    [Senate Hearing 115-571]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

       STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2019

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2018

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The subcommittee met at 3:20 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Lindsey Graham (Chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Graham, Leahy, Durbin, Hyde-Smith,
    Shaheen, Lankford, Coons, Van Hollen, and Merkley.

                   U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    STATEMENT OF HON. MARK GREEN, ADMINISTRATOR

                  opening statement of senator lindsey graham

        Senator Graham. The subcommittee will come to order. Sorry
    we were late. We were at the lunch at the State Department for
    President Macron and we are Republicans, we should know how to
    run things. We are an hour and a half late. So we got to up our
    game.
        Senator Leahy is on the way. He said go ahead and start.
    Thank you for coming, Mark.
        We have a new Senator, Senator Hyde-Smith, on the
    subcommittee. I want to welcome her.
        The 2019 budget proposal from the administration will not
    make it. We are going to kill it and replace it with something
    that makes more sense.
        If you send a rescission package over here from the House
    that guts the State Department, we are going to kill that, too.
    So I just want everybody who knows about this account and cares
    about this account, that Senator Leahy and my colleagues on the
    subcommittee, Republican, Democrat, are going to protect this
    account. We will make it better. We will make it more
    efficient.
        We are always in the market for trying to make things
    better. But it's 1 percent of our overall spending, foreign
    assistance in general. General Mattis said it better than
    anybody: if you cut the State Department's operational budget
    you need to buy me more ammo. He said that when he was head of
    CENTCOM.
        So to the administration, we want to work with you where we
    can, but I reject the whole attitude that is being displayed
    about developmental assistance. Being a military pretty hawkish
    guy, you can never hold and build without a presence of the
    private sector and a follow-up force that the leader of it will
    always be the State Department.
        The USAID budget, we can always make it better. Really, I
    appreciate Mark's leadership over the years. Anything you can
    do to make the USAID portion of the State Department more
    efficient, please let us know.
        But I want to let you know that all those who work on your
    behalf and all the people and the foreign nationals who help
    us, we appreciate it, and that you and those under your
    leadership serve in very dangerous places and I think some of
    your biggest fans come from the military itself.
        So, with that, I'll go through the comparison, the 2018
    budget. It's about a 30 percent cut, 26 percent over the 2018
    enacted level, about 30 percent over the fiscal year 2017. I'm
    sure, Mark, you just got your marching orders.
        But with that, do you want to say anything, Senator Durbin?
    Senator Leahy is on the way. When he comes he can make an
    opening statement. So I'll turn it over to Administrator Green.

                      summary statement of hon. mark green

        Mr. Green. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ranking Member Leahy and Members of the subcommittee, thank you
    for this opportunity to summarize my written testimony, which
    you have.
        I would like to begin by welcoming the nomination of
    Director Pompeo. We have had an opportunity to initially
    discuss how development and diplomacy go hand in hand, and I
    look forward to working with him closely should he be
    confirmed.
        In the meantime, as you alluded to, Mr. Chairman, at USAID
    we have urgent work to do. From unprecedented humanitarian
    challenges, to exciting development opportunities, I believe
    our work has never been more important.
        That's certainly been a clear take-away from my travels
    over these last 8 months. I have just returned from Peru and
    the Summit of the Americas. While there, Acting Secretary
    Sullivan and I had an opportunity to meet with courageous pro-
    democracy activists from Cuba. They shared with us that this is
    a critical moment in Cuba's history and urged us to support
    seeds of true liberty and democracy, not only for Cuba, but for
    Venezuela and elsewhere.
        In fact, Mr. Chairman, much of the recent Summit focused on
    Venezuela. The Vice President and I announced $16 million for
    our humanitarian response to the flight of Venezuelans from the
    despotic Maduro regime.
        The displacement of families is unprecedented in Latin
    American history. What makes the tragedy even more painful is
    that it is entirely man-made. It is caused by the regime's
    continued mismanagement and corruption.
        And similar forces are causing humanitarian crisis in
    nearly every corner of the globe. Near famines continue to rage
    in Nigeria, Yemen, Syria and Somalia. Again, all man-made. As I
    know you agree, in order to fully respond to these crises we
    must address their underlying causes.
        Just as we lead the world in humanitarian assistance we
    should also lead in our commitment to democracy, human rights,
    and responsive governance.
        Our fiscal year 2019 request includes funding for our
    democracy and governance programs in Venezuela that support
    civil society, a democratically elected legislature and the
    free flow of information.
        Last month I addressed the U.N. Security Council on the
    humanitarian crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I
    urged the Kabila Government to hold credible and inclusive
    elections by the end of the year. And I'm deeply concerned, as
    I know you are, over the reports of horrific human rights
    abuses in Burma's Northern Rakhine State. I will soon be
    traveling to Burma and Bangladesh myself to assess the
    situation firsthand.
        Members of the subcommittee, I've had a chance to discuss
    with many of you the rising negative influence of Russia and
    China. Many of you have noted a disturbing global trend toward
    repression of basic liberties.
        In response, our fiscal year 2019 request includes targeted
    investments in Europe, and in Eurasia that support democratic
    institutions and civil society while countering the Kremlin's
    influence. We also recognize that China's investments in
    developing countries are rarely aimed at actually helping those
    countries achieve economic independence. Often they come with
    strings attached. We must offer these countries a better
    choice. We should offer to help them on their journey to self-
    reliance, not burden them with unsustainable indebtedness.
        Members of the subcommittee, the fiscal year 2019 request
    for USAID's fully and partially managed accounts is
    approximately $16.8 billion. This represents $1.3 billion more
    than requested last year, including $1 billion for humanitarian
    assistance.
        We acknowledge that this request will not provide enough
    resources to meet every humanitarian need or seize every
    development opportunity. Indeed, no budget in modern times has.
    This request attempts to balance fiscal needs at home with our
    leadership role on the world stage and our work has never been
    more important or dangerous.
        In April alone, we have seen humanitarian workers killed in
    South Sudan and Yemen, simply for trying to ease the suffering
    that pervades both countries. We are committed to taking every
    step to extend the reach and effectiveness of our taxpayer
    resources and to protect our staff and partners.
        We are also committed to working closely with this
    subcommittee to ensure that your ideas are reflected in our
    agency's transformation plan.
        Finally, I would like to say a word about recent published
    reports of sexual abuse and misconduct by aid workers. Like
    you, I am deeply troubled by the allegations. Needless to say,
    exploitation, sexual exploitation violates everything that we
    stand for as an agency. I have met with our partner
    organizations to make absolutely clear that USAID will not
    tolerate sexual harassment or misconduct of any kind. We have
    taken numerous other steps and we will do whatever else it is
    that we need to do. And I assure you that this is an issue that
    I am personally tracking.
        With your support and guidance, we will ensure that USAID
    remains the world's premiere international development agency.
    And with that, thank you for the opportunity to appear and to
    testify and I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Hon. Mark Green
                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the subcommittee, thank
    you for this opportunity to discuss USAID's fiscal year 2019 budget
    request.
        The fiscal year 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
        Since I arrived at USAID in August, 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 those shared 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 have
    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 also 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 fiscal year 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. And in fiscal year
    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 met with people from across these United States. 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 Transformation 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 Transformation 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, 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 5 years. The result was an additional $4 billion in tax
    revenue from 2005 to 2011. By 2017, revenue had increased by 800
    percent. As part of this effort, we helped streamline Georgia's customs
    process and make 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. Pension
    and social-welfare spending increased by 700 percent. Education
    investment grew by 1,700 percent. Their government even introduced a
    crop-insurance program. In other words, through our DRM assistance, we
    helped an important partner accelerate its own journey to self-reliance
    and prosperity.
                     strengthening humanitarian assistance
        In Yemen, 17.8 million people--the largest number in the world--are
    facing severe food insecurity. In January alone, USAID's partner the
    World Food Programme provided critical food assistance to more than 6.8
    million people. In February, after sustained high-level diplomatic
    engagement by the Department of State, USAID-funded mobile cranes
    became operational in Yemen's biggest and most critical port. These
    cranes are cutting the average time it takes to unload ships by as much
    as half, allowing food, medicine, and other necessities to reach people
    in need more quickly.
        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, in February, I 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 services
    from 20 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 fiscal year 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, allowing us to launch a
    competitive and collaborative research and development process rapidly
    to solve a specific challenge. We immediately invited the public to
    submit their ideas for pilot projects that would support the
    resettlement of ethnic and religious minorities in their ancestral
    homes. Within 10 weeks, we reviewed more than 100 submissions, and
    invited those with the best ideas to join us at a co-creation workshop
    in Baghdad earlier this month. Coming out of the workshop, we will fund
    the most promising ideas, and, if the pilots are successful, we will
    consider ways in which they can be scaled up.
        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
    healthcare 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. Last month, 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.
                   transformation: 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.
        We are now working to roll out Agency-wide projects through the
    Transformation process 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 8 months, I and
    others at USAID have met with Congressional Committees and personal
    offices nearly 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.
        Transformation 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.
        To prepare for our work on Transformation, on March 9, Deputy
    Secretary of State John Sullivan wrote to inform me that USAID ``should
    initiate its own hiring processes to accommodate the Agency's staffing
    needs.'' In line with that directive, we have officially lifted our
    hiring freeze. Moving forward, we will use our Hiring and Reassignment
    Review Board to seek to align our workforce-planning with the
    administration's priorities and our plans under the Transformation.
        Another example of efforts we are undertaking through the
    Transformation are the metrics that we are developing. 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 are working on metrics that will serve as
    mileposts to help us understand where our partners are going, and what
    role we might play in their journey.
        These metrics are still a work in progress, and we will continue to
    consult with you as we develop them, but, if we are successful, they
    will make our programing more effective, and our foreign policy
    priorities better informed. The same is true for all of the work that
    is taking place through the Transformation 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 subcommittee, 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.

        Clerk's Note: The USAID Inspector General's statement was
    requested by the subcommittee for inclusion in the hearing.
        [The statement follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Graham. Thank you.
        Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, because of delays I will place
    my statement in the record. I join you in welcoming the
    Administrator.
        I have to remember not to call him Congressman, but instead
    to call him Administrator Green. Both of us have known him a
    long time. I think it's great that he's leading the U.S. Agency
    for International Development. I think there's a lot that has
    to be done to improve the agency's budget request, but we will
    have further discussions on that topic shortly.
        [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
        I join Chairman Graham in welcoming Administrator Green.
        President Trump's fiscal year 2019 budget repeats most of the cuts
    in his budget request last year, which was widely criticized by
    military leaders, foreign policy experts, the international development
    and U.S. business communities, and was overwhelmingly rejected by the
    Congress.
        The President's request for fiscal year 2019 is not the budget the
    United States needs to protect and promote our interests and influence
    abroad. Nor do I believe it provides Administrator Green with the
    resources he needs to effectively carry out USAID's mission.
        In fact, this budget would erode decades of progress, including in
    increasing life expectancy and lifting people out of poverty in
    developing countries, and promoting democratic values and human rights
    around the world.
        During the more than 40 years that I have served in this body,
    there have been times when our Government failed to defend the values
    and rights we stand for.
        But I have also been encouraged by the many positive changes that
    our Government has had a key role in around the world, that have
    contributed to increasingly open societies, greater respect for human
    rights, and greater accountability and transparency in government.
        Unfortunately, those positive trends have been eclipsed by a rise
    in authoritarianism. Freedom House's recent report notes that twice as
    many countries suffered declines in political rights and civil
    liberties last year than those that made gains. This is the twelfth
    consecutive year of decline in global freedom according to their
    report. We see it in the following:

      --We see it in the rise of xenophobia in Europe;
      --In President Erdogan's [AIR DOH ON's] power grab in Turkey;
      --In President al-Sisi's crackdown on civil society and political
            opponents in Egypt;
      --In President Putin's subversion of democracy and his foreign
            policies of aggression;
      --In the jailing of political opponents in Venezuela and Cambodia;
      --In the assassinations of journalists and activists in Mexico,
            Honduras, and many other countries; and
      --In the expansion of China's influence far beyond its borders.

        And what has been the U.S. response? Not a day passes without
    President Trump using social media to vilify the press, undermine the
    independence of our justice system, and slander his opponents.
        While the Obama administration could have done more to counter this
    global trend, President Trump has actively encouraged it by repeatedly
    praising dictators and abdicating our country's traditional role as a
    leader in defense of democratic values, judicial independence, and free
    expression.
        I hope this Committee will stay united, as it was in fiscal year
    2018, in opposing a return to isolationism and the abandonment of our
    country's reputation as a global leader for democratic values. But we
    need support in the executive branch.
        Administrator Green, you are being asked to justify a budget that
    falls far short of what is necessary to address the many challenges we
    face. USAID cannot do everything everywhere, but it must, at the very
    least, fight to sustain the progress we have made and to respond to new
    challenges and opportunities.
        As someone who supports what you are trying to do under difficult
    circumstances, I look forward to hearing how USAID is working to ensure
    that the United States continues to set the example the world expects
    of us.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

        Senator Graham. Well, thank you. Thank you very much, Mark,
    for coming. You are a great choice. I want to compliment the
    President for selecting you. I think you'll do a good job.

                              PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS

        But the numbers don't lie. Compared to the fiscal year 2018
    enacted levels, the fiscal year 2019 budget request cuts 36.2
    percent from economic development assistance. Does that make
    sense to you?
        Mr. Green. Well, I'll say, Mr. Chairman, that I know the
    President had to balance American----
        Senator Graham. That wasn't the question. Does that make
    sense to you having been involved in this arena for a very long
    time?
        Mr. Green. Well, as I said, Mr. Chairman, this will not,
    and we don't pretend it will, meet every humanitarian need.
        Senator Graham. So we cut by 39.6 percent International
    Disaster Assistance. I think you just talked about more need.
    Twenty-three percent cut from the global health program.
    Seventeen point 3 percent cut from operating expenses.
        Do you think you can make it more efficient? Do you think
    you can save money on the operating side?
        Mr. Green. I certainly can.
        Senator Graham. Do you know where the 17.3 percent came
    from? Did anybody ask you, is this a good number on save?
        Mr. Green. No, I was not asked.
        Senator Graham. So somebody made it up. Let's see. Complex
    Crisis Fund, which is vital for the needs of fragile states, we
    cut it 100 percent. We cut 5 percent the USAID's Inspector
    General's budget.
        Regionally, cuts to Economic Development Assistance for
    East Asia and the Pacific, 49.9 percent. Listen to this one,
    Africa, 52.6 percent. Have things gotten better in Africa and I
    just missed it?
        Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, there are great challenges in
    Africa.
        Senator Graham. Okay. So I'm setting the foundation for
    that the people who did these cuts clearly don't know what they
    are talking about. They spent zero time looking at Africa. They
    are just making up numbers to balance the budget. And I support
    them a hundred percent on military funding increases, but I
    just want the subcommittee to know that, as a Republican, I
    believe that soft power, for lack of a better term, is the key
    to winning the war as much as hard power.
        Mark, we are going to give you more money. It's going to be
    closer to last year's numbers and we expect you to do a good
    job with that money.

                             CHALLENGES USAID FACES

        What is your biggest challenge as we go forward when you
    look at the world, can you give us some indication what you
    think the two or three biggest challenges are and how could
    this subcommittee help you meet those challenges?
        Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, great question. I think in an
    overarching way, the most significant challenge that we face is
    the displacement of communities and displacement of people
    around the world. Everywhere we look it seems from what's
    happening----
        Senator Graham. I have been told there are more displaced
    people than any time since World War II.
        Mr. Green. That's what I understand. And in South America
    we now see with Venezuelan migrants the largest out-migration
    in Latin America history.
        Our ability to reach out to those families where we have
    children being born in camps and settlements, provide them with
    basic nutrition, some semblance of education and civic
    education, to me that's a great challenge that we have to meet.
    If we fail to meet it I fear that 10 years from now and 20
    years from now we will be seeing these challenges reoccur.

                                     SYRIA

        Senator Graham. To hold Syria, somebody has to get in on
    the ground and make sure the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria
    (ISIS) doesn't come back, do you agree with that?
        Mr. Green. Well, when you say, ``somebody'', so, as you
    know, Mr. Chairman, we are providing humanitarian assistance
    around the country and we have----
        Senator Graham. So to make sure that ISIS doesn't come back
    in the area that they used to occupy you are going to need not
    only security, you are going to need a police force and army,
    right? Or they will come back. Does that make sense to you?
        Mr. Green. I do believe that----
        Senator Graham. The answer is yes. Okay.
        Yes. But they can't do their job without people like you.
    So there are $210 million that was pledged by our country to
    help reconstruct this area. That money has been taken off the
    table.
        Tell the subcommittee, in your view, how important it is
    for people like yourself, the USAID component, to be present
    when you take an area that has been completely ravaged by
    radical Islam and you are trying to hold it, what are some of
    the functions that need to happen and should we be there on the
    ground?
        Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I was in Raqqa maybe 2 months ago
    and had a chance to see the defined work that we were doing
    there restoring essential services, clean water, basic
    electricity, some meds, some semblance of education and I know
    that our partners in the military, CENTCOM, believed that was
    important work to solidifying victory. We enjoyed the
    opportunity of doing the work because it was, we felt,
    important and the fact that our role was carefully defined was
    also important to me. So that's work that I saw on the ground.
        Senator Graham. Well, I just want to say that the Arab
    coalition, the Arab neighbors need to pay more, the world needs
    to do more. President Trump is right to ask them to do more
    financially and other countries to commit troops. If there's no
    presence, there's no substitute for us on the ground on the
    security side and on the development side.
        So you are the right guy at the right time and I look
    forward to working with you and I appreciate you coming to the
    subcommittee.
        Senator Leahy.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you very much. It is good to see you
    again, Administrator Green. I share many of the same concerns
    as Chairman Graham.

