back to the issue of U.S. assistance through USAID and how
we take a different approach than the Chinese are seeming to
take. In your prepared statement, you talk about assistance as
empowering people. The focus is on self-reliance and
prosperity, on developing partnerships so that people can
finance their own development in the future. The U.S. is
clearly focused on building longer-term strategic and economic
relationships with countries, I would say, in contrast to the
Chinese approach that seems more focused on resource extraction
and the creation of dependence. Is that a fair
characterization?
Mr. Green. Yes.
Senator Young. If the U.S. is going to compete with China
when it comes to development, would you also agree that we have
to do better in catalyzing and facilitating private investment?
Mr. Green. Yes. I will say in some places they are a ways
off from getting there and having the environment. But
absolutely, that is part of the journey of self-reliance.
Senator Young. Yes. I think that has been a real point of
emphasis from day one of you assuming this role.
So in addition to efforts like the BUILD Act, of which I am
original cosponsor, should we be doing more and what should we
be doing, if the answer is, yes, we should be doing more, to
catalyze this private investment?
Mr. Green. So, yes, we should be doing more.
There are a number of innovative financing tools that we
use, everything from development impact funds to co-creation
with the private sector through what we call a grand challenge
mechanism or a broad agency announcement. The biggest thing
what we can do is I think identify for our partner countries
the capacity needs that they have and the commitment shortfalls
that they are showing and help to incentivize the kinds of
policy reforms that you and I would agree and experience shows
us are necessary for the private sector to invest in a real
meaningful way. And sometimes that means tough choices for
them. And so I think that we need to be there helping them.
Oftentimes it is technical assistance. But really tackling
those policy barriers is oftentimes the most important thing
that we can do. And then the private sector enterprise-driven
solutions are much easier to catalyze.
Senator Young. Just one quick follow-up. The United States
is the largest shareholder in the World Bank more than any
other country. Are we doing enough to leverage that status and
USAID objectives on the other hand so that we can make sure
that everything that USAID is doing is being multiplied by,
supported by the World Bank?
Mr. Green. So we can always do more and we can always do
better. But we do have a close working relationship. At the USG
level, much of it is with Treasury. Treasury essentially has
the axis point in the relationship. But I have met with Jim Kim
and we do talk about broad development challenges and
opportunities and even humanitarian response. We can always do
more, but I think we have a good productive relationship.
Senator Young. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Kaine?
Senator Kaine. I have already gone.
The Chairman. Senator Booker?
Senator Booker. Thank you very much.
I am grateful you are here, Administrator.
Just real quick. I just came back from Afghanistan a few
weeks ago, and it came out in one of our hearings here that we
are spending about $45 billion a year in military operations
there. The USAID was supposed to receive about $650 million. It
is only going to receive about $500 million as we look ahead. I
guess I was surprised by what I was hearing on the ground by
military leaders telling me there is only so much that they can
do, almost talking about a bit of a stalemate, but how
important it is to build institutions there, how important it
is to build self-reliance there, the kind of things that the
military is not doing, which makes me think that USAID's role
there is really pivotal. But it seems like, again, this is a
theme in lots of the areas I have been visiting and looking at
where we are ratcheting up our military expenditures but really
ratcheting down our investments in helping these places like
Afghanistan build to the point where they can be self-reliant.
Can you tell me your thoughts on that?
Mr. Green. Sure. First of all, my office will get back to
you with more granular information just to respond particularly
on the numbers side. But you are right on the importance of the
work that we do there.
So our strategy in Afghanistan, which is part of the larger
South Asia strategy, is to help foster energy independence,
which is terribly important to Afghanistan and its future, also
strengthening inclusive growth so that the economic growth is
not just for the powerful few but the benefits are spread more
broadly, and in particular, investing in women and girls who
have oftentimes been marginalized from the workplace and the
boardroom, as well as politically.
Most immediately it is the elections and the conduct of
credible elections is awfully important there I think to give a
renewed sense of mandate to the government. It is a hardworking
environment, but obviously a successful, forward-leaning,
forward-looking Afghanistan is in our interests.
Senator Booker. And I appreciate that and got to see
firsthand the impact of the work that you are doing. I guess
what I do not understand is why are we ratcheting down
investments there, ratcheting up investments on the people that
are telling me that this is, for lack of a better word, a
military stalemate. But that is the policy that I am concerned
with and have great problems with. My time is running out.
Mr. Green. I take your concerns and we will make sure that
we get back to you.
Senator Booker. Thank you, sir.
And I want to shift--it is really the same concern. You
know, Senators Kaine and Cardin joined me in a letter to
President Trump expressing our concerns about the freeze on
funding when it comes to Syria, when it comes to investing in
things that provide very basic services to folks.
And I think the most stunning experience I had again was on
the same trip to Afghanistan. I stopped in Turkey and I met
with our Start Forward team that is there. They are the folks
that implement the Syrian humanitarian programs and incredibly
important work, I mean, when they are describing in rich detail
about really keeping people alive, not to mention avoiding the
impact of radicalization on populations that are now
particularly vulnerable to that. But they sort of surprised me
that literally they are going to have to start shuttering their
operations. And when you talk to the folks who folks are on the
ground there, you could see that they are stunned that they are
going to have to basically leave folks to fend for themselves,
dangerous, hostile, not having the resources they need.
So I left there very angry. How can my country again be
ratcheting up our military investments but the basic
humanitarian investments potentially could stop us from having
to deal with extremism in that region in the future? How can we
be ratcheting down on those expenditures?
Mr. Green. So there are two different pieces to our work in
Syria. There is the stabilization work that we do, which has
currently been frozen pending review by the White House,
although we learned yesterday or the day before, $6.25 million
was recently released to the White Helmets for the work that
they do in Syria.
Then there is the larger portion, the humanitarian side,
which is not frozen. And we are the largest donor of
humanitarian assistance in Syria, are doing it in nearly every
part of the country.
Senator Booker. You are familiar with the Start Forward
efforts.
Mr. Green. That is the stabilization side. At this point,
it is being held pending review by the White House.
Senator Booker. I just do want to say in my last seconds
here I am really pleased that you went to South Sudan. I have a
lot of great concerns, as I am sure you do, about what is
happening there, the violence against women, the sheer
humanitarian crisis that we are having. It is not getting the
attention and focus I think. But I understand there is a review
underway regarding the assistance in South Sudan. And just
maybe you can conclude by letting me know what is your role
within that review in hopefully informing the kind of
investments that we are making and stop what I see happening
again from Syria to Niger, which is a ratcheting down of
critical investments that are going to really prevent us from
having military investments in the long run.
Mr. Green. Senator, I really appreciate your concern. Not
enough people, quite frankly, pay attention to South Sudan and
the challenges that we face there. So the review that is
beginning--we do not have a specific timeline for it yet--is
very different than the case in Syria. So it is not slowing
down our assistance. We are continuing to operate. But I think
the review is appropriate. I worry. We want to make sure that
our assistance there in no way, shape, or form is reinforcing
either corrupt behavior or the kinds of behavior and policies
that you and I both believe cannot continue and go on.
But the suffering in South Sudan, the need, the near famine
that we see in many places is horrendous. My conversation with
President Kir when I was there was entirely unsatisfactory. I
know a number of members of this committee have also tried to
push for the peace process. We have heard in the last couple of
days that there are signs that the two sides may be talking. I
am skeptical, shall I say. But I do think it is appropriate for
us to be undertaking a thorough review and make sure that we
are in the right place in this. And we will make sure and keep
your office briefed because this is important to you I know.
Senator Booker. All right. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Flake?
Senator Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am glad that that question was asked.
Welcome, here. I remember traveling to Africa 18 years ago,
Lesotho and South Africa and Namibia, with you.
Let me just pick up on some of the Africa issues. We are
having a transition in Zimbabwe right now. Elections will be
held July 30th. AID has done good work even in very difficult
circumstances in Zimbabwe, not being able to work with the
government in a way that is helpful to the people there.
Can you talk about some of the opportunities that will
exist to do more work in Zimbabwe?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Senator. It is fun to think back on
those trips we did together.
So in Zimbabwe, so much of it comes down to these elections
and whether or not they are credible elections. That will
certainly shape our relationship a great deal.
I am like you. I am very hopeful. This is a country of
enormous capacity and tremendous needs. And with the right
leadership, willing to take on some of those legacy policy
problems, I think there is real possibility there. But I think
until these elections occur and our credible reflection of the
people, it is hard for us to be able to seize these
opportunities.
We have been working there for a while, continue to, but we
have not been able to do it on the scale that we would like
largely because of the governing partner that we have had in
the past.
Senator Flake. Well, thank you. And I appreciate the
chairman's help and others' on making sure we get our Zimbabwe
ambassador there prior to the elections. It is extremely
important to be represented fully.
Can you give a little status update? You mentioned in your
testimony Kenya's partnership and their work on the Power
Africa initiative. Can you talk about some of the other
countries that we are working in and give us a status update on
Power Africa?
Mr. Green. So Power Africa continues to be successful in
catalyzing and closing private investments. One of the areas
that I am looking at as we go into what we are calling Power
Africa 2.0 is making sure that we are incentivizing the
necessary policy reforms in each country. It is not about just
closing deals that are available. It is also about
incentivizing and reinforcing the policy environment in
countries such that the private sector can take over, so that
there are bankable deals. Sometimes these involve tough
choices. Reliable energy at market rates. Oftentimes countries
especially with populist leaders are loathe to allow rates to
float. And yet, what American company is going to make an
investment over the long haul if they are going to see rates
that are frozen?
Our challenge is often that China offers a very different
model with lots of money up front, with fine print that lead to
unsustainable debt, and lines on extractives that we think--you
and I think--rob these countries' citizens of their birth right
of their natural resources. It is a model we are competing
with. We need to do a better job I think of making clear the
difference and what it will mean for the young people of
Africa.
Senator Flake. Do you have the tools that you need in your
position to bring this about?
Mr. Green. You know, I cannot answer that. I like the tools
I have, but I think until I spend more time on the ground in
Africa seeing what other things may be available I am heading
into the region. I am heading to Niger in coming weeks, which
is I think a country of enormous promise, and so taking a look
there.
Again, I think for the dollars we invest, Power Africa
continues to produce a remarkable return, and it is I think
very, very helpful. But I would like to ramp it up because I
think it is important as we have this competing model coming
from China. I think it is important that we show what American
private enterprise and investment can bring.
Senator Flake. It has been my experience in these countries
that they would prefer to do business with us, and they would
prefer to have a closer relationship if possible. But China is
certainly aggressive in these countries and the model does not
do much for the people of those countries in the long term.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Menendez?
Senator Menendez. Administrator, let me try aspirationally
to see if you can be more responsive in this round of
questions.
Do you believe USAID and your position are adequately
written into the corporate structure of the new Development
Finance Corporation?
Mr. Green. So we have argued for strong linkages. Whether
those are done in legislation or done in the implementation
rules, to us the key is having those linkages as far out into
the field, which is where I think the best development comes
from. In the interagency, we have been assured that those
linkages will be there, and that is what is important to us. We
want to make sure that our professionals in the field who right
now own DCA from our perspective continue to have that ability
to be the pipeline for projects, good, sound development
projects, and however that is crafted, that is what is
important to us.
Senator Menendez. So I understand your aspiration, but it
doesn't speak to me whether or not you think it is written into
the corporate structure. I either would say yes, it is, no, it
is not, or it is not sufficiently written. I think that would
be the answer.
Let me ask you then, what assurances do you have or need so
that USAID's on-the-ground expertise, which is I think what you
were just referring to, informs the development objectives
incorporated into each project proposal the DFC board
considers?
Mr. Green. So I understand that as the legislation has been
moving, there has been the addition of a chief development
officer, as I understand. We think that is great. We think that
is a useful innovation in the legislation. We would encourage
that to be a USAID employee, someone that comes from USAID, so
that we have a direct linkage that allows us to help create
that pipeline and bring that knowledge to bear. So that is what
I would urge I guess.
Senator Menendez. Let me turn to a different topic. It has
come to my attention that the State Department's Office of
Foreign Assistance Resources, otherwise known as the F Bureau,
is withholding the approval of fiscal year 2017 operation plans
and spend plans for several USAID programs. These are programs
that Congress has appropriated funds for fiscal year 2017, and
the F Bureau delayed obligating to USAID, only later to offer
some of the funds in the administration's rescission package.
Can you explain to the committee the extent to which the
State Department's Foreign Assistance Bureau delayed the
obligation of fiscal year 2017 funds and how that has affected
your ability to lead USAID?
Mr. Green. Senator, the F process is one that I believe has
been pointed to across numerous administrations. We would like
to find ways, as I believe State would as well, to streamline
the process and make it more efficient. It certainly is in need
of strengthening and streamlining.
Senator Menendez. So, in other words, I would take that
answer to suggest that you did not get the monies that were
appropriated by Congress in a timely fashion that would have
allowed you to pursue the specific missions that Congress
intended you to pursue by virtue of those appropriations.
Mr. Green. We are constantly talking with F Bureau, as well
as OMB, to help move things along. We will mobilize resources
as quickly as we get them.
Senator Menendez. Do you believe any of these delays may be
related to policy or political disagreements with
congressionally mandated programs?
Mr. Green. I have seen no evidence of that, Senator.
Senator Menendez. What are you doing as Administrator to
ensure that the funds appropriated by Congress are moving
quickly to the missions in order that we can make lives better,
which is what our focus here is?
Mr. Green. We engage all the time with our counterparts at
OMB and at State and are in constant touch every other week I
am--with our mission directors around the world to try to
provide predictability and to move those resources along.
Senator Menendez. We understand that USAID and OMB support
a consolidation of the State Department's humanitarian
component into USAID. Is that true?
Mr. Green. I would say that is an overstatement.
Senator Menendez. That is an appropriate statement.
Mr. Green. At this point, I believe that State, OMB, and
USAID are reexamining ways to strengthen our humanitarian
response given that so many of our humanitarian challenges
these days are cross-border. Burma and Bangladesh is a prime
example. The Rohingya in Burma are IDPs and therefore in theory
part of our portfolio. When they cross the border into
Bangladesh, they are refugees, therefore State programs,
although we provide humanitarian support in some ways. So it is
looking to strengthen and make more seamless those operations.
That is what we are talking about.
Senator Menendez. Last question. Do you believe it would
serve our broader foreign policy objectives to move refugee
operations into USAID?
Mr. Green. I think there are a number of choices that we
should look at in making seamless the relationship between our
refugee operations and our IDP operations. I think there are a
range of options that are there that we are looking at and
talking to State about.
Senator Menendez. I am going to follow up with a series of
detailed questions. I hope you will give some responsive
answers to it. And if I do not get them, then what we do moving
forward is going to be affected by what type of answers I get.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Cardin?
And I am glad to have some more questions. We did not
anticipate a second round. We, I know, waited for a while for
people to come. And I do not think we ought to have votes
during hearings. I agree. And I am going to object to that in
the future. But I am going to probably call the meeting about 5
till 12:00, and I am glad to have some more questions.
Senator Cardin?
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Green, thank you. I very much appreciate your
leadership.
I just want to make a point about how desperately needed
your leadership is to counter the budgetary anemia of the
administration as it relates to these programs and the message
being sent to the international community on so many issues.
Today is World Refugee Day. The United Nations has released
its numbers. They are record numbers. 65 million people are
displaced. Over 22 million refugees. Almost 2 million asylum
seekers. And then the President of the United States reduces
the cap on the United States accepting refugees and does not
even hit those cap numbers. And we are about 83 percent below
where we were just 2 years ago. So we are not taking in the
refugees. The administration's budget would cut humanitarian
assistance. You mentioned the Rohingya, which are in desperate
need during the monsoon season, of help, and if the United
States is not in the leadership, the world will not respond.
Are we responding too slowly?
So I want to hear your game plan as our number one advocate
for U.S. humanitarian needs globally and our responsibility as
it relates to these vulnerable populations within country and
those that have been forced to leave the country. What is your
game plan here? How is the United States going to respond to
this international crisis?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Senator.
And you know from our discussions, I share many of the
concerns that you have raised.
So important to remind everyone we are, far and away, the
largest donor on humanitarian assistance and refugees in the
world. Far and away.
Senator Cardin. So as you know, there have been suggestions
made by this administration to take some of those monies and
put it into law.
Mr. Green. We are currently providing 49 percent of all the
humanitarian assistance in the world. On the global health
side, we are 60 percent of all the funding in the world. And so
we are, I think, providing significant leadership.
Senator Cardin. And I acknowledge that. I said the
administration is trying to change that. But when you look at
the impact of refugees to countries, we have a minimal impact
here compared to what is happening in the countries that border
Syria. Jordan, 750 refugees they have taken in. Lebanon, 1
million. 750,000. Excuse me. And Lebanon taking in a million.
So, yes, we have written a check, which is important, and
the total pie is not adequate enough. So we do not have enough
global money to deal with this. We have written a fair check. I
do not deny that. We have not taken in our fair number. I do
not think anyone could dispute that that looks at these numbers
globally and see how much the United States of America, the
most capable country of receiving refugees--how many we are
taking in.
So continue.
Mr. Green. Again, I do not disagree with your numbers.
I would also point out, as I indicated in my opening
testimony, that these same challenges are close to home. In
Venezuela, the last numbers I saw, 5,000 Venezuelans per day
fleeing the country. We have been providing bilateral
assistance in Colombia and Brazil to help support the
Venezuelans who have gone there, as well as to support the
communities around them. We are starting to hear that the
flight of Venezuelans is being felt in the Caribbean, concerns
that I heard when I was down at the summit. These are
significant challenges, absolutely.
We will make the money go as far as we possibly can. I
cannot tell you it is all the money that anyone needs to take
on all of these challenges.
Senator Cardin. Again, my comments are not directed at you,
but my frustration about the Trump administration and where we
are globally today and the just absolute need for U.S.
leadership here. And I just want you to know you have friends
on both sides of the aisle that are with you, and we will do
everything we can that you have the tools you need in order to
be able to adequately respond to the challenges imposed
globally and by the Trump administration's policies.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Coons?
Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Corker, Ranking Member
Menendez.
Administrator Green, I just wanted to speak just a little
bit further, if I could, to the BUILD Act. I think the ranking
member has raised real and legitimate concerns and questions.
You have raised real, legitimate questions about how do we
ensure that this new development finance institution, if it is
stood up, is focused on development.
And so, first, the Obama Global Development Council
actually recommended that the development credit authority be
folded into OPIC in order to give it access to resources. Your
concern that it be led by USAID on the ground, that it be
connected to development I think is not just a legitimate
concern but one that I embrace. So to the extent I have
anything to do with this going forward--the fact that the USAID
Administrator will be the vice chair of the board, the fact
that the legislation now has an outside development advisory
board, I think a needed improvement to it, and the fact that
the language now provides for a forward transfer of policies
from OPIC, which will address a number of concerns about human
rights, environmental labor, small business concerns, I think
have all improve the bill.
To the extent as an appropriator and authorizer I have
anything to do with this issue going forward, I will pledge to
you both that I will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that
in its implementation, should this become law, USAID will not
just be occasionally consulted but be driving the development
focus of its work and take action, if appropriate, if it is not
being implemented appropriately. And I just wanted to say that
because I think the ranking member has raised good and
legitimate points, and I know you too, not to speak for you,
have had similar concerns and I think they are legitimate. And
I think we should work together to make sure that this is
carried forward as a development finance institution.
Mr. Green. Senator, I look forward to working with you.
Your passion for development is clear and longstanding. And I
am a big supporter of the concept of the DFI. I think it is
good for us to get additional resources into the system, and
anything that helps us to catalyze investments for a
development outcome is a good thing. And it is not the answer
to all of the challenges we see from the alternative model to
development, but it does not hurt either. It is certainly a
step in the right direction. So I look forward to continuing
our conversation. I really appreciate it.
Senator Coons. Thank you.
At the risk of saying one more thing I do not need to, but
in my questioning of you, in my public statements, in my
actions on appropriations, I reject the current
administration's approach to deeply cutting USAID funding and
think that sustained, broad bipartisan investments in
development are the best path forward. And I think in
combination, a robust DFI and a strong and capable USAID is our
best path. And I hope to contribute to that in some small way.
The Chairman. Thank you. Look, I think we all understand
the reason cuts are made, as shown, that the real drivers of
our deficit are not willing to be dealt with, and we know that.
And they do not expect any of this to become law. It is just a
way of acting like we are doing things fiscally responsible.
Senator Kaine?
Senator Kaine. Thank you.
Administrator Green, just a comment. I am on the Armed
Services Committee, and one of the things I do on that
committee is listen to our defense leaders as they advocate for
you. The Sec Def and others 2 years ago, in the fiscal year
2017 NDAA, supported an effort that was successful to include
in the NDAA the ability of the DOD to transfer funds to USAID
and State for sort of post-conflict stabilization activities
and countering violent extremism activities if the DOD
determines that the best folks to do it are not the military
but State or USAID. And we were able to get that authority at
the request of the Sec Def. My understanding is that has not
yet been used, but it is there to be used. And I would
encourage you to dialogue with the Secretary about that.
The NDAA that we passed off the Senate floor last night,
which is in conference with the House, has an additional
authority. It would allow the DOD to provide logistical support
for USAID or State Department operations in Afghanistan, Syria,
and Iraq. Again, in the aftermath of, say, the defeat of ISIS
on the battlefield or the defeat of the Taliban in some part of
Afghanistan if there is a need for post-conflict stabilization
activities, we know and the DOD will acknowledge that they are
sometimes not the best at doing that and that you all have the
expertise and are able to do it. But they may need to provide
logistical support to allow that to be done. That authority was
included in the NDAA version that we passed off the Senate
floor last night, and I think it will survive the conference
because I believe there is something similar on the House side.
But just to let you know that there are these two
authorities within the DOD budget that would enable them to
provide support to your efforts, especially in former war zones
that we are trying to restabilize, and I would just encourage
you to be in dialogue with the Sec Def's office about that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Well, listen, we thank you for being here. I
know it has been a little unorthodox, but I think you can tell
by the questions, people care deeply about what you do and what
we do as a nation in this regard. So we thank you for service.
We are going to keep the record open until the close of
business on Friday. If you could respond to questions fairly
promptly, we would appreciate that.
Again, thank you for your service.
Without further questions, the meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Hon. Mark Green by Senator Marco Rubio
For many years, the Iraqi diaspora community, Members of
Congress, and faith organizations have been concerned that U.S.
foreign assistance to vulnerable minority groups in Iraq was
not reaching its intended recipients. The administration has
attempted to rectify this. You recently authored an important
op-ed indicating that you were directing USAID to redouble its
efforts on this issue. You wrote: ``A more flexible budget and
eased regulations would make USAID more effective in fulfilling
its mission.''
Question. Would you provide me with an update on this issue? What
specifically does USAID need from Congress?
Answer. Consistent with administration priorities, the U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID) is deeply committed to assisting
the world's most-vulnerable people, including members of ethnic and
religious minorities, such as Iraq's endangered Christian and Yazidi
communities. USAID responded to Vice President Mike Pence's October
2017 directive to expand assistance to help endangered, displaced, and
persecuted religious minorities in Northern Iraq return home and
restore their communities. USAID is managing $239 million of the nearly
$300 million that the U.S. Government has directed specifically to
assist the persecuted ethnic and religious minorities of the Ninewa
Plains.
In January 2018, USAID renegotiated the terms of its agreement to
contribute to the Funding Facility for Stabilization (FFS) managed by
the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) so that $55 million
(out of a tranche of $75 million) would help religious and ethnic
minority communities in Ninewa Province restore basic services like
water, electricity, sewage, health, and education. In June 2018, USAID
began the processes necessary to contribute $5 million in new
Transition Initiative assistance to fund local partners across Iraq's
diverse ethnic and religious landscape to promote long-term stability
in areas liberated from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
USAID also provided $7 million in humanitarian assistance and $4
million in global health funding to address the immediate needs of
persecuted ethnic and religious minority communities in the Ninewa
Plains, including providing emergency shelter and health care, and
improving access to clean water.
Additionally, the Agency opened a $35 million Broad Agency
Announcement (BAA) to support persecuted ethnic and religious minority
communities in Iraq. The BAA process allows local groups with more-
intimate knowledge of the challenges faced by minority communities to
influence the design and implementation of projects directly. The
promotion of the safe return and reintegration of minority communities
to their ancestral homelands in the Ninewa Plains is a central
objective of this BAA.
Of that $35 million, we have to date announced two BAA awards that
total $10 million: one to a coalition led by Catholic Relief Services
(CRS), the other to a coalition led by the Heartland Alliance. Through
these awards, USAID will address some of the critical long-term
barriers that have been preventing displaced persons from returning
home, such as access to livelihoods and ensuring conditions exist to
support social cohesion. CRS and the Heartland Alliance will each work
with coalitions of local Iraqi groups and faith-based organizations
that are already active in the Ninewa Plains and Sinjar. In the near
future, USAID expects to announce more awards from this BAA process.
USAID and the U.S. Department of State continue planning to award
additional assistance in the coming months. USAID appreciates, and
relies on, the continued support from Congress on issues such as
budget-flexibility and eased regulations, both for the Iraq portfolio
and across the globe. We look forward to continued engagement with you
and your colleagues on these issues.
As you are aware, recent events in Nicaragua have been
devastating. Dozens of people have been killed by the
Government, lawlessness reigns in many parts of the country,
and what's left of democracy is quickly deteriorating.
Question. Is USAID currently working in Nicaragua on democracy and
good governance?
Answer. Yes, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
is funding programming to support democracy and citizen-responsive
governance in the Republic of Nicaragua meant to mitigate the continued
erosion of freedom of expression and freedom of the press and the
closing of space for civil society in the country. USAID's investments
in democracy, human rights, and governance seek to accomplish the
following: help civil society advocate for democratic change, build an
engaged citizenry, and support independent media. This includes
programs that support civil-society organizations as they advocate for
their rights, train independent media outlets to provide high-quality
reporting, provide democratic leadership, and advance community-based
advocacy at the municipal level.
Question. Are you considering allocating or re-allocating funding
for democracy promotion in Nicaragua?
Answer. According to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,
state-sponsored violence in the Republic of Nicaragua has left more
than 212 people dead, 1,337 injured, and 507 deprived of their freedom
as of June 19. In response, the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) is providing emergency support and assistance to
civil-society groups, human-rights organizations, independent media
outlets, and others involved in peaceful protest.
To ensure the dissemination of independent and accurate
information, including regarding abuses and violations of human rights,
USAID provided immediate funding to journalists from 14 independent
media outlets--many of which the Ortega-Murillo regime has brutally
attacked--to permit accurate documentation of the crisis. The USAID
Mission in Managua also moved quickly to ensure civil-society partners
could continue their advocacy, by providing emergency assistance
through an existing project.
USAID has also provided an additional $3.326 million in Fiscal Year
(FY) 2017 funding to provide small grants to Nicaraguan human-rights
organizations, strengthen the cyber and information security of civil
society and independent media, facilitate the participation of
indigenous and other traditionally marginalized communities in the
democratic process, support investigative journalism, and enable civil
society to respond effectively to the crisis. USAID will continue to
monitor the situation in Nicaragua, and is actively assessing how any
additional funding or re-programming of funding could help us respond
to the ongoing political crisis.
Question. With adequate funding, what can USAID do in the short-,
medium-, and long-term to support democracy, human rights, and good
governance in Nicaragua?
Answer. In the short term, I agree with you the U.S. Government
must respond to the rapidly evolving security situation and changing
political environment in the Republic of Nicaragua. Using existing
programs and resources, the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) will help Nicaraguan civil society, independent media, and
human-rights organizations to continue to operate freely during the
crisis, with an increased focus on assistance with physical and digital
security. We have seen a growing demand from independent media for
support and training on content, from human-rights organizations to
document and report on human-rights violations, and from civil society
to advocate for change. USAID also launched additional programs through
its Office of Transition Initiatives.
In the longer term, the profile of USAID's assistance might need to
shift, pending the outcome of the current political crisis. We continue
to assess the appropriate balance of investments in the current
environment--including our programs to promote democracy, human rights,
and citizen-responsive governance. USAID's response could rage from
humanitarian assistance, should the crisis and violence accelerate, to
supporting a credible electoral process.
