[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.]