                              PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS

        There is a glaring disconnect between this administration's
    policy documents and its budget. In your testimony you said
    that no budget can meet every need in the world, and nobody is
    going to disagree with that, but that is a false comparison.
        This budget, if enacted, would degrade USAID's ability to
    carry out its mission. We see the growing spread of extremism,
    China's expanding influence, and the scale of human
    displacement and misery today.
        There are also a number of countries, particularly fragile
    states, where USAID has a very small or no presence, while the
    State Department and DoD are making big investments.
        Congress has restored funding from cuts the President
    proposed in fiscal year 2018. Furthermore, it is not a
    legitimate argument to say we cannot support foreign assistance
    because we have domestic needs here at home. Some ask how can
    we spend 20 percent or 30 percent of our budget on foreign aid.
    However, foreign assistance actually accounts for only a
    fraction of 1 percent of the Federal budget, as you know. It's
    not 20 or 30 percent.
        And, if all goes to hell in a hand basket in any number of
    these countries, we are going to spend a great deal more as
    American taxpayers to try to put it back together. We have seen
    this in the Middle East. We have seen it in parts of Africa.

                     RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO BUDGET REQUEST

        So let me ask you this: Are there changes you would
    recommend to the fiscal year 2019 budget request? As you begin
    to implement your reorganization plans, do you need changes to
    the 2019 budget request?
        Mr. Green. We have been briefing the staff of this
    subcommittee, and others, on some of the changes that we are
    looking to make through the redesign process and the Members of
    the subcommittee have been more than helpful in feedback and
    offering ideas and suggestions. I think there are things that
    we can do.
        For example, we are very interested in elevating the role
    of humanitarian assistance and we have talked to your staffs
    about that. Combining Food for Peace and the Office of U.S.
    Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) and elevating it to be led
    by an Associate Administrator. It is a way of ensuring that we
    have a strong hand, the interagency process. So that's
    certainly one thing.
        Secondly, we are strong believers in our domestic resource
    mobilization work and that's something that Members of the
    subcommittee have been very supportive of. We believe it's
    crucial, as we help countries on their journey to self-reliance
    that, A, they have skin in the game. And, B, that we can help
    them build their own capacity in revenue collection and
    budgeting and the transparency that goes along with that.
        That's certainly a change that we think would be helpful.
    But, to be honest, your staff has been very helpful to us in
    the process.
        Senator Leahy. We all agree with helping our partners
    become more self-reliant. But we also have a role.

                                  LOCAL WORKS

        We have also had many very talented USAID administrators
    who wanted to transform how the Agency does business, and USAID
    has a lot of bright, talented, and motivated people who
    continue to achieve good in the world. But you are also
    weighted down by bureaucracy that sometimes lumbers along
    working with large contractors and NGOs in ways that are costly
    and not sustainable, or working with governments that are
    corrupt and unaccountable.
        I created Local Works to target funds in a sustainable way
    at the local level. I did so because despite a lot of rhetoric,
    it was not happening. Small NGOs and contractors could not
    effectively compete for USAID funds. How will your
    reorganization build upon Local Works?
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Senator. I'm a big fan of Local Works
    and the motivation and the philosophy behind it. Our 2017
    funds, 60 percent went to the largest 25 contractors. We want
    to make sure that we continue to reach out, work with small
    partners, indigenous partners, and fresh partners. And so we
    are undertaking a procurement reform as part of the redesign
    effort.
        But, most importantly, the motivations and work of Local
    Works will continue to be a key part of the way we approach our
    work. To me the journey towards self-reliance is building the
    capacity of our partners, not just governing partners, but
    civil society, NGOs, so they can eventually lead this journey
    themselves. And Local Works is certainly a key part of that. We
    think it's a good program and we want to enshrine its
    principles in our redesign effort.

               DIOXIN REMEDIATION IN VIETNAM AND FAMILY PLANNING

        Senator Leahy. I also heard you looked into the Bien Hoa
    Airbase and the dioxin remediation project we are now embarking
    on. The Secretary of Defense agrees with this effort and he's
    worked hard to be supportive.
        I'll close with one final question because time has run
    out. I'll put the rest of my questions in the record.
        I heard that at a recent meeting at the United Nations, a
    senior USAID advisor for gender equality and women's
    empowerment, at an event talking about women's health and child
    mortality, she said the U.S. is a pro-life nation. Is that
    correct? What was the context of that statement?
        Mr. Green. Senator----
        Senator Leahy. Because the administration is requesting
    $302 million for USAID family planning programs in fiscal year
    2019. That's a drop of 50 percent below the fiscal year 2018
    Omnibus level. Is that what she meant, that we are going to
    reduce funding for family planning?
        Mr. Green. First, Senator, I believe you are referencing a
    BuzzFeed article that I've heard about. I wasn't in the
    meeting. I understand that it was an off the record session. So
    I really can't comment on it.
        What I can say is that USAID supports a wide range of
    voluntary family planning methods and the budget request does
    request $302 million for such programs. And so, you know, in
    terms of actions speak louder than words, that's our approach.
        Senator Leahy. Actions speaking louder than words is a cut
    of 50 percent. Which action are you speaking of?
        Mr. Green. Last year no money was requested for these
    programs and this year we have seen $302 million requested.
        And so we do support a wide range of family planning
    methods. We believe that voluntary family planning is an
    important part of maternal health and women's empowerment.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you.
        Senator Graham. Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Administrator Green, thanks for being here.
    I particularly want to thank the Chairman of the subcommittee.
    I want to make sure he hears this, because when I say something
    nice about him, I want him to be tuned in.
        But I want to thank the Chairman of the subcommittee as
    well as the Ranking Member for basically saying we are not
    going to pay a lot of attention to the budget sent to us by the
    administration. We have a job to do. And we are going to do the
    best we can with the resources at our disposal.
        And I thank you for being here. Because as I read your
    background and get to know a little bit more about you I can
    see why you're in this job and I'm glad you are.

                                   VENEZUELA

        So let me give you a challenge. Two or three weeks ago I
    was in Caracas, Venezuela for 4 days. Met with the President
    and spent the whole time trying to get an idea of what was
    happening in that country and it is a disaster. It is an
    economic disaster where the people of Venezuela stand in line,
    each one of them, each day, at ATM machines for an hour to
    withdraw the maximum amount of currency they can take out. The
    maximum amount of currency is equal to 20 cents. They need
    currency to ride the bus to their job back and forth. It is a
    disaster.
        In addition to that, it is a public health disaster. They
    are now facing epidemics in diphtheria, measles and malaria.
    Malnutrition is everywhere. You can see it on the street and
    particularly in the spindly legs and arms of the children that
    are there.
        From the governmental viewpoint it is awful. They are
    banning political parties and candidates and, unfortunately,
    determined to have a sham election on May 20.
        What can we do in the United States to deal with this
    humanitarian crisis where we know a million or more streaming
    out through Colombia if they can.
        Mr. Green. Senator, first, if I may, your remarks the other
    day on the floor, I thought, were very eloquent about the
    overlapping crises that we see facing the Venezuelan people and
    there are about 5,000 per day leaving the country. The system
    has entirely collapsed.
        What we have been doing is to provide some humanitarian
    assistance for Venezuelans who have fled. So in Colombia and
    Brazil in particular. But this is a just a drop in the bucket
    of what needs to happen, needs to occur. I was at the Summit
    and listened to some of the Caribbean nations who are also now
    starting to feel the effects, if you will, of the out-migration
    and it's going to overload their systems as well.
        So we support civil society in Venezuela. The challenge, as
    you know, in trying to provide humanitarian assistance in the
    country is the opposition of the government itself to doing so.
        So at this point, while we are able to provide assistance
    to those who have fled, and continue to support civil society,
    there are many challenges with being able to work there. But it
    is a crisis that is no longer Venezuela's alone. It is
    affecting the entire region and I agree with your prioritizing
    it. Very, very important.

                              WORLD BICYCLE RELIEF

        Senator Durbin. It is a dilemma. Let me ask you, are you
    familiar with a program known as World Bicycle Relief?
        Mr. Green. I am not.
        Senator Durbin. I thought you might have run across it in
    your service in Africa. But it is sponsored by a company in
    Chicago and if you ever----
        Mr. Green. Actually, I have heard of World Bicycle Relief,
    come to think of it.
        Senator Durbin. Well, this SRAM company, which is a leading
    American manufacturer of bicycles, has now distributed 400,000
    bicycles to underdeveloped countries. And I visit this company
    and it just lights me up what they have been able to achieve.
        And I'm going to commend this to all my colleagues here.
    Because we talk about the basics in underdeveloped countries.
    This is a transformative act to give a young girl a bicycle.
    She now can go to school and get back home and the family wants
    her to go to school because they want to keep the bicycle.
        They train mechanics to repair them and it makes a big
    difference in agriculture, in public health, in so many
    different areas. It's a modest investment in mobility. Right
    now we invest in mobility, as we should, for the disabled
    people around the world, a limited investment but we do. But I
    would like to commend to you and USAID to take a look at this.
    We will give you plenty to read. And I hope someday you can
    come to Chicago and meet the people who put it together. It's a
    remarkable program.
        Mr. Green. Senator, that's great. You know, it's
    interesting, I think we often times get caught up in the high
    end and high tech. But what you are talking about is a real
    difference in real families' lives and real opportunities. So I
    think that's great.

                                ROHINGYA CRISIS

        Senator Durbin. I also went to the Rakhine State, I
    understand you are maybe headed there yourself. And Myanmar and
    into Bangladesh----
        Mr. Green. Yes.
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. Taking a look at what's
    happening there and what one of the NGO workers told me, sadly,
    I asked, are the Rohingya the most hated people on earth? He
    said, I'm afraid they are. To be in the midst of a conversation
    with someone from Burma, use the word, Rohingya, and they stop
    you and say there's no such thing as a Rohingya. It is
    something I have never run into in my life.
        And now with a million of them in Bangladesh living in
    basic shelters, what are we doing and what more can we do?
        Mr. Green. Well, first off, Senator, as you point out, I do
    plan on going and eye-balling it and seeing it for myself. I
    have been to Burma before, but before the crisis emerged.
        So, as you know, we are providing humanitarian relief, as
    you might imagine, as we do in both Burma and in Bangladesh.
    Look, we are making it very clear to the government of Burma
    that we demand unfettered access from the outside, for the U.N.
    and others, but it is a deeply, deeply troubling situation.
        The State Department has declared ethnic cleansing at this
    point. They have not gone further. It is under review. But it
    is a very troubling situation. And it clearly is having an
    impact, not just in Burma, not just in Bangladesh, but in Sri
    Lanka and other places.
        And the monsoon season is upon us, which makes it
    particularly dangerous and these poor people are particularly
    vulnerable. And so we are doing what we can working with our
    partners.
        I know that the U.N. Security Council is soon to go there
    itself and is looking to have access to Rakhine State, but it
    is deeply troubling. And, sadly, I have seen data that bears
    out what you are saying in terms of the attitudes towards the
    Rohingya.
        Senator Durbin. They literally have concentration camps. I
    visited one in Sittwe, in Myanmar, where some before 4,000
    Rohingya have been kept behind barbed wire for 5 years. They
    cannot go out. They are guarded by soldiers with guns. It is
    unthinkable in 21st Century, but that is a fact.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Graham. I want to welcome Senator Hyde-Smith to the
    subcommittee and it is your turn.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        And I'm just honored to be here today, just grateful for
    this opportunity to serve on this important subcommittee and I
    look forward to working with everyone.

                INTERNATIONAL FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

        I was at Mississippi State University over the weekend and
    I'd like to take this opportunity to highlight and congratulate
    my good friend Mississippi State President Mark Keenum on his
    recent appointment as Chairman of the Board for International
    Food and Agricultural Development.
        Dr. Keenum has worked diligently throughout his career to
    help enhance global agricultural development and humanitarian
    needs and under his guidance Mississippi State has committed to
    working with the Federal Government and in the private sector
    to solve international problems.
        And I'm confident that this work will continue to serve our
    Nation as well. So I look forward to hearing from you about the
    agency's fiscal year 2019 budget request and, again, honored to
    be here.
        Thank you for allowing me to serve on the subcommittee.
    Appreciate you.
        Mr. Green. Senator, it's an honor to have someone with your
    background also on the subcommittee and as we go through our
    work on food security and food security reform, we look forward
    to working closely with you. And the professor you mentioned is
    a valued member of the Board for International Food and
    Agricultural Development (BIFAD), an important part of our
    work.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you.
        Senator Graham. Senator Shaheen.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
    very much, Administrator Green, for being here and for the work
    that you and everyone at USAID does on a daily basis. It is
    much appreciated.
        And I will echo the comments of Senator Durbin about
    Senators Graham and Leahy's leadership on this subcommittee and
    the commitment to support those budget for USAID that will
    further our humanitarian and development efforts around the
    world.

                                FAMILY PLANNING

        I want to ask you about the question that was raised by
    Senator Leahy relative to the comments during the annual United
    Nations Commission on the Status of Women in March. And I know
    you said you haven't read that BuzzFeed article. And I would
    urge you to read it because I think the comments there were
    outrageous.
        One of the representatives, Valerie Huber, from the
    Department of Health and Human Services, spoke of trying to get
    women to make better choices in the future, which is she was
    talking about the idea that women make bad sexual choices and
    that what happens to them is their fault.
        Before joining HHS, she was the president of Ascend, an
    association that promotes abstinence until marriage is the best
    way to prevent teen pregnancy. And she has been involved in
    stripping funding from HHS's teen pregnancy prevention program.
        Now, I think this is significant, because one of the things
    we know now is that we have the lowest teen pregnancy rate ever
    in United States history because we have provided access for
    young women and men to family planning and to health care. And
    I just want to point out, notwithstanding what you had to say
    about support for family planning--for family and women's
    programs, that a recent analysis by the Guttmacher Institute
    found that for each decrease of $10 million in U.S. funding
    416,000 fewer women and girls around the world have access to
    the full range of family planning services.
        A 124,000 more women and girls carry unintended pregnancies
    resulting in 54,000 more unplanned births. Fifty-three thousand
    more abortions would take place and 240 more maternal deaths
    would occur.
        The consequences of our outmoded policies with respect to
    how we treat women and girls and the importance of access to
    family planning information is just really seems to be
    something that this administration is unaware of.
        I would hope that we are making decisions about how to
    support women and girls around the world based on scientific
    information, not based on someone's outmoded ideas about what
    works and what doesn't work. So I wonder if you can tell me
    what we are doing to address support for women and families and
    girls around the world when it comes to access to information
    about family planning.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Senator.
        As I mentioned in my testimony, this budget request, fiscal
    year 2019 request does include $302 million for voluntary
    family planning programs with linkages to programs involving
    AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. And, of course, as you know, we
    continue to be the largest donor when it comes to maternal
    health, and women's health in the world and those are programs
    that are very important to us.
        With the protecting life and global health assistance
    policies in place, we feel that these monies will go forward
    and can be well spent and we will make sure that we get sound
    information out there to women around the world where we are
    working.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I appreciate that. And I would
    hope that anyone who believes we should be reducing abortions
    in the world would understand the connection between access to
    that kind of information and a lower rate of abortions and a
    lower rate of number of women who die in childbirth and number
    of babies who die because they are born in an unplanned
    pregnancy. So this is--that policy is pro-life as far as I'm
    concerned.

                        RUSSIA, UKRAINE, AND THE BALKANS

        Can I ask you about Russia and Ukraine? Because USAID is a
    key partner in executing U.S. programs to help our allies on
    Russia's periphery and, particularly, in Ukraine and the
    western Balkans and other European nations that are vulnerable
    to Russia's influence. Can you talk a little bit about what we
    are doing in some of those countries?
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Senator.
        And they are closely linked in my opinion. I am often asked
    about the best way to push back on Kremlin influence and my
    answer is success on its borders.
        So helping Ukraine and the Balkans to continue to succeed,
    Ukraine and its plans to fully integrate in the Euro-Atlantic
    Alliance. In Ukraine we are helping to do capacity building and
    governance. I had a chance to meet with the head of Ukraine's
    National Bank last week as part of the World Bank meetings.
        And we are helping to strengthen their capacity, increase
    transparency and accountability. We think that's obviously very
    important.
        The key thing in the Balkans and in the Ukraine is
    strengthening their capacity and their tools in the fight
    against corruption. In my opinion, as much support as we all
    have for that part of the world for Ukraine and the Balkans,
    the window is narrow.
        They need to take on corruption. We will walk at their
    side, help them with tools and capacity building. But they need
    to make tough choices and they need strong leadership that is
    willing to be accountable and transparent to their people.
        As strong as the exuberant protestors were at the
    Euromaidan for change, if these countries don't take on
    corruption, they will see a similar exuberance and protests
    antigovernment. So it's in their interest and certainly as
    friends and supporters of a democratic Balkans and Ukraine,
    it's in our interest to help them in that journey.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Graham. Senator Lankford.
        Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mark, it's good
    to see you again. Let me talk through a couple of things we
    need to be able to cover. I appreciate what you are doing to be
    able to take some of these things on.