Central America
The U.S. Government has sought to cooperate with the
Governments of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala--the
Northern Triangle of Central America--in order to address the
underlying factors driving irregular migration in the region.
Through foreign assistance and diplomatic engagement, the U.S.
has made significant investments toee support security and
stability there. While some progress has been made, the reality
remains that there is much more to do. Honduras and El Salvador
continue to be among the most violent countries in the world,
the rule of law remains weak and levels of impunity remain
extremely high.
Question. Do you believe, as the President suggested on June 19
when he said, ``when countries abuse us by sending people up--not their
best--we're not going to give any more aid to those countries. Why
should we.'' that countries in the Northern Triangle are ``sending''
people to the United States? Do you believe it is policy in these
countries to send migrants to the United States?
Answer. I have not seen any evidence to suggest the Governments of
the Northern Triangle countries have policies to send migrants to the
United States. The programming funded by the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) in Central America advances the U.S.
Strategy for Central America (Strategy), which addresses the economic,
security, and governance drivers of illegal migration. Under current
law, the Secretary of State must certify, prior to the obligation of 25
percent of assistance for the central Governments of El Salvador,
Honduras, and Guatemala, that they are taking effective steps to inform
their citizens of the dangers of the journey to the Southwest border of
the United States. Former Secretary of State Tillerson made this
certification most recently for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 funding for each
of the three Northern Triangle Countries.
Question. What do you believe are the issues motivating desperate
migrants from Northern Triangle countries to seek asylum in the United
States? Do you believe that extreme poverty and the lack of economic
opportunity for underserved communities, whom also tend to be
indigenous peoples, is a leading cause for desperate Central American
migrants to make the harrowing trek to the United States? Do you
believe that the threat of gang violence and exploitation against many
of these same marginalized people, who internally migrate to major
cities within their home countries, is a leading cause for individuals
to seek asylum in the United States?
Answer. Yes, I believe extreme poverty, violence, the lack of
economic opportunity and the threat of gang violence are drivers of
migration from Central America. This is why the programming funded by
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in Central
America focuses on addressing those drivers. In 2017, using
apprehension data from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
USAID sponsored a study that compared municipal homicide and poverty
rates to the number of apprehensions of unaccompanied Central American
children in the United States to assess the impact of violence on
migration. The study found that a sustained increase in homicides in
the Northern Triangle did lead to a proportionate increase in
apprehensions of unaccompanied children at our border, and that the
effect was greatest in Central American municipalities with the highest
homicide rates. The study also found that systemic poverty is a greater
driver of out-migration than short-term economic downturns. USAID's
work has an impact of these drivers. For example, USAID's work to
prevent crime and violence, carried out in concert with the INL Bureau
at the State Department and in collaboration with the Government of
Honduras, has resulted in a 90-percent decrease in homicides between
2013 and 2017 in the Rivera Hern ndez neighborhood of San Pedro Sula.
I cannot speak to whether or not the threat of violence and
exploitation is a leading cause for individuals to seek asylum, as
USAID does not collect data on asylum applications. I would refer your
questions about asylum to DHS.
Question. Do you believe the real threat of violence and
exploitation these individuals are fleeing is legitimate cause for
asylum?
Answer. I would defer to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
as the U.S. Government lead on adjudicating asylum cases. However, I do
believe the threat of violence is a driver of migration from Central
America. A study funded by the U.S. Agency for International
Development in 2017 found that a sustained increase in homicides led to
a proportionate increase in apprehensions of unaccompanied Central
American children in the United States, and that the effect was
greatest in municipalities in the Northern Triangle countries with the
highest homicide rates.
Question. How is USAID supporting U.S. efforts to address the
security, stability, and prosperity of the Northern Triangle in Central
America?
Answer. Programming in Central America funded by the U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID) advances the U.S. Strategy for
Central America (Strategy), which addresses the economic, security, and
governance drivers of illegal migration. Below is an illustrative set
of some examples, by country, of USAID's impact in the Northern
Triangle. Additionally, USAID has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with the Mexican Development Agency to work together on these critical
issues, and we are exploring other trilateral opportunities.
Republic of El Salvador
USAID's community-based work to prevent crime and violence, carried
out in partnership with the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement (INL) of the U.S. Department of State through a place-based
strategy, has contributed to historic decreases in homicides within El
Salvador's most-violent communities. Between 2015 and 2016, El Salvador
saw a 61-percent reduction in the municipalities in which USAID
operates, compared to a 21-percent reduction nationwide.
USAID assistance to the private sector is helping create greater
economic opportunities for Salvadorans. Activities target small and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which account for 60 percent of El
Salvador's economy and 35 percent of its Gross Domestic Product.
Between 2011 and 2016, USAID assistance to 11,000 Salvadoran SMEs
generated more than $147 million in sales and exports and 26,500 new
jobs.
USAID's efforts to support increased governmental transparency
included the establishment of a new Freedom of Information Institute in
2016, which has resulted in unparalleled access to official documents
in El Salvador. Disclosure of information ordered by the Institute has
triggered investigations on illicit enrichment by public officials
(including three former Presidents), waste and abuse of public funds,
and nepotism.
Republic of Guatemala
USAID's support to the implementation of new investigation and case
management models in the Government of Guatemala's Specialized
Prosecutors' Offices for Extortion and Anti-Corruption has helped
increase the number of final verdicts in extortion cases from 26 in
2015 to 512 in 2017. The number of people found guilty of extortion
increased from 41 to 735 over the same period of time.
USAID's geographically targeted agricultural programs have helped
create nearly 22,000 jobs in Guatemala, and generated $47.8 million in
agricultural sales (coffee and horticulture) in the Western Highlands.
USAID's efforts to reduce impunity have helped support the
expansion of the 24-hour court model to new locations in Guatemala. As
a result of the integrated 24-hour court system and improved case-
management, the percentage of cases dismissed without merit dropped
from 70 percent in 2006 to 10.75 percent as of September 2017.
Republic of Honduras
USAID's work to prevent crime and violence, carried out in concert
with the INL Bureau at the State Department and in collaboration with
the Government of Honduras, has resulted in a 90-percent decrease in
homicides between 2013 and 2017 in the Rivera Hern ndez neighborhood of
San Pedro Sula.
USAID's assistance to the Mission to Support the Fight Against
Corruption and Impunity in Honduras (MACCIH) of the Organization of
American States has enabled the hiring of a record number of anti-
corruption judges, prosecutors, and investigators in Honduras. Working
together with the national Attorney General, MACCIH has achieved three
high-profile convictions, and taken on three additional high-profile
and emblematic corruption cases.
USAID investments in agriculture have lifted 13,658 Honduran
families, or over 68,000 people, out of extreme poverty (defined as
$1.25 per day). The Government of Honduras has co-invested $56 million
to expand this model of poverty reduction.
Question. What is your assessment of USAID's cooperation with the
countries of the Northern Triangle to address the problems of violence,
poverty and weak security and justice institutions driving children and
families from their countries?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) works
closely with the Governments of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras to
implement programming, to press for reforms on critical areas needed to
advance the U.S. Strategy for Central America, and to support the
countries' Plan for the Alliance for Prosperity (A4P). To date, the
Northern Triangle Governments have pledged $5.4 billion of their own
funds to meet the goals under A4P. While USAID has seen strong host-
country cooperation and progress in areas such as citizen security,
including the prevention of violence, and agriculture, including
increased food security in regions affected by shortages, we continue
to seek greater cooperation in reducing impunity and combating
corruption, both of which are critical to the long-term development of
these countries. For a complete accounting of how our programs in
Central America match the A4P priorities, please see the attached
charts.
[The information referred to above is located at the end of this
hearing transcript, beginning on page 97.]
Question. How is USAID working with the Governments of Guatemala,
Honduras and El Salvador to support fair and impartial attorney general
selection processes to emphasize the need to select of honest and
qualified candidates with a clear commitment to the rule of law?
Answer. The Missions of the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) in the three Northern Triangle countries are
supporting efforts in each of them to choose the next Attorneys General
through fair and impartial selection processes.
In El Salvador, USAID, as part of a coordinated U.S. Government
effort, has worked with the Government and civil society to ensure that
processes are in place to maximize the likelihood that a transparent,
and merit-based process will choose the next Attorney General. USAID is
supporting reforms to improve the Legislative Assembly's internal
regulations and existing procedures for the appointment of merit-based,
independent, heads of Salvadoran democratic institutions. These reforms
also apply to the selection process for the country's Magistrates of
the Supreme Court of Justice, Magistrates of the Supreme Electoral
Tribunal, Magistrates of the Court of Accounts, Public Defender, and
Ombudsman.
In Honduras, USAID is supporting civil society efforts to observe
the selection process for the next Attorney General selection, and,
together with the U.S. Embassy, has encouraged the rigorous review of
qualified candidates for this position in line with Honduran law.
In Guatemala, USAID, through its Security and Justice-Sector Reform
Project, provided technical input to the selection process for the
Attorney General (e.g., the use of selection/scoring criteria), and
ensured the postulation process was open and transparent. On May 3,
2018, President Morales of Guatemala selected Mar!a Consuelo Porras
Argueta as the next Attorney General from a list of six candidates.
Question. Do you believe that cutting off aid to countries in the
Northern Triangle would ultimately benefit the United States? Do you
believe that cutting off programs that support economic development and
rule of law reform would be in the United States national security or
economic interest?
Answer. I believe programming funded by the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) in the Northern Triangle is in our
national interest. Creating economic vibrancy and opportunity in those
countries is good for commerce, which is good for U.S. business and
trade interests. Additionally, USAID programs address some of the
drivers we believe contribute to illegal migration by creating
opportunities in the Northern Triangle countries for their citizens.
USAID programs also work to address challenges like transnational
crime, corruption, and the lack of safe spaces for families. I believe
these efforts not only serve the interests of these countries, but are
also good for the United States.
USAID's programs under the U.S. Strategy for Central America
(Strategy) have shown results in improving citizen-security and
promoting economic livelihoods in key communities throughout the
Northern Triangle, and I believe they will continue to do so. However,
it is critical that the Governments of the Northern Triangle continue
to put more of their own resources towards their own economic
development under their Alliance for Prosperity Plan. The President's
Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2019 includes funding for the Strategy
in recognition of the significant impact that developments in the
region have on our national-security and foreign-policy interests.
Question. Can you please highlight some efforts that have in fact
reduced poverty or improved security conditions in these countries?
Answer. With funding appropriated by Congress, the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) has supported efforts by the Northern
Triangle Governments to reduce poverty and improve their own security
conditions.
In Guatemala, with USAID funding, the Public Ministry (Ministerio
P#blico) created a new investigation and coordination model to combat
extortion. Since 2015, the specialized Prosecutor's Anti-Extortion
Office has used this model to carry out more than 40 anti-extortion
operations, which yielded more than 800 arrests of criminal networks
associated with the Mara Salvatrucha and Barrio 18 gangs. USAID's Feed
the Future programs in Guatemala have helped the private sector create
more than 20,000 jobs during Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 in the agricultural
sector in one of the poorest regions of the country. Between 2013 and
2017, USAID agricultural programs helped create 74,000 full-time
equivalent jobs and $177 million in increased sales from coffee and
horticultural exports.
In Honduras, USAID's work to build alliances among citizens and the
police has successfully built community cohesion. The decline in the
murder rate in the Rivera Hern ndez neighborhood from 84 per year in
2013 to 13 in 2016 stems in part from the work carried out by USAID to
establish community committees. USAID's Feed the Future programs in
rural areas of Honduras have increased the incomes of over 29,000
extremely poor families from an average of $0.90 person/day to $1.77
person/day (FY 2017 data) by helping them make the transition from
subsistence farming to market-driven production of high-value crops,
such as vegetables.
In El Salvador, the USAID Mission's economic-competitiveness
activities have helped micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises, and
smallholder farmers increase sales by $147 million and create over
26,500 new jobs over the last five years. With USAID support in the
security pillar, homicides have declined in the priority municipalities
under El Salvador's Security Plan by an average of 26 percent in 2017.
Question. In April of this year, you travelled to Central America.
Why did you cancel your planned visit to Honduras? Your decision to
cancel the Honduras leg of your trip came just after the President
tweeted: ``Honduras, Mexico and many other countries that the U.S. is
very generous to, sends many of their people to our country through our
WEAK IMMIGRATION POLICIES. Caravans are heading here. Must pass tough
laws and build the WALL. Democrats allow open borders, drugs and
crime!'' and ``The big Caravan of People from Honduras, now coming
across Mexico and heading to our ``Weak Laws'' Border, had better be
stopped before it gets there. Cash cow NAFTA is in play, as is foreign
aid to Honduras and the countries that allow this to happen. Congress
MUST ACT NOW!'' Did these tweets have any bearing on your decision not
to visit Honduras?
Answer. I did not travel to Central America in April. I did
consider traveling to Honduras and Guatemala after the Summit of the
Americas, but my evolving schedule and competing commitments prevented
my trip. While I couldn't visit those countries at that time, I was
pleased to meet with President Juan Orlando Hern ndez of Honduras, as
well as many other leaders from the region, on the margins of the
Summit. In addition, I met with President Jimmy Morales of Guatemala in
February in Washington.
I hope to visit the Northern Triangle countries soon.
BUILD Act
Administrator Green, the committee will soon markup Chairman
Corker and Sen. Coons' BUILD Act, a bill to reform and
modernize U.S. development institutions. In March, you and I
discussed the importance of ensuring the new Development
Finance Corporation has a strong development mandate and that
achieving development outcomes that improve the stability and
sustainable growth of the host countries where projects are
conducted is what guides the mission on this agency.
Question. If the Development Credit Authority is moved from USAID
into the new DFC, do you believe the DFC's financial tools will still
be available to USAID's missions and staff so they can successfully
leverage necessary tools in the field?
Answer. I hope so. To succeed, the proposed Development Finance
Corporation (DFC) must contribute to U.S. development goals. Achieving
those goals requires the DFC to ensure a continued link to the
employees and programs of the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID), particularly if the Development Credit Authority (DCA) moves
into the new entity. Our USAID Missions overseas currently drive and
own the use of DCA investments. I have consistently advocated the need
for strong institutional linkages between the new DFC and USAID to
preserve these existing connections, and enhance them wherever
possible. The availability of the DFC's finance tools to USAID Missions
and the strength of these institutional linkages are necessary factors
to ensure the new DFC directly contributes to U.S. development goals.
USAID missions employ some of the world's most talented and
experienced development experts who have tremendous
understanding of the development needs of the countries where
the DFC will be doing deals.
Question. What assurances do you have, or need, so that USAID's on-
the-ground expertise informs the development objectives incorporated
into each project proposal the DFC Board considers?
Answer. A joint commitment to reform is the foundation of good
development programming, and drives self-reliance in our partner
countries. The Development Credit Authority (DCA) program responds to
the demands of our development experts in the field by structuring
financial transactions to support the broader development strategies of
our Missions. We want the new Development Finance Corporation (DFC) to
follow a similar, client-driven model. I think the new DFC will require
a system that ensures development experts, especially from the field,
participate in the design of all DFC transactions in a clear, data-
informed, and transparent process prior to approval. In my mind, this
screening would need to happen not at the Board level, which is the
final step in the approval process and occurs after programs are fully
developed, but at the beginning of the process, when transactions are
conceived and designed.
Question. Do you believe USAID's equities, and your position on the
board structure, is adequately written into the corporate structure of
the new Development Finance Corporation?
Answer. As I have said repeatedly, there must be very strong
institutional and operational linkages between the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) and the proposed Development Finance
Corporation (DFC) for each institution to be successful. The USAID
Administrator's position on the DFC Board is a good start in this
regard, but, as I noted previously, I believe strong linkages must
extend throughout the proposed DFC to ensure all of its transactions
are reviewed, from the design stage forward, to make sure they are
consistent with U.S. development goals.
Question. Do you believe that the achievement of positive
development outcomes is sufficiently incorporated into the BUILD Act so
that the new Development Finance Corporation will advance critical U.S.
international development objectives important to the success of U.S.
foreign policy?
Answer. The administration has made it clear that the purpose of
the Development Finance Corporation (DFC) is ``to mobilize private
capital in support of sustainable, broad-based economic growth, poverty
reduction, and development through demand-driven partnerships with the
private sector that further the foreign policy interests of the United
States.''
The extent to which we are able to achieve this vision and realize
positive development outcomes is largely a function of how the Build
Act takes into account development priorities. As I have said before,
the stronger the institutional and operational linkages are between the
DFC and the U.S. Agency for International Development (and its
programs), the higher the likelihood of the realization of positive
development outcomes in the DFC's work. We look forward to working
closely with the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and our
interagency partners to ensure operational linkages are created in
legislation and fully implemented.
Question. What responsibilities do you think an effective CDO
needs?
Answer. The Chief Development Officer (CDO) is a critical position
at the proposed Development Finance Corporation (DFC), as the person
who occupies the CDO position must ensure all DFC transactions are
rooted in U.S. Government development priorities and supported by
existing development programs and expertise. As a result, I believe it
is important that position is filled with a U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) employee, given USAID's role as the
U.S. Government's lead on development.
We need a CDO who is deeply engaged in USAID's development mission
and approaches, both globally and in specific bilateral environments.
We view the CDO as an operational position to ensure our Missions have
easy access to DFC tools, and a USAID employee would be uniquely
positioned to connect USAID Missions to the new DFC. Linking the
organizations through a USAID employee as CDO would allow a more-
permanent relationship between the financing tools and U.S. Government
development strategies. It would also ensure USAID Missions could more
easily leverage DCA and other development-finance tools at the new DFC,
including the proposed equity authority.
Foreign Assistance Review
It has come to my attention that OMB has instructed USAID to
undertake a significant review of all foreign assistance
programs.
Question a. When do you anticipate this review to be complete?
b. Will USAID and/or OMB brief the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee on the preliminary finding and results of the review prior to
publication?
c. What motivated this review?
d. Given that this is a directive from OMB, not from experts with
the appropriate experience, can you guarantee that this review will be
a verifiably objective assessment of U.S. foreign assistance programs?
Given the very public skepticism that some of the
administration's political leadership have expressed towards
the value of foreign assistance, including the very public
threats to cancel foreign assistance to certain countries and
withhold U.S. contributions to various multilateral funds.
e. What assurances can you provide the committee that the final
review of this project will be based on objective evaluations of
foreign assistance programs?
f. Do you having any assurances from OMB or the White House that
they will publish or make publicly available USAID's raw and objective
analysis?
g. How do you anticipate this review will impact foreign assistance
programs, or be used to justify future budget requests or programs
allocations?
Answers (a to g). The U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) is aware of plans for a foreign-assistance review led by the
National Security Council (NSC) and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), but we cannot speak to what motivated the exercise. USAID is
currently awaiting further details on the timing, scope, focus, and
purpose of this review. I do not know when the review will be
concluded. USAID has provided guidance as to how to find and interpret
publicly available data on USAID's investments around the world, but we
have not yet received a formal request to respond to questions or tasks
regarding this review from OMB or the NSC. If asked to participate, I
commit that USAID's contributions to the review will be objective, and
will provide an assessment of our foreign-assistance programs based on
our development expertise. As you know, I believe it is crucial that
our resources are focused, strategic, advance our U.S. national-
security interests, and promote self-reliance among our partner
nations.
At this point, I cannot anticipate the impact this review might
have on foreign assistance, including future budget requests or program
allocations. On your question regarding the publication of analyses
pertaining to the review and briefings on preliminary findings, I would
defer to the NSC, OMB and the White House. I expect that USAID would
brief the committee, alongside our interagency colleagues, if the
review includes our contributions.
Yemen, Rerouting Shipments
Humanitarian organizations implementing programs with USAID
funding face a very challenging and insecure operating
environment in Yemen. Because of Saudi-led coalition
airstrikes, ground fighting, and bureaucratic impediments by
both the Saudis and the Houthis, many NGOs have begun rerouting
shipments of aid south to the port at Aden, rather than using
Hodeidah port, despite Hodeidah being much closer to the
millions of people--half of them children--in need of
lifesaving humanitarian assistance. Rerouting aid shipments in
this way not only increases aid delivery time, thus prolonging
the suffering of millions of people, but it also increases
costs to humanitarian organizations implementing programs on
the ground, often with U.S. taxpayer funding.
Question. What is the administration's strategy for remedying these
access issues, to ensure USAID dollars go as far and reach as many
vulnerable people as possible?
Answer. As one of the largest donors of humanitarian aid to Yemen,
the United States continues to emphasize that unrestricted access for
all humanitarian and commercial imports through all ports of entry, and
throughout the country, is necessary to help the millions of people in
need. The combination of significant and prolonged declines in
commercial imports with delayed humanitarian assistance could lead to a
further deterioration of food supplies, which could potentially result
in famine or catastrophic food-insecurity in some areas. While access
remains a challenge, humanitarian shipments are still reaching Yemen's
ports, including Hodeidah and others on the Red Sea, and U.S.
Government humanitarian partners are working to reach as many people as
possible. As you know, in April of this year the WFP installed in the
port of Hodeidah the long-delayed cranes purchased by USAID, which have
helped to relieve one of the major bottlenecks to the arrival of
assistance. In May, the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP), the
major recipient of funds from the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) in Yemen, distributed emergency food assistance to
just under seven million Yemenis, which represents nearly 99 percent of
the Agency's targeted caseload of beneficiaries.
Ensuring the continued flow of commercial goods also supports
humanitarian objectives. Yemen has historically imported 90 percent of
its food, and most of its fuel and medicines, and humanitarian aid
alone cannot address all the country's needs. USAID is supporting the
expanded monitoring and inspections of ships into Red Sea ports to
ensure a more efficient clearance through the United Nations
Verification and Inspection Mechanism. This system provides an
efficient, neutral clearance and inspection process for Yemen's Red Sea
ports not under the control of the Government of the Republic of Yemen,
which increases the confidence of shippers and importers, while also
addressing the security concerns of the Saudi-led Coalition.
Redesign
USAID Redesign efforts are said to be organized with a set of
five desired outcomes: (1) Journey to Self-Reliance; (2)
Strengthen Core Capabilities; (3) Advance National Security;
(4) Empowering our People to Lead; and (5) Respect Taxpayer
Investments. I am not sure that the redesign strengthens the
agencies core capabilities designed to support our partners
efforts to improve democratic governance and institutional
capacity building.
Question. Given the sheer number of proposed bureaus, programs and
functions that would be consolidated under a new Associate
Administrator for Relief, Resilience and Response, what percentage of
resources would be left for non-emergency and non-crisis response
activities?
Answer. While the new Associate Administrator for Relief,
Resilience and Response would oversee emergency and crisis-response
activities at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), he
or she would also oversee our long-term resilience and food-security
programming. This would ensure a cohesive and unified platform to
improve coordination and more-purposeful transitions between emergency
interventions and programming in long-term resilience, conflict-
prevention, and food security.
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2018, for the accounts fully and partially
managed by USAID, nearly 25 percent of our budget is for Humanitarian
Assistance (International Disaster Assistance (IDA), Food for Peace
Title II (FFP)), nearly 75 percent is for Development and Operations,
and less than one percent is for Contingency Accounts (Transition
Initiatives (TI) and the Complex Crises Fund (CCF)). The below chart
shows the dollar amounts and proportion of development funding,
humanitarian, and contingency funding for the accounts USAID fully and
partially manages.
Question. How will the proposed ``Development, Democracy and
Innovation'' Bureau ensure that the United States continues to promote
democracy as a fundamental component of sustainable development and
overall U.S. foreign policy?
Answer. As someone with a strong background in democracy, I have
given this careful thought and have also consulted extensively external
experts including the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and
International Republican Institute (IRI). I believe that the
Transformation of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
and the proposed Bureau for Development, Democracy and Innovation (DDI)
elevate democracy, human rights and governance (DRG), not only in our
structure, but in our program-design and country strategies.
DOLLAR AMOUNTS AND PROPORTION OF DEVELOPMENT FUNDING, HUMANITARIAN,
AND CONTINGENCY FUNDING FOR THE ACCOUNTS USAID FULLY AND PARTIALLY
MANAGES
$ in thousands for all items % percentage of total funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2017
Initial FY 2018 FY 2019
Actual Enacted Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development and Operations...... $18,034,591 $18,246,763 $13,143,046
76.6% 74.9% 78.3%
---------------------------------------
Humanitarian Assistance......... $5,410,186 $6,001,312 $3,557,412
23.0% 24.6% 21.2%
---------------------------------------
Food for Peace Title II......... $1,900,000 $1,716,000 $ --
8.1% 7.0% 0.0%
---------------------------------------
International Disaster $3,510,186 $4,285,312 $3,557,412
Assistance. 14.9% 17.6% 21.2%
---------------------------------------
Contingency Accounts............ $102,600 $122,043 $87,043
0.4% 0.5% 0.5%
---------------------------------------
Transition Initiatives.......... $72,600 $92,043 $87,043
0.3% 0.4% 0.5%
---------------------------------------
Complex Crisis Fund............. $30,000 $30,000 $ --
0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
=======================================
Total Fully and Partially $23,547,377 $24,370,118 $16,787,501
Managed Accounts. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new self-reliance metrics include numerous democracy and
governance indicators, such as the Varieties of Democracy Project's
``Liberal Democracy Index,'' the World Justice Project's ``Open
Government Index,'' and civil society capacity measures, which are all
critical elements for measuring open and accountable governance issues
broadly, as well as the environment facing civil society.
We all know that DRG underpins sustainable development, and without
it self-reliance is unattainable. However, in our current
organizational structure, crisis and conflict too often overshadow DRG.
The proposed structure moves the Democracy, Human Rights, and
Governance Center into the proposed Bureau for DDI, which will be a
customer-service entity that provides advice and expertise to the USAID
Missions in the field. Including the Democracy, Human Rights, and
Governance Center in the DDI would provide field-focused support for
USAID's programming, as well as technical and policy leadership in
democracy, human rights, and governance. The Center would also lead the
Agency's learning, evidence and research in DRG programming, and serve
as the ``home'' for our Democracy and Governance Foreign Service
Officers. The Center's placement within DDI would promote integration
across sectors, as well as cross-Bureau and cross-Agency coordination.
The Center would have a strong, formal relationship to the Bureaus
for Conflict Prevention and Stabilization (CPS) and Humanitarian
Assistance (HA), to ensure long-term DRG programming and objectives
inform interventions when crisis strikes, and that long-term
programming likewise reflect changes that result from those situations.
Additionally, DRG's inclusion in the Self-Reliance Metrics-the
Liberal Democracy Index, Government Effectiveness and others-will
ensure all of USAID's strategies and programming consider democracy and
governance.
Question. How do you intend to partner with this committee to
ensure that the State/USAID/interagency relationship is resolved,
appropriately empowering the unique diplomatic and development missions
of these agencies?
Answer. I deeply appreciate your strong support for the U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID), and your recognition of our
unique development mission, along with the diplomatic mission of the
U.S. Department of State. The recent National Security Strategy,
Department of State-USAID Fiscal Year 2018-2022 Joint Strategic Plan,
and Stabilization Assistance Review all reflect the value of USAID's
role in achieving U.S. national-security goals. USAID will continue to
lead on development and humanitarian assistance, and appreciate the
committee's support for our critical internal and external efforts to
ensure USAID is properly resourced to our goal of supporting countries
on their journey to self-reliance. I commit that USAID will continue to
keep you informed as we implement our Transformation.
Question. How will this process ultimately improve coordination,
oversight, and accountability of foreign aid administered by agencies
outside of State or USAID?