                       CENTRAL AMERICA/NORTHERN TRIANGLE

        In the last appropriations bill, we included language that
    was Central America, in particular the Northern Triangle;
    Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador setting 3, 5 and 10 years
    benchmarks for success. The focus there was we don't just spend
    money and say, look, we spend money, we don't just say, here
    are the program names that we have, but actually asking the
    question how are we measuring success and how are we partnering
    with the local governments to be able to accomplish this.
        And that, in the Northern Triangle area in specific, it's
    dealing with areas of corruption, it's dealing with economic
    development there, it's dealing with drug trafficking and
    trying to reduce the flow. The basic things that are not only
    are national security issues, but also are important to them as
    well.
        How are you going to implement this 3, 5 year, 10 year
    metrics plan to be able to start putting this into place and
    how does that compliment what you are doing worldwide to be
    able to set metrics for what you are doing?
        Mr. Green. Thanks, Senator. And I did enjoy our
    conversation very much because I think we think in similar
    terms. We should not measure our dedication by how much money
    we put in, but instead the results that we get. And those
    results should include an honest analysis of each country's
    capacity and commitment.
        If a partner country doesn't have skin in the game and they
    aren't willing to make tough choices, all the money in the
    world isn't going to get us very far. So as we develop our
    metrics, the journey to self-reliance metrics as we call them,
    we are trying to analyze both commitment and capacity. And then
    what we hope to do is align our investments in those terms.
        Specifically with respect to the Northern Triangle, I've
    had a chance to see some of our programs firsthand. I've had a
    chance to see some of our citizens' security programs in which
    we work with local mayors and police chiefs to create safe
    places for families and to enhance their tools to fight back
    against gangs and crime in particular.
        And the numbers are quite striking. We have seen a drop in
    out-migration. We have seen an improvement by most crime
    measures. So the investments are paying off. And it's something
    that's in their interest and certainly in our interest as well.
    So we support them very much.
        I'll go a little bit south of that to Peru, but I think
    there's some linkages. One of the things I did in the margins
    of the Summit of the Americas was go to take a look at some of
    our eradication and alternative livelihoods programs. And so we
    went into the jungles in Peru and, first off, I had the chance
    to actually pull out coca plants, which was an interesting
    experience in and of itself.
        I watched was how we are encouraging farmers to plant
    alternative crops; cacao, chocolate, and coffee. And also
    helping to build the capacity of local communities to create
    opportunities, educational, and economic for their young
    people. And it's a very successful program by a number of
    measures. In those places where we do both the eradication and
    the economic livelihoods, we have seen a reduction of something
    like 90 percent.
        More significantly, I think, in some ways is the program
    that we have in Peru. While a few years ago it was almost
    entirely U.S. funded, we are now the minority funder. It's two-
    thirds funded by the government of Peru, which is the right
    answer as we show them these programs work and build out their
    capacity, they are taking over the funding side of it, which is
    also a great measure of success. And that is very much in line
    with the kinds of programming we'd like to do in Central
    America and elsewhere.
        Senator Lankford. Okay. I would encourage you to continue
    to be able to press that worldwide. Those are metrics that are
    harder to be able to think through at the beginning and it
    always lends towards evaluation at the end, but it helps
    everyone and it certainly shows to the American people we
    didn't just have a title and a name and a dollar that we
    committed, but here's the result of that from that aid.

                     PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

        Let me switch continents with you for a moment. The issue
    about Palestinian-Israeli peace has been a longstanding issue,
    obviously 70 years at this point.
        One of the areas that we have not engaged in a lot is
    economic activity between Israelis and Palestinians where that
    is already occurring. As you know, there are multiple business
    ventures that are joint business ventures where there are
    Israelis and Palestinians working together. The Judea Samaria
    Chamber of Commerce, for instance, and multiple other areas
    where there is cooperation.
        Are there ways that we can continue to be able to partner
    where we see success happening rather than trying to create
    something and say, let's try this? To be able to find areas
    that's already working and be able to help encourage that and
    it's already functioning?
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Senator.
        We have programs that we are supporting that facilitate
    cooperation and inclusion in the areas of information
    technology, agriculture, sports and arts, civic education. I'd
    like to follow-up with you and talk more specifically about
    business creation, small business creation and building on some
    of the natural entrepreneurship that is there.
        I agree with you that those sorts of programs break down a
    lot of barriers, break down a lot of stereotypes and obviously
    link people by their common interest, their pocketbook.
        Senator Lankford. Right.
        Mr. Green. So I think they are sound programs.
        Senator Lankford. There are a lot of people here that think
    that Palestinians and Israelis are always separate and they
    never, ever talk to each other. When you actually go there and
    you meet them and they are in a shop working right next to each
    other every single day in a manufacturing location or a sales
    or whatever it may be and you find there is a lot of business
    cooperation.
        There have been some rails that have been put around the
    U.S. Government for a long time to say well we would only
    engage in that. My concern is we need to be able to bless what
    is actually working and creating more cooperation, rather than
    continue to assume that there is division.
        I'll follow up with you in the days ahead. I want to talk
    more about that and then also about how DoD and USAID in the
    same areas work together to be able to cooperate together,
    rather than compete and be able to continue to build that
    cooperation together.
        Thank you.
        Senator Graham. Senator Coons.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Graham.
        And thank you, Administrator Green, for testifying today
    and for your continued service to our Nation over so many years
    and so many roles. I think you have made a genuine contribution
    to our country and to the world.
        Although you did not craft it, I just have to begin by
    saying it is deeply frustrating to me that yet again the Trump
    administration has ignored the will of Congress and submitted a
    budget request nearly identical to last year's request which
    was rejected robustly through a bipartisan and bicameral effort
    by Congress. Proposed cuts overall of more than 30 percent and
    in some accounts 50 percent or even a 100 percent threaten to
    reverse bipartisan progress on development and diplomacy,
    weaken our global standing and threaten our national security.
        I am grateful to Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Leahy,
    to Paul Grove and Tim Rieser of this subcommittee for their
    determined and bipartisan work to reverse these proposed cuts
    and to instead find solid footing with which we can move
    forward. So I will continue to work with my colleagues to
    support a bipartisan and robust development and diplomacy
    budget, which I think is critical for our international
    leadership and to meet the complex and multiple crises, Mr.
    Administrator, which you have already spoken to.

                              DRIVERS OF EXTREMISM

        A record number of displaced people around the world, a
    record number of man-made conflicts, a lot of fragile states
    and a lot of just appalling humanitarian crises.
        So I want to speak about a specific area of the world and
    my concern about overreliance on security assistance and
    military operations in fragile contexts, coupled with these
    proposed significant or even devastating cuts to democracy and
    development programs that address the root causes of extremism.
        As I think you know, I just returned from leading a
    bipartisan Congressional delegation to Niger, Burkina Faso,
    South Africa and Zimbabwe. On October 4 of last year four U.S.
    soldiers were killed in Niger, which may have been the first
    time most Americans were conscious that we have hundreds of
    troops in Niger.
        But we are also doing important development work and work
    to support multi-party democracy in both Niger and Burkina
    Faso.
        Now, what do you think are the real drivers of extremism in
    the Sahel and how do you think the President's proposed budget
    for USAID and the State Department will either succeed or fail
    in addressing these root causes?
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Senator.
        With respect to the Sahel, I think there are a number of
    drivers of extremism. This is an area that is prone to acute,
    climatic shocks as we've known. Recurring drought has been a
    challenge. Weak governance has been a challenge.
        What we have started to do at USAID and with the inter-
    agencies is begin to take a new look at how we might approach
    the Sahel. So step number one that we have undertaken is to map
    out where we do have existing programs. We have programs,
    particularly in the area of global health, in many parts of the
    region and some of our food security programs.
        We have also had conversations, just last week, with our
    French counterparts. The French have a deep interest and long
    history in much of the Sahel. So we are exploring ways to work
    with them so that we don't duplicate, but can complement each
    other's work. Because I think our interests are largely
    aligned.
        And the same thing is true, in conversations that we have
    had with the United Kingdom's Department for International
    Development (DFID). We had a strategic dialogue with DFID not
    so long ago. But I think we are looking at programs, regional
    programs that promote economic growth, that build the capacity
    of local governments.
        But also going country by country and doing a deep dive
    analysis of what those drivers of extremism are. As you and I
    have talked about before, they are often localized factors. And
    so we want to take a smart, careful approach and try to address
    those head on.
        Senator Coons. Thank you. Let me just ask one more
    question, if I might, in the 2 minutes I have left.
        Mr. Green. Sure.

                              G5 SAHEL JOINT FORCE

        Senator Coons. To bear down on that just a little bit more,
    given the significant increase in terrorist activity,
    particularly in Burkina Faso and Niger, but over the last 5
    years in Mali as well, the administration pledged $60 million
    to support a five-country G5 Sahel ``joint force'' initiative
    on top of other security assistance, and a number of our other
    security partners you just referenced are also going to be
    engaged.
        What plans do you have for the development side of the G5
    Sahel initiative and how do we better coordinate between the
    defense side and the diplomacy and the development side,
    particularly in countries where I think the key towards making
    progress is sustaining fragile democracies and sustaining
    development progress, particularly in the north of these
    countries that tend to be isolated from the majority south of
    these countries?
        Mr. Green. I think we need to take on, as you point to,
    questions of governance, particularly youth engagement in
    governance. In many of these countries the youth bulge is
    significant. The median age is young.
        Young people see a lack of economic opportunity, but just
    as importantly, a disillusionment with governing structures and
    so I think part of the approach that we need to take is helping
    governments to engage with and listen to young people. We also
    are trying to address some of the recurring costs of climate
    shocks.
        So in a place like Ethiopia, for example, we have seen a
    lot of success in building the resilience of communities to
    withstand recurring drought. Same sorts of challenges are
    appearing throughout the region. That's an area where we are
    seeking to foster our work and strengthen it. And then, of
    course, as we have been talking about, strengthening the area
    of global health as well.
        Senator Coons. Well, I will just close by saying, I think
    there are good development stories in the region. I was struck
    that Burtina Faso has made a greater path of progress towards
    reducing HIV/AIDS prevalence than any other country on the
    continent and is sharing the burden with the United States.
        MCC Millennium Challenge Compacts have had real, positive
    impacts in these two countries and we continue to have, as you
    mentioned, both public health and power partnerships, as well
    as development partnerships with now democratically-elected
    presidents of both countries. My hope is that we will have a
    tightly articulated, developed diplomacy and development
    component to this as well as the defense side to it.
        Thank you for your testimony and for your work. And I very
    much look forward to working with Chairman Graham in making
    sure we are investing these funds wisely this coming year.
    Thank you.
        Senator Graham. Senator Van Hollen.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Administrator Green, as I told you when we met, I'm
    pleased to see you in this position. We served together in the
    House and you made our country proud when you were Ambassador
    to Tanzania. So I'm glad to see you at the helm here.
        I do want to second the comments made by both the Chairman
    and the Ranking Member that the proposed budget for AID and the
    State Department is irresponsible. It represents a total
    retreat from American leadership in many parts of the world, in
    fact all parts of the world.

                                     SYRIA

        And I do want to ask you about the situation in Syria,
    especially in Raqqa. United States air power combined with the
    Syrian democratic forces lead primarily by the Syrian Kurds
    spent a lot of treasure and lives liberating Raqqa, did we not?
        Mr. Green. Yes.
        Senator Van Hollen. We did. And would you agree that now
    that we have succeeded in liberating Raqqa we have some
    responsibility to help stabilize the situation in Raqqa?
        Mr. Green. What I can say, Senator, is that the role that
    USAID has been playing in the stabilization front, we think,
    has been a constructive role.
        Senator Van Hollen. All right. Well, let me say it's
    important to win the war and we are still fighting, as the
    Chairman said. There's a real possibility that if we don't
    start winning the peace, at least in the place that used to be
    the capital before ISIS, that the militants will come back and
    we will lose in the long run.
        I was very disturbed to see a major piece in the Washington
    Post recently. Headline, How American Neglect Imperils the
    Victory over ISIS. I don't know if you had a chance to see
    that. Did you?
        Mr. Green. I have not.
        [The article follows:]

                   [From the Washington Post, April 19, 2018]

    _______________________________________________________________________

     DESTRUCTION OF RAQQA: HOW AMERICAN NEGLECT IMPERILS THE VICTORY OVER
                                      ISIS

    Six months after the militants' capital was liberated, new
    risks are emerging from Raqqa's rubble.

                           Story by Tamer El-Ghobashy

                            Photos by Alice Martins
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Every 3 or 4 days, Fatima Mahmoud hitchhikes 37 miles across a
    hilly expanse of northeastern Syria to her home town of Raqqa. She
    comes to visit her husband's final resting place, beneath a large mound
    of concrete that once was their home.
        She knows he is still there because of the unmistakable odor of his
    corpse.
        Mahmoud digs through the rubble with her hands, seeking artifacts
    of her life with him and anything of value she can sell to pay for food
    and her temporary shelter elsewhere in the province.
        ``My city has been liberated, but I can't live in it,'' she said,
    her face collapsing into sobs.

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Six months after U.S.-allied forces backed by American airstrikes
    evicted the Islamic State from its self-proclaimed capital, Raqqa is a
    city sown with rubble, explosives and an uneasy mixture of despair and
    determination to rebuild.
        It is easier to count the buildings that are still standing than
    the ones that have been reduced to shattered concrete and twisted
    reinforced steel. Once home to about 400,000 people, many in high-rise
    apartments, Raqqa has become nearly unrecognizable to those who try to
    return and navigate its streets. Public squares are hidden underneath
    debris, and the tallest residential towers are mere rubble.
        The city has no running water or electricity, and there aren't
    enough public employees to defuse the hundreds of explosives planted by
    the militants as they desperately clung to the city. People often
    encounter human remains as they take stock of what's left of homes and
    businesses.
        The destruction of Raqqa and its slow recovery are contributing to
    a growing sentiment here that the United States wrecked the city but is
    unwilling to take responsibility for putting it back together.
        More than 11,000 buildings in Raqqa were destroyed, severely
    damaged or moderately damaged between February and October 2017, during
    months of U.S.-led airstrikes.

                                 FEBRUARY 2017

    Analysis
    extent
    Source: UNOSAT

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                  OCTOBER 2017

    Analysis
    extent
    Source: UNOSAT

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Trump administration has signaled its waning interest in
    Syria's future, with the President urging this month that U.S. troops
    be withdrawn as soon as possible. After U.S.-led airstrikes against
    Syria this month in retaliation for an alleged poison-gas attack,
    American concerns seem largely limited to the issue of chemical
    weapons.
        In late March, the White House called for a freeze on spending for
    stabilization in areas of Syria where American forces helped evict the
    Islamic State, putting on hold about $200 million pledged for the
    effort. State Department officials are scrambling to figure out which
    of their programs in northeastern Syria would be affected, said a
    senior American official who was not authorized to speak publicly about
    the issue.
        ``We continually review and reevaluate our international
    assistance,'' said Stewart Wight, a State Department spokesman. ``We
    continue to encourage our international partners to share the burden of
    providing stabilization assistance in liberated areas of Syria, as many
    U.S. allies already are.''
        Local officials warn that the U.S. objective of ridding Syria of
    the militants is being undermined by a lack of engagement in how Raqqa
    is rebuilt and governed, making it possible for another insurgency to
    emerge. And they caution that local frustration could open the door for
    the Syrian Government to return and fill the void, benefiting President
    Bashar al-Assad's main backers--Russia and Iran--and weakening American
    influence in the region.
        ``Was this devastation and death worth it?'' asked a 66-year-old
    man who lost seven family members to airstrikes. ``The more I break my
    back to rebuild, the more I think it wasn't. We suffered under [the
    Islamic State], but we're suffering more from this American
    liberation.''
        The man, a longtime restaurateur who declined to give his name
    because he was speaking critically of the city's new authorities, said
    he had already sold all the family's gold and borrowed heavily to
    rebuild his home and business. As he mixed cement outside the remains
    of his restaurant, he noted that as long as he kept his beard at the
    right length and didn't smoke in public, Islamic State militants had
    left him alone.
        The war against ISIS nearly leveled this city. Months later, crews
    are still digging bodies out.
        The Post's Tamer El-Ghobashy visited Raqqa, Syria, several months
    after U.S.-backed forces ousted Islamic State militants from their
    self-proclaimed capital. (Tamer El-Ghobashy, Joyce Lee/The Washington
    Post)
        As a launchpad for Islamic State attacks in the West, Raqqa until
    recently was practically an obsession for the United States and Europe.
    Today, the city's residents and caretakers fear they are being
    abandoned as the world's attention shifts.
        The U.S.-backed Kurdish authorities who control Raqqa are now
    focused on an escalating conflict with Turkey along Syria's northern
    border. U.S. forces are preoccupied with defeating the remaining
    pockets of Islamic State forces farther to the east along the Iraqi
    border. And the United Nations and international relief groups have put
    a priority on addressing the horrific violence in the suburbs of
    Damascus, where the Syrian Government has recaptured the long-contested
    Eastern Ghouta enclave, site of the alleged chemical attack.
        U.S. officials involved in stabilization efforts in Raqqa say work
    to restore basic services and strengthen local government is in motion
    but faces unique obstacles. Syria's central government objects to the
    activities of the Pentagon and State Department in territory beyond the
    regime's control, and that presents a host of problems that have slowed
    the delivery of aid.
        Much of the responsibility for Raqqa now falls to its 29-year-old
    acting mayor, Ahmed Ibrahim.
        The Islamic State, he recalled, ``was extremely organized,
    extremely responsive when it came to governing. This puts us under
    tremendous pressure. We have to do better than them. This is our
    challenge: How do we convince our public that we are better?''
        Dressed in a checkered, hooded lumberjack shirt that emphasized his
    youth, Ibrahim reflected on that task in his third-floor office in the
    former postal headquarters, which serves as a makeshift city hall. The
    large windows give him a panoramic view of the nearly wholesale
    destruction of the city.
        ``There is a huge risk of failing,'' he said.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The view from the mayor's office in Raqqa shows heavily damaged
         buildings and resurgent traffic as civilians return to begin
                                reconstruction.