Answer. Improving coordination, oversight, and accountability of
foreign aid administered by our partners is key to our success. For
example, the administration has proposed a new development finance
corporation, which it believes will create totally new opportunities
for our development experts in the field. Similarly, the
administration's proposal to consolidate the Inter-American Foundation
(IAF) and the African Development Foundation (USADF) into the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) would improve
coordination. Further, USAID's proposed Bureau for Policy, Resources
and Performance (PRP) would create a stronger, more-coordinated voice
to support USAID development policy and budget priorities, internally
and in the interagency, by consolidating development-policy, program-
performance and budget functions into one unit. Under this proposal,
the USAID Senior Coordinator at the Department of State's Office for
Foreign Assistance Resources (F) would report to the Assistant to the
Administrator for PRP, which would increase collaboration between staff
in PRP and State/F, as well as improve processes that better support
our shared objectives in the foreign-assistance budget. To be clear,
the Secretary of State will continue to serve as the point of
coordination for foreign assistance.
Internal to USAID, PRP would include a new Office of Bilateral and
Multilateral Engagement (BME) that would be responsible for setting
Agency policy and standards for, evaluating our grants to, and
supporting USAID operating units in engaging bilateral and multilateral
organizations. PRP/BME would build on existing functions in USAID's
current Bureau for Policy, Planning and Learning by facilitating
Agency-wide policy coordination with major multilateral organizations
and providing Agency guidance on our performance-monitoring and
oversight of multilateral organizations to promote alignment with U.S.
Government interests, influence the decision-making of other partners,
and enhance long-term alliances and burden-sharing. Ultimately,
centralizing these functions would result in more coordinated, coherent
engagement, as well as ensure better monitoring of, and accountability
for, financial arrangements with those organizations across the Agency.
Question. How might creating a U.S. Global Development Strategy
that guides policy for all U.S. development agencies help further
clarify roles and responsibilities, while serving as a complement to
our National Security Strategy?
Answer. Thank you for the suggestion. Under the coordinating
leadership of the National Security Council (NSC), the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) and other interagency development
stakeholders cooperate closely to ensure our development roles and
responsibilities align towards successfully achieving the objectives of
the U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS). A number of additional
supporting plans and strategies already provide for the clarification
of roles and responsibilities, and greater coordination.
For example, on alignment with the NSS, the joint U.S. Department
of State-USAID Fiscal Year 2018-2022 Joint Strategic Plan (JSP)
strengthens our coordination, articulates development and foreign-
policy priorities, and bolsters strategic clarity, operational
effectiveness, and accountability to the American people. USAID and the
State Department developed this JSP through an internal consultative
process, and, in addition, consulted with representatives from 18
interagency partners to analyze and discuss the strategic objectives of
the JSP to promote close coordination and alignment with other
Departments and Agencies that implement foreign-assistance and
development programs.
While your Agency has briefed on its current plans to
reorganize USAID, I continue to hear rumors of other potential
changes to the humanitarian assistance system. Some of these
rumored changes would represent significant shifts in current
assistance practices and structure.
Question. Below the level of merging bureaus or offices, what
specific programmatic and structural changes will you be proposal to
make to USAID's humanitarian assistance programs and activities in the
field, at the regional level, and at USAID headquarters?
Answer. The proposed Humanitarian Assistance Bureau would
consolidate 13 divisions in the Offices of U.S. Foreign Disaster
Assistance (OFDA) and Food for Peace (FFP) into eight offices under one
Bureau at the U.S. Agency's for International Development (USAID). The
consolidation would serve two purposes: eliminating inefficiencies and
redundancies and elevating the platform of U.S. Government humanitarian
assistance. In practice, these structural changes would create unified
platforms for core humanitarian functions, including logistics, the
formulation and execution of budgets, the management of proposals and
award, and support for the 24/7 deployment of teams overseas. In the
field, one combined humanitarian-assistance team, which would encompass
the full spectrum of food and non-food humanitarian assistance, would
interface with host countries and partners to design and monitor
assistance that best meets assessed needs and elevates humanitarian
challenges, as needed. FFP already has begun to fully integrate into
the response-management system used by OFDA to deploy and implement
Disaster-Assistance Response Teams (DARTs) in the field and support
Washington-based Response Management Teams (RMTs). Activation
decisions, resource-planning, and staffing for these responses are now
conducted as a joint effort between the two Offices, which results in a
unified response posture in the field. In addition, FFP and OFDA
currently co-fund staff at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations in
Rome and in Afghanistan.
Question. Please explain--as specifically as possible--how each of
these proposed changes will improve the effectiveness of USAID's
humanitarian assistance operations?
Answer. Further details and specificity will be provided in the
forthcoming Congressional Notifications. But to answer your question in
general terms, by unifying and elevating humanitarian assistance, the
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) would erase the
artificial distinction between emergency food and non-food response;
eliminate confusion and unnecessary duplication in the field; and allow
beneficiaries and partners to deal with one, cohesive humanitarian-
assistance entity, which would optimize resources currently replicated
across two Offices. The analysis conducted on this proposed change by
McKinsey and Company indicates that the consolidation of critical
functions and requirements between the two Offices which would improve
efficiency, performance, and accountability. Some of those efficiencies
include more-coordinated and consolidated geographic response teams;
better engagement with international and domestic partners;
improvements in technical and program quality; unified policy,
outreach, communications, human-resources, and administrative staff;
better financial, data-, and information-management; single audit-
coordination and risk-management functions; and consolidated overseas
preparedness and response operations.
Additionally, the proposed changes will further integrate USAID's
humanitarian and resilience programming, ensuring our assistance not
only addresses immediate needs, but builds resilience to future shocks,
ultimately decreasing the need for humanitarian assistance.
Currently, responsibility for atrocity prevention and support
for the Atrocities Prevention Board resides in the office of
Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance.
Question. Under the redesign, will that work continue to reside in
the Bureau for Development, Democracy and Innovation, or will it move
over to the new Bureau for Conflict Prevention and Stabilization?
Answer. The Bureau for Conflict Prevention and Stabilization would
have a Center for Conflict and Violence Prevention, which would be the
technical lead for preventing atrocities.
The commitment of the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) to helping prevent mass atrocities reflects the Agency's
mission and core values, and is also part of the comprehensive U.S.
Government policy on stopping mass atrocities. I intend to do more on
atrocity and genocide prevention, and look forward to working with you
on this critical issue.
Question. How will you ensure that this work is prioritized? Can we
have your assurance that you will continue to assign at least one full-
time equivalent staff to work on atrocity prevention?
Answer. I share your commitment to preventing atrocities, and
assure you the Center for Conflict and Violence Prevention, in the
proposed Bureau for Conflict Prevention and Stabilization, would have
at least one technical expert on atrocity-prevention. This technical
expert would be part of a broader team focused on preventing violence
and funding early-warning systems.
Although crisis response and disaster relief are critical
components of USAID, they are not its only functions. USAID has
been a world leader in not only humanitarian relief efforts but
also in helping to build resiliency around the globe to respond
to shocks by investing in development activities that help
ensure children have access to quality education, advance the
rights of women and girls and gender equality to ensure
stability and prosperity, that strengthen health systems to
support communities, and that support agricultural assistance
to feed the next generation.
Question. How will the proposed reorganization of USAID offices
improve outcomes for the beneficiaries of U.S. humanitarian assistance?
Answer. In the current structure of humanitarian assistance in the
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), while the Office for
Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) is responsible for non-food
humanitarian assistance and the Office of Food for Peace (FFP) delivers
emergency and non-emergency food assistance, the distinction between
food and non-food assistance is artificial. The majority of program
funding goes to the same set of countries, emergencies, and, in some
cases, partners. While we cannot predict the outcomes for beneficiaries
at this time, a unified Bureau would provide direct dividends to
beneficiaries overseas by creating a more-efficient structure that
unifies processes, which would result in more-efficient and strategic
design of proposals and management of awards, and create cohesive
support systems for our overseas operations. Partners would interact
with one U.S. Government entity at USAID for humanitarian assistance,
which would eliminate time spent working with two separate Offices, and
allow for more-cohesive programming and more-effective monitoring and
evaluation.
Question. Please include in your response specific examples on how
your proposed changes will drive improvements in outcomes like
mortality rates, income levels and literacy rates in protracted
humanitarian crises.
Answer. At this time, we are unable to project causal changes to
mortality, income levels, and literacy rates in protracted humanitarian
crises. That said, the new proposed Associate Administrator for Relief,
Resilience and Response would provide a new and much-needed function in
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to strengthen the
natural link among our investments in humanitarian crises, conflict,
and resilience. The Associate Administrator would remove silos among
these critical and related efforts, strengthen our ability to plan for
recurrent crises, and thereby enhance countries' abilities to withstand
future shocks.
Recent evidence from USAID underscores the vital importance of
strengthening the resilience of households, communities and countries.
These long-term investments by governments and donors, such as USAID,
are key to breaking the cycle of crises among chronically vulnerable
households and communities and ultimately reducing their dependence on
humanitarian assistance.
New evidence from Malawi confirms that 80 percent of households in
communities reached by long-term resilience programming (2010-14) that
cost $376 per households over five years required less food assistance
during the 2016 El Nino drought than they did during prior droughts,
and 40 percent of these communities required no food assistance at all.
Other households required $390 in humanitarian assistance in 2016
alone. This finding demonstrates both the short-term returns on
investing in resilience and the sustainability of these investments
years after programming has ended.
Question. How do you as USAID Administrator intend to continue to
build America's legacy through investments in global health, education,
gender equality, and agricultural assistance?
Answer. I am committed to strengthening and building on the
development programs that have represented America's generosity and
values for years, while focusing those programs toward capacity-
building and self-reliance. In global health, I remain committed to the
President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief, the President's Malaria
Initiative, and the Global Health Security Agenda. The Agency also
remains focused on programming to improve the health of women and
children.
In agriculture, the new Bureau for Resilience and Food Security
(RFS) would continue to lead the whole-of-Government Feed the Future
initiative, guided by the U.S. Global Food-Security Strategy, which
seeks to reduce global poverty, hunger and malnutrition in a
sustainable way. RFS would help people and partner countries break the
cycle of crises, chronic vulnerability, and poverty, which would reduce
humanitarian need, increase stability, and thereby contribute to U.S.
national security and economic prosperity.
On education, the Center for Education in USAID's proposed
Democracy, Design, and Innovation (DDI) Bureau would lead the Agency's
implementation of the Reinforcing Education Accountability in
Development (READ) Act, including the development of a ``Comprehensive
Integrated United States Strategy to Promote Basic Education'' that
``[seeks] to equitably expand access to basic education for all
children, particularly marginalized children and vulnerable groups; and
(2) measurably [improve] the quality of basic education and learning
outcomes.'' From 2011 to 2017, USAID education programs directly
benefited more than 83.4 million children and youth in nearly 50
countries. We have achieved promising results, and we will continue our
work in this regard.
Promoting gender-equality and empowering women and girls is
fundamental to achieving USAID's development goals. This remains a top
priority for me, and for the Agency. Investing in women produces a
multiplier effect: women reinvest a large portion of their income in
their families and communities, which furthers economic growth,
security and stability. USAID funds programs focused on promoting
gender-equality and women's economic empowerment, addressing and
reducing forms of gender-based violence, and advancing the status of
women and girls within the peace and security sector.
Question. How does USAID plan to redesign its strategy in order to
insure that preplanning development is included in order to save lives,
reduce poverty, and help people emerge from humanitarian crises and
progress beyond their assistance after the fact?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is
reorienting its overarching strategic approach around the concept of
``self-reliance,'' that is, focusing our partnerships to best-support a
country's ability to plan, finance, and implement solutions to solve
its own development challenges. For some countries, self-reliance might
only be a few years away, while for others, it could be decades. For
countries that are experiencing profound poverty, conflict, and
humanitarian crises, our focus will be on getting such countries to
first stabilize, and then ultimately build a base upon which the
beginnings of self-reliance can take root. This will take time, but as
stability and resilience grow in such countries through our
humanitarian and conflict-mitigation interventions, we will be able to
gradually shift our focus to building up a country's commitment and
capacity to increasingly plan, finance, and implement solutions to
solve its own development challenges. This, too, will take time, and
such progress is rarely linear, but by keeping self-reliance as our
north star, we hope that for even the most-fragile of our country
partners, we have a clear long-term goal in mind.
Specific policies, such as the U.S. Strategy to Prevent and
Respond to Gender-based Violence Globally, Ending Child
Marriage and Meeting the Needs of Married Children: The USAID
Vision for Action (and associated Resource Guide) and the USAID
Implementation Plan of the U.S. Global Strategy to Empower
Adolescent Girls, have been critical to enhancing and
coordinating the U.S. Government's work to end child marriage
and support already married girls and empower girls more
broadly to live healthy, safe, empowered and educated lives.
Question. How will you ensure that these policies continue to be
implemented and built upon, with evidence-based interventions,
throughout the USAID transformation process?
Answer. During Transformation, the existing development policies
and strategies of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
remain in effect. This includes a requirement for all USAID development
policies to be grounded in research, analysis, and conclusions
supported by evidence. Evidence-based policies accurately reflect the
current state of knowledge, best practices and approaches in a
particular field. On a regular basis, USAID conducts assessments of
individual policies and strategies to gather evidence that helps us
understand how they are shaping our programs. By identifying
implementation successes, challenges and lessons learned, these
assessments help strengthen the future formulation and implementation
of policy. If approved, the proposed Bureau for Policy, Resources and
Performance (PRP) would be responsible for continuing to set standards
and procedures for formulating and assessing policies to ensure quality
and evidence in sector policies and strategies, and coordinate with the
other Bureaus to align policies with my overarching goals and vision.
Similarly, according to USAID's Program Cycle operational policy,
Agency staff must apply analytic rigor to support evidence-based
decision-making in the design of country strategies, projects and
activities. During implementation, programs must adapt in response to
changes in context and new information. The proposed PRP Bureau would
continue to provide guidance and institutional support to ensure field-
based programs are based on evidence, respond to changes in country
context, and ultimately build partner capacity to lead their own
development journey.
Additionally, the new metrics include two indicators critical for
helping us assess gender (and social inclusion more broadly) through
the lens of self-reliance. One is the World Economic Forum's Economic
Gender Gap analysis, which looks at gender differences in economic
participation and opportunity, while another is the Varieties of
Democracy Project's Social Group Equality measure, which examines the
enjoyment of all civil liberties equally by all social groups in a
country.
Congress recently enacted the Global Food Security Act, the
Electrify Africa Act, the Water for the World Act, and the
Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act--each
empowering USAID to deliver development results in a more
sustainable, accountable way.
Question. How would severe budget cuts to development assistance
impact these initiatives, our development objectives, and our strategic
partnerships around the world?
Answer. The President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2019
prioritizes foreign assistance in regions and on programs that most
advance our national interest and support the administration's most
critical priorities. We will never have all the resources to do
everything that we want to do. That is a given. We had to make tough
choices. My job as Administrator is to ensure the most efficient,
effective use of the dollars Congress generously appropriates and our
work will expand as resources allow. The U.S. Agency for International
Development is committed to partnering with nations on their journey to
self-reliance and maximizing the impact of these initiatives for the
American taxpayer.
Question. How will the staffing and resource realignment resulting
from the redesign affect USAID's ability to fulfill the Congressional
directives of these programs?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is
committed both to implementing the reorganization and Transformation of
the Agency and sustaining the quality of our core work simultaneously,
including by supporting national-security interests and fulfilling
Congressional directives. Our people are the foundation for
Transformation--we intend to approach these changes with adaptability
and flexibility, and with our workforce at the forefront. We recognize
that supporting these processes will require resources. As we near
implementation, we are focusing on developing realistic timelines and
workloads, plans for workforce and human-capital needs, and proposals
for financial resources to ensure USAID's regular work can continue
without undue disruption. Ultimately, these changes would make us more
effective and maximize our development outcomes.
Related to the new Bureau for Conflict Prevention and
Stabilization, there is concern about how this Bureau will be
meaningfully connected to USAID's work on democracy, human rights, and
governance issues under the Bureau for Development, Democracy and
Innovation.
Question. Understanding that issues related to governance,
democracy and human rights can be--and often are--at the root of
conflict, how will you work to limit siloing between these streams of
effort and ensure that work on conflict prevention is as holistic as
possible?
Answer. The proposed Bureau for Conflict Prevention and
Stabilization (CPS) would be USAID's technical lead on preventing
conflict and violence, as well as the implementation of political-
transition and civilian-stabilization programs in high-priority
countries, and CPS would nclude a Center for Conflict- and Violence-
Prevention (CVP). The Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG)
Center Center's placement within the proposed Development, Democracy
and Innovation (DDI) Bureau would limit siloing between streams of
effort, so as to ensure a holistic approach to conflict-prevention work
throughout the Agency.
Staff within the proposed CPS Bureau, particularly in the new CVP
Center, would have technical expertise that includes governance
capabilities around crisis-response, countering violent extremism
(CVE), and conflict-prevention and would be a resource within the
proposed CPS Bureau to identify and collaborate holistically on
governance issues as they arise. Additionally, CPS would have
deliberate linkages to the proposed DDI, which would be the technical
home of Backstop (BS) 76 Foreign Service Officers, who cover crisis,
stabilization, democracy, and governance, and USAID's expertise in
long-term DRG programming that facilitates the journey to self-
reliance.
Multi-year Planning for Protracted Crises
Of the 21 U.N. Humanitarian Response Plans (HRPs) released by
the United Nations this year, 19 seek to address humanitarian
crises that have been ongoing for 5 years or more. Of these
crises, it is notable that three countries have had
humanitarian plans and appeals each year for at least 18 years
(Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan and Somalia).
Question. What specific changes is USAID proposing to undertake to
improve and systematize multi-year planning for protracted crises?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funds
implementing partners, including entities within the United Nations
(UN) system, to conduct multi-year, multi-agency planning, with the aim
of developing more innovative, long-term programs. Progress has
occurred under the leadership of the U.N. Office for the Coordination
of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), in the use and refinement of
collaborative multi-year plans, which were in place in seven countries
in 2017. USAID will continue to work with OCHA to ensure the U.N.
develops and deploys such plans in the context of protracted crises,
and that multi-year planning forecasts are part of the preparation of
country-level U.N. Humanitarian Needs Overviews and appeal documents.
I share your concern that we continue to invest resources, year
after year, in the same set of countries in crisis without a good
definition of success. I am also troubled by the possibility that our
well-intentioned humanitarian assistance in some places could be
abetting corrupt and rapacious behavior that is prolonging conflict,
rather than helping to solve it. USAID is in the process of drafting
internal guidance documents for staff that will make the funding of
multi-year awards contingent on a partner's establishment of a multi-
year plan for each program. We are also undertaking reviews of our
assistance in South Sudan and Burma to minimize our exposure to moral
hazard.
The ultimate answer to your question is that the international
community must recognize that affected populations in protracted crises
require a continuity of resources beyond immediate, humanitarian
relief. In response, USAID is drawing on the comparative advantages of
development and humanitarian actors, by collaborating early and
strategically both to respond to emergency needs and to promote the
creation of sustainable livelihoods to create longer-term resilience.
Strategic collaboration across relief and development that begins at
the design stage, particularly through resilience-building strategies
and activities to prepare for, and reduce the risk of, disasters, can
contribute to reducing the need for continuous, life-saving
humanitarian assistance, as we have seen in recent investments in the
Somali Region of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. We are
increasingly combining resources from accounts such as health, food
security, nutrition, and economic development to make such
collaboration easier and more effective; a good example is our cross-
sectoral community resilience approach across the Sahel, through the
USAID Resilience in the Sahel Enhanced (RISE) II Initiative. The
technical approach working paper for the RISE II Initiative can be
found at: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/
RISE--II--Technical--Approach--Working--Paper--May--2018.pdf. The
proposed creation of the new Bureau for Food Security and Resilience in
the Agency's Transformation is meant to institutionalize this approach
and focus USAID more intensively on helping to build solutions to long-
term crises, rather than just containing the damage they produce.
Refugee Policy and Programs
State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration
is critical to the State Department. The Department of State's
efforts to respond to crises includes efforts to address
refugee flight and solutions require the integration of
diplomatic engagement and assistance. Moreover, most of the
State Department's humanitarian assistance is implemented
through investments in a network of international
organizations. State Department's role in governing bodies like
UNHCR and ICRC, for example, provide the United States with
crucial influence over how those institutions operate in areas
of concern to the U.S. Government.
Question. Does USAID support a consolidation of State Department's
humanitarian component into USAID? If so, are you aware if OMB supports
this move as well?
Answer. I have personally spoken to Secretary Pompeo about
humanitarian assistance, and I can assure you that no decisions have
been made. I look forward to future conversations with him, and with
you, about the most-efficient way for the U.S. Government to deliver
and manage humanitarian assistance.
As articulated in the Government-wide Reform Plan and
Reorganization Recommendations released by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) in June 2018, the administration is launching a process to
review how to optimize U.S. humanitarian assistance, but has made no
decisions. Three Bureaus and Offices at the Department of State and the
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) currently fund and
conduct U.S. humanitarian assistance programs, which divides strategic
planning and decision-making on humanitarian policy and implementation.
The administration is reviewing how we provide humanitarian assistance
across State and USAID to maximize our leverage, improve the
effectiveness of our aid, and meet our foreign-policy goals and
objectives better. These include driving strong reforms in the United
Nations (UN) humanitarian system, increasing burden-sharing among
donors, minimizing duplication of effort in our programming and policy,
and maximizing efficiency in meeting humanitarian needs and resolving
underlying crises. As part of this process, the Department of State and
USAID will submit a joint recommendation to optimize humanitarian-
assistance programs to OMB, as part of our Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Budget
Request. USAID is committed to consulting with Congress on any final
proposal.
Question. Would our broader foreign policy objectives be better
served by moving refugee operations into USAID?
Answer. In my view, further analysis is required to answer this
question. I believe the Department of State has an important role to
play in U.S. refugee policy, particularly on the diplomatic front, and
in the resettlement of refugees. But I also believe that the current
system has challenges, some of which I saw first-hand on my recent trip
to Burma and Bangladesh. While Rohingya are in Burma, we consider them
``internally displaced persons,'' and they receive assistance from the
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). When they enter
Bangladesh, we label them as ``refugees''--which, of course, is led by
the Department of State. Even then, USAID provides some elements of
assistance. In many cases, USAID and the State Department each provide
funding to the same organizations, through a separate series of grants
and contracts in Burma and Bangladesh, to offer the same services.
Given the fluidity of the situation, I believe this is an opportunity
to review how the U.S. Government can create maximize efficiency (as
well as greater effectiveness) in meeting humanitarian needs and
resolving underlying crises.
We look forward to working closely with the Department of State on
the analytical process, and to sharing updates with you as we have them
available.
Tuberculosis
Tuberculosis (TB) is now the leading global infectious disease
killer, killing 1.7 million people a year--that's more than
malaria and more than HIV/AIDS. Current USAID TB funding
represents just 3% of the $8.69 billion in funding provided to
USAID and State Department global health programs.
Question. With the drastic cuts this budget proposes how would the
program be able to build hot-country capacity to find the missing
patients, get them on treatment and end this disease?
Answer. The President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019
proposes $178.4 million for international tuberculosis (TB), which is
$2.3 million less than the FY 2018 request. With this amount, the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) will continue to support
high-quality diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and care for millions of
people with and at risk for TB, multi-drug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) and
TB/HIV co-infection and expand programs if resources allow. In FY 2017,
the Agency worked on TB with Ministries of Health (MoH) in 22 high-
burden countries, which we plan to continue in FY 2018. To complement
our bilateral investments, the United States is also the largest donor
to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria ($1.350 billion
scheduled contribution in FY 2018), which finances TB programs in 94
countries, plus three regional consortia.
As you indicate, finding people with TB early and providing them
with access to quality diagnosis and care is a critical step in
combating the disease. Every individual with TB unreached will spread
the disease to approximately 10-12 more people in his or her lifetime.
USAID remains committed to building host-country capacity through the
introduction and adoption of evidence-based approaches and new tools
and technologies, and works with each National TB Program (NTP) in our
22 focus countries to support its capacity to develop and implement
evidence-based and budgeted national strategic plans. In addition,
USAID works with local partners, including faith-based and community
organizations, to provide person-centered care. We will continue to
encourage the increase of political and financial commitments to
fighting TB from high-burden countries with the ability to pay, as well
as seeking opportunities to raise private capital.
This September the United Nations will hold the first ever
High-Level Meeting on tuberculosis. TB is the leading global
infectious disease killer, but about 40% of cases are still
``missed'' by health systems and growing numbers of cases are
drug-resistant. The U.S. Government is critical to making this
meeting a success.
Question. Will you attend this meeting in order to ensure high
level U.S. participation? How will you ensure that the final
declaration includes clear commitments on targets, financing and
accountability?
Answer. While the Department of State and the White House have not
yet determined the U.S. Delegation to the United Nations High-Level
Meeting on Tuberculosis (TB), the administration hopes to have the
highest U.S. Government participation possible. If requested, and
schedule permitting, I would be pleased to be part of the Delegation as
head of the Agency that leads the U.S. Government's international TB
efforts. The administration will use the meeting to reaffirm the U.S.
commitment to helping countries achieve the Sustainable Development
Goal on TB.
I agree that the final Declaration should include clear global
commitments on targets, financing and accountability, but would note
that the negotiations are still ongoing; USAID is participating in the
interagency discussions on the text, and my staff is watching them
closely. I commit to engage with you and your staffs as plans for the
High-Level Meeting develop.
Foreign Assistance Efficiency
As part of the Grand Bargain to improve aid efficiency and
effectiveness, the United States Government committed in 2016
to ``increasingly solicit and fund multi-year proposals, and
collaborate with our partners to increase the effectiveness and
flexibility of our multiyear mechanisms.'' At the time, 34% of
USG awards to NGOs were multi-year.
Question. In 2017, what percentage of USAID humanitarian funding to
NGO partners was multi-year? What steps is USAID taking to increase
multi-year awards?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is
dedicated to meeting its commitment under the Grand Bargain, a 2016
agreement that brings together donors, United Nations agencies, non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), and the International Red Cross and
Red Crescent Movement to strengthen the humanitarian system and address
the global humanitarian funding gap. Specifically, USAID committed to
improving the efficiency and effectiveness of humanitarian aid,
including through the use of multi-year funding mechanisms that include
the necessary provisions for transparency and accountability. In Fiscal
Year (FY) 2017, over 32 percent of awards made by the Office of Food
for Peace within USAID's Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and
Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA) to NGO partners supported multi-year,
emergency food-assistance programming. USAID/DCHA's Office for U.S.
Disaster Assistance (OFDA) estimates that 20 percent of its funding in
FY 2017 went towards multi-year programming, an increase of nearly 33
percent over FY 2016 levels. USAID will continue to support multi-year
programming in research and reducing the risk of disasters, and to fund
across multiple program cycles, subject to funding availability.
USAID will also more systematically consider, when practical, the
use of cooperative agreements to support multi-year funding and
planning. For example, USAID/DCHA/OFDA has amended its NGO Proposal
Guidelines (developed in 2017, published in February 2018) to note that
multi-year awards might be appropriate for a protracted emergency, or a
longer-term project to reduce the risk of disasters. We encourage our
NGO partners to discuss with U.S. Government field representatives
whether multi-year awards are appropriate, and if funding is available.
Funding determinations will depend on the local context, incremental
multi-year planning, and available funding.
Procurement Reform
Question. What are you doing in the reform process to ensure that
smaller contractors such as financial cooperatives and credit unions
with a proven track record of implementing programs are not
disadvantaged in the bidding process and can compete on a level playing
field with other for-profit entities?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is
actively working to identify effective partners and develop and
implement a series of interconnected and interdependent reforms to our
program-design and procurement processes. We know we need to diversify
our base of implementers: In Fiscal Year 2017, just 25 organizations
accounted for 60 percent of our spending on acquisition (contracts) and
assistance (grants and cooperative agreements), and 75 organizations
made up 80 percent of our portfolio. Increasing opportunities for U.S.-
based small businesses and local partners around the world is at the
heart of the effort to broaden our network. Indeed, developing new
approaches in this regard is one of our stated goals in the Redesign
and reform process.
Another key tenet of our approach to helping countries advance on
their journey to self-reliance is greater collaboration with private-
sector actors to foster what we call ``enterprise-driven development.''