    `More and more bodies'

        U.S. commanders have described the battle for Raqqa last year as
    some of the most intense urban combat since World War II.
        Unlike in the earlier assault on Mosul, the Islamic State's premier
    city in Iraq, U.S. forces in Syria were not fighting in support of
    allied government troops. Instead, the U.S. military set up the Syrian
    Democratic Forces as a proxy ground force. The 50,000-strong SDF was
    led by Syrian Kurdish commanders atop a rank-and-file force of Arabs
    from northeastern Syria.
        With mostly U.S. air power overhead and U.S. Special Operations
    troops embedded on the ground, the SDF launched the ground campaign in
    June. It took until October for the city to be cleared of militants.
        According to Airwars, an independent research group that tracks
    American and Russian airstrikes in Syria, U.S. aircraft and artillery
    bombarded Raqqa with an estimated 20,000 munitions during the 5-month
    operation--more than in Afghanistan during all of last year and more on
    average per month than in Mosul, a much larger city whose capture took
    nearly twice as long.
        The U.S. military has been investigating dozens of claims of
    civilian casualties in Raqqa that were caused by airstrikes and
    artillery fire and so far has confirmed 24 deaths. An Airwars analysis
    puts the number closer to 1,400.
        The Pentagon has repeatedly said that the Islamic State purposely
    put civilians in the line of fire and often tried to draw American fire
    on heavily populated areas, resulting in unintended civilian
    casualties.
        Raqqa's civil defense unit, a team of 37 firefighters and other
    first responders, has recovered more than 300 bodies since the end of
    the campaign, the vast majority of which they believe to be
    noncombatants. There are currently 6,000 open reports of human remains
    in rubble.
        ``People want to settle back into their neighborhoods and begin to
    rebuild,'' said Yasser al-Khamis, the civil defense chief. ``But
    everywhere we go, people are reporting more and more bodies.''

     A young boy watches as members of Raqqa's civil defense force place a
                           decomposed body in a bag.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                 Raqqa civil defense workers carry a body bag.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      Civil defense workers in Raqqa unload bodies from a truck at their
    headquarters on March 8. On that day, they retrieved 11 bodies from the
                      rubble, eight of them unidentified.

    Not the help they needed

        On a recent afternoon at their bullet-pocked headquarters, Khamis
    and his team were visited by bushy-bearded U.S. Special Forces
    soldiers. About 10 of them spilled out of several armored Toyota Land
    Cruisers wearing tactical vests with rifles slung over their shoulders.
    They had come to deliver good news: They would be providing two brand-
    new ambulances in a couple of days.
        Khamis's men were unimpressed. They told the Americans they didn't
    need ambulances; they needed firetrucks, heavy construction equipment
    to move rubble, and power tools to pry bodies out of the contorted
    wreckage.
        A Special Forces soldier with a ``Make Army Baseball Great Again''
    cap said he understood the challenges, but added that they had only six
    ambulances to distribute across a large swath of Syria that the United
    States is essentially administering, reaching from Raqqa in the north
    to Deir al-Zour in the south.
        ``That's all we have for now. I'm sorry,'' he told the rescuers.
    ``We're doing our best, and we thank you for the important work you
    do.''
        As he spoke, a small pickup truck arrived hauling a dozen white
    body bags containing freshly recovered remains of airstrike victims. As
    family members gathered to try to identify their kin, the Special
    Forces soldiers got into their vehicles and left hastily.
        The al-Issa brothers glared at the American convoy. They had just
    looked into two body bags, identifying their father, Hussein, 66, and
    mother, Jamila, 55, by shards of distinctive clothing stuck to the
    nearly skeletal remains.
        One of the brothers launched into an angry commentary about
    American airstrikes.
        Amar al-Issa, 36, told him to shut up, that it wasn't the time for
    politics.
        The bodies had been retrieved from the wreckage of their apartment,
    destroyed in an Aug. 15 airstrike. Another brother, Mohammed, 20, was
    still missing in the rubble. Their sister Nahla, 21, was thrown into
    the street by the blast and died immediately, Amar said.
        ``Daesh had a financial office on the ground floor and my family
    lived above it,'' Amar said, using the Arabic acronym for the Islamic
    State. ``I don't know why the Americans needed a bomb to hit a
    financial office.''
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      Salim al-Hussein, 56, gestures as he describes what happened to his
       home, which he found destroyed upon returning to Raqqa after the
              military operation to oust Islamic State militants.

    A key political operator

        Through the U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington
    has delivered an estimated $60 million across northeastern Syria for
    stabilization efforts, defined as mine clearance, rubble removal,
    repair of essential services such as water and electricity systems, and
    the reopening of schools.
        A small group of State Department officials is in Raqqa, but they
    cannot move easily because of security and diplomatic concerns,
    officials said. So U.S. Special Forces soldiers act as liaisons between
    U.S. officials and the Raqqa Civil Council, made up of Syrian Kurds and
    Arabs.
        The most recognizable member of that council has been Omar Alloush,
    an avuncular man with gray hair and a round face that belie his record
    as an energetic political operator. He has been a senior council member
    responsible for coordinating with outside agencies and governments.
        Asked in an interview what the United States has done to restore
    Raqqa since fighting ended in October, Alloush broke off speaking
    Kurdish and said in English, ``Nothing,'' underlining the word with his
    fingers.

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       Omar Alloush, a member of the Raqqa Civil Council responsible for
    coordinating with outside governments, warned that U.S. inaction could
     leave an opening for the Syrian regime. ``The people will choose the
     person that will fix their house for them,'' he said. (Alice Martins/
                            For The Washington Post)

        ``Well, practically nothing,'' he said, revising himself.
        Alloush complained that American funds were slow to arrive and that
    projects proposed by USAID, such as repainting curbs, were out of step
    with local needs.
        ``I told them, give me pavements first, then we'll worry about the
    curbs,'' he said. ``If we're not able to convince people in Raqqa that
    we are helping them, we are in big trouble.''
        Alloush warned that the longer the rehabilitation of the city
    takes, the greater the opening for Assad to return. ``The people will
    choose the person that will fix their house for them,'' he said.
        Few figures in northeastern Syria have been as well acquainted with
    the power politics of the country. An independent thinker, Alloush
    sought in recent months to engage with the Syrian Government in
    addition to his backers at the Pentagon and the State Department.
        But in a dramatic setback to efforts at reviving Raqqa, Alloush was
    found shot to death in his home, days after his interview with a Post
    reporter.
        SDF officials are investigating his slaying but have not identified
    any suspects.

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Graffiti marks a building that has been cleared of unexploded ordnance
    in Raqqa. Most of the city is strewn with ordnance left by U.S.-allied
     forces and improvised explosive devices left by fleeing Islamic State
                                   militants.

    Risking a people's trust

        Mohammed Obeid has 16 heavy construction vehicles at his disposal
    to clear streets of detritus and eventually begin repairing water
    networks and electricity and sewage lines. A field director of the
    Early Recovery Team, a private group of Syrians funded by USAID, Obeid
    said the work had moved at a quick pace in the immediate aftermath of
    the battle.
        But lately, he said, the efforts have slowed because he must submit
    proposals to USAID for each project and wait for approval.
        The White House suspension of stabilization aid will have an
    immediate impact on operations to clear mines and explosives, the
    senior U.S. official said. De-mining buildings and streets is
    considered essential before other services can be restored and is
    particularly costly. ``If that stops, a lot of other stuff stops,'' the
    official said.
        Melissa Dalton, a Syria expert with the Center for Strategic and
    International Studies who accompanied American military and diplomatic
    officials on a trip to Raqqa in January, said the Islamic State or a
    similar militant group could take advantage if conditions do not
    improve.
        ``Any sort of goodwill on the part of the local people of Raqqa for
    the SDF and more broadly the U.S. and its allies in clearing ISIS out
    of these areas could dwindle over the next few months if there isn't a
    translation into real change,'' she said, using an acronym for the
    Islamic State.
        There is also a danger that the Kurdish authorities who took
    control of Raqqa with U.S. backing may not be fully engaged in the
    mammoth task of rebuilding the largely Arab city. As Jaafar Ahmed, a
    senior Kurdish military police official, explained, the Kurds' top
    priority at the moment is not Raqqa but rather resisting the push by
    Turkey and allied Syrian militias to oust Kurdish forces from northern
    border areas.
        People like Mahmoud, the widow whose husband's remains are still
    buried in the rubble of their home, are in the meantime feeling alone.
        Like many in Raqqa, Mahmoud lived a fairly prosperous life under
    Islamic State occupation as long as she did not run afoul of the
    group's rules. Her husband's auto-trading business provided for the
    family.
        The battle to liberate the city upended that life. Mahmoud and her
    four adult daughters paid a smuggler $2,000 to help them escape the
    city. Her husband, Abdelaziz, had promised to follow but was caught by
    Islamic State militants and forced to stay behind.
        Mahmoud doesn't know how she will survive.
        ``I've already sold all my jewelry and my daughters' jewelry,'' she
    said. ``I have nothing. I need help.''

        Senator Van Hollen. I recommend it to all the Members of
    the subcommittee. Subheading, 6 months after the militant's
    capital was liberated new risks are emerging from Raqqa's
    rubble. And the reporter talked to a lot of people on the
    ground and the take away was, and I quote, the destruction of
    Raqqa and its slow recovery are contributing to a growing
    sentiment here that the United States wrecked the city but is
    unwilling to take responsibility for putting it back together.
    And he quotes a lot of local leaders.
        Now, I know you were in Raqqa in January; is that right?
        Mr. Green. Yes. January, February.

                        STABILIZATION ASSISTANCE REVIEW

        Senator Van Hollen. January, February. Now, my
    understanding, and tell me if this has changed, that in March
    the White House called for a freeze on spending for
    stabilization areas of Syria where American forces helped evict
    the Islamic State that we put on hold $200 million pledged for
    the effort and that State Department officials are scrambling
    to figure out which of their programs in northeastern Syria
    would be affected.
        Are you familiar with the freeze?
        Mr. Green. Well, Senator, right now the administration is
    undergoing a review on stabilization assistance with respect to
    Syria, but it's important to realize this does not affect
    humanitarian assistance. We continue to provide humanitarian
    assistance in every region in the country and not only for the
    4 million Syrians inside the country, but 5\1/2\ million
    Syrians outside the country. And so we are continuing to work
    throughout the country on the humanitarian side.
        Senator Van Hollen. All right. I would just urge you,
    because to the Chairman's earlier comments, they are quoting a
    lot of leaders on the ground in Raqqa and the comment they make
    with respect to U.S. aid is it's been, the first one was it's
    been virtually invisible. And the second comment, well, barely
    visible.
        And I really worry that if we do not engage there after
    succeeding with the liberation phase that the militants would
    come back. Now, of course, our success was due to our air
    power, but also to our allies, the Syrian Democratic Forces
    lead by the Syrian Kurds, right?
        Mr. Green. I can't speak to the military operations that
    are there. I can tell you that we have had a close partnership
    with CENTCOM and the boots on the ground and our work has been
    confined to, on the stabilization side, the area in and around
    Raqqa.

                                     TURKEY

        Senator Van Hollen. I would just say while you were there,
    I believe, Turkey was engaged in offensive operations against
    the Kurds in freeing a different part of Syria, right?
        Mr. Green. That's true.
        Senator Van Hollen. Is your assessment that the Turkish
    role today is helping our efforts or hindering our efforts?
        Mr. Green. I can't speak to the military consequences. I
    can say it's a very complicated situation.
        Senator Van Hollen. Has it hindered your efforts in
    providing relief?
        Mr. Green. On the humanitarian side, we provide
    humanitarian assistance on the basis of need. So we provide
    assistance throughout the country, but certainly any time the
    security situation is uncertain, that makes it more difficult
    to do our work.
        Senator Van Hollen. I think the reality is that Turkish
    actions have essentially required the Syrian Kurds to focus on
    defending themselves from the Turks instead of finishing the
    job against ISIS and getting about the job of rebuilding there.
    And I hope this subcommittee will look carefully at that.

                   REFUGEES AND INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS

        Let me ask you about refugees and internally displaced
    peoples. Because, as you know, under this administration, we
    dramatically reduced the number of refugees admitted to the
    United States, even though the U.N. Refugee Agency estimates
    there are about 65 million people that have been made refugees
    around the world.
        We talked about that yesterday. And you expressed concern,
    which I share, that you've got millions of people who are
    festering in camps around the world, including lots of kids.
    Half of these refugees are kids.
        Now, what we have heard from the administration is, well,
    we want to focus on internally displaced people and keep them
    in those countries, which is a goal I share. My question to you
    is, how do we further that goal by cutting by $700 million the
    AID budget that's focused on internally displaced people?
        Mr. Green. Senator, as you might imagine, part of what we
    need to do is ask others to do more and I think other countries
    are doing more. We are seeing Japan, Germany, South Korea
    increasing their contributions.
        I think we also have to--I have to do a better job of
    making our dollars go farther and our programs as effective as
    they can possibly be.
        Senator Van Hollen. So you are okay if we cut the
    internally displaced budget at AID by $700 million?
        Mr. Green. Well, Senator, as I said, my job is to make this
    money go as far as it possibly can and as effective as it
    possibly can.
        Senator Van Hollen. I understand we want to stretch every
    dollar to its full potential.
        But, Mr. Chairman, I agree with your statements that
    cutting this account by $700 million, along with the others, is
    a real retreat.
        Senator Graham. Let me ask you this, if we gave you more
    money do you think you could use it wisely? The answer is yes.
        Mr. Green. Every dollar that you provide I will squeeze and
    make it go as far as it possibly can to serve our interests.
        Senator Graham. I appreciate efficiency. But it's
    ridiculous to cut these accounts this much given the threats we
    face.
        Senator Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        Thank you, Administrator Green. Good to have you here.

                                ROHINGYA CRISIS

        I wanted to explore a little bit the situation in Burma and
    Bangladesh with the Rohingya. As you're well aware 700,000
    refugees in Bangladesh. Bangladesh deserves accolades for
    having opened their border. But everybody is in a tight spot
    now.
        One idea is to, that they are pursuing pretty actively in
    Bangladesh, is to put 100,000 people on an island and say you
    basically you can't leave, it will be patrolled. Will that be--
    is that an appropriate strategy?
        Mr. Green. Senator, you know I'll be heading into the
    district myself. And I look forward to meeting with Bangladeshi
    officials to learn more about the challenges that they face,
    but clearly, as you are pointing to, they need assistance to
    help meet the costs and demands of the Rohingya population that
    is there and we certainly have been supportive.
        But we are deeply concerned, as you are, about the plight
    of the Rohingya, both certainly in Burma, but also in
    Bangladesh.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. And I think it's important that
    America has put in a $180 million in 2017, 2018 which has been
    enormously helpful. And I'm glad you're going because it's
    really a difficult problem to solve. The sandy Cox's Bazar
    hills that they are on right now are going to be a complete
    mess as the monsoon hits. We have been working with other
    groups to administer kits to make the homes, the shelters
    stronger. But still a big challenge.
        And, meanwhile, the idea of repatriation is extremely
    difficult. In part, the military in Burma wants no part of it.
    Other ethnic groups that have been led in hatred against the
    Rohingya want no part of it. So safety for return is extremely
    difficult.
        It's going to involve international organizations having to
    be intimately involved. Is the U.S. pushing for the refugees to
    be able to return to their same villages, rebuild those same
    villages and get the protection of a government that, so far,
    has been unwilling to provide such protection?
        Mr. Green. Senator, I won't get out ahead of the State
    Department. But I think what you have seen consistently from
    both the State Department and USAID is that we support the
    voluntary, safe return of Rohingya to Burma and demand that the
    conditions be safe before they do return.
        Senator Merkley. I think everyone has concluded this will
    not happen without an extremely coordinated international
    response.
        When is our own President going to speak to the issue of
    this ethnic cleansing and bring the world together to help
    address it?
        Mr. Green. Well, I think the administration has been clear
    that we have concluded this does constitute ethnic cleansing.
        Senator Merkley. I'm asking when is our President going to
    speak to it. We have never had one word from him on this topic.
        Mr. Green. I can't speak as to what the President has said.
    I'm not aware of whether or not he has commented on the topic.
        Senator Merkley. Well, I'll make you aware then. Since you
    are not aware. That disappoints me that you are not aware
    because everyone in the State Department is aware that our
    President has not weighed in on this and that it's a huge
    missing factor.
        And that it's not just weighing in, it's rallying the world
    to address it. And I would just request, as I've asked other
    folks, please weigh in with the President to take a stand on
    this and help lead the world. This is not going to resolve
    itself and maybe after you've come back and have studied the
    situation that would be a good time to be able to brief the
    President, encourage him to take a new initiative on this.
        Mr. Green. In fairness, Secretary Tillerson has visited
    Burma. I think we have seen strong statements at the U.N. and I
    think the State Department has been very clear, again, its
    conclusion is that this constitutes ethnic cleansing. I plan on
    going myself and certainly will come back and brief the
    interagency.
        Senator Merkley. Great.
        Mr. Green. Look forward to meeting with you and to----
        Senator Merkley. And you have probably seen the reports by
    Nicholas Kristof, who went into that area. But the leader of
    Burma invited the world to come and see. And a group, five
    Members of Congress, went to see and then were denied access.
        Nicholas Kristof, from the New York Times, got in through
    subterfuge. But I hope maybe you can get permission to visit
    inside Burma these areas.
        This is what Nikki Haley had to say: Even before the
    violence started, malnutrition was a serious problem in Rakhine
    State but now there are reports from Rohingya that the
    military's actions are leading to a campaign of purposeful
    starvation forcing more families out of the country. Homes are
    being looted.
        Farmers are being denied the ability to harvest their
    crops. Girls and women are being abducted into sexual slavery.
        I'm glad that our Ambassador of the U.N. has spoken out.
    Again, it's such a horrific situation that it's important that
    the U.S. rally the world to respond.
        We all had a lot of respect for Aung San Suu Kyi in the
    past. But now she needs, really, the clarity of the world that
    this is unacceptable and it's going to take U.S. leadership.
        So I wanted to turn to the food budget. I'll echo the point
    my colleagues have made. I just returned from northern Africa
    on a four famines tour. I was only able to get two of the
    famines, plus refugee camps in Kenya, and internally displaced
    persons [IDPs] and slash refugee camps in Eastern Congo. Twenty
    million people at risk of dying.
        Are the numbers you are presenting us today your best
    judgment or are these OMB numbers on Food for Peace, zeroing
    out this program?
        Mr. Green. Senator, as I've said, we don't pretend that
    this budget will meet every single need that's out there. It's
    an effort by the administration to balance needs here at home
    with American leadership overseas.
        Again, we recognize that this does not either seize every
    development opportunity or meet every humanitarian
    consideration.
        Senator Merkley. Would you like to see this subcommittee
    give additional aid beyond the President's budget?
        Mr. Green. Well, Senator, as I've said, my obligation is to
    make sure our programs are as effective as they possibly can
    be, produce the outcomes that this subcommittee wants to see
    and that's my obligation to all of you.

               FOOD AID AND THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO

        Senator Merkley. North of Goma, the Kitchanga camp, eastern
    edge of the Congo, it's the rape capital of the world. When I
    went in by helicopter, and you have to have U.N. blue helmet
    troops providing security because there are gangs rampaging
    through Eastern Congo through the villages, a ton of young men
    being abducted into the--these--into these gangs after their
    families are slaughtered.
        As I was there, there was a major distribution of food and
    they said they are doing this every month. And when I really
    pushed them, they hadn't done it in February, because they
    didn't have enough food. They hadn't done it in January,
    because there hadn't been enough food.
        Maybe if we could get a Member of Congress to go every
    month there would be monthly distributions of food. My point is
    that food was American food. That food was Public Law 480 food.
    Zeroing out that budget means putting millions of people at
    risk of starvation and I hope that we can work with you so that
    doesn't happen.
        Mr. Green. Senator, as you know, the International Disaster
    Assistance (IDA) account is a way that we can provide food
    assistance. But, again, I readily admit that this will not meet
    every need that is out there and we don't pretend that it will.
        But what you are pointing to in the Democratic Republic of
    the Congo (DRC), to me the great tragedy of the DRC is the fact
    that this is a country, very much like Venezuela, that should
    be a donor. That should be a country, because of its vast
    natural resources, it should be assisting others and yet
    because of poor governance, bad leadership, authoritarian
    leadership and human rights violations, it is what it is. And
    it's a terrible blight on the world in so many ways.
        Senator Merkley. Your point is taken. The government is
    really a vast criminal enterprise. Hard to change but we are
    pressing for elections. And, hopefully, that will give a new
    opportunity for someone to be elected who shares the desires of
    the people.