For this reason, we are currently developing a new policy on Private-
Sector Engagement (PSE) for the Agency to ask our staff to apply
sustainable, market-based solutions to development challenges across
all sectors in which we work and address barriers to private
investment. Under this new policy, we expect that collaboration with
financial cooperatives, credit unions, and other types of organizations
that employ locally relevant, market-oriented approaches will continue
to be important to our work.
People with Disabilities
USAID's Disability Policy recognizes that development programs
are more impactful if the estimated 15% of the world's
population that has a disability are included. However, SPANS
(Special Protection and Assistance Needs of Survivors) is again
zeroed out in the President's budget request.
Question. How does the administration's budget, and specifically
USAID's, gives a voice to people with disabilities, particularly
through global democracy and governance programs? Please detail how the
President's budget gives a voice to people with disabilities,
particularly through global democracy and governance programs.
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
shares the committee's commitment to giving voice and support to people
with disabilities, and to further inclusive development practices to
help prevent the neglect of marginalized populations. While no
administration has requested funding for Special Protection and
Assistance Needs of Survivors (SPANS) for the last ten years, Congress
has historically appropriated generous funding for SPANS, including $61
million in Fiscal Year 2018. We strive to be efficient and effective
with the resources appropriated by Congress.
USAID is continuously working to ensure our programming is
inclusive--including for persons with disabilities--across all sectors,
not just in our programs in democracy and governance. Approaches to
achieve this include disability-related provisions required in
contracts and grants; disability-inclusive sector strategies and
programming; the development and dissemination of training materials;
and designated experts who serve as a resource to all Agency staff on
these important issues. For example, USAID just launched the course,
``Disability Inclusive Development 102: Mainstreaming Disability Across
the Program Cycle and Beyond,'' available to all staff on USAID
University, which, among other elements, contains practical tools that
Missions and others can use to ensure the Agency's programming is
inclusive of persons with disabilities. Specifically in democracy and
governance, USAID funded the creation of a manual entitled, ``Equal
Access: How to Include Persons with Disabilities in Elections and
Political Processes,'' to ensure our work on elections meaningfully
includes people with disabilities.
Beyond trainings and manuals, USAID is also implementing programs
to benefit the disabled directly in the field. For example, in
Mozambique, USAID's Media-Strengthening Program funds a local media
organization called Deaf TV run by deaf and hard-of-hearing
journalists. The project is training ten Deaf TV journalists to produce
high-quality, mainstream media content and conduct investigative
reporting on disability-rights issues. The project is also assisting
Deaf TV to obtain the required registration to become an official media
outlet in the country. Deaf TV recently secured a regular slot on the
country's largest independent TV station, which has a nationwide
audience and will enable Deaf TV to produce a regular news program on a
free-to-air channel.
Additionally, the Strengthening Political Participation of Persons
with Disabilities in the Republic of Serbia project, implemented by a
local Disabled People's Organization, is strengthening the political
participation of persons with disabilities in Serbia through
legislative and electoral-reform processes. Specifically, the project
is re-establishing the Parliamentary Disability Caucus Group to shape
national policy, and raise the awareness of Members of Parliament of
disability rights. It is enhancing collaboration with civil society,
political parties and the Republic of Serbia Election Commission to
develop measures that improve voting-accessibility for persons with
disabilities. In April 2016, for the first time ever, Serbian electoral
regulations required provisions for the participation of persons with
disabilities in the electoral process, and independent monitors
verified the accessibility of polling places for the first time.
Assessment of Vulnerable Populations
The United States has been a historic leader on providing
humanitarian assistance on the basis of need--if people face
crises, we generally respond. Principled humanitarian response
means that assistance goes to all vulnerable populations--
including persecuted groups like religious minorities.
Question. As you look to allocate humanitarian assistance in FY
2018 and FY 2019, will there be any adjustment to how vulnerable
populations are assessed?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
provides needs-based assistance when responding to disasters. USAID
does not foresee changing this approach to our strategy and funding
decisions. USAID is in the process of updating its assessment and re-
assessment procedures, which help identify vulnerable populations and
their specific needs, through quantitative and qualitative data from
needs-assessments. This update in procedures will not change that we
program humanitarian resources based on emergency needs. USAID will
continue to use international standards for needs-assessments, to
ensuring we help meet the most-pressing needs of the most-vulnerable
populations through our emergency-response programs. The needs USAID
most-commonly sees in disasters are health, food security, nutrition,
water and sanitation, protection from exploitation and abuse, and
shelter.
You have my commitment that the protection of persecuted groups,
including ethnic and religious minorities, will continue to be one of
my top priorities. I have just returned from visiting with oppressed
Christian, Yezidi, and other minority communities in Northern Iraq at
the request of the Vice President, and the experience deepened my
conviction that assisting those who suffer because of their faith,
race, or ethnicity is one of our most-important missions at USAID.
Human Rights & LGBTI
Universal human rights and individual freedom are core American
values, yet many of the countries where USAID provides
development assistance still persecute and violate the rights
of LGBTI people and communities. In at least 76 countries--many
of which are USAID partner countries--discriminatory laws
criminalize consensual same-sex relationships, exposing
millions of LGBTI individuals to the risk of arrest and
imprisonment, while stigma and discrimination lead to poverty,
social isolation, diminished health, among other negative
development indicators.
Question. What role will USAID play under your leadership to combat
the harmful effects of stigma and discrimination that prevent LGBTI
individuals from being full beneficiaries of international development,
and how can USAID safeguard the rights and freedom of LGBTI individuals
throughout all its programming?
Answer. I share your concerns regarding the violence,
discrimination, criminalization, and stigma facing lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) people in developing
countries. As the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International
Affairs (USAID), I have made clear that inclusion is one of USAID's
core values, and that non-discrimination toward beneficiaries is a
basic principle of development. As such, USAID will continue to
implement its comprehensive, LGBTI-inclusive non-discrimination
policies for the beneficiaries of contracts and grants.
Under my leadership, USAID focuses on four main areas of LGBTI
work: 1) supporting data-collection and research; 2) communications
efforts to reduce stigma; 3) context-specific projects in the most
difficult environments; and, 4) emergency-response grants to help
protect LGBTI people in developing countries from violence and
discrimination. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2018, USAID's Center of Excellence
on Democracy, Human Rights and Governance within our Bureau for
Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA/DRG) has provided
$1,150,000 to support two programs that help protect LGBTI people in
developing countries from violence and discrimination. These include a
global program that provides training and strategic messaging support
in 12 countries for civil-society organizations (CSOs) that are working
to address anti-LGBTI discrimination and stigma, as well as a USAID
Mission's country-level project to help a local CSO advance protections
from anti-LGBTI violence and discrimination. Additionally, in April
2018 USAID supported the release of three research reports that fill
critical data gaps and help define the issues faced by LGBTI people
around the world. These reports represent the first global
quantification of anti-LGBTI stigma levels, which permits us to analyze
country progress and the relationship between stigma, legal inclusion,
and economic development.
Multilateral Engagement
American representation is increasingly absent from
multilateral trade, diplomatic, and development gatherings of
all levels. For example, the United States Government has
historically been very active at the U.N. Conference of States
Parties to the Convention of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (CRPD), with multiple USAID and State Department
representatives in attendance, co-hosting panels and speaking
in keynote roles. This was not the case for the June 2017 10th
session of the Conference of States Parties to the CRPD.
Question. Is America's lack of participation in multilateral
meetings a strategic choice, or the result of unfilled positions and
travel restrictions? What does this say to our allies and adversaries
about American leadership in a volatile world?
Answer. Yes, the administration is taking a strategic approach to
multilateral engagement. I recognize that multilateral organizations
are important partners in the Agency's efforts to fulfill our mission,
execute our programs and advance U.S. foreign policy interests, but not
all meetings are equal in importance, and not every subject is a
priority.
Over the last year, the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) has instituted a more-formal process to ensure our staff are
participating at the appropriate levels in multilateral meetings, and
delivering consistent, coherent messages that advance U.S. Government
priorities in these settings. We work closely with the Department of
State and the relevant U.S. Mission to the United Nations (UN) or other
U.S. multilateral Mission in this regard. This ties directly to the
administration's drive for heightened accountability of multilateral
organizations, many of which are in need of reform. The United States
is the largest investor in the multilateral system, and USAID is
working closely within the U.S. interagency to help push through
reforms to ensure the system is more effective, accountable,
responsive, and efficient, and that every taxpayer dollar the Agency
puts into a multilateral organization delivers value to the American
people. To provide a concrete demonstration of how much importance we
place on our interactions with the U.N. system and other international
organizations, as part of our Agency-wide Transformation, we will be
notifying Congress of our intent to create a new, unified office to
handle our policy relationships with multilateral institutions for the
first time, housed in the proposed Policy, Resources, and Performance
Bureau.
The administration did send representatives to the 2017 Conference
of State Parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities, and the U.S. Delegation included nine individuals who
represented the Departments of State and Health and Human Services and
USAID. More broadly, USAID continues to play a strong global role on
disability rights and disability-inclusive development. For example,
USAID will be represented by a senior official from the Administrator's
Office at the upcoming Global Disability Summit on July 24, 2018,
sponsored by the Department for International Development of the United
Kingdom, the Government of Kenya, and the International Disability
Alliance.
State Department Holds on USAID Funds
It has come to the attention of the committee that the State
Department's Office of Foreign Assistance Resources, (F
Bureau), is withholding the approval of FY 2017 Operations
Plans and Spend Plans for several USAID programs. These are
programs that Congress has appropriated funds for FY 2017, and
F Bureau delayed obligating to USAID, only later to offer some
of the funds in the administration's recession package.
Question. What is your understanding as to why the State Department
is withholding these appropriated funds? How is the delay, or
prohibition, of USAID receiving these allocations affecting the
Agency's ability to operate affected programs? What are some of the
consequences of the uncertainty of funding for affected programs? Do
you believe any of these delays may be related to policy or political
disagreements with Congressionally-mandated programs?
Answer. The Department of State and the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) continue to obligate and implement
funds consistent with annual Appropriations Acts, the Impoundment
Control Act of 1974, and other applicable laws. The Bureau of Foreign
Assistance Resources (F Bureau) at the State Department has completed
its review of, and approved, 95 percent of USAID's Operational Plans
(OPs) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017. USAID has submitted the required Spend
Plans for these OPs, and Congress has approved them. Subject to legally
required Congressional Notifications and any ensuing holds, the
Department of State and USAID will continue to work diligently to
ensure we obligate all funds appropriated by Congress as quickly as
possible, while assuring our compliance with applicable legal and other
requirements.
The administration has frozen foreign assistance in certain
contexts and is conducting a review of all foreign assistance,
to include humanitarian assistance, in South Sudan and West
Bank/Gaza. In all these contexts, there are substantial
populations in humanitarian need and danger of additional
populations backsliding into humanitarian need.
Question. What will you do to assure that vulnerable populations
receive basic services during such freezes and reviews? Do these
reviews have the potential to make humanitarian assistance a political
bargaining chip instead of a reflection of American values towards
vulnerable populations? Can you commit to reporting back to this
committee on the impact of these freezes and reviews and how they
impact the ability of vulnerable populations to transition away from
humanitarian assistance?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is
committed to doing all we can to coordinate with other partners and
help vulnerable populations continue to receive services during policy
reviews of our assistance.
It is critical that USAID's humanitarian and development assistance
not enable predatory or corrupt behavior and unintentionally fuel
further conflict. We remain committed to saving lives through
principled humanitarian action. Our top priority is to support
protection and assistance for communities in need, while ensuring the
responsible and effective use of our funding. We work closely with our
partners to ensure we and they have measures in place to prevent the
diversion of our assistance, while maintaining our commitment to
reaching people in need and supporting their transition to self-
reliance.
South Sudan: As part of the review of U.S. Government (USG)
assistance to South Sudan announced by the White House on May 8, 2018,
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is examining our
development and humanitarian-assistance programs to South Sudan to
ensure our funding does not inadvertently contribute to predatory or
corrupt behavior that enables actors to continue to prosecute the civil
war in that country. USAID is not pausing, suspending, or canceling any
programs in South Sudan at this time. As the U.S. Government remains
the single-largest provider of humanitarian assistance to the people of
South Sudan--having delivered more than $885 million in life-saving
relief in Fiscal Year 2017--it is essential that we protect the
integrity of our aid funding, and assure it goes solely for its
intended purpose: to alleviate suffering and empower vulnerable
communities to move toward self-reliance.
West Bank and Gaza: U.S. assistance to Palestinians remains under
review, and no funding decision has yet been reached. The
administration seeks to identify how to leverage all forms of U.S.
Government aid to achieve its policy objectives in the region. USAID is
working closely with the interagency to communicate the funding needs
for our West Bank and Gaza programs.
I commit to keeping the committee posted on the ongoing assistance
reviews, including any impact they might have on vulnerable
populations.
Transparency and Evaluation and FATAA Implementation
Question. What changes is USAID proposing to improve transparency
and oversight of U.N. humanitarian partners? How is USAID ensuring that
multi-year financing provided to U.N. agencies is flowing efficiently
and effectively to their implementing partners in the field?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
continues to advance the implementation of the Grand Bargain, a 2016
agreement that brings together donors, United Nations (U.N.) agencies,
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the International Red Cross
and Red Crescent Movement to reform the humanitarian system and address
the global humanitarian funding gap. Increased transparency and
oversight is a central tenet of the Grand Bargain, and USAID is working
with key U.N. partners to develop benchmark plans to ensure the
agencies meet their Grand Bargain commitments. This includes a push to
increase U.N. agencies' humanitarian reporting to the standards of the
International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI), promoting
interoperability so the U.N.'s Financial Tracking System is IATI-
compliant, and advocating that donor funding be traceable in
implementation through consistent application of the IATI standards.
In addition to the changes USAID is seeking through the Grand
Bargain, our oversight of U.N. humanitarian partners relies on a dual-
track approach: robust engagement at the Executive Boards (EBs) of key
U.N. agencies and the use of field-based staff, who are experts in
humanitarian assistance, to monitor the in-country performance of U.N.
institutions in real time. For example, USAID has used both its EB
position and close field engagement to drive strategic, programmatic,
and budgetary reforms at the World Food Program (WFP) to improve the
overall effectiveness of food-assistance operations. WFP's Financial
Framework Review, a key component of these reforms, aims to provide
more accurate and timely reporting information to governments and
donors, and a clear line of sight between investments made, activities
undertaken, and outputs delivered. On an individual award basis, USAID
requires quarterly financial reports and regular programmatic reports,
supplemented by close field collaboration and monitoring visits, to
ensure that resources provided to U.N. organizations translate into
effective, life-saving humanitarian assistance on the ground. USAID, in
close alignment with interagency partners, also has leveraged the seat
the United States holds on the EB of the U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF)
to increase its focus on humanitarian-assistance issues, which for many
years had not been part of its agenda.
Another element of the implementation of the Grand Bargain relates
to multi-year financing and planning. As U.N. humanitarian agencies
develop more multi-year planning, their efficiency and effectiveness
will increase. USAID is pressing for these agencies to pass on gains
from greater efficiency and effectiveness to their implementing
partners. This effort, combined with increased reporting to IATI
standards, will allow USAID to have greater visibility into funding
flows to implementing partners from the U.S. Government and other
donors.
A large part of improving the transparency, and our oversight, of
multilateral organizations is changing our own policies and procedures
and how we interact with them. To that end, we are in the final stages
of revamping our policy for grants, cooperative agreements and
contracts with public international organizations (PIOs), Automated
Directive System (ADS) Chapter 308. The changes will require all of our
financial instruments with PIOs to include provisions to obligate the
organizations to provide greater transparency in reporting, especially
regarding transactions such as sub-grants or sub-contracts with non-UN
entities, and to report cases of fraud or abuse immediately to USAID
and our Office of Inspector General. We will brief Congress as soon as
we have completed the revisions to ADS Chapter 308.
Finally, as articulated in the Government-wide Reform Plan and
Reorganization Recommendations released by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) in June 2018, the administration is launching a process to
review how to optimize U.S. humanitarian assistance, but has ) made no
decisions. Three Bureaus and Offices at the Department of State and the
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) currently fund and
conduct U.S. humanitarian assistance programs, which divides strategic
planning and decision-making on humanitarian policy and implementation.
The administration is reviewing how we provide humanitarian assistance
across State and USAID to maximize our leverage, improve the
effectiveness of our aid, and meet our foreign-policy goals and
objectives better. These include driving strong reforms in the U.N.
humanitarian system, increasing burden-sharing among donors, minimizing
duplication of effort in our programming and policy, and maximizing
efficiency in meeting humanitarian needs and resolving underlying
crises.
In developing any proposal, the administration will address changes
needed to achieve a unified voice on humanitarian policy, a single
humanitarian budget, and reforms to optimize outcomes. The process will
consider all options (structural, policy, procedural, and staffing) to
achieve these objectives. As part of this process, the Department of
State and USAID will submit a joint recommendation to optimize
humanitarian-assistance programs to OMB, as part of our Fiscal Year
(FY) 2020 Budget Request. USAID is committed to consulting with
Congress on any final proposal.
Sustainable and effective development is only possible when
project design and implementation properly accounts for
environmental, social, and human rights risks.
Question. Considering the proposed 2019 USAID budget, what steps
will you take to address this gap and ensure that USAID projects follow
strong environmental and social safeguards? Will you commit to
developing an accountability mechanism for USAID in the next fiscal
year?
Answer. Regardless of the overall budget level, the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) has systems to ensure the projects we
fund have strong environmental and social safeguards. In 2016, USAID
revised its project-design policy--codified in Automated Directives
System (ADS) Chapter 201--to make a number of process improvements
aimed at yielding more effective and sustainable change in our partner
nations from environmental, social (including human rights) and
economic perspectives. ADS 201 requires that USAID project-design teams
systematically identify and account for risks in the local context, and
put in place environmental and social safeguards to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate potential harm. The policy also calls on our teams to set up
systems to monitor these risks during the implementation of the
programs that we fund, and to allow our managers to make course-
corrections with our partners as we learn lessons or circumstances
change during the life of an award.
A number of pre-award evaluations assessments shape USAID's
project-design process, including an environmental assessment (as
required by Title 22, Part 216 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]
and ADS 204), a climate-change assessment (as required by Executive
Order 13677 and ADS 201), and a gender assessment (as required by ADS
205), among others. Project-design teams also must identify other
analyses--as relevant and appropriate--needed to understand the
operating context and potential outcomes, both intended and unintended,
of USAID assistance.
These reforms complement a larger effort to break down risk silos
across the Agency--including those related to the environment, social
issues and human rights--to create a more holistic process for managing
risk. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123, as revised
in 2016, requires this approach, commonly referred to as Enterprise
Risk-Management (ERM), of all Federal Departments and Agencies. USAID
has just completed its first corporate-level Agency Risk Profile, and
the Agency's Operating Units are in the midst of producing their own,
which we will incorporate into a single document this fall. In
addition, USAID has approved and plans to publish our first Risk-
Appetite Statement, which provides broad guidance to Agency staff
regarding the different types of risk to weigh in achieving our
objectives. The Risk Profile and Risk Appetite Statement will provide
additional, critical accountability mechanisms for elevating keys risks
(social, environmental, human rights and beyond) to ensure their
oversight by Agency leadership, who meet regularly to discuss the major
risks the institution faces.
Specifically to your question on developing an accountability
mechanism for USAID in the next Fiscal Year, at this time, the Agency
will continue to rely on the existing accountability systems described
above, and quickly implement the changes in management and oversight
that will emerge from the Agency Risk Profile.
In January, the Trump administration released guidance for the
Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act--unanimously
passed by Congress--calling on all aid agencies to establish
and set high standards for evaluation and learning policies.
Question. How does transparency and evidence of what's working and
what's not advance effective development and U.S. interests abroad?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
places high value on monitoring, evaluation, and learning to build a
body of evidence on what works and what does not to increase
development impact in furtherance of U.S. interests abroad. To codify
our commitment to evaluation, the Agency released our Evaluation Policy
in 2011, and revised it in 2016. The Policy is available on the
Agency's public website at: https://www.usaid.gov/evaluation/policy.
The Policy stipulates that the Agency use evaluation findings to inform
the design and implementation of programs, and requires the transparent
dissemination of all completed evaluations, including through
submission to USAID's public Development Experience Clearinghouse.
Since issuing the Policy, USAID has increased the number of evaluations
commissioned each year to approximately 200. To understand whether
these efforts are working, USAID's Bureau for Policy, Planning and
Learning commissioned independent studies to examine the quality of our
evaluations in 2013, and our use of evaluations in 2016. These two
studies found there has been an increase in both the quality and use of
evaluations at the Agency.
USAID further facilitates the use of evidence in the design and
monitoring of our programs by requiring the submission of all data sets
and supporting documentation created or collected by the Agency to our
public Data Development Library. Evidence transparently shared across
USAID informs planning and design worldwide, so our Missions can
benefit from each other's experiences and determine how to advance
development globally more effectively in support of U.S. interests
Question. Why has the administration again proposed eliminating
nearly half of the PPL Bureau in its budget request to Congress, and
what specifically would the Bureau have to give up under this budget?
Answer. The President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019
for the State Department and USAID focuses resources on our national
security at home and abroad, on economic development that contributes
to the growth of our own economy, on continued leadership in
international institutions based on a fair distribution of the burden,
and on renewed efforts to modernize and make more effective the
operations of both the Department of State and USAID. USAID has not
made a final determination regarding how the Budget Request, if
approved by Congress, would apply to the PPL Bureau.
Question. How will you work with the State Department to improve
aid data and data management, including resolving the multiple
platforms for aid data that currently exist?
Answer. The Department of State and the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) have similar, but distinct, foreign-
assistance reporting and transparency requirements and capabilities. In
Fall 2017, a Department of State and USAID Working Group identified
options for the consolidation of processes and data-collection related
to ForeignAssistance.gov (FA.gov) and the Foreign Aid Explorer
(Explorer.USAID.gov). The Working Group drafted a summary report that
selected several options to respond to the Sense of Congress in FATAA--
to consolidate processes and data-collection as well as the
presentation of information on the two websites. My leadership team at
USAID and their counterparts at the State Department are currently
discussing the options, and will determine a way forward by the end of
this Fiscal Year.
Question. What resources from the FY 2019 request are proposed to
address these needs?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is
improving the quality and comprehensiveness of its aid data and data-
management within existing resources. USAID is considering the
resources required to implement the options set forth by a joint
Working Group of officials from the State Department and USAID.. As the
Working Group recommendations are still under review, we are not
currently requesting new resources for the consolidation of processes
and data-collection related to ForeignAssistance.gov and the Foreign
Aid Explorer. USAID expects to have a better sense of the resources
required for these needs once the Working Group finalizes its plan for
moving forward.
Topline Budget Concerns
The administration's decision to essentially resubmit the FY
2018 budget, with just minor changes in various numbers
demonstrates a concerning lack of and strategic thinking when
it comes to understanding the role USAID and foreign assistance
needs to play in U.S. foreign policy.
Question. Do you believe that USAID can do its job effectively
under the budget this administration has proposed?
Answer. The President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019
prioritizes foreign assistance in regions and on programs that help
advance our national interest and support the administration's most
critical priorities. We will never have all the resources to take on
every humanitarian challenge or development opportunity. That is a
given, and this budget request makes difficult choices. My job as
Administrator is to ensure the most efficient, effective use of the
dollars Congress generously appropriates. The U.S. Agency for
International Development is committed to partnering with nations on
their journey to self-reliance and maximizing the impact of these
initiatives for the American taxpayer.
Question. What are you doing to ensure USAID's missions and
projects are not adversely affected by the proposed budget cuts?
Answer. The President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019
for the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) calls on other donors to do more, and seeks to
mobilize other resources towards our goals (e.g., from the private
sector and from partner countries' domestic resources), rather than
spending more U.S. taxpayer money. Other donors are stepping up. For
example, from July-December 2017, Australia made $30 million in
commitments to respond to the Rohingya crisis in Burma and Bangladesh
(one of the largest per capita commitments). At the 2017 Brussels
Conference on Syria, donors pledged worth ?5.6 billion ($6 billion), of
which two thirds, or ?3.7 billion ($4 billion), came from the European
Union and its Member States. The European Commission also pledged an
additional ?560 million ($601 million) for 2018 for inside Syria,
Jordan and Lebanon. Japan has also made numerous significant
commitments in the last year. On the humanitarian front, in December
2017, Japan announced additional humanitarian assistance of $21 million
for Syria and its neighboring countries. In March 2018, Japan made a
$72.3 million contribution to the World Food Programme to provide vital
food and nutrition assistance in 23 countries across the Middle East,
Africa, and Asia. Additionally, in July 2017 Japan announced a $50
million contribution to support the U.S.-initiated Women Entrepreneurs
Finance Initiative at the World Bank, and the Republic of Korea (ROK)
announced a $10 million contribution to support the program. At the
High-Level Pledging Event for the Humanitarian Crisis in Geneva in
April, 2017, the ROK also announced its plan to provide $4 million in
humanitarian aid to Yemen.
Our Redesign also aims to increase the effectiveness of USAID
programs. For example, the new self-reliance metrics will help ensure
that our partnerships are best-supporting a country to move along in
its journey--closer and closer to that day when foreign assistance will
no longer be necessary. For some countries, that journey may take
decades, while for others, it may be much shorter. But in either case,
through our focus on self-reliance, we will have a much clearer view on
knowing what it will take to have the right partnerships models in the
right places at the right time--thereby boosting our effectiveness.
As Administrator, I have directed Agency staff to program funds as
appropriated by Congress efficiently and effectively to achieve our
development objectives. Our intent is to execute the appropriation as
enacted by the Congress.
Question. You have called this Budget ``a Message Document.''
Exactly what message is this budget is sending?
Answer. My job as Administrator is to ensure the most efficient,
effective use of the dollars Congress generously appropriates. The U.S
Agency for International Development (USAID) is committed to partnering
with nations on their journey to self-reliance and maximizing the
impact of these initiatives for the American taxpayer.
The Budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 upholds the
President's commitment to serve the needs of American citizens, ensure
their safety, and defend their values, as outlined in the National
Security Strategy, and is consistent with administration goals to
streamline foreign assistance. The FY 2019 Budget Request will also
allow the United States to retain its leadership in shaping global
humanitarian assistance. It provides the resources necessary to advance
peace and security, expand American influence, and address global
crises, while prioritizing the efficient use of taxpayer resources.
Country Budget Allocations
After almost a decade of transparency from Democratic and
Republican administrations (9 years) regarding country-by-
country allocations for foreign assistance, this administration
provided no such information for the for the public as part of
its FY 2019 budget request. The administration proposed a 43%
reduction to development programs, but failed to explain its
impacts on various development sectors and priorities.
Question. We expect this administration to maintain some commitment
to transparency. When will Congress have access to this information? Is
USAID capable of submitting country-by-country allocations for topline
development and security assistance accounts for the record? If yes,
will the Administrator please submit that formal request for the
hearing record?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
remains committed to being transparent with Congress. The initial
Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Congressional Budget Justification released by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on February 12, 2018,
included regional and Operating Unit levels within each account.
Shortly thereafter, USAID also provided Congress with additional budget
tables, which included country- and sector-specific allocations, and
the administration provided an appendix and supplementary tables on
March 15, 2018, which were, and remain, publicly available on the
following USAID website: https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/fact-
sheets/fiscal-year-fy-2019-development-and-humanitarian-assistance-
budget. These tables include country allocations, as well as those for
central and regional Operating Units, and budget charts on program
objectives and program areas; USAID Operating Expenses; global health
elements; and several other key sectors, including agriculture,
biodiversity, combating wildlife trafficking, countering violent
extremism, democracy, basic education, higher education, and gender.
The attached chart shows the proposed allocations to Operating
Units across all foreign-assistance accounts included in the
President's FY 2019 Budget Request, including country-level
allocations. Also attached is a chart that shows the proposed sectoral
allocations in each Operating Unit within the request for the Economic
Support and Development Fund account.
Ending USAID Missions to 24 Countries
The proposal to immediately close missions around the world,
runs the serious risk of alienating important allies and
neighbors, weakens our influence and cedes power and capacity
to our adversaries, and given the abruptness of such proposals
seems far from strategic.