                                    SOMALIA

        I was impressed, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to mention that I
    was impressed by the new President of Somalia, who is a dual
    citizen with the U.S., who is a technocrat who seems completely
    engaged in the day-to-day challenges of taking on the issues.
        And if I can indulge--can I indulge in one more minute? I
    know I'm over time.
        Senator Graham. Go ahead.
        Senator Merkley. One of the issues that we saw, that I saw
    on this trip in Somalia was Somalia has lost 80 percent of its
    forest in the last 30 years. And as I talked with the new
    President about this, he also noted that it's causing a
    microclimate problem. That is, the evaporation from the missing
    forest was the evaporation that provided additional rains. And
    so without the forest it's accentuating the climate chaos.
        What was the term you used? Climate shocks, the climate
    shocks. He also noted that the reason the forest is
    disappearing is because of the sale of charcoal, cutting down
    the forest for the sale of charcoal. This is funding al-
    Shabaab. It's also funding everybody else who can make money
    off this.
        The ability to provide an alternative strategy for cooking
    fires could be a very significant factor in cutting off funding
    for al-Shabaab and cutting, slowing or stopping the
    deforestation. And this seems right up USAID's alley. They did
    have a significant program in cook stoves, efficient cook
    stoves. I think that ran its course and was retired. But I
    wanted to encourage you to take another look at it. But also to
    brainstorm more widely about how we could completely substitute
    some other strategy from cutting down trees for fuel and
    charcoal.
        Going to get trees, by the way, for the village, also
    submitting them when they leave the camps, they are submitted
    to a daily risk of assault. That is an additional piece of that
    fuel heating problem that could be addressed if there was an
    alternative strategy.
        Mr. Green. Senator, as you and I spoke briefly, in my days
    as ambassador I got a chance to see some of the USAID supported
    alternatives to charcoal programs that are out there. Jane
    Goodall, in fact, is a partner in Tanzania. We look to replace
    the weed trees that are often planted to provide the charcoal
    with revenue-producing coffee trees and other trees that do
    less damage to the soil.
        I also agree with you that Somalia is a country and a
    government that is starting to make some progress. And so I
    think we have in the government there a better partner in some
    ways. It's a young government. But I was impressed in the
    meeting that I had with the government's representatives last
    year.
        And so we are hopeful that as their capacity grows we will
    be able to partner with them in more areas to provide some
    opportunities in the areas that have now been liberated from
    al-Shabaab.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Graham. Appreciate, Senator Merkley, you traveling
    and all the Members of this subcommittee that try to get
    informed about the world. It's hard to do it here. Have to get
    out and about.
        Regarding the Rohingya crisis, the subcommittee provided
    resources for investigation and documentation of abuse against
    the Rohingya in the fiscal year 2018 bill. I look forward to
    that report.
        Thanks again to Mark for coming, you were very helpful. I
    appreciate your service to our country. You're the right guy at
    the right time.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        If there are any questions for the record they need to be
    submitted no later than this Friday, April 27, 2:00 p.m. I ask
    that USAID submit testimony on their fiscal year 2019 request
    which will be made part of the record.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Agency for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                     Questions Submitted to Hon. Mark Green
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lindsay Graham
        Question. The Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related
    Programs Appropriations Act, 2018 (division K of Public Law 115-141)
    provided robust funding for USAID to restart hiring.
        What is the status of the hiring freeze at USAID? Has it been fully
    rescinded, and is USAID moving forward with respect to external hires?
        Answer. In March 2018, the U.S. Agency for International
    Development (USAID) transitioned from Secretary Tillerson's hiring
    freeze to a new strategic hiring approach that aligns our workforce-
    planning with the administration's foreign-policy and budgetary
    priorities. USAID manages its workforce strategically through the
    Hiring and Reassignment Review Board (HRRB) to accommodate the Agency's
    staffing needs, including 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.
        Question. The Fiscal Year 2018 Act directed both the Department of
    State and USAID to maintain personnel levels at not less than the end
    of 2017 level. Does USAID plan to comply with this directive?
        Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is
    complying with the requirements provided in the Fiscal Year 2018
    Appropriations Act. By closely tracking onboard and attrition levels,
    USAID's Hiring and Reassignment Review Board (HRRB) prioritizes hiring
    consistent with our appropriated levels of funding and hiring needs.
    The HRRB has already approved external hiring to maintain our numbers
    of Foreign Service and Civil Service employees consistent with the
    December 2017 personnel levels, funding, and needs.
        Question. USAID has budgeted for approximately 1,650 FSOs in fiscal
    year 2019, not including Foreign Service Limited appointments
    (temporary hire). The Fiscal Year 2018 Act provided OE for at least
    1,757 FSOs in fiscal year 2018. What is USAID doing to ensure the USAID
    hires to, and maintains, the 1,757 Foreign Service personnel required
    by the Act? As USAID is a Foreign Service and national security agency,
    SFOPS is not interested in short-term hiring mechanisms but growing a
    workforce of trained FSOs to execute the USAID mission and support
    USAID's role in promoting U.S. national security.
        Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is
    committed to strengthening our workforce, including the recruitment of
    new career Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) with the necessary skills to
    advance our mission. USAID has initiated the hiring process for
    bringing on a new cadre of 21 career candidate FSOs and two FSO
    reappointments in Calendar Year 2018. Based on the critical needs of
    the Agency, USAID is reviewing a roster of applicants to determine the
    makeup of a class of career candidates that will help strengthen the
    expertise across our FSO workforce.
        Question. What are the baseline personnel levels (including the
    intended mix of Foreign Service, Civil Service, and Foreign Service
    Limited positions) around which USAID is planning to execute its
    development mission in fiscal year 2019 and beyond?
        Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
    relies on its comprehensive workforce-planning to identify our
    anticipated personnel needs in fiscal year 2019 for Foreign Service,
    Civil Service, and Foreign Service Limited (FSL) positions. At present,
    the Agency plans to hire to attrition and maintain the onboard levels
    as of December 31, 2017. At that time, we had 1,973 Foreign Service
    Officers (which includes 199 FSL employees) and 1,394 Civil Service
    paid for by both Program Funds and Operating Expenses (OE). Within this
    total, the Agency used OE to fund 1,757 Foreign Service Offices, 44 FSL
    appointments, and 1,302 Civil Servants. The Agency is committed to
    sustaining and supporting a strong career workforce in both the Foreign
    Service and Civil Service at the available, appropriated levels. If
    warranted to meet critical staffing needs, USAID will deploy all the
    available hiring authorities, including hiring up to the statutory cap
    of $93 million and up to 175 additional FSL hires per year .
        Question. USAID's comparative advantages are the Agency's FSOs in
    host nations who build relationships with the national, sub-national
    and local governments in which they serve. Given USAID's focus on self-
    reliance and traditional role of getting countries to sustainability,
    how does USAID intend to achieve the buy-in from other nations to take
    on their own `development' and end reliance on foreign assistance if
    key specialties, such as Crisis, Stabilization, and Governance Officers
    (Backstop 76), are not being recruited to create the very structures
    and institutions, laws and policies that enable countries to achieve
    sustainability or self-reliance?
        Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is
    committed to helping partner countries on their own development journey
    to self-reliance, by looking at ways to help lift lives, build
    communities, and establish self-sufficiency. Our Foreign Service
    Officers (FSO) and Foreign Service National (FSN) colleagues are
    instrumental in advancing our mission. USAID will continue to hire FSOs
    who have the necessary skills to help our counterparts in civil society
    and national, subnational, and local governments achieve our shared
    goals for development and self-reliance. As part of our comprehensive
    workforce-planning, the Agency's Hiring and Reassignment Review Board
    (HRRB) will prioritize the necessary skills. We seek to anticipate gaps
    in our core competencies, and regularly assess priority areas for
    hiring, including by identifying key FSO specialties for targeted
    recruitment. In addition, as part of comprehensive workforce-planning,
    we will make sure that we are recruiting, retaining, and empowering our
    FSNs, who provide crucial expertise and institutional memory in so many
    Missions around the world.
        Question. USAID recently went through a very thorough examination
    and vetting of 94 FSOs last year. What is the status of those hires,
    several of whom are veterans?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2018, the U.S. Agency for International
    Development (USAID) intends to make career candidate Foreign Service
    Officer (FSO) employment offers to applicants, including veterans, who
    were evaluated and vetted in previous years. Based on the critical
    needs of the Agency and the appropriated levels of funding, USAID
    reviews our roster of applicants to determine the makeup of a career
    candidate class that will help strengthen the expertise across our FSO
    workforce. The Agency has initiated the hiring process for a new cadre
    of 21 career candidate FSOs in addition to two FSO reappointments, and
    will always seek to hire the necessary career staff within our
    appropriated levels of funding, hiring needs, and national-security
    priorities.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator John Boozman
        Question. Administrator Green, in your testimony you referenced,
    ``the consolidation of small grants function and expertise into
    USAID.'' In the President's budget request, he recommended the closure
    of the Inter-American Foundation and the African Development
    Foundation, among others, and that their functions be consolidated
    within USAID. These independent agencies were specifically created by
    Congress to provide a level of flexibility and responsiveness via
    grants that are much smaller than the average USAID grant. Would the
    closure of agencies like these not represent a reduction in U.S.
    capabilities abroad?
        Answer. To improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and alignment of
    the U.S. Government's international development efforts, the
    administration proposes integrating the Inter-American Foundation (IAF)
    and African Development Foundation (USADF) into the U.S. Agency for
    International Development (USAID). The consolidation of the small-
    grants functions currently undertaken by IAF and USADF would take place
    over a 2-year transition period, which would allow for a proper merger
    of their staff and skills into USAID.
        USAID would use the existing expertise, capacity, and tools that
    USADF and IAF provide, including their regional and market-segment
    emphasis and grant-making expertise as the Agency seeks to diversify
    its partner base and invest in more local organizations. Ensuring that
    the core principles of IAF and USADF remain intact is critical to this
    proposal. Specifically, USAID would ensure these small-grant tools
    provide continuity with the current portfolios and branding of IAF and
    USADF, while working to integrate them into our operations and
    practices.
        Question. Administrator Green, you have said, ``. . . [W]e'll work
    relentlessly to ensure that we deliver assistance in the most
    effective, efficient manner possible--meeting their needs and also
    building resilience against future crises.'' As we pass a year into
    USAID's redesign, how do you ensure any such structural changes will
    strengthen humanitarian assistance? How will the reorganization at the
    agency enable it to better respond to, and prevent, today's greatest
    humanitarian challenges?
        Answer. The proposed merging of the Offices of U.S. Foreign
    Disaster Assistance (OFDA) and Food for Peace (FFP) into a new Bureau
    would eliminate the artificial distinction between food and non-food
    humanitarian assistance, create a strong platform for the humanitarian
    leadership and policy voice of the U.S. Agency for International
    Development (USAID), and optimize resources towards on effective and
    fully accountable humanitarian programs and leadership. It would
    enhance the provision of the full spectrum of humanitarian-assistance
    activities to include prevention, mitigation and the reduction of
    disaster risks, which thereby enable communities to recover from, and
    respond to, emergencies on their own, and over time reduce the need for
    humanitarian assistance, particularly in areas of recurrent crises.
    Additionally, by combining, and therefore optimizing, resources, the
    proposed new Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance would significantly
    increase USAID's operational capabilities for managing supply chains,
    procurement, and logistics, and mobilizing our rapid, field-based
    response platforms.
        The new Bureau for Resilience and Food Security (RFS) would elevate
    the agency's focus on building resilience to recurrent humanitarian
    crisis. Data show resilience programs can reduce the need for
    humanitarian assistance in regions subject to recurrent crises and
    better equip communities and countries to manage shocks like drought
    when they do occur. RFS would strengthen linkages among investments in
    resilience, agriculture, nutrition, and water and sanitation to
    accelerate and protect development gains.
        Both Bureaus would reside in the same ``family'' under a new
    Associate Administrator. These proposed redesign actions will harmonize
    and elevate USAID's ability to present and respond to humanitarian
    crisis.
        Question. Mr. Green, as you know and have said, our foreign
    assistance funds are precious as they come from ``hard-working families
    all across this great country.'' We are hearing that USAID continues to
    experience staffing challenges as well as unusual program and funding
    delays. How is USAID ensuring that the funds appropriated by Congress
    are moving quickly to the missions to help deliver assistance to those
    in need?
        Answer. I agree that it is critical that U.S. Agency for
    International Development (USAID) Missions have timely access to the
    resources they need to carry out our critical work on the ground, and
    to help advance the foreign-policy objectives of the United States. The
    Secretary of State and I are deeply committed to ensuring that our
    internal processes for allocating and obligating funding are as
    efficient as possible. We will continue to work together to identify
    opportunities to improve the timeliness of our awards, while ensuring
    our compliance with applicable Congressional procedures and other legal
    requirements.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Steve Daines
        Question. As you have referenced before and notwithstanding natural
    disasters and unforeseeable contingencies, the goal of foreign aid
    should be to assist countries in attaining the humanitarian and
    institutional conditions under which aid is no longer required. One of
    the ways to map a country's progress toward assistance independence is
    through Country Development Cooperation Strategies.
        Does each Country Development Cooperation Strategy include a plan
    to transition the country to independence from USAID assistance?
        What are the conditions under which a country would no longer be an
    eligible contender to receive U.S. assistance?
        Are there any countries receiving U.S. assistance now where
    independence from U.S. aid is within the five-year horizon?
        Answer. Yes, in conformance with Section 7018 of the Fiscal Year
    2016 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
    Appropriations Act, every U.S. Agency for International Development
    (USAID) Country Development Cooperation Strategy drafted after January
    1, 2016, includes a section on planning for a transition away from U.S.
    assistance.
        Nevertheless, USAID is moving beyond that requirement to re-define
    all of our partnerships around the concept of ``self-reliance,'' that
    is, the ability of a country to plan, finance, and implement solutions
    to solve its own development challenges. For some countries, self-
    reliance remains far in the future, while for others, it is somewhat
    closer. USAID is beginning to explore how best to assess a country's
    level of self-reliance, with the aim of redefining our partnerships at
    the individual country level so we are sure we are doing the best we
    can to support an individual country to strengthen its self-reliance
    and work towards that day when assistance is no longer required.
        A country that is highly self-reliant--that is, one that is able to
    plan, finance, and implement solutions to solve its own development
    challenges--would be one where we would want to think hard about the
    nature of the partnerships we fund, and assess if traditional foreign
    assistance still makes the most sense. We will impose no hard-and-fast
    rule to determine whether a country is an appropriate recipient for
    receiving traditional development assistance. By developing an
    objective set of quantitative metrics and combining these with informed
    country-level analyses and interagency discussions, we expect to be
    able to assess each country's level of self-reliance, and subsequently
    determine whether a traditional assistance approach still makes sense
    for countries in which self-reliance is high. In such cases, this will
    likely imply changing the nature of our relationship with these
    countries over time. We would reflect these changes in our staffing and
    resource levels, and in the types of programming we fund, but rather
    than simply exiting a country, we would seek to design a way for the
    our relationship to continue in a different form.
        At this point, we are still developing our approach for measuring
    self-reliance. Once we are able to do so, the next step will be to
    formulate an approach to identify what level of self-reliance is
    appropriate for considering whether or not a traditional assistance
    partnership still makes sense, and the process for identifying what the
    most effective type of new partnership might look like.
        Question. I just recently returned from leading a congressional
    delegation to China where the long term strategic challenges and
    opportunities that country presents to the United States is very clear.
    USAID is currently engaged in Vietnam, the Philippines, and elsewhere
    in Southeast Asia. What role can USAID play in countering China's
    influence in the region?
        Answer. U.S. assistance supports a path to greater self-reliance so
    people across Asia are better-equipped to determine their own futures
    and improve their lives. With the Chinese increasingly exerting their
    influence, it is important to remain engaged and help countries access
    private foreign investment without falling into the debt-trap that is
    one of the hallmarks of the Chinese development-assistance model. Our
    work in citizen-responsible governance, which emphasizes transparency,
    accountability, and anti-corruption; our efforts to bolster trade and
    investment to accelerate inclusive growth; and our emphasis on
    environmentally and socially responsible development contribute to a
    strong foundation for host countries' self-reliance and resilience.
    Specifically, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
    provides assistance to our partner countries that helps build their
    capacity to create the enabling environment to attract, and increase
    returns on, private investments in infrastructure. This includes
    addressing the binding constraints to investments such as a weak
    regulatory environments and rule of law, constrained fiscal space,
    corruption, and inadequate human capacity, to give countries choices
    vis-a-vis China, which tends to provide loans that create unsustainable
    debt for recipient countries. USAID will also continue our support for
    activities that strengthen regional bodies such as the Association of
    Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Asia-Pacific Economic
    Cooperation Forum (APEC) to contribute to this balanced approach to
    development.
        Question. An entire generation of Syrian children are at risk of
    losing their lives to conflict, malnutrition, and lack of education. If
    not handled properly, the environment in the region could increase the
    population of susceptible to recruitment by ISIS or other terrorist
    organizations. We know that the future legacy of Syria as a nation--as
    with any nation--depends on the education and protection of our
    children. What is being done to ensure humanitarian assistance intended
    for displaced populations in Syria reaches its target?
        Answer. Diversion is never an acceptable cost of doing business.
    The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) takes the loss,
    diversion, and theft of assistance--no matter the modality--very
    seriously. In increasingly non-permissive environments, such as Syria,
    USAID has developed approaches that enable us to reduce the risk of
    diversion.
        For example, USAID uses a variety of approaches to verify aid is
    reaching its intended beneficiaries, including third-party monitoring,
    geo-tagged photos and videos of distributions, and feedback hotlines
    for beneficiaries. We also work closely with our implementing partners
    and other donors, and cooperate with USAID's Inspector General to
    identify risks and take steps to mitigate the potential for the theft
    or diversion of U.S. taxpayer dollars. USAID also uses a third-party
    monitoring mechanism to increase our oversight of humanitarian-
    assistance programs inside Syria. This enables the Agency to verify
    activities independently and confirm that assistance reaches the
    intended individuals. USAID is in constant communication with our
    partners to ensure our programs are reaching intended beneficiaries,
    and we remain flexible in case we need to modify our methods or
    activities to minimize safety and security concerns or the risk of
    diversion.
        Question. From your perspective, what is the most effective way to
    invest American taxpayer dollars to ensure that there is not a ``lost
    generation'' in Syria?
        Answer. The Syrian conflict is the largest and most-complex
    humanitarian emergency of our time, and is driving record levels of
    displacement. More than 11 million people are displaced within Syria,
    or have fled to neighboring countries as refugees, and 13.1 million
    people in Syria--more than 80 percent of the current population--are in
    need of humanitarian assistance. The emergence of the Islamic State of
    Iraq and Syria (ISIS) exacerbated an already-protracted crisis in
    Syria, caused by the Assad regime's unrelenting campaign of bloodshed
    and violence against its own people for more than 7 years.
        The United States is the leading donor of humanitarian assistance
    for the Syria response, having provided nearly $8.1 billion in aid
    throughout Syria and the region since the start of the crisis. This
    assistance is reaching 5 million Syrians every month, including four
    million people across all 14 Governorates inside Syria.
        One of the most-effective ways to invest American taxpayer dollars
    to avoid a ``lost generation'' in Syria is to facilitate humanitarian
    and educational programming. USAID and the Bureau of Population,
    Refugees, and Migration at the U.S. Department of State (State/PRM)
    both fund the multi-stakeholder ``No Lost Generation'' initiative,
    spearheaded by the United Nations Children's Fund, to help displaced
    children inside Syria and throughout the region access quality
    education, and to provide counseling, psychological support, and
    protection from violence and abuse. The U.S. Government funds
    humanitarian protection programs that provide learning and recreational
    opportunities for children in Syria and neighboring, refugee-hosting
    countries and case-management, referral services, and safe spaces for
    women and girls, including the survivors of gender-based violence.
    State/PRM funds child-protection and education programs for Syrian
    refugee children, which help them to enroll and stay in school instead
    of working or marrying early, and strengthens national and community-
    based systems to protect children.
        Additionally, the U.S. Government finances education in communities
    throughout the region that host refugees. In Jordan, for example, USAID
    funded the enrollment of 126,097 Syrian children in formal education,
    and 1,262 previously out-of-school students in a ``catch-up'' program.
    USAID also established and equipped 28 non-formal education centers for
    out-of-school Jordanian and Syrian youth. USAID funds early-grade
    reading and math instruction through teacher guides and training,
    community reading groups, and social-media competitions to encourage
    parents and teachers to read to children.
        In Lebanon, USAID programs improve the quality of, and access to,
    basic education to improve reading outcomes for Lebanese and Syrian
    students by providing educational materials, classroom libraries and
    equipment, and teacher-training. USAID has also covered public-school
    fees to allow for the enrollment of 160,225 vulnerable students,
    including Syrian refugee children, and helped 17,000 vulnerable
    students with remedial and homework-support activities.
        Inside Syria, USAID funds the refurbishment of facilities,
    training, workshops, capacity-building for community-based
    organizations, and assessments. The Department of State has established
    child centers throughout Raqqa to provide psychosocial support and
    remedial literacy and numeracy to vulnerable children; is working with
    grassroots organizations and the Raqqa Civil Council Education
    Committee to provide light rehabilitation to schools; provides
    psychosocial-support training to teachers; builds the capacity of
    education committees and local education providers; and conducts
    educational surveys to understand the academic needs of refugee
    children with more precision.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
        Question. I know your job is to defend the administration's budget,
    but putting that aside, given China's expanding influence, the spread
    of extremism, and the scale of human displacement and misery today, how
    can we be sure that USAID is meeting these challenges as effectively as
    possible?
        Answer. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2019
    provides the necessary resources to advance peace and security, expand
    American influence, and address global crises, while making efficient
    use of taxpayer resources. For example, the budget includes significant
    support to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other
    transnational terrorist and criminal groups, advance global health, and
    provide humanitarian assistance. The budget also promotes the
    advancement of more stable, resilient, and democratic societies that
    are self-reliant, lead their own development, and contribute to a more
    secure and prosperous world, a priority for the U.S. Agency for
    International Development (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 shared objectives.
        Our Transformation also aims to increase the effectiveness of
    USAID's programs. For example, the new Self-Reliance Metrics will help
    ensure our partnerships are supporting a country to move along in its
    journey toward the day when foreign assistance will no longer be
    necessary. For some countries, that journey could take decades; for
    others, it could take place sooner. In either case, through our focus
    on self-reliance, we will have a much clearer perspective on what
    investments we must make to create the right partnership models in the
    right places at the right time.
        With regard to Asia, USAID focuses on fostering inclusive and
    equitable growth, promoting and strengthening democratic institutions,
    and improving resilience and the management of natural resources.
    Across all of our work, we prioritize building local ownership,
    engaging private enterprise, and mobilizing additional resources from
    domestic and international sources. By helping people in the region be
    better-equipped to determine their own futures and improve their own
    lives, we are helping them deal with China's expanding influence, while
    addressing poverty and the threat of violent extremism. We can help the
    countries of Asia access foreign investment without falling into the
    debt-trap, which is one of the hallmarks of the Chinese assistance
    model. Our work on citizen-responsive governance, which promotes
    transparency, accountability, and anti-corruption; our efforts to
    bolster trade and private investment to accelerate inclusive growth;
    and our emphasis on environmentally and socially responsible
    development, are equally as important, because they contribute to a
    strong foundation for host countries' self-reliance and resilience.
    USAID will continue our support for activities that strengthen regional
    bodies, such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and
    the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum (APEC), to contribute to
    this balanced approach to development.
        USAID is committed to promoting and strengthening the underpinnings
    of democracy in Asia, including judicial, legislative, civil-society,
    and independent media institutions. We focus on improving political
    processes, the rule of law, respect for human rights, and promoting
    social inclusion and tolerance----measures that help prevent extremism,
    political violence, discrimination, and other drivers of conflict. For
    example, in Indonesia we are helping increase the resilience of key
    institutions and segments of society against the rise of violent
    extremism. In the Philippines, we are assisting local governments and
    host communities in Mindanao to expand services to meet the needs of
    persons internally displaced by last year's siege of the city of
    Marawi.
        The President's budget request for fiscal year 2019 supports our
    continued efforts to help Pacific island nations tap into expanded
    pools of international financing for projects that will strengthen
    their preparedness against natural disasters. These investments reduce
    the cost of future disaster-relief throughout the Pacific islands,
    including in the three Freely Associated States. In Papua New Guinea,
    USAID has enhanced the national government's ability to tap into new
    financing for projects that strengthen the country's environmental
    resilience. We are also helping prepare businesses across the Pacific
    island countries with planning to maintain the continuity of their
    operations during and after a natural disaster.
        If Asia is to realize its full potential, much depends on the
    development journey it charts today. USAID plays a vital role in
    working with people across Asia to ensure the development decisions
    they make will help achieve the region's long-term success by moving
    them forward on their journeys to self-reliance.
        Question. Now that Congress has enacted a fiscal year 2018
    appropriations bill that provides substantial funding for USAID, do you
    intend to review USAID's global presence to determine where additional
    staffing and programs may be appropriate? What if any changes do you
    anticipate making?
        Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
    greatly appreciates Congress' generous support for our programs and
    operations. Yes, we will review our global presence to determine where
    might need to make changes to our staffing and programs. USAID
    regularly assesses our overseas programming and staffing levels to
    ensure we are adapting to changing circumstances, deploying our staff
    optimally, and addressing administration and Congressional priorities.
        USAID is committed to strengthening our workforce, including
    through the recruitment of new career Foreign Service Officers (FSOs),
    civil servants, and other employees with the necessary skills to
    advance our mission. USAID has initiated the hiring process to bring on
    a new cadre of 30 career candidate FSOs in fiscal year 2018. Based on
    the critical needs of the Agency, USAID is reviewing a roster of
    applicants to determine the markup of a career candidate class that
    will help strengthen the expertise across our FSO workforce. The Agency
    always seeks to hire the necessary career staff within our appropriated
    levels of funding, hiring needs, and national-security priorities.
        Question. USAID's new Mission Statement calls for the promotion of
    democratic values abroad. How will your reorganization and your vision
    for ``ending the need for foreign assistance'' respond to this?
        Answer. The ultimate goal of the U.S. Agency for International
    Development (USAID) is to work towards the day when development
    assistance is no longer necessary. To achieve this vision, one of the
    primary purposes of our ongoing Transformation is to reorient our
    strategies and programs towards the kinds of interventions that can
    create the conditions whereby our partner countries can plan, resource,
    and implement solutions to their own development challenges. My team at
    USAID and I agree that the promotion of democratic values abroad is a
    critical priority, and that the promotion of democracy, respect for
    human rights, and good governance are key foundations for the journey
    to self-reliance. This vision prioritizes programs that, at their core,
    incentivize the promotion of democratic values, including citizen-
    responsive governance and economic reforms and support for the enabling
    environment and systems needed to increase domestic revenue and private
    investment, while ensuring governments expend resources transparently
    to support locally sustained, inclusive development.
        We all know that democracy, human rights, and governance (DRG)
    underpins sustainable development, and, without it, self-reliance is
    unattainable. However, in our current organizational structure, crisis
    and conflict too often overshadow DRG, and our many of our DRG
    specialists are dispersed throughout the Agency. As someone with a
    background in democracy work, I have given this careful thought, and
    have also consulted extensively with external experts, including from
    the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the National Endowment for
    Democracy, and the International Republican Institute (IRI). The
    proposed new structure for the Agency would move the DRG Center into
    the proposed Bureau for Development, Democracy, and Innovation (DDI,)
    which would be a customer-service entity to provide technical advice
    and expertise to USAID Missions in the field. Including the DRG Center
    in the DDI would provide better, field-focused support for USAID's
    programming, as well as technical and policy leadership in DRG. The
    redesigned DRG 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, as it 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. I believe the creation of the proposed
    Bureau for DDI will elevate DRG not only in our structure, but also in
    our program-design and country strategies.
        Another reform we are undertaking to strengthen our DRG programming
    is the introduction of our new USAID Self-Reliance Metrics. The 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 important tools for measuring open and
    accountable governance and the environment that faces civil society in
    each country. DRG's inclusion in these Self-Reliance Metrics will
    ensure all of USAID's strategies and programming consider democracy and
    governance.
        Our overall foreign-assistance sectoral priorities will remain
    largely the same under the Transformation. USAID is as committed as
    always to DRG, food security, global health, economic growth, conflict-
    prevention, and women's equality. Within these sectors, we will strive
    to focus our programs, to the maximum extent possible, on how we
    support our partners--in government, civil society, the private sector,
    and other elements of society--to have the capabilities and tools
    needed to address, fund and manage their own development challenges. In
    this way, the results we help achieve will be sustainable long beyond
    the period of USAID's assistance.
        Question. You testified that you support Local Works. However, it
    currently comprises only $47 million of USAID's budget. What steps will
    you take to make more of USAID function like Local Works?
        Answer. Locally led development is essential for sustainability,
    and I want to thank you for your continued leadership and support in
    pushing the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to invest
    more with local organizations around the world. I have made it clear
    that I prioritize working directly with local actors to enhance
    countries' path to self-reliance, and Local Works is at the center of
    the Agency's objectives in locally led development.
        As you point out, at only $47 million per year, Local Works is a
    small portion of USAID's entire portfolio. Nevertheless, we believe
    Local Works can influence the rest of the Agency by testing new
    approaches that can enhance USAID's overall ability to carry out
    programming with local implementers. Local Works offers support to
    USAID Missions that otherwise lack the resources or capacity to make
    diversifying our partner base and moving more of our agreements into
    the hands of local actors the priorities we expect them to be
    throughout the Agency. At its core, Local Works invests in the capacity
    of USAID's staff to work directly with local actors, and allows us to
    experiment and learn from the process to change the culture throughout
    the Agency, while enhancing the operations and procurements that allow
    USAID to conclude grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts
    directly with local organizations.
        At the moment, Local Works supports 16 USAID Missions. Part of this
    approach is ensuring the Missions and our staff have the knowledge,
    skills, tools, and resources to align assistance with the priorities of
    local actors; include marginalized populations; leverage local
    capacities and resources; and engage with local public- and private-
    sector institutions in ways that build upon and strengthen local
    leadership, capacity, and self-reliance to sustain development over
    time. For example, USAID/Morocco has worked with five Moroccan
    organizations that are able to influence the civic-engagement
    capacities of broad networks of local partners. Local Works is also
    investing in the Mission's own ability to use local systems and
    ethnographic listening tools to inform all its investment decisions,
    from priority-setting to the design and implementation of programs. We
    hope to extend the approaches pioneered by Local Works to more Missions
    in the coming year, especially in Latin America, where Paraguay (the
    only country in which 100 percent of USAID's programs are in the hands
    of local implementers) can serve as a model, and in the implementation
    of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.
        If Congress approves the USAID Transformation, locally led
    development would be housed under the proposed Bureau for Development,
    Democracy, and Innovation to enhance and promote USAID's capacity and
    operations to invest directly with local intermediary groups, civil-
    society organizations, and citizen-centered non-profits so local actors
    manage, implement, and sustain their countries' own development. The
    Local Works and Cooperatives programs would be the main instruments to
    carry out this approach.
        Question. I have greatly appreciated the work USAID has done to
    implement the dioxin remediation project at the Da Nang Airport in
    Vietnam, which I visited. We are now embarking on a larger project to
    deal with the contamination at the Bien Hoa Airbase.
        Do you agree with me that the Bien Hoa project, like Da Nang, which
    involves an important war legacy issue that affects the health and
    safety of people in these areas today, will contribute to real
    advancements in U.S.-Vietnamese relations, including our security
    relations?
        Answer. Yes. In addition to benefiting those affected by dioxin,
    addressing war legacies, including remediating the contamination at Da
    Nang and Bien Hoa, is important to advancing relations and
    understanding between the United States and Vietnam. The Government of
    Vietnam, and its military leaders, continually point to addressing the
    legacy of war, especially dioxin-remediation, as a top priority for
    improving bilateral relations. The U.S. Agency for International
    Development (USAID) will remediate Agent Orange/dioxin at the Bien Hoa
    Airbase, and continue to provide assistance to those with disabilities,
    many of which are a consequence of the Vietnam War.
        Question. Are there any funds in your budget to help countries
    adapt to, or mitigate the effects of, climate change--whether rising
    sea levels, temperature changes that affect crop production, or the use
    of polluting fossil fuels? If we think USAID should address these
    problems, do we need to specify funds for it ourselves?
        Answer. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2019 does
    not propose funding at the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency
    for International Development (USAID) for bilateral activities with
    partner countries that are specifically intended to address climate
    change. However, the President's budget request for fiscal year 2019
    does include $199.917 million for international environmental programs
    that support the administration's broader foreign-policy goals.
        USAID's Sustainable Landscapes program, which promotes the proper,
    long-term management of forests and other land in 14 countries and five
    regions, is continuing. In fiscal year 2017, Congress appropriated
    $123.5 million for Sustainable Landscapes programming, of which USAID
    received $109 million. In fiscal year 2018, Congress also appropriated
    $123.5 million for Sustainable Landscapes, of which USAID expects to
    receive a similar proportion as we did the year before. Sustainable
    Landscapes programs build local livelihoods; teach community-based
    forestry, agroforestry and other forest-friendly agricultural
    practices; generate economic growth; open opportunities for investment;
    and develop private-sector partnerships that create sustainable supply-
    chains for agricultural commodities while also reducing the emission of
    greenhouse gases from deforestation and land-degradation. These
    programs are helping our partners protect well over 750,000 square
    miles of forests and other landscapes, avoiding more than 90 million
    tons of emissions in 2017 alone--the equivalent of taking 19 million
    cars off the road for a year. Healthier forests and landscapes enhance
    sustainable development, generate investment and local livelihood
    opportunities, and protect biodiversity and water resources.
        Question. In fiscal year 2018, the Senate included $893 million for
    environment and clean-energy programs, of which $725 million was for
    USAID. How does that compare to your budget request for fiscal year
    2019?
        Answer. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2019
    includes $199.917 million for international environmental programs, of
    which $134.017 million is planned for the U.S. Agency for International
    Development (USAID). The Request would fund diplomatic and development
    activities in support of the President's broader foreign-policy goals
    and strategic objectives as outlined in the National Security Strategy
    and the State Department/USAID Joint Strategic Plan.
        Question. Family Planning: The Administration is requesting $302
    million for USAID family planning programs in fiscal year 2019, which
    is more than 50 percent below the fiscal year 2018 Omnibus level.
        What would the effects of that be on women's health, child
    mortality, and the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions--
    including unsafe abortions?
        Has USAID's funding for modern contraceptives decreased under this
    administration?
        Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is
    deeply committed to helping women and their children thrive. With the
    implementation plan in place for the Protecting Life in Global Health
    Assistance policy, the President's budget request for fiscal year 2019
    includes investments in voluntary family planning and reproductive
    health, consistent with the administration's support for programs to
    empower women and girls.
        Further, while the United States remains the largest donor of
    bilateral, voluntary family-planning assistance, other donors and
    countries need to assume more of the responsibility for funding these
    efforts. For example, at the 2017 London Summit on Family Planning, 14
    donors pledged $2.6 billion up to fiscal year 2020, of which we
    estimate $1.25 billion is new funding. Seventeen countries made
    domestic financing commitments, which total approximately $3.8
    billion--a growing demonstration of countries' willingness to fund
    their own programs. New partners from the private sector also made
    financial commitments to Family Planning 2020, which total almost $19
    million.
                              water and sanitation
        Question. It is difficult to think of anything that more directly
    affects people's health and quality of life than potable water and the
    safe disposal of waste. Yet billions of people lack one or the other or
    both. In fiscal year 2018 we included $400 million for these purposes--
    not very much for the whole world--and the administration is proposing
    to cut that to $306 million in fiscal year 2019.
        Of all programs to cut, this seems inexplicable. Shouldn't these be
    among our highest priorities? How can people escape from poverty
    without them?
        Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) will
    continue to prioritize investments in water and sanitation to implement
    the Agency's Water and Development Plan under the new U.S. Global Water
    Strategy.The Plan seeks to help partner countries increase the
    availability of safe drinking water and sanitation for the underserved
    and most vulnerable, in alignment with U.S. national-security and
    foreign-policy objectives. USAID's programs in water and sanitation
    have grown, and the administration's recent budget request for the
    sector, at $306 million, is the highest since 2008. Consistent with the
    needs and opportunity criteria in the Act and USAID's Water and
    Development Plan under the U.S. Global Water Strategy, the Agency is
    committed to focusing on the countries and regions of greatest need and
    leveraging investments by other donors and the private sector to
    maximize impact.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
        Question. Administrator Green, you are responsible for implementing
    the administration's expanded Global Gag policy, which has been named
    the ``Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance'' policy. Could you
    describe for the subcommittee how this policy is meant to ``protect
    life'' when we know from the past times when the Global Gag Rule was in
    effect that it failed to reduce the number of abortions in countries
    where USAID is active?
        Answer. The United States is the world's largest bilateral donor to
    global health programs, and the U.S. Agency for International
    Development (USAID) remains committed to helping women and their
    children thrive. With the implementation plan in place for the
    Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) policy, the
    President's budget request for fiscal year 2019 includes investments in
    voluntary family planning and reproductive health, consistent with the
    administration's support for programs to empower women and girls.
        The Department of State, working with USAID and the Departments of
    Health and Human Services (HHS) and Defense (DoD), conducted a review
    of the effectiveness and impact of the policy's application after 6
    months of implementation, released to Congress and the public earlier
    this year. The Department of State has worked closely with USAID, HHS,
    and DoD to implement the policy consistently, examine progress in
    carrying it out, and monitor its effects. In general, at the time of
    our review, it was too early to assess the full range of benefits and
    challenges of the policy for global health assistance. As a result, the
    Department of State will lead another interagency review, with USAID's
    full participation, to assess the implementation of the policy over the
    calendar year.
        Question. Administrator Green, I know that both you and I have had
    an opportunity to meet with Malala Yousafzai to discuss the U.S.'s role
    in championing girls' education around the world. I also understand
    that USAID is close to finalizing its new 5-year strategy for basic
    education programming. Given that, is USAID planning in its strategy to
    emphasize that 12 years of safe, free, quality education is
    instrumental in improving health and economic outcomes for school-aged
    girls?
        Answer. Investments by the American people in high-quality,
    equitable, and inclusive education around the world can have far-
    reaching effects. They can create pathways for greater economic growth,
    improved health outcomes, sustained democratic governance, and more
    peaceful and resilient societies. Strengthening educational
    institutions, both public and private, in developing countries advances
    U.S. foreign-policy goals, promotes U.S. and international security,
    and helps accelerate economic growth at home and abroad.
        Girls are still especially disadvantaged in education. Hundred and
    thirty million girls are not in school worldwide, and millions more
    face barriers to staying in school. Yet we know that when girls receive
    an education, they and their families are healthier, and they have more
    opportunities to generate income.
        The Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development (READ) Act
    presents an opportunity to continue the global momentum on the
    importance of education. As mandated by the READ Act, the U.S. Agency
    for International Development (USAID) is coordinating the development
    of a five-year, whole-of-Government Comprehensive Integrated United
    States Strategy to Promote Basic Education, in consultation with nine
    other Federal Agencies and Departments. This Strategy will build on the
    spirit of the legislation to address the education needs of the most
    marginalized and vulnerable populations--including girls; children
    affected by, or emerging from, armed conflict or humanitarian crises;
    married adolescents; and victims of trafficking. The READ Act defines
    ``basic education'' to include programs and activities designed to
    improve in a measurable way the results of early-childhood, pre-
    primary, primary, and secondary education, delivered in formal or non-
    formal settings, as well as learning for out-of-school youth and
    adults. USAID will further define its priorities and objectives within
    these areas in consultation with multiple groups of stakeholders,
    including Congress, in advance of the deadline for the delivery of the
    Strategy, on September, 2018.
        Over the past 7 years of implementing our current Strategy, USAID
    has captured and analyzed lessons learned from scaling programs and
    strengthening educational institutions. USAID's implementation of the
    READ Act will build on these lessons, while recognizing that we have an
    opportunity to be more-responsive to each country's context, to support
    public and non-public education, and to encourage partner countries to
    increase their own investments in education with domestic resources. We
    will continue to engage with Congress as we move forward in the
    finalization of the Strategy.
        Question. Administrator Green, I understand that one of the USAID
    reorganization proposals under consideration is to merge the offices
    that handle development assistance in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Do you
    anticipate that this merger will affect the allocation of resources for
    each of these countries, particularly programming to support women and
    girls?
        Answer. The proposed integration of the Office of Afghanistan and
    Pakistan Affairs into the Bureau for Asia is meant to be resource-
    neutral for the Program budgets for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and
    should not affect funding for existing activities.
                                     ______

              Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher A. Coons
        Question. In 2014 an independent group of experts, the Award Cost-
    Efficiency Study (ACES) Blue Ribbon Panel, released a series of
    recommendations to increase the impact of USAID maternal and child
    health investments based on an extensive analysis of current global
    health awards. What is the status of the implementation of the Blue
    Ribbon Panel's recommendations?
        Answer. In 2014, the Award Cost-Efficiency Study (ACES) Blue Ribbon
    Advisory Panel (the Panel) issued a set of recommendations for how the
    U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) could streamline and
    make more efficient our efforts to end preventable child and maternal
    deaths. In 2014, USAID released the first USAID Acting on the Call
    report, which responded to a key recommendation of the Panel and
    provides an update on the Agency's investments and progress. The report
    sets out a roadmap for ending preventable child and maternal deaths in
    24 priority countries, and identifies the highest-impact interventions
    in each country, measured by their ability to save lives. Since the
    launch of this initial report, USAID Missions have targeted investments
    around these high-impact interventions, with programs also informed by
    subsequent analyses focused on equity considerations and system-wide
    reforms. The 2018 edition of the Acting on the Call report provides a
    strong affirmation of several of the Panel's recommendations as it
    charts where countries are on their journey to self-reliance, with
    specific focus on finance, collaboration and transparency, while also
    calculating the return on USAID's investments.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Chris Van Hollen
        Question. The administration's fiscal year 2019 request for PEPFAR
    cuts over a billion dollars from U.S. efforts to combat HIV and AIDS
    around the globe. This could have an enormous impact on people living
    with HIV and AIDS worldwide, including members of the LGBTQ community.
    What are you doing to ensure the U.S. continues to serve as a leader on
    combating HIV and AIDS around the globe?
        Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
    serves as a key implementing agency under the President's Emergency
    Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), managed by the U.S. Global AIDS
    Coordinator (OGAC) at the U.S. Department of State. PEPFAR will
    continue to identify efficiencies in its direct bilateral and regional
    programs to prevent, treat, and care for HIV/AIDS, including by making
    use of lower-cost drug regimens to maintain the number of patients who
    are currently on anti-retroviral therapy (ART), and in partnership with
    the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.
        The President's budget request for fiscal year 2019 will allow the
    United States to maintain all patients who are currently on anti-
    retroviral treatment through PEPFAR, and will support the continuation
    of U.S. HIV/AIDS-relief efforts in more than 50 countries through
    direct bilateral and regional programs. Further, PEPFAR will continue
    to work toward achieving sustained control of the epidemic in 13
    priority countries with the highest burden of HIV/AIDS, which follows
    the new PEPFAR Strategy for 2017-2020.
        As of September 2017, PEPFAR--with support from USAID, the U.S.
    Departments of Defense and Health and Human Services, and other
    implementing partners--has funded life-saving ART for more than 13.3
    million people; ensured pregnant women who are living with HIV have
    given birth to 2.2 million HIV-free babies, while keeping their mothers
    healthy and alive to protect and nurture them; and provided assistance
    to more than 6.4 million orphans, vulnerable children, and their
    caregivers. We refer you to OGAC for more information.
        Question. Two hundred and sixty-four million children and youth are
    still not in school and millions more are failing to acquire even basic
    reading, writing, and numeracy skills. Despite the global need for
    education assistance, the President's fiscal year 2019 budget request
    proposes a 51 percent cut to international basic education programs.
    We'll never progress to country self-reliance unless all children are
    in school and learning. What are you doing as the Administrator of
    USAID to ensure that staff at USAID have the manpower and resources
    necessary to address what has been called the global learning crisis?
        Answer. Education is a foundation for, and driver of, development
    and the creation of resilient societies. Literate, skilled populations
    are needed to create a stronger workforce and a diversified economy,
    and to realize the long-term impact of development across all sectors.
        The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has
    experienced first-hand the challenges of addressing the learning crisis
    by supporting large-scale change and improvements in educational
    institutions. USAID's current Education Strategy sets out three
    ambitious goals: improving the reading skills of students in the
    primary grades, increasing equitable access to education in crisis and
    conflict environments, and improving workforce-development and higher
    education in host countries. From 2011 to 2017, USAID-funded education
    programs directly benefited more than 83.4 million children and youth
    in nearly 50 countries. During that time, USAID education assistance
    resulted in the following:

      --69.8 million children reached with reading programs that employ
            international best practices in instruction and evaluation;
      --New or improved education in safe learning environments for 22.6
            million children and youth, including increased access to
            education for 4.1 million who were previously out-of-school;
            and
      --736,000 individuals--360,000 females and 376,000 males--gained new
            or better employment following participation in USAID-financed
            workforce-development programs.