Question. The FY 2018 budget proposed ending USAID missions to 32
countries. FY 2019 proposes ending 24 missions. What caused this
changed?
Answer. In both the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 and FY 2019
Budget Requests, proposed funding levels do not indicate the closing of
a Mission. While both the FY 2018 and FY 2019 budget requests zeroed
out funding from certain accounts in particular countries, in
accordance with this administration's guidance, policy priorities, and
overall funding reductions, the President's Budget Request did not
notify any changes to the country presence of the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID). At this time, USAID is not notifying
any closures of Missions. The President's FY 2019 Budget Request
proposed funding for 13 countries or institutions that were in
alignment with this administration's current guidance and policy
priorities, for which the FY 2018 Budget Request did not include
resources: Central African Republic, Mauritania, Niger, Sierra Leone,
the African Union, Laos, Timor-Leste, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Sri Lanka,
Cuba, Ecuador, Paraguay, and Venezuela.
If the President's Budget has not requested bilateral funding for a
particular country, in some cases we are leveraging prior-year funds to
continue some support. In other cases, we could invest funds from a
regional operating unit or Washington to support activities.
Regardless of the budget level, we believe it is responsible to
review our portfolio continuously, and to invest our foreign assistance
in the most-critical priorities.
Question. If Congress had enacted the FY 2018 budget, how would
have gone about restarting or reversing these closures?
Answer. While both the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 and FY
2019 Budget Requests zeroed out funding from certain accounts in
particular countries, the President's proposal did not notify any
changes to the country presence of the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID). At this time, USAID is not notifying any Mission
closures. We will address planning related to changes to any specific
USAID Missions separately from the budget. Closures or adjustments are
not an overnight process, and the decision to end or close a Mission
requires a broad discussion regarding ongoing programs, staff, and our
relationships with the host-country government and other partners.
Additionally, Mission closures require USAID to notify and consult with
Congress.
Question. How does proposing to abruptly close a USAID mission
square with your ``Strategic Transitions'' Initiative?
Answer. Building self-reliance is not about budget cuts or closing
out Missions. It involves doing smarter--better--development. For some
countries, self-reliance is likely many years away. We understand that,
and are committed to helping countries where they are on their own
development journey. But we must gear all of our investments toward
moving them closer to the day when they will no longer need foreign
assistance.
As the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) reorients
our strategies around the concept of ``self-reliance,'' in which
countries are able to plan, finance, and implement solutions to solve
their own development challenges, we will identify countries that show
potential readiness for a conversation about a new relationship that
moves beyond traditional assistance. By its nature, this process would
preclude abrupt or unplanned transitions, and would be fully
transparent and systematic, rooted in dialogue with all key partners.
This would include Congress, our interagency partners, the host-country
government, and other local stakeholders on how we work together to
leverage resources and promote a forward-looking, enduring
relationship.
Question. Are any countries being strategically transitioned away
from development assistance and under what timeline? If so, which ones?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is
currently re-orienting itself around the concept of ``self-reliance''--
the ability for countries to plan, finance, and implement solutions to
solve their own development challenges. As part of this effort, USAID
has identified a set of objective, third-party metrics to help assess
its partner countries' relative levels of self-reliance. For the most-
self-reliant partners identified by the metrics, USAID plans to have
possible conversations about a strategic transition toward a
partnership beyond the traditional donor-recipient paradigm. USAID
would consult the inter-agency, Congress, the host-country government,
and other key stakeholders on what this partnership could look like. It
does not mean an immediate closeout of a Mission--it means thinking
thoughtfully about the right role and footprint for USAID in that
country.
The President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Budget Request was completed
in parallel to our broader effort around self-reliance and the concept
of strategic transition, but USAID intends to use the funding provided
by Congress to advance self-reliance in all the countries in which we
operate, and to prepare for transitions in the ones deemed prepared for
the necessary shift in the relationship.
Question. Can you explain how these timelines align, if at all,
with your budget request?
Answer. The process for strategic transitions will occur over
multiple Fiscal Years. As such, we will align our budgets once the
process has progressed.
Economic Support and Development Fund
The administration proposed for the second year a row to create
a foreign assistance slush fund via massive program
consolidation. The ``Economic Support and Development Fund''
would support activities ranging from foreign military finance
to basic education programs.
Question. Does the administration intend to provide Congress and
public more details, beyond the reprinted single paragraph from the FY
2018 describing the program?
Answer. The Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ) released
online by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on February 12,
2018, in conjunction with the President's Budget Request for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2019, describes the overall purpose of the proposed Economic
Support and Development Fund (ESDF), contains details about its
proposed use by region, and provides illustrative examples of intended
investments for certain countries and programs. (Please see pages 89-98
of the CBJ, available here: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/1868/FY--2019--CBJ.pdf)
Additionally, the Appendix for the Department of State and Other
International Programs in the President's Budget Request for FY 2019
includes language that describes the purpose of the ESDF account. The
appendix states: ``In order to streamline accounts and ensure the most
effective use of foreign assistance funding, the 2019 Budget
incorporates funding and programs previously requested under the
Economic Support Fund (ESF) and Development Assistance (DA) accounts
within the new Economic Support and Development Fund (ESDF). The
request prioritizes and focuses foreign assistance in regions and on
programs that advance our national security and protect the American
people, promote U.S. prosperity and economic opportunities, and advance
American interests and values around the world, while also continuing
to ensure efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability to the U.S.
taxpayer. Programs will help countries of strategic importance meet
near and long-term political, economic, development, and security
needs.''
Question. Do you believe you have the authority to create the ESDF
without expressed Congressional authority? If not, when does the
administration intend to submit a legislative proposal to the committee
fort consideration?
Answer. The creation of a new account--including the proposed
Economic Support and Development Fund (ESDF)--would require
Congressional action. As such, the President's Budget Request for
Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 includes proposed legislative language for
Congress to insert in the FY 2019 appropriations act to establish the
ESDF account. Specific language on ESDF appears on page 798 of the
appendix for the Department of State and Other International Programs
of the President's Budget Request, which reads as follows: ``ECONOMIC
SUPPORT AND DEVELOPMENT FUND: For necessary expenses to carry out the
provisions of sections 103, 105, 106, 214, and sections 251 through 255
of part I, chapter 10 of part I, and chapter 4 of part II of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, $2,101,905,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2020: Provided, That funds under this heading may
be made available to support programs and activities to prevent or
respond to emerging or unforeseen foreign challenges and complex crises
overseas, notwithstanding any other provision of law: Provided further,
That funds made available under this heading may be made available for
contributions to international organizations, programs administered by
such organizations, and multilateral trust funds.''
USAID Independence
I believe that State and USAID need to be coordinated, but I
also believe that USAID should have space to operate and
determine its own strategic policies for executing the U.S.'s
development missions.
Question. How do you anticipate this relationship improving under
Sec. Pompeo's leadership?
Answer. I have had the opportunity to meet with Secretary Pompeo to
discuss the mission of the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID). We discussed a range of issues, and I believe the Secretary
recognizes the important contribution the Agency makes. Secretary
Pompeo has also publicly cited the important role that USAID plays in
achieving our shared goals, by stating that our work is an ``important
part of the mission.. to deliver President Trump and America's foreign
policy around the world.''
As you know, USAID and the Department of State cooperate closely to
ensure that our development and foreign-policy activities are
successfully achieving the objectives of the U.S. National Security
Strategy (NSS). Building on the NSS, USAID and State's Fiscal Year
2018-2022 Joint Strategic Plan strengthens our alignment, by
articulating common development and foreign-policy priorities, and
emphasizing strategic clarity, operational effectiveness, and
accountability to the American people. USAID and the Department of
State collaborate further through planning efforts on Joint Regional
Strategies, Integrated Country Strategies and day-to-day strategic and
tactical discussions between Embassy and USAID Mission staff worldwide.
I look forward to working closely with Secretary Pompeo to advance
our shared agenda.
Question. Do you have, or have you sought, any commitments from
Sec. Pompeo to give you space and autonomy to operate?
Answer. No. At this time, I have not sought any specific
commitments from Secretary Pompeo with respect to the authorities or
operational procedures of the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID).
There is no intention or plan to merge USAID into the State
Department. Secretary Pompeo has noted he wants to ensure that State
Department and USAID employees have the training, tools and experience
needed to carry out our mission and advance U.S. national security--and
I am grateful for his support.
Question. Should Congress restore USAID's control of its own budget
(i.e. transfer that authority from State Dept.'s Foreign Assistance
Bureau back to USAID) as a means of effectuating USAID's independence?
Answer. I am grateful for the generosity of Congress in
appropriating funding to support the programs and the staff of the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID). Under the direction of
the Secretary of State, the Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance Resources
(F) at the Department of State performs many valuable roles, including
the coordination and integration of U.S. foreign-assistance programs,
currently implemented by over 20 U.S. Government entities, into the
foreign-policy process across the interagency. As part of this
responsibility, F aims to ensure that assistance resources and
activities across the Department and USAID align to advance the
nation's foreign-policy objectives, and that the administration meets
all funding requirements, including sectoral and country requirements,
and priorities, but this process could be streamlined.
The Secretary of State should therefore continue to serve as the
ultimate point of coordination for foreign assistance across the
Federal Government, and between State and USAID. Nevertheless, our
processes should improve, and efforts are underway to improve
coordination. I look forward to working with Secretary Pompeo to make
needed improvements in the processes we use to formulate and execute
our budgets at USAID. One of the objectives of USAID's Transformation
is to create a stronger, more-coordinated voice to support the
administration's development policy and budget priorities, internally
and in the interagency. USAID currently divides the responsibilities
for development policy, budget and performance among five different
Bureaus and Offices, and our Transformation proposes consolidating them
into one Bureau for Policy, Resources and Performance (PRP). In our
proposal, the USAID Senior Coordinator inside State/F would report to
the Assistant to the Administrator for PRP. This change would increase
collaboration between staff in PRP and State/F, as well as allow us to
reform processes, such as approving reprogramming requests and country
level operational plans.
Venezuela
Venezuela is the greatest challenge in our hemisphere today.
Despite clear indications in the past few years that a refugee
crisis in Venezuela was brewing, we didn't provide basic levels
of humanitarian assistance until March of this year.
Question. What in your view, would constitute a comprehensive U.S.
strategy to address the humanitarian, political, and economic crisis in
Venezuela and what role does USAID play in that strategy?
Answer. Venezuela poses a monumental challenge for the region, and
in particular for the United States. Addressing the humanitarian,
political, and economic crisis in Venezuela necessitates a whole-of-
Government approach, with close interagency coordination, especially
between the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID). To help resolve the crisis, the U.S. Government
must continue to support democratic actors in Venezuela and the region.
USAID plays a critical role in these efforts by providing long-term
development assistance aimed at bolstering Venezuela's civil society,
promoting human rights, strengthening democratic governance, and
encouraging civic-engagement.
In the immediate term, USAID-the lead Federal coordinator for
responding to humanitarian emergencies overseas-continues to press for
humanitarian access and intends to continue to ramp up emergency-
response efforts to help meet the urgent humanitarian needs of people
affected by this crisis. While this humanitarian assistance will help
alleviate the immediate needs of many Venezuelans, it will not -and
cannot--address the root causes of Venezuela's instability.
Question. What is the role of USAID in addressing humanitarian and
refugee issues in Venezuela?
Answer. Deteriorating economic, humanitarian, and political
conditions in Venezuela have led to an influx of Venezuelans into
neighboring countries, which is straining health-care institutions and
other social services in the communities that are generously hosting
vulnerable Venezuelans. In response, USAID is providing humanitarian
assistance throughout the region, most in Colombia, Brazil, and
Ecuador. Working in close coordination with our colleagues at the
Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) of the Department
of State, USAID is providing emergency food and health assistance, safe
drinking water, critical relief items, vegetable seeds and training to
help families grow and sell food, and support for small businesses to
help create job opportunities in Colombian host communities. We are
also working with our humanitarian partners to protect vulnerable
Venezuelans from violence and exploitation.
In Colombia--which is currently hosting more than one million
people who have fled the repression and chaos in Venezuela--USAID is
also complementing this emergency humanitarian assistance with
development investments aimed at bolstering Colombia's medium- and
long-term capacity to respond to the ongoing influx of vulnerable
people into their communities. This assistance is supporting Colombia's
migrant registry and tracking system, a migration observatory, health
care in Colombia host communities, and a school-feeding program.
USAID's assistance at the border also benefits persons in Venezuela as
Venezuelans are crossing the border into Colombia to receive benefits
and assistance and then return back into Venezuela. Additionally,
within Venezuela, we are actively working to improve the capacity of
local Venezuelan organizations to be positioned to deliver needed
humanitarian aid, including through trainings we have hosted and other
limited, direct assistance.
Question. What is the role of USAID in addressing the humanitarian
crisis in Venezuela?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is
supporting regional emergency-response efforts to help meet
humanitarian needs that stem from Venezuela's economic and political
crisis-marked by devastating hyperinflation-which has resulted in
severe shortages of food and medicine, and has driven more than two
million people to flee the once-prosperous country since 2014. USAID
provides this assistance solely based on need and regardless of
political affiliation or beliefs, to ensure that it reaches the most-
vulnerable. USAID avoids the politicization of U.S. humanitarian
assistance by working with impartial relief organizations--including
United Nations agencies and non-governmental groups--dedicated to
providing assistance based on needs assessed on the ground by U.S.
humanitarian experts and our partners.
USAID is also actively working to find immediate solutions to a
number of operational constraints for providing assistance inside
Venezuela. Earlier this year, USAID sent a team to Venezuela to assess
needs on the ground, evaluate the response capacity of relief
organizations in the country, and better understand the context and
challenges to a potential international humanitarian response. The team
spent nearly two weeks conducting site visits, including to clinics,
hospitals, and schools, and meeting with non-governmental
organizations, government officials, volunteers, food producers, and
the private sector. USAID is coordinating closely with the Department
of State, the United Nations, other international donors, and
organizations on the ground in Venezuela to determine the most
effective and efficient means to reach the most-vulnerable with
critical humanitarian assistance. Specifically, USAID is actively
working to build local civil-society capacity to monitor and respond to
urgent needs on the ground.
Question. Can you please identify the funding that USAID has
obligated to date to address the Venezuelan humanitarian crisis?
Answer. To date, the United States has provided nearly $50 million
in humanitarian and development assistance to support the regional
response to the crisis in Venezuela since Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, more
than $25.5 million of which has come from the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID). USAID has financed more than $7
million in humanitarian aid since March 2018 to support emergency-
response efforts across the region, particularly in Colombia, Brazil,
and Ecuador. With this funding, USAID--through the Offices of Food for
Peace and U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance--is providing emergency food
and health assistance, safe drinking water, critical relief items,
vegetable seeds and training to help families grow and sell food, and
support for small businesses to help create job opportunities in host
communities. We are also working with our humanitarian partners to
protect vulnerable Venezuelans from violence and exploitation, and
offering expert technical support to enhance response efforts led by
host governments.
To complement this humanitarian assistance, USAID is also providing
bilateral development funding to support Colombia's medium- and long-
term efforts to respond to the influx of Venezuelans in Colombia.
All partners that have received USAID humanitarian funding have
begun implementing their response programs, which will run through FY
2018. We expect we will obligate most USAID humanitarian assistance
funding by the end of July 2018, while we should obligate a remaining
small portion by the end of FY 2018 because of ongoing agreements with
certain partners that enable implementation to begin prior to full
obligation.
We expect USAID to obligate our development assistance for
Venezuela by late July. In the coming weeks and months, USAID intends
to provide additional funding for humanitarian partners in the region
that are responding to this crisis.
Question. Please identify the funding by fiscal year and funding
type, as well as provide a description of funding that has been
obligated to date.
USAID FUNDING BY FISCAL YEAR AND FUNDING TYPE AND DESCRIPTION OF FUNDING THAT HAS BEEN OBLIGATED TO DATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Fiscal Year Partner Sectors Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE (FUNDING TYPE--INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE)
Republic of Colombia
$2,739,028 2018 Implementing partners to be determined (TBD) Agriculture and Food Security; Livelihoods; All programs are obligated.
Protection; Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene
(WASH) programs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$263,000 2018 United Nations (UN) Office for the Coordination Humanitarian Coordination and Information- Expected to be obligated by
of Humanitarian Affairs Management the end of Fiscal Year (FY)
2018.*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$500,000 2018 Pan American Health Organization Emergency Health Assistance Obligated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$2,000,000 2018 UN World Food Program Emergency Food Assistance To be obligated by the end
of July 2018.*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federative Republic of Brazil
$500,000 2018 Adventist Development and Relief Agency WASH Assistance Obligated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republic of Ecuador
$1,000,000.......................... 2018 UN World Food Program Emergency Food Assistance Obligated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional............................
$78,146............................. 2018 iMMAP Humanitarian Coordination and Information- Expected to be obligated by
Management the end of FY 2018.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE (FUNDING TYPE--ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUNDS)
$18,500,000......................... 2017 Implementing partners TBD --Registry and Tracking System Expected to be obligated by
--Migration Observatory the end of July 2018.
--Mobile Health Care
--School-Feeding Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Expected to be obligated by the end of FY 2018 because of ongoing agreements with certain partners that enable implementation to begin prior to full obligation.
Colombia
Despite having a strong partnership with the Colombian
Government in combatting drug trafficking, we have seen a
worrisome growth of coca cultivation in Colombia since 2013. It
is clear that developing a permanent counternarcotic strategy
is complicated and requires a comprehensive approach that
equally prioritizes eradication, destruction of cocaine
laboratories, interdiction of drug trafficking shipments, the
arrest of traffickers, efforts to combat financial crimes and
money laundering, and robust programs to consolidate the rule
of law and democratic governance, as well a sustained strategy
to advance economic development and provide licit economic
opportunities.
Question. Can you provide an update on USAID's expansion of
alternative development programs in Colombia?
Answer. The alternative development programs in Colombia funded by
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) help to combat
the cultivation of coca and the lure of the illegal economy through
several key lines of effort that work to expand the presence of the
Colombian Government, generate new business opportunities, and improve
the livelihoods of citizens disproportionately affected by the conflict
through legal productive projects. Specifically, USAID works to
increase resources available at the local level for public investment
and strengthen local governments' capabilities to deliver vital
services and perform other governance functions. USAID also leverages
private-sector investments in remote areas of the country, which are
particularly susceptible to coca-cultivation. USAID's market-driven
activities connect local producers with regional, national, and
international markets, and help producers meet the standards and
requirements set by domestic and international buyers, which
subsequently supports sustainability and increased profitability for
rural producers and others along these value-chains. Lastly, USAID
programs provide innovative financing for small- and medium-sized
businesses in remote areas that traditionally have not had access to
investment capital. All of these efforts create a better environment
for licit economies to develop and strive.
As the cultivation of coca increased over the last few years, USAID
has taken specific measures to adapt its programming to provide
targeted assistance where most needed to counter the narcotics economy.
For example, the Community Development and Licit Opportunities program
(CDLO) strengthens the capacity of conflict-affected communities to
implement economic-development activities that promote the substitution
of legal crops and alternative development. CDLO targets specific
geographic areas, determined using the presence of illegal crops as the
top criterion. The program is now focused on eight Colombian
Departments in which 69 percent of Colombia's coca is cultivated, and
will soon expand into a ninth (Norte de Santander), where an additional
17 percent of the country's coca is grown, at which point the CDLO will
reach 86 percent of the coca-cultivating areas of the country.
As the severity of the coca problem has become more apparent, the
USAID Mission in Colombia has also adjusted to better focus its efforts
on illicit crops through the Land and Rural Development Program (LRDP)
and limited-contract technical assistance. Currently, USAID is
providing advice to the Colombian Government (GOC) to extend the
massive land-titling methodology it developed to municipalities with
illicit crops. LRDP is helping the GOC to establish a new monitoring-
and-evaluation system to track and evaluate its ``Formalization for
Substitution'' program, the first attempt in Colombia to link titling
and crop-substitution efforts.
Finally, under the Producers to Markets Alliance program (PMA),
USAID seeks to strengthen legal economies in areas affected by illicit
crops by increasing the competitiveness of licit producers and the
value of licit products. PMA is targeting high-potential agricultural
value-chains in some of the largest coca-producing regions of Colombia.
It works closely with rural producers (many of them former coca
farmers) to increase yields, improve quality, and close business deals
to increase incomes and employment opportunities among its target
population.
During my recent trip to Colombia, we began to look at how our
support for national parks and formalization of mining could be
strengthened to more directly support alternative livelihoods as well.
Question. What is the role of USAID in helping Colombia in its
implementation of the peace accord?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
programs primarily support four pillars of Colombia's peace-
implementation strategy: promoting equitable and sustainable rural
development, ending the conflict, addressing illicit drugs, and
supporting conflict victims.
1. Equitable and Sustainable Rural Development: Developing
Colombia's rural sector is crucial to long-term economic development.
USAID is supporting the new Territorial Renovation Agency of the
Colombian Government (GOC) to design and implement regional economic
transformation plans with the participation of vulnerable populations,
civil society, and other key actors. The agreement established the
creation of a land bank as the mechanism by which the parties will
distribute three million hectares of state-owned land to conflict
victims. USAID is supporting the GOC's National Land Agency to design
and test the first large land-titling pilot in Colombia, and assisting
to identify and recover the land that will supply the land bank.
Transparency in land markets and equity in land tenure are impossible
to achieve without a precise inventory (i.e., cadaster) of land
ownership. USAID is funding the design and implementation of the multi-
purpose cadaster to serve as the basis for a national land-titling
effort, and to implement sectoral policies in rural areas led by the
National Planning Department. Additionally, the GOC is seeking to
implement a countrywide effort to construct or improve tertiary roads,
a top priority of citizens in conflict areas. To help this effort,
USAID is financing the creation of community-based enterprises-
composed of civil-society organizations and local governments-to manage
the improvement and maintenance of tertiary roads.
2. Ending the Conflict: A major challenge in the peace accord is
the safe social and economic reintegration of former combatants, which
is critical to prevent the expansion of other illegally armed groups.
While the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) does not
provide any support to the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de
Colombia--Ejercito Popular (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia,
FARC) that would violate U.S. sanctions, USAID does fund the
rehabilitation of child soldiers and the prevention of recidivism.
USAID supported rehabilitation services, including psychosocial
support, for 135 FARC-released children and adolescents as a result of
the peace agreement. At the request of the Colombian Ministry of Post-
Conflict, USAID has expanded into 13 new conflict-affected
municipalities, beyond the 29 already served, to help the Government of
Colombia establish and improve justice services, particularly for rural
citizens.
3. Addressing Illicit Drugs: The illegal drug trade has fueled the
conflict, and serves as the main source of financing for illegal armed
groups, including the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia--
Ejercito Popular (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, FARC). Though
not directly funding the voluntary substitution program managed by the
Government of Colombia (GOC), the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) is aligning its efforts in coca-growing areas to
support legal alternatives to coca. USAID has already worked with
thousands of Colombian farm families in their transition to a licit
economy via cacao, coffee, rubber, dairy, and other products. USAID is
coordinating its interventions with the GOC in eight of the largest
coca-producing regions of the country. USAID's sustained, enduring
presence in many of these areas has led to the development of
significant licit economies, including a strengthened private-sector
presence. USAID funding is enabling commercial banks to move into these
areas, with credit and other financial services, so rural families are
able to improve their productivity and, as a consequence, spur
sustained economic growth.
4. Supporting Conflict Victims: The U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) has been funding the Land-Restitution Unit of the
Government of Colombia (GOC) since 2010 and the Victims' Unit for over
five years. With our help, the GOC is now able to process cases faster
and more efficiently in 23 offices across the country and ensure that
implementation of restitution rulings are effectively in targeted
regions. With additionally USAID finding, the Victims' Unit is
expanding assistance to victims in 22 municipalities, 10 of which are
in transitional zones. USAID supports the GOC's efforts to implement
the provision in the ethnic chapter of the Peace Accord, which speaks
to the rights of ethnic communities, including Afro-Colombians and
indigenous populations. USAID supports the efforts of the GOC and civil
society to increase protection for human-rights leaders, whom illegal
armed group continue to targeted as they take control over territories
formerly occupied by the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia--
Ejercito Popular (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, FARC). More
than 82,000 people have disappeared during the conflict, and the peace
accord commits both sides to find the and bring them back to their
loved ones, or provide answers to families who are seeking resolution.
USAID is financing the GOC's Unit to Search for the Missing Persons,
created by the Peace Accord, to find the disappeared and return them or
their remains to their families. USAID will also fund the Victims' Unit
to repair and provide psychosocial assistance to the families of
victims of forced disappearance, which will complement USAID's grant to
the Colombian Attorney General's Office. USAID is supporting the
capacity of local prosecutors to move forward criminal cases for
homicides against human-rights defenders, as well as the Inspector
General's Office in the development of disciplinary cases on this
issue. Our programs complement the GOC's investments in prioritized and
targeted communities and funding provided from other international
initiatives.
Africa
In remarks at the U.S. Institute for Peace last year, then
Under Secretary of State Tom Shannon articulated the
administration's four strategic purposes in Africa: Advancing
Peace and Security; Countering the Scourge of Terrorism;
Increasing Economic Growth and Investment; and Promoting
Democracy and Good Governance. The approach doesn't speak to
the overall development agenda, including poverty alleviation;
there is no question that it should.
Question. Increasing Economic Growth and Investment and poverty
alleviation are not necessarily one and the same. What role does
development play with regards to the administration's four strategic
purposes? What do you see as USAID's role in countering terrorism and
violent extremism? How does this budget support that role?
Answer. An economically growing and stable Africa also supports
American security and prosperity. By increasing markets for American
goods and services, providing raw materials for U.S. consumer products,
building citizen-responsive institutions of governance, and countering
violent extremism, we make the homeland safer and help African
countries build economic opportunities for their citizens. The
investments of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
directly support all four pillars outlined by Under Secretary Shannon.
While I agree that increasing economic growth and investment and
poverty-alleviation are not one and the same, economic growth programs
directly link to USAID's mission to end poverty and, aspirationally,
the need for foreign assistance. Specific economic-growth outcomes,
such as increased investment, an improved business enabling
environment, workforce-development, and expanded trade opportunities
(while not an exclusive list), are all critical ways of both
accelerating economic growth and laying the foundation for long-term
poverty-alleviation.
In Under Secretary Shannon's speech at the U.S. Institute for Peace
(USIP), he said, ``U.S. investment in sub-Saharan Africa increased from
$9 billion a year in 2001 to $34 billion in 2014 and created over
300,000 jobs across Africa,'' data that include USAID's work through
three regional Trade and Investment Hubs.
Economic-growth programs also directly tie to the National Security
Strategy's pillars of Advancing Peace and Security and Countering the
Scourge of Terrorism, as addressing the underlying social, political
and economic conditions that fuel radicalization to violence is
critical to advancing peace and security. Africa has the world's
youngest population; 70 percent of sub-Saharan Africa's population
under the age of 30. While youth can be a strong force for positive
engagement and economic growth, many of Africa's young people struggle
to find meaningful economic opportunities.
As noted in the USAID policy, The Development Response to Violence,
Extremism, and Insurgency,\1\ the Agency has a distinct and critical
role in addressing national-security issues related to countering
violent extremism. USAID designs and deploys development tools to
respond to the drivers of violent extremism and terrorism in parts of
Africa, such as the Horn, the countries of the Sahel, and the Lake Chad
Basin, where the threat of terrorism is growing. As the United States
pushes to counter Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Boko Haram,
Jama'a Nusrat ul-Islam wa al-Muslimin or JNIM (a merger of four, long-
standing Sahelian terrorist groups), and others, it is not enough to
defeat them militarily on the battlefield; we must also address the
ideology and tactics these groups employ to attract new recruits,
including the underlying social, political and economic conditions that
can promote radicalization to violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Available at https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_/Pdacs400.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAID has demonstrated a commitment to programming to counter
violent extremism (CVE) in Africa over the years through the budget
process. While funding levels for CVE programming in Africa are modest,
they allow for an approach we can sustain over time, which builds trust
and partnerships with key actors at the national, local and community
level. The President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2019 includes CVE
funding for countries both in East and West Africa.
The current National Security Strategy further elaborates on
the promoting Democracy and good governance in Africa, stating
that, ``We will encourage reform, working with promising
nations to promote effective governance, improve the rule of
law, and develop institutions accountable and responsive to
citizens.'' I think this is an approach with which both
Democrats and Republicans would agree. The missing element, it
seems to me, is resources to execute. The amount available for
Democracy and Governance for Africa in 2017 was approximately
$330 million. The administration's request for the past two
fiscal years has been less than half that amount. I guess you
could say either the administration has champagne tastes, but a
beer budget, or it really is not serious about its own
strategy.
Question. How do you propose to achieve the stated policy goals of
the administration for Africa with such a drastic reduction in the
democracy and governance budget? What could we realistically expect to
achieve with this limited investment if Congress were to appropriate
the levels that the administration has requested?
Answer. Senator, I share your commitment to promoting democracy,
human rights, and governance around the world, including in sub-Saharan
Africa. Despite reductions to the overall non-health budget in Africa,
the levels of democracy, human rights, and governance funding in the
President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 as a percentage of
overall funding for Africa is equal to or greater than the ratios from
FY 2011-FY 2016, which reflects our recognition of the importance of
good, citizen-responsive governance to the success of all development
efforts in Africa.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) collaborates
closely with colleagues at the Departments of State and Defense to
ensure our democracy and governance investments address the democratic
deficiencies that contribute to transnational threats, fragility,
conflict, and instability. We recognize that, with limited resources,
we have to be even more efficient and effective in all of our work,
particularly in this time of unprecedented humanitarian need. We will
continue to engage with our partners to leverage U.S. investment and
ensure continued support for democracy, human rights, and governance,
including the promotion of citizen-responsive governance across
development sectors to help guarantee progress in economic growth,
health, and education. Many USAID Missions have developed close working
relationships with other donors, which has led to jointly funded
activities. We will continue to seek out these opportunities and build
new partnerships with international and domestic organizations to
support African countries on their journey to self-reliance.
We will continue efforts to advance democracy and citizen-
responsive governance in Africa by promoting the rule of law, credible
and legitimate election processes, a politically active civil society,
and accountable and participatory governments. We will complement
diplomatic efforts that strengthen governance institutions and protect
the democratic and development gains made across the continent. For
example, USAID continues to provide funding for upcoming political
processes in countries across Africa, including in the Democratic
Republic of Congo, Mali, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe, all of which are facing
pivotal transitions. Our programs improve the transparency and
accountability of electoral institutions, and engage all stakeholders--
parties, candidates, civil society, and voters--to participate in
political processes and use appropriate channels to resolve disputes
peacefully.
Secretary Pompeo indicated in response a question about
achieving stated democracy and governance policy goals with
such a limited budget that we would rely ``on other nations to
make greater contributions toward shared objectives, including
advancing democracy worldwide.''
Question. Which nations were consulted about their contributions
towards Democracy and Governance activities in advance of finalizing
the Fiscal Year 2019 budget request? What did they commit to provide?
Answer. I do not know if the Office of Management and Budget or the
Department of State consulted with other donors about their Democracy
and Governance activities prior to finalizing the President's Budget
Request for Fiscal Year (FY), and do not know if any made specific
commitments. That said, the President has been clear that our
international partners must do more to advance our shared objectives.
To that end, USAID field Mission staff are in regular contact with
bilateral and multilateral donors through a number of country-specific
donor-coordination mechanisms, efforts which help ensure that
assistance across all sectors is complementary. Many USAID Missions
have developed close working relationships with other donors, which has
led to jointly funded activities.
For example, in December 2017, Japan announced a commitment of $2.9
billion for health, nutrition, and water and sanitation to promote
universal healthcare in Africa and Asia. Japan has also been a major
contributor to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and
Malaria. In May 2018, the United States and the Republic of Korea (ROK)
signed a Memorandum of Understanding to support investment in energy in
sub-Saharan Africa. The partnership will help advance power-sector
infrastructure through a $1 billion investment from the ROK's Economic
Development Cooperation Fund (EDCF), which includes a commitment to
construct 1,000 kilometers of transmission lines in Africa from 2018 to
2023.
We will continue to seek out these opportunities and build new
partnerships with international and domestic organizations to support
countries on their journey to self-reliance.
Taiwan
There is considerable concern over Taiwan being excluded from
multilateral fora like the World Health Organization, but there
are significant bilateral opportunities in the development
field as well, where Taiwan has much to offer in terms of
expertise and funding to achieve positive regional and even
global development outcomes.
Question. Would you consider the idea of USAID entering into an
official development dialogue with Taipei?
Answer. Yes, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
will consider the idea. The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 and the Six
Assurances of 1982 provide the basis for the United States and Taiwan
to cooperate in a wide range of mutually beneficial areas, including
energy, the environment, and scientific research.
USAID has already engaged, and will continue to engage, with Taiwan
to address global challenges, as agreed under the Global Cooperation
and Training Framework (GCTF) between the United States and Taiwan.
The GCTF reflects a shared commitment by the people of United
States and Taiwan to provide international assistance in a range of
areas, including global public health, such to prepare for and address
pandemics; media literacy; energy security; women's economic
empowerment; humanitarian assistance and disaster relief; and digital
connectivity.
Additionally, Taiwan has shown that it has much to offer in the way
of innovation, experience, capacity and resources to assist with
various critical global challenges. For example, in 2015, USAID
collaborated with Taiwan and Denmark to carry out a joint elections-
support program through the National Democratic Institute for the
historic voting in Burkina Faso. Similarly, USAID continues its
collaboration, started in 1971, with the Taiwan-based World Vegetable
Center (formerly the Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center),
which has recently carried out joint programs in countries as Cambodia,
Tajikistan, Tanzania, and Mali.
I can assure you that USAID is committed to strengthening our
relationship with Taiwan through our ongoing cooperation.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Hon. Mark Green by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
As you know, June 20 was World Refugee Day. In its Fiscal Year
(FY) 2019 budget request, the administration proposed cutting
the overall foreign assistance budget by 30 percent, even
though humanitarian need continues to grow worldwide. Across
the State and USAID budget requests, the administration seeks
to cut 12 percent to all humanitarian funding.
Question. From the continuing crisis in Yemen, to the escalating
humanitarian situation in DRC, not to mention Rohingya in camps in
Bangladesh and millions of Syrian refugees in Turkey and Jordan, and
more, how do you rationalize such a significant cut to foreign
assistance as instability, need, and suffering continue to grow?
Answer. The United States is the largest provider of humanitarian
assistance in the world, and remains committed to providing life-saving
assistance to those who need it most. The U.S. Department of State and
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) will continue to
respond to the needs of millions of refugees, victims of disasters and
conflict, internally displaced persons (IDPs), and other vulnerable
populations around the world through critical programs that provide
protection, water, sanitation, healthcare, food, and other essential
services.
With the President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2019, the
United States will retain its leadership role in humanitarian
assistance, in accordance with American values, while also asking other
donors to contribute their fair share. We will also continue to focus
on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of our own humanitarian
operations, and with our implementing partners and other international
donors.
Because of the current, unprecedented global need, it is imperative
that the international community do more to prevent, and resolve,
humanitarian crises, including by investing more. USAID is working hard
to encourage other donor nations to increase their contributions to
global humanitarian efforts, and they are stepping up. For example,
from July to December 2017, Australia made $30 million in commitments
to respond to the Rohingya crisis in Burma and Bangladesh (one of the
largest per capita commitments). At the 2017 Brussels Conference on
Syria, donors pledged =5.6 billion ($6 billion), of which two thirds,
or =3.7 billion ($4 billion), came from the European Commission (EC)
and its Member States. The EC also pledged an additional =560 million
($601 million) for 2018 for Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. Japan has also
made numerous significant commitments, including an announcement in
December 2017 of $21 million in humanitarian assistance for Syria and
its neighboring countries. In March 2018, Japan also made a
contribution of $72.3 million to the World Food Programme to provide
vital food and nutrition in 23 countries across the Middle East,
Africa, and Asia. Finally, at the High-Level Pledging Event for the
Humanitarian Crisis in Geneva in April 2017, the Republic of Korea
announced its plan to provide $4 million in humanitarian aid to Yemen.
We are hearing that USAID continues to experience unusual
program delays. Confusion caused by the President's budget
request and bureaucratic delays at the State Department risk
rendering aid less effective and causing increased suffering
for people on the ground. Specifically, I am concerned about
the blanket hold on lifesaving humanitarian assistance to Gaza,
which our committee made sure to protect during consideration
of the Taylor Force Act, pending a policy review.
Question. Do you believe that when Congress appropriates funds that
those funds should be spent as set forth in the mandate in the
Appropriations bills and relevant authorizing legislation? What is the
status of the administration's review of the Gaza humanitarian funding
that was allowed for by the Taylor Force act?
Answer. The U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) continue to obligate and implement
funds consistent with annual Appropriations Acts, the Impoundment
Control Act of 1974, and other applicable laws. As of June 22, 2018,
the Bureau of Foreign Assistance Resources (F Bureau) at the State
Department has completed its review of, and approved, 95 percent of
USAID's Operational Plans (OPs) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017. USAID has
submitted the required Spend Plans for these OPs, and Congress has
approved them. Subject to legally required Congressional Notifications
and any ensuing holds, the Department of State and USAID will continue
to work diligently to ensure we obligate all funds appropriated by
Congress as quickly as possible, while assuring our compliance with
applicable legal and other requirements.
Regarding U.S. assistance to the Palestinians, including assistance
in Gaza, the administration seeks to identify how to leverage all U.S.
Government assistance to achieve its policy objectives in the region.
As you and I discussed in our meeting over a year ago, our
investments in development programs and projects are most
effective in countries with good, citizen-responsive governance
and without corruption (or at least where corruption is being
fought). However, the administration's FY 2019 request
eliminates all bilateral funding from USAID fully and partially
managed accounts, including for Poland and Belarus, both
countries for which the Countering America's Adversaries
Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) requires Democracy and
Governance programming.
Question. How does USAID plan to meet its CAATSA-mandated democracy
and governance programming requirements for Poland and Belarus if
bilateral funding has been cut for both countries?
Answer. My understanding is that the Countering America's
Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) does not specifically
mention democracy and governance programming in Poland or Belarus.
While the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has neither
a presence nor programs in Poland, the President's Budget Request for
Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 includes funding for Poland in accounts managed
by the Department of State. The President's FY 2019 Budget Request
includes funding for USAID programming in Belarus.
USAID remains committed to advancing citizen-responsive governance
and addressing corruption through sustainable programs that emphasize
partnership with local reformers and civic organizations. Funds will
contribute to building the capacity of host governments to deliver
services in an accountable and transparent manner, and to enable
citizens to advocate for better governance and accountability.
USAID's Strengthening Civil Society, Civic Engagement and
Independent Media in Belarus (BRAMA) Project promotes citizens'
engagement in Belarusian civil society. Through bilateral and regional
programming (Strengthening Eurasian News), USAID also funds Euroradio
through capacity-building in core operations, business-management, and
the development social media. USAID is also planning to design a new
bilateral media program that should be operational by late 2019. USAID
will continue exchange programs that introduce Belarusians to American
best practices in business and other professional areas, as well as
advance the delivery of social services by strengthening the capacity
of local civil-society organizations to support vulnerable groups, such
as people with disabilities and victims of human trafficking.
Question. How is USAID able to make progress in anti-corruption
efforts through support to local civil society organizations,
particularly those in Europe and vulnerable to authoritarian
crackdowns?
Answer. Throughout the world, and specifically in Europe, anti-
corruption programs funded by the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) support and empower local civil-society
organizations (CSOs) in Eastern Europe to advocate for, lead, and
participate in governance reform, especially in challenging
environments where we cannot work effectively with the national
government. Our approach to supporting and engaging civil society in
these environments has two parts: 1) providing rapid responses to
address the immediate needs of CSOs and individuals; and, 2) supporting
the longer-term, systemic strengthening of the enabling environment for
civic discourse and human rights. We do this through work with local
CSOs, media organizations, governments (where feasible), and other
stakeholders to strengthen the legal and regulatory environment for
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the independent media. We
also fund the participation and advocacy efforts of civil society and
media, which are often the implementers of our assistance. This is the
case whether our program is working to enhance transparency, improve
municipal governance, improve the delivery of public services, or
strengthen public institutions. Where the environment is difficult for
formal work with CSOs, we are still building their capacity by
leveraging the work of NGOs as partners and implementers.
We also fund the implementation of good-governance platforms, such
as the Open Government Partnership (OGP) and the Extractive Industries'
Transparency Initiative (EITI), as vehicles to promote citizen-
responsive governance and harness technology to strengthen Governments'
accountability to citizens. Our programs related to the OGP and EITI,
such as those in Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Kosovo and
Ukraine, not only build the capacity of partner governments across all
their branches to increase their transparency and integrity, but they
also strengthen the ability of CSOs, the independent press, and the
private sector to serve as accountability monitors. This is especially
important in difficult environments.
Our work to fund investigative journalism in different regions of
the world informs CSOs with facts and data to use to advocate for
reforms. In the Europe and Eurasia region, we provide assistance to the
Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), a network of
local independent investigative journalists and media professionals to
expose corruption and abuses of power. Their efforts help increase
public demand for greater transparency and accountability of public
officials.
In Ukraine, USAID is funding the ``Civic Network'' OPORA, an
organization that helps government institutions perform their functions
in a transparent, open and accountable manner. USAID finances open-data
and open-government initiatives in Ukraine that curtail opportunities
for government/public-sector corruption. New anti-corruption
programming in Azerbaijan is illustrative of the type of work USAID can
do with local CSOs, even in a difficult political environment. Through
this program, USAID will empower grass-roots CSOs and citizens to
combat corruption at the local, subnational, and national levels by
delivering training seminars on open government and providing legal aid
to citizens and NGOs that are working on anti-corruption legislation.
The Global Development Lab was established by the Obama
administration as a vehicle for attracting innovative ideas in
science and technology that can be applied to solving
development challenges. The FY 2019 request cuts the Lab
funding by 80 percent.
Question. Does your proposed reorganization redistribute that 80
percent of cut funds to the Lab elsewhere? How will you ensure that the
Lab's flexibility, autonomy, and resources are not compromised in a
redesign? Why does this change guarantee that the lab's innovations
will be implemented throughout the agency and not just in pilot
projects?
Answer. The President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019
reflects difficult trade-offs for the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) to support the administration's top priorities
within a constrained budget environment, including by ensuring
sufficient support to Missions in the field consistent with the FY 2018
request. Under USAID's Transformation, the work of the Global
Development Lab (the Lab) and other innovation hubs in the Agency will
remain critical as we find new solutions to accelerate development
results, increase our effectiveness, engage new actors and
implementers, take advantage of advancements in science and technology,
and maximize the impact of taxpayer dollars.
The core capabilities the Lab brings to the Agency advance our
foreign-assistance priorities and ensure we stay on the leading edge of
development. Under the proposed Transformation, USAID plans to use
these core capabilities by integrating those tools and approaches that
have proven successful into their corresponding practice areas;
maintaining a space for discovery, testing and experimentation around
innovation, technology, and science for development; and strengthening
the systems and processes that facilitate applying innovative
approaches to more of USAID's work.
The proposed Bureau for Development, Democracy and Innovation (DDI)
would house a hub for discovering, testing and accelerating innovative
approaches in science and technology. Through this new structure, the
Agency would be able to integrate innovation and proven Lab approaches
more effectively across all sectors and regions. Additionally, USAID
would increase the connections more directly between successful
approaches to engaging the private sector, through programs like the
Global Development Alliance (GDA), and harnessing the higher education
community towards global challenges, through programs like the Higher
Education Solutions Network (HESN), into the economic growth and
education sectors in the proposed DDI Bureau. Changes around USAID's
programmatic business process known as the ``Program Cycle,'' such as
co-creation or innovation incentive awards, would be crucial reforms
carried out by the proposed Policy, Resources and Performance (PRP)
Bureau.
The proposed Innovation Hub within the DDI Bureau would continue to
lead the Agency in open innovation, digital development, and research
and development (R&D), through programs like the Development Innovation
Ventures (DIV). The Hub would maintain a culture of being evidence-
based and iterative, focused on finding the best ideas and working with
a range of partners to test and develop them. More important, by
placing the talent of the Innovation Hub alongside USAID's expertise in
several technical sectors and areas of cross-cutting work, the staff of
the Hub would have the opportunity to mentor and build the capacity of
USAID staff writ-large continuously, to improve how they work, and what
they do. Innovation, discovery and learning would not take place in
just one place in the Agency, but in every place in the Agency.
By integrating the core capabilities of the Lab into the proposed
DDI and PRP Bureaus, USAID would be able to affect the design and
implementation of programs across the Agency more effectively. The new
structure would facilitate the uptake of promising innovative tools and
approaches into programs through DDI's connections to the Missions and
PRP's implementation of the Program cycle. For example, promising
innovations that come out of the DIV program could influence the design
of all new programs in the DDI Bureau, and the Agency could apply
proven tools like digital finance and data analytics more broadly as
Missions receive enhanced technical assistance from the DDI Bureau.
Even before we implement the structural proposal of the Transition,
we continue to integrate promising new tools and approaches into the
way the Agency does development. For example, USAID's Mission in Zambia
has invested $5 million through the DIV team to support a package of
remedial-education interventions known as Teaching at the Right Level
(TaRL) proven to work in multiple country contexts. DIV is also working
with the Office of Education in the Bureau of Education, Economic
Growth, and the Environment to explore how to embed learnings from TaRL
into the Agency's guidance on how to design educational programs.
Question. Can you guarantee that a reorganization effort will
ensure programs like OFDA maintain the authorities that make them
effectively implement emergency humanitarian programs?
Answer. The proposed Transformation of the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) is not requesting any changes to the
authorities on which the Offices of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance
(OFDA) and Food for Peace (FFP) to implement their emergency
humanitarian programs. USAID is also not proposing any changes to the
Foreign Assistance Act. USAID's Transformation would elevate
humanitarian assistance within the Agency's organizational structure
and improve the effectiveness of humanitarian programs, but under
existing authorities.
Question. Can you discuss what current gaps you see in USAID's
resilience programming and why resilience and food security are
distinctly named in the new Bureau's name? Isn't food security an
element of resilience?
Answer. I agree that food security is a key element and source of
resilience. Resilience is also critical to protecting gains in food-
security outcomes, such as reductions in hunger, poverty and
malnutrition, in the face of shocks such as the El Nino droughts in
places like Ethiopia and Malawi in 2016. This is why the Center for
Resilience has been part of the current Bureau for Food Security since
its inception in 2015. However, it is also clear that resilience is
broader than just food security, as other factors like water security
and nutrition also affect the ability of communities and countries to
mitigate, adapt to, and recover from shocks.
Our current structure is not sophisticated enough to deal with
these complexities. The proposed Bureau for Resilience and Food
Security (RFS) would elevate USAID's focus on building resilience in
places subject to recurrent humanitarian crises, while also protecting
the progress of people and countries on their Journey to Self-Reliance.
The proposed Bureau for RFS would house the USAID Center for Resilience
which would chair an intra-agency Resilience Leadership Council to
ensure strategic, budgetary, geographic and technical coordination
across Bureaus, sectors and funding streams, including for water,
health, sanitation, and nutrition.
Question. Is resilience only going to focus on food security? What
about health care and education shocks? How will USAID ensure the
lessons and principles of resilience are incorporated in other programs
if it only lives in the Bureau for Food Security?
Answer. The proposed Bureau for Resilience and Food Security (RFS)
would strengthen linkages across sectoral investments, such as
agriculture, nutrition, health, education, water and sanitation, the
environment, and infrastructure, to accelerate and protect development
gains. RFS would work to improve the understanding of the U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID) and our implementing partners
which sources of resilience matter most in a particular context, by
using data to assess and inform our programming. The cross-Bureau
Resilience Leadership Council would coordinate budget, strategy,
geographic targeting, and external engagement across the Agency, to
ensuring the incorporation of the lessons and principles of resilience
in investments made across USAID, not just in programming that
originates from the proposed RFS. This would help ensure all of the
Agency's technical, human and financial resources align to address the
root causes of recurrent humanitarian crises and protect development
gains in other sectors, including in health and education. Tools such
as a central online platform for knowledge-management and learning on
resilience would improve coordination across Bureaus and field
Missions, and incorporate evidence and resilience principles into all
the Agency's relevant programming.
Question. Please explain how the USAID reorganization will actually
change the way USAID does business. What will change in terms of how
decision-making, programming, hiring, and policy-making are done?
Answer. One of the objectives of the proposed Transformation of the
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is to create a
stronger, more coordinated voice for the Agency's development policy
and budgetary priorities, internally and in the interagency, to advance
U.S. foreign-assistance objectives. Responsibilities for policy, budget
and performance at USAID are currently divided among five different
Bureaus and Independent Offices. By consolidating development policy,
the management of the Program and Operational Expenses budgets, and the
evaluation of programmatic performance in the proposed Bureau for
Policy, Resources and Performance (PRP), USAID would be better-equipped
to align our resources to our strategic priorities through evidence-
based programming, and to assess the Agency's progress towards
achieving our objectives as a true learning organization.
To execute the vision for the Journey to Self-Reliance, USAID needs
to have the right people, in the right place, and at the right time,
which is why workforce-planning is a key part of the Transformation.
USAID will continue our strategic hiring approach that aligns our
workforce-planning with the administration's foreign-policy and
budgetary priorities. For example, the Agency will continue using the
Hiring and Reassignment Review Board (HRRB) to accommodate our staffing
needs, including through external hires. The HRRB monitors attrition
levels, identifies gaps in the competencies of our workforce, and
prioritizes the essential positions to fill. This corporate view
ensures we remain within our funding levels; support our priorities;
and recruit, retain and deploy the talent we need.
Under the proposed Transformation, USAID's Missions would continue
to be the lead decision-maker over their programming. Missions would
continue to prepare resource requests and design their strategies,
projects, and activities, while Washington would provide both required
and requested advisory services to ensure projects reflect the latest
evidence and the appropriate strategic direction. What would change in
how we do business is that Washington would have very clearly labeled
``Centers'' throughout technical Bureaus that would be the primary
service-providers for field-support, which should reduce the burden of
coordination for our field staff and allow for more accountability
through the use of customer-service metrics and systems established as
part of the Transformation.
Question. Do the Foreign Service and civil service unions support
the reorganization? Are they committed to going forward with the
reorganization as you present it?
Answer. As part of the Transformation process, the leadership of
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has provided a
comprehensive and high-level overview of the proposed changes to the
American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) and the American Federation
of Government Employees (AFGE) on multiple occasions. Understanding the
realities of Transformation, the unions' main request is for us to
engage them, and hear them, as we proceed through the design and
planning processes. As a result, USAID labor-relations staff provide
regular briefings and updates on the status of Transformation for both
the unions. Both unions have reserved the right to bargain on all
negotiable issues, to include negotiations on impact and
implementation. We will continue to coordinate closely with the unions
as we plan our future workforce.
Question. Secretary Pompeo was confirmed just two short months ago.
Do you believe Secretary Pompeo recognizes the important role of
development in diplomacy? How, if at all are you working together to
ensure development and diplomatic efforts are in alignment?
Answer. Yes, I am confident that Secretary Pompeo recognizes the
important role of development in diplomacy. The Secretary highlighted
this view in his opening remarks on his first day at the Department of
State. In these comments, Secretary Pompeo cited the important role
that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) plays in
achieving our shared mission, by stating that USAID's work is an
``important part of the mission.. to deliver President Trump and
America's foreign policy around the world.''
USAID and the U.S. Department of State cooperate closely to ensure
our development and foreign-policy activities are successfully
achieving the objectives of the President's National Security Strategy
(NSS). Building on the NSS, the USAID and State Department Fiscal Year
2018-2022 Joint Strategic Plan strengthens our alignment; articulates
development and diplomacy priorities; and bolsters strategic clarity,
operational effectiveness, and accountability to the American people.
USAID and State further increase our alignment through our planning
efforts on Joint Regional Strategies, Integrated Country Strategies,
and day-to-day strategic discussions between staff who work at U.S.
Embassies and USAID Missions worldwide.
In January, the Trump administration released guidance for the
Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act--unanimously
passed by Congress--calling on all aid agencies to establish
and set high standards for evaluation and learning policies.
Question. Why has the administration again proposed eliminating
nearly half of the PPL Bureau in its budget request to Congress, and
what specifically would the Bureau have to give up under this budget?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is
committed to implementing the Foreign Aid Transparency and
Accountability Act (FATAA). The Bureau for Policy, Planning and
Learning (PPL) works in concert with the Bureau for Management to
spearhead Agency-wide aid efforts to increase transparency and
accountability. Given the importance of this agenda to ensuring
effective development results and accountability to the American
taxpayer, as well as USAID's commitment to fulfill various
international and congressional reporting requirements, the Agency will
continue to meet its obligations under FATAA.
The President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 for the
U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) focuses resources on our national security at home
and abroad, on economic development that contributes to the growth of
our own economy, on continued leadership in international institutions
based on a fair distribution of the burden, and on renewed efforts to
modernize and make more effective the operations of both the Department
of State and USAID. USAID will seek to continue to support important
accountability efforts as final determinations regarding the
allocations of the Agency's budget within the PPL Bureau.
Question. How will you work with the State Department to improve
aid data and data management, including resolving the multiple
platforms for aid data that currently exist? What resources from the FY
2019 request are proposed to address these needs?
Answer. Both the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) have similar, but distinct,
requirements and capabilities for reporting on, and improving the
transparency of, U.S. foreign assistance. In Fall 2017, a Working Group
comprised of staff from the Department of State and USAID conducted a
review, and identified options for the consolidation of processes and
data-collection related to ForeignAssistance.gov (FA.gov) and the
Foreign Aid Explorer (Explorer.USAID.gov). The Working Group drafted a
summary report that identified several options that respond to the
Sense of Congress in the Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability
Act (FATAA) to unify the presentation of information on the two
websites.
Despite a number of discussions under the now-abandoned Redesign
launched by former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the conversation
about how to move forward to implement the options presented by the
Working Group has not advanced. Nevertheless, USAID is improving the
quality and comprehensiveness of its aid data and data-management
within existing resources, and continues to believe FA.gov and
Explorer.USAID.gov should have a single consumer interface. We are
examining the resources required to operationalize the options outlined
by the Working Group, but are not requesting additional funds to do so
at this time.
Africa CT Policy: The deaths of four U.S. soldiers in an
insurgent ambush in Niger in October 2017 highlighted the
growing U.S. military presence and scope in Africa, now
encompassing about 6,500 personnel. DOD's security assistance
spending in Africa, which surpassed that of the State
Department starting in FY 2015, has played an increasing role
in U.S. counterterrorism. However, development programming
plays a critical role in creating stable societies that can
withstand the rise of extremist ideologies and political
instability.
Question. Given the growing terrorist threats on the African
continent, how, specifically, can we better align USAID programming and
counterterrorism efforts to simultaneously suppress terrorist groups
and address the drivers of violent extremism, which include poverty,
weak governance, corruption, and xenophobia?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) plays
a crucial role in the U.S Government's effort to counter violent
extremism (CVE). The Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership (TSCTP)
and the Partnership for Regional East Africa Counterterrorism (PREACT)
serve as the overarching frameworks for the interagency policy and
programmatic coordination of this work. These region-specific
strategies reflect the objectives in the President's National Security
Strategy. USAID closely coordinates our development work in the field
with, and complements, the security and diplomatic efforts led by the
Departments of Defense and State. USAID's CVE programs promote both a
local and a regional perspective that facilitates trans-boundary
analysis, fosters cross-border approaches and learning, and leverages
partnerships with regional institutions, to support national momentum
to counter violent extremism.
For example, across the Sahel, USAID's Voices for Peace program
uses over 90 community radio platforms in over 20 local languages to
amplify moderate voices that strengthen positive narratives, expand
access to information, and increase dialogue and exchanges on
governance and peace-building. As one community member in Diffa, Niger,
stated: ``This is incredibly important, because the radio program's
messages are spreading everywhere, not only among the youth, but even
among the elderly who can't read, but who are dedicated radio
listeners.''