        These are promising results and achievements, and we will continue
    our work in this regard. Looking forward, our goals remain to ensure
    that crisis-affected children and youth are receiving high-quality
    education that is safe, relevant, and promotes social cohesion;
    children are reading and gaining basic skills that are foundational to
    future learning and success; young people are learning the skills they
    need to gain employment and contribute to society; and higher-education
    institutions are supporting development progress across sectors.
    Finally, USAID will increasingly look to invest in programs that can
    leverage additional donor and partner resources, which is a priority of
    the administration.
        USAID will also lead the implementation within the U.S. Government
    of the Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development (READ) Act,
    including the legislation's mandate to create a Comprehensive
    Integrated United States Strategy to Promote Basic Education that will
    help to equitably expand access to basic education for marginalized
    children and vulnerable groups, expand partnerships with both public
    and non-public educational institutions, and improve measurably the
    quality of basic education and learning outcomes. After a months-long
    process of consultations, we are on track to deliver the new Strategy
    by September, 2018, as required by the READ Act.
        Question. When we fail to support girls in their transition from
    primary to secondary school, they become vulnerable to sexual
    trafficking, early marriage, teenage pregnancy, and gender-based
    violence. We know that keeping girls enrolled in school through the
    crucial transition to secondary education drastically improves their
    future prospects. As USAID embarks on a new international education
    strategy, please describe what you intend to do to ensure that girls in
    vulnerable settings are encouraged and supported to make the transition
    to secondary school.
        Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) takes
    a comprehensive approach to improve life outcomes for adolescent girls,
    which encompasses the interconnected events across their lives from
    birth to adulthood. The Obama administration launched the first-ever
    U.S. Global Strategy to Empower Adolescent Girls in 2016, which brought
    together four U.S. Government Departments and Agencies to tackle
    barriers that keep adolescent girls from achieving their full
    potential. As part of the Strategy, the State Department, USAID, the
    Peace Corps, and the Millennium Challenge Corporatio each has its own
    implementation plan.
        USAID's 2011 Education Strategy, extended through 2018, focuses on
    primary-grade reading, workforce-development, higher education, and
    increasing access to education for children and youth in conflict and
    crisis areas, with equality for women as a cross-cutting priority.
    USAID promotes gender-responsive education programs that reduce
    disparities between boys and girls; discourage gender-based violence
    and mitigate its harmful effects; and ensure all learners, especially
    girls, have access to safe, high-quality education programs and
    services.
        The Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development (READ) Act,
    passed by Congress in 2017, requires the development of a Comprehensive
    Integrated United States Strategy to Promote Basic Education by
    September 2018, which USAID and our interagency colleagues are on track
    to produce. The READ Act highlights the importance of reaching the most
    marginalized and vulnerable populations, including girls, children
    affected by or emerging from armed conflict or humanitarian crises,
    married adolescents, and the victims of trafficking. The legislation
    also stresses the importance of parity between girls and boys in
    learning and breaking down the specific barriers women and girls face
    to gaining a quality education. USAID is finishing a series of
    extensive consultations to develop the new Strategy, and is committed
    to ensuring the education programs we fund continue to meet the unique
    needs of girls.
        Question. There is significant room to improve engagement between
    Congress and the administration on USAID's redesign. One important area
    is in deciding the appropriate relationship between the lead diplomatic
    agency--State--and the lead development agency--USAID. The recent
    fiscal year 2019 budget request sets a goal of optimizing the
    relationship between State and USAID regarding policy, budgets, and the
    interagency.
        A number of think tanks, coalitions, and an independent bipartisan
    task force have called for the alignment of agency mission with budget
    resources. Specifically, these proposals call for USAID to control its
    budget and programming--thereby establishing clear accountability for
    development results and ending duplication with the State Department's
    Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance Resources (F).
        What would having greater policy and budget authorities mean for
    USAID as our nation's lead development agency? What options are under
    consideration?
        What is the timeline for implementation of your redesign plan and
    how are you ensuring that such a reorganization is not disruptive to
    the important day-to-day work and mission of USAID?
        Answer. One of the objectives of the Transformation at the U.S.
    Agency for International Development (USAID) is to create a stronger,
    more-coordinated voice to promote our development-policy and budget
    priorities, internally and in the interagency. USAID currently divides
    the responsibility for policy, budget, and performance among five
    different Bureaus and Independent Offices. By consolidating oversight
    for development policy, the Program and Operational Expenses budgets,
    and program-performance in the proposed Bureau for Policy, Resources,
    and Performance (PRP), USAID will be better-equipped to align our
    resources to our strategic priorities, improve accountability, promote
    evidence-based programming, and assess the Agency's progress towards
    becoming a true learning organization. It would also enable the Agency
    to more strategically and comprehensively advocate for development and
    humanitarian objectives with the U.S. Department of State and Congress.
        Under this proposal, the USAID Senior Coordinator at the Department
    of State's Bureau for Foreign Assistance (F) would report to the
    Assistant to the Administrator for PRP, to increase collaboration
    between staff in PRP and State/F who are performing similar functions
    and improve processes that better support our shared objectives in the
    design and execution of the foreign-assistance budget. The Secretary of
    State would continue to serve as the Executive Branch's overall point
    of coordination for all foreign assistance.
        After Congressional approval, USAID would implement the
    restructuring proposed in the Transformation over a period of
    approximately 24 months, in phases, according to the following
    sequence:

        1.  Restructuring the Office of the Administrator;
        2.  Merging the Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs into a
    restructured Bureau for Asia;
        3.  Restructuring the Bureau for Legislative and Public Affairs;
        4.  Merging and restructuring the Offices of U.S. Foreign Disaster
    Assistance and Food for Peace into the new Bureau for Humanitarian
    Assistance;
        5.  Merger and restructuring the Bureau for Food Security and the
    Office of Water into the new Bureau for Resilience and Food Security;
        6.  Merger and restructuring the Office of Civilian-Military
    Cooperation, Office of Transition Initiatives, and Office of Conflict-
    Management and Mitigation into the new Bureau for Conflict-Prevention
    and Stabilization;
        7.  Merger and restructuring the Bureau for Policy, Planning, and
    Learning; the Office of Budget Resource Management; the Budget Division
    in the Bureau for Management; and the Office of Evaluation-Impact
    Assessment in the Global Development Lab into the new Bureau for
    Policy, Resources, and Performance;
        8.  Merger and restructuring the Bureau for Economic Growth,
    Education, and Environment; the Global Development Lab; the Office of
    Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance; and the Office of American
    Schools and Hospitals Abroad into the new Bureau for Development,
    Democracy, and Innovation; and
        9.  Merger the Independent Offices of Security, and Human Capital
    and Talent-Management into a restructured Bureau for Management.

        While the Agency undergoes this large restructuring, managers will
    receive guidance about how to manage their staff, resources, and
    programs by using best practices in change-management.
        Question. You have stated that the purpose of foreign assistance is
    to end its need to exist. I agree that U.S. development assistance
    should foster long-term self-reliance and ultimately support partner
    countries transitioning from development aid. For the last several
    years, Congress has approved appropriations bills with an important
    provision requiring all country development strategies to include a
    plan for transitioning over time away from foreign assistance.
        How are you working with Congress to approach strategic transition
    planning?
        What do you believe is the appropriate way for the U.S. Government
    to help countries move responsibly along a continuum of partnership
    with the United States?
        USAID reported recently to GAO (GAO-15-377, Pgs. 64 and 69) that it
    would develop additional metrics to assess partner-country capacity,
    ownership, and sustainability. This Committee encouraged the adoption
    of such metrics in our fiscal year 2018 SFOPS bill. Can you discuss
    your own commitment to this issue and when we can expect to see these
    new metrics finalized and incorporated into USAID's reporting and
    evaluations?
        Answer. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is
    seeking to reorient its strategies and programs to prioritize
    interventions that will create the conditions for self-reliance in
    partner countries--which means they can plan, fund, and implement
    solutions to their own development challenges. To this end, consistent
    with Section 7081 of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and
    Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2016, every USAID Country
    Development Cooperation Strategy drafted after January 1, 2016,
    includes a section on country transition planning. An important aspect
    of this vision is the acknowledgement that, when countries have
    achieved advanced levels of self-reliance, traditional forms of
    assistance, and even USAID's traditional presence model, might no
    longer be appropriate. In such cases, USAID--in close coordination with
    Congress, the U.S. Government interagency, the national government,
    internal USAID stakeholders, and other development partners--could
    determine that a strategic transition to a new relationship,
    commensurate with that country's development progress, is needed. The
    Agency will introduce a clear and strategic process for making
    decisions on, and carrying out, transitions in these countries. In each
    case, the Agency will consult with Congress, and comply with any
    notification requirements for these transitions.
        USAID will develop targeted post-transition programs aimed at
    supporting the shift away from traditional bilateral assistance, which
    will simultaneously reflect the United States' ongoing commitment to
    partner countries as they advance towards long-term development and
    prosperity. These programs will build on, and sustain, development
    gains; amplify a country's strengths; target remaining challenges;
    leverage new partnerships and forms of assistance that are more
    appropriately suited to the country's level of self-reliance; and
    employ resources strategically to avoid and respond effectively to
    backsliding. Depending on the priorities and needs of partner
    countries, these programs might seek to expand access to finance;
    mobilize private capital; deepen trade relationships and access to
    international markets; elevate partnerships in science, technology, and
    innovation; and/or increase technical and educational exchanges.
        Strategic transitions represent only a small part of the overall
    journey to self-reliance. The ongoing USAID Transformation is seeking
    to reorient how we work with countries to engage in programming that
    will strengthen their ability to plan, finance, and manage their own
    development, with the ultimate goal of moving them towards an eventual
    strategic transition, even if that day is many years in the future. To
    support self-reliance in partner countries, USAID is prioritizing
    programs that: incentivize governance and economic reforms; strengthen
    in-country capacity; support market-based solutions to catalyze
    sustained investment; and help countries to create the enabling
    environment and systems needed to increase domestic revenue and attract
    private investment, while ensuring the transparent expenditure of
    resources to support inclusive development.
        We acknowledge that each country is at different stages, and that
    USAID's partnership approach and programmatic tools should evolve as
    countries move along the self-reliance journey. To introduce a more
    data-informed approach to tailoring our assistance for each country,
    USAID will apply objective metrics to track progress towards self-
    reliance. These metrics will be our first step in better understanding
    where a partner country is on its journey to self-reliance, as well as
    in identifying its relative strengths and weaknesses. This information
    will help inform strategic planning, the mix of programmatic approaches
    and tools we could apply based on where a country is on its journey,
    and discussions related to possible strategic transitions from
    traditional forms of assistance in countries that have achieved
    advanced levels of self-reliance. USAID is making significant progress
    towards creating this tool and integrating it into our operations.
    After an 8-month consultative process, which involved both internal and
    external stakeholders and conversations with Congress, USAID recently
    finalized the identification of an initial set of primary Self-Reliance
    Metrics--17 high-level indicators that will chart a country's
    commitment and capacity to plan, finance, and manage its own
    development.
        Question. I have heard that USAID continues to experience unusual
    program and funding 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. What are the challenges you face in ensuring that the funds
    appropriated by Congress are moving quickly to USAID missions?
        Answer. I am deeply committed to ensuring the U.S. Agency for
    International Development (USAID) can use the funding generously
    appropriated by Congress in a timely manner that best advances our
    national interests. I will continue to look for opportunities to
    improve the Agency's internal processes, and to work with the Secretary
    of State on our joint processes, to ensure USAID Missions have timely
    access to the resources they need to advance the Agency's objectives,
    while ensuring compliance with applicable legal requirements.
        Question. The U.S. has been a leader in advancing nutrition for
    women and children around the world, both through our efforts on
    prevention of maternal and child deaths and through Feed the Future.
    Over the last decade, the U.S. has been a part of global efforts to
    recognize nutrition as a standalone development and health issue.
        How do you foresee the nutrition work to continue to be elevated
    within the proposed new structure for the Bureau for Resilience,
    Response and Recovery?
        Who will be leading the implementation of USAID's multi sectoral
    nutrition strategy?
        How will nutrition in global health and in other parts of USAID
    coordinate at headquarters and at the field level?
        Answer. The United States will always be a leader in advancing
    nutrition for women and children around the world, both through our
    efforts to prevent maternal and child deaths and through Feed the
    Future. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) will
    continue to implement effective nutrition programs to prevent the long-
    term effects of malnutrition, such as stunting. USAID programs will
    support evidence-based approaches to nutrition and innovations that
    will improve outcomes for the most-vulnerable populations.
        Within the new organizational structure proposed under the
    Transformation, a new Nutrition Leadership Council (NLC) and Center for
    Nutrition would elevate nutrition and strengthen nutrition results
    across USAID's development-focused multi-sectoral programming. This
    will include oversight and coordination in the areas of budget,
    strategy, technical policy and guidance and geographic targeting. While
    the NLC will not have oversight on emergency nutrition programming, it
    will support synergy and effective coordination between emergency and
    development nutrition programs as applicable.
        The NLC will be chaired by the Deputy Assistant to the
    Administrator (DAA) responsible for the Bureau for Reslience and Food
    Security (RFS) Center for Nutrition, and co-chaired by a DAA from the
    Bureau for Global Health, and the DAA from the Bureau for Humanitarian
    Assistance (HA) as the third lead council member. This new high-level,
    regular convening of DAAs across the Agency will help ensure nutrition
    continues to be an Agency-wide development priority and that our
    approach maximizes impact. The Nutrition Technical Working Group with
    representatives from RFS, GH, HA and regional bureaus will support the
    operations and decisionmaking of the NLC.
        The NLC will oversee the implementation of the USAID Multi-Sectoral
    Nutrition Strategy by BFS, GH, and HA. Nutrition staff from all
    relevant bureaus will continue to provide coordinated technical
    assistance to the Nutrition Points of Contact in the Missions and to
    establish or strengthen existing coordination to enhance multi-sectoral
    nutrition programming in the field.
        As USAID works to achieve our global nutrition goals, we will
    review programs strategically to better align with our priorities,
    while also engaging our development and host-country partners, as well
    as the private sector, to share the burden of this immense challenge.
    In addition, we will continue to support host-country stewardship of
    these nutrition priorities, both through strengthening the capacity of
    local organizations and leveraging their investments in nutrition, with
    the goal of one day transitioning these countries from their need for
    development assistance.
        Question. The fiscal year 2019 Congressional Budget Justification
    for State and Foreign Operations proposes several reforms to U.S.
    humanitarian assistance. One such proposal is to ``develop a multiyear,
    coordinated donor outreach strategy leveraging our diplomatic resources
    to target both traditional and non-traditional donors to increase their
    funding for humanitarian assistance and lessen the burden on U.S.
    taxpayers to respond, with the objective that the United States provide
    one quarter of international humanitarian assistance worldwide.''
        Can you comment in further detail on this proposal? For instance,
    do you anticipate that this will involve a significant decrease of U.S.
    funding for humanitarian assistance in the near future?
        How will the U.S. persuade and hold other donors accountable to
    contribute more funding?
        Answer. In an effort to increase the effectiveness and efficiency
    of the U.S. Government's responses to global humanitarian needs, the
    Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development
    (USAID) are developing a strategy for using humanitarian assistance and
    diplomatic resources to leverage other donors' contributions, maximize
    the performance of our humanitarian operations, and invest in
    resilience to reduce or prevent humanitarian needs in the future.
        The goal of this donor-outreach strategy is to leverage our
    diplomatic and financial resources to limit U.S. assistance to one-
    quarter of worldwide international humanitarian resources. The strategy
    is a means for getting other governments and donors to increase their
    contributions to meet the persistent and vast humanitarian needs.
        This strategy, still under development, will likely include
    accountability plans, and rely on analysis of the data on the current
    donor landscape. It also will put a concerted emphasis on working with
    a set of donor states based on their unique profiles, to identify the
    best methods for increasing contributions from others.
        The U.S. Government's current strategies on increasing humanitarian
    financing have focused on other humanitarian donors at pledging
    conferences and, on occasion, through demarches by U.S. Ambassadors and
    Embassy staff. The White House, the Department of State, and USAID are
    committed to addressing the gaps in humanitarian financing by using
    higher-level engagement to complement our current work. We have seen
    demonstrated results from these efforts over the past year. 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 made =5.6 billion ($6 billion) worth of
    pledges, of which two thirds, or =3.7 billion ($4 billion), came from
    the European Commission (EC) and the Member States of the European
    Union. The EC 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. In December 2017,
    Japan announced additional humanitarian assistance of $21 million for
    Syria and its neighboring countries, and 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. 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.
        Question. 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. 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.
        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. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID),
    through both funding and public outreach, supports efforts to ensure
    free and unfettered access to Yemen's Red Sea ports, including the
    critical port of Hodeidah, which has historically processed up to 90
    percent of humanitarian and commercial imports into the country. At
    every opportunity, the administration continues to raise with all
    parties to the conflict the imperative of unfettered humanitarian
    access into, and within Yemen.Access through Red Sea ports remains the
    most-efficient, most-effective, and safest route for delivering
    assistance, and USAID is working to improve inspections and clearances
    of cargo, while advocating for all parties to the conflict to allow the
    unhindered entry and distribution to people on need of food, medicine,
    fuel, supplies, staff, and life-saving services.
        USAID helps to fund the United Nations Verification and Inspection
    Mechanism (UNVIM), which provides a neutral, transparent clearance-and-
    inspection process for vessels that arrive in ports not controlled by
    the legitimate Yemeni Government, and helps facilitate the flow of
    commercial goods essential to meeting the basic needs of the Yemeni
    people. USAID has urged UNVIM and the Saudi-led Coalition (SLC) to
    coordinate their efforts, to reduce overlapping inspections of incoming
    cargo, and speed the issuance of clearances. USAID has also encouraged
    the SLC and UNVIM to reassure commercial shippers that Red Sea ports
    are open to both commercial and humanitarian cargo, and the SLC issued
    a public announcement on April 16, 2018, to emphasize that all ports
    were open.
        Additionally, USAID's humanitarian partners continually explore the
    use of all access points into Yemen to ensure critical supplies reach
    those in need as efficiently as possible; however, using these
    alternatives creates significant challenges, including increased costs
    and the need to navigate ongoing conflict lines along transportation
    routes and blocked or damaged roads. USAID maintains its position that
    a political solution to the conflict is the only means to relieving the
    suffering of the Yemeni people, and continues to call on all parties to
    ensure unimpeded access for commercial and humanitarian goods into, and
    throughout, the country.
        Question. While the government of Bangladesh has been generous in
    receiving the huge influx of Rohingya refugees coming from Burma since
    January, we hear of significant bureaucratic constraints that are
    impeding the delivery of aid by U.S. and other international NGOs.
        How will the U.S. use its influence to ensure American NGOs are
    able to operate effectively to meet the needs of Rohingya refugees?
        Answer. Delays in issuing permits and visas for humanitarian staff
    are an operational challenge that affects all sectors of the response
    to the influx of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. The U.S. Government
    and the international donor community continue to press the Government
    of Bangladesh to approve permits, registrations, and visas rapidly, and
    allow unimpeded access for humanitarian staff that are responding to
    the Rohingya crisis.
        Recently, several relief agencies reported receiving approvals for
    projects from the Government of Bangladesh within a few weeks, an
    improvement from the previous processing time of several months. The
    Government of Bangladesh is working on a longer-term effort to approve
    visas, and Foreign Secretary Haque personally pledged that the Foreign
    Ministry will take over the issuance of visas from the Bureau for Non-
    Governmental Organizations (NGO) Affairs and work to clear up 2,000
    pending cases to ensure access for NGO workers to Cox's Bazar and the
    refugee camps.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        The subcommittee stands in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 4:33 p.m., Tuesday, April 24, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]