In the Horn of Africa, USAID's investments focus on community-level
efforts to implement holistic, national CVE action plans, as well as
integrated cross-border programming that reinforces the role of
community actors to address underlying conditions the make youth
vulnerable to recruitment by extremists groups. In Kenya, USAID takes
this one step further with programming that supports the implementation
of county-level CVE action plans with input from political, business,
civil society, and religious leaders invested in CVE efforts in each
county.
Question. How might USAID improve coordination across the Africa
and Middle East bureaus regarding CVE efforts in the Sahel and North
Africa?
Answer. The well-established coordination structures and processes
developed through the creation of the Trans-Sahara Counter Terrorism
Partnership in 2005 continue to provide the framework for coordination
on regional, sub-regional, and national levels. This routine
coordination improves through events that promote regional knowledge-
sharing, evaluations, and trainings that support the cross-pollination
of ideas, lessons learned, and best practices to counter the scourge of
violence and extremism in the Sahel and Maghreb.
Question. How can we better ensure that the United States'
counterterrorism policy syncs with our diplomatic, rule of law, human
rights, development, and economic engagement on the continent?
Answer. A fundamental principle for any program funded by the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) is to work by, with, and
through our partners. This principle is even more critical for
programming to counter violent extremism (CVE) -whether it involves
providing people with education, employment, security, or a sense of
purpose in their lives--because it depends on engendering trust between
governments and the communities most vulnerable to radicalization.
USAID applies this principle by conducting risk-assessments so that
programs incorporate an understanding of the factors that generate and
sustain violent extremism in each country, as well as the local
context. This detailed understanding helps us to apply another core
principle of ``do no harm,'' to ensure that CVE approaches do not
aggravate a fragile peace in areas that are struggling with poverty,
climatic shocks, lack of trust between the population and security
forces, and victimization by violent groups
USAID also links prevention to broader development and economic
efforts as a way to build in an enduring resistance to extremists and
their ideology. This can include ensuring a gender-sensitive approach
that takes into consideration the role played by women, fostering more-
effective communication among local populations and security forces and
local government or traditional leaders, and offering employment-
related training for youth cohorts in multiple sectors.
The administration's National Security Strategy recognizes that
America ``faces an extraordinarily dangerous world, filled with
a wide range of threats that have intensified in recent years''
and that we must use all of our national security tools to
confront these threats. At the same time, the administration
has proposed deep cuts to development and diplomacy, leading
retired Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey to comment
that there is a ``strategy and budget mismatch.''
Question. How do you reconcile this discrepancy in resources with
not only the threats we currently face but this administration's own
strategy to confront those challenges?
Answer. While the administration views the roles of the State
Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in
diplomacy and development as critical to national security, the
administration also remains committed to the appropriate stewardship of
taxpayer dollars
As such, the President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019
for the State Department and USAID focuses resources on our national
security at home and abroad, on economic development that contributes
to the growth of the U.S. economy, on continued leadership in
international institutions based on a fair distribution of the burden,
and on renewed efforts to modernize and make more-effective the
operations of both the State Department and USAID. At the same time, we
call on other donors to do more, and seek to mobilize other resources
towards our goals, such as from the private sector and from partner
countries' domestic resources.
The President's Budget Request for FY 2019 upholds his commitment,
as outlined in the National Security Strategy and the State Department
and USAID Joint Strategic Plan, to serve the needs of American
citizens, to ensure their safety, to preserve their rights, and to
defend and promote their values. It allows us to advance our national-
security objectives and foreign-policy goals, and provides the
resources necessary to advance peace and security, expand American
influence, and address global crises, while prioritizing the efficient
use of taxpayer resources.
While Congress ultimately determines spending levels for USAID,
the administration's budget proposal has a substantial impact
on the implementation of U.S. foreign policy--with USAID
missions required to prepare for the most severe budget cuts.
As history has shown, prematurely scaling back USAID missions
or programs can have serious effects, potentially leading to a
more costly military intervention or humanitarian emergency
down the road.
Question. What are you doing to ensure USAID's missions and
projects are not adversely affected by the proposed budget cuts?
Answer. The President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019
provides substantial resources to advance peace and security, expand
American influence, and address global crises, while making efficient
use of taxpayer resources. For example, the Budget Request includes
significant support to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria
(ISIS) and other transnational terrorist and criminal groups, advance
global health programs, and provide humanitarian assistance. The Budget
Request focuses resources on our national security at home and abroad,
including on renewed efforts to modernize and make more effective the
operations of both the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID).
The Budget Request also promotes the advancement of more stable,
resilient, and democratic societies that are self-reliant, lead and
fund their own development, and contribute to a more secure and
prosperous world, a key priority for USAID. The request upholds U.S.
commitments to key partners and allies through strategic, selective
investments that enable the United States to retain its position as a
global leader; at the same time, it relies on other nations to make
greater, proportionate contributions toward our shared objectives. By
calling on other donors to do more, we seek to mobilize other resources
towards our goals (e.g., from the private sector, and from partner
countries' domestic budgets).
The President's FY 2019 Budget Request upholds his commitment, as
outlined in the National Security Strategy and the State Department and
USAID Joint Strategic Plan, to serve the needs of American citizens, to
ensure their safety, to preserve their rights, and to defend and
promote their values.
Last month, our committee held a hearing to examine U.S. policy
in Yemen. During the hearing, I asked our DoD witness how we
are ensuring that our assistance to the coalition is helping to
reduce civilian casualties when we don't in fact track those
casualties. Mr. Karem responded that we have ``insight into
Saudi targeting behavior'', and that ``Saudi and Emirati
targeting efforts have improved''.
Question. I know you can't speak for DoD, but as USAID
administrator, how do you think civilian casualties impact our ability
to help negotiate a political resolution to the Yemen crisis? Do you
agree that these casualties put America's reputation at risk? How would
you suggest the U.S. address this risk? What steps are you taking to
ensure a political resolution to this crisis?
Answer. The United States remains concerned about the effect of the
devastating conflict on the Yemeni civilian population. The United
States has provided more than $850 million in critical humanitarian
assistance to the people of Yemen since the war began, including food,
medical supplies, and clean drinking water. The U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID), with interagency counterparts, is
engaging proactively with Coalition partners at the highest levels to
mitigate the conflict's impact on civilians, and the risk of civilian
casualties and harm to civilian objects. Attacks on innocent civilians
in war, under any circumstance, are unacceptable. We take all credible
reports of civilian casualties seriously, and call upon all parties to
take appropriate measures to diminish the risk that they will occur. We
also urge all parties to the conflict to investigate incidents, take
appropriate accountability measures, and release the results of
investigations publically.
Only a political solution will resolve the conflict in Yemen. To
that end, USAID is closely engaged with the U.S. Department of State
and the United Nations Special Envoy, and supports his efforts to find
a political solution. Escalations in violence in Yemen make these talks
all the more urgent. We continue to urge all parties to engage the U.N.
promptly, and in good faith, to find a political solution to this war.
The 2018 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the Intelligence
Community found that ``poor governance, weak national political
institutions, economic inequality, and the rise of violent non-
state actors all undermine states' abilities to project
authority and elevate the risk of violent-even regime-
threatening-instability and mass atrocities.''
Question. How does this budget prioritize efforts to address the
root causes of violent conflict like poor rule of law, governance, weak
political institutions, and economic inequality?
Answer. How does this budget prioritize efforts to address the root
causes of violent conflict like poor rule of law, governance, weak
political institutions, and economic inequality?
The President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019
effectively leverages the unique position of the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) to advance democratic, citizen
governance and address the causes and consequences of closing
democratic space, instability, state fragility, and violent extremism.
Using a field-based approach, USAID manages approximately $1.7 billion
of the U.S. Government's $2.3 billion annual budget for democracy,
human rights, and governance (DRG) budget, with Mission-based programs
in over 70 countries managed by over 400 American and local experts.
USAID's DRG programs, alongside programming in other sectors,
address the underlying causes of national-security threats, including
terrorism, transnational crime, trafficking in persons and wildlife,
state fragility, and illegal migration. USAID's investments support the
rule of law and judicial institutions, strengthen the performance and
accountability of governments, and protect human rights.
They also foster economic opportunity, fight corruption, and
strengthen independent media and civil-society institutions that are
important in addressing the root causes of conflict.
Question. What tools are you employing to prevent atrocities that
would impact our national security interests?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) uses
a range of approaches to address the risk of mass atrocities. They fall
into four core categories:
(A) Recognizing and communicating information and analysis about
the risk of atrocities: USAID uses early-warning and assessment tools
to detect potential risks before atrocities might occur. Further, we
regularly gather information from our field Missions on incidents that
could be risk factors or warning signs. We also regularly consult with
interagency colleagues and outside groups like the U.S. Holocaust
Memorial Museum on at-risk countries.
(B) Prevention through mitigating risks and bolstering resilience:
USAID's investments in preventing conflict; promoting human rights, the
rule of law, and democratic, citizen-responsive governance;
strengthening civil society; and building the capacity and legitimacy
of weak states are the most important role our Agency plays in
preventing mass atrocities. USAID's response to these upstream
preventative issues gives us a unique and long-term ability to
influence a country context to achieve more-peaceful outcomes. USAID
has a range of mechanisms in each of the above sectors, applied in both
long-term and rapid-response capacities to address emerging risk
factors and warning signs.
(C) Responding to limit the consequences of ongoing atrocities:
USAID provides life-saving humanitarian assistance to populations who
are experiencing the impact of mass atrocities, including in Burma,
South Sudan, Syria, and elsewhere. In addition to humanitarian
assistance, USAID pays for trauma-support for victims, early-warning
mechanisms and communications capacity for at-risk communities, and
atrocity-sensitive capacity-building for local and regional media.
(D) Supporting Recovery Efforts: USAID promotes the recovery from,
and the prevention of, the recurrence of atrocities through funding for
the strengthening of accountability mechanisms and post-conflict and
judicial institutions, and work to heal trauma.
USAID also offers instructive materials and online training for our
staff to build capacity to recognize risks and develop programs to
prevent mass atrocities. USAID is also creating in-person training for
staff on the risk of atrocities and related development programs.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Hon. Mark Green by Senator Todd Young
Question. As of June 20, the GAO website reports that USAID has 28
open recommendations, including 5 priority recommendations-with the
oldest from 2014. For any open priority recommendations or open
recommendations from 2017 or earlier, please provide my office a
written update. For any recommendation USAID has decided to adopt, I am
interested in a timeline for implementation and an explanation for any
delay. For any recommendation that USAID has decided not to implement
or fully implement, I am interested in a detailed justification.
Answer. The recommendations of the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) are integral to the success of the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) because they put the Agency in a better position to
perform our mission and reflect American values around the world. The
GAO helps save taxpayer dollars by enhancing the efficiency,
effectiveness, integrity, and accountability of the Agency's programs
and operations, as well as pushing us to prevent and respond to fraud,
mismanagement, and wasteful practices.
On December 5, 2017, I announced a zero-tolerance policy for audit
backlogs, and called on all Bureaus and Independent Offices to
prioritize the resolution of recommendations made in audits by the GAO
and the Office of the USAID Inspector General (OIG). By the end of May,
the Agency had erased its backlog of recommendations from both the GAO
and OIG.
USAID has concurred with each of the 28 open recommendations about
which you asked, and has fully implemented many of them. Of the 28
recommendations, the GAO has confirmed closure of 10, and confirmed
receipt of closure requests for many of the remaining ones. USAID will
fully implement all the recommendations it has not yet fully
implemented.
Question. In your written statement, you mentioned USAID's work
related to development impact bonds. As you noted, ``Under this new
model, private capital funds the initial investment, and USAID pays if,
and only if, the carefully defined development goal is achieved.'' Are
there additional areas of USAID's mission or operations that are
particularly conducive to the use of development impact bonds or other
innovative financing tools? How can Congress be helpful in this area?
Answer. An impact bond is a type of pay-for-results activity, in
which a funder pays a service-provider only upon the achievement of
specific outcomes tied to social or development metrics. For an impact
bond, the service-provider needs up-front capital from an investor to
finance the work, and the investor is willing to take on the
performance and financial risk that the service-provider can deliver as
planned. In return for taking on such risk, the investor potentially
realizes a return on its investment. For an impact bond to work, the
program must have measurable, verifiable results upon which to base
payments, and the implementing partner must need up-front capital. The
potential of pay-for results methodologies, and development-impact
bonds in particular, is not limited to any specific sector.
To date, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has
participated in and funded two impact bonds. The $5.26 million Village
Enterprise Development-Impact Bond was the first, and the first of its
kind in Africa. The purpose of the bond is to ``crowd in'' investment
from impact investors to provide Village Enterprise with working
capital to scale its successful program of creating and sustaining
microenterprises by providing small cash grants, business and
financial-literacy training, mentoring, and access to savings. In
exchange for up-front capital to fund the Village Enterprise program,
funders, including USAID's Development Innovation Ventures and the
Department for International Development (DFID) of the United Kingdom,
agreed to repay investors plus a return, provided that Village
Enterprise delivered verifiable outcomes, such as improved income and
consumption.
The second development-impact bond USAID has funded is the Utkrisht
Impact Bond, which is one of the largest and most-ambitious
development-impact bonds to date. Bringing together USAID, Merck for
Mothers, the UBS Optimus Foundation, Population Services International,
Palladium, and the Hindustan Latex Family-Planning Promotion Trust
(HLFPPT), the Utkrisht Impact Bond aims to reduce the number of
maternal and newborn deaths in the State of Rajasthan, in the Republic
of India, by improving the quality of care in private health
facilities. In this financing structure, private capital from the UBS
Optimus Foundation will cover the upfront costs of improving the
quality of health care in approximately 440 private health facilities
in Rajasthan. HLFPPT and PSI will use that working capital to help the
private facilities meet quality and accreditation standards set by the
Indian Government. As outcome-payers, USAID and Merck for Mothers will
pay back this investment only if the facilities meet the national
standards related to maternal and newborn health. This pay-for-success
approach ensures the appropriate stewardship of U.S. taxpayer dollars,
while unlocking both private capital and resources from the Indian
Union Government and State of Rajasthan for health care. If successful,
the State Government of Rajasthan has agreed to continue supporting the
bond after the initial three year pilot, which provides a path to long-
term sustainability for these activities and results. Through increased
access to life-saving supplies, a greater number of appropriately
trained staff, and an improved ability for these health professionals
to address complications in labor, this effort has the potential to
reach up to 600,000 women and newborns over five years.
Through Development Innovation Ventures (DIV), a tiered, evidence-
based open-innovation program managed by the Global development Lab,
USAID has received proposals for development-impact bonds in health,
sanitation, economic development, and education, and we anticipate
additional proposals. Because DIV accepts applications from any sector
and country, these proposals represent a ``market test'' for interest
in priority sectors. We are also exploring other, more-direct ways to
catalyze private capital--again by using a pay-for-results approach.
For example, we have encouraged Ghanaian banks to provide financing for
agriculture by taking the performance risk, through the delivery of
incentive payments based upon the disbursement of loans. Competition
for these incentive payments among banks provides the ability to
minimize the incentives necessary to accomplish disbursements under
loans for agriculture-related investments, which maximizes the leverage
of development dollars.
USAID'S GAO PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target
Letter Ref. Action
Report Number Rec. No. Recommendation Text USAID Updates Completion
Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 GAO-14-277 1 To strengthen USAID concurred 12/31/2018
USAID's ability to with this
help ensure that its recommendation and,
food aid in 2017, provided
prepositioning GAO with a statement
program meets the of work to develop a
goal of reducing system to track
delivery time frames commodity inventory
in a cost-effective data. USAID had
manner, the USAID planned to have a
Administrator should contract in place by
systematically in July 2018 but the
collect, and ensure initial contract
the reliability and award did not lead
validity of, data on to a viable
delivery time frames solution..
for all emergency IT implementation
food aid shipments, and USAID specific
including IT security
prepositioned food requirements and
aid shipments.. processes. USAID's
CIO has agreed to
this approach and is
working closely with
USAID/FFP and M/OAA
to ensure that the
contract, focused on
addressing the key
system requirements
noted in the GAO
recommendation is
awarded by the end
of this calendar
year..
As USAID has
worked on the design
and procurement for
the new pre-
positioning tracking
system, it has taken
steps using existing
systems to enhance
its oversight of the
pre-positioned
inventory in the
short term. This has
included increasing
the frequency with
which USAID receives
inventory reports
for each of USAID's
four pre-positioning
warehouses. The
inventory reports
include standardized
datasets for
comparability and
ease of tracking,
and include improved
functionality on
pick-up dates for
new commodities as
well as balances
remaining from
specific commodity
lots. Further, USAID
systematically
collects and reports
on the approximate
physical location of
all shipments based
on information
provided by
implementing
partners..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 GAO-14-277 2 To strengthen USAID concurred 02/28/2019
USAID's ability to with this
help ensure that its recommendation and,
food aid in 2017, provided
prepositioning GAO with a statement
program meets the of work to develop a
goal of reducing system to track
delivery time frames commodity inventory
in a cost-effective data. USAID had
manner, the USAID planned to have a
Administrator should contract in place by
systematically July 2018 but the
monitor and assess initial contract
data on delivery award did not lead
time frames for to a viable
prepositioned food solution. USAID is
aid shipments.. seeking an optimal
solution that
contains rigorous
requirements,
deliverables and
timelines that will
ensure an effective
and timely
deployment of the
system..
As such, USAID is
using a co-creation
approach for this
award, contracting
with multiple
vendors, each with
specific expertise
in key areas of the
award including
logistics, IT
implementation and
USAID specific IT
security
requirements and
processes. USAID's
CIO has agreed to
this approach and is
working closely with
USAID/FFP and M/OAA
to ensure that the
initial phase of the
project, focused on
addressing the key
system requirements
noted in the GAO
recommendations, is
awarded by the end
of February, 2019..
As USAID has
worked on the design
and procurement for
the new pre-
positioning tracking
system, it has taken
steps using existing
systems to enhance
its monitoring and
assessments of its
regularly collected
data. In the short
term, pre-
positioning
warehouses are
monitored on-site on
a monthly basis by
an independent,
third party
inspection company
who is often in the
warehouse daily. The
resulting reports
are used, in part,
to verify the data
provided in the
weekly inventory
reports submitted by
warehouse operators..
USAID further
monitors the pre-
positioned inventory
through its own
routinely scheduled
visits from
Washington-based
staff and more
regular visits from
country- and
regionally-based
Food for Peace
Officers.
Information on
prepositioned
inventory, once
received and
verified, is
uploaded into a
Microsoft Access
database, where it
is analyzed and
compiled into weekly
reports that are
distributed to
staff..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 GAO-14-277 3 To strengthen USAID concurred 02/28/2019
USAID's ability to with this
help ensure that its recommendation and,
food aid in 2017, provided
prepositioning GAO with a statement
program meets the of work to develop a
goal of reducing system to track
delivery time frames commodity inventory
in a cost-effective data..
manner, the USAID USAID had planned
Administrator should to have a contract
systematically in place by July
monitor and assess 2018 but the initial
costs associated contract award did
with commodity not lead to a viable
procurement, solution. USAID is
shipping, and seeking an optimal
storage for solution that
prepositioned food contains rigorous
aid shipments.. requirements,
deliverables and
timelines that will
ensure an effective
and timely
deployment of the
system..
As such, USAID is
using a co-creation
approach for this
award, contracting
with multiple
vendors, each with
specific expertise
in key areas of the
award including
logistics, IT
implementation and
USAID specific IT
security
requirements and
processes. USAID's
CIO has agreed to
this approach and is
working closely with
USAID/FFP and M/OAA
to ensure that the
initial phase of the
project, focused on
addressing the key
system requirements
noted in the GAO
recommendations, is
awarded by the end
of February, 2019..
In the meantime,
USAID has enhanced
its capacity to
monitor and assess
costs associated
with pre-positioned
food aid. USAID has
always structured
its pre-positioning
contracts such that
the Agency only pays
for the space
utilized. In FY
2018, USAID also
reduced the number
of operational pre-
positioning
warehouses from five
to four based on
improved demand
forecasting.
Further,.
USAID increased the
use of its domestic
pre-positioning
warehouse in
Houston, TX,
reducing the
handling and ocean
freight costs. In
its pre-positioning
warehouse in
Djibouti, USAID has
added a racking
system to more
effectively use the
allotted space.
Finally, USAID
requires
palletization of all
vegetable oil in pre-
positioning
warehouses, which
helps to reduce
losses resulting
from damage during
transportation from
the United States..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 GAO-17-224 1 To enhance USAID concurred 12/31/2018
USAID's financial with the
oversight of recommendation. In
implementing April 2018, USAID
partners' spending informed GAO that
to implement and USAID selected two
support Title II Title II awardees/
development and countries to be
emergency projects, reviewed. USAID has
the USAID conducted these
Administrator should reviews, which
develop, document, consisted of an
and implement a initial desk review
process for of documentation,
periodically consultation with
conducting the NGO's
systematic, targeted headquarters staff,
financial reviews of and a field review
Title II development in the NGO's country
and emergency office, to be
projects. Such followed by the
reviews should preparation of a
include efforts to report. USAID is now
verify that actual preparing reports
costs incurred for for the reviews and
these projects align documenting the
with planned financial review
budgets.. process for
consistent future
use..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 GAO-17-224 3 To enhance USAID concurred 02/19/2019
USAID's financial with the
oversight of recommendation. In
implementing December 2017, USAID
partners' spending confirmed with GAO
to implement and that USAID will
support Title II continue to use the
development and updated Food for
emergency projects, Peace development
the USAID award template,
Administrator should which requires
take steps to ensure programs to provide
that it collects quarterly reports on
complete and cash transfers, food
consistent vouchers, and local
monitoring data from and regional
implementing procurement..
partners for Title In February 2018,
II development and USAID provided
emergency projects support that it has
on the use of 202(e) developed training
funding for cash and standardized
transfers, food oversight staff
vouchers, and local roles and
and regional responsibilities to
procurement as well ensure that complete
as data on the use and consistent
of Title II funding monitoring data is
for internal collected for Title
transportation, II development and
storage, and emergency projects.
handling (ITSH) The closure of this
costs, in accordance recommendation
with established requires a final
requirements.. report for an award
that will not be
issued until January
2019. USAID has
confirmed that it
will provide the
required documents
to GAO upon their
issuance..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GAO OPEN RECOMMENDATIONS FROM 2017 OR EARLIER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target
Letter Ref. Action
Report Number Rec. No. Recommendation Text USAID Updates Completion
Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 GAO-14-22 2 To improve the USAID concurred 12/31/2018
efficiency and with this
accountability of recommendation and,
the emergency food in 2017, provided
aid procurement GAO with a statement
process, the of work to develop a
Secretary of system to track
Agriculture and commodity inventory
Administrator of data. USAID had
USAID should direct planned to have a
their staffs to work contract in place by
together to take July 2018 but the
steps to improve initial contract
USDA's ability to award did not lead
account for U.S. to a viable
Government funds by solution. USAID is
ensuring that USAID seeking an optimal
provides USDA with solution that
accurate contains rigorous
prepositioned requirements,
commodity inventory deliverables and
data that USDA can timelines that will
independently ensure an effective
verify.. and timely
deployment of the
system. As such,
USAID is using a co-
creation approach
for this award,
contracting with
multiple vendors,
each with specific
expertise in key
areas of the award
including logistics,
IT implementation
and USAID specific
IT security
requirements and
processes. USAID's
CIO has agreed to
this approach and is
working closely with
USAID/FFP and M/OAA
to ensure that the
contract, focused on
addressing the key
system requirements
noted in the GAO
recommendations, is
awarded by the end
of this calendar
year..
As USAID has
worked on the design
and procurement for
the new pre-
positioning tracking
system, it has taken
steps using existing
systems to enhance
its monitoring and
assessments of its
regularly collected
data. Pre-
positioning
warehouses are
monitored on-site on
a monthly basis by
an independent,
third party
inspection company.
The resulting
reports are used, in
part, to verify the
data provided in the
weekly inventory
reports submitted by
warehouse operators.
USAID further
monitors the pre-
positioned inventory
through its own site
visits--annual
visits from
Washington-based
staff and more
regular visits from
country- and
regionally-based
Food for Peace
Officers.
Information on pre-
positioned
inventory, once
received and
verified, is
uploaded into a
Microsoft Access
database, where it
is analyzed and
compiled into weekly
reports that are
distributed to
staff..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 GAO-15-102 3 To help ensure The rule-making 12/31/2018
agencies can more process to define
fully implement ``recruitment fees''
their monitoring is an inter-agency
policy and guidance effort which is
related to still making its way
recruitment of through the
foreign workers, the regulatory process.
Secretaries of The Office of
Defense and State Management and
and the Budget (OMB)
Administrator of the submitted the final
U.S. Agency for rule defining
International recruitment fees as
Development should part of the Spring
each develop, as 2018 United Agenda
part of their agency of Federal
policy and guidance, Regulatory and De-
a more precise regulatory Actions.
definition of The rule is
recruitment fees, identified as a
including ``significant rule''
permissible and is expected to
components and the published soon.
amounts.. In early October
USAID learned that
OMB has returned the
draft rule to the
FAR staff with
comments that need
to be addressed
before the rule is
issued issuance. It
can take up to 90
days for the
corrections to be
made. Once this rule
is published, it is
anticipated that GAO
will close this
audit
recommendation..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 GAO-15-479 3 To improve USAID issued a 12/31/2018
USAID's ability to new, publicly
measure progress in available USAID
achieving a Education Policy--
quantitative reading not a ``strategy''--
goal in any future in November 2018.
education strategy, The policy provides
the Acting USAID general priority
Administrator should direction for Agency
ensure that the education programs,
future strategy but it will not
includes targets contain topline
that will allow targets. Therefore,
USAID to monitor this recommendation
interim progress will no longer be
toward its goal in applicable because
comparison with it pertains to
planned performance.. targets that will
not exist. USAID
continues to monitor
and evaluate the
results of its
education programs
in compliance with
standard operating
procedures...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 GAO-15-732 2 To strengthen USAID concurred 11/30/2018
USAID's ability to with the
monitor Title II recommendation.
conditional food aid USAID built its
and evaluate food- strategy and tools
for-assets to assess the
activities' impact effectiveness of
on reducing food food-for-assets
insecurity, the (FFA) activities in
USAID Administrator development projects
should per GAO's
systematically recommendation. In
assess the June 2016, USAID
effectiveness of submitted an initial
food-for-assets closure request that
activities in was supplemented
development projects with significant
in achieving project updates in March
goals and 2018. For example,
objectives.. USAID released
additional Technical
References, Guidance
for Monitoring,
Evaluation and
Reporting, and
established a new
mechanism to
independently
conduct baseline
studies and program
evaluations In
August 2018, USAID
and GAO further
discussed the
process improvements
USAID has made to
address any
outstanding issues.
USAID followed-up
with accompanying
documents. Further,
in November 2018,
the GAO followed up
with an additional
document request--
USAID plans to
submit all requested
documentation by
November 30, 2018..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 GAO-17-224 2 To enhance USAID concurred Submitted for
USAID's financial with the closure to
oversight of recommendation. In GAO.
implementing December 2017, USAID
partners' spending confirmed with GAO
to implement and that USAID will
support Title II continue to use the
development and updated Food for
emergency projects, Peace development
the USAID award template,
Administrator should which requires
ensure that its programs to provide
requirements for quarterly reports on
implementing cash transfers, food
partners to provide vouchers, and local
monitoring data on and regional
an ongoing basis on procurement. USAID
the use of 202(e) also developed and
funding for cash shared the new World
transfers, food Food Program award
vouchers, and local template that
and regional requires biannual
procurement are reporting on food
consistent for Title assistance
II development and modalities. In June
emergency projects.. 2018, USAID provided
GAO with a signed
development award
that demonstrated
use of the updated
template..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 GAO-17-224 5 To enhance USAID concurred Submitted for
USAID's financial with the closure to
oversight of recommendation. In GAO.
implementing December 2017, USAID
partners' spending confirmed with GAO
to implement and that USAID will
support Title II continue to use the
development and updated Food for
emergency projects, Peace development
the USAID award template,
Administrator should which requires
establish a programs to provide
requirement for quarterly reports on
Title II development cash transfers, food
project partners to vouchers, and local
conduct and document and regional
comprehensive risk procurement. USAID
assessments and also developed and
mitigation plans for shared the new World
cash transfers and Food Program award
food vouchers funded template that
by 202(e), and take requires biannual
steps to ensure that reporting on food
implementing assistance
partners adhere to modalities. In June
the requirement.. 2018 USAID provided
GAO with a signed
development award
that demonstrated
use of the updated
template. GAO has
confirmed receipt
and the Agency
expects closure..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 GAO-17-640 3 To help ensure On October 13, Submitted for
that, consistent 2017, USAID provided closure to
with the Bellmon a formal response to GAO.
amendment, the Congress on the
provision of U.S. in- recommendations
kind food aid does included in GAO-17-
not result in a 640. In the
substantial response, USAID
disincentive to, or indicated that it
interference with, concurred with the
domestic production recommendations in
or marketing in the report, and
countries receiving USAID reported that
in-kind food aid, it is updating
the USAID guidance and
Administrator should procedures to
monitor markets address the
during recommendations.
implementation of USAID continues to
development projects monitor its programs
to identify any in compliance with
potential negative standard operating
effects, such as procedures and
unusual changes in expects to close out
prices.. this recommendation
on time..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 GAO-17-640 4 To help ensure On October 13, 12/31/2018
that, consistent 2017, USAID provided
with the Bellmon a formal response to
amendment, the Congress on the
provision of U.S. in- recommendations
kind food aid does included in GAO-17-
not result in a 640. In the
substantial response, USAID
disincentive to, or indicated that it
interference with, concurred with the
domestic production recommendations in
or marketing in the report, and
countries receiving USAID reported that
in-kind food aid, it is updating
the USAID guidance and
Administrator should procedures to
evaluate markets address the
after development recommendations.
projects are USAID continues to
completed to monitor its programs
determine whether in compliance with
markets were standard operating
negatively affected procedures and
during project expects to close out
implementation or this recommendation
after project on time..
completion..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAID Missions around the world have expressed interest in using
development-impact bonds to help them achieve their objectives. We
continue to collect data and evidence to identify the most appropriate
sectoral use of impact bonds. We appreciate Congress' continued support
for USAID's use of innovative approaches and pay-for-performance
programming like this.
Question. You recently traveled to Bangladesh and Burma. Do you see
evidence that the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya is continuing?
Please provide specifics. How constrained is humanitarian access right
now inside in Rakhine? What do you believe are the key messages
Congress should be sending to the Burmese Government right now?
Answer. When I visited Rakhine State in Burma, I saw things that
deeply disturbed me. I saw villages divided along ethnic and religious
lines. I saw communities relegated to camps without any freedom of
movement or worship, or access to jobs or land. I saw parents whose
only access to work since August 2017 was through a project funded by
the U.S. Agency for International Development. I saw children without
teachers; mothers without access to health care. Given such a
situation, I have to wonder about what future people in such conditions
have.
As you know, the Department of State concluded that ethnic
cleansing against the Rohingya has occurred in Rakhine State. While the
mass violence against the Rohingya has stopped, discrimination and
harassment against the Rohingya and members of other minority
populations continues. These continuing negative conditions reaffirm
our concerns. Humanitarian access in Central Rakhine was already
constrained prior to the crisis, and continues to be a challenge, which
could intensify as the Government of Burma moves to close camps for
Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) in Rakhine State. Moreover, in
Northern Rakhine, very few actors are able to provide assistance, or to
assess needs. We continue to advocate for unfettered access to all of
Rakhine State, and for the removal of barriers to freedom of movement,
access to livelihoods, and basic services for the Rohingya population.
The Burmese Government and military must lift the bureaucratic barriers
that are preventing the assessment of needs and the provision of
assistance.
While the Government of Burma has taken some positive recent steps,
such as signing a Memorandum of Understanding with the United Nations
(UN) for the repatriation of refugees from Bangladesh and development
issues, and welcoming a new U.N. Special Envoy to Myanmar, Christine
Schraner Burgener, the Burmese must take additional actions.
The administration is sending a number of key messages to the
Government of Burma:
First, we continue to advocate for unfettered, consistent access
for all organizations to resume humanitarian and development assistance
and assess local needs in Rakhine State.
Second, we stress the need for credible and objective
investigations that would ensure accountability and justice for
violations of human rights. The Government of Burma has recently set up
a Commission of Enquiry into atrocities committed in Rakhine, though we
are waiting on more details about the specifics of this Commission and
its membership.
Third, we call for the Government of Burma to implement the
recommendations of the Rakhine Advisory Commission, with a specific
emphasis on the safe, voluntary, dignified, and sustainable
resettlement of IDPs, freedom of movement, a path to citizenship,
access to livelihoods and basic services, freedom for the independent
media, and justice and reconciliation.
Over 500,000 Rohingya remain in Rakhine State who still do not
enjoy basic rights, such as freedom of movement and worship and access
to livelihoods and basic services like health and education. Some will
try to leave Burma because of the extreme hardships and fear of future
violence. Addressing these challenges through thoughtful and conflict-
sensitive programming must be priority number one in Rakhine to prevent
future violence. By improving the situation for Rohingya who remain in
Rakhine State, the Government of Burma can begin to create the
conditions that would be conducive for refugees to return from
Bangladesh.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Hon. Mark Green by Senator Tim Kaine
USAID has a unique contracting need in the federal government.
For example, USAID has a special type of partnering entity,
called Private Voluntary Organizations (PVOs), that assist
USAID's mission, a categorization that doesn't exist in other
facets of the Government. PVO's must be U.S.-based, charitable,
non-profit, and support foreign assistance. Many PVO's are
small entities with specialized abilities in focused areas
around the world. Unfortunately, unlike other places in the
Government, there is not a specific contracting set aside for
small PVO's. Because of their non-profit nature, the U.S.
Government's small business rules, designed for for-profit
entities, do not capture PVO's. Additionally, USAID does not
normally use its authorities to specifically contract with
smaller non-profits.
Question. What limitations are there in USAID's ability to contract
with small nonprofits?
Answer. I have been clear that the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) should promote a level playing field for all our
acquisition and assistance; diversify our partner base; invest more
with faith-based organizations, local implementers, and U.S. small
businesses and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); and expand our
use of innovative approaches and awards. As such, the Agency is
actively working to identify as broad a range of partners as possible,
and develop and implement a series of interconnected and interdependent
reforms to our processes to design programs and conduct procurements.
We know we need to diversify our base of implementers: In Fiscal Year
2017, just 25 organizations were responsible for 60 percent of our
spending, and 75 groups for 80 percent. Increasing opportunities for
U.S.-based small businesses and NGOs and local partners around the
world is at the heart of the effort to broaden our network, and is a
major priority for me. While the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)
has a set-aside for small businesses, regulations for assistance have
no equivalent for small, non-profit organizations. However, we have
broad authorities to develop new approaches towards assistance
partners, both U.S. and international, and this is one of the stated
goals of the procurement reform aspects of our Transformation.
Question. What authorities does USAID have to set aside funds for
small non-profits doing important development work? Is USAID fully
using these authorities?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has
broad authorities under its enabling legislation, the Foreign
Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961, as amended. With regard to small non-
profits and Private Voluntary Organizations (PVOs), Section 635.22.c of
the FAA states that the Agency has the authority to ``use to the
maximum extent practicable the services and facilities of voluntary,
non-profit organizations registered with, and approved by, the Agency
for International Development.'' USAID uses this authority, along with
others pertaining to voluntary, non-profit agencies in Sections 123 and
607 of the FAA, to enable engagement with a broad range of partners.
Under Transformation, we are now actively seeking to diversify our
partner base to engage new and underutilized partners.
Question. What, if any, changes or additions would be needed to
current regulations and authorities for small non-profits to compete
for more USAID contracts?
Answer. While the Competition in Contracting Act requires the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) to use ``full and open
competition through the use of competitive procedures unless otherwise
authorized by law,'' this particular competition standard is only
encouraged, not required, for assistance. A statutory and regulatory
exception for the use of small Private Voluntary Organizations (PVOs)
that would allow for USAID to limit competition under acquisition would
potentially increase access for such organizations to compete more
successfully for USAID contracts. (This would be similar to the
exceptions listed under the Socioeconomic Programs in Part 19 of the
Federal Acquisition Regulations [FAR]). While we don't believe many
small non-profits will pursue contracts, the Agency would support new
authorities for specific instruments to enable greater flexibility in
working with non-profits as sub-awardees under contracts.
The more immediate opportunity for the Agency is to develop a range
of approaches and possibilities to lower barriers to competition,
develop some programs to target small non-profit partners, and promote
more collaborative and co-design approaches to procurements that would
allow more such partners to compete for more USAID awards.
Question. What percentage of USAID's contracting goes towards small
PVOs, and how many small PVOs are awarded contracts each year?
Answer. Over the past three years, the average percentage of new
acquisition and assistance awards the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) made to Private Voluntary Organizations (PVOs) from
Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 to FY 2018 was 19.3 percent. These awards
included 45 new acquisition awards (contracts) and 845 new assistance
awards (grants and cooperative agreements) to PVOs, for a combined
total of 890 total new awards to PVOs over the three years.
During the first two quarters of FY 2018, USAID issued 10 new
acquisition awards (approximately $34 million in obligations), and 107
new assistance awards (approximately $230 million in obligations) to
PVOs. In FY 2017, USAID issued 18 new acquisition awards (worth
approximately $97 million), and 341 new assistance awards (worth
approximately $993 million) to PVOs. In FY 2016, USAID issued 17 new
acquisition awards (worth approximately $60 million), and 397 new
assistance awards (worth approximately $1 billion) to PVOs.
Global Development and Feed the Future Innovation Labs
The Global Development Lab was established by the Obama
administration as a vehicle for attracting innovative ideas in
science and technology that can be applied to solving
development challenges. Additionally, Feed the Future
Innovation Labs have proven to be highly effective in
addressing food shortage issues around the world. The current
world population is about 7 billion and will exceed to 9
billion by 2050. Demand for food may require doubling of
current production without increasing land area. Pests and
diseases are known to cause 40% crop loss, which could be
avoided by adopting Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
technologies without adversely affecting human and
environmental health. Virginia Tech has been a leader in this
area and it has been implementing Integrated Pest Management in
the international arena for the past quarter of a century.
Question. What is your view of the Global Development Lab? Do you
support the proposed 80% cut to its FY 2019 budget from the FY 2017
planned program level?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID),
through the U.S. Global Development Lab (Lab), the Feed the Future
Innovation Labs, and innovation teams in Bureaus and Missions,
continues to build an adaptable organization focused on bringing new
partners and the best ideas to the Agency to transform development.
With Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 funds, the innovation hubs will work to find
transformative solutions to accelerate measurable results, increase the
effectiveness of our programs, engage new actors, take advantage of
advancements in science and technology, and maximize the impact of
taxpayer dollars.
The Lab brings four core capabilities to the Agency: open and
directed innovation, private-sector partnerships, digital development,
and research and development (R&D). Through the Transformation, we plan
to carry forward these core capabilities and maintain a space for
discovery, testing, and experimentation around innovation, technology,
and science for development; integrating tools and approaches that have
proven successful in their corresponding practice areas; and
strengthening the systems and processes necessary for applying
innovative approaches to USAID's work.
Question. What is the current status of Feed the Future Innovation
Labs?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
currently funds 22 Feed the Future Innovation Labs, which create a
unique network supported by over 70 top U.S. colleges and universities
that work with research and educational institutions in developing
countries. The Feed the Future Innovation Labs are on the cutting edge
of efforts to research, develop, and take to scale effective
technologies that address challenges posed by a climactic shocks and
the need to feed a growing global population with safe and nutritious
food. The Feed the Future Innovation Labs also provide short- and long-
term training, which reaches the current and next generation of
scientists in our partner countries.
USAID recently extended or launched new Feed the Future Innovation
Labs for Collaborative Research in Sorghum and Millet; the Reduction of
Post-Harvest Loss; Small-Scale Irrigation; Fish; and Legume Systems
Research. Several new Innovation Lab awards that address one or more
goals of the U.S. Government's Global-Food Security Strategy are under
review as part of USAID's competitive procurement process: Inclusive
and Sustainable, Agriculture-Led Economic Growth; Strengthened
Resilience Among People and Systems; and A Well-Nourished Population,
Especially Women and Children. USAID continues to announce new
opportunities for funding to Feed the Future Innovation Labs.
Question. What do you envision to be the role of U.S. universities
in reducing world hunger and malnutrition?
Answer. U.S. universities contribute significantly to advancing our
shared goal of reducing world hunger and malnutrition. The Feed the
Future Innovation Labs funded by the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) pair the research and academic excellence of U.S.
universities with research and educational institutions in over 30
partner countries in the developing world. Together, they use advanced
genomics, integrated pest-management, and other tools to create
improved, stress-tolerant varieties of wheat, sorghum, millet, and
legume crops, and more-efficient, sustainable cropping, livestock,
aquaculture, and horticulture systems. These innovations improve
nutrition, boost production, decrease post-harvest losses, and increase
food safety. Better market connections, crop storage, and formulation
and implementation of agricultural policy, in turn, raise incomes,
increase food security, and improve the nutritional status of
households in the countries in which we invest.
Question. Will USAID continue to support Feed the Future? If so,
should USAID allocate more resources to keep U.S. universities engaged
in this work to battle global hunger?
Answer. Yes, the administration, including the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID), will continue to support Feed the
Future. The initiative is showing results, and producing concrete
evidence that ending hunger is possible with the right interventions
and investments. Feed the Future is a proven, catalytic investment in
food security built on engagement with the private sector in the United
States and abroad, promoting and disseminating innovation, and
strengthening the capacity of national governments in target countries
to lead.
USAID continues to look for innovative ways to bring U.S.
universities into efforts like Feed the Future. In alignment with the
U.S. Government's new Global Food Security Research Strategy, Feed the
Future's Research and Development portfolio funds numerous research and
capacity-building programs carried out by Universities, including
partnerships with the 22 Feed the Future Innovation Labs. In addition
to USAID, other Federal grant-making science agencies, such as the
National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, have expanded the
scale and scope of U.S. university research programs to address global
hunger. Additionally, university researchers serve on advisory boards
for, and conduct external evaluations of, the Feed the Future
Innovation Labs. We also engage the U.S. university community through
the presidentially appointed Board for International Food and
Agricultural Development (BIFAD), which advises the USAID Administrator
on issues pertinent to food security in developing countries. Of the
seven members of BIFAD, four represent the U.S. university community.
USAID will continue to allocate resources to U.S. universities to fund
and support these engagements.
Question. What are the current Feed the Future focus countries, and
how are they selected?
Answer. The current Feed the Future Target Countries are
Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, Kenya, Mali, Nepal,
Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, and Uganda. ``Target Countries'' are those in
which Feed the Future concentrates resources and technical support, and
where we judge that our investments have the greatest potential to
achieve sustainable improvements in food security and nutrition; build
resilience; and promote sustainable, inclusive growth.
Based on the requirements of the Global Food-Security Act of 2016,
the U.S. Government selected Feed the Future's Target Countries based
on the following criteria: Level of need, potential for our programs to
spur growth, opportunities for partnership, opportunities for regional
efficiencies, commitment by host governments, and the availability of
U.S. Government resources. In addition to the 12 Target Countries, Feed
the Future funds food-security investments in 35 Aligned Countries.
``Aligned countries'' are responsible for meeting three of the six
requirements for Feed the Future's Target Countries: 1) designating a
single interagency point of contact from any Feed the Future Department
or Agency at the U.S. Embassy; 2) aligning Feed the Future programs
with the goals, objectives, and approaches outlined in the Global Food-
Security Strategy (GFSS); and, 3) reporting results on applicable GFSS
indicators annually.
Question. There was a six month delay in release of the IPM
Innovation Lab's 2018 fiscal year funds. How do you propose to avert
this delay in the future?
Answer. Once Congress passes and the President signs the annual
appropriations bill that contain funding for the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID), the Agency undertakes a multi-step
process of finalizing obligations to individual awards (grants,
cooperative agreements, and contracts), which can take considerable
time. We continue to pursue the most-efficient solutions to ensure we
can make funds available for programming as quickly as possible.
Question. What steps should USAID take to ``scale-up'' its
successful programs?
Answer. The Global Development Lab, the Bureau for Food Security
(BFS), and other Operating Units across the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) fund the scale-up of successful
programs by financing innovators, entrepreneurs and researchers to test
and develop their solutions. The Global Development Lab is actively
engaged in conversations with private and public partners around the
dissemination of USAID-funded innovations, and works to remove barriers
and create incentives around the adoption of these solutions into
USAID's larger programming.
In addition, through the Transformation, USAID will further
facilitate the scale-up of successful programs. The proposed Bureau for
Development, Democracy and Innovation (DDI) will incorporate the core
capabilities of the Global Development Lab, and will be better-
positioned to affect the design and implementation of programs across
the Agency. DDI's connections to the Missions would also foster the
testing and greater adoption of promising innovative tools and
approaches.
Competing with China and Russia
``China's official development assistance to African countries
has increased by more than 780% since 2003. Last year,
President Xi Jinping pledged $124 billion for a new global
infrastructure and development initiative called ``One Belt One
Road.'' Your testimony stated that you ``are shaping an Agency
that is capable of leveraging our influence, authority, and
available resources to advance U.S. interests.''
Question. Do you agree that China has a similar goal with its
development practices?
Answer. The People's Republic of China is reorganizing its foreign
assistance to align more closely with its foreign-policy objectives of
expanding influence and securing markets, as demonstrated by the
dramatic increase in Chinese aid and loans to Africa since 2003.
China's development practices often create dependent relationships with
recipients, exclude citizens from participating in decision-making, and
are not sustainable. The U.S. Government structures its foreign
assistance in such a way that it (i) offers strategic partnership, not
strategic dependence; (ii) advocates for free, open, and enterprise-
driven development to build resilient market economies; (iii) promotes
citizen-responsive governance, and advances democratic norms and
institutions; (iv) saves lives; and, (v) strengthens the resilience of
vulnerable communities and their environments. The difference in
philosophy and outcomes could not be clearer.
Question. Has China's strategy steadily improved its standing as a
development partner of choice?
Answer. The People's Republic of China increasingly has positioned
itself as a friendly development partner given the flexible
infrastructure financing and construction resources it offers.
Recipients also know that the Chinese Government will not raise human
rights, democracy, or corruption as concerns. However, the Chinese
development policy is still evolving. Both China and recipient
countries are grappling with the reputational risk of unsustainable
Chinese investments over the long-term. Given these concerns, many
developing countries are becoming more cautious in their engagement
with China, and seek to continue their foreign-assistance relationship
with the United States and other partners. Countries in which the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) operates are seeing the
benefits of the long-term investments made by the United States and
other donors. Our greatest successes often come with partners that
share our approach of supporting local efforts in health, citizen-
responsive governance, transparency, and democracy to help advance
strong economic growth and development. Given the U.S. Government's
focus on self-reliance and strategic partnership, we expect developing
countries to maintain strong relationships with the United States even
after they transition out of a traditional development-assistance
relationship.
Question. If so, are you concerned that these U.S. cuts to
development programs provide an opening for countries like China and
Russia to exert additional influence?
Answer. The People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation
continue to seek ways to exert influence throughout the world,
including through the use of their foreign assistance. Nevertheless,
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) retains its
position as the world's premier development institution, with world-
class expertise and convening power that our partner countries value.
USAID also encourages our allies and partners to promote strategic
partnerships, citizen-responsive governance, and long-term
sustainability in their planning, which can help counteract Chinese and
Russian influence.
Question. Is Chinese development strategy helped if the U.S.
development programs are reduced abroad?
Answer. Although the People's Republic of China is expanding and
deepening its reach outside its borders, its foreign-assistance efforts
are still developing, and are markedly different from those of the
United States. Unlike the Chinese model, our assistance reaffirms a
commitment to support nations on their Journeys to Self-Reliance, which
results in enduring partnerships secured by shared ideals, interests,
and mutual respect.
This year's National Defense Strategy emphasizes strategic
competition with Russia and China; however, it's unclear
whether our foreign assistance is aligned to work in parallel
with this strategy. For the first time, USAID was made a
regular member of the National Security Council (NSC) Deputies
Committee in 2017.
Question. Has China's increased practice of gaining influence
through development projects been a topic of any interagency
conversations USAID has been involved with in relation to national
security, including at NSC meetings or during the formulation of the
administration's National Defense Strategy? Do you believe that USAID's
input and expertise is adequately being factored into implementation
and execution of the National Defense Strategy and the administration's
National Security Strategy?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
advances a free, open, and inclusive development model that promotes
self-reliance and partnership as a clear alternative to the often-
opaque and mercantilist transactions promoted by the People's Republic
of China that result in dependence. USAID has been extensively engaged
in national-security discussions related to China's attempts to
increase influence through development projects and loans.
USAID is committed to playing a strong role in achieving the vision
of the President's National Security Strategy (NSS). Following the
release of the NSS, USAID worked closely with our counterparts at the
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) as they developed the National Defense
Strategy (NDS). The collaborative interagency engagement resulted in
the incorporation into the NDS of USAID's input and equities. The NDS
directly states that DoD will `` . . . assist the United States Agency
for International Development (and others) . . . to identify and build
partnerships to address areas of economic, technological and
informational vulnerabilities.and will strive to consider ways to apply
the military instrument differently to better enable diplomatic,
informational, and economic elements of national power.'' USAID
continues to engage interagency colleagues from the DoD, the U.S.
Department of State, the National Security Council and others to align
messaging and ensure close coordination in support of the NDS and NSS.
USAID is also liaising closely with DoD on the recent Stabilization
Assistance Review and the civilian-military priorities of USAID's
Transformation.
Your written testimony says that USAID is ``strengthening
democratic governance abroad. [and] .includes targeted
investments in Europe and Eurasia that will support strong,
democratic institutions and vibrant civil society, while
countering the Kremlin's influence in the region''. EUCOM has
the Russia Strategic Initiative and the Russia Influence Group,
which is designed to be a joint EUCOM-State Department effort
with State as the ``coordinator'' on countering Kremlin
influence. The FBI also has a separate Russian influence
taskforce as does DHS. In your March letter to me responding to
my concern about Russian interference in Latin American
elections, you highlighted USAID's new global strategy to
``Counter Kremlin Influence.''
Question. Is USAID participating in a State Department-led
interagency coordination process to counter Russian influence? If so,
at what level, and how often is such coordination taking place?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
regularly coordinates with the interagency in our efforts to counter
Russian influence in Europe and Eurasia. USAID participates in the
Russian Influence Group's Senior Leader Steering Board, co-chaired by
the State Department and the European Command (EUCOM) of the U.S.
Department of Defense, regional workshops, and monthly meetings. I
would be happy to provide a more-detailed account of the level and
frequency of our coordination with the State Department and EUCOM in
another setting.
Question. What specifically is USAID doing to ensure that its
Counter Kremlin Influence program is working in coordination with DOD
and EUCOM's efforts?
Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
shared our Countering Kremlin Influence (CKI) Strategy in Europe and
Eurasia with the National Security Council, the U.S. Department of
State, the European Command (EUCOM) of the U.S. Department of Defense
(DoD), and the rest of the interagency. We have regular and frequent
communications with DoD and EUCOM on this issue, and participate in the
Russia Strategic Initiative and the Russia Influence Group.
USAID also has a Senior Development Advisor (SDA) assigned to EUCOM
in Stuttgart, Germany, with whom we communicate regularly. Our SDA
participates in EUCOM's Countering and Deterring Russia Line of Effort
Working Group, and has briefed the members on USAID's CKI Strategy and
regularly coordinates with them on our programming in this area.
USAID is also a formal part in EUCOM's Theater Campaign Order. The
Order tasks USAID to ``conduct development and economic assistance
programs in support of diplomatic engagement in the countries in
[EUCOM's Area of Responsibility] (especially Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Georgia, Moldova, Serbia, and Ukraine) that address corruption and
governance issues in partner countries which make them more susceptible
to malign influence and associated criminal elements.''
EUCOM's Director of Operations and Director of Interagency
Partnering, along with our SDA, addressed USAID's Mission Directors in
Europe and Eurasia on countering Russian malign influence during
meetings in Kyiv in June 2017.
__________
Responses to Additional Questions for the Record
Submitted to Hon. Mark Green by Senator Edward J. Markey
I recently introduced the International Human Rights Defense
Act, which would permanently establish a Special Envoy at the
State Department to focus on the human rights of lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons--a position
that was created by the last administration, but which has
never been codified in law. I was pleased to hear your
commitment to LGBTI issues, stated repeatedly in a variety of
forums, but I'd like to hear more specifics:
Question. USAID has a non-discrimination provision in all its
grants and contracts. How does USAID enforce this non-discrimination
provision? Will you commit to ensuring that USAID grants and contracts
are LGBTI-inclusive? Does USAID have a funding plan for LGBTI human
rights for the coming year or years? How does LGBTI human rights figure
in to your plans for reorganizing your agency? Where will those issues
fit in to the broader picture?
Answer. As the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID), I have made clear that inclusion is one of the
Agency's core values, and that non-discrimination towards beneficiaries
is a basic principle of development. As such, I commit that USAID will
continue to implement its comprehensive non-discrimination policies for
beneficiaries of our grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts.
USAID will implement our non-discrimination policies for
beneficiaries of acquisitions awards (contracts) and assistance awards
(grants and cooperative agreements) the Agency makes to both for-profit
and non-profit organizations. The policies, which include protections
on multiple bases (including, but not limited to, sexual orientation
and gender identity), are reflected in non-discrimination award terms
included in all USAID contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements
since late 2016. Further, contractors include the non-discrimination
clause in all sub-contracts, and assistance awards recipients include
the provision in all sub-awards and contracts. As is the case with
other terms or conditions of USAID-funded acquisition or assistance
awards, in the event of non-compliance USAID seeks appropriate remedies
as specified in the award terms and conditions. Finally, USAID
employees receive training on the content of, expectations for, and
employee responsibilities related to USAID's non-discrimination
policies, including non-discrimination policies for beneficiaries.
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2018, USAID's Center of Excellence on
Democracy, Human Rights and Governance within the Bureau for Democracy,
Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA/DRG) has a) obligated FY
2017 funds into a global project that provides training and strategic-
messaging support for civil-society organizations (CSOs) that are
working to address discrimination and stigma against lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons; and, b) provided
funding to the USAID Mission in Bangladesh for a country-level project
to help a local CSO advance protections from anti-LGBTI violence and
discrimination.
Subject to the availability of funds, in FY 2019 USAID has a plan
to program $3,000,000 in FY 2018 funds to support data-collection and
research, communications efforts to reduce stigma, context-specific
projects in the most-difficult climates for LGBTI communities, and
emergency-response grants to help protect LGBTI people in developing
countries from violence and discrimination. As the implementers of
USAID programs generally cooperate with, and leverage the financial and
technical contributions of, other donors, the Agency is actively
engaging with current and other potential partners to expand the impact
of USAID's planned contributions.
USAID's Transformation incorporates USAID's commitment to help
protect LGBTI people from violence and discrimination. The proposed
Bureau for Development, Democracy and Innovation (DDI) would consist of
multiple Centers, including the Youth and Inclusive Development (YID)
Hub and the Center for Democracy, Human Rights and Governance. DDI/YID
would aim to maximize the impact of USAID's investments by ensuring
that the needs of marginalized groups--including LGBTI people--are part
of the Agency's policies, strategy-development, and programming. Agency
coordinators for marginalized groups, including an LGBTI Coordinator,
would be based in DDI/YID under the Transformation. DDI/DRG would lead
the Agency's efforts to achieve self-reliant, citizen-responsive,
democratic societies that respect human dignity, the rule of law, and
rights (including by protecting the rights of marginalized populations
such as LGBTI people).
__________
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]